The UK is no longer a unitary political system. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England now operate as distinct political realities, yet Westminster still governs as if nothing has changed.

This video argues that Labour's current crisis is not tactical or personal, but constitutional. The collapse of national political consent, the distortions of first-past-the-post, and the absence of a governing theory have created a dangerous vacuum.

I explain why no single party can now govern the UK legitimately, why democratic credibility is failing, and why authoritarian politics thrives in that space. The solution is not domination or denial, but structured cooperation: national government in the national interest.

That means electoral reform, abolition of the House of Lords, a regional senate, recognition of the voluntary nature of the Union, and governing by consent rather than force.

Without this, democracy in the UK will continue to fragment, and that is a risk we cannot ignore.

This is the audio version:

This is the transcript:

The UK is no longer a unitary political system. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England now operate as distinct political realities, yet Westminster still governs as if nothing has changed.

This video argues that Labour's current crisis is not tactical or personal, but constitutional. The collapse of national political consent, the distortions of first-past-the-post, and the absence of a governing theory have created a dangerous vacuum.

I explain why no single party can now govern the UK legitimately, why democratic credibility is failing, and why authoritarian politics thrives in that space. The solution is not domination or denial, but structured cooperation: national government in the national interest.

That means electoral reform, abolition of the House of Lords, a regional senate, recognition of the voluntary nature of the Union, and governing by consent rather than force.

Without this, democracy in the UK will continue to fragment, and that is a risk we cannot ignore.

This is the audio version:

This is the transcript:

What we need in this country right now is national government.

Now, I'm not saying  we necessarily need a government of all parties; I am saying that we need a government that literally rules in the national interest, and at present, we haven't got one, and nor is the need even appreciated. That's what this video is all about.

Labour's crisis that it's got at the moment is not tactical, it is constitutional. The fact is the UK can no longer be governed as if it were one country.  Morgan McSweeney's resignation matters in this context. Not because of him,  he doesn't matter at all, but because it has exposed the vacuum at Labour's core, and that is that it has no governing idea.

Westminster assumes it governs a single nation, but that is no longer true. The UK already operates as four distinct political systems, at least.

Labour does not govern Scotland; it is marginal in that country. The SNP with Green support is very likely to  enter a third decade of power in the elections being held in Scotland this May, and that is not a protest vote, it is a settled political reality.

The situation is going to change in Wales as well.  After a century or more in power in that country, Labour is about to lose its authority in Wales.  This is going to shatter the longest record in democratic history of single-party rule in a country. Plaid Cymru is almost certainly going to lead the next government of Wales, and Labour, if it is present at all in that government, will be as a very junior partner.

Sinn Féin, of course, governs Northern Ireland, and it's going to continue to do so. A growing  majority want this. Labour is, however, refusing to acknowledge the implications of this and the situation in Wales and Scotland.

In a country of four nations, three are going to be ruled after May by parties that are committed to independence. That is extraordinary, but it means that we are no longer a United Kingdom and England, represented by the Westminster Parliament, and  the 85% of the people in the total of the country as a whole, if  you consider the United Kingdom to be that, must reflect the reality of this change.

But this isn't even just about the devolved nations, and that's why it's also so important to say this. England is also politically fragmented.

The Liberal Democrats dominate large regions and, in particular, the South West and West.

Reform has a strong regional presence, particularly down the East Coast.

And Labour is concentrated in cities, whilst, well, the Tories are disappearing, let's be totally honest.

But the reality is that there is now no national political centre. Swing seats in the Midlands still determine who creates a national government, but that national government has no national support, and this is extraordinary.  Labour's 2024 landslide victory was, in fact, aberrational as a consequence. It reflected the distortions of first-past-the-post, but not national unity.  The political map tells a different story now.

We have a democratic problem. A government without a theory of how to govern, and Labour does not have such a theory, is left wondering what to do. They are facing diversity, but they don't understand it. As a consequence, they produce rules without consent and try to impose authority without legitimacy. This is dangerous.  When democratic systems lose credibility, and that in the UK clearly has, authoritarian politics tries to fill the gap.  Defending democracy is therefore now a political priority, and that's why I am so worried about this whole issue of the divisions within our country. I do not want fascists to exploit them.

