This is from a great article by George Monbiot in The Guardian this morning:
In one forum after another, I hear the same sentiments: “I voted for change, not the same or worse.” “I've voted Labour all my life, but that's it for me.” “I feel I've been had.”
It's not dissatisfaction. It's not disillusionment. It's revulsion: visceral fury, anger on a level I've seldom seen before, even towards Tory cruelties. Why? Because these are Tory cruelties, delivered by a party that claimed to be the only alternative, in our first-past-the-post electoral system.
Everyone can name at least some of the betrayals: cutting disability benefits; supplying weapons and, allegedly, intelligence to the Israeli government as it pursues genocide in Gaza; channelling Reform UK and Enoch Powell in maligning immigrants; slashing international aid; trashing wildlife and habitats while insulting and abusing people who want to protect them; announcing yet another draconian anti-protest law; leaving trans people in legal limbo; rigidly adhering to outdated and socially destructive fiscal rules; imposing further austerity on government departments and public services. Once the great hope of the oppressed, Labour has become the oppressor.
George suggests action to take to win PR as a result, because we must try to minimise the risk of this happening again:
Here's the strategy. Join the Lib Dems, Greens, SNP or Plaid Cymru. As their numbers rise, other voters will see the tide turning. Encourage troubled Labour MPs to defect. Most importantly, begin the process in each constituency of bringing alienated voters together around a single candidate.
It might work.
I leave others to decide what do, but definitely read his article.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
Monbiot leaves out the strong showing by independents at the last election and sticks to the safe territory of Lib Dems, Greens, SNP or Plaid Cymru. He even says join them – but the LibDems in particular have recent history in opposing the very changes he wants.
We’re going to need a wider and probably different coalition than this.
???
Pardon?
The Lib Dems oppose PR?
I’m saying if you support the LibDems you get other things you maybe didn’t want.
Lib Dems, Tuition fees? Support for the Tories? Yes, they want PR, but they come with a history that should worry everyone.
Agreed
But compromise is a part of politics.
With this attitude, NOTHING changes.
Change the system first. That is the only priority.
Can you reallly not see how important this is?
The problem with independents is that you don’t know what they are independent of.
Four years ago when Durham had its council elections, the independents were the second largest group after labour, with the tories third.
All the other parties set up a coalition against labour, so labour had no say in anything the council did for the last four years, but were blamed for what happened despite the fact that the tories ran the coalition, with a libdem figurehead. That’s why we now have a reform council.
“In one forum after another, I hear the same sentiments: “I voted for change, not the same or worse.”
The exact same thing is being said in the USA by the “swing voters” who voted for Trump.
PR is not enough for me to join the Lib-Dems.
They need to get rid of the Orange book first.
Sorry.
I might try learning Welsh though – love the place and the people.
An alternative. All the other parties, independents, etc. agree to a pact to put Proportional Representation Single Transferable Vote PR STV with multi-person constituencies (no party list) to a an immediate referendum vote upon winning the election. Then hold new elections within xx months (minimum time possible required to organise a referendum.)
That is my preference.
John, I think this is along the lines I feel is the only way FPTP will be changed. The two main parties – and now maybe Reform – see FPTP as the means to total control of government: Labour prefer long periods out of power rather than compromise or collaborate (as I also read earlier today – might have been in the Monbiot article as well). If all the left (ex Labour), left of centre and independents came to a pact that if they got support to form a government that would have a single policy objective – to pass legislation to establish PR and parliamentary boundaries, and dissolve the house of lords to establish a new second chamber. Once those objectives were delivered the parties would pledge to dissolve parliament for elections under the new election rules. There would have to be a huge movement to select candidates collaboratively under the existing system, but it could be done. I suppose a hitch is that the party receiving the largest number of MPs gets to attempt to form the government, so it would be no good having all the small parties individually represented, so perhaps another pact would be needed to temporarily amalgamate them for the sole purpose of forming a government to eliminate FPTP then dissolving that pact with the dissolution of the government.
I guess that sounds total pie in the sky, but a more optimistic view is that it’s very, very improbable, but possible. Maybe Corbyn could bring all the parties together, but I fear the old guard left would be sidetracked and fail again through introspection and in-fighting.
If you go for STV or even PR (I’m in favour of both. I would like the legislative be PR and the upper house be STV), make sure the major parties don’t tie your arms behind your back.
Check out what happened in British Columbia provincial referendum in 2005 on STV. We should have won that referendum. We got 57.7% of the popular vote. But 60% was required for the popular vote and a simple majority in at least 60% of the electoral ridings. We got 97% of the electoral ridings voting in favour of STV.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC-STV
None of the parties that have ever governed want to change the electoral system.
