Miliband Labour’s Only Chance
Or alternatively, PR.
Those are the reforms that Blair should have introduce while he had the chance. That he failed reveals what a self-centred egoist he truly was, incapable of focusing upon the long-term and only wishing to secure his own position. You say that the system favours Labour, Ali, well that it does but certainly not as much as it does the Conservatives. With a proportional electoral system the comfortable leftist majority of this nation would become manifest that would make the New Labour project’s “Triangulation” an irrelevance.
That technique is a fine one for America {at least in principle, in application it caused massive suffering for the disadvantaged and those gays wishing to serve in the military} but over here we have a substantial majority of leftists and liberals. If a system that displayed this in Parliament was introduced the Conservatives would have not a hope in Hell of taking power ever again. Margaret Thatcher said as much herself in the ’90s, when she remarked that if Labour used their sturdy majority to put an end to FPTP they would never again see a government as right wing as hers.
So despite Blair being too cowardly to perform the reforms and leaving it until a reduced majority was in place for it to become even a possibility there is still a chance. It would need to get through the House of Lords {which Blair also fouled up and left reform of uncompleted} which would most likely require a force-through via the Parliament act but if the election is to be held in 2010 there is still ample time for that.
It would require, of course, a LibDem-Labour coalition but this has seemed increasingly likely anyway and it might as well happen on terms which result in a withering of the right. Which also makes a mockery of the usual terror over the BNP: the likelihood is instead that the left will be empowered. Why, Douglas and his chums even think that they might end up vaguely important under PR, which would be a truly vast amount of progress.
At the risk of sounding like a dreary dullard this really is an instance of the system in place being the problem rather than the person attempting to wield it.
That said, though, people do matter in terms of alteration of it. The loathsome Jack Straw is certainly not up to the job and his attitude has been as unsettlingly poor as his attitude to just about everything save war with Iran. Brown has expressed no interest after the carnage of Scotland and the ascendancy of the SNP and various Welsh fringe parties at the cost of Labour. Although I can appreciate his wariness he should act while he still has a chance: the disproportionately strong showing of the Conservatives could cost him his job and there is not chance that the right are going to implement a set of reforms that will keep them from reaching power ever again.
Brown is far, far too weak to try to push through PR now. A crossparty group already exists to block PR in Westminster, and with a long line of rebellions pencilled into the calendar for the coming months, Brown will not dare to add this clanger to the list.
The fact remains that Labour and the Tories can get the same percentage of the vote and Labour wins a majority - the Tories need a 10% lead in order to get a majority. Why on earth would Labour change the system? Why did Blair break his promise with the LibDems in 1997 after his resounding victory? Brown would be utterly senseless to try this.
Brown is far, far too weak to try to push through PR now.
No, I think that the prospect of a half decade plus of Tory rule is the perfect motivator.
A crossparty group already exists to block PR in Westminster, and with a long line of rebellions pencilled into the calendar for the coming months, Brown will not dare to add this clanger to the list.
Tell me more of this, I have heard nothing. I doubt that Labour actually rebel against something that would make Tory governance an impossibility.
The fact remains that Labour and the Tories can get the same percentage of the vote and Labour wins a majority - the Tories need a 10% lead in order to get a majority. Why on earth would Labour change the system? Why did Blair break his promise with the LibDems in 1997 after his resounding victory? Brown would be utterly senseless to try this.
They would change the system because it seems possible that, if not a total majority for the Tories, then at least a grisly hung parliament is perfectly possible in the next election. Brown would ensure that Conservative leadership of the country would never occur again and although the Liberals and Labour would have to form a coalition it would be one with Labour as by far the bigger player.
It would also render Labour governance equally impossible.
Why do you presume there would always be Lib/Lab coalitions? The trend set under devolution has been that the Lib Dems won’t prop up minority governments because they see it as undemocratic and in the Welsh Assembly Elections, they refused Lib/Lab coalitions and Rainbow coalitions for this reason. Because of their bizarre authoritarian/liberal view of the world, they see Labour as in many ways as bad as the Tories. Clegg’s dismissed Ashdown’s preference for Labour and has said in the event of a hung parliament, they would only prop up governments which would support their policies and would view Labour and the Tories equally. Likewise, look at the London Mayoral Elections, where Paddick (admittedly a rather odd Lib Dem) is saying he won’t form a progressive alliance because Ken and Boris are just as bad as each other!
Yes, Paddick is being rather awkward…
Why do you presume there would always be Lib/Lab coalitions?
Because that’s how PR works.
