Constitutional Reforms

In the spirit of reform, this week we will take a look at constitutional reform of which AV and even the referendum itself are a great part. In particular we will look at Professor Ringen's Agenda for Constitutional Reform. The Professor's is a three-point plan:

+ First, 'Restore the House of Commons'
+ Second, to 'Reinvent Local Democracy'
+ And thirdly, to 'Straighten Out Political Funding'

Professor Ringen's first action would be to 'Restore the House of Commons'. The UK displays an immense amount of centralisation, with oversight being marginalised. Oversight suffers criticism for slowing down political reforms or new legislation. However it can temper the mistakes that can be made when decisions are made cosseted away amongst allies and yes-men. The inner circles of central authority prevent adequate scientific critique of policies, shrouding decision-making from the gaze of those elected legislators whose job it is to scrutinize on our behalf. Oversight slows these processes down so that decision-makers must explain their proposals for us to consider.

There is some very persuasive evidence, such as the from Asch's experiments that suggest the way groups are managed can have a decisive affect upon the way it's members make decisions. Furthermore, any such dynamics can be reinforced by symbolic authority and enhanced through rituals & tradition (Milgram, 2010). For example Milgram showed the power of even simple symbols like the white coat and the influence they can have.

There are some examples already of oversight reforms. Already moves have been made to give the power of dissolution over to parliament (Deputy PM, July 2010). Further, the devolved parliaments and their governing powers stand as a fine example set by the Labour Party in reforming political power.

The Professor's second action, to 'Reinvent Local Democracy' will need politics to reinvigorate the population. This will mean no longer just reacting to disaffection and taking that to be the will of the people, as some such as the aforementioned Lord Newport have; instead stimulating the people to activity and engaging them.

Professor Ringen makes it clear that he thinks the current system is inadequate for the devolution of power. The devolution of power downwards is an idea that has started to take root in the UK; National Devolutions under Labour followed now by the delegation of powers to parliament and councils. These moves have been joined by others in pushing decision-making beyond the central forums. The referendum puts choices into the hands of people; pushing for greater community action removes the leash a little from local councils and even the debates sought to engage people with politics far more personally.

However none of these reforms will serve us well unless they help to clean up corruption. Professor Ringen suggests that :

'All political funding [be made] public. Ban all donations from individuals, businesses and unions and distribute public money as vouchers to voters for them to give to their party of choice or to throw away'

The Speaker Mr Bercow has so far put his foot down over any incidents in parliament. He has been very active in trying to improve the image of parliament, right from his first sitting as Speaker where Mr Bercow began his public image reform agenda:

'There is simply far too much noise. The public doesn't like it and neither do I.'

Since then parliament has been active in its attempts to be seen as reforming its public image, with former MPs being jailed for corruption (BBC, January & March 2011).

Whether any these reforms can be followed through will be a point on which the eventual success or failure of the coalition will be determined. It is not to be forgotten though that this reform process is one that began back during Labour's time in office. As Labour learned and as Professor Ringen stressed, reforms need public will behind it if not outright activism. Labour struggled to get their social reforms turned into activism but the Coalition is riding on the coattails of public outcry for change. Whether these policies and this activism can mesh and follow through, remains to be seen.

==========
References:
==========

+ S. Milgrim's 'Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View; Harper & Row, 2010.

+ 'Appendix 2: Letter from the Deputy Prime Minister to the Chair of the Committee'; July 2010; in Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill - Political and Constitutional Reform Committee;

+ Speaker Bercow's First PMQs on YouTube;

+ BBC's 'MPs' expenses: David Chaytor jailed over false claims'; January 2011;

+ BBC's 'Former MP Jim Devine jailed for 16 months over expenses'; March 2011.

AV Referendum - The Cases

In the noticeable absence of clear and concise explanations of the pros and cons for voting Yes to AV and No to AV (and therefore a vote for maintaining the first-past the post system), for the sake of clarity here are the cases in short for AV and FPTP:

For FPTP: First-past-the-post is the system currently in place, consisting of a single round of voting, where a simple largest minority of votes is enough to gain victory.

