I liked this question in the Guardian this morning:
I think Arwa Mahdawi asks a wholly relevant question of the US and is more than able to answer it, so let me use this as the start point for a tangential thought.
The real question to ask is, I think, not about the US. Nor is it about the Democrats. It is about the electoral systems of the US and UK that appear unable to produce anything much approaching a competent politician these days. If they could we would not have Biden, whose only advantage is that he comes from a different era, and Sunak, whose only advantage is the insensitivity to opinion that extreme wealth provides.
In truth, what these supposed democracies have in common are three things.
First is first-past-the-post electoral systems, which very largely reduces electoral democracy to a choice between those able to progress through the murky, back-room shenanigans of two-party candidate selection processes. Most who do so know that once elected they are either almost guaranteed a seat or are completely wasting their time until a better opportunity comes along. But the skills required for selection are a long way removed from what we need in our elected politicians. So we are always given sub-optimal choices.
Second, we have a media that promotes stupidity. I am not sure much more explanation is required. The whole idea of the fourth estate holding much of democracy to account disappeared, long ago.
Third, candidates have to live in a wholly artificial goldfish bowl of scrutiny that few sane people would wish to endure. So, we get those with unusually thick skinned, or whose flaws destroy them, upon which fate they are willing to gamble when taking office. Neither greatly advantage us.
This is why we get the dire politicians that we do. To be blunt, no one with any sense would want the job. And if you want it, you're probably not fit to have it.
Can we do better than that? I think so. But to do that we have to break the power of the two party system, and that means the end of first-past-the-post. That's where the corruption of the UK's democracy and politics begins. Everything else flows from there.
I am not saying any alternative will be a panacea. I am saying it will be better than what we have got. And that would be a start.
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 PR route might be a good step forward, but it would still leave political parties under the control of self-selecting lunatics. In the case of the vile-tories, a cursory glance at the line-up of their MPs tells you all you need to know about vile-tory selection committees for MPs. In the case of vile-Liebore, Starmer has clearly read & digested that classic work by Stalin: “how to select members of the soviet; and keep them in line”. PR will not change these realities.
This raises the question: apart from a vote every couple of years (or wiriting letters to their MP – mostly filed vertically), how do citizens influence what passes for the political process?
2nd chamber selected by lot – sits for 2 or 3 years. 200 people – with own set of support staff. 2nd chamber has the ability to reject outright any & all laws. That would focus minds amongst the assorted imbeciles in the body politic. Hopefully, over time it would strip out much of the nonesense.
In parallell: media ownership: only UK resident, tax paying Uk citizens. No “limited liability”, no single owner, max share holding 3% (or some such). BBC board selected by 2nd chamber committee and voted on by 2nd chamber. The UK boards of other TV stations need to be approved by 2nd chamber committee. Correction to media lies would need same prominence as the lie.
Noted
I’m increasingly thinking sortition is the way to go with 2 nd chamber and oversight bodies.
Adding to this comment: “In the case of vile-Liebore, Starmer has clearly read & digested that classic work by Stalin: “how to select members of the soviet; and keep them in line”.
I offer In evidence (which seems to pile up weekly) why Liebore/Starmer should not be allowed near the levers of power, this very good article by Chakrabortty
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/08/jamie-driscoll-labour-keir-starmer-north-of-tyne-mayor.
Political pettiness, vindictiveness, small mindedness, liars, unfit to run a corner shop – thy name is Liebore/Starmer. The Uk deserves much much better than this. If the vile-tories deserve to be obliterated at the next election, so does Liebore, …..ghastly people with one or two exceptions.
https://labourhub.org.uk/2023/06/10/why-we-issued-our-open-letter-about-jamie-driscoll/
Some Jewish people in the north east are not taking kindly to Starmer’s attempt to get rid of Driscoll.
I realise it is somewhat idealistic but, after getting rid of FPTP, we need to devolve power to the lowest practical level. We need a mindset that can start at the bottom and build, from there, whatever higher levels of decision-making we feel we need.
