Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Parties

Could a Red-Green coalition work in the UK?

Sep 27

Posted by Jeff in Elections, Parties, Westminster | 18 Comments

The two elections that I have been interested in this year have each thrown up interesting results. The UK, a country famed for not doing coalition politics, has resulted in a surprisingly successful pairing between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Meanwhile Sweden, a country that is typically governed by a coalition of several parties, has for the first time in decades effectively ended up with a hung parliament.

This post combines factors and factions of both countries to consider one potential option for the left-of-centre in the UK – a Red-Green coalition, or a Progressive Alliance if you will.

The losing ‘half’ of Sweden in last week’s election was the Red-Green coalition but they have campaigned so steadfastly alongside each other that even the promise of Ministerial seats has not tempted the Greens into Government. In the UK coalition Government may well be here to stay so those currently making up the Opposition may have to find a more proactive approach to the new terrain that objecting from the sidelines strictly along party lines.

So, if a Red-Green coalition makes political sense in Sweden is there any credence to the argument that it makes political sense in the UK? If so, how would it work?

Well, assuming the AV referendum is either rejected by Westminster or ignored/rejected by the public, First Past the Post could see a dividing up of constituencies in a loose agreement between the Greens and Labour.

In return for (1) policy concessions, (2) Labour not fielding a candidate in Brighton Pavilion to safeguard Caroline Lucas and (3) perhaps not fielding candidates in Cambridge and other seats where Labour probably won’t win but the Greens are fighting to finish higher and higher, the Greens would agree to not field candidates in the vast majority of seats across the UK. The message would be that a vote for Labour is a de facto vote for the Greens and an upside would be that more targetted, intensive campaigns could be lodged in the Cambridges, the Oxfords, the Lewishams and the Norwich Souths.

A springboard to representation that helps keep the Conservatives out of power and helps speed up more Greens getting into Westminster.

Similar suggestions were raised before the May election this year with prominent environmentalists urging Greens to vote tactically, back the Lib Dems(!) or back Labour as the least worst option between the top two parties. A coalition is at least a more elegant solution to a last-gasp panic because with a week till voting it looks like the Tories are getting in.

Examples already exist and not just in Sweden. A Red-Green alliance ruled Germany from 1998 to 2005, the Socialist Left and Greens governed France from 1997 to 2002 and in Norway a Red-Green coalition has ruled since 2005, winning re-election in 2009. There are fewer examples in the UK with Leeds Council being the only example of a formal arrangement that I could find.

The benefit for Labour speaks for itself. In the last election, had the Green votes been added to the Labour vote, Gordon Brown would have taken eight seats off the Tories and one from the Lib Dems* (see bottom of post). That may not sound like much but there is every chance that a formal agreement would bring more jaded Greens out to vote and the green credentials that support from Caroline Lucas’ party would provide would mean large swathes of Lib Dem votes could well move to Labour at the next election, more so than is already on its way of course.

The combination of Green votes pushing Labour candidates over the line, a boost in turnout from environmentalists and Lib Dems switching sides could well prove decisive in what should prove to be a very close election in 2015.

No candidate in most constituencies may seem like a high price to pay from a Green perspective but Labour has more to offer and less to lose so the imbalance is unavoidable. The attraction of being able to directly shape Government policy must be appealing for Greens who for so long have been on the fringes of political debate and were one to suggest that such a coalition could never make a difference then it is worth noting that had UKIP votes been added to the Conservative votes in each constituency in May 2010 then Cameron would be enjoying a majority right now. I suspect UKIP would be more than happy with 1 MP and no Euro-friendly Lib Dems in Government but, well, they’ve missed their chance.

And therein lies the risk at brushing off this option too cheaply. Caroline Lucas losing Brighton Pavilion in 2015 (or whenever the next election will be) is a nightmare result for the Greens from where they are now. The momentum lost from being frozen out of Westminster just when Climate Change becomes irreversible would be very damaging indeed.

There’s no reason why compromise and progress cannot be realised simultaneously and why a merger of the left shouldn’t deliver green shoots and ripe red fruit for all involved.

