Labour had a vote on whether it should back proportional representation yesterday. This was the result:
As Neil Lawson at Compass said in a mail last night:
During his leadership election campaign, ]Keir Starmer] said: 'we've got to address the fact that millions of peoples vote in safe seats, and they feel their votes don't count'.
Well this week was your chance, Keir, and you did nothing.
So despite 83% of Labour members wanting PR, despite over 300 CLPs passing pro-PR resolutions and it being the most well-supported motion at conference, you did nothing but support a voting system that only works for the benefit of the Tories.
We all know and expect the Tories to undermine democracy now. That's a given. But the fact is that the Labour Party - and most especially its trade union members - are also seeking to deny the people of this country the right to choose the politicians and governments that they want.
The old hardcore of politics is opposed to democracy. They do not trust us with choice. They still want power for themselves and not people. And those trade unions who blocked this move deserve to be condemned just as much for doing so as the Tories who do the same thing should be because both are opposed to people having a choice, and I can't differentiate them for that reason.
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:
Tories in perpetuity then. A failing democracy, both within the Labour Party and Parliamentary. What does my “little” vote mean? Only any use in a marginal constituency?
This is the next logical step after abolishing OMOV for leadership elections. If you don’t trust your party members to elect the leader on an equal basis, how can you trust the public to elect MPs on an equal basis. Some votes are clearly worth more than others, and in particular the union bosses know best. Back to beer and sandwiches in smoke filled rooms (these days probably more smoked salmon and prosecco, and less smoke).
Was it the trade union *members* who voted against? Or was it the TU leaders in their comfy sinecures?
Leaders
Proof if ever it was needed that those at the top in the Labour movement are simply still fighting yesterday’s battles, with yesterdays methods.
It’s always about power isn’t it just power – not what you can do with it or being creative.
When your apparent saviour hasn’t got a clue how they could help you more, you know that you are in trouble.
The Labour ‘movement’ looks increasingly like a bowel movement to me. Need I say more!
Understood. You needn’t say more. I wish I could disagree.
Still (just about) a card-carrying party member. Woke up this morning to this result, both disgusted again (I honestly consider Starmer every bit as bad as Johnson) and wondering if all this personal misery is worth paying party dues for. I have had my criticisms of Corbyn (and even more of Milliband before him) but they pale into near insignificance in comparison with the red Tories (and I don’t use this epithet lightly) dominating the PLP and the party offices today. From what I understand, some of the union delegates voted against this motion having originally recieved instruction from their respective GS to vote in favour for it. The behaviour of the union delegates in this matter will only hurt the union movement.
Unions, just like the Labour Party, should be the bastions that speak for and protect the working class but I have to agree unconditionally here with Richard – this behaviour is an anachronistic grab for relevance and power that denies progress toward greater democracy. Johnson and the Tories must howling with laughter and glee at this result.
How to get to PR? Enough people split away from the Labour party and form a viable left party that gains sufficient traction to contest all key marginals Labour needs to win power. This isn’t about winning in the first instance but being the stone in the Labour party shoe and raising the threshold over which it has to step to gain power. Labour’s only route to power will then be to enter into coalition with parties in favour of PR. After this the political landscape will shift. People on the left need to lose their squeamishness and remember that, in the words of the American writer Chris Hedges, ‘politics is a game of fear’. You find your opponents weakness and exploit it mercilessly.
Richard Johnson of QMU suggests PR would mean no more Labour Governments ever, will mean permanent Lib Dem rule, that Lib Dems are essentially conservative, and that FPTP has always given Labour proportionatly more seats than its votes merit. He also seems to say people have never consciously voted for a ‘left wing’ government except in 1945. But this seems to say that it’s good to have a ‘left wing’ government even if people didnt want it.
It has been the conventional wisdom in both major parties – that FTPT gives us governments with the power to effect big changes. The messy inter-party negotiations in Germany are not appealing. But our system delivered the stupidest referendum, the stupidly hardest brexit, the demolition of manufacturing in the 80’s, the endless reconfigurations of the NHS. Even programmes such as Sure Start, sub regional regeneration programmes are instigated and reversed even when they were working . Political tinkering without proper analysis and consideration, just ‘because we can’.
