Can sacrificing AV be justified to protect the poorest?

With the AV referendum date confirmed, pub and dinner party conversations have turned to the following question: Should I vote against electoral reform to destabilise the coalition, even though I believe reform is necessary?

Cynical, I know - but not unreasonable. Politics is give and take (or give and give, in the case of the Lib Dems in the current government). Millions will suffer as a result the unprecedented ideological economic programme of this government, and sacrificing much needed electoral reform to protect the interests of the poorest in society is worth considering very seriously.

If AV is rejected at referendum, goes the argument, the Lib Dems will despair. They will have sold their principles for nothing, and will begin to agitate. They will fragment under the weight of the savage economic measures being carried out in their name, and eventually the coalition will split. There will be a new general election, which Labour will be able capitalise on as the party of government spending.

All well and good - and if this was the guaranteed outcome, it may be worth considering. There will be many in Labour who support this strategy, and there are already moves by some to renege on their former manifesto commitment to electoral reform by quibbling over boundary changes.

The real outcome of the AV referendum is much more difficult to predict, however. There is a huge degree of chaos in the system that makes the above analysis of cause and effect look highly questionable. Here are just a few of the factors which confuse the argument.

The coalition government is split on the right as well as on the left. A 'yes' vote in the AV referendum may well cause a similar fragmentation of coalition support in the Conservatives. Powerful backbenchers like John Redwood would start to question how their leadership was outfoxed on electoral reform, and they could eventually destabilise the coalition by demanding compensatory concessions. This would put further strain on the bond with the Lib Dems, who might feel that they have sacrificed enough already.

Another factor to consider is that the Lib Dems may split the coalition even if they get their way on AV. If a change to the voting system is passed, they will have got what they wanted - and there may be little to sustain their interest in continuing in the coalition. The left of the Liberal Democrats will certainly be less prepared to suffer constant criticism and loss of public support just to help their coalition partners carry out ideological economic reforms.

Conversely, there may be no appetite amongst Lib Dems to leave the coalition even if they fail to secure electoral reform. The party is itself a coalition of social liberal migrants from the other two parties, and contains a very large number of economic right-wingers. We are learning the hard way that they are not the natural party of the progressive left they have claimed, and that many Lib Dems actively support the cuts to public services. To paraphrase Tony Blair: it may be worse than that, they may actually believe it.

And finally, we don't yet know what kind of party Labour will be when the referendum is held. The leadership election could produce any number of different kinds of Labour Party. And if we are weighing the suffering of our poorest citizens against the prospect of electoral reform, we need to know that Labour will not conduct Conservative-lite economic reforms themselves. Alistair Darling's warning of proposed Thatcherite spending cuts are not worth sacrificing electoral reform for. In order to justify our voting against AV, Labour would need to offer assurances that cuts would be much slower and better targeted, and that a much greater emphasis would be placed on taxation to cut the deficit.

With so many complex and unpredictable factors in play, it is impossible to say which referendum outcome will produce which result. In which case, the safest way to vote is on the issue itself. FPP disenfranchises millions in safe seats across the country, leading to a political debate skewed in favour of a handful of natural conservatives in swing seats. This cannot be allowed to continue if we are to secure the future of Social Democracy in the United Kingdom.

The new green politics

Remember David Cameron's attempt to re-invent the Tories as a modern party of the environment when he first became Conservative leader in 2005? Well, he's in government now.

The coalition is set to dismantle the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), the body charged with advising government on how they can save energy.

As well as reducing waste and pollution, the SDC actually saves the government money. However, this has not been enough to protect it from the bacchanalian social bonfire which is giving Tory backbenchers such joy at the moment.

But there's no need to worry, because Tories care about the environment really. Look, they've got a tree as their logo!

Big Society

The “Big Society” cropped up again at Prime Minister’s Questions today, and Cameron attacked Labour for their dismissive attitude towards what passes for the coalition government's new overarching philosophy.

The State ‘crowds out’ social participation, say the Tories and Lib Dems. Remove the State, and business and the voluntary sector will fill the void – and encourage social cohesion and a sense of community into the bargain.

