CHARTIST blog

Tim Root argues for a grass-roots campaign as governments opt out.

Crunch time approaches, both for humanity, and the environmental movement. The International Energy Agency has warned that if we fail to cut fossil fuels significantly within five years, so much carbon will have been emitted that the chance of avoiding dangerous climate change will be “lost for ever”. No global climate deal will be implemented before 2020 at the earliest, if ever. In 2010, despite economic stagnation in the wealthy nations, greenhouse gas emissions rose by 6% compared to 2009. Severe disasters in the first half of 2011 suggest that it will be the costliest disaster year ever. Over a million homes were destroyed in Pakistan’s second successive year of flooding, which had killed two thousand people and submerged a sixth of the whole country in 2010. 356 people died in this year’s Thai floods, while nine hundred died in a Brazilian mudslide caused by torrential rain. In 2010, there were 230,000 disaster-related deaths.

This underlines that our campaigns are not making the rapid progress we need. The measures we have been able to get governments to implement have been inadequate. It has been estimated that by 2012 the Kyoto protocol will have led to emissions cuts of less than a third of 1% . European governments’ main climate policy, the Emissions Trading Scheme, has a carbon price of only €9 to €10, when the UK Parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee has said it needs to be at least €100. Western nations’ emissions rose 7% from 1990 to 2008, once imports are taken into account. Only one person in six thinks the Copenhagen Accord will become a legally binding treaty. This scepticism makes it hard for us to mobilise enough pressure on governments. Nicholas Stern and Fatih Birol have warned of their “dangerous” complacency.

Leaked World Bank documents indicate that the wealthy nations are unlikely to raise the $30 billion in climate finance they pledged for poor nations for 2010-12, or the $100 billion per year to be paid by 2020. The G20 failed this November even to discuss ending fossil fuel subsidies, despite having committed two years ago to end them. Even on an issue all the nations considered very urgent, economic stabilisation, the G20 was unable to reach any useful decisions, leading one commentator to call it the bleakest global meeting since 1999. Instead, the nuclear powers plan to spend billions upgrading their weapons over the next decade, with the USA expected to spend a staggering $700 billion. This is probably linked to the struggle for resources, particularly in the Arctic now the sea ice is melting.

So while we continue trying to get radical government action, we should consider what the British foreign secretary’s climate change adviser John Ashton (founder of green think tank E3G) described as “the choice between what needs to be done but looks impossible, and what can be done but is clearly not enough”. He concludes “realism lies in expanding the limits of the possible, not in nourishing the delusion that something else might help”. Some green NGOs’ current campaigns are clearly not ambitious enough to make the difference we need. For example Germany’s leading green NGO Bund is demanding that the country cut its electricity consumption by 10% by 2020. This would be an achievement, but it falls far short of what we need. At Facebook’s current rate of growth, it would triple its electricity consumption by 2020, when it would be using more electricity than the current usage of Germany, France, Canada and Brazil combined. Greenpeace International’s list of online actions asks people to urge Facebook, which is using coal generated electricity, to develop a plan to be coal free by 2021. Again, this timescale is not quick enough for us to achieve significant emissions cuts within five years. We will not inspire potential supporters to action if we appear to be aiming only at small parts of a large problem. Many leading environmentalists have urged us to be more ambitious. George Monbiot wrote that climate change campaigns have reached an impasse and need to explore new strategies. Former Friends of the Earth director Charles Secrett said that “something much more powerfully proactive is required”, and added that the Green movement has the resources to stimulate sufficient support. The more time passes with no climate campaign able to attract large-scale support, the more that many citizens who are concerned about climate change will divert their attention, due to discouragement.

Campaign experts Chris Rose and Jim Shultz both emphasise that we need to target those who have the ability to make the decisions we want. At present this is industry more than governments, which do not consider public opinion strong enough for them to prioritise climate change. Those most directly responsible for greenhouse gas pollution, able to reduce it soonest, are the producers of and investors in fossil fuels. The most direct way we can influence them is to hit their profits with a boycott. Boycotts have a long record of success, and business leaders consider them more effective than other campaign tactics. Successful boycotts include one which led to the preservation of a vast area of Canadian forest, and another in which students in 130 universities worldwide got Russell Athletic to reopen a factory they had closed when the workers formed a union.

A global boycott campaign could harness the widespread suspicion/hostility towards big business and the banks, of which the Occupy movement is just the tip of the iceberg. Jonathon Porritt recently said that in future the defining political mood will be anger, and that we need to tap into it. Much of the anger at mass unemployment could be channelled into anger at investments in dirty fossil fuels rather than renewables and energy conservation, which create far more jobs. Our headline might be

Boycott climate destroyers!
Clean green jobs – not dirty coal and oil!

