If Labour was really a party interested in reform it would be radically overhauling the UK constitution and the way in which the government is managed. But it isn't. As a result, they send out the strongest possible signal that nothing is really going to change on their watch.
The audio version is here:
This is the transcript:
How do we know that Labour isn't interested in reform? Well, their actions confirm the fact. That's why I know that this is a party that is happy to maintain the status quo, whatever it says.
Let's look in just one area of activity for the clear indication that this is the case, and that is constitutional reform.
We know full well that the UK constitution, such as it is, does not work well.
We have an unelected House of Lords, and that is absurd.
We have a first-past-the-post electoral system, something that only otherwise exists in Europe in Belarus, which is not a great example to copy.
We have a Ministerial Code of Conduct which is written by the Prime Minister and has no legal enforcement power behind it.
We have a code that apparently allows MPs to accept enormous quantities of gifts without any sanction applying, even if they get personal benefit from them.
And we have a House of Commons that really does not work very well.
- It is still an extremely antisocial place in which to work.
- It is in the dark ages when it comes to voting systems so that everything takes far too long.
- Presenteeism is actually required when there may well be occasions when MPs have better tasks to do in their constituencies but could still digitally vote on issues of importance which the whips require them to record an opinion on.
And, let's also be honest, the UK is supposedly a United Kingdom but there is no clear indication at present that this is with the consent of all parts of that Union. There are voices in Northern Ireland, in Wales and in Scotland who would clearly like to see their countries independent of England and there is no proper mechanism to reinforce the Union if that is what is required, or to permit it being broken up, if that is what proves to be necessary in due course.
Labour is not addressing any of these issues. Nor, come to that, is it properly addressing the issues around devolved government, or the devolution of powers to local authorities, whose range of activities has been enormously restricted since the time that Margaret Thatcher came to office in 1979.
Nothing is happening on these issues.
The House of Lords is going to lose its hereditary peers. But there's going to be no replacement of that chamber with something that might be better, including a long-term Senate where people are voted in for, say, 15 years to provide the continuity of view that is required from people who serve in a second chamber, but which nonetheless provides a very different perspective on legislation from that which the Commons would give.
There is no hint of electoral reform coming to us from Labour. First-past-the-post served Labour incredibly well of course in the July 2024 election. It has got an enormous majority by picking up 33 or 34 percent of the vote depending on which way you round the number.
One third of the people of the UK wanted a Labour government and yet it has the power to do anything it wishes. That has to be wrong.
There is no hint of reform coming in the way in which the House of Commons operates. It is not going to move into a place where every MP has a seat, for example, which is crazy.
It's not going to vote digitally.
It's not going to be properly presented to the world so that the tribalism, which is inherent in everything it does, is reduced in fervour.
There is no way in which the Ministerial Code is going to be changed or encoded by law as far as we have been told.
Put all that together and what have we got? When we add in the fact that devolution is really not on the agenda, what we've got is a Labour Party that is committed to the status quo.
There is no hint of a desire to change anything of substance in what Labour is doing. Everything works very nicely as things stand. They are the party of the power elite that is content with the way the UK is at present, but which everybody else realises does not serve their purpose.
Labour? They are not a radical party. They're not even a party of ideas. They're simply somebody who's keeping the show going until, in due course and inevitably, the Tories will come along and take over yet again.
What a lame duck administration we've ended up with.
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!
The Tory record of the last 14 years has demonstrated that they are not a viable party to vote in again.
The Labour Party has demonstrated that in just 14 weeks.
I think the Greens, and perhaps the new Collective Party will become viable alternatives.
A good piece. I think that if we adopt terminology from Northern Ireland we can say that we now have three versions of the Tory party in the UK. There is the Tory party, then the Real Tory party (Reform), and then there is the Continuity Tory party (Labour). They all share basic assumptions about the economy and have policies which are similar but differ only in degree or terminology.
A very sad state of affairs!
Labour are attempting to govern by slogan.
So far there do not appear to be any thought out policies about to the offered it’s same old, same old.
