In Dunt’s recent book, ‘How Westminster Works— and Why it Doesn’t’, gives a pretty good summary of what’s wrong.
He believes that the most effective single change would be to introduce a system of Proportional Representation (PR) for the Commons. It is a necessary though not sufficient condition for competent government. The problem is that this will not happen unless a government supports the principle at least.
First Past The Post serves the selfish interests of the leaders of both Conservative and Labour. Conservatives have always understood that; they will not change. Although most Labour Party members want PR, Starmer has said ‘it is not a priority for [him]’. Although those close to him believe he is totally opposed, but wont explain why. If half what Oliver Eagleton in his book, “The Starmer Project: A Journey to the Right”, is to be believed, Starmer is the most dangerous politician in my 82 years of life. I note that Starmer has not sued for libel. I find it increasingly difficult to believe that under FPTP the leadership of any of the three main parties would ever genuinely put the good of the people, the economy and the interests of future generations ahead of their own selfish interests.
Both Sunak and Starmer have recently said that our politics is broken, but of course have not suggested that PR could be part of the solution. The only chance of getting PR is that there is a hung parliament in which the Lib Dems seek a confidence and supply deal with whichever major party undertakes to take meaningful action on PR. If neither party would make that commitment then all Lib Dem MPs should be given a free vote on everything, though there would be a convenor who would try to broker consensus where possible. This solution implies that no Lib Dem MP should accept any government position, even that of Parliamentary Private Secretary.
If the principle of PR is accepted, there are a number of steps to go through before PR is implemented. The system of PR has to be agreed, as does a scheme of constituencies, and finally there has to be legislation. I realise that PR is unlikely to be introduced any time soon. To that end I offer a possible stop gap solution, that of open primaries.
When in the run up to the 2010 election the Tory MP for Totnes resigned, Cameron had the bright idea of having an Open Primary to select a replacement. This exercise in which over 25% of registered votes took part, resulted in the selection and subsequent election of local GP Sarah Wollaston. She remained the MP until early 2019 when she resigned from the Conservative Party and landed up in the Lib Dems. In the 2019 election she was defeated by the (new) Tory. In preparation for the 2024 election an open primary is being organised in the newly named constituency of South Devon, amongst the progressive parties to find the best challenger to the Tory.
Could this be repeated elsewhere? My constituency, South Dorset has been Tory since 2010, but is now predicted to swing back to Labour next year. When Labour HQ realise the seat is winnable they will ensure that a right winger is selected. There can be no question of an open primary.
A Labour government under Starmer is likely to be worse than another Tory government. I conclude there is very little scope for open primaries.
We desperately need proportional representation as all those likely to read this post will agree., but it matters which system. In a book written by the late Enid Lakeman [1] at the time of the formation of the Liberal/SDP Alliance, a time when we may have had change[2], she distinguished between systems designed to give ‘fair shares to parties’ and those (notably STV) which ‘put votes in control’. AMS is an example of the former. STV is the prime example of the latter.
Until 1976 STV was the only PR system discussed in Britain, after which AMS was introduced and was promoted within the Labour Party [3]. The Make Votes Matter Alliance has avoided choosing between the two systems, instead devising and agreeing a Good Systems Agreement. While the Lib Dems continue to support STV, the need for support from within the Labour Party meant that AMS could not be excluded.
The adoption of AMS is only rational if voters and members of political parties understand what the parties stand for and trust their leaders. However both Tories and Labour have been captured by their right wings. I will not comment further on the Tories, but I believe the Labour Party has problems. Starmer’s style of leadership appears to be a mixture a mixture of deceit and unprincipled diktat.[4] This is something which the supposedly left of centre Guardian appears to be ignorant of [5]. Defenders of Starmer’s style of leadership would no doubt argue that the left is unrealistic; we are in fact governed by the propaganda of most mainstream media which still believes in neoliberalism.
Trust in parties in their current form is rapidly diminishing; should not the people be trusted? I suggest that the MVM Alliance revisit the Good Systems Agreement particularly in relation to point 6, Voter Choice. As currently worded it sets a very low bar [6]. It could be reworded to acknowledge that STV gives much more choice that any version of MMP (including AMS).