(or something similar). The Tck Tck Tck petition gained 17 million supporters, most of whom would back a call to boycott selected companies most responsible for climate change. A recent survey found that 45% of consumers said they would avoid brands that failed to cut their carbon footprint. Opinion polls continue to show that most people throughout the world regard climate change as a serious problem. The campaign could make investments in particularly high emissions activities, e.g. tar sands, or agriculture on deforested land, appear likely to a) become unprofitable, and b) severely harm a company’s reputation. Renewables would then become a more attractive investment. Banks are already wary of financing polluting activities, and a boycott campaign could make the vital difference. A relatively small cut in income can reduce a company’s share price significantly and seriously hit executives’ income. Every year about three per cent of bank customers switch accounts, and many thousands of young people open their first account. This constitutes substantial consumer power we could influence. Six percent switched in 2007. Recent research has identified the banks most guilty of harming the climate.

Many people lack confidence in other campaigning options, due partly to the failure of Copenhagen. But boycotting products on a campaign’s list is a simple action, which a great many people would find both convenient, attractive, and empowering. For most people, striking an immediate economic hit on a major polluter is much more appealing than a politician-focused action whose results will not be known for a considerable time. Moreover compared to the massive goal of an intergovernmental agreement, hitting specific companies’ profits can be seen as an achievable objective, which Rose recommends campaigns should pursue. Activists could enlist support for the boycott at any time, anywhere significant numbers of people are accessible. Therefore many more people would become active, beyond the minority who are prepared to travel for a day to a demonstration, or the even smaller number prepared to risk arrest in direct action. And as Greenpeace has nearly three million members throughout the world, and Friends of the Earth over two million, there are plenty of activists to promote and sustain the boycott campaign. A global campaign could soon gain enormous publicity simply due to its bold ambition. Concerned citizens would see it as much more worthy of support than the campaigns for small incremental advances described above. It could trigger the “scale shift” described by political scientists, in which activists start to see their local struggle as part of a broader movement shared by others far away, whose goals they can share and whose tactics they can emulate. Thus those opposing “mountaintop removal” by coal companies in West Virginia could see that they were fighting the same opponent as flood victims in Thailand, and that the global boycott was an effective method for them both.

Of course, success is not guaranteed. While some boycotts have been very or largely successful, many have not won enough support. However, we have by far the world’s biggest issue. There are many celebrities who have supported environmental causes whom we could recruit. An important Vatican report warned earlier this year of the need to tackle climate change promptly. There are several religious environmental groups which can reach huge numbers of believers. Therefore it should be possible to get some prominent religious leaders to urge their followers to back the boycott. Above all, the campaign could motivate supporters who would see that its urgent and comprehensive aims warranted their commitment.

Many activists, frustrated by government inaction, are currently attracted to various types of direct action to try and reduce climate change. Certain direct action helps campaigns, especially if most people perceive political channels to achieve the objective to be unavailable. Unfortunately the evidence suggests that when such direct action inconveniences ordinary people, it is perceived negatively by most people, and thus is likely to lose political support. The media attention it gets in those circumstances is nearly all negative, and also reduces the space for media coverage of other campaigns which the public would perceive more positively.

Which products and companies should the boycott campaign target first?  Before any definite decisions were taken, research should be undertaken with focus groups, and NGOs should debate the issue. However I will outline my exploratory research on the topic. Companies targeted would need to be susceptible in terms of making significant profit selling goods and services which enough potential supporters a) buy, and b) would be willing to cease buying or buy instead from a non-targeted company. The companies targeted would also need to be distinctive in terms of arousing enough negativity to motivate sufficient people to boycott them. Most Westerners are accustomed to using many high carbon products, and would resent a campaign which they felt tried to induce guilt about their lifestyle. Therefore we need to select products which can be perceived as particularly polluting.

One major activity which most people would regard as indefensible if they knew its consequences is tar sands oil, as its production causes a) much greater CO 2 emissions than that of ordinary oil, and b) major local pollution in Alberta. It is difficult to make sufficient impact by boycotting only the banks and companies which invest in tar sands, which include nearly all the major oil companies. Only a small minority of people are ready for the major lifestyle change of driving much less. Therefore I suggest that we boycott a list of selected high-carbon exports from Canada, and the United States, which is considering allowing tar sands oil to be piped into the USA for refining. While such a boycott would not directly hit all the most guilty companies, all the products it would hit would be high-carbon, whether in their production or their transportation. Targeted businesses not involved in tar sands exploitation would have a strong incentive to put pressure on governments to reduce those activities. Governments would see that their nation’s economy could be badly hit by the boycott. The campaign would inform targeted companies of steps they could take to be removed from the boycott, both through reducing their carbon footprint, and publicly urging their government to stop supporting the tar sands or other outrageous sources of carbon pollution. In some cases we should give the company some notice before boycotting, so it had the chance to clean up its act first.

Other reasons for including American high carbon exports include its government’s “furious” lobbying against the inclusion of aviation in the European Emissions Trading Scheme, its support for biofuels, which take 40% of its corn crop and cause additional emissions, and its recent authorisation of large-scale coal-mining in Wyoming, which is equivalent to opening 300 new coal fired power plants and running them for a year. No doubt our opponents would appeal to patriotism to oppose the boycott. However many Americans, including the twelve thousand who surrounded the White House in November to oppose the tar sands pipeline, would support the boycott. Its publicity would emphasise that specified American products would be withdrawn from the boycott once the government ceased backing the tar sands, opposing the European Emissions Trading Scheme, facilitating additional coal burning, or whichever other priorities we set.

