However, we will be making a serious tactical mistake if we dismiss electoral reform as something that does not interest traditional Labour supporters. The present first-past-the-post system allowed Tony Blair to take our core vote for granted, ignoring the needs of safe Labour seats, instead shaping policies that might attract floating voters in a few dozen marginal seats in ‘Middle England’. New Labour assumed that people in places like Barking and Dagenham had no one else to vote for. How wrong could they be?

It took a huge effort by anti-fascists and local party activists to defeat the BNP, but they were not the root of the problem. They were able to gain a stronghold in east London because the people there felt that the Labour Party no longer listened to them.

Those who fear that proportional representation would allow the BNP to win representation should take comfort from the results in Barking and Dagenham. Once people see the reality of the politics of hate, they throw the racists out. We can trust voters to see through the lies of the BNP. Furthermore, PR will give voters other, more progressive ways of expressing their anger and frustration with the main political parties. The pluralism that has accompanied PR in Scotland and Wales has moved the centres of political gravity there to the left.

Disenfranchisement cannot be remedied by rigging the voting system to keep the BNP out, nor by edicts from above. People need to be convinced that politicians are interested in their concerns and that will not happen as long as the political establishment is able to take votes for granted. You cannot hope to create an equal society unless everyone’s votes carry the same weight with politicians.

That’s why the coming referendum on electoral reform is crucial to those of us who want to live in a fairer society. Yes, we will have to fight Tory-Lib Dem cuts in the traditional way – and new ways. But we must also take up the cause of proportional representation if we hope to finally see the progressive majority govern this country for the benefit of all.

–

The alternative vote

The alternative vote (AV) is sometimes seen as a compromise between keeping the present first-past-the-post system and moving towards a form of ‘true’ proportional representation, writes Michael Calderbank. Known as ‘instant run-off’ voting in the US, the system keeps single member constituencies but voters rank the candidates by order of preference. When a candidate is eliminated, the subsequent preferences of their voters are transferred to those left in the race, a process that continues until one candidate has more than 50 per cent of votes. Its supporters – like Labour MP Peter Hain – argue that it strengthens the legitimacy of parliament because it means that every MP would have been supported by at least half of the voters in their constituency.

AV isn’t proportional representation. But it would mean that people no longer face the dilemma of voting for their preferred party or for one with a realistic chance of winning the seat. So Green, left or independent candidates would not need to fear that they could split the vote by standing and let in a right-wing party. The Lib Dems would be the most likely to gain, but is unlikely that smaller parties such as the Greens would see their tally of MPs increased under an AV system. Some Conservatives believe that it could hurt their chances of forming a majority government in the future, fearing that it would enable a natural alliance to emerge between Labour and Lib Dem voters.

AV alone is not enough to eliminate ‘safe seats’, although it is likely to expand the number of marginals. While many electoral reformers think it does not go nearly far enough, many would welcome a yes vote on AV in a referendum because it would represent a rejection of first past the post, and represent a first step towards either the single transferable vote or alternative vote plus forms of PR.

For more info see the activists’ guide to PR on the Electoral Reform Society website: www.electoral-reform.org.uk

These questions could have been answered by looking at the occupants of cars adorned with the England flag. They seemed largely made up of families with kids who had pestered Mum or Dad to let them show their support for the national football team. Yes, they flew from white vans, but some of those vans were driven by black guys. There were even a few Asian drivers flying the flag for the team.

I would have been much more concerned if there had been a spate of cars flying the Union Jack. In their campaigns for the elections, the BNP and the UK Independence Party (Ukip) used the British flag to represent everything that they stand for: an inward-looking, white society, angry at the present, fearful of the future, clinging to the past. There is an ugly xenophobia out there, but it’s waving the Union Jack.

Friends of mine argue that the same connotations are inherent in the flag of St George. They also point to its association with the violence and racism that follows the England football team when it travels abroad. Surely, flying the English flag is an endorsement of that belligerent nationalism? Those of us who support England look with envy at the way the Scots were able to transform themselves from one of the most feared groups of football fans into some of the most popular supporters to be found at international tournaments.

By making a conscious effort to isolate the hooligan element, the England fans are, at last, beginning to change too. Travel bans have played a part in this, but it has been initiatives undertaken by the fans themselves that have improved the atmosphere. Concerned that their reputation was preceding them, the fans have organised trips into local schools in places where their team is playing.

