The FT has a headline this afternoon that says:
New Austrian leader warns mainstream parties may ‘disappear'
The story leads with:
The head of Austria's railway system took over as the country's chancellor on Tuesday, promising to shake up a coalition government that has seen popular support erode amid worries over immigration and rising unemployment.
A number of thoughts follow. The first is the amusing one that a head of British Railways might have been seen as a saviour of any government in the UK.
Much more prosaically, the issue here is serious in the light of the real possibility that the far right in Austria might win the shortly forthcoming presidential elections. Neither of the two leading political parties, which have between them ruled Austria since 1945, have a candidate in the run off for that election.
That though leads to the question as to whether a 70 year old system should last, which is a sentiment reinforced by their willingness to enter a 'grand coalition' to maintain their grip on power. Is this just the failed neoliberal hegemony in operation for all to see, and does it, in fact, invite rejection in the interests of democracy as the new Chancellor obviously thinks possible?
This is a real question. Austria is far from alone in facing this issue. It is entirely plausible that the UK could face a similar problem and the willingness of some centre ground politicians to cooperate too closely for comfort only strengthens the impression that the supposed 'centre ground' of UK politics is as out of touch with public sentiment, political reality and the need for change, as the Austrians obviously think their main parties are.
Many, of course, think this explains the appeal of both UKIP and Jeremy Corbyn. That may well be true. The SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens and even the DUP and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland might also be indication of the success of alternatives and the failure of the supposed centre that now very clearly embraces only parts of the Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour parties. But in that case surely we need to embrace change and not suggest that threats are the answer?
I do believe change is needed. I do not think that the centre-right hegemony has any of the answers our economy needs at present because it is built on a failed economic philosophy that does not embrace the respect for people, planet, place and time that must be at the core of twenty first century politics. I also think the right would offer a much worse form of that logic that would pose a real threat to many. But in that case those who appreciate the need for change have to rise to the challenge.
Three things follow. First, if a grand coalition is needed it must be amongst those who realise that there is a need for a new economic and political paradigm.
Second, because change must be peaceful it is beholden on all who wish to achieve that goal to deliver that process within the constraints of the existing system whilst agreeing that its reform is a necessary consequence of working together, including PR thereafter.
Third, that means electoral coalitions must be created before another general election to achieve the goal of reform that can deliver a real prospect of difference within democratic and economic choice thereafter without resort to the far right being required.
My appeal to the party leaders who realise that change is required (and this may be everyone but David Cameron, Nigel Farage and the rump of parties like the BNP right now) is to agree that over-arching all their differences is the need for grand reform to restore real democracy to the UK, to create electoral reform and true accountability and to agree to work together in advance of the next general election to deliver this as a grand coalition for change committed to govern for one year, deliver PR, House of Lords reform, and more effective devolved power and to then to call another election under a new system of voting.
Is that too much to hope for in the face of the crisis in politics that is very clearly evolving?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
UKIP support PR probably out of self interest, otherwise I as a commited Labour supporter agree with this
Social justice must regain the popular vote, but not sure PR is the big answer. Gaining power is a combination of winning the war of ideas, and picking leaders who present policies in way that can carry a majority of the public vote.
I do think PR has a role to make politics reflect an increasingly diverse society (30% of London residents born outside the UK and clearly not represented before Sadiq Khan!) However, PR undermines the link between politicians and constituencies, and has downsides including more extreme views (7 UKIP AMs now in Wales – all from PR regional seats as they failed to take any single constituency – and one is Neil Hamilton, guilty of cash-for-questions and committed to Wales how ????)
Personally I can see PR in a second chamber (replacing the house of Lords with an elected house) to get real diversity in reviewing and commenting on legislation. But I believe PR in the Commons could weaken future government, unless you want to combine it with an elected president who has executive power – radical, but not I think for the UK?
I understand the problem of Labour in Scotland, but changing the system because you are not popular enough with voters to get elected is normally a right wing tactic. In any case there is no guarantee that the result from a new PR system would be the one you are hoping for.
There is a structural design problem in uk politics and government which lies at the heart of the democratic deficit we have in this country – it is not democratic and was never designed to be so.
There are some more fundamental questions that the public should be asked to vote on if we are ever to have a democratic constitution and electoral process, including:
Q. Do we want to live in a democracy and if so what form of democracy should it be?
Q. Do we trust politicians from a narrow range of political views to represent us fairly, or would we prefer greater political autonomy and direct democracy?
