The Guardian reported this yesterday:
Ministers are changing the voting system for mayoral elections in a move likely to make it harder for Reform politicians to take big regions like Lincolnshire and Hull as they did this year.
They note:
The move is likely to please Labour MPs and local authorities after frustration over losses in two recent contests where Andrea Jenkyns, a Reform mayor, was elected on 42% of the vote in Lincolnshire, while Luke Campbell, the Reform mayor in Hull and East Yorkshire, got 35%.
In another part of the legislation, mayors will now be elected under a preferential system, rather than first-past-the-post, a change designed to make sure candidates have broader support.
The move also pleases me. That is because it recognises a simple fact, which is that under first-past-the-post electoral systems, the majority of people in any constituency, whatever the election is, will not in any way be represented by the person who is elected, and will therefore feel alienated by the process of democracy that has gone on. This, of course, is the sentiment that the Labour MPs who are pleased about this move have now discovered.
The problem is that those very same MPs appear not to have realised that people in the country at large have exactly the same sentiment about having sent a Labour majority to the House of Commons when that supposed the majority lacked any electoral support to provide it with the authority that it claims to have to undertake changes so detrimental to the well-being of so many people in this country.
If Labour really has understood that electing mayors and police commissioners on a first-past-the-post system is wrong because a single office holder for a constituency should not be returned on that basis, then there are two things that it should do.
First of all, it should require that every election be undertaken based on proportional representation.
Secondly, it should require that MPs, councillors and others who hold elected office must represent multi-member constituencies (which is, of course, completely commonplace in local council elections) so that the likelihood of there being an elected member who might represent the opinions of a person in the community is dramatically increased.
If Labour believed in democracy, they would do this.
If they don't, we will get the most unambiguous possible indication that they have no interest in the democratic process at all, which I fear is the case.
Taking further action
If you want to write a letter to your MP on the issues raised in this blog post, there is a ChatGPT prompt to assist you in doing so, with full instructions, here. One word of warning, though: please do make sure you have got the correct MP. ChatGPT can get it wrong.
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!
There is a deeper problem, which you highlight here, which relates to disproportionality, what policies are enacted, the displeasure of the electorate and what happens next. Those in Westminster won’t do anything about what happens in Westminster. And those outside of Westminster can’t force them to act (that would likely need some form of revolution). The problem that underlies all of this is the transfer of power that happens in elections. The surest way to guarantee one’s own subjugation is to give away one’s power. I neither need, nor want anyone to have power over me, as I am a grown-up and more than capable of making decisions for myself, and participate in shared decision-making with others when needed. It is an untenable and, quite frankly, bizarre and embarrassing situation that millions have to accept the decisions of one, with whom they disagree profoundly, that people allow themselves to be locked out of such impactful decision-making, particularly when we see egregious choices being made that are quite frankly insane, in both a metaphoric, and literal way (based upon neoliberal delusions), and deadly. People often see “representative” systems as guarding us against “the mob”, whilst also noting when those same “representatives”, as they are doing now across the world, enact policies of unspeakable horror and cruelty, against a population (the mob) clamouring for compassion, kindness, and co-operation – who, exactly, populates the mob? I find myself in a similar position to those who want proportional representation and are ignored. I too want a system of representation, where those affected by a policy decide the policy, whereby representation is much more granular and does not involve winning a popularity contest (gets elected – which is not the same as being competent to represent others) in order to have a genuinely meaningful voice in decisions and not just “having a say”, or having a “feeling” of involvement. If the mob exists, it resides on the other side of Westminster’s door. The majority want nationalised natural monopolies (between 60-93 percent), they support a green transition (82 percent), they want public healthcare, education and social care, they want good pensions, polls show this repeatedly. We also can’t ignore the fact that “the mob” is just “everyone else” (usually present company excepted), so it’s a myth, a rhetorical bogeyman. History shows that for the far right to flourish, populations have to be stressed, ignored, brutalised, propagandised, and so on; it takes massive effort to generate such hate, but only kindness to foster such in return. The Tories are inherently cruel, as a byproduct of greed, Labour are now inherently cruel, seemingly in order to appear tough, Reform are deranged and also cruel, the LibDems are economically liberal, so have little to offer anyone suffering economically, and the Green Party cannot get media traction, because the media ignores them. So, in 2029 there won’t be a transformation in Westminster. And in 2034 there won’t be either, which takes us up to 2039, where we’ll still have FPTP and be dominated by Neoliberal views, which have barely got started. We can keep hoping for a visionary leader with the right ideas, who will make things better. And then it can all be undone and back to business as usual once they’re voted out again. But that isn’t going to happen. That leader doesn’t exist. So, I am done with centralised, elected govt, it’s an irredeemable, unreformable dud (govt has to be persuaded to reform itself, like that’s going to happen), it cannot deliver what many hope for and need, and it was never set up to do that. I will keep voting, since there’s always the least-worst option (which really underlines the appallingness of the system), but I do not support it, as, the world over, these systems will likely be the death of us all, given the current trajectories that they support and over which they currently preside.
