Let's do something big with the next two years

AnInfantileDisorder Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:14:03 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

It's two years away from an election that could really change things. Remember how it was in 1995.



We're two years away from the election. We're not winning it. I don't mean that as defeatism - just analysis. Think back to 1995 (Good news for Dave Rowntree, Blur are No 1.) then we already knew that the Tories have lost, they had run out of steam, nobody knew the reason for them being in government. Major had nothing more to give as a leader.

So we could hang on a couple of years - implement our versions of the "cones hot line" policies before losing and hoping that Cameron will be bad enough that we get another chance reasonably soon. That would be a big risk - some Tories thought the same about Blair - but incumbent governments have some advantages in setting the agenda and in calling the timing of elections so it could be a while before we get back.

Or we could do something big. In 1995 there were big ideas about redefining the progressive agenda. The joint cabinet committe with the Liberal Democrats, even the prospect of PR. Those were ideas whose time hadn't come in the Blair days of landslide victories. It was kicked into the long grass after the 2001 election - when we had promised in the manifesto to review the voting system - but the idea to permanently alter the structure of power relationships to end the inbuilt ability of conservative forces to undo progressive work remains important. More than important - it might just be essential now that the Tories are functioning again - the newspapers have returned to them - and normal political service has been resumed.

Now is the time to start substantive negotiations with the Liberal Democrats about what progressive politics will look like. Their price will almost certainly be PR.
I'm not one of those who've been lobbying for it for a long time. It's dual edged - it will stop the Tories, but it will also give the BNP seats in the Commons, but on
balance it's going to be worth it.

tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Let's do something big with the next two years | 27 comments (27 topical)

Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#1)

by doctordunc on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:32:33 PM GMT

We've got to do something big, but I really don't think is it.

You've got to think about how it will be seen: we didn't want it for 10 years, but want it now to try and limit the possible scale of a Tory majority and maybe hold onto power with a coalition with the LibDems.  I know that isn't what you're saying, but it's how it would be perceived.

In other words, it would make us more unpopular.

We do have a problem; almost anything we do will be presented as 'panic, desperation, buying votes,' etc.

Doing nothing will be seen as 'not listening', 'sleepwalking to a Tory victory', etc (which indeed it would be).

What we should focus on is doing a good load of stuff we believe in and helps our people.  Worst case scenario: we lose in two years' time, but we've achieved some worthwhile things in the mean time.

Best-case scenario - people like what we're doing and decide to give us a bit longer to do a bit more.

I don't like to sound like a broken record, but I really do think that approach is the only show in town.  It's not an electoral strategy - it's just being an active, confident Labour government with a vision.  Let's get to it!


Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#2)

by matt1986 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 09:27:43 PM GMT

I agree that there's a danger that if we implement PR it would look like we're desperately vote-seeking and wouldn't look good if we havn't been pushing for it for the last decade. But I also think that, however it is perceived, ultimately PR is a better electoral system than FPTP. So whatever are the circumstances under which PR's brought in, I think it would be a good thing to have.

(The BNP could potentially get seats. However, firstly, we shouldn't be afraid of that happening and should be confident we can take them on when it comes down to it. And, secondly, I don't think potentially having extreme party representation is a good enough reason not to have PR anyway. To be a little bit philosophical about it, I don't think you can say we'll have democracy, as long as everyone votes for the 'nice' parties. If people vote for them, then they deserve to be elected and have seats in the HoC. Anyway, having PR should make the BNP vote do down. FPTP means people feel voting is pointless and doesn't achieve anything. Most people live in a safe seat where they can't have a say in how they're governed. It's the frustration that comes from this that often leads them to vote for the extreme parties. PR makes people's votes count so in this way makes them less likely to get angry about not being to influence which party forms the government.)

I agree I think we're going to lose the next election - let's just admit it. And on the whole, when it comes to what we should do in the next two years, I agree with what Johann Hari, for instance, argued in the Indy yesterday: just do what you want, Gordon, and ignore everyone else; push some things through that you feel strongly about and don't bother trying to please certain sections of the electorate. I think this is the right thing to do, and hopefully after one term of a Tory government - where it probably won't be able to do all that much, and people will realise little has actually changed within the party - we will have a chance to get back into government, with a new leader, of course.


Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#4)

by swatantra on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:24:01 PM GMT

Lets go for broke; do all the things that we promised to do in the next two years. At least we can say we went down fighting, if we are to go down. Who knows, our courage might be recognised and we might in fact come out on top.


