Once aqain we see RC - the PRESIDENT of MVC no less - talking in tribalist terms. Not a single mention of possible cooperation with other left-of-centre parties: much less the NECESSITY of such cooperation if the left-of-centre after the next election is to be sure of not spending another two decades in the wilderness. Can somebody explain to me why we never - but never - hear or see a single word in public from the President of MVC about the need for electoral reform, a reform that is imperative if we are to have a true democracy, but a reform that would also shut out the the Tories indefinitely (as Thatcher herself recognised) because the majority of the electorate is not Tory and has not been so for many years (if ever)

Here he is banging on about competition with the Lib/Dems when what he should be pointing out is that - OK- parties should clearly set out their policies, and what they see as their achievements, but that it is up to the electorate to decide which party or parties form the government, whereas under FPTP (as we saw recently) what the electorate thinks does not come into the matter (any more than it did for two decades under Thatcherism with vicious right wing policies being rammed down our throats even though support for them never extended to more than 32% of the electorate).

Why I wonder when he talks about the next election he still talks in terms of retaining the present system. OK it is reasonable to speculate what would happen if the next election were to be under FPTP and what steps would need to be taken to ward off the Tory threat; but it is surely vastly more important for the leading member of MVC to be lecturing the government on its need to honour its 1997 commitments regarding PR to ensure that the next election would be under a PR system.

Can somebody explain to me why we never - but never - hear or see a single word in public from the President of MVC about the need for electoral reform, a reform that is imperative if we are to have a true democracy, but a reform that would also shut out the the Tories indefinitely (as Thatcher herself recognised) because the majority of the electorate is not Tory and has not been so for many years (if ever)

Because he knows if he goes on about it too much, he will lose weight in other areas. But you're right, he should probably speak up a bit more.

As for the majority of the electorate not being Tory - that's a huge leap of faith. There is no way to prove it either way, but seven election victories in a row for (primarily) Thatcherite govts is a fairly big argument against your theory. And you can't simply reply that a Lib-Lab coalition would emerge that would rule forever, because Lab would lose an awful lot of votes if they took off the Tories' clothes, and God knows what would happen to the Lib Dems under PR - may gain mass support, may die completely.

The thing is, we don't really know what the electorate want, because there is such a poor choice on offer. Every party should support a change, if only to find out what would happen.

Thatcher's election "victories" depended on FPTP. The main left-of-centre had the following percentage shares of the vote during the Thatcherist period:- 1979 50.7; 1983 53.0; 1987 53.3; 1992 52.2. Add to that the fact that the support from the total electorate never exceeded 32% and I find your assertion that the disastrous Thatcher period is a strong argument against "my theory" difficult to accept.

As to Blair's having stolen Tory clothes in order to win: Labour had not stolen any Tory clothes during the elections 1979 to 1992 and yet the left-of centre still had a majority of the votes

Frankly I am not particularly worried about Labour's retaining its share of the vote (such as it was, in the recent election) so long as the left-of-centre retains its majority (and of course that the latter is fairly represented)

Returning to the donning of Tory clothes. Blair of course did this to gain votes primarily to propitiate Murdoch (remember the meetings with Murdoch and the dropping of Clause4) and the right-wing press who under FPTP largely control the votes of the floating voters in marginal seats, who decide the outcome of general elections, and who by definition vote on the good old Tory principle of "what's in it for me?" What individual voters in "safe" seats vote (or would have voted) we just don't know. But we do know that over-all more people consistenly vote left-of-centre than vote Tory; and we can reasonably speculate that the left-wing proportion of the vote would be even higher if turnout was higher.

As to a permananent Lib/Lab coalition: it would at least give stablity to our national life: no more "Buggins turn" where for instance two fundamentally opposed minority parties alternately build-up and dismantle the public services.(Incidentally if we had PR we could in any case expect an eventual total party realignment)

I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one. I don't think you can ever just lump together support for certain parties like you have done to produce the permanent 'majorities' that you quote. If the parties were that similar, they'd have joined up. 'Merging' the parties together, were it to happen anywhere outside of stats-world is never going to keep all the voters in the same place. How, for instance, would you measure the left-of-centre vote now? You surely can't include all who vote NL.

disastrous Thatcher period

Like her or loath her, GB was much better off post-Thatch than pre-Thatch. She, like post-war Blair, will probably only be remembered for the good things long after the event. Right now, Blair is judged as a war-mongering smug git who doesn't listen to anyone. 50 years on, when the emotion has cleared, he will be remembered as the top politician of his generation, much like Mrs T.