Along with the USA and Canada, Australia has much higher CO 2 emissions per head than the other populous nations. It is also the world’s biggest coal exporter.  Many people would boycott a list of its high-carbon exports or decide not to go there on holiday. Tourism accounts for 6.5% of Australia’s economy, and is Canada’s fifth largest source of foreign earnings. Visitors to the United States spent over $100 billion in 2010. Just a small reduction in travel to these countries could have a huge impact.

Focusing on tar sands, with its dreadful local pollution, and coal, which has had a dirty and dangerous image for decades, would avoid some potential supporters being put off by the anxiety which would be provoked if the campaign had an exclusive emphasis on future climate disaster.

Other targets could include car manufacturers which are failing to improve their vehicles’ fuel efficiency. We would not include too many targets, as otherwise the negative publicity each suffered would be diluted.

A campaign as described above would need to gain credibility, so people could have faith that the strategy was sound. Therefore it would need the backing of a few large NGOs with an established reputation. Such NGOs would be wise to bear in mind findings that alliances of a number of NGOs are a very effective way to campaign. This is probably because if a person has heard of one of more of the alliance partners, they think “well, if all these organisations think this campaign is a good idea, it must be.” Moreover a campaign launched by a global coalition would inspire support through its international unity. People know that only worldwide action will be enough to prevent catastrophic climate change. We have appealed to politicians’ consciences for a long time. Now we need to assert our combined purchasing power and avert disaster, while we still have time!

Roger Gillham ventures into the blogosphere a little, so we can read a missing article from Duncan Bowie.

We have had a Chartist blog alongside, and accessible from our website for nearly four years now.  The most interesting, up to date and thought-provoking articles on it are in Peter Kenyon`s blog site, buried about 3 `pages` down on my screen, and accessed by clicking `Peter Kenyon` under the `Blogroll` heading on the right hand side.

Much of what Peter Kenyon writes about challenges our leadership to take up the opportunities for making the Labour Party more democratic, and though this is not at the top of every Chartist reader`s list (we are after all trying to attract new web site users and potential readers/subscribers), it is now much more timely and relevant than the article on AV before the vote was lost back in the spring, which currently meets anyone who arrives at our blog site for debate.  (I mean no disrespect to Pete Rowlands and PeteC who were the last bloggers on our site – as the rest of us have been too busy to post since then.)

This has forced me to sign up and register on the blog.  Another member of Chartist Editorial Board, Duncan Bowie, has written a challenging article on democracy and trying to participate in the LP Policy Review.  Through a combination of problems, unfortunately Duncan`s article did not make it into the just published Chartist issue 252, posted out this week.  And I think it will be read and attract debate before the National conference starting 24th September.

I have Duncan`s agreement to post his article, so it appears below, and I hope readers will respond and get some debate going.  I hope also this article will be covered in the next newsletter we publish by email, provoking others to try to rekindle some interest in the Chartist Blog.  I hope that if and when it is possible to redesign the blog web site, then consideration be given to promoting the `blogroll` to higher up the screen, and the archives be dropped a bit lower down.

Roger Gillham – Chartist Editorial Board  9-9-11

Opening up the debate

Duncan Bowie on trying to participate in the policy review

Policy development in the Labour Party

Labour in opposition tends to conduct policy reviews. Older readers will remember the policy review conducted by Neil Kinnock after the 1979 defeat. The current policy review however is a somewhat more subdued affair. The review being led on Ed Miliband’s behalf by Liam Byrne, sees the first task as ‘to get back in touch with the people we came into politics and public life to serve’. Byrne does not specify who these people are – the implication is that it is everybody.  So the first six months of the review – not apparently started till some six months after the election defeat opposition was spent holding 80 events with a total of 6,000 members of the public – not really that impressive  at an average of 75 persons a meeting!  Byrne repeats the familiar story – no recognition that the Labour government made mistakes – it was all a failure of presentation – “We have to face the truth that wile we are proud of what we did in government we looked out of touch on too many issues.”

Labour has established some 19 ‘expert working groups’ led by shadow cabinet members. However the only document produced so far – this is not a speedy process – is a report presented to the National Policy Forum on 25 June headed ‘A better future for Britain’. Apparently circulated to policy forum members a few days before the meeting, it was not open to amendments.  The document itself is curious as it does not set out any policy positions.  There are four themes: Getting the deficit down and rebuilding our economy to help the squeezed middle; Keeping the Promise of Britain to the Next Generation; Renewing Responsibility; Strengthening Our Communities;  and Our Place in the World.  There is no overall statement of party policy objectives or principles. Instead the review seems to be starting with a blank slate and identifying issues raised by the general public at meetings and then using this as a basis for possible directions of travel. Each section starts of with a defence of the record of the last Government, which is followed by a selection of ‘vox pop’ quotes under the heading ‘What we have heard’,  then a critique of the Coalition government, and finally a section headed ‘ Labour is facing up to the challenges of the future.’

