My friend, Green New Deal colleague and Finance for the Future partner Colin Hines has this letter in the Guardian today. As it echoes themes being discussed here right now I thought I would share it:
The encouraging defeat of the Tories by the Lib Dems in North Shropshire immediately elicited tired tropes from the Conservatives about a midterm kicking they will learn from. More depressingly, Labour fell back on the empty “no secret deals” pledge when discussing tactical voting. Boris Johnson must have been mightily relieved at being given that particular get-out-of-political-defeat-free card.
As memories of Christmas parties and expensive wallpaper fade, it is what will be done in the run-up to the next election that will decide whether or not we have a corrosive and permanent Tory democratic dictatorship. To avert this catastrophe, opposition parties in vulnerable constituencies must sink their differences and cooperate in fielding one candidate to fight the Conservatives in the run-up to polling day.
The key to overcoming party tribalism and to make this happen is for these parties to make clear that once there is a non-Tory majority elected, then that parliament's first act will be to change the voting system to an agreed form of proportional representation. This would mean that for all subsequent elections, people will have a greater incentive to vote for their original political tribe.
In terms of addressing the worries of the general public, most of whom are not that concerned about changes to the voting system, the different manifestos must put centre stage publicly popular commitments that increase economic, social and environmental security for voters in every constituency.
Colin Hines
East Twickenham, London
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:
“that parliament’s first act will be to change the voting system to an agreed form of proportional representation”, I would say that should be the first and only act before calling a new election. Everyone has seen too many “the first thing after we are elected ….” that never happened, ostensibly because there was so much else they never got round to it. We can be apologetic about the double election, and use the media restrictions on media coverage to really hammer home just how much this reform is essential if we are to have any hope of continuing as a democracy. If the electorate then decide against we are heading for a Tory dictatorship for the short time remaining for human civilisation, whatever else we may try to do, so we might as well stock up on gin and tonic and get what enjoyment we can out of watching the end of the world.
Before heading to the next election they also need to address the very urgent need to repeal:
– the police and crime bill – or at least those elements that criminalise protests
– the Health & Social Care Bill,
– the immigration / asylum bill
There is no time to lose to stop the appalling long term impact of this Government.
Preferably they should also replace all the Tory placement that have been put into public office.
This is precisely my point. Once you say you are going to do these then the election ceases to be about PR and just becomes a normal election with PR as one of the points under discussion, and we have had those before. There are actually some people who vote Conservative who are in favour of PR, you will lose them.
In addition these and many other topics are major areas of our society which need a lot of attention; simple repeal may make some of us happy but does nothing to tackle the serious underlying problems. If you do the job properly then that is half your term gone already. Many other things will intervene and before you know it it is time for another election and you still haven’t got PR and the mood of the country has changed.
These are priorities for the following government, the one elected by PR which can finally, hopefully arrive at a consensus that settles these important social issues and takes them away from the political arena for the foreseeable future.
Holy cow. That makes TOTAL sense to me.
The notion of cooperation to field a single anti-Tory candidate, plus the promise of Proportional Representation if the non-Tories win a majority would certainly be a huge step forward, if the anti-Tory parties can agree to both measures.
Then offer party manifestos, promising what most people DO want …to keep the NHS fully funded and in public hands, and restore some kind of sanity to our relationship with the EU. Rejoining the single market and customs union would be a start—so business and our economy can get back on track. (Remembering, of course, that ‘the people’ never voted to leave the single market and customs union in the first place, as the question was never asked.)
And go from there….?
Nice one Colin.
I have to admit that the thought of going to my grave in the midst of a permanently divided society as ours is today makes me profoundly sad.
Me too.
I do hope, though, that an ABC alliance (Anyone But Conservative) does come about. Doesn’t matter if it’s a local decision. It needs to happen. More didn’t vote for this govt in 2019 than did. Let’s use that along with getting more on-board to vote to get them out.
Craig
Colin’s excellent letter more or less summarises the strategy that the action group, ‘Labour For a New Democracy”, has been advocating throughout this year. And it’s their co-ordination that led directly to the momentous 80% pro-PR vote by CLPs at Conference in September. Consequently, the project is now well on track to propel PR into the Labour Party manifesto before the next election, and there is every reason to be confident that this goal will be achieved.
So I agree with all the comments above but would offer up a couple of caveats of my own, for critique or comment by any who are interested.
Firstly, I think that all pro-PR Party manifestos need to be explicit enough to empower an incoming Minority Labour government (for realistically, it seems at present that this is about the best we can hope for), to implement PR without recourse to a divisive, hostage-prone referendum.
Secondly, anticipating that Scotland may no longer be in the Union at the election after next, I am of the opinion that we need to pass this legislation in the next parliament, while the pro-PR SNP is still so heavily represented at Westminster, as their votes could make the difference in getting this legislation over the line, in a hung parliament.