But hey! I wasn't even born when Thatcher came to power, what do I know? :)

(Incidentally if we had PR we could in any case expect an eventual total party realignment)

Which I have mentioned time and again, no?

"If the parties were that similar, they'd have joined up".

Like in Scotland for instance!?

care to elaborate?

the other point to bear in mind is that only the right-wing Lab govt has survived for any length of time. the previous ones have tended to bugger things up somewhat.

even if a lib-lab coalition initially got 50%+ support, it runs the risk of sending the econ tits up (ppl really don't like being taxed unless they see observable return) that they would be kicked out, even under PR.

but post-pub is not the time to be elucidating these arguments... and besides, many more intelligent, clued-up, people have put it better than me... back on monday folks...

And here are some comments from people more "clued up" than I am:-

Thatcher (Comment in the icpr report - page 25)

Margaret Thatcher of course recognised (and indeed rejoiced in) the undemocrtic nature of first-past-the-post which has ensured a majority of Tory governments (mostly with minority votes) throughout the twentieth century. As she explained to David Frost in 1995: If the Tories did not get into power (in the next general election) they might not get back for many years - "they might change the voting system"

Polly Toynbee (Guardian article 1 Aug 2003)

Under his palm tree, Tony Blair should look back on his broken near-promise to Paddy Ashdown and consider that trust is best engendered now by sharing and diffusing his own absolute power. It would also secure the future for the nation's NATURAL LEFT-OF-CENTRE MAJORITY.. It was primarily his own party that blocked PR, though it is the one sure way to deny a rightwing Conservative ascendancy from seizing power again with minority support. Only a Conservative party that moved considerably further towards the centre than Thatcher or Major could ever hold the reins under a PR system.

the fact that Polly Toynbee, bless 'er, believes there is a natural left-of-centre majority does not make it true.

Even if there WERE, proper-lefty Labour govts (taking the last one as 74-79) have tended to eiter sacrifice ideology or bugger up the country. People in turn tend to vote against govts that do such things, whether their inherent biases want them to or not.

And Thatcher arguing for FPTP in the 80s is irrelevant - I (and many other MVC peeps) would've argued for it then too - it was needed - Britain was in a mess and was primarily two-party. It's now in a fabulous position and has more than two parties.

So ultimately, we don't know, and we can't know, and any predictions coming from any one with party leanings will be more the reflection of emotional desires than rational thought (and no amount of equally fervent denial makes this less true), which means I tend to ignore the lot of 'em. :)

And the reason why Labour governments have always compromised their left-wing principles is because under FPTP they are always looking over their shoulder at the right wing press and their floating voter following in marginal seats who will decide the outcome of the next election. Therefore, in particular, don't dare to raise FAIR taxes (ie DIRECT taxes) and don't dare to raise ADEQUATE taxation to give us decent public services. It is true that the present government has done much to increase resources for the NHS etc but not by fair taxation which would run up against the CBI for instance.

And in any case taxation cannot be said to be anything like adequate as the present astonishing case at King's College Hospital graphically illlustrates: a woman with a head injury was told she would have to wait 80 weeks (80 weeks for a head injury!)for a MRI scan under the NHS; but she was told by the consultant - who else! - that she could get it privately at the same hospital in 2 weeks if she paid over £900.

WE are constantly told that the "people" categorically rejected higher direct taxation in 1992. Yet an analysis of the figures shows that the number of people who voted for Labour and Lib/Dems combined (both of which had increased direct tax proposals in their manifestos) outnumbered those who voted Tory by 3.5 million. The two combined morever polled 1.5 million more than all other parties. But what we got of course was the (would-be) tax-cutting John Major and a railway system that is the laughing stock of Europe - if not the world.

