Ten for Twenty-Ten, Part 1

As 2010 draws to a close and the usual slew of reviews and analysis take up our television screens, newspaper supplements and general malaise, we’ve (well, I, at least) have decided to contribute with our own list of ten events of the year that have shaped the future of progressive politics. In the first of a two part post we share with you the first five, in no particular order:

1. TV Debates

For the first time in a General Election campaign, Britain went all American in its media coverage and creation of the issues surrounding the main three parties. Televised debates were held, and scored, across three major networks and for the first time, the public (those who somehow didn’t usually manage to find the time to watch the dear party leaders squabbling at noon on a Wednesday!), got a chance to see Brown, Cameron and Clegg in action at a debate. Clegg was crowned the victor, and though it was conceded that Brown did a lot better than he was predicted to, this was clearly the start in a new style of politics. We need to take on board that these days elections are not won just on policy but on performance, and properly understand the sway that such events have on an electorate; debates such as these will be seen as de rigueur from now on, and the ability to stand out and show who you are, and what you can do, will surely be the key to success.

2. ‘Bigotgate’

Oh, poor Gordon... The man who seemed to repel all forms of good luck and attract misfortune was caught calling Gillian Duffy, a lifelong Labour voter, a bigot in the ‘privacy’ of his own car. As we all know, the Sky News microphone picked up on Brown’s comments as to the ‘disaster’ that the meeting had been and it wasn’t long before the story was being broadcast across all networks and news outlets with Brown having to give Duffy a very public apology. But why is event in our list? Well, quite frankly it comes as no surprise that a politician didn’t like someone who he had to talk with, nor even that he said something that could be considered offensive, no, it’s because it is another example of how the political arena has changed. The media now has an enormous influence over the public (take 'Sachsgate' for example) and often decides itself what the issues are and what the reaction to them should be. Brown may have been mistaken in his comments, but what he was most certainly mistaken in was not being cautious as to who ‘heard’ his comments. Care must be taken with broadcasters who have no loyalty to anything other than ‘the story’. We must remember not to become the story, but let our policies take the lead.

3. Election Defeat & Coalition

As the results rolled in, people around the world turned their attention to the future of British politics, nervous about just what would happen now that no single party had reached the precious 326 MPs required (Sinn Fein and other anomalies aside) to be declared the majority winner. Though we in Labour had not been confident of a win, it still came as a crushing blow which only worsened when the coalition that formed was that of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. This is a partnership that has now showed itself to be a clearly right-wing one and an insult to the word ‘progressive’ it so loves to use. Broken promises, swingeing cuts and a couple of ‘aristocratic’ middle aged white men in very nice ties moving away from both their parties’ core has created a situation in which Labour can come back and show the public that it is only they who can truly represent their views and only they that actually care about the same issues. Labour must learn from this defeat, we must be aware of just why we lost this election, and build on this for the future.

4. Bye, Bye Brown

As the coalition was forming and the country was still unsure as to whether the Liberal Democrats would pledge themselves to the Conservatives or to Labour, Gordon Brown stood on Downing Street and announced that he would be stepping down as Labour leader. Emphasising the ‘parliamentary’ rather than ‘Presidential’ politics that we should be proud of in this country, Brown stepped to one side for his party and for his country. An unassuming man, Brown will probably be remembered by the masses as a dithering and dour individual who ‘spent too much’ and ‘brought about the recession’, however, this is simply not the case. Shining during his speech to Citizens UK in May, Brown shows all the potential of the great leader we never really gave a chance. Tarred with his predecessor, and underrated as Chancellor, Brown has received poor treatment by the press and public. We should remember him for all the good he did (minimum wage, improvements to the NHS, tax credits, lifting 700,000 children out of child poverty, etc) and that today, being a good man and a statesman, if not a great politician, isn’t necessarily a way to win affections or elections.

5. Labour Leadership Campaigns

Summer was dominated by the battle of the brothers (and those other three...) for the Labour leadership. An impressive series of hustings across the country and taking into account the different elements within the Party saw the five candidates do battle in a process that was deliberately drawn out so that the right one, and the right direction for the Party, could be chosen. Policies and prejudices were batted around between the Blairites, the Brownites, ‘Old Labour’, ‘New Labour’, ‘New New Labour’ and the rest. The result may have been controversial to some, in particular the press, but it signified a step back to the left and, with any hope, a new era for Labour itself. Each of the candidates shone in their own way, with even the previously relatively unassuming Andy Burnham from here in the north-west shining. The Party became rejuvenated by its members as membership levels soared and many people came ‘back to the fold’ after years away. The leadership process let the country know that Labour was now willing to step back, assess itself, consider its problems and move on to become the opposition that would be needed to fight the ConDem government. Labour needed to show itself to be a viable alternative once more, and indeed I believe it has done just that.