Q. Do we believe in top down decision making or bottom up by the demos itself?
From these questions many of the guiding principles can be developed for a better political system in this country in my view.
Worth watching the pomp and ceremony that is the Queen’s speech today, to get a good example of why the UK is not a real democracy.
PR need not undermine the link between MPs and their constituencies, in fact I would argue the reverse: it provides a better link, for a higher proportion of the electorate. If we used the PR system that we use for the Euro elections for Westminster parliamentary elections we would have larger constituencies of 7 MPs each, which would mean a greater variety of parties represented in each constituency. Currently my Westminster MP is an extreme right wing Tory (Priti Patel) whom I agree with on no policy issues whatsoever. Consequently Ms Patel cannot be said to ‘represent’ me in anything more than a formalistic sense, and there is certainly no point in me contacting her about any local issues. Whereas in the Eastern region for the Euros, the Tory (and UKIP!) MEPs are (as one might expect) useless, but I also have a Labour MEP (Richard Howitt) who is very good and who I can contact about issues and expect to be listened to. That’s why I think PR would improve local accountability, not diminish it.
Agreed
It seems clear that the party system is well past its sell-by-date and we need a ‘revolution’ in democratic representation that is post-Westminster. I sense Corbyn knows this but is playing a futile game of trying to unify the un-unifiable which must fail. Sadiq Kahn has illustrated this futility perfectly by putting forward yet again stale, and irrelevant notions of a centre.
We can clearly sense that this is happening in America in a more pronounced way than here and the Democrats/Republicans know it but won’t acknowledge it.
I think we are witnessing the politicians’ ‘Last Tango in Paris’.
Simon, this Chris Hedges article somewhat supports your views,and also seems to me to be, to some extent, a sort of answer to Richard’s original question
http://m.truthdig.com/report/item/welcome_to_1984_20160514?_utm_source=1-2-2
This is a good article Andrew, and I think sums up very well the increasingly visible and vocal battle now happening in the US between their historical values of liberal democracy (as they perceive it from their perspective at least) and neo-liberal corporatism which is now the major power and control mechanism on both sides of the Atlantic.
The UK and the US have never really acknowledged democracy in anything but a token political gesture of extending the vote to the majority while still controlling the central wealth and power mechanisms. Both states have certainly fought hard to mitigate any influence of democracy over the established wealth and power centres.
Even discussion of what democracy means has only recently started to appear in the political mainstream UK media dialogue. Quite amazing really – but not when you realise what a dangerous force democracy has always been seen to be by the autocratic financial and corporatist elite.
As a “proud constitutional monarchy” we have our own hurdles to overcome just getting the narrative and terminology into the public domain, but I think the work that Hedges, Nadar, Sanders, Wolff and many more are doing over there is gradually re-invigorating the real left of centre debate over here.
Given the realities we are living with at the moment, hope keeps me going that’s for sure. But also awareness and understanding.
But as others have pointed out, people are very tough – we/they suffer and adapt and get on with life.
I remember blaming myself for being made redundant twice previously but when it happened to me the third time I was quite distressed. Off I went to the Samaritans and got quite depressed about it as I felt that despite working hard my aims had been thwarted again. I even went to my Doctor who prescribed me some anti-depressants.
Eventually having hit rock-bottom and beating myself up about it (I had made the wrong career choices, not studied hard enough at school – all my fault etc.,) I picked up on a speech by John Kenneth Galbraith at Cardiff Law School which you could send off to the Guardian (or was it the Independent?)and get for free.
The text of that speech basically explained to me what had been happening to my life: that basically my redundancies were the result of changes brought about by economic decisions made by my employers responding to competition but also looking after their investors first because that’s how it works. And so began a long journey that brought me to the shores of this blog and others and into the realm of economics.
Nothing much has changed except that those forces I was living through in the 80’s and 90’s now seem even more amplified than ever before.
But at least I am not blaming myself anymore; and nor should anyone for that matter.
What I hope for is that people stop being so resilient – that rather than adapting themselves to unfairness they begin to question a system that basically treats them like disposable wipes. Because it does not have to be this way at all.
Thank you for sharing
I agree with your summing up of the present situation. It is something I have felt for a while, thank you for putting it into words.
I think you have touched on a very important and rarely discussed aspect of economics and that is the effect that our economy can have on us as individuals, which can be both liberating and devastating, often repeatedly and within a short period of time and almost entirely caused by factors outside of our control.