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#23)

by jkitleft on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:26:34 PM GMT

Exactly, Gordon Brown is perceived as an indecisive Stalinist (quite an achievement). But I don't think people particuarly want to move to the Tories. This isn't the '90's. I know people who voted Tory for the first time, quite sickened with themselves, but couldn't face voting Labour again. People haven't fallen in love with Cameron like they did with Blair. It's a 'he's alright' attitude. If Brown can be percieved as principled in the next 2 years, it's our best bet at avoiding an electoral bloodbath.


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#3)

by Anonymous X on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:21:53 PM GMT

PR or any other reformed electoral system needn't let the BNP into parliament. There would be a 'barrier' to entry in terms of percentage of the vote taken, which would be variable depending on the type of voting system implemented. Whichever system is chosen, there's little chance that the BNP would get any MPs with the 0.7% of the overall vote they managed to gain in the 2005 general election.


Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#5)

by Floating voter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:38:59 AM GMT

"There would be a 'barrier' to entry in terms of percentage of the vote taken, which would be variable depending on the type of voting system implemented"

What a great idea - let's let the electorate vote for whoever they like unless we don't like them - in which case we'll up the barrier to entry.

Sorry - but it doesn't look like democracy to me.


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#6)

by Anonymous X on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:48:00 AM GMT

You're misinterpreting what I wrote. I was just mentioning that all countries with proportional voting systems of any kind, there's a mathematical 'cut off' point, and that with anything like 0.7% of the national vote, the BNP wouldn't get anywhere near parliament.


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#8)

by Floating voter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:49:46 AM GMT

"there's a mathematical 'cut off' point, and that with anything like 0.7% of the national vote"

Fair enough, but you can't go moving it around. It has to be fixed and known in advance otherwise you undermine the very confidence in the system you're trying to create.


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#13)

by otware on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:14:03 AM GMT

Well obviously. In Germany I believe their threshold for PR top-up seats in their AMS system is 5% or 50 constituency seats. It keeps the nazis out, while stilling allowing minor parties such as the Greens and the Left Party to be represented.


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#24)

by jkitleft on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:29:34 PM GMT

It's 5% and 3 constituency seats, a system I quite like. I believe we should have AV+. But we have other priorities, and we should wait while we're in a less precarious position. We should say that the leading party would fill the role of PM, but they must have a coalition. So there couldn't be any talk of Labour stitching up the more greatly supported Tories, for a coalition with the Lib Dems.

(Sorry for the pedantry).


[ Parent ]

The problem with PR (#7)

by Floating voter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:48:07 AM GMT

PR will ensure a one party state in the UK. That party will be the LibDems, not Labour or the Tories.

If anyone doubts this then look around Europe and the world in general. In PR systems, the smallest parties control the parliaments. The Germans must have the consent of the greens, in Italy governments have an average life-span of 9 months. In Israel the PR elected Knesset is run by minority parties and they frequently fall out forcing elections.

Under PR, big parties have their electoral platforms compromised in order to gain the support of the minority parties. The message is diluted, the effects weakened. Government is no longer about governing, but becomes a process of appeasement to hold the unholy coalition together.

For Labour and the Tories, PR is a loser. Why do you think the LibDems are so keen on it?


Re: The problem with PR (#15)

by otware on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:23:58 AM GMT

Why must the Germans have consent of the Greens? From 1998 - 2005 the Greens were junior coalition partners with the SPD. In fact the German AMS system creates a remarkably stable party system considering...

It's a compromise. More proportional systems create weake governments. You need to find a balance, and our system involves a ruling party that totally dominates parliament. 


[ Parent ]

Re: The problem with PR (#25)

by jkitleft on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:32:25 PM GMT

There is a myth about PR. Actually two.

1) It creates weaker government. This would be news to the people of Spain or Ireland.

2) It gives smaller parties a disproportionate amount of power. Only with a pure PR system, or similar systems. AV+ would guarantee a degree of proportionality, yet with strong government.


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#9)

by alexhilton on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:59:05 AM GMT

I have submitted the proposal below to the Electoral Reform Society AGM, which will be a model of PR they will campaign for if approved in June.

Policy proposal: 3-Member STV for the House of Commons
3-member STV allays many of the fears that arise among politicians when discussing proportional representation. At this time when electoral reform is realistically on the Government's agenda, it seems incumbent on us to present an option that is easy to understand, which has clear benefits and which addresses the drawbacks normally associated with PR.

