There are likely to be two aberrational political events this week. One is the return of an SNP government in Scotland with a large majority in a system designed to prevent such an event occurring. The other is the election of Sadiq Khan as Mayor of London by a reasonable margin, if polling is corrct. That the latter need not be the case is something that we are now, of course, familiar with.
One of these events is designed not to happen. The other, in the context of what is supposedly happening in the Labour Party and its fortunes nationally, seems an unlikely outcome.
Three quick thoughts. The first is that just as pre-2008 'normality' has gone from the economy so has it now gone from politics. I think we would be wise to assume neither will return. The era of consensus between two major political parties (which survived the change in opinion in 1980) would appear to have gone, and I suggest for good (interpreting that word in two ways).
Second then, the appearance of relatively strong popular agreement on a candidate or party that may be on display in these two elections will be misleading. The local elections will tell a very different story across the country as a whole, suggesting that consensus may be becoming harder to find.
Third, in that case we have to rethink how politics turns into government, at whatever level is being considered. If voters are rejecting the old consensus (and I see every reason why they should) then there are real risks trying to preserve it. The chance of doing so will, in any event, reduce if the Conservative Party has a massive fall out reaction to the EU referndum vote, as again seems possible.
My point is that consensus coalitions may cause harm. They look like, because they are, attempts to preserve a dying order. It is hardly surprising that the appeal of entering into them is declining for minority parties. But in that case, what next?
Again, three idea. First, electoral reform has to happen. It is just not possible to sustain the argument for first past the post in a multi-party system.
Second, old tribalism has to be consigned to history. Both the big parties will be punished (and Labour already is in Scotland, at least) for not appreciating this. The need for partnerships is essential if politics is to reflect the reality of what people are thinking. Despite the Corbyn membership boost for Labour the reality is that most people are not party focussed in their political thinking and can see strengths and weaknesses in a range of parties and candidates.
Third, new consensus building is needed, but it will have a very different feel to the old consensus around political economic ordering that has dominated debate since WW2. Now is the time for social and environmental consensus building too, at least between parties, with the recognition that no one view of society, that largely reflects the interests of its elite, may emerge as a result.
Is that too much to hope for?
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:
Agreed, I like your optimism 🙂
btw I noticed a typo here: ‘Again, three idea.’
Keep up the good work
Will Wales vote UKIP – it seems quite possible…and I presume that would confirm your views?
A major shortcoming, in my view, in UK elections is that the policies on offer from each party are a ‘set menu’ rather than àla carte, i.e. voters can’t choose which mix of policies they prefer. Coalition government should by its nature broaden the range of policies adopted, through deal making. Quite apart of course from its basic representational rightness.
I like this analogy as it describes very well the limitations of the current political party system, which assumes we should trust our fate to a small number of elected representatives from an even smaller range of political perspectives.
An educated population in a democratic state should not have such limitations placed upon it, and I think this is the cause of much of the current political tensions in that consensus can no longer be found in the very outdated party political system that we have.
The pick and mix approach can be achieved in many ways, for example through direct democracy on all local and national political decisions of importance or through proportional representation with a much broader spread of political parties and policies to choose from.
But first the current system has to break down completely, which is I believe what we are starting to see and therefore should embrace it not fight against it (no matter what short term discomfort it may cause).
‘people are not party focussed in their political thinking and can see strengths and weaknesses in a range of parties and candidates’
Excellent point. Should be short but required reading for every economics, social and political studies student and every aspiring politician. We live in a critical time facing combined ecological, economic, social and political melt downs. To prevent mass global poverty, resource depletion, irreversible global warming and major social unrest we must get to grips with alternative thinking that you advocate.