“We will do everything we can to help what used to be called the ‘third sector’, rather condescendingly, but I believe is the ‘first sector’ – and that is the excellent charities, voluntary organisations, and social enterprises that do so much for our country,” said Cameron.

The trouble with the “Big Society” philosophy is this: most voluntary sector workers will tell you that charity often represents a last ditch effort to plug the gap where government and markets have failed – and that the State should be providing these services, funded from general taxation.

How does the coalition expect to convince voluntary organisations to take up the slack as government retreats, when most charity workers want government to do more not less?

The coalition has offered no evidence to show that voluntary organisations will fill the void. They are already taking what most economists agree is a massive gamble by saying that the private sector will make up for lost jobs in the public sector. Now we are seeing a similar leap of faith in social policy.

Their economic programme is likely to leave millions unemployed, and their social programme will leave a new underclass with nowhere to turn. Love-bombing the voluntary sector is merely a strategy to create cover while the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats turn their backs on the poorest.

Tory tactics

Don't be fooled: the coalition government's request for departments to draw up plans for 40% cuts is more than just a softening-up exercise to prepare us for the eventual settlement. It is part of a wider scaremongering PR strategy designed to create a narrative that blames Labour profligacy for a massive economic collapse.

To be clear, we are not Greece, and Labour overspending on public services did not destroy the economy. Any rational analysis will conclude that accusations of Labour fiscal mismanagement are a distraction from the glaring truth - this was an economic collapse caused by the Thatcherite settlement of light-touch regulation in the financial sector.

We desperately needed a government prepared to address this, but through an electoral mishap we have been given the opposite.

Labour needs to shoulder blame for continuing the laissez-faire economic approach set out by the Tories in the 1980s. But the coalition is working very hard to blame the deficit on Labour spending, and in doing so they are trying to call into question the entire philosophy of tax and spend.

In supporting this Tory narrative, the Lib Dems are undoing all of Charles Kennedy's hard work in positioning his party to the left of New Labour. Let's hope it doesn't take Liberals too long to realize that Nick Clegg is compromising far too much for power.

They have chosen as their leader their very own Tony Blair - except without the electoral popularity.

Tough on crime, soft on the causes

In 2004 Tony Blair made a speech blaming the "1960s liberal consensus" for increases in crime. His announcement represented a key element of New Labour's media and communications strategy - appear tough on crime, and maintain good relations with the right-wing media.

This "tough on crime" stance - and the similar stance adopted by the previous Tory government - contributed towards a huge increase in the prison population. Frustratingly, Labour's Blairite law and order policies were implemented in the face of mounting evidence suggesting that, for many offenders, prison was the worst option.

When Blair made his "liberal consensus" speech in 2004, numerous studies had already concluded that prison can increase the likelihood of re-offending. Inmates frequently find themselves unemployed, homeless, or addicted to drugs on leaving prison - factors which are likely to fuel further criminal acts.

Yesterday Kenneth Clarke announced the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government's new approach to law and order. To the horror of many progressives he appears to be positioning the alliance to the left of Labour on crime and anti-social behaviour.

"We need ... an intelligent and transparent approach to sentencing that targets the causes of reoffending, so making our communities safer and better places to live", said Clarke.

Progressives will wonder how Labour have allowed themselves to be outflanked on the left on law and order. They will ask how Labour failed to make a strong case for reform of the criminal justice system to put rehabilitation at its heart.

The current Labour leadership contest must be seen as an opportunity to restore progressive values to the party's policy on law and order.

Labour must also resist the temptation to attack the coalition government with accusations that they are soft on crime. The Tory/Lib Dem policy is weak because of its dependence on hollow Big Society mumbo-jumbo. It can be attacked without the assistance of Jack Straw and his recent "prison works" comment piece in the Daily Mail.

Labour must change tack on law and order, and realize that strategies developed prior to 1997 will not be effective against this government. Modern Britain is rather fond of the 1960s liberal consensus, and wants to see an end to the vindictive, populist approach of the New Labour Home Secretaries.