To take an example, the Renewing Responsibility section identifies ‘concern about immigration’ using quotes from Maria in Accrington, Michael in Lowestoft, Anouska in Derby, Catherine in Warrington, and Beryl in Eastleigh (clearly even if these are real people, they don’t have second names),  then there is an attack on ‘ the Tory-led Government’s policies on immigration are in chaos (so the New Labour government’s immigration policies were all sorted were they?), with the conclusion being ‘We are committed to an immigration system that promotes and protects British values.  People need to know that immigration is controlled, that the rules are firm and fair, and that there is support for communities in dealing with change’.  Not sure what British values are being referred to here – those demonstrated by greedy bankers or by opportunistic looting rioters or by MPs fiddling their expenses.

The first theme is significant and reflects the one or two speeches that Ed Miliband has actually made since he became leader – it’s all about winning the votes of the squeezed middle. This explains why in a speech he can attack bankers and benefit scroungers (now rioters) as amoral equivalents – it is the squeezed middle, hard victims of the recession, no longer able to pay mortgages out of their salaries, or their childrens’ universities fees (whose idea was introducing fees for higher education?) overtaxed and under-recognised, who are the new source of potential votes.  Supporting lower income households is just too expensive – we couldn’t possibly raise taxes on the rich or on the squeezed middle – and anyway its their fault if they are unemployed. So the housing section of the paper says absolutely nothing about the need for social housing for lower income households – even though the Coalition government is actually in the process of abolishing it, and instead repeats the old mantra of helping more people to be home owners.

Nothing really changed here.  No lessons learnt!  Turning to the ‘Our Place in the World ‘ section, we find ‘strong support for the role played by our armed forces’, ‘continuing concern about the lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan’ but no recognition that invading other countries may not be a good thing and may actually lead not just to British soldiers being killed but possibly other people as well.  The only slight tinge of concern is quoting Ian from Livingston  as saying ‘Stop interfering in other countries’.  Good on you Ian!  In the section on how Labour is facing up to the international challenge, in the reference to bilateral and international partnerships, ‘our historic alliance with America’ actually comes before membership of the EU, and the Commonwealth, with membership of the UN Security Council last - note the membership is of the Security Council not the UN as a whole.  We are in with the big boys! ‘Britain has a unique place in international; relations’.  No recognition of a possible conflict between bilateral and international relationships!  There is then a resume of current international crises such as the Arab spring.  Apparently we have influence in Bahrain and Yemen, where we can support dissidents, while in Syria and Iran where we have no influence, we condemn repression. Not sure of the principled position on this one!  In Libya, we oppose the regime’s extreme violence – but the extreme violence perpetrated by our own armed forces bombing Libya is justified because our intervention is ‘implemented with professionalism and bravery’.

Not clear what the role of Labour Party members in this process.  I managed to get the document from a member of the National Policy Forum and it is now on the Labour Party website.  The document however does not say how Constituency Labour Parties, affiliated organisations or party members can contribute to the 19 working groups.  You can put a sentence or two on the review website – my attempt to put in a three page submission on housing failed – not sure whether this was due to its length – I was told language in submission was not appropriate – my mistake it was headed ‘Fundamental principles for a progressive socialist housing policy’. I had the good fortune to bump into a consultant at a seminar who told me she had been seconded from her accountancy firm to assist Caroline Flint with the housing review – so off I sent my submission. Apparently the housing review has now recorded receipt of my paper – they have apparently not had many – though I have heard nothing back formally – so I don’t know whether it is discussed or even read by the experts on the working party. The list of experts is to my knowledge not public, but  I understand is full time professionals with various housing bodies, not necessarily party members, with a couple of policy forum members, fortunately including my own CLP chair.

One of the reasons I rejoined the Labour Party after the election defeat, and started going to lots of Labour party meetings again, was because I felt an obligation to try to help develop a policy for the Party which was an improvement on what the last Labour government did and which was distinct from the Coalition government policies.  I am not sure if being a Labour Party member, albeit one with some practical experience in a specific policy area, actually makes much difference.  Perhaps I would have greater influence if I was a housing association chief executive or a professional consultant or lobbyist.  The Refounding Labour initiative seems to be about opening up the party and policy making to the general public.  It would be nice if it was opened up to its own members first!

Duncan Bowie  Chartist EB  6-9-11

Peter Rowlands argues why we should support AV as a springboard to PR and asks, ‘are you a pro, anti, abstainer or calculator?’