I have made this point before, but I think it is worth repeating in light of your post
You say that there has been some form of consensus since WW2. I believe that to be false, in this sense. From 1945 to 1979 or thereabouts there was a consensus. It did not mean what your piece seems to assume however. The consensus, which is still the dominant view of the majority, IMO, was that strict adherence to your own analysis and prescription leads to division and ultimately to war. What is rendered as “consensus” was in fact a compromise. It recognised irreconcilable divisions and took the view that nobody could get their own way completely. There was general acceptance that a mixed economy was the best we could manage, and a centrist political profile reflected that economic position. The right still instinctively preferred a laissez faire approach: the left an engaged state. Those differences are always with us, but in light of the experience of two world wars, and in face of the fact that there is NO way of making all our interests coincide, a pragmatic solution was sought which satisfied nobody completely, but which we could all live with
On both left and right, the charge of betrayal or sell out was levelled, by those who could not bear such a compromise. There is truth in it, too, for the ideologically pure on both sides. But the people then (and now, I believe) recognised the failings in both ideological positions and enthusiastically adopted the post war consensus. It served us well. Living standards rose, inequality declined, the very rich remained very privileged, but the the ordinary person benefited and so did the very poor.
In essence the consensus was an agreement on aims: the dispute on means remained, but that was the nature of the political differences
That changed with Thatcher. She openly characterised those on the right who accepted the compromise as “traitors” and “wets”. What that meant was a rejection of those consensual aims: the opening shot of the class war. But she and her successors are careful to maintain the rhetoric of the post war consensus, nonetheless. And that is because they know that very few support a return to naked ideology and its dangers.
Since 1979 we no longer have a consensus. It is arguable that a second consensus took its place, in that labour adopted the analysis of the extreme right wing, so that TINA became true in electoral terms. But this was not a true consensus: rather the split became one between the elite and the rest, not between left and right. We are told that the old right/left spectrum no longer has meaning: that narrative is part of the process. It is not true, as success of Corbyn and Sanders shows. It is only true if you focus on the elite as if they represent the people. They don’t. But it is true that the obfuscation of what has happened has allowed that narrative to take hold. People have lost faith in our system because they are confused about what a left wing position actually is, by now. Their lived experience bears little relation to the picture of the world they are daily exposed to, and that void is avidly exploited by a corporate media which presents a very narrow range of discourse
I do not believe PR will resolve that problem, of itself. I do not believe that “normality” has gone from the economy or from politics: quite the reverse. What I see is a growing demand for a return to the post war consensus, which people are gradually realising is not in play now. The recognition is slow and uncertain for they are not given a coherent na”rrative to consider: it is buried under the consensual rhetoric and the divisive reality. We are all in it together”, is such rhetoric: it is always a right wing lie.
We should not conclude that consensual politics is over, because the fact that its language is used demonstrates that the powerful know it is not, so far as the people are concerned. Most, I think, do recognise that a free market has benefits: but is dangerous without strong democratic control. Most, I think, have returned to the idea that essential services under public ownership and control has benefits: but is not appropriate to all and every enterprise. And this is where we were in 1945.
We have allowed the extreme right to conduct their experiment. It has failed, without question and without doubt. That does not mean the extreme left should now have their turn (though it would be no more disastrous that what we have just tried, IMO).
What we do need to do is recognise that left/right reflects the duality of our nature. I say this without shame. The extreme right ultimately found on a view of human nature as essentially selfish: it underpins all they say and do. The extreme left also found on an underlying analysis that we are fundamentally cooperative. Truth is we are both, as individuals and as a social group. Any political or economic programme which pretends that we are one or the other will fail. Inevitably. We lurch from the one being in the ascendant and then the other. The post war consensus recognised the duality, and it worked better.
Whether we have PR or FPTP, does not matter as much as this. It is of course more complex that a binary characterisation: there are subtleties and nuances that does not capture. But as a basic approach it seems to be more useful and more achievable than atomisation.