The Greens and other parties on the left and rignt would presumably gain under PR , not just Lib Dems.
Surely the widespread ‘wasted vote’ feeling in safe seats does need fixing if we are to say we are a proper democracy.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/27/proportional-representation-labour-party-lib-dems
The assumption behind that is that voting behaviour will not change and no new parties will emerge
And politely, they’re crass assumptions
One reason the German inter-party negotiations are so messy is that there is only 1 1/2 %age points between the two front runners. Between them they have a majority of seats. But it could have been a lot messier, which might have been better for Germany, given the mess Merkel left.
Funny people mention Germany as a evidence that proportional representation doesnt work. Half of Germany’s system is fptp. AFD and CDU are regional parties now. In many regions, CDU struggled to get 15% of the vote. But were given a helping hand because fptp save them in the local seats. Even when they received less votes in the fptp vote than proportional, then gained more seats.
Things may change next year when a more progressive Unison leadership may support PR, but don’t hold any breaths as the other unions are pretty neolithic in their desire to hold power as PSR says.
The previous posts make fair criticisms as does the blog. But. For the most part they criticise symptoms not causes.
The structure of trade unions is such as to ensure that those in elected office tend to remain once elected. Those elected as MPs, with some exceptions, tend to stay as MPs.
PR in all its forms would not address the MPs – as for the Unions – read next.
What might be better is: elected a couple of times – then out (union officials and MPs). This could/should start in the unions at shop-steward level (I remember a Postie on a train complaining to me about the stwards being in managments pocket – I tried to convince him to stand (or get together with his mates etc) – not much progress). David van Reybrouck in his book “Against Elections” covers this territory. As PSR notes: “its all about power” etc. Well, if that power is very fleeting – 10 – 12 years at most – then back amongst the serfs – it might focus minds.
So how to get ministers with enough experience?
How about all Political Advisers must have MP experience? On second thoughts no, we’ll just get the last lot of incompetents advising the current crop of incompetents.
We would be just as well getting Joe from down the pub in for a year, then it can be Harrys turn. After all they’ve been putting the world to rights every Friday night since time immemorial.
The same applies, a fortiori, to another favourite option of those anxious to break the hold of “incumbent advantage”, namely sortition.
Alas, what would happen, even under the idea of “two terms only”, is that unelected, and so unaccountable, civil servants would become the real rulers.
Under sortition, I suspect the partial fiction of member power would become a total fiction, apparent to all, leading either to a total lack of interest in politics, or to rebellion, possibly armed.
For remember, under sortition there would be no elections, only selections, with the relationship to political Parties even less clear.
Who could stand? Anyone, one would hope. Or from a Party list? So Parties would still dominate, requiring people to volunteer.
Or entirely randomly selected from the Electoral Roll (or whatever replaced it), with a duty to accept, so like jury service, in which case the problem of divining the public will, with no Parties or elections, would be acute.
Modern political Parties came into existence after the 1832 Great Reform Act to deal with the problem of moving from a gentleman’s club version of elections, where everyone knew almost everyone else, with some Rotten Boroughs having an electorate as low as 2 voters, to having to deal with larger numbers of unknown voters. Sir Robert Peel’s 1835 Tamworth Manifesto is a key moment here, effectively marking the birth of both modern Party politics and the Conservative Party.
So, the REAL problem is education, political education, to address which I suggest a similar approach to candidature to that proposed in the Northcote Trevelyan 1854 reforms of of the civil service, turning it from a completely amateur old boys’ network, with plenty of scope for blithering idiots from the upper class to obtain well-paid sinecures, into a profession accessed by examination.
In a word, people who want to be MP’s should have to study such things as how government finance works, as well as constitutional, parliamentary and legislative realities.