Or is the big reset to be the budget and lo and behold Ms Reeves has looked into the sofa and found the cash?
Yesterday on this blog I said the simplest way to think of Keir Starmer was to use the old term wide boy after his lying, scamming freebies and avoiding accountability. Of course the term can be shortened to the more familiar spiv. When you think about the fabrications politicians and journalists and most economists tell voters about how the monetary system works so, for example, most voters don’t understand the issues with both the private and public sector running savings surpluses at the same time like a household economy then it’s not that unfair to say we’re a nation of spiv slaves. The country has a lot to unlearn!
‘Representative’ democracy…just not representing the interests of ordinary people.
“..no proper mechanism to reinforce the Union” Shuddering with revulsion.
“..or to permit it being broken up” “permit”? Isn’t the union voluntary? That’s what we’re told by successive English PMs. They’re rather more coy *completely silent* on what the mechanism is to leave it as it doesn’t suit our needs.
I think permit is a permissive word i.e. you can leave
Scotland is in a bind in that respect. That old Eagles song, Hotel California, puts it very well.
“You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”
This article tries to explain labours economic policy.
https://iandunt.substack.com/p/ok-so-what-the-hell-actually-is-labours
Not Dunt’s finest hour
Thank you.
I’m reading Dunt’s book on Westminster and finding it informative and terrifying – the nonsense he describes as routine surely can’t (and no doubt won’t) go on for long without society collapsing. I’m amazed he’s such a fanboy for Labour though, same with Sturdy Alex, another seasoned commentator. What is it they can possibly see in Labour? La Vordeman, by contrast, has sensibly gone comparatively quiet, sensing, perhaps, something about Labour doesn’t quite add up.
I am bemused by both those two
Talking of reform you might also think the Labour Party under Starmer would be banging the drum that a belief in Neoliberal values and tackling climate change needed a revamp as the following extract in an article today by George Monobiot strongly suggests:-
“You might wonder why an industry would destroy the wildlife – I beg your pardon, “seafood” – on which it depends. But this is to misunderstand the nature of capital. What counts is not the reproductive rate of fish, but the reproductive rate of money. You exploit a resource as quickly as possible, extract what you can until it collapses, then invest your profits elsewhere. This is the strategy Friedrich Hayek, godfather of the doctrine that dominates our lives – neoliberalism – championed in his book The Constitution of Liberty.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/27/bluefin-tuna-uk-waters-fishing-industry-government
Under our current form of capitalism the situation largely remains anything that can be monetised is despite the problems caused by this mentality. Even worse few understand that much of what governments do is being forced to monetise resources to deal with these problems.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/27/north-sea-oil-and-gas-firms-in-uk-failing-to-invest-in-renewable-energy
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/26/anti-protest-laws-fossil-fuel-lobby
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/25/global-heating-doubled-chance-of-extreme-rain-in-europe-in-september
The IPC evidence was especially scary.
If we limited gifts to political parties to individuals with an upper limit and banned corporate donations, they would require other funding to operate. State subsidy happens in some European countries.
£60million in an election year should cover expenses if combined with membership fees and donations.
That is equivalent £2 per income tax payer. A cup of coffee costs more.
It might be worth thing about rather than risking Oligarch support.
MPs already get an allowance to run their offices. They don’t need donations to do more.
If that means that they stand outside their town hall to get their message across, so be it.
Not surprisingly, the media don’t want to lose a rich source of advertising revenue, so they would probably not be in favour of banning donations.
@Ian S. and Ian T.
It seems to me what the UK needs is the same thing the USA needs: Publically Funded Elections.
Each candidate who qualifies gets X amount of funds. No further donations from anyone or anywhere are allowed.
This would help parties like the Greens, Lib Dems and unfortunately Reform win more seats in the House of Commons and put an end to whomever raises the most money wins.
Ian
it’s not just about MPs who are elected.
Parties exist nationwide ( PC , the NI parties and SNP in their parts of the UK )
They need to campaign for both national and local elections and need some central functions.
