'Choices' and the Future of Progressive Politics

We have been told an awful lot about the choices of this election campaign, be it David Cameron’s choice between himself and ‘five more years of Gordon Brown’ or the PM’s choice between public service investment and ‘Tory cuts’. And, perhaps because the campaign is the closest we have seen for decades, the decision that will be put before the electorate on Thursday does seem to be more pressing than any in recent electoral memory. Left-leaning publications such as The Guardian, Indie and New Statesman have spent many column inches in recent weeks proclaiming this election to be centred on a ‘republican moment’ or a ‘progressive alliance’, so much so that these ‘progressives’ seem to be getting carried away with themselves, predicting that the next parliament could be a reforming institution to rival that of 1832. Somewhat typically however, I feel that the choices that determine the future of progressive politics in this country are rather more complicated than this analysis suggests.

Electoral reform has, or course, been the touchstone behind the decisions of The Guardian and Indie to advocate a Lib/Lab coalition, and these are sentiments that have been echoed in this blog. As part of wider reforms to parliament, such as fixed electoral cycles, an end to hereditary peers and right of recall, electoral reform proposals could indeed make a huge impact on the democratic culture of this country. Moreover, these are reforms that would, on the face of it, seem to benefit ‘progressive’ parties, with Labour and Lib Dems likely to hold the balance of power in most Parliaments elected under a truly representative system. I would hope that gains would also be made by the Green Party to cancel out any advances by UKIP, or worse, the BNP, and that consequently the terms of reference for future debates would be broader than the often stilted, quasi-consensual politics that has dominated recent Parliaments.

But whilst the potential of these changes is undoubted, progressives seem to have been blind to the manifold difficulties of realising it, even if a Lib-Lab government is in power come May 18th. Firstly, Labour and the Lib Dems have very different ideas about what electoral reform constitutes. In the last Parliament, the Lib Dems were largely supportive of Labour’s proposals to ballot the electorate on switching to AV. This is a system that has the potential to distort vote shares to an even greater extent than FPTP (as I’ve noted before), and far from ushering in a new dawn for progressive politics, could give the Conservatives greater power to form governments in spite of a clear anti-Tory consensus than they have enjoyed throughout the 20th Century. However I suspect that following the Lib Dem surge and the presumed increase in clout they now wield as kingmakers in the next Parliament, there might be a concerted push for STV to be included in any future referendum on reform. Whilst this is clearly a more proportional system, it (ironically) won’t necessarily help reformers to have this plurality of opinion amongst its proponents. Whilst polling has shown electoral reform to be backed by a narrow majority, a referendum still needs to be won to institute the changes, and dividing or complicating the case for reform might make this task all the more difficult.

Whilst this may seem like a worst case scenario, there have been increasing suggestions that Nick Clegg might side with the Tories on May 18th, negating electoral reform as pre-requisite for his party’s support. His denial in an FT interview that he had any demands set in stone and his claim that he would work with a Tory administration must’ve sent shivers down the spines of those at The Guardian and co who had backed him with such ‘enthusiasm’ on the strength of this one policy. Whilst it is impossible to really gauge where the party stands on any future coalition whilst we’re still in the ‘fog of war’ that is the election campaign, this writer at least is prepared to give such notions at least some credence. Rumours continue to surface regarding Mr Clegg’s membership of the Cambridge University Conservative Association – something that Clegg rather unconvincingly claims to have ‘no recollection of’ – as do stories that the Lib Dem leader is keener to replace the Labour Party as one of the two titans of British politics than he is to prevent a Conservative government. The saving grace in this case may be his party – whether the ranks of former SDPers and liberal lefties could stomach an unholy alliance with the Tories is another matter entirely.

Electoral reform would clearly have the potential to rewrite the political landscape for future elections, but with so much still uncertain, progressives might also be tempted to heed Mervyn King’s reported claim that the party that leads the government through the next Parliament could be out of power for a generation come 2014/15 due to the scale of the economic difficulties that it will face. Couple this with the fact that make-up of any conceivable government on May 18th is likely to be the weakest and most fractured for decades and the case for ‘sitting this one out’ becomes more convincing.

This might be a benefit to the Labour Party in particular. Many commentators and increasing numbers of grassroots activists have noted that government has apparently wearied the party, with the sense of narrative seemingly becoming more and more blurred under Gordon Brown. The once well-oiled party machine is also losing its sheen, and has often given the impression of a chaotic and haphazard institution of late. Partly of course, this is an entirely natural result for a party that has governed for 13 years through difficult circumstances. But there is also a sense that the raison d’etre of the New Labour enterprise is losing its relevance in this brave new economic world. New Labour was all about tying increased investment in public services with economic growth from deregulated financial markets. Whilst this has served the party well between 1997 and 2008, it doesn’t sit pretty with present circumstances. Financial regulation is now very much de rigeur, cuts (or at least ‘efficiency savings’) are an unavoidable necessity and the scope for economic growth is very limited. Whilst Brown has tried to reposition the party to respond to these circumstances by championing greater state intervention in the economy, and whilst this is undoubtedly a crucial change needed to protect the less privileged echelons of society, the Prime Minister has yet to convince that he can square this with the New Labour legacy. The so-called ‘Blair plus’ manifesto is a prime example: rather than reinventing the party to face-down these new challenges, Brown is still trying to hammer the round New Labour peg into this square economic hole. A new leader, new intake of parliamentary representatives and a brief stint in opposition might help the party to regain its far-reaching vision, and perhaps even the trust of the electorate.

Admittedly, whether all these concerns will be enough to prevent progressives from voting to keep the Tories out is unlikely. The choices of 2014/5 are far too remote to change many crosses in boxes come Thursday, and I, like other progressives, will be hoping that the Tories don’t cross the 326 seat mark in the early hours of Friday morning. But whatever the outcome, there will be cause for consolation or concern. The next Parliament may well be the most exciting for generations, but it will also face some of the toughest challenges in living memory. The stakes will be high, and the price of failure even higher.