Indeed, why not make it part of the National Curriculum, and a compulsory A level, so everyone graduating from secondary school could then stand, if they wished?
Two final points: the content of this exam CANNOT be left to politicians and political Parties, but must be on the basis of the widest possible consultation with voters and expert input.
Secondly, the same allowances granted now to the poorly educated and those with learning difficulties should, of course, also apply here. A slow learner may still prove to be an acute commentator and legislator, perhaps even superior to some of those now in the Commons.
If readers of this object to my proposal, fine, but please come up with a solution that addresses the woeful ignorance and blinkered thinking of far too many members of the Commons.
I think a compulsory A level general studies on government and related issues (tax, etc) and equivalents in other courses would be a great idea
And I do not think it would squeeze out academic study
“minister with enough experience”…..experience of what? Government?
Mendacious Fat had little experience of anything when appointed Foreign Sec ditto many/most/all of the no-marks in gov now
As for knowledge of gov – Cam-moron had a PPE – fat lot of good that did.
We need to start asking the right questions..
What do we want from gov’?
Who should be in gov?
Any time limits?
Directly elected? (proportional FPTP, what?)
etc etc.
But can’t I hope for ministers with experience?
Mandatory reselection for MPs would be a good starting point.
Unfortunately Corbyn failed to push it through.
It would keep the MPs “honest”.
No guaranteed jobs for life.
Be careful what you wish for.
“ The Money and Pensions Service (MaPS) is an arm’s-length body of the UK Government that works with stakeholders across a range of sectors to help improve financial education provision at school, at home and in the community.”
The resources for schools which they promote include the 14-16 framework published by Young Money which “provides resources and training to anyone teaching young people money management skills. We are a trusted provider, supporting schools, colleges and universities.”
It says,
“I know the different taxes I must pay now and in the future and some of the ways this money is used by government through public spending.
I can explain how taxation and public spending affects me and others, and how I can have my say about how taxation is raised and spent by local and national government e.g. voting, campaigning.”
And from London Institute of Banking & Finance – teacher support materials
“ We all have to pay tax on our earnings. This means that we have to give part of what we earn to the government.
Income tax is used to pay for services provided by the government, such as education and health care.
The good news is that we do not have to pay tax on all of our earnings. Each person is allowed to earn a certain amount of money free of tax. “
Not good….
For a great many reasons
“The era when one party got 40 per cent or more of the vote is over…. We have a multi-party system where the big parties have many fewer seats than they used to — and that means that only minor changes in voter behaviour can create completely new constellations.”
The remark above was made by Olaf Scholz (to the FT). Scholz is the winning candidate for Chancellor to replace Angela Merkel, and represented the Social Democrats in the German general election. Since 2018 Scholz has been Vice-Chancellor and Minister of Finance in Merkel’s coalition government. It appears he has simply been accepted by the German electorate as the natural political heir of her immense legacy. You can see why.
Now ompare that with Britain’s bitter, faction-ridden, hapless, recalcitrant, self-serving, uniform Unionist Party commitment to FPTP, to dogmatic, authoritarian Unionism and to Brexit. Every single choice a self-destructive, divisive selcetion of the worst outcomes, for the worst reasons, by the worst cabals. Everywhere you look, Britain is in advanced state of political, administrative, constitutional, executive and parliamentary decay and decrepitude; represented by an endemic, senile lack of political imagination or insight.
I think the best we can hope for is that both main parties stay polling at around the 35%
mark and neither can form a majority government.
Labour will then be forced into a coalition deal with PR as the deal maker.
I live in hope. (just!)
John, your second paragraph overstates the result. Scholtz only got around a quarter of the vote, similar, though a little more, than his nearest opponent. I don’t think this translates into acceptance by the German electorate as Merkel’s natural heir. He is a terrible choice: the author, along with Merkel, of Germany’s austerity program. The best thing other contries can do is either to push Germany into accepting federalization or dump the Euro.
As for your final paragraph, especially the last sentence, it expresses what seems to be the case, unfortunately.