So you are done with centralised, elected government, which you see as unreformable and ultimately dangerous for humanity’s future, buit you also see no alternative. Do you think we are without hope then?
Is accountability while in office the answer. Shame that no historical political figures ever considered this.
I included my view of an alternative, the inclusion of all in decisions, at whatever level that inclusion makes sense. Citizen’s assemblies, for instance, and these are used in numerous places, especially where elected govts are so entrenched in their tribal silos that they can’t find common ground simply because of party affiliation. There are lots of possibilities for alternative governance, and a mix would be ideal, maybe some elected to take specific kinds of decisions, with a narrow remit and specific term, others selected by sortition, like juries, maybe others being panels of experts, and still others general assemblies. These could even be combined. I do not buy the view that in UK history all was fine until say 2008, because: slavery, the first and second world wars and so on, the enclosure act, the depression of the 30s, sexism, racism, ablism, homophobia, colonialism, imperialism, union smashing, and so on, eugenics, sterilisation programs, and the abject levels of poverty that millions have endured throughout history. We can look at recent history and note the horrors of the moment, which are really a lot of chickens coming home to roost, the unaffordability of life for so many being a tragic case in point, but that doesn’t let the past, and the architects of that past off the hook. My own history and that of my family, illustrate to me more than adequately the toxic stupidity of investing so much power in so few hands. The endless suggestions as to how to improve things – get dirty money out of politics, stop MPs having second jobs, limit party donations, demand honesty from politicians, all the petitions that go unheeded, we can wait forever for any to be acted on. The very fact, as PSR points out, that it’s even possible that a govt can turn against its own people ought to be reason enough to end such forms of govt. I sincerely hope for a radical change in how governance operates in the UK, and elsewhere in the world, however, I also believe that such change will not happen peacefully. And without radical change, I don’t see any improvements on the horizon. I cannot in good conscience place trust in or support a system that actively undermines its own citizens. To paraphrase Naom Chomsky, govts are needlessly cruel. He’s also for dismantling all authority that cannot justify its necessity. I agree with him.
I have never had much time for much of the foolishness of Chomsky.
If you wish to live without gvernment you’re in the wrong place here.
The far right are waiitng to embrace you.
Labour is not interested in democracy.
Otherwise they would have supported their own pledge for proportional representation.
Or they would support cabinet collective responsibility at the very least, rather than whatever Starmer says, or better, they would allow cabinet ministers to represent their constituents.
Labour know that many of their policies are unpopular, unsupported by the public, or not even told to the public, but they are dictating otherwise.
Putting aside PR versus FPTP technicalities, The system of democracy we have actually works only when the state knows its place as gamekeeper.
When it wants to start playing poacher that’s when the trouble starts in democracy.
It is very hard in these times to advocate central government when it consorts with poachers and criminals as it does now. I agree.
But this is where you make a big mistake David W – by ignoring history. The origins of political order I would argue all lie within the concept of the state.
The state is to me, like religion. It’s an excellent idea fucked up by individuals who have what can only be described as anti-social problems.
Remember that the best definition of real democracy lies queerly in the Public Choice Theories of James Buchanan. Buchanan looked down on governments that tried to make people happy, saying that the relationship between voter and politician was corrupt and populist. What Buchanan did was actually state what proper democracy was all about without actually realising it. But that was the sort of twat that he was.
Even the Chinese, centuries ago in their ancient Guanzi writings about how to rule acknowledged that peacefulness within your own borders came from happiness and at various times intervened in markets to prevent them pissing their citizens off. Fact. Other near Eastern societies ran debt jubilees when debt got under control. Fact.