Your journey is not an unfamiliar one, for me and I’m sure many others, which oddly is also why I came across this site and many others which touch on aspects of this problem while searching for answers to very uncomfortable questions.
You may be interested in the work of Harriet Fraad, who I came across as she appears as an occasional guest speaker on Richard Wolff’s radio show. She is also his wife and perhaps not surprisingly has an interesting perspective on economics and psychology!
http://www.harrietfraad.com/
I am a counsellor who often sees people who are having problems at work. As people are people there will always be difficulties but when I started hearing the same things again and again, I looked for a bigger picture.
I heard about targets which seem to be set by people who didn’t know about the job.
Constant change and ‘re-branding’.
How often do we change the name of companies, or govt. depts.? I was a teacher so I saw this.
Ministry of Education, 1944—1964
Department of Education and Science, 1964—1992
Department for Education, 1992—1995
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), 1995—2001
Department for Education and Skills (DfES), 2001—2007
Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), 2007—2010
Now Department for Education. 2010-present. Again!
Management by the manual -don’t think for yourself. People like to exercise their skills and some situations call for flexibility but often they not allowed to do so.
Constant audit -seemingly designed to find faults rather than encourage.
Lack of dialogue with management ( who were sometimes in the same position)
over whelming work load e.g. the department was reduced in size but the same amount of work is required.
Some companies require ‘voluntary’ overtime. There are consequences for non-compliance.
The last point I didn’t expect. It was the importance of the way it looked rather than what worked best. I can only surmise this is related to keeping up the share price (private sector) or , in the private sector, keeping the contract; having an impressive website when managers go for promotion/ bonus; political reasons.
I now suggest to clients they also look at the bigger picture. It seems to make a difference.
Thanks for sharing
Very good points Ian S, for too many people our work has become increasingly de-humanised, pressurised, quantified and eventually automated until we are ultimately made redundant.
That is an unsustainable and systemic economic problem and as “real people” we need to find more humane and sustainable economic solutions.
I am certain of one thing, repeating the same thing over and over again will not get any better results!
Sounds a similar story to my son, he was living far from me then, I felt helpless, telephone conversations at all times of day and night. Yes he could have therapy through his GP, only problem was it was 6/8 weeks down the line. We got there. My heart goes out to those in situations these situations, without a good listener. The mental health of our nation is floundering, those in work are under immense pressure. Kind effective economics, is this possible. Why is everything so aggressive. I guess I am too old fashioned to understand.
Forgot to say, brave post.
PSR – I can remember that in the 80’s the whole culture (Clarkson et al) was about winners and ‘losers’ and we were made to feel inadequate if we weren’t ‘making it’. Clarkson used to joke about people using public transport and remember the ‘loads-o-money’ sketch by Harry Enfield. And so we entered the era of philistinism and dumbed-downness that has led us to where we are now.
The creation of fear, low self-esteem has taken its psychological toll over the years and now we have a battered and stressed populace that is very tired having been run ragged by the cathertering and enemaing of the rentier class. I think it is now up to the young to stop this shit and say NO! I will not be on your treadmill with you controlling the speed of revolutions (of the treadmill that is!).
If you divest society of cultural and social riches and monetise the entirety of life you get what we have now, a society run by bullies and thugs. Johnson and his mouth farting vacuity is one of the most representative examples.
I agree we need to stand up to them but many are just to brow -beaten with worry and coping with the millstone-mortgage-but ut can’t go on for every and there must be at some point a huge collegiate, rousing cry of F**k thi S**t! It’s a slow train coming.
Then and only then, as a society we can have an adult discussion about the real alternatives.
Think the answer to your last question in no. It is in the ‘too difficult box’ . We have a strange 2 vote system in Scotland with a ‘list’ where the Scottish labour leader gets defeated in her constituency but still gets a seat. Not the only one as I have no idea how many made it on the ‘list’. In fact I don’t really understand how the list works. Not many people I have spoken to seem to know either. But It does seem to avoid FPTP so you get minor parties supporting bigger ones so i suppose avoiding too left or too right types. That I think is the problem , getting a fair system that everyone understands and gives them the government they want. Not that I know what the answer is!
STV
How about the Swiss system? Everything is voted on. I think the entire political system around the world is broken.