The trend set under devolution has been that the Lib Dems won’t prop up minority governments because they see it as undemocratic and in the Welsh Assembly Elections, they refused Lib/Lab coalitions and Rainbow coalitions for this reason.
So they would simply assist Labour with it’s wise policies and veto them over the unwise. This would have prevented the Iraq War and would leave us in pretty much the same position as before. I see no harm here, although the idea of the LibDems refusing to adjust to national PR is one I find does not enough credit to their reason. They are at least some kind of progressive {vague as their nature is} and I am certain that soon enough they would settle into the system. At worst they would vote as they pleased and we would discover quite how close their policy range is. This would destroy arguments against a coalition.
Because of their bizarre authoritarian/liberal view of the world, they see Labour as in many ways as bad as the Tories.
Please consider your words before you type. An authoritarian is someone who is of the view that power should be centralised ruthlessly, preferably into a single individual. This is the antithesis of liberalism, which is wary of all power and wishes to keep it thinly distributed and as widely spread as possible. If you meant “Totalitarian” then that makes more sense in the context of your argument but, twisted internal logic aside, is still horribly inappropriate.
Perhaps you meant absolutist? Fundamentalist? Personally I would still find the attachment of either of those tags to a party so divided rather imprecise.
I would also draw your attention to the fact that, to my surprise and horror, in many ways the Conservative proposed policy is far more sensible than the Labour actual as well as a lot less authoritarian. You do not see them, for instance, clinging to the nonsensical notion of Identity Cards or extending the length of detention. The LibDems are taking a rational stance against these intrusions while Labour are not. I would suggest that this is not the consequence of the Third Party being authoritarian but instead being liberal and that Labour could do well to learn from their example.
To be out-flanked by the Tories on the left is a shame indeed…
Clegg’s dismissed Ashdown’s preference for Labour and has said in the event of a hung parliament, they would only prop up governments which would support their policies and would view Labour and the Tories equally.
That’s under the FPTP system, the present system that Blair so foolishly failed to remove while Labour were in fine standing. Instead he launched a foolish war that killed at least hundreds of thousands. Good call, there.
Likewise, look at the London Mayoral Elections, where Paddick (admittedly a rather odd Lib Dem) is saying he won’t form a progressive alliance because Ken and Boris are just as bad as each other.
Paddick is a fool. As I said, we are addressing methods rather than individuals here. If I was suggesting AV then you’d have a point, but that would be Jack Straw and I hope that my view of him is perfectly clear. My estimation of the system he suggests on a national level is little higher.
I am seriously getting tired of people who propose a PR system, look democracy and representation can only go so far, the main aim of government is not to represent, it is to lead. It is mainly academics who argue that the main objective of government is to represent. I couldn’t give a toss if there is a fair representation of black people or women in parliament, nor whether there is exactly 28% of Lib Dems in Parliament or whatever it would be under PR. When I vote for a government or a politician what I expect and the vast majority of people out there expect is leadership (this is why more and more people are voting almost solely on the leadership qualities of party leaders). We vote for parties to lead our country, and to attempt to implement policies which will solve the problems our society face, that job in itself is hard enough, so why the hell would you want to make it harder by ensuring a coalition would almost always need to be formed: In the name of fairness? In the name of democracy? In the name of representation? In that case I have two words to truly sum up my opinion: FUCK REPRESENTATION
FUCK LEADERS.
If I wanted some boring man with a looser grasp of reality than I have telling me what to do I’d rejoin the Catholic Church. I want a public SERVANT, not a master.
Please, 90 to 95% of this country couldn’t lead their local football team. We elect politicians because we agree with their major values and views and because we feel that they can implement them. We go out to vote because we consider politicians to be for the most part competent, they may not be perfect but for the most part they are the best this country has to offer. to an extent they act as public servants but we need them to be leaders. In times of crises we expect our politicians our civil servant to take charge and both devise and implement a policy to deal with the crisis. Admittedly sometimes they get it wrong, but God Damn it we were on the winning side of the 2 most important wars ever. You introduce PR and you take away the ability to truly lead a country. I hate the Tories as much as the next man but to remove the power to govern effectively would be cutting off you nose to spite your face. If you don’t believe me, just have a look at the absurdity of the Italian and Israeli political systems
Absurd?
I’ll tell you what’s absurd. The prospect of David fucking CAMERON being our next “Leader”. That’s not what Britain wants but it looks like that’s what we’ll get. Why? Because of fucking FPTP and its fucking nonsense distortion of our wishes. They are SERVANTS, they are under our control. They aren’t meant to be a bunch of Etonian fucks telling us what to think of rap music.