To be honest, I’ve given up with politics and politicians – I use those terms advisedly because I do not see any politics of politicians – I just see a rooted orthodoxy and careerists at the moment passing through it.
I’ve done some reading around the Democrats nomination processes and I’m just left speechless by it. In truth the Democrats are just a cowered continuity party in America, who don’t like change and want to retain the post Reagan era as it is. It is the Republicans who are the most radical to be honest but they are actually like some form of Western Taliban, wanting to take the US back to some golden era – probably the wild west or the Klondike.
I think that the UK tends to follow the same trajectory. The only saving grace for both countries is that there is a portion of the population who don’t like this at all. But that is why crap TV and other puerile media is developed as soma to keep us under control. Also, the political science of fascism is everywhere.
The only real politics that exists now is that practiced by wealth hegemony whose political project is to stabilise the post 2008 world and to retain and grow the gains they got from it unchallenged.
Of all the politics, this project is the only real one and by all accounts its doing very well.
Well, as Jefferson said, the government we elect is the government we deserve.
US politics is now driven largely by money – more than it ever was, under the rulings of the current Supreme Court. God help them.
And in the UK, we are seeing a widening disconnection of our political class from the electorate. Wilson, Health, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, were all born before the end of the Second World War, and attended state schools (mostly grammar schools). Two did not attend university at all; the others went to Oxford. More widely there were many MPs with a variety of lived experiences – many had served in the armed forces, particularly the war generations that have largely passed away now, or ran businesses, or practised in various professions particularly the law, or were union activists, or progressed from local politics onto the national stage. In short, society was more equal, and political representatives were picked from a wider and deeper pool.
Now, Blair, Cameron, Johnson, Sunak all attended private schools, and all went to Oxford. May and Truss also went to Oxford. Indeed, including the two above, there are only three prime ministers since Churchill who did not attend Oxford (the other was Brown). We have a growth of special advisers as a route into political office, and a merry-go-round of people from journalism into think tanks or PR and back again. Again typically from the 7% of children who are privately educated, and the small fraction who attend Oxbridge. If you pick from a smaller pool, you’ll get worse candidates.
My perception is that the social attitudes of people in their 20s and 30s are very different from those in their 40s and 50s or older, and there will eventually be a swing back from the individualistic neoliberal hegemony. But frankly I can’t see that being started by the next Labour government – the opposition seem scared of doing anything bold.
But I agree – a first step to meaningful reform would be some form of proportional representation.
Much to agree with
‘Well, as Jefferson said, the government we elect is the government we deserve.’
I’ve never agreed with this or stuff like it.
How can you say a ‘people’ get something they deserve when they are so misinformed and manipulated and even the media stops holding government to account (something I believe Jefferson also advocated). And with fascism helping to turn the people against each other too?
This sort of thinking blames the people all of the time and gives bad political actors a too easy ride. How else do you think ‘the people’ keep electing politicians who make things worse for them? Because they are lied to all of the time in a system set up to ensure that capital and wealth wins. And with the advent of the internet, lying ,misinformation and diversion at scale makes this even worse.
This idea or implication that ‘the people’ are stupid or gullible is a really bad road to go down. It means cynical politicians and cynical politics which is bad enough but also helps create elitism too with those better informed looking down their noses at the less well informed and playing the blame game which exactly what the cause and effect of fascist political science would expect you to do.
So I can’t agree with Jefferson’s statement given the above and in addition the paucity of education citizens get about the real state of affairs of their so called ‘democracy’ which exists really in name only at the moment – see the rather interesting post about capital gains tax here the other day and how the Establishment seems to have got out of that in plain sight – and always in plain sight.
I lioke that argument
I belonged to a party, nominally democratic, whose policies included PR, taking back public control of public services, and human rights commitments. I left when democracy began to be shut down, appalled by the glee with which local apparatchiks greeted this opportunity, to finally cement the suffocating control they had over any advancement within the party and public domain.
