There is a deep malaise in British politics (I use the term deliberately). We are all fatigued by Johnson's antics and incompetence, but that is his plan so we need to be wary: his intention is to succeed with his fascist revolution by grinding us down until we accept it. Troubling though this is, the issue is actually deeper than that. The malaise reflects the loss of consensus.
I am not pretending consensus is always good. That around neoliberalism was clearly very harmful to the country, and the world at large. Anyway, I do not seek political agreement. Rather, I suggest there is an absence of agreement on the need for competent government, fair representation, the nature of the state, which countries it comprises, what their relationship should be, what government should do, and how, and in the ethics that might drive decision making around these and related issues.
The malaise is, perhaps, most marked in the Tories, where the coalition around Johnson is collapsing. It would do so more quickly if there was a viable alternative leader, but there aren't any real candidates, let alone ones who might appeal to the country. As a result Johnson survives, as maybe the last supposed Tory, although he long since abandoned all that the modern Conservative supposedly represented.
Labour is also a failed coalition, unable to accommodate left and right wings of the party simultaneously, so different are their views.
The SNP is little better. The leadership and membership of that party are far apart when it comes to policy.
The LibDems have swung left and right, the latter disastrously.
The Greens come in many differing hues, which is one reason why they continue to fail to break through.
The space for alternatives to these parties is seemingly non-existent, and yet what is obvious to most is that they would, if they felt able to, vote for representation by none of the above, albeit that they find bits of some that might appeal. We naturally want coalition in which ideas can by synthesised into strategy by agreement, but what is apparent is that our political system comprises parties seemingly unable to get close to this goal within themselves, but who seek an outright win despite that (and get it, Labour holding Wales, the SNP Scotland and the Tories England for now, although I am not sure for how much longer). The political crisis that we face is that what we wish for, which is a representation for our views, is not an option available to us. And so we are alienated from politics, even though we hold very clear political views, and seek to uphold the integrity of government.
The solution has to be electoral reform. Proportional representation, state funding of political parties, reform of rules on donations, an elected second chamber, a right to freedom of speech (excluding the promotion of hate crimes), proper devolution, a right to referenda on leaving the Union, properly devolved local power on a consistent basis, firm codes of conduct, control of the media and its ownership backed by state funding but with a guarantee of editorial independence, and so much more is required, as is a constitutional commitment to addressing climate change.
And we need to be working in this now. I am not quite sure how. Best would, perversely, be through a citizen's assembly structure jointly sponsored by those political parties committed to democracy. That would require courage. It would require trust in people. It would require the ability to work together that coalitions - including the cross party ones that actually exist in the Commons and elsewhere on a routine basis - always demand.
Is that possible? I do not know. But I am certain it is what we need.
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:
Richard
Some of your ideas are explored in the compass organisation’s drive for a progressive alliance: does this seem a path worth taking?
https://www.compassonline.org.uk/campaigns/a-progressive-alliance/
Alex
It’s one way
In Scotland we have three systems of representation. It is like a laboratory for democracy, and the better for it. First, the Westminster FPTP system; a Party system serving Parties not people and that survive on fostering faction, division and sell their cheap goods in simple solutions to complex problems. Seconf the Holyrood, devolved proportional system; d’Hondt variant designed by Westminster Parties to retain the power of factional parties (who control the ‘list’ of candidates that determines who is elected if the Party wins) and ensure the resilience of the divisions they create, in which Party best thrives. Third, local elections which are also proportional, STV system. This, crucially hands control of the list of candidates to the electorate directly, taking it out of the hands of Party. This has led to ferocious disputes between the Parties (who hate it precisely because the power is directly held by the eletorate); and in their anger and confusion, but desperate to have power, do deals with bitter opponents, or not, solely dependedent on their local situation. The Parties will conspire both to exploit the system and loudly trash it in public, because the one thing it does not serve, is Party. The public meanwhile is only now learning how to use it in their interest, and discovering how self-interested Party and factionalism is to politics in Briain, but rarely in their interest, save at the last ditch when a Party stands in existential fear. Over time the electorate will become skilled in manipulatiing local elections in their interests and reduce the power of Party; of course we may expect all the Parties now to consider removing the STV before they lose control.
