AFTER SMITH / 3: Political Commentary: In the midst of death, we are in electoral arithmetic

JUST AS only the truly religious can make blasphemous jokes, so it is only the highly principled who are able to get away with cynical observations and emerge with their reputations enhanced. So it was with Mr John Smith, whose remarks about his colleagues were to connoisseurs of the Movement a constant delight. Another notable characteristic was a scrupulous regard for the truth which sometimes verged on pedantry, though it was none the worse for that. He would have been much amused - blessed as he also was by a quick sense of humour - with some of the tributes paid to him over the last few days.

Comparisons with the death of Hugh Gaitskell over 30 years ago are interesting but not always helpful. Gaitskell entered the Manor House Hospital, North London, in mid-December 1962 and was discharged just before Christmas. He was admitted to the Middlesex Hospital in the New Year and died there on 18 January 1963. Though he had not been expected to die, there had been worries about his health for over a month. Mr Smith's death was a greater shock. He was not revered by a section of his own party as Gaitskell was: there are no Smithites. But then, he was not loathed, as Gaitskell also was, whether by another section of Labour or by virtually the entire Conservative Party.

Gaitskell was succeeded by Harold Wilson, who inaugurated 15 years of political opportunism and electoral success, interrupted by four years of not very successful Conservative government. Lord Rodgers, in an article commemorating the 30th anniversary of Gaitskell's death, asserted that there was 'good reason' to think that he would have won the 1964 election more convincingly than Lord Wilson did.

But what reason could there be apart from guesswork? My own feeling is that, to use words spoken at the time, 'Old Gaiters' would have 'blown it' by one means or another. I am not saying that Mr Smith, a very different character, would have lost the election had he lived - far from it. All we can say is that death, that most terrible of occurrences, has consequences which may be unforeseen.

One consequence which I can foresee is that, unless Mrs Margaret Beckett or Mr John Prescott is chosen as leader, the Labour Party is more likely not exactly to embrace but, rather, to form an alliance with electoral reform. Mr Robin Cook, who is spoken of as a candidate of the left along with Mrs Beckett and Mr Prescott (even though it is unlikely that they will all stand simultaneously), is one of the most dedicated supporters of this kind of change.

It is perfectly possible to be in favour of electoral reform but against any pact or agreement with the Liberal Democrats. Nevertheless, the practical logic of higher representation for a minority party is that it is less likely that another party will have a majority. That is simple arithmetic, not higher politics. In practice, most electoral reformers see this, and are as a result prepared to contemplate some understanding with Mr Paddy Ashdown even before proportional representation of whatever description is introduced.

I do not want to exaggerate the importance of this shift. Whoever is elected leader will have to maintain publicly for a time that Labour can win on its own. But a change will have occurred, in this field as in others. The election of Mr Gordon Brown will tend to conceal it, whereas that of Mr Tony Blair (who was, I am reliably informed, something of a bully at Fettes) will proclaim it.

At this point we must go into some procedural detail which a few fainthearts may find tedious but which is worth a little perseverance all the same. First of all, we can dismiss Lord Healey's mischievous - or ignorant - proposal that the National Executive Committee should invite the parliamentary party to reassume its old powers and to nominate Mr Blair as leader with Mr Prescott as his deputy. This rich, not to say fruity, suggestion would have come better from him if he, Lord Callaghan and Mr Michael Foot had exhibited rather more courage in resisting the claims of Mr Tony Benn in 1979-81 and in safeguarding the powers of Labour MPs to choose the leader and his or her deputy.

It cannot be done, unless there is only one nomination for leader, supported by 12.5 per cent of or 34 Labour MPs. Only Westminster MPs can nominate, and only they can stand for election, though Euro-MPs can vote. If there is no vacancy, as for the deputy leadership there is not, 20 per cent or 53 must nominate. Mrs Beckett is now leader until a successor to Mr Smith is elected. She then reverts to being deputy leader. She can, however, contest both the leadership and the deputy leadership at the same election, as Mr Roy Hattersley did in 1983. There is no reason why every candidate should not contest both offices.

The new electoral machinery, set up in 1981 as the result of the weakness of Lord Healey and others, has now been modified. The voting ratios for the three groups - unions, constituencies and MPs - are a third: a third: a third rather than 40: 30: 30. Constituency members vote as individuals. And payers of the political levy vote as individuals as well. Or do they? Admittedly, assorted Bills and Berts will not be able to cast their block votes on our television screens as they did for Mr Smith two years ago. But the matter is by no means clear. On this Sabbath morning let us quietly consult the original sources:

Section 3 shall consist of those members of affiliated organisations who have indicated their support of the Labour Party and that they are not members or supporters of any other party or otherwise ineligible to be members of the Labour Party. Voting shall take place under the procedures of each affiliated organisation, but voting will be on a one person one vote basis, recorded by affiliated organisations and aggregated for a national total.

Let us leave aside the objection that to pay the political levy is not necessarily to indicate support for the Labour Party: for the levy finances the union's political fund, which can be and is used for a variety of purposes. More than this, the number of levy-payers often bears the most arbitrary relationship to the number of affiliated members. Most crucial of all, the question of whether the block vote survives in this area, even if in modified form, is left unresolved.

Assume Thuggo has 100,000 levy-payers or affiliated members (for I am charitably taking it that any difficulties over discrepancies between the two can be resolved). Of these, 60,000, say, vote for Mr Blair, and 40,000 for Mr Prescott. Does Mr Blair then collar the lot? This would surely be against the spirit of the new rules.

Still, the People's Party will be wearing its Sunday suit for the next couple of months and will want to avoid disputes over matters of this kind. Mr John Major will probably now stay as Prime Minister. Mr Michael Heseltine will almost certainly not succeed him. And people generally may not be so free with their view that politicians are a gang of crooks who are only in it for what they can get out of it.