“[T]he author, along with Merkel, of Germany’s austerity program”.
First, your observation above rather supports my contention that Scholz is indeed “the natural heir” to Merkel. Second, since the issue at stake was that “only minor changes in voter behaviour can create completely new constellations”, it seems to me your objection simply begs the question, to claim he “only got around a quarter of the vote”. Well, yes. Scholz has 206 seats, the largest number for any Party in the election; the next largest party, CDU-CSU had 196. This is how it works – it isn’t FPTP, this is how it works.
My observations on the German election was descriptive, not prescriptive.
I know how German proportional representation works. My point is that 1 1/2% is quite close even for such a scheme to support your contention. Scholz is undoubtedly Merkel’s heir but to me the vote shows that the public is not necessarily as supportive of this as one might otherwise expect. I took your comments as offering an interpretation of the results, not simply a descriptive account.
By “descriptive” I was distinguishing my “interpretation” of the facts as disinterestedly as I was able (I am not sure your delicate point here is robust). I was not seeking to offer an opinion whether Scholz was a good choice, a “terrible” choice (your opinion), or somewhere in between. I do not feel I am sufficiently well informed (either about Scholz, or the realistic options available) to offer a useful opinion.
You accept that Scholz is Merkel’s heir, which was essentially my point. His party took the most seats in a proportional system; which requires a coalition and therefore does not have the decisiveness of a British election; and Scholz is best placed to become Chancellor. That was the substantive thrust of my comment. Furthermore, I did carefully phrase my reference to Scholz: “It appears he has simply been accepted by the German electorate as the natural political heir of her immense legacy.” ‘It appears’ qualified the ‘acceptance’ of the German people of him as Merkel’s heir; hence I feel picking the bones out of my comment looks a little like a quibble.
‘Everywhere you look, Britain is in advanced state of political, administrative, constitutional, executive and parliamentary decay and decrepitude; represented by an endemic, senile lack of political imagination or insight.’
Flipping heck Mr. Warren!
Be careful, otherwise Geearkey might start to lose faith in you! Easy now!
Amused….but let’s show respect all round!
Richard
I can assure you that I was merely teasing.
Most respectfully,
PSR
🙂
“Be careful, otherwise Geearkey might start to lose faith in you! Easy now!”
You have finally completely lost me. Richard may understand, but I do not have that slightest idea what your remark means (and candidly, I confess I have little curiosity!).
There was a joke in there – honest
There was even a compliment in it – honest too
I promise Richard, and PSR I took no offence; I was just bemused.
You were name checked by the person called ‘Geearkey’ John because of your calm and well-informed contributions in comparison to others and mine especially where I let my frustration spill over.
I quoted your words because I noted that this awful Government even test your patience – that’s all – no harm meant.
Still baffled. I was perfectly calm – and measured.
Don’t worry John
You were genuinely being complimented
Hi PSR
For clarification (as it seems I wasn’t clear in my opening gambit on That Other Thread) – when I posted “I have to say, I’m really disappointed with this approach from anyone in a position of economic authority (or who has any such ambition)”, I was referring to Rachel Reeves, not you. I was a little bemused by your rebuke for that reason. I only posted in reply to your bit of the thread because I wanted to offer support to Alan Stanton on his view of pointless abuse, but my opening statement (before my disclaimer in bold) addressed the topic of the thread. Sorry that led you to the wrong end of the stick, but I guess that’s the internet for you!
Anyhoo, hopefully that clears things up. As you were
I’m a member of Compass, and will be joining their online meeting tonight at 18.00 coming from the Labour conference. It will be “interesting” to hear Neal’s insight into what went on. I imagine he’s justifiably furious. I will be sitting here with a bottle of wine to calm me down.
It looks like the jibe about union dinosaurs is correct. Only a fool can believe FPTP actually works in favour of progressive politics in the UK. The only people who’ve ever benefited from this system are the tories. I read the article written by the QMU professor and my first thought was how is this idiot a professor of politics?
