It was not a good weekend for English politics.
There was a neo-fascist, racist inspired riot near Liverpool.
The Mail blamed the headteacher who was murdered recently, along with her daughter, for her own death because she had overshadowed her husband's achievements.
Meanwhile, Lee Anderson, the former Labour councillor who had been Tory MP for Ashfield since 2019 and who became a Tory party vice-chair last week, continues to grab headlines by promoting the death penalty as well as by cavorting with known members of the far-right according to the Daily Mirror.
The politics of hate was out in force, in other words.
I had to spend quite a lot of time thinking what I might have to say on this and other topical issues over the weekend for reasons that will become clear quite soon. It struck me, quite forcibly, that these and other authoritarian and oppressive narratives survive and are amplified so strongly precisely because it is thought that they should not be said.
What I am suggesting is that a part of the reason for the problem of extremism that we face in the UK is that we have a political system that for a very long time sought to suppress the extremes, and succeeded in doing so. That is precisely what first-past-the-post two party politics is meant to do.
This system worked when the trigger for authoritarianism did not exist. That trigger is inequality, both actual and perceived. And we have since 2010 had a political party in office that has deliberately promoted inequality in the UK.
Those in the Tory party who did this must regret doing so, simply because as a result they have lost control of that party. I had no liking of the neoliberal party of Cameron and Osborne, but they now appear moderate compared to the far-right coterie that now populates the Tory front bench, from Braverman onwards.
How did that change happen? I have little doubt it was by entryism in reaction to the extremism that the Tories promoted in the first place.
The problem is that now we have a very much more extreme Tory party. Admittedly it is being rejected by the population at large. It is also true that its leadership still (sometimes) condemns the extremists in its ranks, although I cannot help but note that the leadership in question also seems much noisier about protests about climate change and police violence to women than it is about the racially motivated riots near Liverpool.
That said, those from the extremes are angry for the same reason that those who supported Brexit were: they feel under-represented in a system biased against them. As a result they hang on to people like Anderson and Braverman when they get them precisely because they are rare.
And that may be the problem. Maybe they are just too rare. Maybe we need proportional representation so that the objectionable can be said and heard, and then be drowned out by the voices of reason that appear at present to have nothing to say in response at present to this anger precisely because both Tories and Labour are committed to the policy of austerity that triggers authoritarianism in the first place.
If a wider diversity of views was encouraged within our political system then I think we would have sense prevail, because the number of votes extremists could win would be substantially reduced overall, and the more mainstream parties (whoever they might then be) would be free to ignore and disown them when at present it is too obvious that both are willing to move far too much to the right to win the supposed swing voter in red wall seats.
I see proportional representation - and the fact that it gives a voice to the extremist whilst allowing the majority to very clearly reject them (and austerity) - as the way out of the mess that we are in that is triggered by a wholly unnecessary austerity that triggers authoritarian appeal.
A proper democracy might work better than the nasty mess we have got. We should give it a try.
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:
the book ‘Masters of the Universe’ by Stedman -Jones makes the case that neo-liberalism was promoted by think tanks well funded by opaque sources.
The Conservative party has increasingly looked to the USA for ideas and inspiration. Cambridge Analytica was part of an Anglo-America movement which promoted both Brexit and Trump.
I caught the end of a Channel 4 program last night on Russian Oligarch influence on the Conservative party.
I think we are not facing an ideological challenge as with the Cold War. It is more of a grab for power for its own sake. It will only benefit the few so to recruit a mass following it has to arouse fear and a demand for action. Action was always at the emotional heart of Fascism. Using resentment against foreigners and other scapegoats is central to the program. When it could carry a large enough minority in the first past the post system, it could remain in power.
So you are, as usual, right on this. Right on the danger and the (partial) solution.
That was too late for me
I will watch later
For the reasons described above neither the Tory or Labour leadership will support electoral reform in favour of any system of PR.
There’s also a great deal of ignorance out there regarding PR: there are many systems of PR all with their negative and positive properties yet when it comes under discussion most people (at least that I’ve encountered – so not exactly an exhaustive list) can only name STV among the plethora of PR forms. This is very much a cause for concern as STV has been adopted by so few nations and is most strongly criticised for being as biased (or very nearly as skewed) as FPTP. As Richard correctly identifies, perception of non- or under representation fuels anger. Education on this matter should begin in earnest that promotes the necessity for electoral reform and to increase the likelihood that people will be able to make decisions based on facts.
@ Chris W
What leads you to believe that STV is “as biased (or very nearly as skewed) as FPTP”
The impression I get is far from that, it has limitations in constituencies electing a small number of representatives but overall it is far more proportional than First Past the Post.
To put a quick quote from Wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
“…However, the small district magnitude used in STV elections (usually 5 to 9 seats, but sometimes rising to 21) has been criticized as impairing proportionality, especially when more parties compete than there are seats available,[9]: 50 and STV has, for this reason, sometimes been labelled “quasi proportional”.[89]: 83
While this may be true when considering districts in isolation, results overall are proportional.