If STV is best for the country and its people, it will not suit the political elites. Increasingly, our ‘leaders’ have grown up in the Westminster bubble and are motivated increasingly by self interest, greed, self conceit, and the lust for power for its own sake.
The best chance for reform is if we have a hung parliament and the Lib Dems offer Labour a confidence and supply deal in exchange for action on PR. Starmer will not acknowledge that possibility publicly before the election; he aims to win an absolute majority. If in the event of a hung parliament Starmer comes to terms, well and good. If not a very unstable situation will arise, which may not favour Labour.
Another reason for being cautious about adopting AMS is that it is too similar to German MMP. There have been concerns about the state of German democracy.[7]. Although there is no clear evidence that MMP is to blame, many opponents of PR in Britain cite Germany.
Notes:
1. Lakeman. E, ‘Power to Elect: The Case for Proportional Representation’, Heinemann, 1982
2. In early 1982 the Liberal/SDP alliance briefly polled at 33% which could have given them an absolute majority. Then the Jingoism of the Falklands war intervened. Thatcher was saved.
3. Prior to 1976 STV was the only proportional system considered for Britain. All the evidence submitted to the Hansard Society Commission of that year was on that basis. However following the deadline for submission the secretary of the Commission, Miles Hudson evidently decided that STV was too threatening to the political elites. He rushed round Paris, Bonn and Dublin, concocted a simplified version of MMP, which he called AMS and sold it to all members of the commission except Liberal peer Nancy Seear. Hudson’s scheme was soon abandoned but the name AMS stuck.
4. Starmer’s deceit is exemplified by his undermining of Corbyn and the 10 pledges he made in his campaign for the party leadership, all of which were abandoned within a year. Since then he and his right wingers have (mostly successfully) sought to exclude all left wingers from selection list for choosing parliamentary candidates. This is regularly reported by SKWAWKBOX.
5. Martin Kettle, 17th May 2023, “Defying political orthodoxy, the leader believes he can win an election outright by reuniting his party’s working- and middle-class wings .” https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/17/keir-starmer-vision-new-labour-20-election
6. Point 6 of the Good Systems Agreement reads 6 Voter Choice: “Good systems allow voters a wide choice of parties, and allow voters to express preferences for people rather than just parties. Any lists used must be democratically determined” By contrast, under STV voters can rank candidates on any criteria, party, gender, race… or position on a particular issue. Parties would have an incentive to field a wide selection of candidates, but a candidate not selected by party A could stand as ‘Independent Party A’.
If we are to have a fairer and more compassionate society, where most people have enough, and where the interests of future generations are to be given priority, then we have to challenge the ruling orthodoxy and that means there being an effective opposition. We do not have this at present. Instead we have a fake opposition under Sir Keir Starmer. The mess we are in is not of course not all down to Starmer. The dominance of neoliberal economics, seized upon by Thatcher and loved by billionaires has much to do with it, as has our broken political system.
I first review ‘The Starmer Project: A Journey to the Right’, by Oliver Eagleton, pointing out a glaring omission – the lack of reference to proportional representation (PR). Then I talk about the fight for PR, how I think it could open up politics, and why I think Starmer hates it. Finally I discuss how his resistance might be be broken down. If we don’t get PR the future is bleak indeed.
Starmer the Lawyer
Starmer grew up in a Labour supporting household, and in his youth was a socialist and joined the Labour Party Young Socialists. He chose to follow a legal career, and was called to the bar in 1987. In 1990 he co Founded Doughty Street Chambers, established by thirty liberal barristers. Also he was elected secretary of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers. This society seems to focus on fighting individual abuses of power and miscarriages of justice. Starmer wished to steer it towards legislative fixes such as the Human Rights Act, which although good in themselves were not enough. Starmer himself continued to fight injustice including pro bono support for the McLibel defendants. In October 2003 members of the of the Firle Bonfire Society launched a campaign of intimidation against Travellers which involved arson. Starmer was asked to advise on prosecution, but surprisingly advised against
Throughout his time as a lawyer he has exhibited a curious blend of progressive litigation and service to British state. In 2003 he was appointed as advisor to the Northern Irish Policing Board, but failed to heed Sinn Fein complaints about the violent behaviour of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which was hostile to the peace process.