In order to advance within that party, one largely need to be white and male; I had plenty of examples of misogyny, homophobia, racism, nepotism and so on over the decades. Hilariously, the one thing I never encountered was antisemitism – which is now a weapon to shut down any candidate not approved by the centre.
That’s why we get the politicians, from that sector, that we don’t deserve (e.g. the economically illiterate).
Off topic, but worth posting for interest
‘If Neoliberalism Did Not Exist, We Would Have to Invent It’ (Washington Post & Bloomberg)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/06/07/neoliberalism-needs-a-rethink-not-extinction/69eb7f5a-04eb-11ee-b74a-5bdd335d4fa2_story.html
It was free for me to read on the above link. Apologies if posted incorrectly.
Thanks
[…] By Richard Murphy, a chartered accountant and a political economist. He has been described by the Guardian newspaper as an “anti-poverty campaigner and tax expert”. He is Professor of Practice in International Political Economy at City University, London and Director of Tax Research UK. He is a non-executive director of Cambridge Econometrics. He is a member of the Progressive Economy Forum. Originally published at Tax Research UK […]
@Mike Parr
Always an entertaining read!
Good points too, but I’d suggest that PR with single transferable vote (importantly no party top-up lists) and multi-member constituencies would not I think, ‘still leave political parties under the control of self-selecting lunatics’. Or at least considerably less so.
If I’m expelled from one of the big two parties at present that probably means I have nowhere to go. If you’re on the left you won’t want to go to the Tories, or on the right to Labour – you might just go for the Lib Dems but in most places they seem to have little hope.
If you have multi-member constituencies you will be likely to have a similar-ish party with a member in your constituency who you can support – and that will offer a refuge for many of those expelled and disatisfied and also, importantly for activists, someone you can probably campaign for at the next election.
Starmer and his Stalinist tendencies will know this or will soon find out and so, if they know what’s good for them, will discover that they need to throw away Joseph’s manual…
Importantly too, with multi-member constituencies you have less media attention locally on one person – the constituency will have four or five or so to choose from – it takes the heat off the individual a bit – and so is more likely to encourage fewer narcissists and more people with actual skill to put themselves forward for election…
I tend to agree with you Peter
In Britain, the explanation for the calibre of politicians is the same reason that you don’t think of standing for election yourself – nor indeed me or I suspect most contributors to your blog.
(1) You won’t get elected unless you join one of the main political parties and are prepared to defend all their policies. In my lifetime no party has produced a manifesto that I could agree with 100%, there have always been some dubious policies. So by definition you have to be someone prepared to compromise personal integrity and dishonestly support policies you think are wrong.
(2) Standing for election is expensive, so you will be expected to toady up to some unpleasant but rich individuals who are prepared to fund the party. Again this filters out those with any sort of personal integrity.
In the States it is reason (2) that predominates, neither of the parties there seems to have any particular policies to sign up to and they just accept whatever comes as part of the baggage of their Presidential candidates.
I’d say the answer is elections. I don’t know when or how democracy became equated with electing a tiny number of people to “represent” everyone, but it’s kind of obvious that, if you do that, those who are elected are going to make sure that they and those they’re connected to get what they want (not the voter). Representation (and hierarchy) are the problem. There are no right kinds of people to elect, just people. The system we have devised has incentivised the horror we are living through. All because we can’t countenance the possibility of shared power. Voting isn’t about giving people a voice, it’s about excluding people from having a voice. There’s an absurdity which says: the people aren’t smart enough to run the country, but they are smart enough to elect those who do. I despair that anyone thinks that makes sense, especially when the election process is so absolutely unfit for making that decision. There are plenty of ideas for alternative decision-making systems that don’t go near pretending elections offer anything useful. The vast majority of people can speak for themselves, discuss and arrive at a decision with others. For instance, most people want SUV’s banned, but have no power to decide this will happen (at any level). Also, most people want well-funded public services, but we don’t get them. It takes an elected govt to prevent people from helping each other directly and instead demand that they need to sell a load of widgets, the taxed profits of which can fund a hospital. Countries with PR are arguably a bit better on the whole, but they’re still awful for most, horrendous for some, all have vertiginous levels of inequality and toxic hierarchies.