If Scotland leaves the union while England still languishes under FPTP, the political centre of gravity moves closer to the Tories and I fear the chances of the Doomsday scenario, depicted in Richard’s title, become increasingly likely.
Thanks Alan
“implement PR without recourse to a divisive, hostage-prone referendum”
Couldn’t agree more. The billionaire press anti-PR propaganda would be relentless in a referendum. PR absolutely HAS to be in the next general election manifesto & then enacted tout suite.
Yes, precisely. If an ABC campaign works to get rid of this appalling anti democratic and corrupt government, an immediate change to PR needs to be done. There’s no need for a referendum, just use a Parliamentray majority to pass it.
Any referendum campaign would be hijacked by the liars of the right wing press, who would be desperate to keep the rotten FPTP system that gives the tories undeserved stretches in power. The right don’t pussyfoot around when they want to push things through. And neither should the left.
Considering the reactionary nature of the current Labour leadership I think it highly unlikely that this strategy will be adopted. These people are part of a club and are principally concerned with retaining their membership rather than winning power and actually implementing change. Better to find a strategy that threatens their continued membership.
I really can’t see why Labour can’t get behind a plan like this. Traditionally the excuse for not supporting PR seems to have been that the FPF system sometimes delivers a Labour majority but I suspect that another unspoken reason is that under most systems of PR there is no such thing as a safe seat. I suspect that some Labour MPs are more concerned with retaining their own seat even if it means having a Tory government than with getting the Tories out of power.
Another reason is Labour receive huge amounts of ‘Short Money’ e.g. Keir Starmer receives ~£860,000 for the running costs of the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The smaller opposition parties, by contrast, get only crumbs from the table in comparison.
“In terms of addressing the worries of the general public, most of whom are not that concerned about changes to the voting system, the different manifestos must put centre stage publicly popular commitments that increase economic, social and environmental security for voters in every constituency”
I would say that if the opposition parties are campaigning jointly on an electoral reform ticket then they should forget about having different manifestos and just focus on the one issue of electoral reform. There would be plenty of time for individual manifestos in the following election. Otherwise electoral reform would be sidelined and differences over other policies would undermine unity on that issue.
Overall the campaign has to be simple, direct and focused. The opposition parties would need to start talking about it now, in order to be ready for the next election. The exact form of PR being campaigned for would need to be agreed on. There also needs to be an awareness that there would only be one shot at this, so any campaign at that level must be competent and really mean business. People have to get real about what they are up against if they want change.
Thanks both.
FPTP tends to amplify the gains of the winning Party so it’s true that Labour does occasionally benefit but its a relatively rare occurrence (the Blair era being the outstanding and fairly unique example). Hence the Tories have prevailed for two out of every three years since WW2, partly due to the advantage FPTP bestows upon them.
But since 2010, with Scotland lost to Labour, plus other demographic changes, the advantage FPTP bestows on the Tories is particularly significant and probably permanent. So many of us argue that not only is PR ethically and democratically correct, it is also in our best interest politically.
However, many still contend that PR would increase the odds of having to form coalitions so the chances of getting an unfettered run at, for example, a more radical socialism, would be diminished.
Others say they like the strong constituency link associated with FPTP (this seems to be a favourite comment amongst some MPs, for example).
So it is not a one-way street; there are arguments on both sides and in the end, we each have to weigh up all these factors and decide for ourselves. However, the Party members, speaking though their CLPs at Conference, have made unequivocally clear where they stand.
The challenge for this year therefore shifts to winning over some more big unions and the PLP (i.e. the MPs that Bernard mentions). But that work is in hand, so if any of you is an affiliated union member, or feels strongly enough to write to your Labour MP (if you are lucky enough to have one) that can only help.
The PR system needs to be a properly representative one. No system is perfect but the West German one (which the British were instrumental in introducing after WW2) and has continued, similarly the Scottish Parliament one of half the MPs being constituency-based and half party-list seems the obvious choice, not the half baked Liberal/Tory one that we had a referendum on a few years ago under Clegg and Cameron.
Agreed with Bill above. AMS (The Additional Member System) is a leading contender when selecting a PR system. It is simple to understand and proven in practice, including on these shores.
Personally, I think STV (Single Transferable vote) is the other leading contender.
The Pure Party List (as we used to use for EU elections) would not be my favourite. And as for the Alternative Vote, that Cameron cleverly foisted on Clegg, to stitch him up in the Coalition, that is not even PR! It is just a tweak on the existing Majoritarian system (albeit one that allows a bit more consultation so that second choices come into the calculation).
So its important to emphasise this point for the benefit of those who say “ah but we had a PR referendum in 2011 and it was rejected by a massive margin”. To denounce that claim is not just to make a play on words; it’s a fundamental truth.