On the domestic front, both before and after he was appointed DPP in July 2008. He systematically, favoured the police over their victims, did not seem to think that peaceful protest was ever justified, and so advocated the harshest possible penalties. He showed bias against rape victims. He was content to gaol benefit recipients who had mistakenly reported over claims to the local authority rather than the DWP.
On the international front he sought to impose common standard of law on other nations – allegedly to combat national security threats. For this purpose he worked alongside the Foreign Office and intelligence services. He also worked with US attorney general, Eric Holder, and the CPS’s efforts were bankrolled by the Obama administration. He thus ignored the principle of separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive.
When the autistic Gary Mckinnon broke into Pentagon files in search of information on UFOs, Starmer sought to extradite him, and it was only Theresa May who was then Home Secretary who blocked it. McKinnon never made public what he found and the Americans ought to have been grateful for the weakness in their security being revealed with no serious consequences.
Throughout his time as DPP, Starmer sought to ingratiate himself with Rupert Murdoch.
Starmer the Politician
Towards the end of Starmer’s term as DPP, Ed Miliband ran into Tory Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, told him Starmer was thinking of entering politics, and asked him whether he would be a good choice. Grieve replied, ‘Yes he would be outstanding’. Starmer was offered the safe seat of Holborn and St Pancras which was being vacated by Frank Dobson. Labour HQ had to delay the process of selecting Starmer as the candidate to replace Dobson as he (Starmer) had been a member of the party for less than a year. He then sailed to victory in the 2015 general election. Miliband resigned the party leadership and Starmer was invited to stand, but he declined citing lack of experience.
Corbyn stood and was a surprise winner, in a landslide victory, having just scraped enough support from the parliamentary party. He was convincingly supported by members, but was manoeuvred into appointing Starmer to the post of shadow Brexit secretary. There Corbyn’s problems started. Starmer made use of the fact that most of the parliamentary party were against him, and threatening to resign. While Starmer’s policies differed in almost all respects from Corbyn’s, he took a different line pretending a loyalty to Corbyn which he did not honour. He continually disagreed in public with the official line having promised to defend it.
Brexit was the big issue of the day The day after the European referendum in 2016, Jeremy Corbyn called for the immediate invocation of Article 50 – the two-year notice to leave the EU – much quicker than even Theresa May wanted. Although I personally voted Remain and think that leaving the customs union was disastrous, I believe that the way Starmer set about attacking Corbyn’s position was inexcusable. He would promise to speak in favour of Leave and then renege. He would fail to send copies of his speeches, and he would misrepresent Corbyn’s own views. Had Corbyn felt more secure he should at the very least have chucked him off the shadow cabinet. As it was Corbyn was forced to modify his position and this was probably a factor in Labour’s poor showing in the 2019 election.
In the 2020 Labour Leadership contest, Starmer made ten pledges which I think aped the policies of the party under Corbyn. However Starmer had reneged on all of these by Jan 2021. These are all listed at the end of this post. Did he ever intend to honour any of them?
Itould have a bleak future under First Past the Post.
Starmer as Leader
In the 2020 Labour Leadership contest, Starmer made ten pledges which I think aped the policies of the party under Corbyn. However Starmer had reneged on all of these by Jan 2021. These are all listed at the end of this post. Did he ever intend to honour any of them?
It was hoped that Starmer’s leadership would be a unifying factor. The reality is that Starmer, General Secretary, David Evans and other right wingers, by manipulating the rules have ruthlessly persecuted left wingers. expelling them or neutralising them in various ways. Left wingers face the horrible choice of fighting a losing battle for justice within the party, or leaving and forming a new party which would have a bleak future under First Past the Post.