Until shortly before the last election the Alternative Vote (AV) had not been an issue. Arguments over electoral reform had been about proportional representation (PR), with the Conservatives against, Lib – Dems for and Labour divided on the issue. However, Labour included a referendum on AV as a manifesto commitment, ostensibly to help promote greater clarity and honesty in politics after the expenses scandal, ( the two are not really connected) but  in reality to indicate to the Lib-Dems that they would be prepared to talk about electoral reform in the event of a hung parliament. This happened, but  it was the Conservatives who became their coalition partners and they conceded a referendum on AV as part of the deal. This will be held on May 5th, the date of elections for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, as well as local authorities in most of England outside London. This has caused opposition, particularly in Wales and Scotland, where in the latter there are plans by the SNP to turn the referendum into one on ‘independence’ by writing this on the ballot paper. Before Feb 15th there was some doubt about whether the referendum would go ahead on May 5th , due to filibustering tactics against the bill in the House of Lords.

Before looking at the different positions being taken on the referendum, it is I think worth looking at the main arguments for and against  AV.

AV is a system based on single member constituencies, but where candidates are, or can be, listed in order of preference.  If no candidate secures  50% or more of the vote the bottom candidate is eliminated and his/her second preferences  are redistributed, and this continues until someone achieves  50% of the vote, or until all votes are redistributed.  AV is not proportional, and can distort the outcome as much as First past the Post (FPTP), while  in most constituencies the result will be the same as under FPTP.  The change is not fundamental,  but it does have certain consequences:

1 It is likely to prove marginally more proportional and provide for the most acceptable candidate overall to be elected.

2 It is less likely that candidates of the far right or left  would get elected as they would be unlikely to get many second preferences.

3 There is no need for tactical voting, at least on first preferences.

4 It encourages a less antagonistic approach than FPTP as parties will be looking for second preferences.

2)and 4) are problematic  in that AV could be seen to favour candidates of the centre.

Calculations  after the 2010 election, based on AV being in place,  gave the Lib Dems about 20 more seats, Labour  about  5 more and Conservatives about 25 fewer than were actually obtained.  (This would probably have clinched a Lab Lib coalition).

There are a range of different positions on the referendum which I will try to summarise:

1 The pro camp.  This divides into those who believe AV to be a better system than FPTP but do not want to go beyond it to some form of PR( Peter Hain and others), and those in favour of PR who think that AV could provide a springboard for achieving it.  This further divides into those supporting STV ( The Lib-Dems and most of those active in promoting PR) and those who  support  the AV plus system advocated by Roy Jenkins ( Alan Johnson and myself).  Of the smaller parties the Greens, SDLP and UKIP are pro.

2 The anti camp.  This again divides into a pro PR camp, who oppose AV because they think that if it is achieved it will be seen as the major electoral reform for a generation and therefore make it much more difficult to achieve real PR ( some in the Labour party, Respect and the BNP), and  the main camp which  is opposed to any reform of the electoral system for the House of Commons and includes almost all Conservatives, a substantial chunk of  Labour , the DUP and the GMB and Unite trade unions.
Most Conservatives and some in Labour’s ranks oppose because of tradition, although many in both parties are in practice driven by what they see as self interest.
Many on the traditional or hard left of Labour oppose PR, or AV because it might have a PR effect or lead to PR, on the grounds that it lessens the chances of a majority Labour government being achieved.   I discuss this below.

3  The abstainers.  They see AV as making only marginal changes to the system and therefore not worth bothering with.  At a less informed level many will not understand it or not see that it has any relevance to them.  Most activists and those who are well informed will adopt a pro or anti position, even though many will not think it that important, but many ordinary voters are likely in practice to adopt an abstentionist position, even some of those that otherwise vote in the local government elections, while understandable hostility from the nationalists in Wales and Scotland for having the referendum on the same day as the Assembly/Parliament elections is unlikely to increase participation there.

4 The calculators. These are mainly  party loyalists who have no strong views on electoral reform but will vote according to the advantage likely to be gained for their party. While many support or oppose AV/PR on a principled basis, it is surely no accident that the Conservatives, who stand to lose most from PR/AV are overwhelmingly  against it, while the Lib-Dems are the complete reverse. However, with party membership and loyalty in decline this group are likely to be only a small proportion of voters. There are also those who would urge a no vote in order to split the Lib-Dems and bring down the coalition ( I doubt this),or a yes vote to stabilise it.