No system of election is perfect, but Party is a dreadful beasis on which to construct any fair, functioning, efficient system of Government that actually serves the electorate. The problem however is huge. How do we retain democracy, and bury Party? Meanwhile, FPTP is the worst of all possible democratic election systems. It is exploited by Parties (especially Neoliberal Conservatism) , through the tendency of people with the misfortune to live in a constituency returning by a large majority effectively to disenfranchise the effect of their vote, while simultaneously now gradually moving us by slow, incremental steps of electoral and constituency reform or recalibration, scarcely noticed by anyone, to an Abosulte Party system that reduces the constituency, back to a Rotten Borough, owned by the Party.
Sorry, lacking time and, written in great haste – thus slightly garbled.
Thank you
That sounds spot on to me Richard.
Constitutional reform needs two things for it to happen. First – there needs to be an active organisation dedicated to achieving constitutional change. Unfortunately, there isn’t one in Britain, or at least, not one of any significance. No party, Labour, Lib Dem, even Green, is arguing for a major overhaul, revision, restructuring of the British constitution. Only the SNP, and Plaid, and Sinn Fein are looking to major constitutional change, and they are obviously not devoted to the British constitution, only their own national programme for national independence of Westminster.
The second condition that will precipitate any major constitutional change is some major national crisis. Complete bankruptcy, military defeat, famine, some condition where the central government cannot cope with the catastrophe engulfing the nation. The Russian revolution came after military defeat and financial crisis in WW1. The French after national bankruptcy. The Charles 1 had to call parliaments after the Scottish war and the effective bankruptcy of the Treasury. We need a total calamity, a major crisis in which the government is utterly unable to cope ith the disaster engulfing the nation. We haven’t got it yet. It’s coming. The cart is rolling and clattering and shaking uncontrolled down the steep hill, but it has not yet been shaken apart, and has not gone over the cliff edge. When it does, then we will be forced to change the constitution, see the break up of the UK, Scots independence, Ulster linking with the 26 counties, Regional parliaments, Welsh devolution and independence, a federal constitution, proportional reperesentation, and maybe – maybe – maybe, A REPUBLIC.
I’m not going to disagree with what you have said – it is clear there is a great sickness in our democratic system, which relies too much on “good chaps” doing the right thing, and seems incapable with dealing with a “bad chap” at its heart. But I just don’t see the way to reform our constitutional arrangements along the lines you suggest. Perhaps there is a way for a progressive alliance to achieve PR (so then we can see coalitions being formed in parliament between parties with different positions, rather than between interest groups within the two main parties) and the rest will follow, but I just don’t see how.
Johnson could continue until he loses an election, but if the Conservatives know anything, they know how to be ruthless to keep power. Most likely it seems to me is that he is replaced when it becomes clear he is an electoral liability not an electoral asset. Who does he attract, apart from the Tory core vote?
Just putting it out there, but this fractious situation is an opportunity for a new party, headed by a charismatic leader, to take power. UKIP never managed to achieve what the Five Star movement did in Italy – first past the post makes it almost impossible – but could something like Podemos or En Marche! rapidly emerge in the UK?
I am not convinced it will….
I see no reason for a second chamber elected or otherwise. They don’t have one in Portugal and it doesn’t seem to be doing them any harm – quite the contrary in fact.
I’ve been reflecting on this recently and have come to some unfortunate conclusions.
In the past, there have been some very rich people (and maybe still are) who are land owners with tenants and workers and who did/do take their responsibilities to those they employ/look after very seriously – there was/is a sense of responsibility. Perhaps a lot of ‘one nation’ Tories were like this?
I know people who work for example at Chatsworth House and although there is fair amount of cap doffing in the Derbyshire Dales, everyone I have spoken to speaks of the Devonshire’s as being very good people to work for and there is also a fair amount of contrition over the mass trespassing that took place too in the past.
But we have these days is more money wealth – large bank accounts – carrying no such responsibilities as the Devonshire’s and others.
We have – through the contorted wisdom of Neo-liberalism and its enabling of the ability to hoover up others people’s wealth to be claimed by Thatcher/Reaganite wide boys – tolerated this undeserved wealth accumulation too much. It was always morally suspect wasn’t it?
The result?
What we have today is what I would call an Age of Decadence – born of the low moral standards inherent in Thatcherism and Neo-liberalism.