The remaining events will be posted tomorrow!

The Implications of Coalition Welfare Reforms

While thousands have taken to the streets in demonstration against rising tuition fees, and unions have pledged action against job losses – and, in both cases, rightly so – there appears to have been worryingly little opposition so far to the government’s proposals on welfare reform. These measures may be marketed as improving fairness, but in practice appear likely only to penalise the most vulnerable in society.

As with most of the proposals from the 2010 Budget, these measures have yet to be finalised in most cases, and many of the ideas are somewhat vague. The aim is to cut a huge £18bn from the welfare budget, to be achieved via a range of cuts and alterations to the system. Child benefit is no longer to be universal, but will be means tested. This may sound sensible, but in practice it is likely to lead to decreased uptake either by ignorance of entitlement, or fear of social stigma. Although the tabloids abound with stories of individuals taking advantage of the benefits system, in practice those employed to advise people on such matters maintain that the majority fear claiming what they are not entitled to. Other measures are also set to affect parents, such as alterations to tax credits – which, The Resolution Foundation claims, will have a disproportionate impact on low income households – the loss of the Health in Pregnancy grant, and the restriction of the Sure Start maternity grant. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the number of poor children in the UK will rise significantly in the coming years as a direct result of coalition measures.

Disability charities have raised concerns about the re-assessment of Incapacity Benefit claimants. Although Labour planned to undertake this measure with some individuals, the coalition have extended it to all claimants. Those deemed fit enough to work will be moved on to Jobseekers Allowance, with a lower rate of benefit. It is claimed that 40% of those said to be fit for employment have the decision reversed after appeal, a statistic which does not inspire faith in the workability of this idea. In addition, the new system of benefits, amalgamating all into the ‘universal credit’ scheme, will mean the end of tailored support such as Pathways; one system for all is unlikely to take into account individual needs.

Claimants of Jobseeker’s Allowance appear to get the worst deal from the proposals – and the number in this position is set to increase due to job losses and moves from other schemes. Those who refuse job offers on three occasions may be stripped of all benefits for three months. It is difficult to see how such a proposal is justified – surely the principle aim of the welfare state is to provide a minimum standard of living for all? Even when allowed to keep claiming benefits, those on Jobseeker’s Allowance may be forced to undertake community work in order to earn their money. There will be no rise in payments for people on these schemes – if the proposal is implemented, they would be performing full time work for £64.45 per week, or £51.85 if under twenty five years old. In practice this amounts to little more than slave labour, and it must be assumed that some existing jobs would be lost, since benefit claimants can be ‘employed’ more cheaply than, for example, gardeners or street cleaners. There is no real advantage to the unemployed from this scheme. While it may be true that some require a daily structure, for many this is a patronizing and insulting notion. The real issues involved in unemployment, such as lack of experience or references, or indeed lack of suitable jobs, appear to have been ignored in favour of penalising and alienating the vulnerable.

It is not only policies relating directly to welfare which will have a negative impact on the poor. In January, VAT is due to rise to 20%. Rather than a raise in general taxation, which would have balanced the extra cost with the earnings of those paying it, the government have chosen to hit everyone, from the poorest single parent to the wealthiest banker, with an identical rise in costs. The loss of EMA and Aimhigher, and the tripling of university tuition fees, are likely to impact upon the educational opportunities of many of the poorest children, regardless of their academic abilities. Cuts to council budgets are also set to hit the poorest areas hardest, with Liverpool, Knowsley and St Helens among those receiving the biggest losses, meaning many services which people rely on will simply be unsustainable.

The coalition government have been promoting the idea of ‘no alternative’ to the cuts since gaining power (this in spite of Clegg’s pre-election insistence that the Conservative plan of immediate cuts would hinder rather than benefit the economy). However, economists point out that Britain’s national debt has been higher for much of our modern history, therefore there is no real need for measures this extreme. There is a clear ideology behind these cuts, highlighted in particular by the reluctance to impose higher taxes other than VAT. The highly publicised UKUncut campaign has brought attention to the number of tax loopholes which exist in this country – surely closing these and forcing the wealthiest to pay their fair share is the more logical step than attacking the already struggling poor? It is difficult to deny that some degree of welfare reform is needed, and on paper the idea of universal credit – aimed at making it always pay to work and simplifying the system – is a good one. It is also true that the Labour government could and should have done more in this area during the ‘boom’ years. However, reducing the support offered to the most vulnerable at a time when unemployment is set to rise is unnecessary and unacceptable. We cannot let class divisions increase by abandoning the poorest to their fate – this issue is as potentially damaging, unfair, and mandate-free as tuition fees, and deserves as much public anger.

Proportional Procrastination

Why AV is a good first step.

