The Future of the Labour Party
Introduction
‘Power’ in British politics requires
commanding the ‘interest' of 51% of the population. The movement called 'New
Labour' in the nineteen nineties grasped the truth that our ‘first past the post’
voting system leaves no room for parties that appeal to minorities: to Trade Union members, Manual
Workers, Recyclers, Climate Changers, or Liberals. To campaign honourably
and passionately on behalf of the weakest sectors of society may inspire 30%;
but not 51%. Climate change may worry 30% of the country. But unless these
interest groups combine, and combine with others, till their consortium
comprises a majority of the population, they will never have the power to form
a government and change the law.
It
may be that 'New Labour’ grasped the even more depressing truth that the
biggest umbrella to cover the biggest interest group is money. If you can
convincingly claim to have policies that will make 51 percent of the population
richer, you will gain power. If you offer to raise disability allowance you may
gain some respect, but will gain a mere handful of votes for your cause.
What New Labour did not grasp, however, is the
importance of proportional representation. Had they introduced proportional
representation when they had the power to do so, the forming of these alliances
would have become a much simpler task. Parliament would have become more representative
and more powerful (relative to Government). Our present electoral system is a
system for generating disgruntled voters. With three or
more parties we have the triumph of some 30% and the eventual despair of the
70%. The system disenfranchises
the majority of voters and throws their votes away. Voting turnout falls. (In
‘Safe Seats’ voting is always pointless for supporters of the 2nd 3rd
and 4th parties.) It
is perfectly possible to devise a system where at least some account is taken
of the 70% of votes that are lost in the present system. The first step would
be simply to publicise the figures.
Labour surely arose as a class-based
party. Its success doubtless stemmed from the fact that there were many more manual workers than owners. If
the many little people combined and unified, they could take on the big guns.
But automation has progressively eroded the manual work-force, and we have seen
an enormous growth in the numbers of white-collar workers. Today the Labour Party
probably attracts some traditional workers, and some others who are the loyal sons
and daughters of former Labour voters. Labour’s support for the underprivileged,
and the unemployed may appeal to another bunch of voters, and this altruism may
attract further voters with ethical issues. But this is inevitably a weak
alliance. Without the power to make law, it is hard to convince the electorate
that Labour would reduce CO2 levels better than Green
Party.
There
is an enormously important factor in deciding the outcome of constituency
elections which is barely touched on in the media, and that is the intellectual
and moral quality of the candidates. Unless a party can field good quality
candidates they will not win elections. And failure to win elections feeds back
on the ability to attract good candidates. Unfortunately the hysteresis in this
feedback loop is vey long — maybe extending to a generation. After a
by-election, there is much discussion of the issues, and voter responses to
those issues, but scarcely a mention of the candidate. However, in a general
election it is possible to detect candidate-specific results as ‘results that
buck the trend’. Though these seldom attract the attention of the press unless
that candidate wins. However, it is quite clear that there are good candidates
and weak candidates; and that voters can tell the difference.
In a two-party system the ‘official opposition’
can be seen as a government in waiting.
The quality of the party in opposition will be judged very largely by
its performance in the House of Commons. It may wish to oppose at every opportunity,
or it may wish to appear judicious. But need we have a two-party system
and an ‘official opposition’? We should think outside that box.
Any two-party system is divisive; it causes,
exploits, and perpetuates a split in opinion. The original Right/Left
nomenclature comes from the French Revolution when those wanting little change
sat on the right side of the legislative chamber and the new radicals who
wanted to change everything sat on the left. It was not in essence a Rich/Poor
divide, but of course there is a tendency for those who are already well off to
resist change, while the dissatisfied will seek it. In nineteenth century
Britain the split was not based on wealth but on source of wealth; land versus
commerce. Both sides of the house were wealthy, and all MPs were gentlemen. The
issues included: free-trade, empire, education and the franchise. In the twentieth century the Labour
party brought to parliament the clash between capital and labour, which had
already existed for a hundred years on the shop-floor. Success was its undoing.
Leap-frogging wage-claims forced Britain out of world markets, and annoyed the
country, with Thatcherism as the result. New-Labour was hardly a Labour party.
It adopted many capitalist concepts (and faults), among them the idea that money
is the only motivator, and that every issue should be judged by 'the market';
but it won three elections. Since 2010, the Tories have run with the same
baton, though surely the banking fiasco should have put paid to this discredited
system. Unfortunately, economics is a complex intellectual puzzle and academic
economists are as split as the politicians. The current Labour party, with a
tenth of the expertise of the Tories, was just beginning to focus on economic
fairness when a second divisive issue arose in the field of foreign policy. It
gradually became clear to thinking people that our military adventures in the
middle east were both immoral and damaging. Jeremy Corbyn rode into the ring on
this latter issue, supported by a wave of disgust at militarism, elitism, and a
feeling of grass-roots-powerlessness. But his appeal is not currently
sufficient to win 51% of the country. The moral high ground, alone, is not
enough.
The country was split more or less 50/50
in the nineteenth century on the issues of free trade and imperialism. The
Labour/Capital debate of the twentieth century produced an unstable equilibrium
(and needs further thought — see below). The present split of Self/Others will
of course always be won by ‘Self’ interest, though there are now the issues of
Europe, immigration, and ‘populism’ to divide us further.
The Future
Pending proportional representation there
should be as much deliberate and courteous pre-election discussion as possible
between opposition parties; like the Primaries in the United States; Labour waving a popular LibDem
candidate through in one constituency should be matched by an uncluttered
two-candidate fight in another where a Labour candidate has a good chance of
winning. Scores can be kept, and there should be an explicit agreement to
support PR at all times.
Quality candidates must be sought and
cultivated. It is infuriating for the grass-roots to see resignations and firings of able front-benchers. The method of choosing ‘the party leader’ must be re-examined. Indeed
the very concepts of 'party leader' may need re-thinking. I suggest that the Parliamentary Labour Party must be a team and have a unity of purpose; the 'official
opposition' must be seen as ready to take office. Party Leader in the House
must be agreed unanimously by the MPs, probably for his qualities as a
chairman. He may not have the qualities of a cross-examining barrister required
at Prime Minister’s Question time, but need these questions come from the Party
Leader in the House?
The Party membership, and the trade unions
can certainly choose a leader; a president perhaps, or Chairman of Congress,
but clearly cannot foist their choice on the MPs.
The economy must be thoroughly and visibly
understood by any party of government. A beginning was made in 2015 when John
McDonnell, as Corbyn’s shadow chancellor, formed an economic advisory
committee, but that has broken up and vanished. Why? Was it from faulty
chairmanship, or perhaps from lack of funding?
The Danish Labour Movement formed their "Economic Council of the
Labour Movement" (ECLM) in 1936. Where is ours?
Post-war Germany developed a unique
political philosophy they call Ordoliberalismus, believing that the state must
actively protect and regulate the operation of the ‘free market’. “Ordoliberal ideals drove
the creation of the post-war German social market economy”. We talk about
the German Economic Miracle, but do little to understand and imitate; we
suspect that it involves hard work and leave it at that. Why? (Word
count = 1,452)
No comments:
Post a Comment