* Constituencies that Labour would have won in May 2010 if they had also claimed the Green vote in each constituency:-

Brighton Kemptown (from the Conservatives)
Brighton Pavilion (of course)
Broxtowe (from the Conservatives)
Cardiff North (from the Conservatives)
Hendon (from the Conservatives)
Hove (from the Conservatives)
Lancaster & Fleetwood (from the Conservatives)
Norwich South (from the Liberal Democrats)
Stroud (from the Conservatives)
Waveney (from the Conservatives)

Just how big IS Labour in Scotland?

Sep 26

Posted by Malc in Parties | 55 Comments

I don’t want this to be an attack piece. I’m no longer affiliated to any party and I’m not trying to make one look better (or bigger) than another. I’m simply trying to find out the truth of a matter. For that reason, I think this post fits with our remit, to think about Scotland and how it can be better (in this case, by finding out some truth.

So my question is this: how many members do the Labour party have in Scotland?

The reason I ask is that I listened to Harriet Harman at Saturday’s Labour leadership announcement proclaiming that the party had found 30,000 new members since May (UK-wide). I figured SOME of them must be in Scotland, so I looked at the figures published on Labour’s website regarding how their constituency parties voted in the leadership election. That page shows the first preference votes cast for each candidate from each CLP, the total votes cast within each CLP and the total number of ballot papers distributed to each CLP. Now, assuming Labour are democratic (and the electoral college system makes that a debatable point) then they will send a ballot paper to EVERY member in each CLP. Which means from the information given, you can work out how many members there are in each CLP… and how many there are in total.

So I took each of the 60 Scottish CLPs (divided by Westminster constituency – Orkney and Shetland excepted) and put them in a spreadsheet and simply totalled the numbers (see end for the numbers). By my reckoning – using Labour’s own published figures – this would make Labour’s membership in Scotland just 13,135. A far cry from the “near 20,000” they had 18 months ago. Indeed, that article, from January 2009, suggests Labour membership was 26,500 in 2000. If my figures are accurate (and I did put IF there, though if Labour’s OWN figures are accurate then I don’t see why they wouldn’t be) then two questions arise:

1)  Where has HALF of their membership gone in the last 10 years?

2)  Where is Scottish Labour’s share of the 30,000 new members since May, cited by Harriet Harman on Saturday?

Now, perhaps my working is wrong, I’ve got the wrong end of the stick from either what Harriet Harman said or from the CLP figures, but I really can’t see it. If someone from Labour wants to tell me how wrong I am – evidence will be required, naturally – I’d be happy to retract this. But to me, on these figures, it seems very much like Labour are a party distinctly in retreat in Scotland.

Labour holds its Ed in its hands

Sep 25

Posted by Jeff in Democracy, Parties | 7 Comments

So the results are in and Ed has pipped his big brother to the Labour leadership by 51% to 49%. Not that a small winning margin necessarily dilutes one’s margin. Deputy Prime Minister Clegg beat Chris Huhne by a tiny amount and he’s done alright for himself.

I suspect it is less the scoreline that will undermine Ed and more a cantankerous Balls as Shadow Chancellor, a man with an unswerving, unnerving belief in his own abilities who may struggle to shout his ego down and stop believing that he should really be in charge. Will those internal briefing reflexes kick in if it doesn’t work out with Ed in charge? We’ll have to wait and see.

Similarly, I can’t see David Miliband wanting to go through this ordeal only to remain as Shadow Foreign Minister for four long years. I wonder if big brother is considering the private sector.

On policy, the cheers from the Tory HQ will have been genuine but potentially misguided. Genuine because Ed’s assertion that Darling’s pre-election stance of halving the budget in 4 years is ‘just the beginning’ suggests a worryingly complacent return to increasing spending but misplaced because although the coalition-friendly media’s narrative is that Cameron has won the argument on cutting the deficit, we don’t have the detail of this year’s £9bn of cuts, let alone next year’s £41bn. If the public is thinking that Osborne isn’t so bad as Chancellor after all then they may be ignorant to the wave of pain that’s on its way.

What say the Greens? Well, I suspect that their already stifled voices will be even harder to hear now as Ed’s genuine green credentials are more than sufficient for a regrettably disinterested public.

