What happens to Labour if the Tories back strong devolution?
David Melding AM, a Conservative Member of the Senedd, has suggested that Britain should implement a more fully federal Constitution, as a way of relieving pressures on the Union. This is from a piece by David Williamson at Wales Online.
THE United Kingdom is in danger of disintegration and should embrace a federal structure of government and create individual parliaments in each nation, Conservative AM David Melding declares in a major book published today.
He envisages a new constitutional settlement which could cut the number of MPs at Westminster to 300 and officially recognise the sovereignty over domestic issues of the parliaments of Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Even ignoring the implication of a savage cut in the numbers of MPs at Westminster, this is fascinating politically for a number of reasons.
The Conservatives have sometimes been referred to as “English Nationalists” [Update: or just "English" 
], and Conservative Government has traditionally been founded on a strong majority of English seats at Westminster – compensating for a position in Scotland and Wales which has consistently been much weaker for a generation.
In contrast, Labour has historically relied on an incumbent majority in Scotland and Wales to shore up a weaker English position vis-a-vis the Conservatives.
Labour is currently facing the prospect of a collapse in their vote across England, Wales and Scotland. This is similar to that suffered by the Conservatives in England in 1997 when the number of Conservative MPs halved. One crumb of comfort for Labour is that the Conservatives were completely extinguished in both Scotland and Wales in the 1990s, and have now started to recover lost ground.
However, the circumstances for Labour are less propitious. If the Conservatives adopt the policy as suggested by David Melding, then power will move towards the devolved Parliaments, which do not have Westminster style alternating Conservative / Labour majorities. Beefed-up devolved assemblies would permanently shift the political centre of gravity away from the Westminster arena where Labour has dominated Welsh and Scottish representation to proportionally-elected bodies.
In this scenario, how would Labour recover?
There are two further points I want to mention. Firstly, the hardcore Conservative vote in England is around 35% – even in 1997 is only dipped slightly below that figure. Labour’s comparative figure has been somewhat lower – below 30%. If some form of English Parliament or Grand Committee were implemented that may naturally favour the Conservatives.
Secondly, one difference between 1997 and 2009 is that Wales and Scotland have – for the first time – seen the Liberal Democrats and SNP operating administrations at their respective devolved assemblies.
Have enough voters in the socialist heartlands of Wales and Scotland now become sufficiently comfortable with alternatives to Labour to allow them a try at Westminster level?
And finally, will the “anti-incumbent” and “anti traditional politics” mood feed this tendency?
The nightmare for Labour is that strong “nationalist” parties will make them a natural minority party in all areas of the United Kingdom. The bitter reality would be that their own attempts at devolution, in creating the conditions to facilitate a nationalist upsurge, may make this a ratchet that cannot easily be reversed, preventing their recovery from a significant fall in their vote.
Facing this potential political storm, I think it is no surprise that so many Labour MPs are taking honourable-looking ways out of politics; they would be doing so even without the exposure of Expenses abuses.
Historical Data
I’ve tabulated figures for number of Westminster MPs and percentage of the vote in UK General Elections from 1979 to 2005. These are all from the Keele Political Science Resources site for each of the main parties. I have conflated SDP and Liberal figures where both parties competed.
If anyone has time to graph these figures, or add analysis based on figures from the devolved Parliaments, or tell me why I am completely wrong – I’d be pleased to add a link.
I’d also be grateful for any corrections if I have transcribed data incorrectly.
England
Year : Con : Lab : LibDem
1979 : 306 (49.18) : 203 (36.67) : 7 (14.93)
1983 : 362 (45.98) : 148 (26.94) : 13 (26.36)
1987 : 357 (46.15) : 155 (29.51) : 10 (23.80)
1992 : 319 (45.46) : 195 (33.93) : 10 (19.18)
1997 : 165 (33.70) : 328 (43.55) : 34 (17.95)
2001 : 165 (35.2) : 323 (41.4) : 40 (19.4)
2005 : 194 (35.74) : 286 (35.46) : 47 (22.91)
Scotland
Year : Con: Lab: SNP : Lib Dem
1979 : 22 (31.41) : 44 (41.54) : 2 (17.29) : 3 (8.99)
1983 : 21 (28.37) : 41 (35.07) : 2 (11.75) : 8 (24.53)
1987 : 10 (24.03) : 50 (42.38) : 3 (14.04) : 9 (19.2)
1992 : 11 (25.65) : 49 (38.98) : 3 (21.48) : 9 (13.09)
1997 : 0 (17.51) : 56 (45.56) : 6 : (22.07) : 10 (12.97)
2001 : 1 (15.6) : 55 (43.3) : 5 (20.1) : 10 (16.3)
2005 : 1 (15.83) : 40 (38.87) : 6 (17.66) : 11 (23.01)
Wales
Year : Con: Lab: Plaid : Lib Dem
1979 : 11 (32.15) : 21 (46.95) : 2 (8.10) : 1 (10.61)
1983 : 14 (31.03) : 20 (35.07) : 2 (7.79) : 2 (23.2)
1987 : 8 (29.52) : 24 (45.06) : 3 (7.28) : 3 (10.68)
1992 : 6 (28.57) : 27 (49.5) : 4 (8.83) : 1 (12.43)
1997 : 0 (19.58) : 34 (54.75) : 4 (9.94) : 2 (12.35)
2001 : 0 (21.0) : 34 (48.6) : 4 (14.3) : 2 (13.8)
2005 : 3 (21.38) : 29 (42.71) : 3 (12.55) : 4 (18.4)
Northern Ireland
Neither Labour nor the Conservatives has won a Westminster seat in Northern Ireland, so these considerations are not currently relevant.
