Just to let you know that my new blog address is: http://sammcb.tumblr.com
Look forward to seeing you there.
Sam
Thursday, 13 December 2012
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Steering a middle course?
The desperate attempt of the European Left to capture the middle ground and hold it against the onslaughts of the Right, Centre and Fringe seems to have run aground spectacularly. We can kid ourselves that the reason we are no longer successful is that the centre-ground has shifted so much that others are now wearing our clothes. Social democratic values are now 'normal'. Suffice to say, one look at the ideologically governments of Cameron in the UK, Sarkozy in France and Reinfeldt in Sweden would suggest a rather different story. And part of the Left's failure to respond to these governments is precisely because the British Labour Party led the way from the ideological wilderness of the 80s to the (literally) bankrupt managerialism of the last decade. We thought we had to appeal to all those middle-class managers who make up the swing vote by looking, acting and talking exactly like them. We were still passionate about our politics underneath, but perfected the serious/outraged/bored look as we approached government. We could be trusted because we'd manage.
Of course, the Labour governments of 1997-2010 achieved an enormous amount in socialist terms - minimum wage, huge investment in public services, the Good Friday Agreement, the Human Rights Act, Freedom of Information, the Equalities Act, commitments on Development Aid and Climate Change. But we sold them as managerial adjustments and sensible solutions, not as fundamental change. We appealed to the head (and the pocket) but rarely to the heart. And we bought into the myth peddled by the Tories that we were now entering into a post-ideological era of politics. 2012 doesn't look very post-idealogical to me.
Adam Price, former Plaid MP, has written an impressive piece in today's Guardian which merits a wide audience. I'll certainly be adding Ganz to my ever-growing reading list. But if there is one thing I take from Price's analysis is that our forecasts about voter demographics may have been wrong. Perhaps our assumption that the young and the poor never get round to voting is being challenged by Occupy. Perhaps. I've long been an advocate of electoral reform and am attracted to the idea of compulsory voting, not because I relish the picture of non-compliant voters being rounded up and herded to the nearest polling station against their will. What attracts me is the notion that, if political parties knew that every voter would vote, it would transform the political landscape. Policies and rhetoric could not content themselves with an appeal to the few who turn up to the ballot box with an open mind.
Compulsory voting is not on the cards, I know, but the ability to think big (and wide) is the greatest asset of a Party in opposition. Labour has traditionally looked to our core and those who stand to their right. Maurice Glasman and the Occupy Movement confront us with the challenge also to look to those who stand to their left and those who stand beyond. Bankers are criticised heavily - and rightly - for believing it can ever be business as usual. Politicians of the Left need to be similarly upbraided if they try to do the same.
Of course, the Labour governments of 1997-2010 achieved an enormous amount in socialist terms - minimum wage, huge investment in public services, the Good Friday Agreement, the Human Rights Act, Freedom of Information, the Equalities Act, commitments on Development Aid and Climate Change. But we sold them as managerial adjustments and sensible solutions, not as fundamental change. We appealed to the head (and the pocket) but rarely to the heart. And we bought into the myth peddled by the Tories that we were now entering into a post-ideological era of politics. 2012 doesn't look very post-idealogical to me.
Adam Price, former Plaid MP, has written an impressive piece in today's Guardian which merits a wide audience. I'll certainly be adding Ganz to my ever-growing reading list. But if there is one thing I take from Price's analysis is that our forecasts about voter demographics may have been wrong. Perhaps our assumption that the young and the poor never get round to voting is being challenged by Occupy. Perhaps. I've long been an advocate of electoral reform and am attracted to the idea of compulsory voting, not because I relish the picture of non-compliant voters being rounded up and herded to the nearest polling station against their will. What attracts me is the notion that, if political parties knew that every voter would vote, it would transform the political landscape. Policies and rhetoric could not content themselves with an appeal to the few who turn up to the ballot box with an open mind.
Compulsory voting is not on the cards, I know, but the ability to think big (and wide) is the greatest asset of a Party in opposition. Labour has traditionally looked to our core and those who stand to their right. Maurice Glasman and the Occupy Movement confront us with the challenge also to look to those who stand to their left and those who stand beyond. Bankers are criticised heavily - and rightly - for believing it can ever be business as usual. Politicians of the Left need to be similarly upbraided if they try to do the same.
Monday, 6 February 2012
We’re all Scandinavians now!
The morning after the weekend before is never easy and today is no exception. BBC Four broadcast the final two episodes of Borgen, the Danish political drama that has had me gripped from the beginning. Okay, so there were no serial killers or chunky sweaters, but the politico in me had already been intrigued by the machinations of Copenhagen City Hall and the Borgen as they played their bit parts in The Killing I and II. So this morning I feel a little bereft, experiencing something of a cross between cold turkey and the loss of a friend. Maybe I exaggerate …
There was so much to love about Birgitte Nyborg. Is this a fair representation of Danish politics more generally that the Prime Minister still lives at home, with the addition of a couple of bodyguards camped out in the garage? A lot has been made of the lampshades in the series, but surely the point is that they are her lampshades in her own home. We’re supposed to be seduced, I think, by the idea of the PM of a reasonably prosperous country working from home a day a week, organising meetings around the school run and leaving the office at a reasonable hour in order to make supper. So we are as disappointed as Birgitte when these routines and good intentions gradually get eroded as the first year in power takes its toll. And not just home life – I know she’s a ‘Moderate’ in political terms, but what does her government stand for exactly? Is it just the sum of its parts, with different agendas vying for supremacy? There is a real sense that running things makes it very easy to get lost in the minutiae of government and forget the big picture.
