The Labour Party and the Westminster Electoral System
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Labour Party and the Westminster electoral system Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of the University of Liverpool for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy Jasper Charles Miles May 2017 Word Count: 99,408 Contents Abstract 1 Introduction 3 Chapter 1 – For and Against the Westminster Model: Labour’s theories of the British constitution 21 Chapter 2 – Making their mind up? Labour and the Westminster electoral system in historical perspective 81 Chapter 3 – The slow rise and quick fall of the Plant Report 141 Chapter 4 – Realigning the British left and the Jenkins Commission 205 Chapter 5 – The end of New Labour and the Alternative Vote Referendum 273 Conclusion 337 Appendix 1 – List of interviewees 351 Appendix 2 – Labour MPs – ‘Labour NOtoAV’ and ‘Labour Yes’ 353 Bibliography 357 Abstract Jasper Miles – ‘The Labour Party and the Westminster electoral system’ A study of the Labour Party and the Westminster electoral system is valuable at a time when interest in proportional representation (PR) is on the rise within the Labour Party. Recent publications on the topic have tended to lack either a thorough theoretical or historical basis. Therefore, a dual examination of the underpinning rationale for supporting different electoral systems, based on theoretical frameworks identifiable in the Labour Party and an examination of the pressures and environment in which Labour politicians have operated is required. In addition, the causes of the rising interest in electoral reform and PR within Labour from the 1980s onwards requires documentation. Many studies on the subject have been works of advocacy, overwhelmingly making the case for a movement away from FPTP towards a form of PR, hence lacking objectivity. Five main chapters constitute the study. The first two chapters explore the theoretical aspects and historical context, followed by more detailed chapters on the Plant Report, Jenkins Commission and the Alternative Vote Referendum. Elite level interviews with Labour politicians has been the primary research method, illuminating the issues, arguments and nature of the debate. The conclusion will stress that Labour considers itself to have a unique socio-economic agenda, unshared with other political parties and therefore remains sceptical of PR and coalition, threatening the Party’s ability to implement policies for the betterment of the working class. Whilst the pluralists in the Party have challenged the dominant democratic elitist discourse, the prevalent view is that a general election is concerned with the election of a single-party government. Therefore, the division is best viewed as a matter of principle between competing views on governance. 1 2 Introduction A study of ‘The Labour Party and the Westminster electoral system’ is valuable at a time when there is increasing interest in proportional representation (PR) within the Labour Party. The considerable margin of defeat for the Alternative Vote (AV) in the referendum in May 2011 has, at least for some within the Labour Party and wider Labour movement, failed to settle the question of electoral reform at Westminster. Immediately prior to the May 2015 general election, reports emerged of senior trade union leaders urging Ed Miliband to offer the Liberal Democrats electoral reform in return for supporting a Labour government.1 Post May 2015, Jonathan Reynolds and Chuka Umunna argued under First-Past-the- Post (FPTP) “too many people feel remote and unrepresented… It forces the major parties to overwhelmingly devote their resources on just a handful of constituencies, because they believe these are the ones that might change hands. It therefore fails to treat voters equally… Most of all, it creates false electoral deserts where whole regions of the country are dominated by one party despite their opponents recording substantial numbers of votes.”2 John McDonnell MP wrote “The stark reality is that most voters explicitly rejected the Conservative manifesto last year, and yet we all must suffer a majority government as it tries to force these extreme measures upon an unwilling country.”3 Elsewhere a cross-party group of MPs and pressure groups has formed to build a consensus in favour of PR with the objective of introducing PR by 20214, and the Green MP Caroline Lucas brought forward a PR Bill and, although voted down, it did receive support from Labour MPs. 1 https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/social-affairs/politics/news/69720/union-bosses-tell-ed- miliband-give-lib-dems-election (Accessed 15th December 2016) 2 Independent, ‘Let’s reboot democracy and replace our broken electoral system’, 14th December 2015 3 Independent, ‘John McDonnell calls on Labour to back proportional