But the fact is, no single political party can now govern the UK legitimately. Not Labour, not anyone, and this is not a failure of leadership, it's a failure of structure, or at least a failure to recognise the structure of what exists in this country, which is a lot of diverse opinion, which is, however, deeply geographically concentrated.

So I suggest we need a national government. Now, I'm not talking, as I said at the beginning, about a formal coalition here. We don't need a formal coalition at present because, in theory, Labour can carry on governing at Westminster for another three years, but what we need is structured cooperation. What we need is the indication from politicians that they're mature enough to realise they need to work together, to deliver for Scotland, and Wales, and Northern Ireland and all the English regions with all their diversity, and that these parties are therefore committed to democracy. That they will govern by consent and not by domination, and most importantly of all, they will listen.

If Labour wants credibility, then it must deliver electoral reform to reflect this diversity.

They must also abolish the House of Lords and everything that goes with it, including its eugenic principle still inherent there, that  somehow or other, some are superior and therefore have a right to govern. It must   replace that with a strong regional senate, which ensures that the voice of people is definitely represented in government.

And it must  reform the monarchy because the monarchy is seen as anachronistic by a great many people, far from London.

What is more, this government, for national interest, must recognise the voluntary nature of the union that makes up the United Kingdom, and therefore also do something really important,  which is recognise that each of these states has a right to leave if it wishes.

Do these  things, and suddenly you come to a very different position. Respect matters. In fact, it has to be built into the system of government itself, because respecting differences will strengthen democracy and not weaken it, and will strengthen government by letting opinion be heard and not weaken it. It is, in fact, the only way to save democracy in this country. People disengage when politics ignores them, and that's what our single-party rule has done. They will only reengage when it listens, and that's what parties committed to the national interest can do.

That said, there are some parties that would have to be excluded from this pluralistic approach to democracy.  They are the Conservatives and Reform.

Why the Conservatives?  Because they have said they are no longer interested in people with centrist opinion.  Kemi Badenoch has been quite clear about this. She says centrists have no role in the Conservatives anymore. If she's not willing to listen to, hear, or respond to the demands of people from the political centre and left, she cannot be part of a national solution to the national problem that we face.

And  Reform is fascist. Let's be totally honest, that's where they're heading. They  want a politics of hate. That cannot be part of the politics of national reform. It is impossible, despite their name, for them to be included in such a thing. Centrism is not the issue here; authoritarianism is, and that's why these people need to be excluded.

There's a wider signal that also suggests that this matters. Although they're small at present,  the rise of the Greens matters. It shows voters want cooperation,  and care, and long-term thinking, and that's another foundational reason for a government which considers the nation as a whole and puts aside some political differences to do so, because unless we think long-term and together, we are never going to tackle the problems that climate change creates.

My argument in conclusion is quite simple. The UK is no longer governable in its current form. It isn't a unitary state. It isn't a place where the winner can take all. That is no longer possible because there is no winner who's ever going to be in that position ever again, except with the rigged political system that we now have. Make that system fair to restore its credibility, which is a precondition of democracy surviving at present, and we might end up with something very worthwhile, but as it is, we are ending up with infighting, factions, and people like Keir Starmer who have no idea why they are in government and have no policy.

National government is no longer optional; it's necessary.

Will Labour face this reality? Not under Keir Starmer, I don't think it will.

Could it under another Labour leader? I hope so, I think so; I believe that would be possible, although I only really see one at present who might be able to do this and that, curiously, is  Ed Miliband, an unlikely candidate for leadership who, I doubt thinks of himself in that role anymore, but nonetheless, who has the experience to potentially offer this, precisely because he doesn't really want it, in the sense of he doesn't really want to be the leader of this government and yet could be persuaded to do it.

We have to have a government of some form of this nature because, unless politics, democracy in the UK will continue to fail. That's my concern, and that's why I believe we really do need to rethink our theory of governance in this country, because unless we do, we're in deep political trouble.

What do you think? There's a poll down below.

Poll

 Loading ...

PDF of article