At the federal level, during the campaign, Justin Trudeau said it be the last time we vote with First Past the Post. He came up with a ranked ballot. The Liberals would have been everybody’s second choice so they would have always won.
https://www.fairvote.ca/03/10/2024/fact-checking-justin-trudeau-on-electoral-reform/
https://electoral-reform.org.uk/how-trudeau-missed-the-opportunity-for-electoral-reform-in-canada/
You suggest to read George’s original article, but don’t provide a link. Was there a reason for the non-linking?
Error. I was proving I am human, and was writing in haste.
Fair enough, human 🙂
Thank you for adding it the article
Not unrelated, of equal concern is the unprecedented one hour ‘party political broadcast’ the BBC just gave to Farage on their main news programme this morning (11.15am to 12.17am) so he could spout his propaganda. You don’t even see much from the Lib Dems on the BBC these days, who have 72 seats as opposed to Reform UK’s mere 5. But this morning you’d easily be forgiven for thinking that Farage was now the Prime Minister – very worrying indeed and makes me wonder who is responsible for news content on the BEEB these days.
They would not even mention anything the Greens do.
Or the as many independent MPs.
Or the SNP.
But Reform? Apparently, yes.
Now Farage is on radio five live afternoon Chorley show
I did hear a self congratulatory discussion on R4 media show a week ago – brushing off the charge BBC over represent Reform – saying its based on opinion polls – with a logic that could lead to no one else but reform getting coverage.
BBC is forever giving Farage a platform. Periodically I write and make a complaint- please everyone do the same and perhaps the message will get through.
Or maybe the CEO and chair have something to do with it.
Cadwalladr has been right all along. Those who own/control the media and increasingly social media are the ones who will succeed so why are the BBC pushing this agenda? A fringe political party being given such a prominent mainstream platform – it will pay anyone to catch it on BBC’s iPlayer to see what I mean. Dark money? Brown envelopes?
The actions of Starmer’s Labour has left me, and no doubt many others, politically homeless, precisely because of their continued Tory austerity trajectory. Farage and Tice must be laughing their socks off given the fodder provided by Labour for a such political coup and the BBC seem willing, complicit participants. As much as I agree with Monbiot the majority of the electorate will have never read him, and their lies the rub. If we want genuine change then we need to realise that the media is the main battleground and the far right are winning here because their uber rich owners are calling the shots and are so adept at influencing the hoi polloi.
I live in a typical working class community, I have always been politically left of centre and for all my 45 years of adult life that has never changed my political position and I was always in with the majority of my community. Now I’m labelled a ‘Commie’ because many of my peers have unwittingly moved to the far right, mainly because their sole post-school education about the world comes from the Right Wing rags, recently GB news, and now increasingly reinforced by similar ‘algorithmic’ targeted messaging on all social media platforms, an now apparently, even the avowedly the ‘impartial’ BBC. This is what we’re up against and we have a few years before the next GE to try and address it.
The Establishment just co-opt anyone who tries to redistribute power and wealth.
Just look at Labour, once the worker’s party, now Liarbour, all the main parties are sock puppets to varying degrees, and the other’s live in fear of the Establishment media doing to them was done to Corbyn.
The Establishment’s political power-base is Westminster, it’s financial power-base is the City of London, almost a state within a state. This needs to end, we all need to be independent of these vested interests.
End the Union and properly devolve power in England.
Or people will likely turn to fascism.
Tory cruelties?
McSwine cruelties implemented by his puppet Starmer. McSwine (aka McSweeney) is an irish tory – thus any resemblance to tory policies is not an accident.
As we said last year … A vote for LINO is a vote for tory policies – & thus it came to pass.
Think of LINO this way: the current crew surrounding Starmer are implementing policies that will lead to (well paid) jobs followng the elimination/extinction of LINO at the next election. So all these nasty policies are mostly related to the positoning of escape routes.
Governing to make the country better? Don’t be silly that’s a mugs game – LINO are in the “line my own pocket” game & devil take the hindmost.
There appears to be some movement on the creation of a new opposition party.
Jeremy Corbyn suggests a new party will be in place before 2026 elections, The Canary, (May 2025)
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2025/05/21/jeremy-corbyn-new-party-news/
Corbyn almost declares new left challenge to Starmer, Socialist Worker (May 2025)
https://socialistworker.co.uk/news/corbyn-almost-declares-new-left-challenge-to-starmer/
Collective: A mass movement for a new left party
https://we-are-collective.org/
Democracy in Europe 2025
https://diem25.org/en/
Jeremy Corbyn and the other Labour dissenters should join the Green Party rather than waste time trying to build a new party from scratch.
