The local elections are done and dusted.
The Tory press would like us to concentrate on the Labour leader going to a meeting with an agenda which they claim was a party.
The Tories themselves would like us to think that the election results do not matter because it is their job to ‘get on with the business of government' as if this thing called democracy no longer applies to them, which may be what they think.
And then there is the reality to address. These realities differ depending on where you are.
In England the ABC progressive alliance made big gains against the Tories. Voters showed themselves able to choose candidates to rid themselves of Tories. Given that Labour were defending far more seats than anyone else, pragmatically this meant many more gains for the Lib Dems and Greens than them.
The lessons learned are threefold. First, Labour cannot win by itself. Second, the LibDems are returning as a significant political force. Third, the case for proportional representation is unassailable. Only those opposed to democracy think otherwise, and I am looking at the Labour leadership when saying that.
In Scotland proportional representation worked. It also confirmed how powerful the nationalists cause is. And it confirmed the Tories are on the wane: unless there is any serious change to lift Tory fortunes (and I see none coming, expecting the exact opposite to be the case as the recession takes hold) I suspect they are now in decline in Scotland and likely to remain that way. Corruption has killed whatever support they had. Meanwhile, Alba did not make an impression. The Greens did, but the independence cause is dominated by the SNP, for better or worse (and its leadership's economics are very poor) for some time to come. The issue remains top of the agenda. Scotland is not playing to any English agenda.
In Wales Labour is revived, but Plaid were already in a strong position in the west of the country and nothing has changed: they hold the entire west coast barring Pembrokeshire, which has always been out of kilter. However looked at though, the left is firmly in the ascendant. The only question to come is whether it is the left that wants to align with London, or not. The further from London the population is the less that is the case. But what is undoubtedly true is that Wales is massively out of step with England.
And then there is the historic result in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein won. For those old enough to remember, the ballot box has beaten the Armalite. The result is that Sinn Fein is now the largest party in Ireland, north and south. The inevitability that realignment must follow cannot be avoided, I suggest. It is when, not if, now. Many in Northern Ireland are no longer want to be ruled by an English agenda. Ireland as a whole has to come to terms with what that means. I do not for a moment underestimate the difficulty of that, but it has to happen.
Draw those threads together and what have we? The answer is a neo-fascist and corrupt government in London led by a man indifferent to the law and much else who may have no regard for the due process of removing him and who has left England fractured and identifiable by democratic favour because he and the Opposition will not let people have representative government. It's not a pretty tale.
Hardly surprisingly, the national identities of those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has come to the fore to reject this idea of being ruled paternalistically by a corrupted form of one-nation Toryism that sees this as a colonial term when Disraeli coined it as one relating to class (which eventually became much the same thing). Rule from London is, in practical terms, being rejected and with it the idea of Britishness. That is now a peculiarly English concept used only in imagination to extend English rule to those who do not wish to be ruled, most especially by a failed democracy, as England is.
There is absolutely nothing stable about this. There is only a recipe for instability to come in here, unless, that is something gives.
Let's assume three things. The first is that the Tories will be thrown out, eventually. The second is that when thrown out they will not be evicted by a majority government, because it still seems very unlikely that this will happen. Third, there will in that case be a need, whatever Labour might like to say, for governing agreements unless (to follow the Emily Thornberry line, based on recent comments) Labour would rather spite the next largest parties, preferring to allow the Tories back rather than work in cooperation for the good of the people of this country.
Perhaps naively I am going to assume Labour will cooperate with others for the common good, which means discussion with Lib Dems and the SNP in reality. The parties in Northern Ireland are very unlikely to play a role (and yes, I do recall 2017), but will have to be taken into account.
Leaving aside practical issues, like the need to tackle a trashed economy and environment and failing public services across the board, what of these issues that are driven by identity that must be resolved?
On Northern Ireland new cooperation with the EU is essential. This Labour led coalition will have to consider rejoining the Customs Union and Single Market, departure from which Brexiteers said would never happen anyway. Do that and the choice in Northern Ireland is not defused, but critical time is added for the debate to take place, and the rest of the country heaves a sigh of relief as well. We can also do this unilaterally: as a country we can guarantee to align with EU rules. It will not be hard to do.
