Socialist should support the Corbyn leadership of the Labour Party, but that does not mean Corbyn is not making serious mistakes.
The election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party in 2015 ended a quarter of a century of New Labourism and the collaboration of the Labour Party with neo-economic liberalism. While that victory is welcome, the Corbyn leadership has failed to adjust to the requirements of socialism in the twenty-first century. The main points of criticism are these:
1. On Brexit Corbyn flops around. Brexit means a loss of rights, economic damage and is a fuel for nationalist-xenophobia. These are all things Labour should unconditionally oppose.
2. The 2017 General Election temporarily silenced the New-Labourites who still dominate the PLP and the Party bureaucracy. Yet there is no coordinated struggle from the top against the Right; e.g. supporting de-selection of at least those Labour MPs who would be disloyal to a Crobyn-led Labour government. The leadership has also failed to speak out against the witchhunt of socialists in the party.
3. The leadership is committed to an outdated tribalism and will not work or form electoral arrangements with other progressives forces, in particular the Green Party. The leadership also support the current undemocratic first-past-the-post electoral system.
4. Despite waffle about constitutional conventions, the current leadership supports the Union and opposes independence for Scotland (and for an independent Scottish Labour Party). While it is not for the English left to tell Scotland to be independent, the Labour Party should at least be neutral on the issue rather than rallying behind British nationalism.
Progressive people need to support the Corbyn leadership generally, but also need to organise separately within and outside the British Labour Party for a progressive radical socialism.
Showing posts with label electoral reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label electoral reform. Show all posts
1 March 2013
The Perversions of Eastleigh
The Eastleigh by-election shows that the British electoral system is becoming increasingly perverse.
The Liberal Democrats retained their seat in the Eastleigh by-election on 28 February 2013 because their diminishing electoral base still received tactical votes from the Left and because the protest and xenophobic rightwing vote (i.e. UKIP) was still slightly less.
The result was:
Liberal Democrat 13,342 32.06% (-14.44%)
UKIP 11,571 27.80% (+24.00%)
Conservative 10,559 25.37% (-13.93%)
Labour 4,088 9.82% (+0.22%)
Interestingly, had AV been in operation, as the Lib Dems wanted, then the Liberals would have picked up most of the transferred Labour vote, and UKIP most of the much higher Tory vote, handing the seat to UKIP.
I know this is a by-election, but the general point should still be made. Britain now has a complex multi-party system and the single seat constituencies, with no proportional top-ups, increasingly leads to perverse results.
The Liberal Democrats retained their seat in the Eastleigh by-election on 28 February 2013 because their diminishing electoral base still received tactical votes from the Left and because the protest and xenophobic rightwing vote (i.e. UKIP) was still slightly less.
The result was:
Liberal Democrat 13,342 32.06% (-14.44%)
UKIP 11,571 27.80% (+24.00%)
Conservative 10,559 25.37% (-13.93%)
Labour 4,088 9.82% (+0.22%)
Interestingly, had AV been in operation, as the Lib Dems wanted, then the Liberals would have picked up most of the transferred Labour vote, and UKIP most of the much higher Tory vote, handing the seat to UKIP.
I know this is a by-election, but the general point should still be made. Britain now has a complex multi-party system and the single seat constituencies, with no proportional top-ups, increasingly leads to perverse results.
20 July 2010
Cameron & Clegg's electoral reform
The whole of this debate is nonsense.
Constituencies are to be made larger and less geographically meaningful in an attempt to get the votes to seats ratio more equal between the Tories and Labour. The fact that the Liberal Democrats and others face a huge votes to seats ratio does not seem to matter.
Why is PR which would mean one person, one vote, one value rejected? Is it because PR would make constituencies larger - or because first-past-the-post leads to stable one party governments?
All of these manoeuvres (retaining the present boundaries, limiting electoral reform to AV, changing the number, size and geography of constituencies) are forms of gerrymandering.
Constituencies are to be made larger and less geographically meaningful in an attempt to get the votes to seats ratio more equal between the Tories and Labour. The fact that the Liberal Democrats and others face a huge votes to seats ratio does not seem to matter.
