Contrary to most (Tory?) commentators, I’ve found the last few days to have been chock-full of interesting and engaging politics. What we’ve seen is politicians focusing their attention of issues of policy, which, after all, (and in spite of what said commentators might have you believe) must be the basis for any ‘mandate’ achieved by the next coalition government, whatever its colour. This is an opinion which I suspect is unlikely to be shared with many MPs, none of whom seem to be particularly enamoured with the will of the people as expressed at last Thursday’s ballot box.
Yesterday’s much-anticipated resignation of Gordon Brown seemingly widened the conceptual scope where the next government is concerned. I won’t be the first to note that the timing of this announcement suggests it had more to do with the prospects for a Lib-Lab coalition than it does with the good of the nation, no matter how grand the PM’s oratory. What has received less attention however is how this potential coalition – and the future of the Labour party in general in this new political landscape – may play a crucial role in the selection of a new party leader.
Naturally, the press has been keeping a beady eye on the usual suspects: the Milibands, Ed Balls, Jon Cruddas and Alan Johnson to name but a few. The problem is that these personalities all threw their hat into the ring in very different circumstances than we face today, and I have my doubts if any of these could fit the bill as a leader of a potentially very divided coalition government. Certainly Ed Balls would suffer by his association with the Brown faction of the Labour party whose influence is still very much resented by colleagues on other wings of the party. Likewise it is difficult to see Jon Cruddas ameliorating his leftist stance with Labour’s more centrist partners in government. Alan Johnson would no doubt play his ‘safe pair of hands’ card if – and it is a big if – he decides to run, but having previously intimated that he feels that he isn’t equal to the job, I wonder whether he will command the respect and gravitas that will be needed to hold this progressive alliance together. Hatty Harman has seemingly ruled herself out, so does that leave Ed Miliband with a clear run at the job? He has less ideological baggage than his potential rivals (and this has been decisive in leadership contests of the last couple of decades), and unlike his brother, is part of the team negotiating with the Lib Dems, so may hold more clout with the party’s yellow cousins.
All of this, of course depends very much upon the decision that is reached by the Liberal Democrats. So, which way should Nick Clegg jump? I imagine the question will probably hinge around electoral reform. Having held such high hopes for Thursday’s election, they will have been devastated to have lost seats, which will no doubt strengthen their resolve to introduce a more proportional system of voting. The trouble is, it is by no means clear how this would be achieved. The Tory offer of AV falls short of the sort of proportionality that Lib Dems crave, but they can be fairly sure that a bill on a referendum would safely progress through Parliament with support from the Conservative whips. Whether they can win the argument during the referendum campaign in the face of opposition from their partners in government and the Tory pitbulls in the press remains to be seen. Furthermore, details on the proposed referendum are scarce: will it be binding, and if so, on what turnout and majority? These are questions that could prove vital.
On paper, the Labour offer seems much more lucrative – instant legislation on AV with the promise of a further referendum on STV. I’m sure many Lib Dem hearts will be aflutter at that thought, but doubts about the feasibility of the offer remain a major stumbling block. Let us not forget that there are many in Labour that object to electoral reform – Jack Straw was amongst those who shot down the recommendations of the Jenkins Commission in 1997 – and there have been plenty of backbenchers surfacing to voice concerns on the news channels in the past day to suggest that the Labour negotiating team may have overstepped its remit.
But this is not to say that a deal cannot be reached with Labour to push through electoral reform. Much will depend upon how effective the Labour whipping operating is, and how far its hostile parliamentary members will recognise its expediency in the present predicament. It might also be true to say that whilst Labour dissenters on reform might sound-off with impunity whilst there remains a deal on the table to influence, there might be a change of mood if the Lib-Lab knot is finally tied. When the chips are down, how many Labour MPs will really break ranks when the likely alternatives will be a Tory administration or a crushing election defeat? Timing could also prove crucial as electoral reform legislation will need to be introduced before cracks are given time to appear in the rainbow coalition. Never before has the Leader of the House been such a position of responsibility!