Another aspect to this result is that strong union support for Ed suggests weak MP support. How quickly will Alan Johnson, Tom Harris, Jim Murphy etc slide their support for David as squarely behind Ed? I suspect Labour’s period of introspection will continue largely unabated.

The new Labour leader may have the unions on his side and the policies in his corner, but does he have his party at his back?

Holyrood 2011 – Policies or Personalities?

Sep 24

Posted by Jeff in Democracy, Elections, Parties | 2 Comments

With it now 93 days to Christmas, it is getting tantalisingly close to the day when we find out who has been a good girl or boy and suitably rewarded therein. I personally can’t wait for that bleary-eyed morning with a rotund, jovial man bearing his gifts of knowledge. Yes, that’s right, the Holyrood election 2011 is drawing ever nearer.

Above all else, the public deserves one thing from our representatives at election time and that is dividing lines. With the centre left a particularly crowded field it is difficult to see where, or even if, these dividing lines will open up between now and May. Indeed, I fear that the inertia that has crept in at Holyrood of late will result in personality rather than policies being the only real criterion for a disaffected public. That thought crystallised yesterday morning when I read this excerpt from The Herald’s coverage of the minimum pricing issue:

LibDem health spokesman Ross Finnie warned that there was a risk of an “entirely polarised debate” and that everything the SNP Government said on alcohol was “rubbish”.

There is no doubting that alcohol is a fight that Scotland is currently losing on many fronts; health-related, crime-related, education-related and even reputationally. It doesn’t take long for a Scotsman abroad to bear the brunt of a crass comment about his/her homeland and booze, with or without bumping into Prince Philip.

However, as Ross Finnie has pointed out, the two main parties are not close to reaching any agreement in this “polarised” debate and while the Lib Dem spokesman tries to portray himself as the reasonable alternative, he undermines that objective by bizarrely calling the Government’s proposals “rubbish” when they are, at the very least, reasonable and valid.

The Conservatives have their own valid argument, a libertarian approach that seems to revolve around some mythical ‘squaddie’ who has longed to come home from Afghanistan and tuck into some cut-price cider. The Greens, most impressively but inconspicuously of all, have looked at the SNP’s proposals, thought they looked fair enough and have been onboard ever since. Once again the silent heroes of the piece, if only there were more of them alongside Patrick and Robin.

Most parties have circled around this policy area, and many others, that they all agree need addressed but they have contrived to allow their personalities to get in the way of an optimal policy where everybody wins.

Will this be the template for the election campaign?

With the amount of money that Scotland will be given to spend over the coming years set to drop sharply, one can’t envisage that any of the parties will be able to pull together an attractive manifesto, not while balancing their numbers that is. This may well drag all commitments to a horribly vague middle-ground and leave the voter little choice.

There should be clear policy dividing lines on local taxation (SNP/Lib Dem – Local Income Tax, Greens – Land Value Tax, Tories/Labour – Council tax/to be decided) and minimum pricing if it remains an issue but I cannot envisage these topics being the main talking points of the election campaign. Cuts and jobs/economy are the main issues and all parties want less of the former and more of the latter. Not many dividing lines there.

One would expect the SNP to hold an advantage over the other parties with the mighty Salmond consistently leading polls that focus on party leaders. One could also argue that the SNP has had a relatively successful four years policy-wise so perhaps, with Labour so far ahead in the polls, I should not limit the crucial factor of the 2011 election to these two considerations.

The main personality question will depend on whether the main Opposition party, Labour, continues to oppose all spending cuts by the SNP Government or seeks to offer an alternative budget. To this end, January 2011 will be a crucial period as voting begins on the budget for 2011/12.

Was Labour to continue playing the politics of decrying every job loss, every project scrappage and every decrease in expenditure then the result of 2011 will depend on whether the public responds favourably to such a strategy.

Scotland would be best served by a substantive policy debate, not a squabbling contest built on inflated egos and unshakeable truculence, but I guess we’ll just wait and see which of the two awaits us.

Wither Internal Democracy

Sep 23

Posted by James in Governance, Parties | 15 Comments

Should a party’s annual conference make binding policy, and what role should an ordinary party member have in those decisions? Scotland’s main political parties appear to have come to very different answers to this question, which I will try to sum up below. Please bear in mind that I have only got direct experience of my own party in this respect, and will be happy to correct any factual errors below.

