Make My Vote Count

The campaign for voter choice and a more representative parliament

 Skip navigation

a voice for the workers
Billy Hayes

No voting system is perfect. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Countries around the world, which we would all have no difficulty in describing as democratic, have markedly different systems. Many are governed better than the UK, have stronger trade union movements, more successful economies and higher standards of social justice.

Yet the loudest voice coming from the trade union movement in the UK is often the defence of the status quo. Any proposals for change are attacked as having a secret agenda to undermine the trade union voice, break the link between trade unions and the Labour Party or to further move the Labour Party away from its historical roots.

The objective seems to be to close down debate. It's almost as if there is a fear that if it starts, the supporters of the status quo would lose because their arguments are about party advantage and simply won't cut it when the debate broadens to become a wider discussion about democracy.

But despite the energy put by some into defending first past the post, there is also much support among trade unionists for a serious debate about voting systems. Indeed it is part of a wider debate among unions about how they can best intervene in democratic debate and advance the interests of their members. The CWU is currently neutral on this matter, so this is a contribution to opening up the debate

At its sharpest there have been calls, now ironically from the left, to cut links with Labour, reduce funding or to limit MPs supported to those who sign up to the union's agenda. These always hit the headlines, but quieter changes are also taking place.

Unions are engaging more with politicians from other parties. In the devolved institutions of Scotland and Wales, Labour is not the only party that stands for good public services and decent legal protection for people at work.

Our union defeated the Conservative government's plans to privatise the Post Office by making sure we - and the allies we won in our campaign - talked to Conservative MPs. And while the media focus tends to be on unions who affiliate to the Labour Party, most unions affiliated to the TUC do not also affiliate to the Labour Party. The public - and that includes union members - is becoming more and more cynical about politics and politicians as turn-out falls and individual party membership declines.

At the same time the Labour Party has rethought its relationships with the trade unions. It not my purpose here to say whether these have been good or bad for either the unions or the Party, but no-one can deny that relations are now different. There have been constitutional changes such as the adoption of one member one vote in party elections and selections and the decline in the block vote at a downgraded annual conference.

But even more importantly have been the political changes at the top of the Labour Party. The consistent message has been that unions were once too powerful, but that new Labour now treats business and unions in an even- handed way. Again whether you think this is an accurate description or not, a good or a bad thing, is not the point. Life for unions and the Labour Party has changed.

So sometimes noisily, and more often quietly, unions are rethinking how best they can have a legitimate influence in politics. With something like seven million members we remain the largest voluntary organisation in the UK. We have a right to have our voice heard. And the trade union movement at its best has always spoken up for a much wider constituency - not just our members' families, but more generally for social justice and for those without a voice. Our campaign for the minimum wage has mainly benefited non- union members, and we do not ask whether the victims of racism have a union card before we stand up to be counted in the fight against racism and the far right.

My starting point in this debate is that unions should never be afraid of extending democracy. It is no coincidence that the first act of every tyrant is to clamp down on union freedoms. It is why freedom of association, including the specific right for unions to organise, is part of every significant human rights declaration and charter.

We should therefore have no fears that a public debate about making this a more democratic country will in some way be bad for unions. Nor is this one of those issues where unions and union activists must speak with a single voice. Every institution and political party contains many views on voting systems. Unions will appear weak by keeping out of that debate, not by joining in.

My next point is where we came in. No voting system is perfect. This is because we expect voting systems to fulfil more than one objective, and we will not all agree on the relative importance of the various objectives or even what some of them mean.

Everyone will agree that elections should in some way express the will of the people, though there's a great deal of room for debate about what that might precisely mean. But after that some will stress the importance of a single member constituency link. Some might say we must have strong government. Others might say that we must make sure minorities, particularly fascists, do not wield disproportionate power. Others might stress minority rights. Others will say that it's important that votes are of equal value, in other words your vote should affect the result in the same way irrespective of where you live.

It is quite obvious that not everyone will agree with each of these points, and even if everyone did, you cannot fully meet all these objectives at the same time. There are compromises in every system. A fully proportionate system is very hard to combine with constituency representation. Minority rights do not always go well with a system that stresses strong government.

And of course, while it may never be said out loud, most people will be asking themselves whether their bit of the political spectrum does ok or not from any system. It's why big parties that win elections generally back the status quo, and small parties, irrespective of which bit of the political spectrum they come, support change. Let me be clear about where I am coming from here. I am the General Secretary of a union that is affiliated to the Labour Party, and proud of that link. I myself have been an individual member of the Labour Party for 25 years and have been active for the same period.

But my prime concern is not with the Labour Party as an institution, but with the interests of those voters that Labour was formed to represent. That means certainly having a system that is fair to the Labour Party. But it should not stop us asking hard questions about what happens to Labour voters when Labour loses elections and cannot win power.

There is a further point. Winning elections in different systems will require different tactics. The electoral system is not neutral, but will influence what parties do, what they say and how they try and maximise their influence.

We were all gripped by the recounts in Florida in the US Presidential election. But all the talk of pregnant chads tended to hide one key fact. The US President is not elected by a popular vote, but by an electoral college made up of delegates from states. George W. Bush won the 2000 presidential election, with 271 electoral votes of the required 270, even though Al Gore got more votes. The US first past the post voting system means first that presidential candidates take more notice of big swing states like Florida, and that an electoral qualification system that discriminated against African Americans in a single state could dramatically affect the result.