Richard, two points:
First, I hope I won’t be thought big-headed to say that the solution you have proposed here bears similarities with something a posted here a while back (I cannot now find that post) concerning a “Progressive Front/Rainbow Coalition”, with a 2 year remit totally to reconstruct our Constitution, based on a year consulting on proposals to be put to a Referendum, followed by a year implementing those proposals, followed by a General Election carried out under that new system, all buttressed by a Fundamental Law Act, and with Caroline Lucas as PM – both to reward talent and integrity, and to exclude the “Casablanca syndrome” of “the usual suspects” from the established Parties.
Secondly, after re-reading the Chris Hedge article I posted above, I cannot help feeling that the question you have posed above has an incorrect conjunction in it: not “The end of politics as we know it OR the grand coalition of hope that we would wish for?”, but “The end of politics as we know it AND the grand coalition of hope that we would wish for.”
For the “Grand Coalitions” that seem to be being suggested in, say, Austria, is really only a gathering together of the old “Casablanca syndrome” players (If I am not making myself clear on this, I’m sure you all recall the wonderful police Inspector, played by Clause Rains, who, having seen Rick (Bogart) kill Conrad Veidt, tells his constables to “round up the usual suspects” – hence “the Casablanca Syndrome”) whereas hedges, and Ralph Nader, and commentators here make it clear that they now have zero faith in the old players, “the usual suspects”.
Instead, Chris Hedges and Ralph Nader are calling on civic activity and mass civil disobedience to circumvent the faltering and decayed political Parties and state structures, which Nader crystallises in the following quote “He called on the left to reach out to the right in a joint campaign to dismantle the corporate state.”, asking Bernie Sanders to lead this.
Given the clear intention to stitch up the electoral system so that they cannot be beaten, and actions taken in that direction by the Tory Party, I believe Nader’s call is applicable here too.
I further believe that we do need a “Grand Coalition” here, (and I would still have it headed up by Caroline Lucas, for the reasons given above), but one deriving from grass-roots pressure from below, expressed through campaigns of civil disobedience, and producing a “Progressive Front/Rainbow Coalition” of all forces that believe in true democratic accountability and change, but forswear not only violence, but, equally importantly, the nonsense of neo-liberalism.
This means the Front SHOULD encompass everything from “One Nation” Tories (they ARE still there) to the Corbynista Labour Party, and include the sane elements of the Lib-Dems (NOT the Orange Book fanatics, but the Charles Kennedy sort), the Greens, of course, Plaid, SNP, even the more rational elements of UKIP – the Carswell faction – to work together to burn neo-liberalism out of the body politic, and recreate a politics that truly derives from the people – who thereby become “subjects” not “objects, “actors in”, not “acted upon”, which is what we have now, as though we were rabbits in some cosmetic testing laboratory.
Final point – PR. It has its faults, but it would surely have avoided the scandal of the Tories gaining a majority on just 24/6% of the vote – a majority they would have lost, had only 900 (yes 900!! – see
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/general-election-results-just-900-5682492#ICID=sharebar_twitterhttp://) people voted differently, and where UKIP piled up votes – more than the SNP – to be rewarded with just 1 seat, where the SNP got 56.
Originally I strongly supported Jenkins’s AV+, which preserved the constituency link in an intelligent manner. But now – enough is enough, we go for straight STV, both for the Commons and the new Senate. Proper elections, properly proportional. PR works well enough in e.g. Germany, which can hardly be said to have had unstable Government since the War, and where extremist Parties need to clear a bar of 5% to gain entry to the Bundestag. And as to the constituency link, well, there ARE constituencies in Germany, but the PR system means that you CAN hope to cast a vote that will elect someone of your political persuasion – something Labour voters in Sussex, and Tory voters in most of the North East can only dream about.
Andrew
I am quite sure you influenced my thinking
Richard
i am a fan of AMS, the system used in Wales and Scotland and also Germany. It is adjustable for the degree of proportionality, in Germany 100% proportional above the 5% threshold. If it is a problem someone losing on constituency list being elected by list, and I am not sure it is, you can make it illegal to stand on both lists.
STV has the disadvantage that a parties decision on how many candidates to stand in a seat can affect the outcome, meaning surges or slumps in support during the campaign don’t get reflected in the outcome.
Overall, whatever voting system we adopt, it has to bring about a government that can govern.
What we have now is FPTP. Means nobody gets what they want. I am not political but surely we need a voting system that gives what peopl want . Fewer parties would help.