You seem even more agitated than usual tonight, Fenby…albeit with good reason…
Electoral reform talk unbalances his humours.
I just loathe this das fuhrer bullshit.
“Because that’s how PR works.”
Well plainly it doesn’t figure that’s how proportional systems work when the LibDems aren’t supporting Labour in Scotland, Wales or London.
“So they would simply assist Labour with it’s wise policies and veto them over the unwise. This would have prevented the Iraq War and would leave us in pretty much the same position as before. I see no harm here, although the idea of the LibDems refusing to adjust to national PR is one I find does not enough credit to their reason. They are at least some kind of progressive {vague as their nature is} and I am certain that soon enough they would settle into the system. At worst they would vote as they pleased and we would discover quite how close their policy range is. This would destroy arguments against a coalition.”
Or a small party would become disproportionately important (ever read about the Liberal Party in Germany - they were in every government between the 60s and 80s despite being smaller than the LibDems). I see no reason why a party which opposed the minimum wage and increases in funding for the welfare state would be better placed to know which policies were wise. Surely it would just create a sludgy centrist consensus where nothing gets done? I support the Iraq War but whether you do or you don’t, the idea of Lembit Opik’s party deciding whether British soldiers go into battle does rather fill me with horror!
“Please consider your words before you type. An authoritarian is someone who is of the view that power should be centralised ruthlessly, preferably into a single individual. This is the antithesis of liberalism, which is wary of all power and wishes to keep it thinly distributed and as widely spread as possible. If you meant “Totalitarian” then that makes more sense in the context of your argument but, twisted internal logic aside, is still horribly inappropriate.
Perhaps you meant absolutist? Fundamentalist? Personally I would still find the attachment of either of those tags to a party so divided rather imprecise.”
I think you misunderstood my post. I do understand authoritarianism and liberalism well enough I think to know they stand in opposition. I was trying to suggest that Lib Dems see the world through an authoritarian/liberal spectrum, whereas Labour and Tories view it through (the admittedly past it) left-right spectrum. My argument was that because Labour’s anti-terrorism and law and order policy can be seen as authoritarian, this makes them worse, or at least as bad as the Tories, to many Lib Dems.
“That’s under the FPTP system, the present system that Blair so foolishly failed to remove while Labour were in fine standing. Instead he launched a foolish war that killed at least hundreds of thousands. Good call, there.”
That’s a very cheap shot. He introduced the greatest array of constitutional reforms since the 19th century and never believed in proportional systems. I don’t think he would have introduced a PR system if Britain hadn’t gone to war. Indeed, it was always Brown who was more animated by electoral reform and he didn’t even bother to introduce reform when he had personal poll ratings of 60 points.
Why do you think the Lib Dems would always stand in Labour under a PR system if they haven’t under AMS n Scotland, Wales and London and their leader basically says they’re both as bad as one another?
Well plainly it doesn’t figure that’s how proportional systems work when the LibDems aren’t supporting Labour in Scotland, Wales or London.
Perhaps Labour should do a better job of winning, then. If they were more popular this would be no problem.
Or a small party would become disproportionately important (ever read about the Liberal Party in Germany - they were in every government between the 60s and 80s despite being smaller than the LibDems). I see no reason why a party which opposed the minimum wage and increases in funding for the welfare state would be better placed to know which policies were wise. Surely it would just create a sludgy centrist consensus where nothing gets done? I support the Iraq War but whether you do or you don’t, the idea of Lembit Opik’s party deciding whether British soldiers go into battle does rather fill me with horror!
Lembit Opik is a far superior man to either Blair or Brown. That you have failed to realise that is most likely due to you suffering from the same condition that has made your party a banal husk of its former self.
I think you misunderstood my post. I do understand authoritarianism and liberalism well enough I think to know they stand in opposition. I was trying to suggest that Lib Dems see the world through an authoritarian/liberal spectrum, whereas Labour and Tories view it through (the admittedly past it) left-right spectrum. My argument was that because Labour’s anti-terrorism and law and order policy can be seen as authoritarian, this makes them worse, or at least as bad as the Tories, to many Lib Dems.
Yes, I did misunderstand. My apologies.
That’s a very cheap shot. He introduced the greatest array of constitutional reforms since the 19th century
Yeah, I’m endlessly impressed by the way he was in power for almost a decade and never bothered finishing off the House of Lords reform like he thrice promised to.
and never believed in proportional systems. I don’t think he would have introduced a PR system if Britain hadn’t gone to war.