But you are decribing what became two successive narratives, which were the foundation of governmewnt for 70 years
I would entirely agree the second has niot been rejected, but that is not the point, there was concensus in what was on offer
And when I asked for a new consensus I think that at least one of the offerings will look like an envoronmenatally enlightended form of the psot-war consensus
That would be my wish for a better society
But because there is a right wing centre of gravity now I do think there will be two distinct offerings
What troubles me is that there will be one extreme winning because of a failure to build an alternative consensus
I am indeed describing successive situation. One I see as a genuine consensus, the other as a facsimile of a consensus. As I said, the political class achieved a consensus within their elite, which excluded a huge constituency: that does not fall within the definition, as I see it.
I do not think the second narrative was ever accepted as such. The continued use of post war rhetoric to disguise its nature was successful: but I think folk are starting to understand what happened and I think it is in process of being rejected because of that.
There will always be an extreme right wing: and an extreme left wing. I do not think either represents the majority, and neither do they. The left wing accept that, and attribute it to “false consciousness” or some variant of that. The right wing also accept it but they deal with their problem by pretending they are not right wing extremists. They have got away with that for ages: I do not believe they are the “centre” nor that they have the centre of gravity, if by that you mean widespread support.
You mentioned Scotland. What we see here is a genuinely centre party and as soon as the people had that offer, they took it. That is the problem for all of the other Westminster parties at present and it is the basis for my belief. Situation where you are is different: but not that different, IMO. We are not aliens to each other, these two polities.
If and when a similar centrist party emerges ( which might even be labour under Corbyn) I believe the same will happen across the UK. For I do not think for one moment that the people actually want the kind of society neoliberals offer.
I accept your point that neoliberals has never really won hearts and minds of most people – if they knew what it really was
The other, in the context of what is supposedly happening in the Labour Party and its fortunes nationally, seems an unlikely outcome.
Not when you look at what’s actually happening in the Conservative Party.
I question for how long there will be a Cobnsiervative Party as we have known it
The Dave / Boris split is very real
But parties have survived bigger issues
No – it is not too much to hope for at all.
I’d like to see those involved take a project like approach to their job where the role is to get as many relevant views as possible and work through them in order to get something that works.
All the parties could take their part in this approach – when will politicians stop promising things and just say it as it is?
The electorate also need to play their part in what you describe. Instead of looking at politicians and expecting ready-made answers, they should be looking at politicians who will work with everyone and whom will work to develop solutions to problems – not have so many ‘here’s one I made earlier’.
It can happen.
The trouble is would our media let us discover it?
Would we recognise it if this new way of working is within our midst?
The media is not all controlling
Although I do worry whether the web will forever remain neutral
If it doesn’t I’ll be an early victim, I suspect
All I can say to that is that in my attempted conversations with people, the media view dominates – The Daily Mail, The Sun etc., all seem to be driving the usual views.
Even the more left leaning papers like the Observer/the Guardian are prone to incomplete explanations of problems.
The media also ramps up the differences between parties – even parties that could potentially work together. It cynically ‘exposes’ any plans for parties to work together rather than explaining or at least exploring the possibilities this might bring to people’s lives.
When the media polarises the political economy so much, it is hard to see where a consensus that can change things can emerge from.
Depressing
And probably more true than I want to admit
I visited a friend last night – a graduate with a good degree – and noted the Mail. She laughed and said the Guardian was beyond her
I was dismayed
Actually in rural parts I am sure she quite agrees with the Mail
More depressing still
This post is yet another example of required reading by me! I was particularly taken by Fiona’s contribution and this sentence from her really had me nodding: “Most, I think, do recognise that a free market has benefits: but is dangerous without strong democratic control.”
That ‘strong democratic control’ could possibly be undertaken via a form of direct democracy where each and every person of voting age has the ability to vote online, either from home or from public places such as public libraries.
Interestingly over on The Conversation blogsite in the US there was an item published today (May 2nd) entitled: How universal design can help every voter cast a ballot. It looked at voting machines originally produced for voters with disabilities that could be used by everyone: (closing last two paragraphs)
“All New Hampshire polling places will use the system again in November’s general election, including for the presidential race. It will be the primary system for people who need an accommodation to be able to vote, but will also be available for use by voters without disabilities. That’s a big step toward the goal of having all voting machines usable by all people.