I have been re-reading Isabel Hardman’s “Why we get the wrong politicians”. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/02/why-we-get-the-wrong-politicians-isabel-hardman-review. Really good and well-written
This is long, as it was an article I posted on my own blog a few yars ago. It’s about how the parties have learned to play the D’Hondt voting system in Scotland. You might not want to publish this on your blog, but I thought it might be of interest to you.
==========================================
Reforming the ‘List’
There’s a feeling that the way the ‘Additional Member’ system as it is currently used to elect MSPs to Holyrood is no longer operating in the interests of the citizens who vote. It’s being abused by the Political Parties as a route for their loyal members to be rewarded with a position as an MSP. This is surely not how it was intended to be used. So here’s some ideas for discussion. I’ve posted this as blog because it seems to be cropping up on several Facebook groups. Blogging it makes it far easier for me to find what I’ve previously written on FB.
I think a change is very badly needed. The list system is being played by the politicians to their personal advantage, not to the benefit of the people who vote. While Murdo Fraser is the most obvious example, there are others who do the exact same. Richard Leonard and Anas Sarwar being examples of how the Labour party is abusing the List system. Labour’s leaders were elected on the List, technically no-one voted for them. (And there are others too)
Points have ben raised on Facebook and social media about any of the changes proposed below meaning that the political parties would require a far wider pool of candidates than they currently seem to have. In short, where would all the new MSPs come from if the ‘regulars’ were now to be barred from appearing time after time. I don’t see this as a problem, I see this as a way of refreshing and getting much needed new blood and talent into Holyrood. There’s also a problem to be thought through about how could the ‘List’ be used to support smaller or even independent (with a small “i”) candidates. Wouldn’t it be great if we could have people with real experience and subject-matter-expertise in our Parliament? Maybe have someone like Harry Burns as a medical expert serve a term. Maybe have some candidates who have real experience in the electricity/energy sectors to serve and guide Holyrood on such areas? idealist I know, but if we are serious about reforming the ‘List’ system then why not think big blue sky thoughts?
While it seems simple to suggest that there should be a two term limit on the number of times a candidate can appear on the list, there are other conditions we ought to consider too:
1) No candidate may serve as a ‘list’ MSP for more than two successive Parliamentary terms.
2) There shall be a gap of one Parliamentary term between any candidate being able to serve as a ‘List’ MSP. (to break the cycle of repeat/career List MSPs)
3) In the event of a ‘List’ MSP standing down during a Parliamentary term, or any reason, there shall be a by-election to replace them. Parties shall not simply appoint their next member. (To break the cycle of ‘List’ MSPs then standing in other elections, e.g. Westminster, and the party simply making it their next members seat automatically)
4) No candidate shall be able to stand as a ‘List’ MSP if they are also contesting a constituency seat. (To prevent the ‘List’ being used as a safety net for candidates who fail to win election in a constituency)
5) An MSP elected on the ‘List’ should not be able to hold the position of First Minister.
6) An elected ‘List’ MSP will not be allowed to be considered to stand as a candidate in any other elections while they are service in Holyrood. (To prevent a ‘List’ MSP from seking election and having the safety net of their ‘List’ seat if they fail to win whatever other election they are seeking to stand in)
There are probably more conditions we ought to be thinking of, but these are a start. There have been petitions on Holyrood to reform the List System in the past. They never reached the numbers needed too have this actioned in Holyrood though. Maybe it’s time to raise another petition and all get very solidly behind it?
We can make this change. We can force Holyrood to at least discuss it – but we all have to get organised to share this and to get a petition we’re all happy with
Please feel free to share this, to cut’n’paste it, to discuss it and post it wherever you like. It’s time we got some democratic ooomph back into our ‘List’ MSPs.
==============================
Hope this is of interest.
Thanks