I am also impressed with how the series tackles gender issues. Of course there are the policy initiatives and the need to fight the old guard to implement them. But the characters themselves embody gender much more powerfully. Leaving aside the heteronormativity – are there really no senior gay politicians in Scandinavia? – the complexity of gender roles is to be applauded on the whole.
But what comes out clearly for me is how destructive and lonely politics, as we have constructed it, actually is for those who engage in it seriously. Is the adrenaline rush enough to compensate for the long hours, failed relationships and ultimate loneliness of power? Those who make the important decisions need to be connected in a real way to the rest of us. They need to be listeners and receive wise counsel. That is why the roles of Philip and Bent are so critical to Birgitte as she sets out to be PM. But there is also a warning. If loyalty is the most valuable commodity in politics – partly because of its scarcity – then it must be nurtured. It is no good expecting consistent loyalty without reciprocity. Left unattended, political loyalty, like fires (and husbands, according to Zsa Zsa Gabor) goes out.
There was so much to love about Birgitte Nyborg. Is this a fair representation of Danish politics more generally that the Prime Minister still lives at home, with the addition of a couple of bodyguards camped out in the garage? A lot has been made of the lampshades in the series, but surely the point is that they are her lampshades in her own home. We’re supposed to be seduced, I think, by the idea of the PM of a reasonably prosperous country working from home a day a week, organising meetings around the school run and leaving the office at a reasonable hour in order to make supper. So we are as disappointed as Birgitte when these routines and good intentions gradually get eroded as the first year in power takes its toll. And not just home life – I know she’s a ‘Moderate’ in political terms, but what does her government stand for exactly? Is it just the sum of its parts, with different agendas vying for supremacy? There is a real sense that running things makes it very easy to get lost in the minutiae of government and forget the big picture.
I am also impressed with how the series tackles gender issues. Of course there are the policy initiatives and the need to fight the old guard to implement them. But the characters themselves embody gender much more powerfully. Leaving aside the heteronormativity – are there really no senior gay politicians in Scandinavia? – the complexity of gender roles is to be applauded on the whole.
But what comes out clearly for me is how destructive and lonely politics, as we have constructed it, actually is for those who engage in it seriously. Is the adrenaline rush enough to compensate for the long hours, failed relationships and ultimate loneliness of power? Those who make the important decisions need to be connected in a real way to the rest of us. They need to be listeners and receive wise counsel. That is why the roles of Philip and Bent are so critical to Birgitte as she sets out to be PM. But there is also a warning. If loyalty is the most valuable commodity in politics – partly because of its scarcity – then it must be nurtured. It is no good expecting consistent loyalty without reciprocity. Left unattended, political loyalty, like fires (and husbands, according to Zsa Zsa Gabor) goes out.
Sunday, 8 May 2011
What next for reform?
Followers of my tweets or fb updates will not be surprised that I am relieved at the outcome of the recent referendum on the electoral system. I am not a fan of referendums since the underlying question is always ‘Do you like/agree with the government?’ and even despite a split in the current government’s position on the issue, this was still a huge part of the reaction. Without going into all the accusations and assertions made by both campaigns, I am not pessimistic about reform and think there is room for change in the reasonably near future. This is not, in my view, a ‘once in a generation’ issue because, quite frankly, these days nothing is. The nature of media scrutiny and the increased accessibility of all public figure, especially politicians, mean that the ‘half-life’ of issues (and governments!) is shortening year on year. Of course the Lib Dems forgot the golden rule of referendums – never hold a referendum until you are sure of the answer!
In the short-term, what have we lost? Obviously, we have lost AV as an alternative to FPTP. This is fantastic news – it is not PR and should never have been marketed as such. I think there was, in part, a reaction against tinkering as the answer to demands for reform. When it returns, we need to give people a real option.
I think we have also lost the opportunity for a fully democratic House of Lords. The preferred option of the Progressive Left was an Upper House based on PR but how can this stand when it would create a more representative chamber than the Commons? We are already seeing an increase in bolshiness from peers – more democratic legitimacy will be grist to their mill. So where does that leave reformers? Do we press on in the hope that any gridlock will force a change in the way we elect the Commons? Or do we leave well enough alone until the Commons is reformed for fear of being stuck with a compromise no-one wants?
