Gordon Brown showed his hand on political reform yesterday. He emphasised the advantages of the alternative vote (AV) where ballots are marked one, two, three ... But this is gesture politics, since AV is going nowhere. More significant is the backing Mr Brown gave the proposals of the Tony Wright Reform of the House of Commons Committee for strengthening the Commons and its committees.
Most Labour leaders have been hostile to electoral reform but recently some, but far from all, ministers and MPs have shifted in favour of AV. Mr Brown argued that AV retains the constituency link for MPs and that, given the issues about trust in politics, there is a case for every MP having the support of 50 per cent of voters.
Many Labour MPs see AV as a lifeline to keep them in play if there is a hung Parliament and as a means of attracting support from the Liberal Democrats. But Nick Clegg has been distinctly cool, not least because AV is not a proportional system, while this late conversion smacks of being a crude political ploy.
A commitment to hold a referendum on AV early in the new Parliament will be in the Labour manifesto. The argument now is whether a referendum amendment should be made to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, since this would force the next government to hold a ballot or repeal this provision.
There is, however, no way that such a clause will become law. With or without AV, the Bill will go to the Lords so late that only a second reading will be possible before an election is announced. The Conservative Opposition will then determine what becomes law in the “wash up”, the short period between announcing an election and dissolution. Current signs are that the Tories will allow clauses on putting the Civil Service on a statutory basis, and possibly on regulation of MPs, and ratifying treaties. AV stands no chance. It is a distraction from desirable changes such as allowing peers to retire.
Advertisement
The real priority should be implementing the Wright plan, unveiled two months ago. The Government’s response has been delayed, while (largely nonexistent) difficulties have been emphasised. At least, Mr Brown was more positive in talking of “accepting many of the committee’s recommendations”. Fine in theory, but will the proposals be watered down in practice? Mr Brown said that time would be made available for a debate, but nothing is likely to happen until after the mid-February recess. This issue is crucial for helping to restore faith in MPs’ ability to hold ministers to account. The Government should not be allowed to prevaricate any longer.