The coalition’s reforms are a great threat to our cause

By David Levene

“It is repugnant … to use the power of a party majority in the House of Commons … solely to do political damage to their opponents about a controversial matter concerning the machinery of election and party administration”.

Lord Halisham, 15th Dec 1949 (a particularly odious Tory, but one with a point).

The ConDem coalition’s plans – to “reform” trade union donations, reduce the number of seats in primarily Labour-supporting regions (or at least regions where the Conservatives do particularly badly) and requiring a two-thirds super-majority to dissolve parliament represent an outrageous affront to active democracy and an abuse of the sovereignty of parliament.

The first is hardly original. Attacks on the Labour Party’s link with the trade unions has always been a favourite Tory punching bag – and sadly, has not always been wholeheartedly supported by some within the Labour Party. Amicus (now part of the Unite trade union) has produced an excellent document outlining the history of such attacks and the unfair advantages such changes have for the Conservative Party over the Labour Party. In 1909, 1927, and then again in 1984 by our old friend Margaret Thatcher, the Conservatives sought to break our fundamental link to working people. How sadly appropriate that this Thatcherite rehash of a government – made possible by a Liberal Democrat Party that has always hated the unions – are seeking to do the same.

It is devastating to those who support a change to the Alternative Vote system – of which I am one, due to a belief that it will benefit our political system, the Labour Party, and progressive politics in general – to see the Conservatives try to attach a reduction of seats onto the back of legislation putting a referendum in place. An independent, objective analysis by the pollster Anthony Wells shows that – surprise, surprise – such a reduction will hit Wales (loses 10 seats), Scotland (8 seats), and the North West (6) the hardest, all regions where Labour traditionally do well and the Conservatives badly. Conversely, the regions least affected are the South East and the East, which lose only 1 seat each. Apart from being blatant gerrymandering, it’s also plainly very silly: for what reason should the line be drawn at a 5% population tolerance rather than a 10% tolerance? Why not 1%? Or 0%? Add in the facts that the necessary review will be based on an out-of-date census, and will have to be rushed so will be unable to properly consult stakeholders, and it’s clear that it will prove to be hugely damaging. How can such proposals be fought without ducking out of properly supporting the referendum?

The shocking disregard for proper constitutional conduct that the proposal to raise the vote required to dissolve parliament, from a simple-majority to slightly-higher-than-a-simple-majority has already been well-covered. The later rise to a two-thirds majority is simply appalling.

All in all, these destructive policies represent our first big challenge as an Opposition. While the budget was indeed incredibly unfair and regressive, it was always going to go though, as if it hadn’t the government would have collapsed before the Lib Dems even got a chance to get used to their ministerial cars. So how do we deal with these issues?

Even if the Lib Dems abstain, the Conservatives still have more MPs than Labour plus “Others” (though in any case, I can’t see the DUP siding with Labour on whether to cap TU donations). Public opinion seems to be against us on all three points: the seat reduction will be crudely portrayed as a cost-cutting measure (though the effectiveness of this is highly in doubt due to the cost of an express review) and unfortunately I can hardly see there being a public outcry over trade union restrictions and what will be seen as constitutional haggling.

What about the prospect of getting some Lib Dem MPs to rebel, especially on the seat reduction, which will hit them fairly hard too? Unlikely: they appear to have lost whatever political survival instincts they have, and they went into the election promising to reduce the number of seats anyway. Maybe we should work on blocking the legislation when it comes to the Lords? Not really a solution, considering that the government plans to appoint hundreds of Conservative and Lib Dem peers soon enough, as well the availability of the Parliament Act, of course. To be honest, I’m all out of ideas. These changes pose some of the greatest threats of the modern era to our party and the socialist cause – how on Earth are we going to fight them? Ideas on a postcard (though note to John Hutton: “give up and go home” and “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” aren’t acceptable answers).