There is something intrinsically fair about the idea that the percentage of seats that a party has in parliament should be at least approximately equal to the percentage of people who hold corresponding views in the country at large. In contrast, there can be little argument that for a party to secure a majority of 65 (and 55.2% of the seats), as Labour did in 2005, with the support of only roughly 20% of the electorate, is undemocratic. This is partly due to an inherent bias towards the incumbent and partly due to the low turnout that year, but mostly down to the strange and quaintly simplistic voting system at use in the UK: First Past The Post (FPTP).

However, the only reform on offer in the near future is a switch to the Alternative Vote (AV). The distortions inherent in FPTP are well known, and while it is rather less well known that AV can lead to even bigger distortions, it does result in a considerable increase in the number of marginal constituencies and a majority of people's votes counting, as opposed to the huge potential for wasted votes under FPTP. Most of the numerical arguments have been made and so instead I will try to present the cultural arguments in favour of reform.

Wheras the battle now is between the ability of each party to raise funds in order to swamp a small number of swing voters with material and the appearance of local activity, the deconcentration of electioneering from marginal seats can only increase the power of the individual to make their choices based on the needs of the local community.

The first post-independence Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, a Fabian socialist, made the case that democracy itself is not a ticket to the elysian fields, but is the very medium in which we, if we believe ourselves to be democrats and socialists, have to and should operate: "Democracy is good... because other systems are worse... But merely saying that democracy will solve all problems is utterly wrong. Problems are solved by intelligence and hard work."

How can we condone continuing to support an antiquated and clearly badly-representative system? Even the joint leader of the German Communist Party in the 1920's, Rosa Luxemburg, knew the importance of frequent and meaningful elections for maintaining a healthy public discourse: "Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element." 

The critics of AV will point out that the trend of falling turnout in Britain is bad enough already, without introducing any 'fiendishly complex' reforms that will 'put people off voting'. On the contrary, it is by providing people with real choices and empowering them with decisions that can actually shape their own lives and their communities, that we can expect to see an increase in voter turnout. The critics will also point out that AV will lead to 'consensus politics', often pointing out the example of Italy's record in (not) maintaining coalitions. This is less about the system itself however than the political culture of a region. Sweden has had a form of Proportional Representation (PR) since the 1930s which has resulted in the Social Democratic Party controlling the agenda of the ruling coallition. This has led until recently to a powerful social democratic consensus and some of the best rates of equality in the developed world, with Sweden (alongside its other Scandinavian neighbors) regularly placing in the top 3 in indices of political and economic freedom.

Before and during the UK 2010 general election, there were very few people who voted for the Liberal Democrats under the belief that they were a party of the centre-right, and in some ways they have succeeded in becoming a 'moderating influence' on some of the most regressive aspects of Conservative policy. Even on one of the Lib Dem flagship issues, tuition fees, we see that a considerable number of Lib Dem MPs are prepared to defy the whip and vote against any increase. While it might seem distasteful in today's political climate to work with the Liberal Democrats, AV could only work to increase the chances of being able to rely on the 'progressive majority' that so many voters believed in before the election.

Eventually, with a switch to a more proportional system, such as a form of Additional Member System (AMS) which I myself favour, we could see many of the eurosceptic members of the Conservatives join the likes of UKIP. Meanwhile, it is possible that the gains the far left and the Greens would make might come at the expense of Labour and the Lib Dems, but it is unlikely that a coalition of the left could arise without Labour forming the lynchpin of such a force, as in Sweden.

If we vote against AV in the referendum in May, we do so only out of fear, and yet it will be our undoing. The malaise which has afflicted turnout and general trust in politics in the UK is amplified by the ineffectiveness of our voting system. The thing that people disliked about Labour towards the end of the last government was that politics became something that was done to people, rather than something people did for themselves. Cameron has proposed the 'big society' as a hazy way to tap into this desire for localism; we can go far beyond this rhetoric and instead of expecting the army of volunteers to appear, actually empower people to make the changes they want to see for themselves. This is what the Labour movement has always been about. This is the kind of issue we as a party have to put to the forefront of our campaign. This is the political extension of the work done by the co-operative movement and can only result in greater levels of equality of income and opportunity.

But only if we vote 'Yes' in May.

The Ideology of the Spending Review

The notion that the cuts proposed by the tory-led coalition government are essential has been repeated so often that, according to one poll, 60% of the general public believe it. Yet looking at Wednesday’s spending review, there appears to be a clear ideology behind the plans which goes beyond mere necessity.

The overriding principal of the proposals outlined is the worryingly familiar passing on of central government control - ‘rolling back the frontiers of the state’, if you will. The welfare and pensions budget is due a brutal slashing of at least £18bn. Universal child benefit will no longer exist. The much-publicised assault on ‘scroungers’ will undoubtedly affect genuine benefit claimants, and it would be interesting to know exactly how the long-term unemployed are to be made to find work when none exists. The age at which state pensions will be awarded is set to rise, affecting the future plans of thousands. It is perhaps too cynical to point out that the areas which have been protected – winter fuel allowance and free bus passes for the elderly, for example – are the ones which Cameron was forced to pledge support for during one of the televised leadership debates.