This decadence can be seen in the way the rich have profited from 2008 whilst ordinary people as defined by Neil Kinnock have got poorer , Party Gate, BREXIT, PPE for Chums, the rise of tenth-rate people like Dido Harding and multi-millionaire Chancellors of the Exchequer who hum and ah about helping ordinary people out.
Decadence is also strongly associated with Fascism – whether it be the pageantry and highly decorated and expensive uniforms of the Nazis, those of the Royal Family, wall paper choices at No.10, expensive coffee mugs at No.11, or the Dachas and other perks that came with being a Fascist so-called ‘communists’ in the former Soviet Russia.
That is why its going to take so long to sort this out – The Age Decadence is here. Decadent people and politicians are incapable of listening and responding to anything but their own agenda.
That is not to say that we shouldn’t keep speaking up. It’s just that we need to be very careful and very clear about who exactly we are dealing with.
That is my take on the situation anyway.
I like the name…
“…Labour holding Wales, the SNP Scotland…”
This isn’t correct.
Labour aren’t “holding” Wales, they have exactly half the Senedd seats; ergo, no effective majority. The SNP are one short of a majority in Scotland. As a result, Labour have a co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru and the Greens are formally part of the Scottish Government.
They lead the governments
That was my argument
They have also done so for some time
Whatever your argument is, misrepresenting the election results won’t advance it.
Labour, in the Welsh Assembly/Senedd have never commanded an outright majority (post election) and have always needed support. With one exception, the SNP have needed likewise.
Surely the fact that Labour in Wales and the SNP would otherwise have had ludicrously large majorities under FPTP, yet need to compromise under AMS, could have been used to back your case for reform? With the sole exception of Alex Salmond, every First Minister in Wales and Scotland hasn’t had a free hand to enact policy.
However, you chose to argue that that the Tories’ domination, in England, is comparable to the situation in the other two polities; it isn’t.
I don’t disagree with your push for electoral reform, in fact I couldn’t agree more. My posting history, here and elsewhere, will confirm that. I just think you’ve used a poor example badly. My, difficult to suppress at the best of times, inner pedant couldn’t let it slide.
I note your point
I am not sure of its relevance to be candid
I think that a second chamber is still useful but the Lords must be replaced. I suggest that an alternative selection system is used. The one I have been thinking about is to base it on representatives from each occupation with each representative having a number of votes based on the number in the occupation. The representatives should be based on random choice such as juries.
I suggest that a very secure Internet communication system could be set up for communication to and from each representative would improve discussions and-by in by the electorate
The basis is to have a system completely divorced from the Commons.
Random choice is dire
So is choosing by occupation. Define an occuip[atiopn
What about those with none defined?
And what about varying sizes of group?
Sorry – but an obvious non-starter
Two elected from each county, analogous to the US system.
Why is Rutland so over-represented?
These are dispiriting times in which to recognise the pressing – indeed overwhelming – need to re-form our society, not least because there seem so few chances of actually doing so.
Despite some of the strains between the members and some of the leadership of the SNP on some issues – not least currency – that remains for democrats in Scotland the most likely source of fundamental change. I would also associate myself with the comments above on the beneficial effects of the mixture of electoral systems current in Scotland – the d’Hont and the STV ones, that is. I would also argue that Scotland’s independence may well prove the cathartic shock to the ingrained corruption and inequities of the Westminster system with the best chance of galvanising change in England. It is extraordinarily hard to see what else could possibly shake things up sufficiently.
As to your suggested possible ‘processes’, Richard, one has to be careful or at least wary of what one wishes for! You may have seen the latest version of a conference/assembly type process is to be headed by Blair and sundry friends – including the unelectable Baroness Davidson, the long ago besmirched Alistair Carmichael and the one-time Iraq ‘deputy governor’ Rory Stewart.
Fifty years ago today – in a vastly more hopeful age – I was among the crowd fortunate enough to listen to Jimmy Reid’s Rectorial Address at Glasgow University and it moves me today to read it again. It can be found in via the following link – https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_167194_smxx.pdf That was a leadership we – or at least, I – would give much for today.
Thanks
I do not think Blair can lead again
One of the key elements missing in this discussion is the need to urgently address the over centralisation of the UK, and improve local decision making. It is daft to think that Shetland has the same requirements as the Scilly isles.