During Euro 2004 a group of England fans visited the Nuno Goncalves Secondary School in the poor Sapadores district of Lisbon. Around 30 fans, some wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the word obrigado (Portuguese for “thank you”) gave up their morning to help the pupils practise their spoken English.

While the genuine fans were doing their best to make a good impression where England were playing, hundreds of miles away from the football it was all going off in Albufeira. Guess which event got the most coverage? Genuine fans were furious, pointing out that Albufeira is a well-known trouble spot where drunken, violent Brits are arrested every weekend. Back at the matches, the behaviour of England fans was exemplary. More arrests were made at Glastonbury Festival than in Lisbon on the night that England were knocked out of Euro 2004 by Portugal.

England’s travelling support is changing. The fans themselves are making a real effort to join in the celebrations at international tournaments. The new atmosphere that they are creating is starting to produce results. In Portugal, the policing of fans was much more low-key, allowing the supporters to have a good time without them being constantly harassed by riot police looking for confrontation. For the first time groups of black and Asian fans were present, wearing the England shirt with pride. And why shouldn’t they? Take a look at the 11 men who wear that shirt on the pitch. They are a visible representation of what England is: a multicultural society in which the right to play for the national team is not decided by race, but by talent.

Far from representing a narrow definition of English identity, those thousands of St George’s flags could be seen as an endorsement of this idea, in which the right to be English is accessible to anyone, no matter what their background. This notion was best illustrated by a group that I saw crossing the Thames via Westminster Bridge on the day that England played Switzerland. Two Muslim women, dressed in full-length black burkas, were holding the hands

of two boys aged maybe five or six who may well have been their sons. The two boys were wearing identical red shirts, on which the word “BECKHAM” was emblazoned in Olde English script. Underneath was a small flag of St George.

I am concerned that as those kids grow up they will come under pressure to make a choice between being either a Muslim or an England supporter. Clearly the two are not mutually exclusive, yet reactionary forces within both Islam and English nationalism share a vested interest in enforcing an exclusionary view of society. Shouldn’t we on the left oppose this by working to create an inclusive sense of English identity that is open to everyone?

I am well aware that this is a difficult subject. Over the years the left has declined to contest this ground with the far right. Unfortunately, this has had the effect of allowing the racists to define who is and who is not English. Our approach to this issue needs to change because, whether we like it or not, the rise of Ukip has put nationalism on the agenda. When the working classes raise the flag of St George to express their identity, have we nothing to say to them except to condemn them as bigots?

Over the next few years, as Ukip continues to define its idea of society in terms of what it doesn’t like, a space will open up in which to create an alternative identity that exemplifies the things that we do like about ourselves. Just as our Scottish and Welsh neighbours have always defined themselves against the negative aspects of their big neighbour, we now have an opportunity to do something similar.

In Scotland minority political parties have already embraced a new sense of nationalism to draw voters away from the big three parties in support of progressive ideas. The Scottish Socialist Party sees no contradiction in being both nationalist and internationalist. Compare the anti-racist nationalism of the Scottish National Party to the very different position taken by the BNP.

Could a similar transformation occur in England? Obviously, it is a larger country than Scotland and has a far higher degree of multi-ethnicity. On purely demographic terms, the English identity is highly diverse; this is a historical fact that gives us something to build on.

Because of our diversity, it is impossible to imagine a contemporary vision of England that does not reflect the multicultural nature of our society. Equally, we have to accept that multiculturalism, by its very nature, must make room for everyone to express their culture, including the English.

There can be no coercion here, no list of tastes and traits that define “the English”. Identity is a very personal thing, and some will feel that they just do not belong within such designations. But think again of that Muslim family on Westminster Bridge. I want those two little boys to feel that they can be part of the English community if they so choose.

I believe that the events of recent months have put the flag of St George in a neutral position within our culture. It no longer automatically represents a belligerent nationalism spoiling for a fight. It has become one of a number of symbols that we use to identify ourselves at international sporting celebrations. As Ukip reduces Britishness to little more than Ulster Unionism without the sense of humour, let’s bring the flag of St George home and reclaim it as one of the symbols that we use to express an alternative identity that is diverse, outward-looking and inclusive.