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.

Mutually assured ...

Regular or indeed accidental readers of this blog may notice an uncharacteristic gap since its predecessor. Frankly, as an English socialist I have been lost for words. Even now that the latest Labour leadership election has at last ended, there is little left to say, either because it has been said a thousand times already or because nothing has really been resolved on which to pass comment.

However, on Saturday I was discussing the state of the world with a friend even older than me who reminded me of the phrase "mutually assured destruction". He was referring to current Labour factions but I had just opined that the world today seems more unsafe and unpleasant for its inhabitants [not including, of course, the "1%" - never them] than at any time since 1962. 1962? Because "mutually assured destruction" as a theory was close to being tested in practice, via the Cuban missile crisis. One of my daughters recently found it hard to believe that people once quite genuinely feared that we were on the brink of nuclear war; but such is my memory of 1962.

Happily, there were leaders at the time with the nous to pull back from the brink. Today's leaders, be they concerned with national or global affairs, do not deserve to place themselves in the same category as those of 1962. How confident can we feel in our chosen ones dealing with: Climate Change [fracking anyone?]; Syria [arms but never a food drop; and certainly no ideas]; refugees and migration [nationalism and xenophobia to the fore]; inequality [lovely if you are rich and powerful]; let alone domestic matters like care for the disabled or elderly, housing shortage and inflation, education for all children or destruction of public services? I see no potential leaders or solutions on the horizon with which to cheer myself; and look at my own Party and despair.

Shut Up! Its Tories you should be attacking!

Far too much has been said already by far too many about Labour in recent weeks, when all fire should have been aimed at the Tories. The future of the country and its citizens surely trumps internal politics. My previous post suggested a split and nothing has changed. I have not opined in this misery fest of name-calling and introspective back-biting, seeing little value in adding to it nor raising a voice on real issues in a room of the unhearing. Labour is going to hell in a handcart, leaving the ruthless but effective May to take her holiday secure in the knowledge that her boat will be unrocked in her absence. What a mess.

During the last few baking days I have been reading Jean Vautrin's novel of the French Commune, "The Voice of the People", with some enjoyment but not a little poignancy. The tale of inevitable heroic failure, more familiar through the lens of "Les Miserables", presents some parallels or at least a few passages which resonate in our self-destruction:

"...doomed to vanish down the trapdoor of history for having sought to reinvent a free and generous world through decrees and posters" may reflect how our supposed leaders are behaving today?

"[The revolution is faltering] because philosophers and artists confuse their dreams with the hopes and hands distorted by toil" perhaps sums up the Westminster bubble but "Must we wait for the poor to become so poor that they can only revolt?" and "People who smell of sweat are worth as much as people who smell of cologne" are lessons yet to be learned by those now in power.

The end of the Commune is that being played out not in England but in Syria for those who stood up to Assad. We here must not resort to arms but must respect the poorest more so that this is simply not conceivable.

Labour's fractured future

For years, Labour has failed to define its purpose in society and to engage effectively with the public. It is naïve even to pretend that Labour can win a General Election in 2020, when it has, at least for a period, lost Scotland and stands to lose dozens of English seats through boundary changes. It devotes the time it should be opposing Brexit and the destruction of public services and trade unions to internecine warfare. Little wonder that voters crave new stars to follow, be these apparently perverse: UKIP; nationalists; egomaniacs.

Even if the reborn socialism of Corbyn can take root beyond its long-standing adherents, it is impossible, surely, that it can gain sufficient ground for electoral success in under 4 years, let alone any "snap" election Tories may try to call to further damage Labour's credibility. So what options are we left with? A united party would seem to be the priority for most. Corbynistas claim that this is within their grasp if only all MPs and party members will loyally come behind their leader; deaf to the reality that the former have already refused in droves to do so. Owen Smith, whether a short-term stalking horse expected to be removed once Corbyn is out of the way, in favour of some as yet unnamed centrist; or a genuine long-term prospect, is the only other show in town. He is unknown to most but may just be seen as having the potential to re-build both party and popular engagement beyond the mere faithful.

Whichever prevails, there will remain that group of once-big hitters from Brown and Miliband's teams, waiting to stab the new Caesar or to lead a split and a new party. This could leave a true red Labour Party of under 50 MPs and a new Opposition Party of arund150, until each suffers the judgement of the electorate. Neither could do anything in the lobbies without he support of the other but also of the nationalists, LibDems, Unionists and even Caroline Lucas. And here lies the silver lining: the birth of a new politics, requiring cooperation instead of unity; alliances rather than a broad church. A progressive alliance no longer  "what-if" idea but a necessity. Maybe the unthinkable split can be a good thing in the longer term. Even the Right may try it eventually.

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.

As usual, minorities will suffer as our democracy is compromised

Brexit will have many consequences, few of them good for the people of this country or of Europe. Whichever consequence one looks at, it will be the result of a referendum sought only by UKIP but offered gratuitously by David Cameron seeking an answer to a simple question yet with no explanation as to what policies would lie behind the change option, least of all how the interests of people affected would be taken into account. We are said to live in a representative democracy, in which parliament is sovereign, with elected members there to speak for their electorate. These should have decided on the issue on our behalf. We now see the result of by-passing our system of governance.

The great failing of UK's first-past-the-post election system is that there are always millions of citizens whose views have no outlet. MPs are supposed to be the member for all constituents and often are - except when it comes to applying their party policy as priority. So in any non-marginal, the safely incumbent party can ignore the viewpoints or concerns of those who do not vote for them, leaving millions disenfranchised. If the ruling party decides to hit the interests of disabled people, what recourse will the latter have if their MP belongs to that party?  After Brexit, how will universities, farmers, construction businesses, hospitals, find or reassure staff, when the government exists to implement tighter immigration controls? Who will speak up for creative talent or manufacturers whose international markets will be shut down?

Now, the last opportunity for those who live in politically hostile constituencies to have a meaningful vote - elections to the European Parliament, in which everyone's vote has counted under the list system - will be closed forever. It is surely time in these circumstances to review the electoral system for post-Brexit Britain, to enfranchise everyone and deliver a more inclusive democracy. Meanwhile, for Labour supporters living in non-Labour rural and coastal communities, Labour Coast and Country offers one cross-boundary network in which to have a voice.

Democracy is too valuable to be by-passed

The critique of democracy is well-worn so need not be restated, except to say that alternatives are worse. There are times when only the firm hand of a dictator seems attractive; and others when popular uprising seems called for, but these are conclusions usually seen from a particular viewpoint. We all want the world or the country to be run as we think it should be.
However, bad though a government may be, in a democracy there will be process and mechanism whereby it may eventually be changed. It is when these are removed and democracy no longer applies, except in name, that true disenfranchisement occurs and the people are left powerless. Zimbabwe, North Korea and Turkey come to mind.
So we here in UK need to stay alert and use our representatives to protect our system. Why now? Because we are seeing signs of intolerance, in the attacks on those with different views; we are engaged in a denial of representative government, in this unnecessary and damaging referendum; and we are seeing abuse of power on the part of the current ruling party, as it dismantles and potentially prevents the rebuilding of the State.
These actions eat away at the fabric of representative democracy, weakening it further from its already flawed manifestation and risking a drift towards inequities which, whether deliberate or accidental, may lead to a future infinitely worse for the people of this country than even our current parlous state.