I am sorry, the Green party has huge issues over their policies and accountability. Joining them may equal a vanishing act. We need a party of independents that people like the Greens could join.
And I am very aware of The Life of Brian and SPLITTERS!
Dear Ian T.
Yes, a new party is what the headlines say.
Corbyn did not. He said there would be “something”.
https://theleftlane2024.substack.com/p/a-new-socialist-left-party-in-the
PS: And I am not the only one who thinks Corbyn would be a POOR choice as leader of a new party.
He would be
I like Jeremy, but that does not mean he could do this.
He would not be the best leader (although I am nor sure who would be) but he certainly won’t be any worse than recent leaders of the Tories and Labour.
There seems to be a suggestion of ‘entryism’ to the Green Party lurking on the internet
Yes, I read the article first thing this morning. Not that I’ve read them all but probably the best that I have. It really does get to the core of where we are with Labour.
That “It’s not dissatisfaction. It’s not disillusionment. It’s revulsion: visceral fury, anger on a level I’ve seldom seen before”.
I know I’m repeating myself but I’m still staggered and at a total loss to understand why Labour have implemented all the totality unnecessary and utterly cruel policies they have and still expect to get voted back in.
Of course, if they, the US, Germany, Israel etc get the world war they are plainly lusting for, there won’t be an election in four years, just a flag waving national government.
I am not convinced anyone is lusting a world war.
John Daglish says:
“An alternative. All the other parties, independents, etc. agree to a pact to put Proportional Representation Single Transferable Vote PR STV with multi-person constituencies (no party list) to a an [SIC] immediate referendum vote upon winning the election. Then hold new elections within xx months (minimum time possible required to organise a referendum.”
… to which Richard Murphy responded…
“That is my preference.”
I’m sorry, but that is quite unrealistic.
This is what it implies, spelt out in detail…
First, the progressive front improbably wins a general election under FPTP.
Then, it puts most or a significant portion of its effort into a referendum on PR. The government would still have to campaign for the specific PR system which it agreed on, if indeed the Prog Alliance did agree specifically. And the electorate would also have voted for the Prog Alliance’s program in general and would expect the smack of firm government from day one. Moreover, It would take time to get more people, including 16 and 17 year olds on to the electoral register, given that only 86 percent are registered now – and lower percentages amongst ethnic minorities and in Scotland, so that the referendum would have maximum democratic legitimacy when it was held.
Second and most critically, the question of independence for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be unresolved, so that electors on those nations would vote in the PR vs FPTP referendum for the UK, only for its electors to be free to campaign thereafter for independence for their countries. That would not be fair. (It could be finessed by making the referendum subject to a super majority, say 60 percent of the votes cast, but that is to make things complicated. Best, as always, to Keep It Simple.)
Third, it is quite unrealistic to expect a newly installed progressive government to give up hard won power after perhaps a year in government – six months to organise the referendum and then, given a Yes vote for PR, another six months to organise a general election under the agreed PR system – during which time most if not all progressive measures if any the government had put in place would not have had time to bear fruit.
Forth, it would play into the hands of Reform. The government would have built up no, or at least insufficient, electoral goodwill after a mere twelve months in power to have a good chance of being returned to power under the first expression of general election feeling after a mere six months in power.
Here is a more realistic scenario…
A Progressive Alliance of the Greens – GPEW and the Scottish Green Party – Lib/Dems and Independents plus possibly the SNP agree that there should be a PR referendum (STV vs FPTP) during the next parliament but with at least sufficient time thereafter in a five year parliament for the next general election to be held under PR with or without muti-member constituencies depending on whether there was a Yes vote in favour of both PR and MMCs.
The PA also agrees on votes for 16-17 year olds, abolishing the need for voter IDs and automatic voter registration and actions all these on reaching power.
The PA also agrees to hold independence referendums in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – assuming Republic of Ireland is agreeable to Irish Unity – before the PR/MMC referendum is held, so that electors can be excluded from it if there are Yes votes in the relevant national referendums.
The delay in holding the PR/MMC referendum would also afford time to hold one or more local government elections under STV, hopefully for full council elections for which no referendum would be required to provide democratic legitimacy. That would allow local electors to familiarise themselves with the STV system, which would be similar to the system offered in the national referendum on PR/MMCs and would be more likely to result in a vote in favour of it.
This judicious and sensible delay and sequencing would also allow other progressive policies to be enacted and pursued and a fair time for the beneficial results to be observed by ordinary electors, so that there would be a fair chance of a progressive government being returned under the first run of PR – with or without MMCs.