AS for Polly Toynbee: she's absolutely right as my figures for 1992 tend to show. Perhaps you should read the full article in the Guardian archives (1/8/2003) Maggie was also dead right and if Labour had abided by its principles it would under FPTP have registered another defeat. But of course Blair and Mandelson in particular realised that what was necessary under FPTP was a dose of Toryism.

We thought they had also realised that if we were to have true democracy and sustained progress it would be necessaary to introduce PR to escape the trammels imposed by the right-wing press and the marginal seat floaters. Perhaps they did, but then they went a little mad when they saw the majority they had "achieved" under FPTP lottery - and, under pressure from the diehard tribalists, ratted on their unequivocal manifesto commitment.

Thus our prime concern should be to shame them and indeed frighten them (as an MP who lost her seat last month and wrote a suitably scary article in the Independent) into honouring this commitment whatever Maggie or Polly think or say.

Talking about taxation is always a big problem as far as I'm concerned, because it's the main area where ideology and ignorance always gets in the way. Too many people simply think a big progressive tax system combined with a fancifully waste-free allocation of the revenue will up a nation's prosperity and equality all at once.

Which is lovely, of course, until the economics gets in the way. Try selling the idea that a flat-tax system can achieve these goals however (which theory and practice have shown it can) and you'll be lynched as an inhuman monster.

As for the '92 result: I have reservations judging any FPTP election, as people tend to 'play the game' to get what they want. Like it worked this time round (more luck than judgement I'd say), it worked in '92 (possibly). Total voting numbers under FPTP are largely irrelevant, esp. regarding the Lib Dems, who, much as many people vote for them actually wanting them to form the govt, a lot of other people vote for them as a protest, without actually wanting them to rule the country. There could be a similar situation either next time round, or the time after, if, as expected, Brown's economic slump comes along in the next five years, and people finally lose faith in the promises of NL. The mood of the country may well be to go back to blue, but with the power check of the Lib Dems, you could crudely add them to Lab, and outscore the Tories again...

Which again brings be back to: sod the party ideology nonsense, I'm just curious to know what the make-up of the country really is, or at least make the system less dependent on a few vacuous policies being sold to a few vacuous voters in order to win an election.

BTW: I assume the article you are referring to was the Anne Campbell one, although I'm not sure, as a) she didn't write it and b) it was more pathetic than scary.

I realise in this little discussion that I may be coming across as having a streak of that vicious, evil right-wing Tory-eugh!-ness that as a Labour man no doubt rattles your cage somewhat, which will ultimately serve to make your points worthless, relying even further on emotion, so for the good of the exchange, I feel I should reiterate the point that I hate them all, and only a few months back I was accused of being anti-Tory.

Sadly, being in favour of rationalism, politics hates me as much as I hate it.

Paul, I suspect everybody thinks of themselves as rational but I doubt your assertion that progressive taxation harms an economy. The Scandinavian countries seem to do better than us despite having a much more progressive taxation system.

Also without sounding too beardy green about it, quality of life does not necessarily equate to GDP. Once GDP reaches a certain level (which all developed countries have more than passed), it could be argued, it is detrimental (rising mental illness, lower satisfaction/happiness indices). Although I understand why nobody outside the Green party would argue this. A more equal society reaps benefits other then GDP.

I also think as a fellow rationalist, you could add a few qualifications to your 'Labour messes up the economy arguments'.

Ive come to the conclusion that what governments do has less effect than we think on what happens to the economy. It is more down to external international circumstances.

The Tory governments of 1970-74 and 79-97 experienced at least as much economic strife as the Labour government of 1974-79. The 3 day week was under Heath. The two deepest recessions were under Thatcher and Major! I think we forget just how much the right wing press has influenced how we remember these things. As Churchill said 'History will judge me well because I am going to write it'.

That is not to say that the union laws introduced by Thatcher did not have a beneficial effect on the economy. I think a Labour government would have moved in this direction as well. Remember things like privatisation had already started under Callaghan. A lot of government policy is guided by civil servants not politicians.

You also state that the Blair government is Thatcherite. This commonly held perception (especially on the left) doesn't really hold either IMO!