I was struck by something Shirley Williams said in response to the failure of the referendum. For the UK outside England, FPTP is now only used for the Westminister election. This has been the case for N Ireland for over three decades and for Scotland and Wales almost since devolution. There is a real sense in which FPTP is an English system of democracy and may become discredited as such. Having said that, because of the Labour Party, all parts of the UK have now experienced at least one form of PR – STV for Europe and in N Ireland, AMS or Additional Vote for Scotland, Wales and London. If there is to be a change in Westminster, we must embed and increase voters’ experiences of PR so that they can weigh up the pros and cons for themselves.
So what can be achieved in this Parliament? We could start with the system for the European Parliament. Why not move to an ‘open list’ system, as in the Senate elections in Australia, with voters given the option of choosing individuals as well as parties? We could retain an ‘above the line’ vote where voters can also choose a party instead of individuals. A small change – and bigger ballot papers – but an important response to voters’ wishes.
Secondly, why not enable local authorities in England and Wales, to adopt a form of PR for local and mayoral contests? As Labour allowed local referendums to change to directly-elected mayors, surely the Tory-led government could do more than pay lip-service to their localism agenda, and provide enabling legislation to this effect in terms of voting system. Most wards are already multi-member making it ideal for STV rather than having to explain time and again that voters have three votes!
And we could embrace Billy Bragg’s suggestion for the Upper House in the short-term and allow for say 80-90% of the Lords to be appointed in proportion to amount of overall party support at the General Election. The introduction of minimum quotas would ensure extremists are kept out and doing on a 4-nations basis would allow for Nationalists and N Ireland parties to be fairly respresented. The remaining 10-20% could be appointed as expert crossbenchers by commission established by the House itself. Take out the ministers, abolish select committees from the Lords and replace it with ministers appearing from the Commons to answer questions on the floor of the Chamber, reduce the number to half the size of the Commons and restrict its number of sitting days so that members can retain outside professional commitments.
It’s not perfect, it’s not democratic in the true sense, but it would enable the work of the Upper Chamber to continue in a more transparent and legitimate way.
The referendum last Thursday should have been about the failures of FPTP. Instead it became about AV as a ‘miserable little compromise’ and the leadership of Nick Clegg. But we’re not back to square one on reform. With a bit of imagination we can see change for the better before this Parliament is out.
In the short-term, what have we lost? Obviously, we have lost AV as an alternative to FPTP. This is fantastic news – it is not PR and should never have been marketed as such. I think there was, in part, a reaction against tinkering as the answer to demands for reform. When it returns, we need to give people a real option.
I think we have also lost the opportunity for a fully democratic House of Lords. The preferred option of the Progressive Left was an Upper House based on PR but how can this stand when it would create a more representative chamber than the Commons? We are already seeing an increase in bolshiness from peers – more democratic legitimacy will be grist to their mill. So where does that leave reformers? Do we press on in the hope that any gridlock will force a change in the way we elect the Commons? Or do we leave well enough alone until the Commons is reformed for fear of being stuck with a compromise no-one wants?
I was struck by something Shirley Williams said in response to the failure of the referendum. For the UK outside England, FPTP is now only used for the Westminister election. This has been the case for N Ireland for over three decades and for Scotland and Wales almost since devolution. There is a real sense in which FPTP is an English system of democracy and may become discredited as such. Having said that, because of the Labour Party, all parts of the UK have now experienced at least one form of PR – STV for Europe and in N Ireland, AMS or Additional Vote for Scotland, Wales and London. If there is to be a change in Westminster, we must embed and increase voters’ experiences of PR so that they can weigh up the pros and cons for themselves.
So what can be achieved in this Parliament? We could start with the system for the European Parliament. Why not move to an ‘open list’ system, as in the Senate elections in Australia, with voters given the option of choosing individuals as well as parties? We could retain an ‘above the line’ vote where voters can also choose a party instead of individuals. A small change – and bigger ballot papers – but an important response to voters’ wishes.
Secondly, why not enable local authorities in England and Wales, to adopt a form of PR for local and mayoral contests? As Labour allowed local referendums to change to directly-elected mayors, surely the Tory-led government could do more than pay lip-service to their localism agenda, and provide enabling legislation to this effect in terms of voting system. Most wards are already multi-member making it ideal for STV rather than having to explain time and again that voters have three votes!
And we could embrace Billy Bragg’s suggestion for the Upper House in the short-term and allow for say 80-90% of the Lords to be appointed in proportion to amount of overall party support at the General Election. The introduction of minimum quotas would ensure extremists are kept out and doing on a 4-nations basis would allow for Nationalists and N Ireland parties to be fairly respresented. The remaining 10-20% could be appointed as expert crossbenchers by commission established by the House itself. Take out the ministers, abolish select committees from the Lords and replace it with ministers appearing from the Commons to answer questions on the floor of the Chamber, reduce the number to half the size of the Commons and restrict its number of sitting days so that members can retain outside professional commitments.
It’s not perfect, it’s not democratic in the true sense, but it would enable the work of the Upper Chamber to continue in a more transparent and legitimate way.
The referendum last Thursday should have been about the failures of FPTP. Instead it became about AV as a ‘miserable little compromise’ and the leadership of Nick Clegg. But we’re not back to square one on reform. With a bit of imagination we can see change for the better before this Parliament is out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)