Let us now turn to why Labour and the left should support AV as a springboard to PR, and why other positions they hold on AV  are in my view  wrong. I am not here concerned with the Conservatives,  for whom traditionalist views in support of FPTP neatly dovetail with the self interest of the party. Likewise the Lib-Dems, where belief in fairness supports their self interest in achieving PR.
For Labour, while it can be argued that their self interest is almost as great as that of the Conservatives for keeping  FPTP, there is a growing support for PR on the basis of the unfairness of FPTP and its tieing of Labour to a centre position. Those who support FPTP do so on the basis of self interest ( particularly for office holders), hostility to the Lib-Dems, the most likely coalition partners, a traditionalist view that it is ‘ not the British way ’,to quote Ed Balls, on the right that there is no problem being in the centre, and on the left that PR will only result in a centre coalition and that what is required is to win a FPTP election on a left wing programme that is ruthlessly implemented  - a sort of left wing Thatcherism. Support for FPTP therefore bridges the left/right divide, but is in all cases wrong, in my view. The anti Lib-Dem sectarians do not understand that there is no longer a tribal loyalty to Labour (New Labour did much to erode it), and that for much of the Blair period in government the Lib-Dems were to Labour’s left, the right fails to understand that the traditional or New Labour centre is no longer  a way forward, while the left view is, I believe, profoundly misconceived, because the acquisition of a majority normally involves a move to the centre ( Labour in 97, Conservative in 2010, although even the latter didn’t give them a majority). In the 50s and 60s, while their rhetoric and symbols were different there was not much to choose between the two main parties, thus leaving no space in the centre  for the Liberals. It is true that the parties were polarised in the 70s,and the Conservative opposition won in 79,  but  the centre, in the shape of the SDP-Liberal Alliance, could well have ‘broken the mould’ in 1983 had it not been for the Falklands War which enabled Thatcher to project herself as a Britannia/Churchill figure – the ‘Iron Lady’, and win the next two elections, although it was only the ditching of Thatcher and  a move to the centre under Major that enabled them to win again in 92. It is difficult to foresee such  circumstances arising again where Labour was the beneficiary, and it is more credible surely to pursue the goal of PR under which Labour could advance a left wing programme and seek to be part of a progressive coalition, or remain as a centre party , in which case a left wing party would be formed which would be able to acquire substantial support and representation as in Germany and elsewhere.
But if PR is the goal then how does that follow from AV?   It doesn’t necessarily, but it should be possible, unless there is an emphatic no vote, to argue that reform should be continued, although the opponents of PR, including many who voted for AV, will, whatever the outcome, argue that there is no case for further reform.
The pro PR but anti AV school think that support for AV will make it more difficult to subsequently argue for a further major reform, and oppose campaigning for something which is not PR. There is something  in this, but the argument then should be against having a referendum at all if it does not include PR alternatives. Yes, this would be preferable, but it is not going to happen. In practice it is going to be difficult for this grouping to distinguish itself from the broad and much larger anti PR grouping, and all they will do is to increase the no vote which will be claimed as evidence by opponents of PR of the limited support for it. Those that pay any attention to these matters will understand that a vote for AV implies support for PR as the referendum on AV was promoted by the Lib-Dems who are the major advocates of PR. For this reason few will understand let alone support this line, which can only be seen as futile and counter productive.
Pursuing such a line would also cut us off from some of the more leftish currents in the Lib-Dems for whom PR is an important goal.Their readiness to co-operate with  or join Labour at some future date is to some extent dependent on demonstrating that there is support for PR within the LP, which opposition to AV, for whatever reason, is unlikely to do.

As indicated above, those who support PR are mainly advocates of  STV, used in the UK for all elections in Northern Ireland except those for the House of Commons ( Local, Europe, Assembly) and for local elections in Scotland. The List system is used for European elections in Britain. A version of the Additional Member System (AMS)  is used for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Greater London Assemblies.
Although there are problems with  AMS there are I believe powerful  arguments for adopting it as the preferred method of PR, as against STV which is favoured by the Lib-Dems and the ERS. More specifically I personally favour the adoption of the AV+ system advocated by the Jenkins Commission, although without the restriction to only about 15% of top – up seats. Such a system is a development  from AV, preserves the single member constituency, and could be implemented on existing boundaries. It would be based on a system originally commissioned by Labour and devised by a leading Lib-Dem, and is similar to systems already in use in Wales, Scotland and Greater London, covering about a quarter of the UK population.
So I believe that the left should seek to maximise the yes vote and the turnout for  the referendum on May 5th so that it can argue for further reform leading to PR. Current polls indicate a narrow win,but the campaign is yet to enter its crucial period. There is a lot at stake.

Postscript.   AV in Wales.
My calculations are that if AV had been in place at last year’s general election the Conservatives would have failed to win four of the seats that they did, three from Labour (Aberconwy, Cardiff North and  Carmarthen West) and one from the Lib-Dems (Montgomery). Conservative Preseli would have gone to Labour, but the Lib-Dems would have won two seats from Labour (Swansea West and Newport East).This would have meant a net gain of two seats for Labour and three for the Lib-Dems, and a loss, or failure to gain, of five for the Conservatives. At the 2007 Assembly election similar results would have happened in Carmarthen West, Newport East, Preseli and Swansea West, and the Conservatives would have failed to take Clwyd West from Labour. This would have meant a net gain of one for Labour and two for the Lib-Dems, and a loss, or failure to gain, of three for the Conservatives, who would, however, have gained at least one and probably two more regional seats.

Peter Rowlands March 2011

Trevor Fisher on coalitionists who wasted no time in starting the year zero of individualism.

When Vince Cable told two undercover Telegraph reporters before Christmas that he was part of a ‘maoist revolution’ he was indiscreet but accurate. While it is difficult to see Cameron as Mao Tse Tung and Clegg as Chou en Lai, it is clear the coalition is practising high speed fundamentalism. As both Cameron and Clegg appealed to the centre during the election campaign, this is unexpected.