Victory dependent on marginal seats, a withering away of old Labour seats with the end of heavy indusrty, the non Tory vote split between LDs and Labour in some constituencies, control of most of the media by the right; and that’s before the Tories rig the vote with their forthcoming voter suppression measures.
As I’ve said before, the best ally the Tories have is the factionalism and tribalism of (some) of the left.
I’ve known Neal for some time.
I am darned sure he’s furious.
What every one is forgetting is that over 30% did not vote at the last election and that number shows how meny people beleve it is not worth voting. That’s a failure of the all the parties and FPTP.
Absolutely. The opposition presenting an attractive vision of the future, one that gets out the vote, has to be the first priority. The failure to do so to date is one reason why the opposition leader’s performance in the last year or so has been so disappointing.
There were over 47 million people registered to vote in the 2019 general election, but 33% did not vote. The government is planning to erect obstacles to voting, allegedly to prevent largely imaginary electoral fraud, but that can only reduce the turnout. It is no accident that we can expect the measures to obstruct and deter people who are more likely to vote for parties other than the Conservatives. You could imagine them reintroducing a property qualification, if they thought they could get away with it.
Turnouts have generally been falling in general elections over the long term, and compared with forty or fifty years ago, quite sharply. We cannot be certain about the reasons, but the FPTP system, where voters may find themselves in a permanent minority in a given constituency for decades, or even life; must be less likely to vote. From the voter’s perspective, their vote does not count. FPTP, in the 21st century (the digital age) has the stale smell of the Rotten Borough.
I’m so glad to see someone else pointing this out, I’m fed up of arguing with “centerists” who adamantly state that Labour have to shift to the centre-right in order to attract “soft tory” voters to get power, blithely ignoring that even in more recent elections, where a greater percentage of registered voters got out and voted, we still see a cohort of 30+% not voting!
And I, unlike those I argue with, don’t believe everyone in that cohort would still not vote if presented with an actual alternative to what we currently have on offer.
There is an assumption that the 30% who don’t vote would predominantly vote Labour. Perhaps a majority would, and probably enough to make a difference, but I expect there will also be a large number of people who would choose to vote another way.
But if we must have a Conservative government, I’d rather it was based on a 90% turnout, not 67%.
The Conservatives seem to see benefit in reducing the franchise, not expanding it, so everyone else has to push the other way.
Not forgotten. I made a comment similar to this, here not long ago:
In the 2019 General Election, the total registered electorate was 47.6m. The turnout was 67.3%. The total population of the UK in 2019 was 66.65m. Removing the population under voting age leaves around 52m potential voters. 30m people voted in 2019. The Conservative Party won an 80 seat majority with just 43.6 % of the vote (just under 14m votes). This means Boris Johnson and the new Conservative Government had total control over Parliament with the support of only 29% of voters, and less than 27% of the population entitled to vote. This is the essence of FPTP, and why the major political Parties cling to it like limpets; absolute control may be achieved through support of a very narrow, distinctly minority constituency; the Conservative constituency is that produced by forty years of neoliberalism, the core vote of ‘Thatcher’s children’; by no means a majority of the population, but organised, purposeful and wholly self-interested. In the case of Conservatives in 2019, a weak Labour Party lost even its ‘Red Wall’ seats in the North of England. Even if the Labour Party was strong (which it isn’t); the Conservatives may calculate that they can safely establish a Conservative majority in Parliament with around 30% (+/-2%) electoral support (14m-17m votes), depending on circumstances. This is the cheap price of total and unassailable control of Parliament; even then it is surprisingly shaky through Conservatism’s endemic flaws. It is noticeable that the Conservatives have recently taken to a form of open ‘pork barrel’ politics, as a result. The clever piece of the promotional self interest of the Conservative Party, is that the Red Wall constituencies are currently being schooled to understand that the reward for Conservative support will be carefully and narrowly targeted, highly selective constituent public spending by the Conservative government. The latent corollary is that voting Labour in a constituency is essentially a vote to be suddenly forgotten by a Conservative government. At least, the dangling, implicit promise is cheap for the Conservatives to make, or break.
