It’s the electoral system, stupid!

Contrary to most (Tory?) commentators, I’ve found the last few days to have been chock-full of interesting and engaging politics. What we’ve seen is politicians focusing their attention of issues of policy, which, after all, (and in spite of what said commentators might have you believe) must be the basis for any ‘mandate’ achieved by the next coalition government, whatever its colour. This is an opinion which I suspect is unlikely to be shared with many MPs, none of whom seem to be particularly enamoured with the will of the people as expressed at last Thursday’s ballot box.

Yesterday’s much-anticipated resignation of Gordon Brown seemingly widened the conceptual scope where the next government is concerned. I won’t be the first to note that the timing of this announcement suggests it had more to do with the prospects for a Lib-Lab coalition than it does with the good of the nation, no matter how grand the PM’s oratory. What has received less attention however is how this potential coalition – and the future of the Labour party in general in this new political landscape – may play a crucial role in the selection of a new party leader.

Naturally, the press has been keeping a beady eye on the usual suspects: the Milibands, Ed Balls, Jon Cruddas and Alan Johnson to name but a few. The problem is that these personalities all threw their hat into the ring in very different circumstances than we face today, and I have my doubts if any of these could fit the bill as a leader of a potentially very divided coalition government. Certainly Ed Balls would suffer by his association with the Brown faction of the Labour party whose influence is still very much resented by colleagues on other wings of the party. Likewise it is difficult to see Jon Cruddas ameliorating his leftist stance with Labour’s more centrist partners in government. Alan Johnson would no doubt play his ‘safe pair of hands’ card if – and it is a big if – he decides to run, but having previously intimated that he feels that he isn’t equal to the job, I wonder whether he will command the respect and gravitas that will be needed to hold this progressive alliance together. Hatty Harman has seemingly ruled herself out, so does that leave Ed Miliband with a clear run at the job? He has less ideological baggage than his potential rivals (and this has been decisive in leadership contests of the last couple of decades), and unlike his brother, is part of the team negotiating with the Lib Dems, so may hold more clout with the party’s yellow cousins.

All of this, of course depends very much upon the decision that is reached by the Liberal Democrats. So, which way should Nick Clegg jump? I imagine the question will probably hinge around electoral reform. Having held such high hopes for Thursday’s election, they will have been devastated to have lost seats, which will no doubt strengthen their resolve to introduce a more proportional system of voting. The trouble is, it is by no means clear how this would be achieved. The Tory offer of AV falls short of the sort of proportionality that Lib Dems crave, but they can be fairly sure that a bill on a referendum would safely progress through Parliament with support from the Conservative whips. Whether they can win the argument during the referendum campaign in the face of opposition from their partners in government and the Tory pitbulls in the press remains to be seen. Furthermore, details on the proposed referendum are scarce: will it be binding, and if so, on what turnout and majority? These are questions that could prove vital.

On paper, the Labour offer seems much more lucrative – instant legislation on AV with the promise of a further referendum on STV. I’m sure many Lib Dem hearts will be aflutter at that thought, but doubts about the feasibility of the offer remain a major stumbling block. Let us not forget that there are many in Labour that object to electoral reform – Jack Straw was amongst those who shot down the recommendations of the Jenkins Commission in 1997 – and there have been plenty of backbenchers surfacing to voice concerns on the news channels in the past day to suggest that the Labour negotiating team may have overstepped its remit.

But this is not to say that a deal cannot be reached with Labour to push through electoral reform. Much will depend upon how effective the Labour whipping operating is, and how far its hostile parliamentary members will recognise its expediency in the present predicament. It might also be true to say that whilst Labour dissenters on reform might sound-off with impunity whilst there remains a deal on the table to influence, there might be a change of mood if the Lib-Lab knot is finally tied. When the chips are down, how many Labour MPs will really break ranks when the likely alternatives will be a Tory administration or a crushing election defeat? Timing could also prove crucial as electoral reform legislation will need to be introduced before cracks are given time to appear in the rainbow coalition. Never before has the Leader of the House been such a position of responsibility!

The overarching question, however, is whether or not such a deal would be in the interests of Labour and the Lib Dems, quite apart from the country. AV and STV, as every Tory will tell you, certainly do favour the progressive parties, and so could leave a lasting impression in the Commons that is likely to make the kind of spells in government enjoyed by Thatcher (and indeed Blair) an anachronism. This is important because, as Mervyn King has noted, the scale of cuts required by the next administration is likely to make it unelectable come 2014/5. Under a reformed electoral system however, a Tory-lead government might only last a term, rather than a generation. If AV can be achieved under the Tories however, there is a good argument for Labour to recuperate in opposition in anticipation of a good stint at the helm after the next election, and I suspect this is the sentiment that is being expressed by John Reid and others.

The signs are that a Lib-Lab government would face an uphill struggle to assert its legitimacy in the public consciousness. The arguments currently being expounded in the Tory press are of course tired and spurious: we don’t vote directly for a prime minister, we vote for a local representative standing on a platform of a specific programme for government, and if no overall programme is accepted parties are well within their rights to negotiate on producing a ‘hybrid’ legislative agenda. The fact that there seems to be such an impression of presidential government is perhaps the consequence in the stylistic changes introduced to Number 10 by Blair. But I digress, there is little doubt in terms of policy that Labour and the Lib Dems have more fertile areas for collaboration, so with a share of the vote that exceeds 50% - more than that which is usually enjoyed by a government – a rainbow coalition should be seen to be at least as legitimate as any other form of executive. But, back in the real world, this will count for nothing: the popular impression will be one of parties colluding for partisan benefit, and this is likely to result in electoral failure when the country next goes to the polls. Whether or not this will be worth it will again hinge on the extent of the political and electoral reform that is achieved.