The National Health Service may be ring fenced, but £20bn of ‘efficiency savings’ must still be found, almost certainly leading to job losses. Some key Conservative manifesto pledges such as free prescriptions for those with long term illnesses and a one week wait for cancer diagnoses have also been lost. There is also some speculation that cuts to local councils may lead to less social care opportunities in some areas, meaning that hospital beds are taken by elderly or disabled people unable to be discharged with no one available to care for them. The public sector in general faces huge cuts, with half a million jobs to go (including 20, 000 in the police) and private industry expected to pick up the pieces if the plan is to work.

In addition to this assault on the public sector, this shrinking of the state will presumably also include various responsibilities being passed on to local councils in the name of the little-understood ‘big society’. This is in spite of a 7.1% annual fall in council budgets which, as mentioned above, is likely to have far-reached consequences. The cut of 24 quangos includes the traditional tory disregard for the arts, with the loss of the UK Film Council, and the BBC will be forced to do more for less with the licence fee frozen and the World Service now among their responsibilities. Add to all this a 40% cut to higher education, predicted to lead to college and university closures, along with the soaring tuition fees, and no one escapes without suffering.

The comparison to Thatcher, at least in terms of opinions towards the state, is obvious. Yet Thacher had a clear majority, and a mandate to govern. Her government won power with manifesto pledges which were then put in place. Contrast this with the current situation; no one voted for a coalition, and the majority of the measures being taken did not appear in either manifesto. Effectively we have an unelected cabinet taking huge gambles with people’s lives. “We’re all in this together” has been stated nearly as many times as “it’s Labour’s fault”, yet the poorest ten per cent are due to suffer most, even based on the governments own statistics. Tokenistic gestures such as a cut to the royal family’s budget do not mask the fact that these measures will severely affect the opportunities of thousands.

On the Subject of Electoral Reform

On May 5th 2011, an extra vote will be added to those already due to be cast in the local, Scottish and Welsh elections – a referendum on electoral reform. In November, this branch of the Fabian Society plans to host a debate on the same issue. It therefore seems a reasonable time to examine the implications of this change to the Commons voting system, should it be passed.

We currently elect members of parliament using the first past the post system – a simple single vote per constituent, and the candidate with the most wins. Numerous criticisms have been levelled at this system, such as the fact that a candidate does not require a majority of 50% or more, merely the highest number of votes. The same applies to the country as a whole – a party can potentially gain power with the highest number of MPs, but not the majority of votes cast. It can therefore be deemed somewhat undemocratic. Under the current system, there is also the problem – not least in the Merseyside area – of safe seats, where many of the votes cast are effectively wasted as the same party will inevitably gain a huge majority each election. Although those in favour of retaining this system have long argued that it creates a stable government, the outcome of a hung parliament and subsequent formation of the coalition government this year surely discredit the certainty of that argument. However, FPTP does have the advantage of retaining a strong link between MPs and their constituents, and also of being relatively easy to understand.

The change proposed in the referendum would lead to the use of the alternative vote system for Commons elections. This retains the link with the constituency, but instead of casting a single vote the electorate rank the candidates in order of preference. The winner requires a majority of 50% or more, and if this is not achieved initially then the one with the lowest number of votes leaves the contest and their second votes are reallocated until it is. Though slightly more complicated, it cannot really be called that much more trying than FPTP, and it does fix the problem of MPs gaining power without the majority support of their constituency (though not parties entering government without a country-wide majority). The emphasis on second preferences would certainly favour smaller parties, not least the Liberal Democrats.

If introduced, AV could potentially lead to more coalition governments in future, and therein lies a problem which can be illustrated by the referendum itself. A proposal for a referendum on electoral reform was not in the manifesto of the Conservative party, who won the most seats in the Commons under the current system. It was a pledge of the Liberal Democrats, who came third. It is therefore true that a majority of the country did not vote for this referendum, and yet it is being imposed. Coalition governments involve a lot of compromise, as we are currently witnessing, and ultimately it may transpire that no one gets what they voted for. Although we currently have a coalition elected using FPTP, the history of this system shows that this is rarely the outcome.

There are of course many other forms of voting system which are not currently being considered for use in general elections. Many still argue the benefits of proportional representation, although it seems unlikely that any of the major parties would introduce a system which would almost guarantee them losing much of their power. With the Conservatives formally opposed to AV, and Labour also likely to advocate the ‘no’ vote, it seems unlikely that this referendum will achieve its aim. However, the debate over whether it is time to alter the voting system seems set to continue indefinately.