Allaying Common Fears

  1. Constituency Link. A 3-member constituency is still small enough to allow a meaningful constituency link for MPs
  2. Single class of MP. While it is not clear why MPs argue against the concept of "top-up" representatives, they do and so 3-member STV would remove the need for a top-up list.
  3. Party lists. There is widespread disapproval of party list systems, for example as seen in the Euro Elections, because of the power it hands to the party hierarchies over their own members in the selection of candidates. 3-member constituencies would allow parties to continue to select their candidates locally - and it is the voters who ultimately decide the order of election of the candidates.
  4. Extremist parties. While it is conceivable that extremist parties could achieve election under this system, effectively, it would require a significantly higher share of the vote for an extremist party to be elected within a 3-member constituency than the 5% it took across London to elect the BNP to the London Assembly.

Additional Benefits
  1. Positive discrimination. Parties can positively discriminate in the selection of their candidates without entirely excluding any group of people. For example, a party could positively discriminate for two of their three candidates while allowing an open selection for the third - yet the ultimate election of representatives again remains in the hands of the voters. To further illustrate, the Labour Party could insist that 1 in 3 candidates is a woman in most seats, and in safer seats insist on 2 in 3 being a woman without an outright exclusion of men from any seat.
  2. Competition and co-operation. MPs could benefit from competing with each other or co-operating with each other and therefore the performance of MPs should rise.
  3. "Bed-blockers". The phenomenon of long serving MPs retaining their safe seats on lower and lower turnouts would likely end as there would always be the chance that a hard working new candidate from the same party could surpass an incumbent's vote, allowing an opposing politician to unseat an incumbent. This could make even more rare the phenomenon of dramatic deselections if the public can remove an MP before a party has to do so.
  4. All constituencies would be marginals. Well not quite all - but it is hard to imagine many 3-seat clusters in the country where any party could take all three seats for granted in every election - therefore raising the demands on every party to campaign in every constituency where they stand.


Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#10)

by alexswanson on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:56:12 AM GMT

"It's dual edged - it will stop the Tories, but it will also give the BNP seats in the Commons, but on
balance it's going to be worth it."

 

What you are advocating essentially amounts to  "let's fiddle the voting system so our opponents will never again have power".

 

Two minutes minutes ago I was another website where the sentiment "socialists want to set up a de facto totalitarian state" was dismissed as "silly". You've just shown who was right.

 


Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#11)

by alexhilton on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:26:21 AM GMT

I disagree. For a start, it seem the libdems under clegg are likely to back the tories anyway.

But what really worries me is that in the event of a hung parliament, we will get a form of PR that has been hashed out in backroom horsetrading with the libdems, which will only be focused on the needs of politicians.

what we need is a system that is discussed in the open and designed to benefit the public


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#12)

by alexswanson on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:55:39 AM GMT

"what we need is a system that is discussed in the open and designed to benefit the public"

 

I absolutely agree with this.

 

Just to make myself clear: I have no problem with somebody advocating PR on its merits. I don't agree, but I do recognise that first-part-the-post has its faults, that PR does have some advantages, and that the whole question is entirely debatable.

 

What I object to is, solely, the suggestion that the voting system be changed because a change would benefit some or another political group. Nobody on the Right ever does this, but this is not the first time I've seen it suggested on here.


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#14)

by Proudvotinglabour on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:17:52 AM GMT

Oh dear.  I can't believe I have just read this series of posts.  It is nonsense at every turn.  First of all, we are not going to lose the next election.  The Tories need to win by nearly 10 clear points for an overall majority.  They need to win seats in our heartlands as well as sweeping us and the Liberals aside in the South and London.  The economy will be on the upturn and the closer the Tories get to power the more scrutiny will turn on them and we will see the holes appearing and the disconnects in their policies start to unravel.  Anyone who is saying we are going to lose the election should shut up and get out of the party if they are not up for the fight. 

Blair was a phenomen, politics as normal was in hibernation for a decade, this is now politics as normal and if we cannot win when politics is normal when we are already in government and have a majority of over 60 then we should not be taken seriously as a political party.

To take advice from the nuttier reaches of the Independent just beggars belief.  Did I seriously see some people suggest we should ignore the electorate and then get on do things they do not like but we do?  That is an abdication of responsibility and it suggests that what Labour really believes in is different from what the country believes in, which is fundamentally not true.