The overarching question, however, is whether or not such a deal would be in the interests of Labour and the Lib Dems, quite apart from the country. AV and STV, as every Tory will tell you, certainly do favour the progressive parties, and so could leave a lasting impression in the Commons that is likely to make the kind of spells in government enjoyed by Thatcher (and indeed Blair) an anachronism. This is important because, as Mervyn King has noted, the scale of cuts required by the next administration is likely to make it unelectable come 2014/5. Under a reformed electoral system however, a Tory-lead government might only last a term, rather than a generation. If AV can be achieved under the Tories however, there is a good argument for Labour to recuperate in opposition in anticipation of a good stint at the helm after the next election, and I suspect this is the sentiment that is being expressed by John Reid and others.
The signs are that a Lib-Lab government would face an uphill struggle to assert its legitimacy in the public consciousness. The arguments currently being expounded in the Tory press are of course tired and spurious: we don’t vote directly for a prime minister, we vote for a local representative standing on a platform of a specific programme for government, and if no overall programme is accepted parties are well within their rights to negotiate on producing a ‘hybrid’ legislative agenda. The fact that there seems to be such an impression of presidential government is perhaps the consequence in the stylistic changes introduced to Number 10 by Blair. But I digress, there is little doubt in terms of policy that Labour and the Lib Dems have more fertile areas for collaboration, so with a share of the vote that exceeds 50% - more than that which is usually enjoyed by a government – a rainbow coalition should be seen to be at least as legitimate as any other form of executive. But, back in the real world, this will count for nothing: the popular impression will be one of parties colluding for partisan benefit, and this is likely to result in electoral failure when the country next goes to the polls. Whether or not this will be worth it will again hinge on the extent of the political and electoral reform that is achieved.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
'Choices' and the Future of Progressive Politics
We have been told an awful lot about the choices of this election campaign, be it David Cameron’s choice between himself and ‘five more years of Gordon Brown’ or the PM’s choice between public service investment and ‘Tory cuts’. And, perhaps because the campaign is the closest we have seen for decades, the decision that will be put before the electorate on Thursday does seem to be more pressing than any in recent electoral memory. Left-leaning publications such as The Guardian, Indie and New Statesman have spent many column inches in recent weeks proclaiming this election to be centred on a ‘republican moment’ or a ‘progressive alliance’, so much so that these ‘progressives’ seem to be getting carried away with themselves, predicting that the next parliament could be a reforming institution to rival that of 1832. Somewhat typically however, I feel that the choices that determine the future of progressive politics in this country are rather more complicated than this analysis suggests.
Electoral reform has, or course, been the touchstone behind the decisions of The Guardian and Indie to advocate a Lib/Lab coalition, and these are sentiments that have been echoed in this blog. As part of wider reforms to parliament, such as fixed electoral cycles, an end to hereditary peers and right of recall, electoral reform proposals could indeed make a huge impact on the democratic culture of this country. Moreover, these are reforms that would, on the face of it, seem to benefit ‘progressive’ parties, with Labour and Lib Dems likely to hold the balance of power in most Parliaments elected under a truly representative system. I would hope that gains would also be made by the Green Party to cancel out any advances by UKIP, or worse, the BNP, and that consequently the terms of reference for future debates would be broader than the often stilted, quasi-consensual politics that has dominated recent Parliaments.
But whilst the potential of these changes is undoubted, progressives seem to have been blind to the manifold difficulties of realising it, even if a Lib-Lab government is in power come May 18th. Firstly, Labour and the Lib Dems have very different ideas about what electoral reform constitutes. In the last Parliament, the Lib Dems were largely supportive of Labour’s proposals to ballot the electorate on switching to AV. This is a system that has the potential to distort vote shares to an even greater extent than FPTP (as I’ve noted before), and far from ushering in a new dawn for progressive politics, could give the Conservatives greater power to form governments in spite of a clear anti-Tory consensus than they have enjoyed throughout the 20th Century. However I suspect that following the Lib Dem surge and the presumed increase in clout they now wield as kingmakers in the next Parliament, there might be a concerted push for STV to be included in any future referendum on reform. Whilst this is clearly a more proportional system, it (ironically) won’t necessarily help reformers to have this plurality of opinion amongst its proponents. Whilst polling has shown electoral reform to be backed by a narrow majority, a referendum still needs to be won to institute the changes, and dividing or complicating the case for reform might make this task all the more difficult.