When Blair was elected by a landslide the late Robyn Cook advised him to do exactly that. However Blair seemed to think, like Wilson before him, that he could make Labour the natural government of power. Never going to be allowed to happen by the establishment, unless the Labour leader is actually a red tory, or extremely Labour Lite.
Succinctly put and right on the money. ABC is only achievable with coalition politics with PR at its centre. I pose again the question as to how on earth any serious opposition leader cannot see that and why said person refused to stand aside in North Shropshire to maximise the Libdem chances? I will refrain from repeating my own explanation for this, but it is important to ponder, since Johnson is not alone in holding up the crumbling edifice of the shambles currently posing as the government.
Bill and others, PR is central to our discussion on this forum which is very good.
Different PR systems need to be compared with explicit criteria. The most important one being specific representation of voters’ individual preferences. Which other critical criteria should be included? Then consider different PR systems and to what extent each complies with the chosen criteria.
We can’t let fears of coalitions and the British Conservative traditional strength amongst voters deter a more democratic system. There will be more demands for a better system of health, education etc. in the future but without proper representation such demands filter out. With a more representative system, these views can be better articulated, made explicit and therefore discussed and accepted. This may change the prevailing, right wing culture in the long run. More difficult for the right wing media to ignore or influence.
Agreed Birgitta. The way I see it is that it’s important to first establish a broad common ABC strategy at Party level (N Shrops has broadly illustrated it already exists at voter level). This strategy would be centrally focussed on committing to PR in principle so that it constituted the glue that would hold together traditional ‘enemies’, at least long enough to get the Tories out, After that, they could get down to the detailed issue of designing and implementing an optimal system.
If this can be wrapped up with other issues where there is common ground, such as you suggest, so much the better. In the next election we could then all hold our fire for the Tories, rather than wasting valuable ammunition on each other. Surely such a strategy could last for a while at least, and who knows, we might find that it works better than expected.
I am sorry to be a damp squib to all of those believing that PR will stop right wing or extreme governments, because it won’t, all it does is give power to small splinter parties to form coalitions which maintain Neo-Liberal policies.
The evidence is there for all to see if we Google Germany’s election results since the last war.
Although not a whole PR system it is a form of nonetheless.
It has maintained right wing dominated parties in power whilst removing all the advantages we achieved after the war.
It’s changing peoples mindset that is important, not the voting system, let’s not forget the Libdems voted with the Tories to dismantle the NHS, they are not progressives and actually chose to go into coalition with the Tories.
Neo-Liberal new Labour are also no different, and would be happy to join with Libdems Pursuing the same policies as the Tories.
We need a new paradigm based on government intervention at its core and public service as the economic driver, it’s the public sector that will generate real jobs not private.
It is not the sole answer, of course
I make clear that much more is required
But it is part of the answer
And what is so wrong with democracy that you don’t want it?
I’m not against democracy, just that a voting system that denies progress is not sustainable.
I suggest you are straightforwardly wrong
I agree with Richard here. I think you are confusing two separate problems, There is a straightforward problem of democracy, where the people have simply not been involved in politics because of the estrangement caused by the two party, FPTP system. PR is a major step forward, though more will still be needed, such as Citizens Assemblies.
The second problem is the way people vote. In a democracy people must be free to vote as they see fit, but it is essential that they are provided with sufficient, correct information so as to enable them to make a fair and rational choice. They must also accept responsibility for the consequences of their vote; if they choose to vote in people who cause death and suffering among the population while lining their own pockets then it is very much the responsibility of those who voted them in.
Mervyn’s argument is basically a version of ‘let’s hang on to FPTP because it is the only system that can and will eventually deliver a proper Socialist government’.
This narrative is not unfamiliar in the Labour Party and presents one of the difficulties faced in attempting the proposed transition to PR. Some of us also fear that it may not be dislodged in time to prevent our descent into the permanent Tory hegemony that Richard warns of in his title. Accepted that PR is not a panacea by any means but it is now our best chance, in practice.
And at an ethical level (which admittedly involves a different perspective to the power-politics one) , if we believe that democracy implies all votes should count equally, how can PR’s validity can be realistically contested?
I fear that Keir Starmer is where he is to maintain the status quo, not to shake things up.
He is the Establishment’s reserve choice if the Tories become too toxic a brand.
He won’t go for PR. He is very much a part of the present system.
From previous contributions on here it is apparent that Vinnie is not alone in denouncing Keir Starmer as an establishment lackey, little better than a closet Tory, and therefore an impediment to changes in the voting system.
I may be in the minority but I take a much more charitable view. I suspect Starmer’s instincts are quite close to my own (and maybe closer to your’s than you might suspect). But unfortunately, his overriding task is to appeal to a country whose political centre of gravity is well to the Right of ours. It is impossible for him to say and do all the stuff we like while simultaneously garnering requisite support in a fundamentally conservative country such as England.