And as for PR?  I really, really, really, do not care.  We will fight the next election using the current system, to do differently would guarantee defeat as it would be seen for what it is, a cheap stunt.  If we want to introduce PR, and there are some attractive reasons for doing so laid out here (and some unattrative ones) then let us stick it in our manifesto and fight a general election on the proposal. 

To do this now would take all our energy and will not address the issues that are turning people away from Labour - a fair deal for all our people; the economy; dealing with low level crime that disrupts lives; fighting two global threats (climate change and a twisted philosophy that has sublimated Islam into a fantasy of world domination); making it that little bit easier for people to live the lives they want through better child support (offering free childcare for all would win us the next election and set us on a course for the future with better outcomes for children from an early age and better lives for parents having easier working lives); and preparing the NHS and Social Services for the challenges of an older population who want choice and quality in our public services.

These are the issues that people care about, PR is a dangerous distraction.  If we concentrate on these core issues we will win, and we will consign bright shiny new Cameron to another leadership election.

So stop whingeing, and start talking to real people in your communities about why Labour is right for them and the country, you never know you may surprise yourselves and them.


Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#16)

by Floating voter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:05:17 PM GMT

" First of all, we are not going to lose the next election"

If it was that certain, we wouldn't need elections! I think it has been well established that in the UK oppositions don't win elections - government lose them. Examining the tories on that basis will not achieve much.

 

"We will fight the next election using the current system, to do differently would guarantee defeat as it would be seen for what it is, a cheap stunt" 

I agree completely with this.

 

"So stop whingeing, and start talking to real people in your communities about why Labour is right for them and the country"

This is possibly the most sensible comment I've seen on this blog.

It is what ALL political parties shoud be doing, engaging with the electorate, look them in the eye and show that you give a d*mn by simply turning up on their doorsteps to  talk to them.

At the local elections, one of my neighbours said he never votes for a candidate who doesn't bother to knock on the door. I presume he voted tory as the lib dems and labour candidates never turned up and the labour candidate never even leafleted. At least the Lib Dems put  a leaflet through the door, although the silly sods did it the day before the election and so missed postal votes which would have been posted  the previous week.


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#19)

by matt1986 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:32:51 PM GMT

"First of all, we are not going to lose the next election"

Oh, come off it. Of course we are going to lose. I'm afraid you're confusing what you would like to happen with what will actually happen. We'd all love a Labour win (obviously) but sometimes I think it's better to face up to facts, and not be so naive about it.

"The economy will be on the upturn and the closer the Tories get to power the more scrutiny will turn on them and we will see the holes appearing and the disconnects in their policies start to unravel"

Why will the economy be on the upturn? There's no reason at all to think it will be. No one knows for sure of course, but for a really long time we've had reckless lending and easy money. For a few years we're going to have a hard time of it. This is just what the business cycle is like, I'm afraid. And, yes, I'd love the public to start scrutinizing more what the Tories stand for; I'm sure they havn't changed at all and a cursory look at various policy proposals shows they could be awful for this country. But, again, I'm afraid people just don't look hard about what the next government will be like; they look at how bad the current one is. 

"Anyone who is saying we are going to lose the election should shut up and get out of the party if they are not up for the fight." 

I'm going to fight and campaign hard in the next election, as I strongly believe we need a Labour government, and that only a Labour government can deliver what people want, and I'm certainly not going to leave the party, thank you very much. I'll obviously try and stay enthusiastic and not let what I think the result will be affect the way I campaign. But it's possible to campaign for Labour and still recognise we're going to lose. It just means we're not as surprised as we might be, and that we're prepared, once we have lost, to start again and start work for the next election. Let's not be so naive, and refuse to believe we might actually lose an election.

"Did I seriously see some people suggest we should ignore the electorate and then get on do things they do not like but we do?  That is an abdication of responsibility and it suggests that what Labour really believes in is different from what the country believes in, which is fundamentally not true"

Well, whatever we do at the moment isn't going to be popular, so we might as well try and leave a mark on British politics and not be too concerned about how things come across. And I'm sorry if this makes me sound undemocratic or as if I'm ignoring what the people of this country want, but sometimes it's better to do the right thing even if you think the public at large arn't in favour of it. So, for instance, I'd happily increase car and fuel taxes, and implement loads of new green taxes, if it does something to reduce our CO2 emissions and helps tackle global warming. If anyone is against this then, frankly, I couldn't care less.