Even though Ireland has particularly small magnitudes (3 to 5 seats), results of STV elections are “highly proportional”.[17]: 73 [4] In 1997, the average magnitude was 4.0 but eight parties gained representation, four of them with less than 3% of first preference votes nationally. Six independent candidates also won election.[40]
STV has also been described as the most proportional system as it elects candidates without the need for parties. The influence of parties can distort proportionality.[89]: 83 “
All electoral systems have their problems, but any form of PR is going to be better than the laughable mess called FPTP. Which has ensured my vote has never given me a representative I voted for; except for the last election to the European Parliament when a Greem MEP was elected for East of England. Only for the UK to leave the EU as a result of a referendum result obtained through outright lies and, as PSR has noted, electronic brainwashing through data stolen and misused by Cambridge Analytica.
So much for ‘restoring British democracy’ through leaving the EU. What democracy?
I can assure you that working alongside Fascists is one of the those things the PR will have to deal with. But at least you can see where they are.
But any PR system will have to deal with all perceptions of reality – left, right, centre, extreme. This is seen as a weakness in PR as it can make getting to actionable agreement longer.
What we need to do however, is call out Fascism when we see it. It needs to be seen for what it is – divisive, attracting our worst human traits. This would also mean curtailing the freedom of the press and the political parties to use the divisive sloganeering in political discourse.
Making judges an enemy of the people in the Daily Mail is no better than Labour saying ‘for the many not the few’. It negates that we all live together in the same country, on the same land. It puts us at odds with each other. It has to stop.
We have forgotten that politics should be about win/win – compromise. Since Thatcher it has been about winning and making sure the other side loses big. That is not democracy. That is the Fascism I keep saying that we have sleep-walked into.
An example is people getting rich. I have no objection to people getting rich and wealthy. Good for them. But what I object to is that other people must be become poorer in the process or less important if they are not rich. It’s the politics of winners and losers again. Why?
Why can’t we all be winners? Why can’t the environment be a winner? The polar bears too? The Muslims in Pakistan recovering from floods because of melting glacial lakes in the mountains; the victims of shoddily built flats in Turkey’s earthquake?
That is not a compromise. That is unacceptable. That is not politics. This is not justice. This is because of greed facilitated by Fascism and it’s got to stop.
A very thoughtful post which has obviously got me thinking.
Thanks
Electoral reform is necessary, but does not come without a struggle. There was a significant amount of political violence for several years before the First Reform Act in 1832, which widened the franchise from about 200,000 men (out of a total population of 16 million) to about a million, and the Second Reform Act in 1867, which double the franchise to 2 million men (out of about 30 million people), let alone the struggle for some women to get the vote from 1918,
It is obvious that politicians who are elected to represent narrow sectoral interests, rather than the interests of the general population, will favour the interests of their electors, so many millions of people are not effectively represented because their votes don’t matter. As before, we can’t fix the things that matter without fixing political representation first.
Not least the lies and corruption that goes with politicians who are not properly accountable. In some ways, the UK is not so different to Turkey – we have disastrous fires because building regulations are not properly observed, and theirs collapse in earthquakes. Both foreseeable results of faulty politics.
A sobering connection
I must ask what you mean by Proportional Representation?
If you propose a party list system, with the lists controlled by the party elite, (Executive). Then the list will get manipulated to favour those who have already gained power.
What do you mean by it?
My personal preference is for a single transferable vote system, with multi-member constituencies.
(Similar to the system in Ireland).
Mine too
But variations are possible
The single transferable vote system, with multi-member wards, is already in place in Scotland for local authority elections and has been since 2007.
Do voters in Scotland, or Ireland, fuss about no longer having a particular member of Parliament or the local council to represent them? This is what opponents of PR are always saying.
Holyrood elections in Scotland use the de Hondt PR, or ‘Additional Member’ sytem. Local elctions in Scotland are Single Transferable Vote (STV). The strength of STV is, it places the power in the hands of the elector, de Hondt creates a ‘list’, a hierarchy of additional members, which is in the hands of the Party. The elector chooses the Party, the Party effectively selects the member from the list.
I think it would be fair to say that the public respect MSPs who have won their constituency seat in a contest, but do not favour list MSPs to the same degree. Popularly, Murdo Fraser, the Scottish Conservative MSP is often criticised on social media for never having won a constituency seat, but relying on the list to be returned to Parliament. He has lost to John Swinney MSP (SNP) in the elections of 2003, 2007, 2011, 2016 and 2021; and still been returned to Parliament. He is effectively elected by the Conservative Party, against the fairly persistent opinion of the electorate. It wouldn’t happen under STV. Perhaps there should be a quasi-statute of limitations against failed candidates being entered high on the list after multiple rejections!
You are confirming my prejudice against list systems.