I do not know if the claim in this tweet is true. But I sincerely hope it is, and that the number might be growing because this is the only way for the opposition to work and deliver in the UK now:
188 constituency @UKLabour parties have passed a motion in favour of Proportional Representation. The movement is growing!
— Graham Simpson (@grahambsi) March 10, 2021
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Many of the Labour grassroots have been smelling the coffee for a while but there are two groups that don’t want it to change – the extreme left and parliamentary leadership.
First, the extreme right have managed to hijack the Tory party and seize almost absolute power and the extreme left dreams its turn will come. First past the post is the only way extremists get absolute power to govern.
Second, Labour leadership who have spent their lives devoted to getting the reins of power are reluctant to give up the opportunity of absolute power that FPTP offers.
What this tweet suggests to me is that Constituency Labour Parties are not the hot-bed of extreme left-wingers…… just ordinary folk who want to see change in our country.
Healthy debate between left and centre-left is a good thing…… but PR will allow that debate to have meaning because it will be as a governing coalition rather than a protest grouping.
Clive, who are these “extreme left” Labour persons? Do you have any Members of Parliament in mind? Bearing in mind that the Corbyn/MacDonnell mildly Social Democratic agenda was insufficiently radical for our esteemed Blog host, Prof Murphy, I wonder what sort of “extreme left” views mark these people out? As you recognise, they don’t seem to be much in evidence in CLPs. Most Labour Party members might be rather more “Woke”, as Richard defines it, than the average voter, but I suspect that very few are even in favour of reinstating Clause 4!
Surely you don’t mean “extreme left” as defined by the Tory Media?
I suspect that the resistance to PR is prevalent amongst more centrist politicians driven by personal career interests.
Perhaps “extreme left” was the wrong phrase to use since is is so widely abused in the media. Very few (if any) MPs would meet my “extreme left” test – my objection to Corbyn was that he was a poor leader/manager rather than the policies he ran… and my objection to McDonnell was that his economic vision was too right wing!
For me, the extreme left is usually defined by state control of (virtually) all economic activity… and it tends to come with a strong anti-democratic streak. And yes, there are Labour members that fit the bill – but, as I suggested, not that many.
Hi Clive,
I agree that the Labour leadership from time immemorial has been keen to keep FPTP, but I am unsure about ‘extreme left’. On twitter I belong to a group organized around #SocialistSunday, which includes Labour members. We are regularly smeared with the label ‘extreme left’ but also regularly tweet about the importance of proportional representation and death of democracy. I wonder what your definition of ‘extreme left’ is? Or perhaps it is a historical reference to the 80’s and Militant?
It is always surprising how so many commentators ignore the political age gap in Britain.
So shall we assume that “the extreme left” are 18 to 24s and the “ordinary folk” somewhat older?
Labour have only 202 seats, and need about 321 (seven Irish MPs do not attend) to have an overall majority of one. Now ir is true a one percent increase in the Conservative vote them a majority of 80 but Labour also lost vote share.
They will have to work with other parties to be able to govern. My suggestion is that a common progressive core program is formulated and other policies can be debated in the House when elected.
That core would be a Green New Deal, more money for rhe NHS and the care sector, constitutional reform with PR (I would argue for STV) and a reformed Lords. I would argue for a number of people representing major institutions e. g. TUC, CBI, the law,and others who would be chosen by those institutions for a limited term. But most would be elected by regions. Half the Lords now live in the south east. Real action on tax havens and divertion of taxes. I imagine Europe will force itself onto the agenda as the losses mount.
If PR can be enacted, the right wing will not be able to rule by themselves again.
One of my objections to Jeremy Corbyn was the notion that there would ever be a socialist utopia in our land – that blind faith prevented Labour from making any real traction for government.
As the Americans say ‘just do the math’
And, my, how much better country could we be with genuine coalition government – not perfect but much more reflective of society. The need to cooperate is a strong driver to work towards solutions.
Centrism is a political dead end, because the ‘centre’ is always defined relative to the political right. The current centre, in relation to the current far-right mob, is still a socioeconomic hinterland; just one a little close to the pale.
How is proportional representation compatible with the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament ? The current electoral system is surely a logical and essential outcome of that sovereignty and its absolute executive power – now exposed as such by the Tories. In modern democracies PR exercises the popular sovereignty on which all such democracies are based. Without popular sovereignty and a codified constitution PR just looks like another Labour retail policy, similar to their vague federalism noises and for the same reason.
I’m not exactly sure what BSA is trying to say, but I think they’re confusing ‘the sovereign’ with ‘sovereignty’.
Parliament, the Legislature, is Sovereign, not the Executive (which rules on behalf of the Crown in parliament). Parliament, that is, the totality of MPs and Peers, have the power to make legislation and the power to pass, amend or defeat Bills at will. That is, in fact, ‘popular sovereignty’ as we, the people, elect the MPs in the Commons. (Peers cannot overrule the Commons, so we can ignore them in the ‘sovereignty’ stakes for the time being)
A parliament constituted through PR would be no different, sovereignty wise, from what we currently have. It would just have to be a trifle more consensual…
Granted that an overwhelming majority and a complete unconcern for parliamentary conventions (which can be ignored with no comeback) has given us a dictatorship, but the dictatorship is legitimised by parliament, which obediently passes its proposed legislation.
Very good. Thank you.
PR is not a bad idea but I’d steer clear of the version of PR that is used in the European elections. The list system puts power in the hands of parties over the rights of voters. I’d advocate PR by single transferable voting in multiple member constituencies. They have it in Eire, Australia, New Zealand.
Clearly fair democratic representation requires proportional representation. That has been obvious since at least when I was a student and became aware of it — and nothing has happened. So how to get there from here?
Basically, it is never in our main parties’ interests when they are in the ascendant under FPTP. And because of that neither function in a way where they can consider coalition a viable option. It is difficult to see either promoting PR in a way that makes it likely to be adopted. The only routes I can see is via minor parties exploiting their moments of influence, but in recent history the Liberals allowed themselves to be walked all over and for the DUP it wasn’t a matter of interest. Just possibly, should more than two parties at some future point have large parliamentary representation there might be an incentive.
Judging by the amount of Compass emails I’ve been getting about this I hope so too.