Many see the coalition as unstable, but the leaderships are united by common dogmas. Deep internal splits exists, but not on Conservative and Liberal lines. The parties are split internally, with the Thatcherite wing of the Tory Party as afraid of the Cameroons as anyone else. The Thatcherites fear an electoral pact which would marginalise them, and they are right to do so. David Davis’s comments about the ‘Brokeback coalition’ in July revealed that his type of Tory fears the leadership is more concerned with keeping the Lib Dems on board than maintaining their own party’s future.

The Lib Dems find themselves equally divided. Ever since David Steel kept Callaghan’s Labour in office in the seventies, the party has faced to the centre left. Blair wooed Paddy Ashdown before the 1997 victory but placed himself to the right of the Lib Dems.  As late as 2002 a Yougov poll found that Blair was seen by voters as slightly more right of centre than left of centre (36% to 34%) while Charles Kennedy for the Lib Dems was perceived as being more left of centre than right of centre (44% to 10%). Ian Duncan Smith for the Tories was seen as being right of centre by 70% of voters, with two thirds saying he was very right of centre.

The mindset of seeing New Labour in the centre with the Lib Dems slightly left and the Tories to the right still held up to the 2010 election. Presumably this was why the editor of the Guardian called on voters to vote Lib Dem, misled by Clegg’s performance in the pantomime of the leader’s TV debates. But in reality the Lib Dems had been take over by a faction, represented by the Orange Book of free market fundamentalist thinking, which marginalised and demoralised the former centre left power bloc inherited from the 80s alliance of Steel & the Gang of Four Social Democrats. The Party which had come together when the Gang of Four left Labour in the 80s has ceased to exist as effectively as One Nation Toryism has ceased to exist. 

One result is that there is no conservative party left in British politics. The growing support for UKIP – concealed by the failure of the far right under the BNP branding – indicates that a section of British politics which is not fascist but is deeply reactionary is no longer represented by the Tories. It is clear that the coalition  has little desire to conserve the past, while sees no role for the state even as a welfare provider.

Clegg may be a ‘conservative’ as Roy Hattersley has suggested, but not of the Butler-Baldwin-Macmillan type. Cameron is clearly a man of the Blue, but one who is intent on a Tory Revolution. The Cameroons explicitly see themselves as revolutionaries, and this makes a distinct break with previous Tory thinking. The section of the Tory party which is xenophobic, anti-European and believes in self-help and selection in education will, over time, cause Cameron problems. But not in the near future.

The coalition in 2011

Any serious analysis of the Coalition has to start from two factors. The first is the belief in free market fundamentalism, which has some resemblances to Gladstonian laissez faire. This is the logic of the Big Society. It means a small state, and the smashing of the welfare settlement post-1945.

The second factor is a contempt for democracy, and a totally self confident belief in the ability of a small clique of largely public school educated Oxbridge graduates, most of whom have never had a real job, to hack and slash at English society to remake it in their own image. Neither Cameron nor Clegg have much time for parliament. Cameron wanted to cut the Commons by 50 MPs, Clegg by 150. Cameron won for the time being.

It is important that most of the key elements in the coalition are public school educated. Cameron himself has roots in the landed gentry – his uncle is Sir William Dugdale of the Warwickshire branch of the family. A previous Sir William Dugdale wrote a classic study of the Antiquities of Warwickshire, in the seventeenth century. But Cameron and Clegg have little interest in the past.  Like Blair, who they regard as an exemplar, politics is the politics of Year Zero, a radical attack on a society they see as hopelessly collectivist. Thus the drive for Blair’s elected mayors, elected police commissioners, and the destruction of the NHS and Local Education Authorities.

It is here, and not in an alleged split in the parties, that the downfall of the coalition lies. These are people who have never had to work for a living, probably know the difference between the 20 types of Champagne now on sale in this country, and rose effortlessly through the political ranks. But they are both arrogant and incompetent. Their arrogance led them to the astonishing belief that Blair had been too cautious in his first two years in office. Their government would not make this mistake. They would hack and slash from Day One. But they cannot deliver even in their own terms. As the Commons select committee on public administration revealed their plans to cut down quangoes to increase accountability – something of a joke – and cut costs were failing. In the words of the Conservative (old style) chair of the committee Bernard Jenkin ‘the whole process was rushed and poorly handled and should have been thought through a lot more’. Which is pretty much what Vince Cable told the Telegraph.

The orange-blue political alliance running the government has ambitious plans to fundamentally reshape British society. But its Big Society vision is ideological, and driven by the fantasies of people drunk on something more dangerous than expensive booze. It is drunk on power. Both the ideology underpinning the coalition and its dangers to the fabric of Britain have to be understood and reversed before these latter day maoists carry out a cultural revolution with incalculable consequences.

The Ed Miliband factor

The immediate response of the Miliband leadership has been poor, though instant road to Damascus style conversions are not helpful. Obama’s failure has cast doubt on the US Democrats as a model, but it is worrying that he has enobled Maurice Glasman, another London based political thinker with few roots in the Labour movement. His ideas of a “Blue Labour” approach seem on the limited evidence available  to resemble the communitarian nonsense of early Blairism.