At one end, the Scottish Conservatives adopt an approach to policy-making which does not include any notion of internal democracy. There are no votes on policy matters at conference, even token ones, although early in the Cameron era his Built To Last document was submitted to a vote. Instead, the leadership determines policy: typically just the leader plus his or her kitchen cabinet. In this sense therefore, the Tory system is relatively close to that used by the Workers’ Party of Korea, who rarely bother with the rubber-stamp assembly beloved of other notionally leftwing personality cults. It’s at least honest, and to be fair, since 1998 the Tories have also let the membership choose their leaders from a shortlist of two by one member, one vote. This is clearly progress over the old approach – where MPs only got a vote – or the even older version – a leader “emerged” from the “magic circle”: i.e. it was carved up out of sight in a way that must have been great fun for those who regard politics as a full contact bloodsport.

Next along this sliding scale: Labour. Their procedures used to be highly democratic, including the formal setting of policy through motions such as the composites beloved of union bigwigs and loathed by the Millbank Tendency. This is all basically over now, with the leadership now setting all policy, not even the Blairite National Policy Forum. Some of the changes are relatively recent: until 2007 branch parties and trade unions could bring policy motions for a vote, even if the results would then be ignored by Labour Ministers. Having mentioned leadership above, personally I also deplore the way Labour allows people to join several “socialist societies” and unions and get several votes for a new leader, not to mention the way MPs both sift the candidates then get massively disproportional say in the outcome.

Then the Lib Dems. They have picked a particularly bizarre point on the spectrum from Stalinist control through to radical democracy. As I understand it, their conference is open to all members, all of whom can vote and bring forward motions. The problem is they mean nothing, especially when Lib Dem Ministers have got some selling out to do. This week the issue was so-called “free schools”, discussed here previously by Jeff. As the Lib Dem proponent of the motion said, “Just as the supermarket drives the corner shop out of business, so it will be with schools.” Danny Alexander, described by one Twitter wag as tree-promoter turned economics expert, then declared it would make no difference to policy. The same used to apply to Scottish Lib Dem conference when they were in government here. The membership said that GM crop trials should stop. Ross Finnie pressed on regardless. Curious. Not particularly liberal nor notably democratic.

Although it was put to me that this blogpost was designed to make Greens look good, the brief research I’ve done does show the SNP joining us at the actually democratic end of this spectrum. I must admit I know less about the SNP’s procedures, but I do know that, like the Greens, their conference does formally set policy, with members and branches free to bring motions. I also can’t find an instance of the leadership simply over-ruling them, although Mr Cochrane, the Last Black-Hearted Unionist, has got one. The party’s leadership procedures are posted online in their entirety, and seem pretty hard to fault. Like us, it’s one member, one vote, no special treatment for MPs or interest groups.

The open question is not one of principle, though – obviously it’s hard to make a principled objection to internal democracy. But are parties with actually democratic procedures more likely to survive internal tensions and evolve, or can that internal democracy make it harder to respond to changing circumstances? Does Labour’s “democratic centralism” actually help them more than they pay in demoralised activists, unable even to slow a swing to the right? Those decisions surely weren’t taken simply for self-interest: Peter Mandelson or someone else must have concluded that the open expression of democracy was more damaging than the alternative. My sense is that that move was wrong both strategically and in principle, but I don’t have any evidence for that view.

And is going into government something which ought to change a party’s approach? Did the Lib Dems stick to the policy set by conference except where it restricted Lib Dem Ministers’ activity? Will Labour return to a more democratic approach now they’re in opposition across the country? Have the SNP really managed to keep internal democracy while running the Scottish Government? There seems little point letting the membership set policy only when you’re in opposition, rather than when you might be able to make real change.

As a press officer for a democratic party, I certainly see one downside of the radically democratic approach, not that I’d change it. Any radical new policy development the party makes can’t be unveiled dramatically in March or April of an election year. It must instead be decided in public at our autumn conference. If only there was a way we could agree any policy changes democratically but still keep them under our hats until we could publicise them as effectively as possible.

Tags: , , , , ,