These views about electoral systems, and why they matter, seem fairly unexceptional to me. It's only when you start discussing the pros and cons of different systems that the controversy usually starts.

Let me therefore use them to say why I think the first past the post system we have in the UK is not democratic enough and does not properly serve the interests of the people that my union represents.

For a start it allows minorities to capture power. Most of my life has taken place under a Conservative government that loathed trade unions. We were, to quote Mrs Thatcher, "the enemy within." Public policy and the law were used to undermine trade union membership, effectiveness and legitimacy. At its worst basic human rights were denied with the banning of unions at GCHQ. But everywhere the ability of unions to defend the interests of their members was whittled back to the extent that it became quite hard to answer a question from prospective members as to what could a union do for us.

This was of course bad for unions as institutions, but it was even worse for the voters that rely on a strong union voice. Jobs were lost as manufacturing was driven into recession. The UK became a much more unequal society as benefits were cut and the benefits of economic growth flowed to those who least needed them.

And it wasn't as if there was no alternative. Across the channel in the rest of Europe were a range of very different countries, but none treated trade unions in the same way as they were in Britain. And most had stronger welfare states, less inequality and more successful economies too. What they had in common was an electoral system that did not allow a right wing minority to capture all the power of the state.

Instead they involved unions and employers in decision-making and discussion. Of course some governments leant to the right and some to the left, some were coalitions and some single party, but none could create a sufficient political base in their more proportional systems to exclude and belittle unions in the way that happened in the UK.

The UK in the 1980s exhausted my appetite for "strong government". And I'd take the record of the minority and coalition administrations in Wales and Scotland, not to mention the rest of Europe, as a small price to pay to stop the excess of Thatcherism.

The experience of Conservative government in the 1980s and at least the first part of the early 1990s was a strong indictment of our current electoral system. But the Conservatives are now down and pretty well out say those trade unionists that back first past the post. That threat has gone. Electoral reform was a call made in desperation by those who thought Labour could never be elected again in the 1980s.

There are two responses to that. There is no guarantee that new Labour will win every election for ever more. Nor is it inevitable that positions remain fixed. Liverpool used to be the Tory "Jewel in the Crown" until 1960, and Reginald Bevins was a Tory Postmaster General and MP for Liverpool Toxteth! And at the moment a Conservative victory would result in arguably an even more extreme right wing government than in the 1980s. The Tories understand the importance of first past the post to their politics. Even though they are the real losers at the moment from the electoral system, you find almost no Conservatives backing a change.

But there is an even stronger argument. After five years in power even its best friends admit that new Labour has its weaknesses. My strong belief is that many of them flow from the compromises that are forced on the party by the need to win power under a first past the post system.

In particular we come back to Florida, but for Florida read your nearest marginal seat. Labour's task in the run up to the 1997 election was not to maximise its vote. It was to maximise the number of seats it won. To do this it needed to identify the marginal seats, identify those voters that it could persuade to change their minds, find out what they wanted and give it to them.

Labour's safe seats, and their voters, on the other hand could be taken for granted. No one cared much about what Labour voters in Liverpool thought. Enough would always turn out to make sure it sent a solid Labour contingent to Westminster, so there was no need to take much notice of their interests or views. It is perhaps hardly surprising that turn out has fallen most sharply in Labour heartland seats. Ministers may wring their hands, but at the end of the day it does not matter to party strategists.

The basic problem, particularly in a divided country such as ours, is that votes are not equal. If I'm a middle class swing voter in a marginal seat then my vote is valuable. Parties will bid for it. I will be invited to endless focus groups.

But if I'm a lifelong labour voter in a traditional labour seat then I'm taken for granted. My vote is valueless in the political market place, (expect perhaps to the BNP.) And if I live in a Tory area, then I'm simply seen as a recipient for begging letters.

Of course in any democracy parties need to gain votes. Voters prepared to change their mind will always be targeted. Nor am I arguing that Labour did not need to win new voters to defeat the Conservatives in the 1990s. The old traditional working class and strongly unionised base may have delivered victory once upon a time, but Labour needs a wider base today. And that may well mean some policy compromises that I don't like from time to time, that is called politics.

But what is an unhealthy is a system that ignores some voters and favours others. Labour heartlands lost out under the Conservatives too. Scotland could be used to try out the poll tax because the Conservatives at that time did not need seats in Scotland. The North East's shipbuilding industry could go to the wall, because no Conservative marginals were threatened.

Politics would be better if all the parties were equally interested in turning out support in Cheadle, Chorley, Chester and Chingford.

Some on the left believes it provides either a short cut for radical change or a haven for political purity. In the first case the electorate can be tricked with Labour elected with minority support, but the party structure is used to win a majority to implement a radical programme. In the second, the left can win a block of seats, have a major voice but never be forced to compromise with the people again.

I write as someone who wants radical change, but also as someone who knows that it only works when you have mass support. It doesn't require you to win every floating voter in a marginal seat, but it does require you to construct a majority throughout the country.

I've always had the confidence that this can be done. That's why trade unions should recognise that the present voting system has done little for us, and the people who rely on a strong voice for social justice. Fair votes would give us a fairer chance of creating the fair society that I came into the trade union movement and the Labour Party to create.

Remember when given the choice to introduce the universal franchise the ANC chose a form of PR for the new South Africa. And that under first-past-the- post the 1945-1951 Labour governments, often regarded as the most radical ever, lost power in 1951, even though Labour polled more votes than the Tories. Is there a message here? X marks my political choice, not where I live.