When winners are losers and losers win, it is time for a fair voting system

For some reason, at election times my desire to blog and tweet dries up, perhaps in the face of the barrage of material put out by all shades of opinion. For all I know another election may be round the corner to prolong my relative silence but an invitation to have my say is too good to refuse. So much has been written and said about so many aspects of recent politics that it is hard to grasp at any particular strand but reflection has singled one out which is of particular relevance to Labour, it seems to me.

The result of GE2017, surprising in so many ways, seemed to suggest a return to the 2-party model which had been challenged by the ascendency of the SNP, the substantial Green vote, Sinn Fein’s new strength and the happily short-lived threat to all things decent of UKIP. Both major parties will now claim that they provide such a broad church that there is no need for these parties but is this really the case or is the result really pragmatism on the part of the electorate wanting their votes to lead somewhere? I can sympathise with this, having lived in constituencies with MPs for whom I have not voted all my life.

A choice of parties offers every voter a real chance to express their values. Minor parties act as pressure groups on both major parties, not just one at a time. Their followers need to feel that their votes count not only during ballots but also via elected representatives. Parliament needs enriching with diversity of opinion. We only have to look across the Channel to see how complacency and over-familiarity with establish parties can lead to vacuums to be filled. So how come we have reverted to the 2-horse race?

I suggest that this has more to do with the system than with the lure of the manifestos. The only chance a vote has of impact is, in the current system, one for one of the 2 horses. But if the system were to be changed so that the race could have other potential winners, both in constituencies and in parliament, surely many would back the other runners again. In the period before the recent election campaign, when Corbyn’s Labour looked likely to shrink dramatically, there was a renewed enthusiasm in social media for fair voting/PR. Now that Labour looks electable again, this should not be allowed to drop away again because it is about fairness, a key Labour value.

Throughout the country there are voters like me, in millions, I suggest, whose vote does not count in the current system. How good would it be for us to have the chance of electing accountable representatives to councils and parliament, wherever we live; and for Labour AND Tory parties to have MPs in every part of the country, not just in “heartlands” plus the odd marginal? Democracy should give such voters a voice. Should UK not now actively espouse PR as the means to provide it not only via social media but via MPs of different parties for every part of the country?

Tom Serpell, East Sussex

Let us head for a Progressive Government

Every Labour member wants a Labour Government. How many can believe that such a thing is conceivable within a decade, when so many factors stand in the way: a resurgent Tory Party; the adoption of alternative parties by those whom Labour used to think of as tribal; the wipe-out in Scotland; the forthcoming boundary changes; the lack of a compelling Labour narrative; and the endless infighting within the party? So what are we who share socialist values to do, not merely to belong but to win power through which to restore such values to the governance of the country?

There is much talk of a Progressive Alliance, in which those sharing liberal values – Greens, LD, ScotNat, Plaid and Labour – agree seat by seat on a single candidate. This sounds attractive, with less in-constituency competition and aggregation of the votes from supporters of all progressives, like defeating a government bill in parliament. A set of values which are sufficiently shared by all could be conceived as glue.

But are there not flaws in this idea? Oh yes. When members of the same party frequently fall out over its direction or leadership, how realistic is it for tribes usually in conflict to agree, not for a Big Idea but simply to defeat A N Other? How enthusiastic and well-briefed on another party’s agenda can be those who are motivated enough to campaign? And will a socialist, say, feel truly empowered by an elected LibDem? Personalities may play a part in making this possible in some wards, divisions or constituencies; but what about those where this does not apply?

For a Progressive Alliance to work on a scale sufficient to win power in parliament, it will have to work across the nations. Can the leadership and supporters of our parties ever arrive at such an alliance in a system designed for and steeped in conflict? Until the system is itself addressed, probably not. Acceptance is needed first that the old 2-Party structure is no longer relevant. Labour’s tribe is a shrivelled rump searching rather cluelessly for a true purpose. The Tories hold themselves together by constant reinvention and iron discipline but could and probably should be at least two parties. Other parties clamour to be heard but with first-past-the-post never will be.

People all over the country are searching for inspiring leaders who seem to understand them, not necessarily within traditional political parties. So there is a need for a system which can accept all of these realities, enfranchising and engaging more [especially younger people] in the governance of their country.

Any alliance must surely be preceded by two initiatives, therefore: Proportional Representation, so that every vote counts and all voters feel a chance of being represented; and a revitalisation of properly funded local government, not just embodied in a few metropolitan mayors but everywhere, so that voters feel that they are influencing their own lives. Given these two building blocks, a Progressive Alliance may become not just an idyllic dream but a practical possibility. Multi-party representation in a given geographical area may lead to cross-party collaboration or at least organised tactical voting in a way unlikely today. Change has to start with fair voting and engagement of the public in matters to which they can relate: local housing, jobs, transport, healthcare; and with people they see working for them closer to home than the Ivory Towers of Westminster. The old duopoly will not give up its power base without a fight but Labour may just be in a position where it has to change or die. Maybe that change may lead to a part in a Progressive Government.

Why is schism a dirty word?

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.