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#20)

by madasafish on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:54:44 PM GMT

"So, for instance, I'd happily increase car and fuel taxes, and implement loads of new green taxes, "

Don't you think increasing taxes on citizens at a time when they are being squeezed by inflation is going to hit them hard in their pockets?..

In particular those on fixed incomes and the poor will be worst hit.


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#21)

by matt1986 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:48:20 PM GMT

Well, we should definately always consider what the effects of different policies/taxes will be on those with low incomes first and foremost.

In this case, I'd favour using the money raised from car/fuel taxes to improve public transport/make it cheaper for people to use, hopefully therefore reducing most people's reliance on their cars and on buying fuel. And I'd want to tax more heavily the worst offending - when it comes to CO2 emissions - cars, bought only by those with large amounts of disposable income really, and also tax more heavily people who take more than a certain number of flights a year. Again, this should only affect the richer. The money raised could be used to help people on lower incomes live a greener lifestyle.


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#27)

by jkitleft on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:00:02 PM GMT

I agree we must focus on policies. But I would be more endeared to New Labour if they had concrete policies. Normally, it's just one-day headline grabbers, like proposals to clamp down on parents whose children misbehave, or clamp-downs on drinking etc. If New Labour could tell me what they believed in, I would respect the policies, while not necessarily agreeing with them.

The Tories are already winning in our heartlands. They are already sweeping the south.

It's nonsense to say any leftwards slant is completely the opposite of what the electorate wants. The problem is, although I ould not talk about the electoral benefits of a more potent centre-left angle 10 years ago, New Labour does not recognise that the electorate has changed. Labour was decimated in the recent elections, because we had ground poor people into the dirt on taxation. People are angrier about the super-rich for example. I believe people are becoming more progressive.

Also, every election, in recent times has seen ostensibly centre-left parties gain over half the vote. When Thatcher was in power, over half the electorate voted for parties commited to higher spending and taxation. Unfortunately, too many New Labourites talk as if there was no Labour party before 1983.


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#17)

by Proudvotinglabour on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:33:32 PM GMT

Floating Voter, you are quite right to pick me up on my assertion that we are going to win the next election.  It is, of course by no means certain and is up to the people who vote.  However, I was attempting to make a point to the doom-mongers on this site who seem to believe the time has come to lay down and settle for the inevitable Cameron victory.  That is also not a done deal and I believe we can win if we do the right things now and fight a good election campaign.


Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#18)

by Floating voter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:55:54 PM GMT

"I was attempting to make a point to the doom-mongers on this site who seem to believe the time has come to lay down and settle for the inevitable Cameron victory"

Fair enough!

;-) 

I think the problem the "activists" on here are having is the old "Imperial Rome" syndrome - when plotting and scheming become more attractive than facing up to the hard realities of what needs to be done.

Your earlier post was spot on. What needs to be done (talking to the electorate) is slow, time consuming, possibly abuse-generating, but so very, very necessary. There's nothing clever needed, just good old fashioned hard work and determination, but it is a lot less fun than scheming....


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#26)

by jkitleft on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:42:38 PM GMT

I'm not sure this is true. A typical post before the elections which wasn't about party politics, but about policy, was set up by Mike, or Duncan, sometimes myself, and others have fixated on policy too. I've been asking people to debate policy for a year now, not the distinctions between right vs. left. Here's how the posts would go. Say, Duncan had mentioned a Trade Union Freedom bill.

Left-winger: Yeah, quite right! Nationalise the banks too.
Right-winger: Are you insane? We will lose the next election if we introduce your policies.
Left-winger: Yeah, well you're a Tory.
Right-winger: Are you insane? We will lose the next election if we introduce your policies.
Left-winger: Get lost, sell-out.
Right-winger: Are you insane? etc. etc.


I've been asking to debate policies for a year. Now, they're getting debated in closer and greater detail. I personally support PR, but I always have, and that hasn't changed because of our political situation.


[ Parent ]

Re: Let's do something big with the next two years (#22)

by NB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:00:29 PM GMT

Well if Labour wants to cozy up to the LibDems it would help to have a leader who doesn't go out of his way to insult them every time by referring to them as "The Liberal Party".

But don't assume that "it will stop the Tories". If the Tories can poll 49.5% in Crewe and Natwitch then PR won't help much.  The Electorate doesn't like having their wishes thwarted by "wily" politicians. 


Let's do something big with the next two years | 27 comments (27 topical)