Whilst this may seem like a worst case scenario, there have been increasing suggestions that Nick Clegg might side with the Tories on May 18th, negating electoral reform as pre-requisite for his party’s support. His denial in an FT interview that he had any demands set in stone and his claim that he would work with a Tory administration must’ve sent shivers down the spines of those at The Guardian and co who had backed him with such ‘enthusiasm’ on the strength of this one policy. Whilst it is impossible to really gauge where the party stands on any future coalition whilst we’re still in the ‘fog of war’ that is the election campaign, this writer at least is prepared to give such notions at least some credence. Rumours continue to surface regarding Mr Clegg’s membership of the Cambridge University Conservative Association – something that Clegg rather unconvincingly claims to have ‘no recollection of’ – as do stories that the Lib Dem leader is keener to replace the Labour Party as one of the two titans of British politics than he is to prevent a Conservative government. The saving grace in this case may be his party – whether the ranks of former SDPers and liberal lefties could stomach an unholy alliance with the Tories is another matter entirely.
Electoral reform would clearly have the potential to rewrite the political landscape for future elections, but with so much still uncertain, progressives might also be tempted to heed Mervyn King’s reported claim that the party that leads the government through the next Parliament could be out of power for a generation come 2014/15 due to the scale of the economic difficulties that it will face. Couple this with the fact that make-up of any conceivable government on May 18th is likely to be the weakest and most fractured for decades and the case for ‘sitting this one out’ becomes more convincing.
This might be a benefit to the Labour Party in particular. Many commentators and increasing numbers of grassroots activists have noted that government has apparently wearied the party, with the sense of narrative seemingly becoming more and more blurred under Gordon Brown. The once well-oiled party machine is also losing its sheen, and has often given the impression of a chaotic and haphazard institution of late. Partly of course, this is an entirely natural result for a party that has governed for 13 years through difficult circumstances. But there is also a sense that the raison d’etre of the New Labour enterprise is losing its relevance in this brave new economic world. New Labour was all about tying increased investment in public services with economic growth from deregulated financial markets. Whilst this has served the party well between 1997 and 2008, it doesn’t sit pretty with present circumstances. Financial regulation is now very much de rigeur, cuts (or at least ‘efficiency savings’) are an unavoidable necessity and the scope for economic growth is very limited. Whilst Brown has tried to reposition the party to respond to these circumstances by championing greater state intervention in the economy, and whilst this is undoubtedly a crucial change needed to protect the less privileged echelons of society, the Prime Minister has yet to convince that he can square this with the New Labour legacy. The so-called ‘Blair plus’ manifesto is a prime example: rather than reinventing the party to face-down these new challenges, Brown is still trying to hammer the round New Labour peg into this square economic hole. A new leader, new intake of parliamentary representatives and a brief stint in opposition might help the party to regain its far-reaching vision, and perhaps even the trust of the electorate.
Admittedly, whether all these concerns will be enough to prevent progressives from voting to keep the Tories out is unlikely. The choices of 2014/5 are far too remote to change many crosses in boxes come Thursday, and I, like other progressives, will be hoping that the Tories don’t cross the 326 seat mark in the early hours of Friday morning. But whatever the outcome, there will be cause for consolation or concern. The next Parliament may well be the most exciting for generations, but it will also face some of the toughest challenges in living memory. The stakes will be high, and the price of failure even higher.
Electoral reform has, or course, been the touchstone behind the decisions of The Guardian and Indie to advocate a Lib/Lab coalition, and these are sentiments that have been echoed in this blog. As part of wider reforms to parliament, such as fixed electoral cycles, an end to hereditary peers and right of recall, electoral reform proposals could indeed make a huge impact on the democratic culture of this country. Moreover, these are reforms that would, on the face of it, seem to benefit ‘progressive’ parties, with Labour and Lib Dems likely to hold the balance of power in most Parliaments elected under a truly representative system. I would hope that gains would also be made by the Green Party to cancel out any advances by UKIP, or worse, the BNP, and that consequently the terms of reference for future debates would be broader than the often stilted, quasi-consensual politics that has dominated recent Parliaments.