This impacts the work that I do, with many business related problems in Europe being dealt with at a local level (albeit with vastly different level of competence), whereas the UK demands effective links with the chumocracy.
I agree wholeheartedly with the over-centralisation argument and to me this was the most Fascist part of the Thatcher regime – an inability to cope with a different, even local outlook on needs. Regional Government must be given more parity and the budgets to deliver for their people – never mind metrics and edicts being issued from bloody Whitehall.
Parliament is more non-pluralist than it has ever been and it certainly tells at the moment. Instead of absolute rule it needs to be more enabling of local management of issues.
1. The safest political structure for ordinary people is not the market nor the all powerful state but the nation state designed to be governed by and protect the interests of all its citizens.
2. This process cannot be outsourced. But most people don’t want to spend too long on politics. So we have to devise and use mechanisms which will achieve that.
3. The nation state has to be cohesive. It has to keep close to the wishes and views of a majority of the people, even though this may involve constant compromise and coalition. These wishes and views will change and evolve from time to time, and the viability of the state will rely Not on Values which govern them being True in any Eternal sense, but on there actually reflecting the current values of the society.
4. The two mechanisms which satisfy these tests seem to be the legal jury and the citizens assembly. They have by far the best record of safety and success. They might be used to lay down the agreed framework of the nation state, and to begin to build the necessary superstructure, for example internal and external policies, elected second Chambers and the resources to be devoted to information gathering and planning (like How to be ready for the next pandemic).
5. The spirit necessary to move towards such more adult behaviour still exists in the country. In the past We have deceived ourselves as to how strong it is, and how cunning and determined are its enemies. The difficulty may be, as correspondents. have already indicated, to get there before catastrophe gets there first.
There is no evidence citizen assembles work
Sorry….but I consider them pretty profoundly undemocratic for decision making
Fine for talking shops, but maybe
But potential as dangerous as focus groups
Indeed, Richard – re ‘citizen assemblies’ and democracy.
I’d suggest the experiment of trying to substitute ‘soviet/s’ or ‘parteigenossen’ in sentences praising their use – and then see how comfortable that leaves the reader.
(The Blair, Davidson, Carmichael, Stewart list of supporters is a profoundly instructive list of their ‘fans’.)
I agree with Richard about ‘citizen’s assemblies’ – standing bodies of any nature tend to take on an inner logic of their own and become an end in themselves.
The best way to improve services?
Listen to service users constantly and then spend the money/time or both needed to make improvements.
And stop thinking that I.T. has the answer.
People who need services need real human beings to help and address their needs – not ‘self service’.
My concern is prior biases and who feeds the citizen assemblies with their data
I want major reform, but I think we still need politicians
Having worked in social housing now for 26 years, I have seen your worries played out at first hand in tenant’s associations and tenant board members of registered social landlords (RSLs)
I no longer agree with having standing members of tenant representative bodies or tenant board members on RSLs. They very soon become as out of touch with reality as the senior managers who run them. I’ve seen board reports altered to misrepresent issues to what are essentially laymen/women.
I’ve seen tenant representation all too often being used by senior management to rubber stamp policies and cuts that actually make services worse for tenants.
Tenants being used to legitimise further retrenchment of the service as more and more money goes into the consumption side of housing (rent at 80% market rents!) rather than improvements or affordable housebuilding that we really need.
And a housing service that is a shadow of its former self just being used to store social problems rather than deal with them.
I agree that we need the politicians too, but not those who think all their job is for is to divest the state of the responsibility for these matters.
You need committed politicians taking on committed officers.
The most effective use I’ve seen with tenants is enabling them to lead service improvements – almost like an inspection and improvement task force where tenants and officers sit around a table, look at real life experiences and work things out and improve services.
You could take that model to any state service – prisons, the NHS, the police – and work wonders with it. It would solve a lot of problems and is much better than having end user sitting board and committee members from my experience.
Thanks.
Agreed. Capture theory bedevils organisations and external relations. We have found it important to insist on limited terms in office, and rotation of staff even to mundane events such as industry conferences.
There is of course the counter argument of “experience”, but 10 years experience is all too often 1 year experience 10 times.