As an ordinary Party member I am free to passionately proclaim PR, and I do so. But in a minefield like the Labour Party, the reality is that the leader needs to tread much more carefully than I do.
I fully expect him to come on board with PR at some stage and I will be disappointed if he does not. But meanwhile, there is much spadework to be done in winning round PR opponents such as those Trade Unions whose block vote it was that defeated us at Conference and narrowly prevented PR from becoming Party Policy.
Alan
I hope you are correct but wasn’t it a right wing Union going against its members that scuppered the Labour Party conference resolution to adopt PR as Party policy.
Starmer seems clueless on policy and content. I’m not convinced he is playing a canny game. I don’t see any vision or ideas. Nothing radical anyway.
We live in hope.
Vinnie. I too live in hope and also hope I am right in my prediction; not least cos I have stuck my neck out now and don’t relish ‘public ridicule’!
In practice the workings of Conference are a bit more complex than that.
Basically, on any vote, the CLPs have a 50% weighting and the Affiliated Unions have the other 50%. The Unions have block votes weighted according to their membership size so in practice, the big 3 command a cumulative 80% and the top 5 control 95%.
So what happened in the PR vote this autumn was that the CLPs voted 80% in favour but the Unions only voted 5% in favour. So on aggregate, the vote was about 43%, which means it was lost.
The 3 main players here were the GMB, who voted against (notably in the debate on the floor, the only speaker against PR was the GMB rep), Unison (who abstained) and Unite, who also voted against.
What is a bit frustrating, but also encouraging, is that two weeks later Unite had their own annual conference and, in effect, reversed their position on PR. Had Covid not delayed their conference they would have been supportive and their block vote would have been more than enough to swing it.
There is still plenty of FPTP support about that comes from both Left and Right (as does support for PR). But the fact is that most ordinary members probably don’t know a great deal about PR; a bit like the public at large.
Just as a little illustration of the democratic deficit, inherent in FPTP, I would say that the 2019 seat allocation for Scotland (UK elections) takes some beating.
Here are a few headline snipits, arising from this data:
The SNP got about 2½ times as many votes as Labour but 48 times as many seats.
The Tories got only about one-third more votes than Labour but got 6 times as many seats.
The Lib Dems got only half as many votes as Labour but got 4 times as many seats.
Labour got less than 10% of the seats it would have been entitled to under PR.
Plenty of room available for progress in this voting system surely. Its more like a lottery?
Here is the raw data to check in case I am missing something.
Party Vote share Seats Seat share PR Deficit Vote Effy
SNP 45.0% 48 81.4% 27 -21 181%
Cons 25.1% 6 10.2% 15 9 41%
Labour 18.6% 1 1.7% 11 10 9%
LDs 9.5% 4 6.8% 6 2 71%
Other 1.8% 0 0.0% 1 1 0%
The Scottish Parliament does not use FPTP, and what happened? The two major UK parties who rely on FPTP for survival have sunk like a stone. Nobody can call the Conservatives the “natural” party of government in Scotland; they have not had a majority in Scotland since 1955. It now struggles to be taken seriously, save by the aged, shrinking, dessicated fringes of Scottish political life. Only the swamping effects of UK media and UK Conservative Party/government life support keeps the Scottish Conservative branch-Party, in a permanent vegetative state. The Labour Party, meanwhile in Scotland has dissolved into lame intellectual incoherence and electoral irrelevance.
The problem in Scotland is that the PR system adopted under devolution is the product of Conservative and Labour preferences: the d’Hondt system, which established a Party-list solution; giving power to the Party to choose the candidate. All this has done is to undermine the credibility of list-MSPs; in the public mind they remain second-class politicians; the unelected, unelectable -save through election by the Party first (they are the most resented and often ridiculed form of politician in Scotland, because they are all Party placemen and women). Without d’Hondt Labour and Conservative would probably finally be annihilated in Scotland. It would be no more or less than their record deserves.
The voter should be eternally suspicious of ‘Party’; Hume was right, it is above all, the root of factionalism. That does not mean the end of politics, or the end of Party is required. TANA (there are alternatives the electorate are capable of bringing to life or to support). The Single Transferable Vote (STV), should have been adopted in Scotland. It would hand the right of ‘transfer’, the choice of Representative, to the rightful person – the voter. It terrifies Conservative and Labour, because it is not oligarchic. Political Parties in Britain are bought and sold; the voter is entitled to use them, but the voter just can’t afford to trust them – ever.
Well noted
An all-party campaign for Proportional Representation needs some funding, especially to persuade Labour. Would a monthly crowd-funder for PR work? At the end of each month the money would be disbursed to political parties that explicitly have PR in their manifestos and to pro PR organisations like the ERS, Compass and Make Votes Matter. This would carry on until the next election or until every party, including Labour, signed up.