While some aspects of Blair policy like PFI and other faith in the market policies are nominally Thatcherite, I think the philosophy behind them is totally different. Whereas the Thatcherite agenda was a gradual dismantling of public services, Labour are using these private 'tools' with the opposite in mind.

The pragmatic tough stance on social issues to play to the right wing press is just 'media posturing' out of electoral necessity rather than ideology.

And when you look at policies on workers' rights like the minimum wage, guaranteed holiday pay, maternity pay, surestart nurseries, tax credits, flat rate payouts to pensioners and the general increase in all public services you have the antithesis of Thatcherism.

As for policies like tuition fees, much maligned on the left, I say look at the detail and compare with the policies of the Tories and Lib Dems. When you keep in mind the aim of increasing student numbers, targeting middle class students to pay more seems the more left wing policy, especially when we remember the poorer students are exempt and will receive a newly restored but not oft mentioned maintenance grant.

I think to call Blair's government a continuation of Thatcherism a misnomer.

I don't think it is a misnomer, but then there's enough debate about this already, so not something I can be positively arsed to get in to. I will say though, that I agree with you entirely that the welfare of a nation is certainly not directly proportional to GDP. I think that this indeed sures up arguments that TB is part of the Thatcher lineage - a nation's well-being is proportional to GDP at the lower levels - once this is sorted out (to a greater or lesser extent) the emphasis shifts to non-GDP welfare.

Given the differing state of the nation 79/97, it is hard to make concrete comparisons between TB and Lady T. Who knows? - if Lawson hadn't made quite such a heinous error in the late 80s, would Mrs T have been a bit more observably TB? We know there is mutual admiration between the two.

And if the Lawson boom hadn't transformed into the Lawson bust, we wouldn't have joined the ERM with such shoddy foundations, there would've been no 'Black Wed', the whole world might've looked different.

As it was, Black Wed was a blessing in disguise, and Income, Employment etc have all been on a steady increase since 92.

I also suspect a great deal more people think of themselves as rational, but chop out of that bunch all who subscribe to an irrational belief sysystem, be it party politics, organised religion or whatever, and the actual number greatly reduces. I am irrational when it comes to football, for example, but in the political, economic and psychological sphere, I rather like to think I'm fairly sane.

And given that you raised the point, I should like to point out that the 50% in HE target is possibly the stupidest piece of political thinking ever, not only barmy in itself, but has created all sorts of other problems, but then this isn't really the time nor the place to get into such things...

Finally, kudos on quoting Churchill. A chap if ever there was one.

You say 'black wednesday' was a blessing in disguise. Income and employment have increased but the real reason for this (like the lawson boom) is the unsustainable rise in personal debt rather than a real improvement in the state of the economy.

While lecturing the ECB to reduce their interest rate of 2% to reflate their economy, we keep our interest rate at 4.75% to attract speculative 'hot money' to prop up our balance of payments deficit.

We are guilty as usual of looking at the short term rather than the ECB who are playing the long game.

Like all low tax economies, the UK is 'free riding' on countries that invest in social protection. Why bother paying to train your own workforce when you can save money by poaching from other countries?

In the long run even this policy is counter productive. The inefficiencies of the US health system demonstrate this. This is a country that spends twice what we do on health (as a % of GDP), but has over 40 million without health insurance, infant mortality rates in some places to rival Bangladesh and only the very rich able to afford treatment for most cancers.

Private health companies in the US waste billions on advertising and bureacratic form filling to assess individuals health premiums. By comparison the NHS is highly efficient. Real wealth creation is the knowledge and skill levels of your population.

While the 50% University target is not in itself a good thing. If more of these students were from poorer backgrounds and were studying maths, sciences, medicine etc, instead of being thick middle class media studies students then no one would be complaining. As it happens the government is nowhere near achieving its target anyway and unlikely to ever do so, its stuck around the 40% mark!

Visit my website if you want to know what I think of Churchill, a most odious man!

Not the place for me to be chatting about ECB stuff (I studied the circus too much and for too long) but I give you just about the most respected economist-cum-columnist, Anatole Kaletsky.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1061-1646460,00.html

There was another fantastic article (can't remember where (Times or Economist I think) that said European economies had a lot to learn from our welfare system, especially given the wasteful nature of France and Germany's, esp given their aging populations, but it's something I really don't believe is worth going into on somewhere like this. Sorry. Just assume I believe the economics behind them to be risible.