On Scotland we know there is gong to be a demand for a referendum. Nothing less will do. It is going to have to be conceded.
The LibDems will demand PR. Again, it is hoping to have to be conceded.
If both the SNP and LibDems do get their way, as I suspect, what I also strongly suspect is that PR will be done first, along with Lords reform. Then when Labour offers Scotland the chance to decide to leave it can do so without needing to vote to go to rid itself of the risk of Johnson again. In other words, there would be the chance of the most objective vote possible.
And that is the strongest hand Labour can play. Actually, I am struggling to find another one, but I am sure that there are ideas out there.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
“The lessons learned are threefold. First, Labour cannot win by itself. Second, the LibDems are returning as a significant political force. Third, the case for proportional representation is unassailable. Only those opposed to democracy think otherwise, and I am looking at the Labour leadership when saying that.”
A good summary Richard. As a member of Compass, I can only hope Labour realise this, and act intelligently as a result. If Labour carries on with it’s traditional tribalism, the UK is dead and democracy, in England at least, will be dead too.
The tories are rigging the next election by voter suppression. They are presumably going to put a tory placeperson in charge of the Electoral Commission so they can push corrupt electoral practices. Labour needs to agree pacts, formal or informal, with the LD’s , Greens, SNP etc and stop wasting scarce financial and human resources competing against these parties for seats when the enemy of everything Labour says it stands for is the appalling tory party.
I know Neal Lawson and have a lot of sympathy with what he has been patiently doing for many years
Neal must have the patience of a saint then Richard in dealing with the tribalism of Labour!
Because, as you note, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if this continues to be the case: “Labour would rather spite the next largest parties, preferring to allow the Tories back rather than work in cooperation for the good of the people of this country.”
Incidentally, do you have an opinion on the memo supposedly leaked to the Mail that’s being used against Starmer now?
Assuming it’s even genuine, and not a Zinoviev letter DM faske, whoever leaked it isa Labour insider who is out to get Starmer. If this is the case we see, again, Labour factionalism proving, as does the tribalism I noted above, that Labour are the tories’ best friend.
The tories. A corrupt sick joke of a party. Labour a useless joke.
I have never been to a party with an agenda
But I would not have taken the risk Starmer did, which seemed unwise
People across the UK are absolutely tearing their hair out for a progressive alliance and PR.
It is sheer madness that centrist and LoC parties have not come forward with this blatantly obvious ‘no brainer’ way forward.
If Labour or LibDems refuse to work together, obviously they would clearly rather see the destruction of the UK a GE will almost certainly net a hung parliament with Tories getting first dibs on supply and confidence with DNP, National Front, anyone…
I’m still reeling from Jo Swinson forcing a GE on us, despite polls showing the Tories would tank if we held out for 2 months (‘Get Brexit Done’ would have failed by that point throwing them in disarray)… then refusing to join a Labour alliance because you-know-smears against JC. Yes she was asked at the 11th hour in the HoC.. SNP agreed.. it highly suspicious that Swinson on behalfr of the LibDems point blank REFUSED based on utter nonsense.. basically handing power to the Tories. AS IF the LibDems could ever have achieved a majority! Highly suspect..
Frankly if an alliance is not in the offing, whilst I would always use my vote.. it’s proof the British system is ‘gamed’, is a spectator sport not a true democracy and effectively I give up.
The traditional Westminster political parties know that it is not in their interest to allow anything other than FPTP. Holyrood’s d’Hondt PR system has effectively destroyed the secure control over Scottish politics offered by FPTP for both Conservative and Labour; while the STV system in the recent local elections has demonstrated the outcome, when the electorate is able to exercise far more control over the effect of their vote, and their direct influence over the exercise of Party power. Slowly, and as a result of the field of disaster that Westminster has become, the electorate are now learning how to use the power STV gives them, over political parties (and their vested interests). This effect will develop more with the passage of time.
Hence, for example the use of the Greens in Scotland by voters in the local elections (to the cost principally of the SNP – a salutary reminder of the power of an electorate independent of the manipulation of political parties); which served to remind the SNP itself that the voter, ultimately is in charge. With each passing election this power of the voter will increase wherever STV is used. I recognise STV is not perfect and has its critics (no system is perfect), but its crucial advantage is that it to some degree it effectively disarms the excessive influence of political parties (who frankly can’t be trusted – in the end, they serve only their own interests – not yours) ,and the arrogance of over-entitled power.