Categories: All WW, Comment, Media, Political Blogging, Politics, Scotland, Wales
[...] A question posed by Matt Wardman. [...]
While NI is not currently relevant, it’s not at all impossible that the UUs would join with the Tories, SDLP with Labour, although I’m not sure we’d want to touch that kettle of fish. I think I’m right in saying that the Alliance sit in the same Euro grouping as the LibDems.
As to the graph: your wish is my command.
We moved away from a wholly unitary state in part to placate the nationalist tendency and also because there was a genuine desire in some parts to strengthen the regions against the centre – viz., the NE referendum. Unfortunately, those proposals were undercooked, and poisoned the chalice for everyone.
If we leave NI to one side and assume Scotland leaves for the sake of argument, we suddenly have a unitary state with the adjunct of Wales.
Much as this might annoy the EDs etc., why does England make sense as a unitary state if the UK does not?
xD.
There is a horrible potential outcome for the Nationalists if the Tories implement full devolution and federalisation and that is people will have fewer reasons to vote for them.
People who are thinking of voting Plaid Cymru now may not do so in the future because they are not strongly ‘nationalistic’ or ‘language’ orientated especially in S.E and N.E most populous urban areas of Wales. Also PC is not perceived as the ‘party of business’ so will not pick up votes from people in business in Wales who are ambivalent anyway due to the costs of language, cockups over EU funding and monstrous growth of the public sector.
If the Tories manage to assuage vague nationalistic feeling/aspirations by giving people full devolution and more powers within a federalised UK then this could kill Plaid Cymru stone dead. That may be the Tory strategy and it is a darned clever one if it succeeds.
Cambria Politico´s last blog post..A Tory vote winner
England *doesn’t* make sense as a unitary state; it’s only loopy flagwavers and political hacks out for the take who claim that it does. As a Londoner, unless we were simultaneously granted full devolution from Little England, I’d be deeply distraught by such a move. Not that I’d put it past the Tories, of course…
john b´s last blog post..Edifying spectacle of the day
>While NI is not currently relevant, it’s not at all impossible that the UUs would join with the Tories, SDLP with Labour, although I’m not sure we’d want to touch that kettle of fish. I think I’m right in saying that the Alliance sit in the same Euro grouping as the LibDems.
The Tories have teamed up with the Ulster Unionists aleady to form the UCunfs (really). See:
http://unionistlite.blogspot.com/2009/06/conservatives-and-unionists-organic.html
and
http://www.uup.org/newsrooms/articles/conservatives-and-unionists-delivering.php
And on wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Conservatives_and_Unionists_%E2%80%93_New_Force
Awaiting the first conference: “Good morning to all UCunfs”.
>As to the graph: your wish is my command.
Aw shucks.
>We moved away from a wholly unitary state in part to placate the nationalist tendency and also because there was a genuine desire in some parts to strengthen the regions against the centre – viz., the NE referendum. Unfortunately, those proposals were undercooked, and poisoned the chalice for everyone.
That looks quite a sound analysis.
>If we leave NI to one side and assume Scotland leaves for the sake of argument, we suddenly have a unitary state with the adjunct of Wales.
>Much as this might annoy the EDs etc., why does England make sense as a unitary state if the UK does not?
I’m not entering that swamp yet. The post is going across to Our Kingdom, and they may pick up this point
John,
I’m thinking of running for Mayor of London on a platform of independence.
Matt,
See you at OurKingdom!
xD.
Here:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/matt_wardman/strong_devolution
‘THE United Kingdom is in danger of disintegration and should embrace a federal structure of government and create individual parliaments in each nation, Conservative AM David Melding declares in a major book published today.
‘He envisages a new constitutional settlement which could cut the number of MPs at Westminster to 300 and officially recognise the sovereignty over domestic issues of the parliaments of Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.’.
Seems to me you should be reading EUReferendum’s blog. That is just what they propose the EU is about and the usual shills are putting their heads above the parapet.
STB.
Quote: “He envisages a new constitutional settlement which could cut the number of MPs at Westminster to 300 and officially recognise the sovereignty over domestic issues of the parliaments of Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. ”
What ‘parliament of England’ would that be then? Does he propose an English Parliament be established?
Never trust a Tory.
Stephen
>What ‘parliament of England’ would that be then? Does he propose an English Parliament be established?
I’ll have to refer you to the book.
Matt