« UAF analysis on London elections | Main | It don't mean a thing if your seat's not a swing »
July 23, 2008
PR and political representation on the Left
Michael Prior of the Green Party raises some important tactical questions for the Left inside and outside the Labour Party, ahead of September's "Convention of the Left" in Manchester:
"This is really the heart of the problem facing the left ─ linking the formulation of a broad left policy with an electoral presence able to put this policy forward to the British people so that they can make a real choice rather than the largely cosmetic policy differences which currently divide Labour and the Conservatives. In fact that should really be amended to be the English people as the transformed electoral systems in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales do, to a degree, offer such possibilities. What these show is that recognisably left positions are popular particularly in Scotland.
One conclusion which can be drawn from this is that electoral reform providing some genuine form of proportional representation ought to be given a much higher policy priority on the left than, currently, it is. The suspicion accorded PR on the left is now a genuine historical relic rather than any basic principle".
Mike is pretty pessimistic about the chances of the main party's being persuaded to move on PR - but as he rightly says, it would be "a genuinely popular policy, one that might reverse the corrosive cynicism that engulfs the whole political process in Britain".
Clearly, people on the Left have different strategies in terms of how to begin rebuilding a meaningful sense of political representation on the Left. Some believe that PR encourages Labour to think much more about how to win votes in its core heartland constituencies. Others think that Labour is dead as a party of the Left, and that we need to back another party like the Greens or Respect. Still others want to create a new party altogether to fill the vacuum left by Labour.
Unlike most European countries, the Left in Britain has never really "done" coalition politics. But can it make itself relevant any more without a more pluralist approach? Instead of fighting like ferrets in a sack, is it not worth uniting around campaigns where objectives are shared in common? Since our electoral system is obstacle common across our different strategies, isn't the campaign for PR something that we can unite around?
Posted by michaelcalderbank on July 23, 2008
Comments
"isn't the campaign for PR something that we can unite around?"
Which campaign is this? If there is a campaign it certainly is not reaching the population generally.
I put a comment in the CiF thread under Roy Hattersley’s article in today’s Guardian. (at 11.54 am on page 3 under the user name Buckley if anybody wants to read it) His article up to a few minutes ago (8.55 pm 24/07) had drawn 186 comments. Of these just one other agreed with me. Every one of the others just ignored what I had said even though I quote verbatim the 1997 referendum commitment . And this is absolutely typical of reaction to electoral reform in all circles except for either those already converted, and members of ERS/MVC, or those aggressively seeking to defend FPTP, however ignorant they may be of other systems.
If the government is to be finally forced into honouring their PR commitments it will need determined pressure from the electorate as a whole, and this is not going to materialise in the present univeral state of ignorance and apathy - which will continue to reign unless there is a much more aggressive educational effort.(The government will continue to plead - as in recent bye-elections - that it is "not a door-step issue" - of course it is not!) It is all very well our "debating" with each other about which system is appropriate - nobody else is listening. How much longer is this "debate" going to last , given that it has already lasted 11 years since New Labour’s commitment and about 100 years before that, and the vast majority of the population still believes that elections for Westminster must inevitably mean FPTP. (Where there are other systems it is evident that many people do not understand them, or why they have replaced FPTP: I had an intelligent graduate ask me why she had had to "vote twice" in the GLA election)
Posted by: Joe Patterson at July 24, 2008 09:59 PM
Joe, I think you are spot on. I am an admirer of your many letters to the national press and comments of websites.
You are right there is just appathy and igorance out there. It is not an easy subject to get across in an entertaining way, but it is essential that we keep plugging away.
One angle that works well is to point out to those who say Labour reneged on the Lisbon referendum that Labour also reneged on PR. This usually elicits sympathy for a referendum on both, even if they are FPTP supporters.
I spoke to a group of unemployed the other day and showed them a 'gerrymander wheel'. There was almost universal agreement that this was scandalous - but I soon realised most had not got the points I was making about the system being inheritantly flawed and it just degenerated into cynicism about MPs being crooks and that boundaries should be drawn 'properly' and that there was nothing that could be done about it anyway. Only one person understood what I was on about and he was already a convert.
Posted by: Neil Harding at July 29, 2008 01:18 PM
We're democrats and believe in free speech, but we're also committed to civil and rational debate. We reserve the right to delete material posted to our site, but we hope and expect to exercise this right rarely if at all.