Also assume I differ on the ECB - it's not a long-game (EU unemplt has been sky-high for decades an under current systems will stay that way) and is so cautious because it is attempting the near-impossible in sustaining a one-size fits all interest rate policy for a set of disparate (economically and culturally) nations.

Apologies if you really want to go into this with me, but I hope you appreciate it would largely be a waste of time.

One last thing, I didn't say progressive taxation harmed an economy, I merely inferred that a flat-tax solution can be both as redistributive and better for the economy as a whole, but trying to sell that to the people would be political suicide.

I understand this is not the site for a debate on the subject of taxation.

Just to say, I don't think it is the ECB that is responsible for French and German unemployment but a 'race to the bottom', lower wage, lower tax competition between countries.

Their social protection is costly but their attempt is laudable. People generally have a better quality of life in France or Germany where there is more equality. Unfortunately without international agreement, companies will always find low tax economies to re-locate to and new workforces to exploit.

Briefly could you explain how a flat-tax solution can be redistributive?

An interesting discussion! However, we've got a long way from the raison d'etre of the MVC which is to campaign for an improvement in DEMOCRACY - or rather the introduction of it. I would be reconciled to the two decades of Thatcherism if in fact she and her governments had been fairly elected; but as I have said before she never had the support of more than 32% of the electorate and yet was able to take this as a mandate to foist on the rest of the community vicious right wing policies.

Almost as bad (or in the long term perhaps even worse) she has left a legacy of all-pervading mercenary sleaze - whether we're talking about the BT confusion selling and the widespread introduction of "National" numbers (0870) to replace numbers that used to be local; or the absurd 118 fiasco where numerous firms are "competing" to sell us at outrageous prices telephone numbers that we used to be able to get free; or the splitting up of natural monopolies like gas and electricity into numerous "suppliers" which we are enjoined to keep our eye on so that we can be sure of getting "the best price" (what a vast waste of resources both for the industry and for consumers!); or the aftermath of the utterly disgraceful docrinaire privatisation of the railways; or indeed Classic FM, which, as Allen Bennett implied some time ago, could be said to embody the spirit of the Thatcher era. (I'm sure many of us would welcome an alternative to Radio 3 - but but tht alternative is most certainly not Classic FM with its hundred best tunes and single movements (all designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator) constantly interspersed with the nauseous commercials which are of course the reason for the station's existence).

neil - I wouldn't dare go into it in too much detail here, but the main thrust is that it is so much simpler to collect, that it automatically frees up billions in resources, and it is also harder to avoid, and avoidance always favours the higher earning sectors of society.

Many economist types are heralding the flat tax revolution for the impressive movements made by the new econs of, e.g., Slovakia, in which total tax revenue rose after the introduction of a 19% flat rate. The tax in itself isn't always that redistributive, (except for the closing of many loopholes created by such complicated taxing procedures), but the govt has a lot more money to play with later, which it can give to the poor people. But, depending on where you set the threshold, it can be redistributive in itself.

The Economist ran a special survey on the flat tax revolution a month or two back, but I guess that you have to pay for all that now.

As for the Euro econs, I wish I could find the link to the article I mentioned earlier, which quoted all sorts of figures concerning unemployment, welfare, redistribution etc, which showed that, while laudable, the efforts of France and Germany were often in vain when compared to GB's progress, and in many cases were simply strangling the economy.

Joe, the 64,000 dollar question is; how much of this mercenary sleaze is down to Thatcher and how much down to the influence of multi-nationals?

I think that, as important as changing the voting system is, democracy has probably been more eroded by a lack of international governance to control cross border corporations power.

Multi-national corporations extend their influence to what tax rates we are allowed to set, what we spend public money on and even controls what we are allowed to see and hear, by their ownership of the media. If we are to free our democracy, this control of the media is probably the most important we need to address.

Paul, Im all for simplifying the tax and benefit system. If most indirect taxation was moved to a flat rate income tax, it would be transparent what we pay and be more progressive. What do you think of a citizen's income as a way of reducing bureaucracy?