The SNP voters used the Green vote to push Tory candidates down the STV system and into oblivion in Scotland. So hardly to the SNP’s cost.
Allow me to underscore the degree to which political parties are only self-serving, have no concern for the national interest and exploit the system shamelessly in their own narrow interests; or even their combined interests. Have no doubt, they will betray the electorate at the ‘drop of a hat’.
Keir Starmer is currently in a predicament essentially because the Conservative Party and media are exploiting an opportunity to point a finger in a direction that deflects from the proven guilt of the PM. My point is not whether Starmer fails the test; rather we are seeing a spectacle in which, having set the hare running, critics of both parties are now fairly asking Conservative politicians directly whether Starmer should resign, under any circumstances arising. Dominic Raab established the tone yesterday, leaving it to the Labour party to chose (the Delphic Oracle option – the craven ‘not me guv’ solution so typical of phony party politics) and so far the Conservatives in Parliament are either running for cover or dodging the question. The problem is; if Starmer resigns, Johnson is sunk. So what happens? Everyone in Westminster falls behind the enduring interests of the whole political party system. They know which site their bread is buttered: both sides.
I think you will find that the Green advance almost cost the SNP control over Glasgow City council. I suggest you read Sir John Curtice, a leading psephologist on the SNP/Greens issue in ‘The Times’, 7th May: titled “Scottish local elections 2022: SNP should be worried as Greens’ popularity splits independence vote”: Curtice begins “…. on the pro-Yes side the SNP has had its tail tweaked by the Greens, its coalition partner”. Read the article for the detailed argument.
Now, let me see; how do I give fair weight to the authority, expertise and understanding of the subject matter supplied by Curtice, whose work and reputation I know; and a comment from someone with all the confidence in his opinion to announce himself as DSB. Its tough I know, but guess where my intuitive judgement falls?
🙂
“Frankly if an alliance is not in the offing, whilst I would always use my vote.. it’s proof the British system is ‘gamed’, is a spectator sport not a true democracy and effectively I give up.”
Agreed Paul. If there’s no ABC alliance in place by the next GE, I’m not voting as where I am there’ll be enough brainwashed tory voting serfs (as Mr Parr referes to them) for the tory to win again against a split opposition.
Is England really a democracy?
Some consistency from Durham police would be nice.
They assessed the Cummings allegations, said there might have been a minor breach of the regulations and said they’re not going to investigate.
They should have stuck to their guns and done the same for Starmer and let it go.
It would help though if Starmer didn’t say things about Durham police that were blatantly untrue. Perhaps if you say what Starmer said so often then you will annoy the higher echelons enough to make them think, ‘stuff this, this guy’s repetitive claims that we’ve already done something that we haven’t are getting annoying, we’ll drop the liberal stance on potential minor infractions and actually investigate you’. If we give you a FPN then it’ll serve you right for being such a moralising managerial knight. Live with it clean boy.
Our politics desperately needs a fairer voting system (most likely RCV) to free if from extremism. But the previous referendum on AV in 2011 was rejected by 68% of voters on a 42% turnout. If a future referendum is to succeed the groundwork must be done NOW to build public understanding of why this is a fairer voting system.
Northern Ireland will remain the issue of Brexit which is impossible to solve. (Partly why there will be no Tory keen to replace Boris and take this poison chalice). Theoretically a Labour coalition could rejoin the customs Union to get round most of the border trade issues, but EU will likely insist on freedom of movement in return, which goes against the core principle of Brexit.
The only real solution for Northern Ireland is a vote to either remain part of the UK, or unite with Eire and accept a border in the Irish Sea. Given that Irish GDP per capita is now twice that of UK, this might be an easier choice than it seems!
Whether GB can retain Scotland is more nuanced. Perhaps the most convincing policy Starmer could adopt would be a UK wide Basic Income, which would achieve several objectives at once:
1) It would immediately help to address fuel/food poverty nationwide, halting the rise in poverty and inequality.
2) It would be a real step towards true “levelling up” and give the other nations a strong reason to remain part of UK.
3) It would also underline the benefit of being a UK citizen, including in red wall states that felt immigration was undermining the core benefits of being British.