representation’, 7th May 2016 4 PR Alliance Building Conference, St James the Less Centre, London, Monday 8th February 2016 3 An enquiry of how Labour has approached the topic of electoral reform at Westminster – specifically whether it should stick with FPTP or adopt a different electoral system whether it be majoritarian or proportional – offers the reader an in-depth study of how and why the issue has divided the Party since its inception in 1900. Moreover, ‘The Labour Party and the Westminster electoral system’ is of interest not just because of the flurry of recent attention to the topic, but due to the longer historical view and theoretical aspects that are under researched. The role the Labour Party has played in maintaining FPTP for British general elections warrants researching. Labour, it could be argued, has accepted an electoral system that is not in the electoral and political interests of the Party. Labour lost the 1951 general election despite polling more votes, a defeat that led to thirteen years in opposition. Indeed, the twentieth century reveals the electoral success of the Conservative Party, enjoying prolonged periods in office. In the latter half of the twentieth century, FPTP facilitated eighteen years of Thatcherism, undermining the planks of social-democracy, achieved even at the height of Conservative popularity on a vote share in the low to mid 40s. Despite the host of tracts critiquing the British constitution that emerged during the Thatcher and Major governments, many of which are explored throughout the thesis, the Labour Party has maintained FPTP. The issue of electoral reform has on occasion been prominent within Labour – the early years of the Party, the 1920s, the second minority Labour government, the 1980s and 1990s and the Brown government – but only briefly has Labour collectively been committed to electoral reform at Westminster. However, since the inception of the Party, the issue has prompted a diverse range of arguments, based on competing beliefs. Once Labour had replaced the Liberals as the main opposition to the Conservative Party, vying to form a single party government, 4 constitutional issues were at best of secondary importance to the far more important social and economic issues facing the country and therefore the Party. Consequently, Labour was often accused of ‘constitutional conservatism’ displaying a general satisfaction with the workings of the British constitution and the Westminster Model.5 Hanson went as far to say in 1956 “We appear, then, to be at the end of an epoch in the history of British Socialist controversy about parliamentary procedure.”6 It is important to note how lack of action on the constitution does not entail a lack of discussion on the constitution. Prior to New Labour’s constitutional reform agenda, the accusation of ‘constitutional conservatism’ appeared sound. The Attlee government displayed little interest in the constitution. The notable exception was the reduction in the House of Lords delaying powers, designed to ease the passage of nationalisation through the Lords. Therefore, it was politics that motivated the reform with the objective of defeating a political opponent rather than a deep-seated commitment to constitutional reform. The Wilson and Callaghan governments displayed more interest in the British constitution: Wilson primarily over House of Lords reform, but also other aspects including the House of Commons and the Civil Service with the intention of ‘institutional streamlining’. Callaghan brought forward legislation on devolution to counteract the rise of Scottish nationalism, an attempt to defeat the political and electoral threat of the nationalists. Wilson and Callaghan’s key constitutional reform failed to materialise and the Westminster Model remained intact.7 5 A. Wright, ‘British Socialists and the British Constitution’, Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 43, (1990) pp. 323-345 6 A. H. Hanson, ‘The Labour Party and House of Commons Reform – I’, Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 10: 4, (1956) p. 456 7 See J. Miles, ‘Harold Wilson and the British Constitution’, in A. Crines, & K. Hickson, (edts.) Harold Wilson, An Unprincipled Prime Minister?, (Biteback Publishing, London, 2016) 5 The Labour Party abandoned its constitutional orthodoxy with the election of ‘New Labour’, ‘modernising’ the British constitution: devolution to Scotland, Wales, London and power-sharing to Northern Ireland; House of Lords reform; House of Commons reform; Freedom of Information; Independence for the Bank of England; and the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. There was however one vital omission from the list of reforms – the Westminster electoral system – and although an alternative electoral system was drawn up by the Jenkins Commission, the Labour Party manifesto pledge