Universal design is necessary in voting. According to the US Census, one in five Americans has a disability. Even disabilities people might not think of as causing voting problems can: voting machines can be set up too high for easy use from a wheelchair, for example. It is every citizen’s right to have accessible elections; in addition, it is the law. Universally designed voting technologies will have the greatest impact in accomplishing this goal. Making independent, private voting accessible for all voters regardless of their ability or disability is achievable now.”
‘private voting accessible for all voters’ resonates in my mind very much with this Tax Research item.
Interesting
Thanks
And there was me thinking all your posts had already been vetted by GCHQ:)
Surely at least, we already have a consensus for a neutral web.
The political consensus is prevented by the ideologues of the current government being too blinkered to consider any practical logic that doesn’t accord with their preconceived notions.
Which unfortunately leaves the non ideologues with little to do except polish their pitchforks.
It is a pity that local government has become more and more party orientated – because there there is a much more obvious scope for consensus. As I mentioned to a prospective UKIP local councillor?!
I always presume that everytthing I do is security vetted
It seems wise to do so
I lived and worked in Shetland for a little over 3 years. Apart from the sheer beauty of the place, on the rare days the sun shone and the wind calmed, what struck me most was that so few of the local councillors were aligned to any specific political party and that decisions were taken by the independents, and, in the main, they were good decisions. Compromise and consensus would appear to have been the order of the day.
I think Fiona’s historical analysis is pretty much on the button – but I understand where you’re coming from Richard – or rather heading towards.
My own take is that in the forseeable future (the next 5-7 years maybe) there is an increasing risk of LESS consensus, with a fragmentation towards extremes and a hardening of politcal ideologies of all flavours.
The Tories digging in their heels on monetary policy and minimising the State, the PLP expanding the split between its Blairites and Corbynistas, UKIP saying ‘we told you so’ whatever the outcome of the referendum, with maybe even the BNP/EDL factions gaining more support among disaffected white male unemployed (as with Trump) and the Green Party garnering ever more support among enlightened younger voters predominantly concerned about the environment.
Add to this cocktail Scottish independence, growing Welsh dissatisfaction with Welsh Labour plus heaven only knows what’s happening in NI …. and there you have it. Voters fragmenting into whatever political corner they find most represents their fears and aspirations.
The pragmatic solution is, of course, PR but I don’t think the English are yet grown up enough for that. They like identifiably ‘strong leaders’ with middle-English accents and bourgeois sartorial elegance. Beards are also a no-no, (especially among female contenders – lol)! That may sound facetious but I fear there is a grain of truth in it. Class still exerts a subconscious influence on attitudes at both ends of the English political spectrum. Unfortunately Brexit will only serve to strengthen this social ossification, emphasising our separateness from the more fuid European societies.
So, IMHO, no consencus in sight. That doesn’t negate the need to keep on putting bulding blocks in place, however small. For there will come a time when the old order will crumble beyond repair and, out of necessity, people will (hopefully) veer towards cooperation as the basis for a workable concensus. Hope springs eternal.
I tried all the other variables but I meant CONSENSUS.
Excellent piece. I have shared a link to it on aspiblog.wordpress.com and like many of your other commenters believe that it should be required reading. As well as keeping an eye on Sadiq Khan and Zac Goldsmith’s results in the mayoral election I will be looking to see just how well Sian Berry fares.
I like Sian
She’s a good campaigner with good ideas
Politics needs people like her
No chance of a new consensus when we predictably continue to see capital looking after capital at the expense of labour yet again.
Unsurprisingly here is the first concrete example I’ve seen of a major plc seeking to recover the cost of the new “living wage” by reducing the wages of others on probably not much more.
So no reduction to shareholders, directors or senior managers – no change here then!
There will be no new consensus while capital and labour are clearly in direct conflict, because the labour does not own the capital.
https://www.change.org/p/living-wage-should-not-mean-pay-cuts-for-loyal-tesco-workers?