Thread by @GoodwinMJ

A few reasons why I am very sceptical about a new centrist party, drawing on the now-classic Crewe & King book on the SDP

#Wednesdaythoughts

When they reflected back on why, despite polling 50%, taking millions of votes, the SDP did not work, one major reason was simply our electoral system: "In all countries at all times, the first-past-the-post electoral system is a formidable obstacle to fundamental change"

They noted that with only one exception, since beginning of the 20th Century breakaway parties in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and US had usually not secured more than 10% of the vote while centrist third parties "never took or shared office or came close to doing so"

The exception, of course, was the rise of Britain's Labour Party which between 1900 and 1920 displaced the Liberals. In some sense today's breakaway Independent Group is trying to reverse this process, like the SDP tried (unsuccessfully) in the 1980s

This is why Crewe and King looked at the 3 key factors that made possible Labour's remarkable achievement in a first-past-the-post system and then looked at where the SDP experiment went wrong

1. Labour had a very clear and distinctive class-based appeal, with lots of votes concentrated in large numbers of seats. The SDP had none.
For Labour, the working-class was the largest group. For the SDP the public sector salariat was too small. Its votes were thin, not deep.

We could add today that a socially & economically centrist party is bound to encounter the same fundamental problem. Once you venture outside London, university towns, a few commuter towns, it's hard to see where support comes from. Liberals routinely exaggerate their number.

2. Labour gained from the mass enfranchisement of women & male workers between 1918-1929. Why did this matter? It meant Labour did not have to worry about severing existing bonds of party loyalty. The new voters were "clean slates" on which Lab could write. SDP had no such luck.

SDP had to woo voters with existing loyalty. Crewe & King make point that SDP could focus on youth but less likely to vote & had little interest. "The niceties of Alliance politics were far removed from the world of the apprentice in Bolton or trainer hairdresser in Southend"

Today, we might add that even that part of electorate looks off limits to new centrist group. Many young voters still instinctively like JC & would not be hard for Corbyn to make a direct pitch to close this space down. Leaves them with pro-Remain middle-class libs. Not enough.

3. Labour also helped in major way by disintegration of Liberals after 1916 split. By the time they reunited it was too late. Lab had leap-frogged into the big two and first-past-the-post effects then took-over, hurting Libs, helping Lab

SDP founded (like today) in hope Labour would implode & disintegrate. "But in the event the forces of inertia within Labour proved too strong". Lab did decline from 37% in '79 to 28% in '83. But this was still enough to return 186 more MPs than Liberals & SDP combined.

A combo of traditional loyalty to Lab/expediency (ie Lab MPs not wanting to lose seats) "constituted a glue more than strong enough to hold Labour together". First-past-post then gave Lab time to ditch left & regroup. Whether that latter part is now possible remains key Q today