Sadly I don’t belive Starmer has the vision or appetite for a move as bold as UBI. (Even though it is supported by his potential allies in both Green Party and LibDems). This is a great shame. The main reason Labour is not heading for outright election victory, is that it lacks a policy program equal to the challenges faced by UK today.
We do not need a referendum to have PR
we don’t need a referendum to change the voting system but the fact we have had one and it voted convincing to keep the present system in the place… it would hardly be a ringing endorsement of democracy to go directly against that vote.. or is it a case of “i know better than the electorate so defer to me”…
Do you believe in parliamentary sovereignty?
“Do you believe in parliamentary sovereignty?”
to the point where it overrides a referendum on a specific issue? .. i believe in democracy and a referendum on a specific issue is democracy in the most purest form available to us.
Why?
Brexit was bought with Russian money
What was democratic about that?
Explain
was it? was the referendum in 2011 also??..you clear want to overrule the most direct form of democracy we have. You clearly don’t trust the will of the people.
That’s ok if you do btw, as long as that is understood.
I believe in parliamentary democracy
You clearly do not
That’s the difference
Please don’t waste my time again
next time you start throwing the term fascist about your need to take look in the mirror…
What, for being-pro democracy
Referenda are often used by fascists…
Even Thatcher recognised that referenda were just a tool for fascists (takes one to know one perhaps!)
I agree with your suggestion of some form of direct cash help to society in the form of a form of UBI for people in these times but you do not need a referendum to bring in PR. If you are a politician who is a real democrat and a real politician – just do it.
The way that the UBI would work ideally for me is for it to be based on the Northern European model where even the middle classes get something to acknowledge their drop in income – this method to me is why systems like those in Sweden and Denmark have been so successful because their is an element of inclusivity that leads to broader acceptance across society.
In 2010 when the Tory bastards got in, my family even lost our £15 per month universal credit because the Tories lowered the qualifying income – madness!
Our social security system in the UK with its short tapers cut off benefit too early when earned income comes into play. It’s as if the State can’t wait for you to earn a bit of cash and get you off their books asap. And when you consider that this money is more likely to be spent on things that provide other people with jobs and even pay taxes to a Government that then claims to be too poor to look after people in its make believe world of tax paying for its services!!!!! Their argument does not stack up at all.
It’s a shit system – that’s what it is. And it leads to politicians being able to divide people and society.
A democracy? No – we’ve been Fascist in this country for a long, long time believe it or not.
Never mind offering the country a referendum on PR – JFDI next time is my blunt entreaty to any party talking about PR if it gets in with strong majority next time.
And look what is happening in Northern Ireland – hardly democratic is it? It should be possible to sack parties that do not work together in my view and push them aside.
Absolutely PSR. If a progressive alliance wins the next GE, reforming the rotten voting system has to be one of it’s top priorities. Whatever majority has been achieved. No ifs, no buts, no excuses. Just do it! Who cares what the right wing politicians and press say?
They have no interest in real democracy, or real free speech, or the real rule of law. Only in a rigged voting system that always delivers tory governments, broadcasting and journalism that only promotes right wing views, and laws that target anyone and everyone they dislike (e.g the right to protest) whilst blatantly breaking the law themselves.
It has always interested me that of the 6 constitutional reforms campaigned for by the Chartists, 5 have gone on to be the bedrock of democracies across the world while one, the call for yearly General Elections, has not been implemented anywhere that I am aware of.
The Chartist argument was that MPs given more than a year would soon be corrupted by all the power and money swilling around Westminster and would forget their promises to those that had elected them.
When I was younger I agreed with the general premise but thought that the need for stability took precedence.
I was also worried that yearly elections would hand even more power to the lie machines of our right-wing Press.
However, with every increasing year, despite Murdoch and the Mail, despite elderly women from Bristol who complain about too much Democracy and despite concerns about stability, I think the Chartists were correct.
I certainly do not think it could be worse than twelve years of Austerity overlain for the last seven years by total Brexit Chaos.
Perhaps the closest I am aware of is the US, there are elections to replace the whole House of Representatives every two years. (In the Senate, somewhat like many UK councils, a third are replaced every six years.) Is there any evidence that frequent elections enhances accountability and limits corruption there?
No….