Why is PR which would mean one person, one vote, one value rejected? Is it because PR would make constituencies larger - or because first-past-the-post leads to stable one party governments?
All of these manoeuvres (retaining the present boundaries, limiting electoral reform to AV, changing the number, size and geography of constituencies) are forms of gerrymandering.
18 May 2010
2010 British General Election (after)
I thought I would just make a couple of remarks about the 2010 election.
On the eve of the election I outlined three possible outcomes: Conservative majority rule, Tory minority government (leading to a second election later in the year) and a Lib/Lab pact. I was right about one thing and wrong about another.
I was right in thinking that the authoritarians in New Labour (Straw, Blunket, Reid, Burnham, etc) would reject any alliance with liberalism preferring instead a Tory government. Labour would not offer the one thing that would ensure Liberal Democrat support and something that progressive should support anyway, namely proportional representation.
Much is made after the event of the fact that a Lib/Lab coalition would have been a minority government requiring 7 votes for a majority from the 13 nationalists, Green and SDLP to pass legislation. While that is true, accepting the challenge would have been better than the only other option, letting the Conservatives into office.
I was wrong in thinking that the Conservatives would prefer minority government to a formal coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Yet Cameron had clearly read the writing on the wall: the start of every period of Tory or Tory-dominated government since 1931 has enjoyed a lower share of the vote than the previous period. Cameron was not sure that a second election would give him the majority he needed.
Britain now has a fully bourgeois government. New Labour certainly abandoned social democracy and threw in its lot with capitalist power; yet always it was impeded by the fact that its core vote (and now its only vote) came from less well-off ordinary working people. No such impediment restrains the current government. Britain’s economic problems can be solved at the expense of its ordinary working people.
And something else. Since the 1980s the Liberal Democrats positioned themselves as part of the progressive majority in Britain and as an anti-Tory party. All those Liberal Democrat voters and activists who see themselves in that light have no future in the Tory-led coalition and will tend to drift away. The Liberal Democrats will become what they in fact are: the Tories junior partner.
It seems that the revolution against the forward march of labour that began in 1979 will have at least three parts: High Thatcherism (1979-97), New Labour (1997-2010) and now the Tory-Liberal coalition. Not optimistic stuff, I’m afraid.
On the eve of the election I outlined three possible outcomes: Conservative majority rule, Tory minority government (leading to a second election later in the year) and a Lib/Lab pact. I was right about one thing and wrong about another.
I was right in thinking that the authoritarians in New Labour (Straw, Blunket, Reid, Burnham, etc) would reject any alliance with liberalism preferring instead a Tory government. Labour would not offer the one thing that would ensure Liberal Democrat support and something that progressive should support anyway, namely proportional representation.
Much is made after the event of the fact that a Lib/Lab coalition would have been a minority government requiring 7 votes for a majority from the 13 nationalists, Green and SDLP to pass legislation. While that is true, accepting the challenge would have been better than the only other option, letting the Conservatives into office.
I was wrong in thinking that the Conservatives would prefer minority government to a formal coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Yet Cameron had clearly read the writing on the wall: the start of every period of Tory or Tory-dominated government since 1931 has enjoyed a lower share of the vote than the previous period. Cameron was not sure that a second election would give him the majority he needed.
Britain now has a fully bourgeois government. New Labour certainly abandoned social democracy and threw in its lot with capitalist power; yet always it was impeded by the fact that its core vote (and now its only vote) came from less well-off ordinary working people. No such impediment restrains the current government. Britain’s economic problems can be solved at the expense of its ordinary working people.
And something else. Since the 1980s the Liberal Democrats positioned themselves as part of the progressive majority in Britain and as an anti-Tory party. All those Liberal Democrat voters and activists who see themselves in that light have no future in the Tory-led coalition and will tend to drift away. The Liberal Democrats will become what they in fact are: the Tories junior partner.