Thanks, Ian. Appreciated.
You know,
You probably won’t find the best system at the first effort. You’ll probably need to fine-tune your system over a few parliaments to get what fits the UK the best.
But don’t let that divert attention from the principal aim: getting rid of FPTP.
Coalition governments tend to focus political minds and policies and strategies onto really winning hearts and minds amongst tge electorate.
Current UK policy focusses on swing seats and marginal gains to achieve absolute power. 34% of the vote to get a 174 seat majority is the clear enemy of democracy.
Why does it appear to be so hard to bring together a few hundred politicians who believe in a fairer, greener future – where no child goes hungry, every family has a home that’s warm and our planet is protected for the next generation. A few hundred who want to serve their community with courage, not caution; to stand up for real social equity and bold climate action, and for whom justice and fairness are non-negotiable. Why is it so hard?
They need an instruction manual…
And even an explanation of the philosophy that they need to share.
One answer might be found in the highly controlled political party selection process with its overseeing centralised Westminster/The City cartel. Only those who are deemed The Right Sort go on to safe seats and secure supportive vote swaying PR mass mediation. See Johnson/Starmer/Farage. The obvious lack of either character or capabilities in any of these men is rather beginning to give their cosy game away.
Maybe this might help. Compiled, after a few false starts, with the assistance of ChatGPT
Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament
Revised to incorporate ethical principles
Purpose
This Code sets out the ethical framework and standards of conduct expected of all Members of Parliament in carrying out their duties. It is grounded in the Seven Principles of Public Life (Nolan Principles), extended by principles reflecting moral imperatives especially compassion, justice for the vulnerable, servant leadership, and peacemaking. The purpose is to promote public trust and ensure MPs serve with integrity, humility, and love.
Part 1: Core Ethical Principles
1. Selflessness
MPs should act solely in the public interest. They must not act to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or friends.
2. Integrity
MPs should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence their work.
3. Objectivity
MPs must make decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and judgement available.
4. Accountability
MPs are accountable to the public for their decisions and must submit themselves to scrutiny.
5. Openness
MPs should be transparent in their actions and decisions, and should give reasons for them where appropriate.
6. Honesty
MPs must declare any private interests relating to their public duties and take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
7. Leadership
MPs should lead by example, upholding these principles and promoting ethical conduct in public life.
Part 2: Enriched Moral Commitments
The following principles complement and deepen the Nolan Principles.
8. Compassion and Care for the Vulnerable
MPs should treat all individuals with compassion, dignity, and empathy—especially the sick, poor, marginalised, and voiceless. Policy and representation should strive to lift burdens and affirm the equal worth of all.
9. Servant Leadership
MPs should regard their role as one of service rather than status. They are called to serve their constituents with humility, placing the needs of others above their own ambitions.
10. Justice and Protection of the Marginalised
MPs must actively protect the interests of vulnerable groups, seek justice for the oppressed, and challenge systemic inequalities. Fairness must include a bias toward those least able to advocate for themselves.
11. Peacemaking and Reconciliation
MPs should foster social harmony and work to resolve conflict peacefully, promoting dialogue, mutual respect, and reconciliation in the Commons and wider society.
12. Solidarity and Unity in Love
MPs should build unity across political, cultural, and social divides, acting in the spirit of mutual responsibility and common humanity. They should avoid divisive or dehumanising rhetoric.
13. Stewardship and Generosity
MPs should act as wise stewards of public resources and trust, not merely avoiding misuse but actively promoting the just, effective, and generous use of power and money for the common good.
14. Self-Sacrifice and Moral Courage
MPs should be prepared to act with integrity even when it comes at personal or political cost. They must stand up for what is right and just, even when it is unpopular or dangerous to do so.
15. Spiritual and Ethical Reflection
MPs should engage regularly in self-examination and reflection—whether spiritual or philosophical—to ensure their actions are guided by conscience, humility, and a sense of moral accountability beyond politics.
Part 3: Application and Enforcement
All Members of Parliament are expected to uphold and model these principles. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will continue to investigate complaints and report to the Committee on Standards. Enhanced ethical training will be provided to support MPs in living out these commitments.
Conclusion
This revised Code calls MPs to a higher standard of service: one that seeks not only legality and formality, but also love, justice, mercy, and truthfulness in public life. It reflects the profound moral vision of a politics that serves the whole person and all persons.
Thanks
Right. Now we’ve got that one out of the way, how about a legally binding code of ethics for the banking industry?
You can dream.