+ The simplicity of vote counting is a positive of this system, allowing for a clearly understood result and a fast resolution.

+ This system follows the one member - one constituency form of representation. This system provides a simple and straight-forward link between people and their representative in parliament.

+ FPTP however, can produce effects that are not straightforward. For example it drives all parties away from centrist positions, encouraging partisan tactical voting against a candidate rather than for and candidates can be elected on very small percentages of the vote. This particularly favours very well organised minority parties.

+ Follow this link to a Electoral Reform Society report on FPTP.

For AV:  The Alternative Vote is the system it is proposed to switch to. It consists of an elimination process, set over as many rounds of voting as is necessary to find a clear winner who represents as close to 50%+ of voters as possible. In order to speed the process of voting, rather than voting again for each round, the voter lists their preferences on their ballot paper. As the voter's preferred candidate is eliminated, their vote is moved to their next preference.  This is the reason for AV's other name, Instant-runoff Voting (IRV).

+ This system demands more of elected representatives than FPTP. In that system candidates only need more votes than their opponents (the largest minority), where as with AV candidates must represent a majority of (or close to) voters in their constituency.

+ AV maintains the one member - one constituency link and its clear connection between voters & representatives.

+ AV could lead to a solidifying of the positions of the major parties since the system lends itself to parties that are able to develop broad support. This does however decrease the power of extreme minority parties. It also does not guarantee the end of safe seats as candidates that appeal to broad base could have a much stronger position than before.

+ Follow this link to a Electoral Reform Society report on AV.

The Balance:

'The Electoral Reform Society thinks that, on balance, the massive failings of FPTP severely outweigh the advantage of its incumbency'

'The [Electoral Reform] Society has long argued that AV is the best system when you're out to elect a single winner'

On the balance of arguments, AV appears to be simply a more refined and more formal approach to the aims of FPTP. It uses more complex counting and a preferential voting system to formalise the aims of FPTP such as local links for MPS, MPs as the representatives of a majority of their voters and greater accountability through this higher standard for electoral victory & the need to appeal to broader support.

Nobody should be under the impression that AV is proportional, because it isn't. The reason those who support proportional systems are being encouraged to vote yes is because a yes vote represents a path to securing further reforms in the future eg. an Elected House of Lords.

It is also untrue that AV encourages further coalition, as it is in fact closer to FPTP in its two-party system tendency to make the work of third and minor parties much more difficult. In fact it does this much better than FPTP where well organised local extreme groups can have a much bigger affect than their little support should allow them.

It could also lead to some seats being much more safe than they are now, if a candidate is able to appeal to a very broad base of support, beyond the traditional core vote. This could however be limited in further reforms, for instance with the introduction of term limits for members of parliament to prevent seats staying with particular members indefinitely.

In all, the case for AV appears to be stronger. It seems to do all the things that FPTP aims to do, but better. It also represents a vote for a break from the political past, as a rejection of corruption and a demand for greater accountability & reform.

For Maturity, For Plurality

Election time is almost upon us, with devolved parliament seats up for grabs, local elections and of course the AV referendum. The spirit of reform is in the air and it is reform much needed. I have previously written about the need for the role of the opposition to evolve to match the burgeoning of a less two-sided party dynamic. In order to achieve this however the way we perceive democracy must also change. Mr Charles Kennedy, the Right Honourable Member for Ross, Skye & Lochaber, wrote that:

'The danger in all of this is that if sufficient people conclude that there is nothing in the conventional political process for them then they may opt for more simplistic and extreme options on offer. I remain an optimist. But across the mainstream political spectrum there is a candid recognition of the danger.'
(Mr Charles Kennedy, 2006)

It is my feeling that these times of electoral disaffection present an important conjuncture that desperately needs to be exploited, if we are to succeed in keeping the public engaged with democracy. This view is not, however, universally shared:

'I do not believe that the cure for the ills of our democracy is more democracy. Indeed, one of the problems for the proponents of more democracy is that the people of this country do not seem to want it.'
(Lord Howarth of Newport, 2010)

Which is a pretty damning indictment of the public at the best of times. However this was worse:

'You can take horses to water, but you cannot make them drink.'
(Lord Howarth of Newport, 2010)

I watched & listened as this speech was delivered in the Lords. I can honestly admit to having been furious. This statement stank of an arrogance and sense of entitlement that seems to typify our parliamentary system. Not even considering the condescension shown to the electorate by the unelected Baron, Lord Howarth's speech came down to the question:

'Where should our reforming energies most usefully be applied? In the House of Commons: that is most important, but that is not for us [Lords].'
(Lord Howarth of Newport, 2010)

It seems then that democracy must be healed not by abolishing an unelected institution that is completely anathema to the best democratic traditions. We are told we must iron out the creases in democratic procedure to get the voters re-engaged, not sweep away the contradictions, corruptions and comprehensive lack of representation at the most basic constituency level.

Lord Howarth however did press an important point into his speech amongst his ardent defence of his own job in the House of Lords:

'We need more constitutionalism; more checks and balances.'
(Lord Howarth of Newport, 2010)

This for me is the central argument for the British political system to mature into a modern plurality. No longer is a single minority opposition standing against a majoritarian government enough. No government achieved a majority at the 2010 UK General Election and no Government has achieved over 50% of the popular vote in the past two decades at least. My thoughts on all of this are:

+ What people want from democracy is not magical. People want democracy that is accountable, that is effective and that is above all representative. They want to know that when they cast a ballot that they will be listened to. Nick Clegg's surge in popularity occurred when people thought that a Liberal Democrat vote would change politics. The surge ended when people feared that they would spend the next five years marginalised.

+ What lessons can we learn, both from our British experience as well as from Europe and beyond about how best to re-engage the nation in politics? The debates appears to have been a step towards greater visibility to the public, but what else can be done?

My final thought is that plurality invites people to increase their stake, their personal involvement in and personal power over the way their lives are governed. It expects, demands even, that they open their eyes and their minds, inwards and outwards. To me this is preferable, if more difficult, than blind adherence. As John Stuart Mill put it:

'The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation, to a little more of administrative skill or that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State, which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.
(J.S. Mill, 1859)

==========
References:
==========
+ Charles Kennedy's 'How we lost people's trust';

+ Lord Howarth of Newport's Speech; Constitutional Reform Debate, 2:57pm, 28th January 2010.

- (For the full transcript and others from Parliamentary debates, see: http://www.theyworkforyou.com)

+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859.

Left from Right: Part 3 - Conservative Counter-Balance

As the peak of the last economic rise came around, so came with it a rise of conservative groups & parties. Following a number of elections ending the last decade the pre-dominance of social democracy in the western world was comprehensively broken. In this third and final part of the series we will look at how the right figures into the left-right dynamic in British politics.

In the UK and Canada since their respective elections, conservative groups have provided a counter-balance to student, union & anti-capitalist outcries. But what is this conservatism? Well conservatives practice the politics of preservation, maintenance and stability; conservative groups seek often the preservation of traditional standards, ways, values & deferences. The things preserved by conservatives are often aligned with groups such as the ruling class, ruling elite, the 'natural' order, the church and other entities that make up the political right (Fulcher & Scott, 2003).

In the UK Mr Cameron's Conservative Party have been hard at work promoting their family policies since their time in opposition, aimed at 'restoring' a central role in society for parenting and the two-parent married couple household (Prince, 2010). This stands as an example of maintaining traditional standards and state elites such as the church.

In Canada it is Big Business that has been on the receiving end of Conservative favour through corporate tax cuts rolled out, with more likely should Mr Harper's administration be re-elected (Argitis, 2009). These can certainly be classed as a boon to the so called capitalist class and the property and resources that they possess.