It seems that the revolution against the forward march of labour that began in 1979 will have at least three parts: High Thatcherism (1979-97), New Labour (1997-2010) and now the Tory-Liberal coalition. Not optimistic stuff, I’m afraid.
18 April 2010
Slate Elections
Slate elections are anti-democratic nonsense. The leadership puts together a slate in which it has a majority and perhaps includes a couple of independent patsies. If that slate wins, the leadership retains total control of the organisation. If the it loses then a whole new leadership comes into office and the old leaders cry foul and split off to form a new group. A total waste of time.
28 December 2009
Postal Voting
Postal voting is by its nature open to abuse. It is wrong that the number of votes cast for candidates is determined in major part by party organisation of the indifferent and senile.
If able-bodied people can't be bothered to walk to a polling station, then they should lose their vote. Election officials, if requested, should visit the sick and elderly in their homes on election day so they can cast their votes. Persons who will be away from home should be able to register at other polling stations or, if abroad, at British Embassies.
If able-bodied people can't be bothered to walk to a polling station, then they should lose their vote. Election officials, if requested, should visit the sick and elderly in their homes on election day so they can cast their votes. Persons who will be away from home should be able to register at other polling stations or, if abroad, at British Embassies.
The timing of General Elections in Britain
The Prime Minister should not be able to time a general election merely to suit his political advantage.
Britain should have fixed term Parliaments of four years.
Britain should have fixed term Parliaments of four years.
4 December 2009
A Hung Parliament
A hung parliament is many people's choice by elimination: they don't want to see New Labour re-elected, nor do they want the Tories in with an overall majority. A hung parliament would indeed be good for cutting back on executive dominance of the legislature - and would probably be more progressive on matters such as civil liberties.
If the Liberal Democrats refuse to form a coalition government (as they did with the Tories Feb 1974 or with the SNP in 2007) that leaves minority government as the only option. One problem with minority administrations (or near-minority ones) is that the Prime Minister has the power to dissolve Parliament and ask the electorate for a working majority (Atlee 1951, Wilson February 1974).
Only proportional representation and fixed term parliaments could really change the existing system.
If the Liberal Democrats refuse to form a coalition government (as they did with the Tories Feb 1974 or with the SNP in 2007) that leaves minority government as the only option. One problem with minority administrations (or near-minority ones) is that the Prime Minister has the power to dissolve Parliament and ask the electorate for a working majority (Atlee 1951, Wilson February 1974).
Only proportional representation and fixed term parliaments could really change the existing system.
8 September 2009
The Smokescreen of the Alternative Vote
If (and it is only an if) the Alterative Vote (AV) were used for the 2010 General Election the New Labour wipe-out would be even bigger. Why?
Most of the votes of eliminated candidates would transfer to the Tories (i.e. most Liberal Democrat votes plus the vast bulk of those of UKIP and the BNP). Labour would pick a minority of the LibDem votes and most of the Green vote. So the question is why do some New Labour strategists peddle AV?
There are two reasons. First, proposing electoral reform is a bid for popularity and an attempt to be seen as doing something while in fact opposing proportional representation. Second, one can guess that Cameron’s Tories will lose popularity throughout their period of office, so in the 2015 (?) elections most of those eliminated third votes from Liberal Democrats and other might transfer to Labour.
What New Labour would never do is introduce a PR system for Westminster in which Labour could end up with a mere 20 percent of the seats in Parliament.
Most of the votes of eliminated candidates would transfer to the Tories (i.e. most Liberal Democrat votes plus the vast bulk of those of UKIP and the BNP). Labour would pick a minority of the LibDem votes and most of the Green vote. So the question is why do some New Labour strategists peddle AV?
There are two reasons. First, proposing electoral reform is a bid for popularity and an attempt to be seen as doing something while in fact opposing proportional representation. Second, one can guess that Cameron’s Tories will lose popularity throughout their period of office, so in the 2015 (?) elections most of those eliminated third votes from Liberal Democrats and other might transfer to Labour.
What New Labour would never do is introduce a PR system for Westminster in which Labour could end up with a mere 20 percent of the seats in Parliament.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)