Both Labour and Conservative parties have claimed to be "broad churches", providing the political homes for voters with widely differing viewpoints, under a vague banner of common values. This has been sustained extraordinarily well considering the diversity of views contained and occasional outbursts of factionalism, not least concerning the country's membership of the EEC/EU. Holding the party together has tested leaders of both parties, notably Harold Wilson, Michael Foot, John Major and David Cameron. Now Labour is undergoing the supreme and perhaps final test.
For decades a small rump of dedicated socialists survived in both country and parliament, putting forward its critique and alternative point of view. Jeremy Corbyn has been a consistent player in this, eventually reaping his reward(?) by being voted party leader at the end of a long period of imagination-failure and lack of vision on the part of the majority, mainstream group in the House of Commons. This leadership inspired and was instigated by a hunger on the part of a public craving values-driven politics. It has led to the situation where the leadership has a sort of Praetorian Guard of both MPs and voters, for whom he can do no ill. His term of office has, though, failed to engage the wider public nor, crucially, the majority of Labour MPs, meaning that he cannot hope to win Labour power.
Within the Conservative Party too exists a faction, set on removing UK from the EU. In effect its followers should be in UKIP but, as with the left-wing within Labour, they want to convert the majority rather than form a separate party with no prospect of power. Thus both left and right factions prefer to live within the broad churches which have a chance of power. Watching the shenanigans party leaders are forced to engage in to bring all their troops behind them for votes is akin to watching the agonies of successive archbishops trying to unify the Anglican church when there are issues on which it quite simply cannot agree. But to church leaders, schism is unthinkable. Why? Because it looks like failure? Because size matters?
In parliament, numbers do matter. Majorities get their way. As the referendum has shown, sometimes even minorities get their way, when the Prime Minister is threatened with losing votes. This has led to parliamentary democracy: being sacrificed to a faction, on the altar of party unity; the denial of the function of MPs; and the country being damaged irreparably. Would it not have been better for us all had the Tory Inners and Outers been separate parties? Would it not now be better were Labour to divide into socialists and centrists? Lets get away from the 2-party system and open UK up to honest representation and coalition politics, with a voting system fair to all viewpoints.
Yes - of course - but few are saying it at a national level, even the LibDems gave up on it when they had the choice of real ministerial power for one parliament. fair Votes and a reform of Second Chamber and Subsidiarity for local Government down to parish level should have been their only condition to sustain Conservatives in Office in 2010.
ReplyDeleteI mentioned it here - I wish that video from Paul mason had been seen my more folk.
https://www.facebook.com/AndrewSHattonPublicMiscellany/posts/923174561138391
This is a really thoughtful and persuasive piece. I suppose my reservations are two-fold. Firstly, the Conservatives seem to (be willing to?) smooth over internal divisions more readily than Labour and hence make their party appear more united and determined than Labour. Secondly, I think it's inaccurate to suggest (as I infer) that only a small rump of Labour MPs/members are/were true socialists whilst the majority, mainstream group were, presumably, mere social democrats. It seems to me that there have always been mainstream MPs and ordinary party members who self-define as socialist. I assert that Labour's left has neither the moral right nor had the practical achievements to define what socialism is or what socialists do.
ReplyDelete