The failure to engage with a democratically accountable and publicly funded social enterprise system remains New Labour’s core thematic – and achilles heel. It is exacerbated by the lack of democracy and accountability within New Labour’s political structures, and the dominance of a London based (capital-istic) and Oxbridge educated elite. New Labour does not have a deep rooting in the lives of people with jobs, notably those in the union movement – necessary but not sufficient for success. As the coalition develops and becomes embedded in the public consciousness, this will become more important. Tensions within the coalition remain, but there is no reason to believe it will collapse in the short term. Politics has taken a leap. Understanding this is at a very early stage.

Trevor Fisher 23.1.11

Trevor Fisher takes a stand against AV - it’s not PR - and the accompanying gerrymandering bill.

THE FUTURE OF THE PR CAMP

The AV Vote on May 5th next, if the Bill currently in the Lords is not modified, will be a decisive moment for the PR camp. It could end the hopes of PR and democratic renewal for a decade, possibly for a generation. The bill deliberately polarises debate for or against AV, and links to gerrymandering constituency boundaries – a key element in the Orange-Blue ideology.

The Bill as it left the Commons specified that  “the next General Election (is) to be held on the  AV system, provided this change is endorsed in a referendum on 5th May 2011 and boundary changes have been made to reduce the size of the House of Commons to 600”. The boundary changes could fall if the vote is lost, but do not have to. However the converse is the case: a Yes vote will empower the gerrymander.

The big issue is however the AV proposition. The opponents of change have a simple position, vote NO, The YES lobby seeks to win support by implying that AV will be a springboard to PR. Nothing is less likely. The next election would be held on AV and once a government is elected by AV it would oppose a move which would threaten its own legitimacy. The opponents of change would oppose any further reforms, and both sides would block further change. Like the Chartists in 1836, PR will find itself blocked by both the Whigs And the Tories.

In effect, a Yes Vote offers nothing to the PR Lobby. This is why Cameron and his supporters can back AV. It changes little, empowers them, and gives nothing to Reform – key issues such as the power of the executive are not on the agenda. Indeed, reducing the total of MPs makes scrutiny of the exec more difficult. Which is what the Orange-Blues want. The Lib Dem manifesto actually wanted to cut by 150. Even Cameron will not go that far.

THE CURRENT OPTIONS

The Labour, Lib Dem and Green Parties are currently backing a Yes Vote, Labour and the Lib-Dems to back their leaders (Brown invented the position, Miliband had to endorse it. Clegg is leading the charge for the coalition), though both parties are split. Many Labourites are opposed to any change, eg Andy Burnham, while the PR lobby in both parties cannot but hold their tongue. The Greens seem to think they will gain, though the advantage to small parties in AV is marginal. It is a change which keeps the status quo in essentials.

The Tories are opposed, and Cameron has stated in the past he will vote NO. He is however in a win win position, and his political skills are dangerously impressive. He really cannot lose whatever happens.

PR is effectively ruled out if the Yes lobby secure a vote in favour, and PR supporters have to consider a NO vote. There is no issue of principle involved in voting NO. There is no proposition in favour of change per se on the ballot paper, only a yes no vote for AV. If the government had allowed a vote in principle then a vote on options, it would be a different situation. This was never seriously considered.

The only option is therefore AV, and the issue is whether the triumph of AV would have any benefits for the PR lobby and democratic renewal. I would argue it would NOT. Once AV is in, it will be in for at least 10 years (if the 5 year fixed parliament bill goes through).

The YES lobby argues this is now or never. If AV is defeated reform is off the agenda. But this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If all the eggs are put in this basket and the vote is lost, the status quo brigade will argue forever the country does not want change. This has to be challenged.

PREDICTING THE OUTCOME

Currently opinion poll and newspaper loyalties are unclear. However some including Kevin McGuire of the Mirror think the vote will be lost. Certainly by May the Coalition should be unpopular, and Clegg who leads the charge has seen his party’s poll position drop to 9%. For him defeat would be damaging – but not for Cameron. The Lib Dems have to back him. But a strong voice for PR would put his party under stress. It is difficult to see how a campaign led by Clegg could be popular.

How Labour will face up is unreadable. No one wants to damage Miliband. But if the outcome looks to be a defeat, how can Burnham and co, or Livingstone and the PR lobby hold the line? It is imponderable, but one thing is clear. There is no automatic progressive support for the uneasy half measure that is AV.

AVOIDING UNNECESSARY COMMITMENTS

If the PR Camp can make a NO vote a way to keep further reform alive, then PR might survive. At the present, the pressure is to avoid splitting the front and giving the Tory status quo camp advantages. If as the vote nears it is clear it will be lost, other options will open up. The PR camp needs to keep its powder dry. There is no case at this stage for supporters of PR to do anything but keep their options open.

Trevor Fisher                                                                November 11th 2010