But whilst the potential of these changes is undoubted, progressives seem to have been blind to the manifold difficulties of realising it, even if a Lib-Lab government is in power come May 18th. Firstly, Labour and the Lib Dems have very different ideas about what electoral reform constitutes. In the last Parliament, the Lib Dems were largely supportive of Labour’s proposals to ballot the electorate on switching to AV. This is a system that has the potential to distort vote shares to an even greater extent than FPTP (as I’ve noted before), and far from ushering in a new dawn for progressive politics, could give the Conservatives greater power to form governments in spite of a clear anti-Tory consensus than they have enjoyed throughout the 20th Century. However I suspect that following the Lib Dem surge and the presumed increase in clout they now wield as kingmakers in the next Parliament, there might be a concerted push for STV to be included in any future referendum on reform. Whilst this is clearly a more proportional system, it (ironically) won’t necessarily help reformers to have this plurality of opinion amongst its proponents. Whilst polling has shown electoral reform to be backed by a narrow majority, a referendum still needs to be won to institute the changes, and dividing or complicating the case for reform might make this task all the more difficult.
Whilst this may seem like a worst case scenario, there have been increasing suggestions that Nick Clegg might side with the Tories on May 18th, negating electoral reform as pre-requisite for his party’s support. His denial in an FT interview that he had any demands set in stone and his claim that he would work with a Tory administration must’ve sent shivers down the spines of those at The Guardian and co who had backed him with such ‘enthusiasm’ on the strength of this one policy. Whilst it is impossible to really gauge where the party stands on any future coalition whilst we’re still in the ‘fog of war’ that is the election campaign, this writer at least is prepared to give such notions at least some credence. Rumours continue to surface regarding Mr Clegg’s membership of the Cambridge University Conservative Association – something that Clegg rather unconvincingly claims to have ‘no recollection of’ – as do stories that the Lib Dem leader is keener to replace the Labour Party as one of the two titans of British politics than he is to prevent a Conservative government. The saving grace in this case may be his party – whether the ranks of former SDPers and liberal lefties could stomach an unholy alliance with the Tories is another matter entirely.
Electoral reform would clearly have the potential to rewrite the political landscape for future elections, but with so much still uncertain, progressives might also be tempted to heed Mervyn King’s reported claim that the party that leads the government through the next Parliament could be out of power for a generation come 2014/15 due to the scale of the economic difficulties that it will face. Couple this with the fact that make-up of any conceivable government on May 18th is likely to be the weakest and most fractured for decades and the case for ‘sitting this one out’ becomes more convincing.
This might be a benefit to the Labour Party in particular. Many commentators and increasing numbers of grassroots activists have noted that government has apparently wearied the party, with the sense of narrative seemingly becoming more and more blurred under Gordon Brown. The once well-oiled party machine is also losing its sheen, and has often given the impression of a chaotic and haphazard institution of late. Partly of course, this is an entirely natural result for a party that has governed for 13 years through difficult circumstances. But there is also a sense that the raison d’etre of the New Labour enterprise is losing its relevance in this brave new economic world. New Labour was all about tying increased investment in public services with economic growth from deregulated financial markets. Whilst this has served the party well between 1997 and 2008, it doesn’t sit pretty with present circumstances. Financial regulation is now very much de rigeur, cuts (or at least ‘efficiency savings’) are an unavoidable necessity and the scope for economic growth is very limited. Whilst Brown has tried to reposition the party to respond to these circumstances by championing greater state intervention in the economy, and whilst this is undoubtedly a crucial change needed to protect the less privileged echelons of society, the Prime Minister has yet to convince that he can square this with the New Labour legacy. The so-called ‘Blair plus’ manifesto is a prime example: rather than reinventing the party to face-down these new challenges, Brown is still trying to hammer the round New Labour peg into this square economic hole. A new leader, new intake of parliamentary representatives and a brief stint in opposition might help the party to regain its far-reaching vision, and perhaps even the trust of the electorate.
Admittedly, whether all these concerns will be enough to prevent progressives from voting to keep the Tories out is unlikely. The choices of 2014/5 are far too remote to change many crosses in boxes come Thursday, and I, like other progressives, will be hoping that the Tories don’t cross the 326 seat mark in the early hours of Friday morning. But whatever the outcome, there will be cause for consolation or concern. The next Parliament may well be the most exciting for generations, but it will also face some of the toughest challenges in living memory. The stakes will be high, and the price of failure even higher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)