If we had PR there is more chance to parties attaining representation where they have little now.
@ Tampa Bay Money surely money plays an even larger part in the American political system–PACs etc
@Ian Stevenson –
It does, which is why want ALL private money out of ALL elections for people who serve at the Federal level.
With regard to elections of state officials, that would be up to each state under the US Constitution.
To all intents and purposes the UK, as constituted, is a plutocracy.
Hegemonic neoliberalism can be little else.
Not as captured as the USA, whose ‘model constitution’ has not protected Americans from absolute domination by corporatism – both plutocrats and oligopolists.
Many countries with strong constitutions, including Germany and Switzerland, have almost all been progressively seized in the service of business interests, primarily corporate.
I’d endorse the measures suggested in the post but constitutional reform alone, though giving the appearance of establishing or reinforcing democracy, would achieve nothing in terms of suppressing the overriding powers of big business, which suppress other interests and constrict the agenda of government.
This might explain why we have been sidetracked into culture politics, as people are aware that they can change nothing of genuine significance.
Under capitalism, the fundamental issue of the balance of power between money and labour has not been answered, as the principle of egalitarianism has been marginalised.
Matters of social and economic equity, justice, genuine sustainability, and protection against abusive ‘bad actors’, will not be resolved by an elected House of Lords, or regionally devolved England.
A genuinely reforming government would certainly address the structural weaknesses and failings in government, but actually needs to do much more.
Vision, idealism even, have to overshadow technocracy.
{Personally, as growth economics has got us into the present mess, I see consigning consumerism to the recycle bin as a prime target.
That manipulative concept requires low levels of social and economic equity and poor environmental sustainability.
The principles of transactionalism are burnt into consumerism, whereas I see restoring reciprocity ethically more in tune with the golden rule.
That, however, is a long and complex set of arguments, and not able to be fully articulated in three hundred words.)
This might be the first blog you’ve ever written where, if I show my wife the title, she voluntarily reads it (she’s taught on a fashion degree at a certain East Midlands university for the past 25 years and has a BA and MA in the subject).
And when she reads it and sees that you subscribe to Vogue, well she might become a regular reader – as opposed to having to listen to me reading your blogs aloud (or playing her the videos). Good for you 🙂
To use a Private Eye ism: Trebles all Round!!!
I am a real human being, after all…..
I suspect Ivan’s comment has become attached to the wrong blog post somehow…
Surely the first reform should be to ban from all Parties during elections specifically and at other times generally, financial donations from foreign sources, since that can exert undue influence to the benefit of a foreign country (US-style NHS anyone?).
That should apply to the devolved nations too – for instance In Scotland, English Parties are able to finance Scottish elections from English Party funds, outspending SNP, Green and other Scottish-based Parties several times over. Those ‘foreign’ Parties should be registered and funded from their devolved nations only, to avoid the financial distortions otherwise possible.
Remember Cameron’s ‘English laws for English votes’ (ultimately scrapped because WM is a UK parliament not English, and it would have ensured that effectively a Scottish-based MP could never become PM)? Well, that should surely apply to the devolved nations – at the recent WM election, several Labour candidates were parachuted in from England and have since demonstrated a complete ignorance of Scottish politics, laws, and even geography.
The solution to the constitutional mess is available in my book Reinventing Democracy:-
Federal structure, with regions in England
First-draft written constitution
Constitutional requirement that all political and government communications be clear, fair, and not misleading (which is already financial services law in the uK)
Proportional representation for federal parliament which would be responsible for defence, foreign affairs, and common standards, said parliament not to be London-based
People’s Council to replace House of Lords, Privy Council and inquiry functions of the Commons – did you know that the Privy Council is used to make legislation without any democratic consent, called “Orders in Council”?
People have right to put topics on democratic agenda with sufficient support
Unbundle manifestos, let people vote on specific policies
Any member of the UK can leave if 50% of elecorate vote in favour
The 300-word summary is in a letter to The Guardian, see https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/12/house-of-lords-plans-fail-to-tackle-overmighty-government