Snap.
A call to support PR without defining what is actually intended deserves to fail. What is commonly described as PR does not necessarily increase the power of the electorate, and is often a mask to hide an entrenchment of political power to the established party machines.
In the election of an MP, the STV means that the candidate with the most popular appeal is elected and permits a voter to give their first preference to a less popular candidate without “wasting” their vote. Extending this to multi-seat constituencies (as in the Irish Dail and Scottish council elections) gives a parliament that more closely reflects the mood of the demos.
However both Labour and the Liberals have preferred (as in the composition of the Scottish Parliament and the referendum on the subject) closed party lists that enable party officials to appoint their choice (depending only on internal party rules) of parliamentarian. This does not increase democracy, but if anything decreases it.
de Hont hands control of the list to the Party, STV at least more – to the voter. We have the wrong one in Scotland; but like the devolution settlement it was designed principally in Westminster
Well put
“Starmer will promise a Labour government will make mental health treatment available to everyone who needs it within a month”
So let me get this straight.
In the midst of multiple crises over a decade and more that our government has been mismanaging, the Great Knight Dope is shiling
“Starmer will promise a Labour government will make mental health treatment available to everyone who needs it within a month”
So let me get this straight.
In the midst of multiple crises over a decade and more that our government has been mismanaging, the Great Knight Dope is shilling to us that what WE are the problem and all in need of urgent mental medical attention.
Isn’t that a classic definition of gas lighting?
Apparently he wants to form a government, not to actually do the things that would stop the causes of depression. Just add to them. Can someone please mount a challenge to him? that it is WE, who are the -source of our problems and all in need of urgent mental medical attention!
Isn’t that a classic definition of gas lighting?
Apparently he wants to form a government, not to actually do the things that would stop the causes of depression. Just add to them. Can someone please mount a challenge to him?
“Starmer will promise a Labour government will make mental health treatment available to everyone who needs it within a month”
So let me get this straight.
In the midst of multiple crises over a decade and more that our government has been mismanaging, the Great Knight Dope is shilling to us that what WE are the problem and all in need of urgent mental medical attention.
Isn’t that a classic definition of gas lighting?
Apparently he wants to form a government, not to actually do the things that would stop the causes of depression. Just add to them. Can someone please mount a challenge to him?
Credit where credit is due in that Labour does seem to have a politician who comes from real life and it seems to Angela Rayner. God – she even smokes tabs!!
But is Angela the new John Prescott? Just a working class mascot for a high end middle class centrist party with no ideas?
The email I got from Compass was steaming with indignation.
Compare Dennis Healey to Tony Blair. Healy was a Beachmaster in the WWII Italian Campaign – a vicious battle often overlooked because of D-Day. It taught him a lot. I couldn’t imagine Healy sending men off to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan so lightly for the Neo-lib cousins over the Atlantic.
And what was Blair other than a rich barrister whose battle ground was fine wordery in court and a fondness for working very hard to get Tory voters to vote Labour? We need more than just softie Tory politicians joining the Labour party because they have a conscience. A small one, that seems to be getting smaller.
I’m not one for conspiracy theories but I suspect that the whole political system is being played by huge vested interest once again. And lets face it – after 2008 they had no choice – they’d been rumbled – and all wealth is doing now is fighting back to gain an unassailable advantage through the political system to protect themselves and their wealth.
[…] Trade unions blocked democracy for the UK yesterday Richard Murphy […]
It isn’t just Starmer, though, is it? I well remember going on a march in London in support of public services in 2011, when the FibDims were trying to gather support for PR in parliament (about the one useful thing they did) which failed abysmally.
As we marched around parliament, there were the Young Labour members happily passing out leaflets against PR.. Scarcely a year since they’d been kicked out of office, Cameron talking about reducing the number of MPs to help the Tories, and all ‘the youth’ could talk about was stopping PR.