Similar elites look to gain from conservative policies in the US where Republicans ended last year's 'lame-duck session' just prior to retaking control of the House of Representatives by securing the continuance of their tax cuts for the super-rich (Montgomery et al, 2010).

This conservative focus upon ensuring the continued dominance of a system of order that focusses on the elites over the demands of people certainly has a precedent. The balance of power policies of two centuries ago whose dominance was ensured at the Congress of Vienna by the machinations of Prince Klemens von Metternich, sought to allow for stability and dominance amongst the great powers. This was however aimed not merely against external enemies but also against the clamour for reform within their own borders.

It is strange to see governments of the twenty-first century still seeking to manage the world through Metternich's policies. From the uni-lateral interventionist foreign policies some western powers have followed, to the domestic centralisation of power and wealth; conservatism seems an extension of the balance of power, the efforts of conservatives directed towards peace and stability by trying to keep the rest of the world 'orderly' and 'under control'.

But conservative administrations risk falling foul of the old adage, that reform delayed, is revolution begun. In Britain, polls are starting to suggest the return of conservatism might be a short term matter (UK Polling Report, 2011), while in Canada they have already forced the resignation of their Conservative Prime Minister, the dissolution of parliament and the calling of an election (Galloway, 2011). With continuing protests, increasing union organisation and the Labour Party's UK polls recovery it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that this conservative revival may not last very long.

==========
References:
==========
+ James Fulcher & John Scott's 'Sociology [2nd Edition]'; Oxford University Press, 2003;

- For some if the theorists behind Elite Theory;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory

+ Rosa Prince's 'David Cameron: family matters to children more than income'; January 2010;

+ Theophilos Argitis' 'Harper Plans Campaign to Promote Corporate Tax Cuts'; January 2011;

+ Lori Montgomery, Shailagh Murray & William Branigin's 'Obama signs bill to extend Bush-era tax cuts for two more years'; December, 2010;

- For Balance of Power policy, Metternich & the Congress of Vienna:
Adam Palmer's 'Metternich: Councillor of Europe', 2010;
Prince Klemens von Metternich's 'Metternich: The Autobiography, 1773-1815,' 2004;
Adam Zamoyski's Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna; 2008;
Balance of power in international relations, Wikipedia

+ George Dawson, discussed in 'Ian Hislop's Age of the Do-gooders'; BBC, 2010;

+ Anthony Well's UK Polling Report; 2011;

+ Gloria Galloway's 'Harper government falls in historic Commons showdown'; March 2011;

Left from Right: Part 2 - Change & Drift

In part one we discussed how the left and right traditionally splits. In this part we shall look at the way parties can drift across the political scale, certainly a thing latent throughout the 1980s and early 90s.

Both liberals and socialists represent the 'left' albeit in different ways, each separately representing alternatives to conservatism, the 'right'. On each of those benches however there has been an ongoing struggle to establish a wider base, one more democratic, more moderate and more representative. In essence these have sought to unite these various left branches in a new alignment. These attempts were in a way accomplished in the 80's by a group of Labour Party members breaking away and forming the Social Democratic Party. So named for the common political approach on the continent, advocating the social market economy with more libertarian leanings to civil liberties.

This party, the SDP, quickly developed an alliance with the Liberal Party that eventually merged into the Liberal Democrats, dragging the Liberals to the economic left. In the meantime it also forced the hand of the Labour Party. After a decade being on the sidelines of the political scene, John Smith's protégés, Mr Tony Blair and Mr Gordon Brown, came to the fore and took Labour towards the centre ground. With the SDP merging into the now Liberal Democrats some members rejoined the Labour Party, which was now gathering steam towards a watered down version of its previously state driven stances, heavily influenced by social democracy towards attempting to make capitalism work for socialism.