Maybe he would have raised tuition fees instead. Or done a better job of covering up those BAE corrupt contracts. Who knows?
What we can agree on is that the man is scum and it’s a wonderful thing that he’s out of office.
Indeed, it was always Brown who was more animated by electoral reform and he didn’t even bother to introduce reform when he had personal poll ratings of 60 points.
Yeah, that sort of thing is far easier to do with a majority of fifty or so than the 1997 landslide. Obviously.
Why do you think the Lib Dems would always stand in Labour under a PR system if they haven’t under AMS n Scotland, Wales and London and their leader basically says they’re both as bad as one another?
London? London uses AV, that’s not the same as PR.
As for the rest, well as I said a Liberal Democrat overseen minority government would not be a catastrophe. Indeed tuition fees and so on would most likely never have happened then. Or the rest of Labour’s authoritarian Daily Mail appeasement. And the will of the people would have been made much clearer. And you can keep the constituency-representative bond strong with various hybrids or variants so don’t play that worn-out old canard.
“Perhaps Labour should do a better job of winning, then. If they were more popular this would be no problem.”
Are you saying that Labour should be able to win a majority in a proportional system? That’s pretty hard and rather goes against the idea of proportionality. Or are you saying Labour should do well enough to get the Lib Dems’ support so they can get a chunk of the power? Neither sound good.
“Lembit Opik is a far superior man to either Blair or Brown. That you have failed to realise that is most likely due to you suffering from the same condition that has made your party a banal husk of its former self.”
Umm, let’s just agree to disagree? But enough of the personal insults please!
“Yeah, I’m endlessly impressed by the way he was in power for almost a decade and never bothered finishing off the House of Lords reform like he thrice promised to.”
Okay, you can look for the areas where every expectation wasn’t fulfilled but which other PMs could claim a list of constitutional achievements as impressive as removing almost all the hereditary peers from the Lords in its biggest shake-up since 1911 and pledging to remove the rest, introducing the Human Rights Act, signing up to the Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon Treaties, devolving power to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London and offering it to the North-East?
“Maybe he would have raised tuition fees instead. Or done a better job of covering up those BAE corrupt contracts. Who knows?”
Grrr, don’t be so glib!
“What we can agree on is that the man is scum and it’s a wonderful thing that he’s out of office.”
Well I think he was one of the best Prime Ministers in British history, so no, I guess we can’t agree!
“Yeah, that sort of thing is far easier to do with a majority of fifty or so than the 1997 landslide. Obviously.”
Which is why Labour got more done domestically in Blair’s last term then either of his first two terms with their landslide victories? Brown was hugely popular within the Labour Party and in the country when he took over. If he really cared about introducing PR, he would have done something about it.
“London? London uses AV, that’s not the same as PR.”
You didn’t answer my question but the Greater London Assembly uses AMS. It’s the Mayor that is elected on AV.
“As for the rest, well as I said a Liberal Democrat overseen minority government would not be a catastrophe. Indeed tuition fees and so on would most likely never have happened then. Or the rest of Labour’s authoritarian Daily Mail appeasement. And the will of the people would have been made much clearer. And you can keep the constituency-representative bond strong with various hybrids or variants so don’t play that worn-out old canard.”
Because the Lib Dems are really in touch with modern Britain! Most people don’t care about codified constitutions or PR! They want decent public services and a strong economy. I don’t think the Lib Dems can deliver that.
I supported the decision to introduce top-up fees and modernise our public services. Why are they authoritarian or appeasing the Daily Mail? Its hurting their key demographic.
Are you saying that Labour should be able to win a majority in a proportional system? That’s pretty hard and rather goes against the idea of proportionality. Or are you saying Labour should do well enough to get the Lib Dems’ support so they can get a chunk of the power? Neither sound good.
I’m saying that most Britons do not want Labour in power. You’re saying that they should be in power despite that. I disagree.
Umm, let’s just agree to disagree? But enough of the personal insults please!
Lembit Opik is win.
Okay, you can look for the areas where every expectation wasn’t fulfilled but which other PMs could claim a list of constitutional achievements as impressive as removing almost all the hereditary peers from the Lords in its biggest shake-up since 1911
Almost all? There are plenty left, they even replace them. And a good thing you mentioned the Parliament act: that was far more impressive. A genuine achievement. Blair left the problem half sorted out.
and pledging to remove the rest,
:O
A pledge? Good lord.
introducing the Human Rights Act,
Britain are signatories on the European Human Rights Commission. As such it’s obligatory.
signing up to the Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon Treaties,
Lots of PMs have signed treaties.
devolving power to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London and offering it to the North-East?