Why did Buchanan create Public Choice Theory? Because he was paid handsomely to by people jealous and covetous of the state. Public Choice Theory is Neo-liberalism’s ‘Gishing Gallop ‘ – merely a getting in first of your accusations as you accuse others of your own crimes – fascism in action.
All we have to realise David W is that it in the long run of human history we have been unlucky to have to live in such times where the State has turned against the many, in order to rule for the few. Others will hopefully live in times when the state will rediscover what it is there for and rule for the many. This is what I believe, and even though I truly share and acknowledge your disappointment , I commend my thoughts to you.
Thanks. Appreciated.
David W is correct about the failure of central absolute power. The alternative is dispersed power based on a written constitution. There is hope, but it will need a revolution. And the MSM are too busy feeding off the present system to even consider any alternative.
Party in power on 33.7% of the vote complains about winners with 35% & 42%
You couldn’t make this stuff up!!
🙂
I believe that in order for any form of ‘democracy’ to work to the benefit of all, we must have an informed and sane electorate.
Obviously we will not ever all agree on every issue. Political talent in our leadership for useful compromise and inclusion is essential for any democratic system to work —FPTP, PR etc. But no party or individual gets into power without first being voted into power, one way or another.
So sane, informed voting is crucial.
The mainstream media is what most people rely on to tailor their voting intentions. Unfortunately, it is skewed by its corporate owners to keep the majority of us distracted by trivia, misinformed, hooked on sloganeering, and stubbornly biased against any ‘other.’
Most of our media is now unreliable at best—and malicious at worst—when it comes to disseminating accurate ‘news’ and thoughtful opinion. They decide what we believe and how we vote.
I truly believe that mainstream media is our worst enemy at the moment. How do we tackle what is has become, and heal the effects of what it has been doing?
Breaking the link between the MSM and governance was an unstated objective when I wrote Reinventing Democracy. A constitutional requirement that all political and government communications, at all times, be clear, fair, and not misleading togerther with a robust enforcement mechanism – People’s Council, requirement for corrections to be speedy, prominent, and have at least the same reach as original misinformation – would fix the appalling standards of some of the MSM.
There is a lot of broken heartedness around here – and justifiably so – even Chomsky bless him.
But whether big government/small government – the structures do not matter, it is dealing with people and their behaviour within the structures that is the problem and how easily we make it for them to undermine and capture whatever apparatus is running things.
Come on now! Think about it, even the smallest group can get captured by individuals and agendas – your local camera club or neighbourhood watch. This talk of small government, self regulating groups is misguided I warn you. I spent nearly two thirds of my career in tenant based empower groups in social housing and could tell you a few unsavoury things about human behaviour within power structures.
All I would say is that the issue in politics and government is a lack of self awareness – shall we call it that? The best rulers are aware of human frailties like greed, ambition (a two sided coin – Richard is ambitious but ambitious I think for society not just himself) and have ways to deal with them.
Here in the ‘Christian’ West, we are glorifying greed. We determine success by effectively wiping out the opposition and increasingly not tolerating another view. Being successful is all about materialism – not your contribution to society at large. It’s win or lose not win/win. Why?
No – instead of structures, the state needs new ethics based on the reality of human frailties – checks and balances – and protections. The big mistake we make is to forget that the state itself needs protecting – because if we do not protect it, it will not be able to protect us!! It’s reciprocal! Allowing a state to be captured in broad daylight by enabling anyone to fund the competition to run it and take control of it is a huge human error on a scale that is frighteningly stupid and against everyone’s self interest.
But here again we resort to history. That history tells us that people will not tolerate this insouciance forever. At some stage, they either walk away or there is, I’m afraid, bloodshed.
It’s what comes after the bloodshed or change that matters; its in answer to the question of ethics – what did we learn, what have we remembered in our anger. So often, after satiating anger or seeing change, too many do not have a clue what to do. I mean look at the Labour party.
That is why it is important to come here and keep talking about ideas – Richard’s series on wealth might help generate some answers as his other work has done.
We are in this epoch where we are. That is what I have realised, so generating ideas from analysis and discussion for the future is the best we can do and that is better than nothing.
Thanks
And agreed