This switch I think can be represented like this:

    Labour in the 80's:    Economic - Left         Social - Centre-Right
    Labour in the 90's:    Economic - Centre-Right     Social - Right

    Liberals pre Merge:    Economic - Right     Social - Left
    Liberals post Merge:    Economic - Centre-Left     Social - Left

The Labour Party had discovered, it seems, the need to appeal to a broader voter base in order to garner a strong enough position from which to administer the social justice it still offered. This has driven Labour markedly towards a results only tendency, at any cost; hence then their willingness to compromise on their economic system to best get the money to put into place all the exceptional systems they have during the previous 13 years. In doing so I don't think it would be unfair to suggest that this has alienated many older voters, the party left, comprising the mostly old socialist wing that feel betrayed by a party 'selling out' to the market & big business to get the job done and pandering to the rapidly expanding majority middle-class to win elections.

If nothing else the large number of small socialist parties and alliances in Britain ought to be an indication of this. But to some this shift might not be as much of a betrayal, seeing Labour as simply changing to match the shifting face of workers from industries towards service and the middle class aspiration that seems to have followed it. As the venerable Tony Benn (2010) put it:

'Well the Labour Party has never been a Socialist Party, but its always had Socialists in it.'

The Liberals on the other hand face a similar centre drift, but in their case suffer from a lack of results, born from a willingness to compromise on some aims in order to ensure things are done fairly and legitimately. The old Liberal beliefs of defending civil liberties & freedoms concern less particular day to day outcomes than they do ensuring that everything is done within a liberal framework, sometimes derided as a technocratic approach.

There had been moves towards a more proactive liberalism, seeking progressive outcomes within a liberal system. For a time in the 1990s and early 2000s when the Liberal Democrats were led by Mr Paddy Ashdown and Mr Charles Kennedy, attempts were made at what they called a 'Re-alignment of the Left'. In reality a shift towards making social justice work within a liberal world that respects the individual.

As Labour has faced criticism for the authoritarianism they have displayed when seeking to implement its strategies for social justice, so the Liberal Democrats have been criticised for its unwillingness it muddy itself in the waters of issues and outcomes.

Both parties seemed to have found their solutions in the liberal attempts at a realignment, but their hopes of forming a great left, 'progressive' and forward-thinking alliance have been dashed numerous times, first by Labour's success and later by Labour's reluctance to stick around to keep the Tories out.

The shifts of both parties have been abated in recent years however. The Liberal Democrats retreated to its old liberal haunts in electing Mr Clegg who has often spoken out and stood for doing things a certain way rather than achieving particular desired ends, willing to sacrifice ends to do things how he feels they should be done. And Labour have withdrawn to a position of almost passive neutrality following Mr Brown's departure from Downing Street.

This halt in the drift was brought on by the 2010 UK General Election, where the British left finally surrendered control of the government to the right. It is at the right we will look in the next issue.

==========
References:
==========
+ Tony Benn & Mehdi Hasan with Jeremy Paxman; YouTube 2010;

+ Ivor Crewe & Anthony King's 'SDP: The Birth, Life, and Death of the Social Democratic Party';
 Oxford University Press, 1995.

Books on the politics of the Liberal Democrats

+ Duncan Brack, Richard S. Grayson & David Howarth's (eds) 'Reinventing the State: Social Liberalism for the 21st Century';
 Politico's, 2007. (Various Contributors, inc. Nick Clegg)

+ Danny Alexander's (ed) 'Why Vote Liberal Democrat?';
 Biteback, 2010.

+ Charles Kennedy's 'The Future of Politics';
 HarperCollins, 2000.

Books on the politics of the Labour Party

+ Rachel Reeves' (ed) 'Why Vote Labour?';
 Biteback, 2010.

+ Gordon Brown's 'Beyond the Crash: Overcoming the First Crisis of Globalisation'; Simon & Schuster, 2010.

+ Professor Andrew Thorpe's A History of the British Labour Party (British Studies Series);
   Palgrave Macmillan, 2011

+ Peter Kilfoyle's Labour Pains: How the party I love lost its soul;
   Biteback,2010