Broken record argument

Right now, new Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson is being attacked on both sides of the political divide, but mostly by Labour supporters who keep referring back to her record during the coalition years. Ironically, the party is under criticism for being softer on new Tory leader (and soon-to-be-unelected PM) Boris Johnson.

Labour's moral outrage is somewhat misplaced, in my opinion. For this one simple, incontrovertible reason: by refusing to implement any form of electoral reform, Labour is actually the Tories' biggest enabler. Simply put, the Tories (and Labour too, of course) would not be able to form a majority government on under 50% of the popular vote if we had a representative electoral system that delivered MPs to parliament in proportion to the actual popular vote obtained by parties.

In 2010, the Tories secured 306 seats on 36.1% of the vote; Lib Dems 57 on 23%. In a proportional voting system, they would have secured 235 and 150 MPs respectively. It's ridiculous to conveniently forget just how junior the LDs were in that coalition because of their relatively few MPs. Yes, they voted with the government throughout the five-year period, but that's because it's what governments do. It's also worth noting that most of the Tories original proposals for austerity were watered down by the LD presence in government before they came to parliament itself, which should be as clear as day for anyone who looks at the post-2015 record of the Tories, both when ruling alone and now in tandem with the DUP.

Let's also not forget that austerity in 2010 was a cross-party policy. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but we stood after the 2010 election being told the country was in economic crisis and close to going under unless economic cuts were immediate. Labour had also campaigned in 2010 on a platform of austerity - a more humane one maybe than the Tories, but austerity nevertheless.


Had Labour implemented the long-overdue reform of the electoral system during its 13 years in power (as opposed to offering it as a last desperate fig leaf to hold on to some form of power after it had lost the election with 258 seats on 29% of the vote) then perhaps we wouldn't be here now.

For starters, the Lib Dems could have formed a coalition government with either party without involving other groups (such as the SNP or Greens or - God forbid - UKIP). And second, the Lib Dems' 150 MPs would have given them much greater clout in any coalition government. Austerity could have been watered down further and the Tories held in check. Instead of both major parties being infiltrated by extremists who realised the only route to power was through Tory or Labour, calmer heads would have prevailed with the LDs as a moderating influence. And smaller parties like the Greens would of course have better representation and the opportunity to bring their programmes to greater prominence. Perhaps the broadcast media would have been held in check too, forced to choose from a wider range of views instead of constantly favouring extreme left and right positions.

But let us not forget why this didn't happen. Because Labour is more interested in securing single-party rule on under 50% of the popular vote than implementing a representative electoral system.I would have preferred the Lib Dems to have sided with Labour in 2010, but I knew it was morally tricky: the Tories were the single biggest party by far, and had a bigger mandate. Labour had been in power for 13 years by this time. The country wanted a change. Hindsight tells us to be careful what you wish for, but back then the New Labour project was at an end. And Labour has no one to blame but itself.