Good stuff. But he failed to win over Scotland quite decisively.
Grrr, don’t be so glib!
Don’t worry. I don’t think that any of that is as bad as what he really did.
Well I think he was one of the best Prime Ministers in British history, so no, I guess we can’t agree!
Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.
Which is why Labour got more done domestically in Blair’s last term then either of his first two terms with their landslide victories?
It what?
Brown was hugely popular within the Labour Party and in the country when he took over. If he really cared about introducing PR, he would have done something about it.
Mhm. I suspect that the calamity in Scotland so close to his ascendancy deterred him. A pity.
You didn’t answer my question but the Greater London Assembly uses AMS. It’s the Mayor that is elected on AV.
Yes, and I thought that you were referring to the Mayor.
Because the Lib Dems are really in touch with modern Britain! Most people don’t care about codified constitutions or PR! They want decent public services and a strong economy.
And Labour just offers them “Choice” instead. Pretty shocking, isn’t it?
I don’t think the Lib Dems can deliver that.
And most of the British public don’t think that the Labour Party can, either.
I supported the decision to introduce top-up fees and modernise our public services. Why are they authoritarian or appeasing the Daily Mail? Its hurting their key demographic.
By “modernise” you mean “marketise”, I presume? The system under which public servants are left so desperate to meet targets that they sacrifice the wellbeing of their patients. Where wheels are removed from trolleys left in corridors to turn them into beds and appointments booked during the holidays to ensure cancellation. Well, as it happened you were lucky enough that I didn’t mention any of that.
Or perhaps you were referring to the BAE bribery and Blair’s cover-up of it via killing the investigation? Well that’s not exactly relevant either so I’ll let you off there, but bear in mind that that is a supposedly centre-left leader concealing the misdeeds of a far-right totalitarian theocracy and their influence over our nation. I’ll not linger, though, since I am a merciful god.
Tuition fees hurt everyone except those rich enough not to care about them. The appeasement of the Daily Mail consisted of attacking civil liberties systematically to appease their fiercely idiotic editors. See: David Blunkett. A master of the low art.
I think I agree with Lawrence, although I would be far more democratic with language. PR has too many failings to be a viable suggestion, and the thrust of the argument that PR is good because the Tories are bad is too stupid for words to express.
PR only makes sense if you want to see power put back into the hands of the people, yet the paradox is that PR whips power away from the electorate and plunges it headfirst and blindfolded into backroom discussions about coalitions. Unless we abolish the executive and run the country by Grand Committee of the Commons, with 100% free votes, PR would detract from what its proposors wish for.
But, again, the argument that we would keep those nasty right-wing people out by introducing PR is unspeakably stupid.
- - -
Oh, look, I managed to make an argument without swearing. How very civilised of me.
I think I agree with Lawrence, although I would be far more democratic with language. PR has too many failings to be a viable suggestion, and the thrust of the argument that PR is good because the Tories are bad is too stupid for words to express.
Well let us be thankful, then, that that is a strawman. My real argument was that under PR it would be impossible and that that would reflect the will of the people.
PR only makes sense if you want to see power put back into the hands of the people, yet the paradox is that PR whips power away from the electorate and plunges it headfirst and blindfolded into backroom discussions about coalitions.
Which is, it seems, what the people would prefer. So be it. The alternative is a party securing power that they have not earned through winning over the electorate, which is simply unacceptable. Most of the country do not want Labour in power and yet there they sit. How is this just?
Unless we abolish the executive and run the country by Grand Committee of the Commons, with 100% free votes, PR would detract from what its proposors wish for.
Oh, I’m hardly in favour of the whip system either.
But, again, the argument that we would keep those nasty right-wing people out by introducing PR is unspeakably stupid.
There is no way that a Conservative government could be legitimate for the same reasons that Labour being in power when the majority of the electorate does not want them to be there is not. I am not saying that we should pick whatever system keeps the right from power, simply that there is a strong possibility of a party far more right-wing than most Britons wish to govern them securing an absolute majority and thus overwhelming the parties that, combined a majority of Britons actually wanted.
This is the ultimate in perverse results and all anomolies of PR {and they are there, albeit in a nearly negligible fashion} fade into total insignificance.
- - -
Oh, look, I managed to make an argument without swearing. How very civilised of me.
Nice one.