Starmer claims to be rooting out antisemitism, but it seems he believes that anyone who is not a Zionist is antisemitic. He has come down especially hard on Jewish Voice for Labour who are left wing and dare to show support for Palestinians. Who is he to decide who is or is not a Jew? Does he really want Britain to be ruled by the Board of Deputies of British Jews who do not represent the majority.
In his speech at Labour conference he announced some ambitious policies including
- Nationalising the railways
- Getting 1.5million people on the housing ladder
- Reversing the Tory tax cut on high earners, and spending it on the NHS
- Zero-carbon energy system by 2030
- Cleaning up the water industry with severe penalties for failure
This looks good but:
- He is only proposing nationalising rail services as franchises come up for renewal.
- Is extending home ownership benefiting those in most need?
- Reversing the Tory tax cut on high earners, and spending it on the NHS. Yes that’s obvious
- Zero-carbon energy system by 2030? Exactly how is this to be achieved?
- Cleaning up the water industry with severe penalties for failure? This will require massive investment by the water companies for no financial return. Shareholders will sue. Does he have the stomach for this?
I see no reference to tackling the cost of living crisis or tackling the obscene level of inequality. So far his opposition has been confined to criticising scandals and corruption, but not policy.
However most of this depends on the economy being run properly, and I see no evidence that either Starmer or Rachel Reeves have any real understanding of economics other than the neoliberal orthodoxy pedalled by right wing media (including the BBC). but not supported by serious economists. This might not matter if they listened to others, but I fear that Starmer in particular, is too proud to do so. As an example the Bank of England is raising interest rates in order to cure inflation, but this only cures demand lead inflation, not externally imposed inflation including Brexit. This inappropriate; the rules must be changed. Labour should listen to advice on this.
.
The Fight for Proportional Representation
Eagleton makes no reference to proportional representation (PR). This is a serious omission.
People have been campaigning for PR since 19th century. It is only recently that most voters have seen as affecting them.
The most effective campaign for PR is Makes Votes Matter (MVM). The common arguments for PR are, that it allows seats in parliament to match votes, that fewer votes are wasted, and that countries that have adopted it do better. Little is said about the fact that PR is the only way of breaking away from the current cartel of Tories and Starmer style Labour.
Support in the Labour party for PR has been growing. At the 2021 conference most members voted for it, but unions did not support it. Since then key unions have had a change of heart, and at the 2022 conference a motion supporting PR was passed.
However, in an interview before the vote with the Observer, Sir Keir Starmer said there would be no instance where we would see him back a change. Asked if Labour’s manifesto would include pledges on electoral reform, he said: “No, it’s not a priority for me.” Not a priority for him, and his right wing MPs in their cosy seats. I believe they would bring the country to its knees rather than allow PR. And now left wing Unison president Andrea Egan has been expelled from the party on the slenderest. If the PR vote is rerun next year it could go against PR because Unison will reverse its policy.
Starmer’s latest con trick to divert us from PR for the Commons is to promote reform of the House of Lords which compared with the Commons under First Past the Post is a haven of sanity.
The Battle for Holborn and St Pancras
Starmer does not want PR and no argument that it is good for the country is likely to influence him. Only his self interest counts. Starmer is the most dangerous politician I have encountered in my 81 years of life. Tories have done evil things but you generally know where they are coming from. Starmer has shown he is never to be trusted. The only hope for us is that he is faced with a credible threat that disaffected Labour members and ex members will combine with Lib Dems and Greens to defeat him at the next election, facing up to the possibility that the seat may go Tory. Those who think this is not a possibility should read up on the Bermondsey bye-election of 1983, in which the two Labour factions spent all their energies on attacking each other, thus allowing the Liberal Simon Hughes to win with a massive majority.
I hope he would give way and put PR in the manifesto. Otherwise Britain will never come out of recession, and England will be a much nastier place.
ANNEX – STARMER’S LEADERSHIP ELECTION PLEDGES
1. Economic justice
Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners, reverse the Tories’ cuts in corporation tax and clamp down on tax avoidance, particularly of large corporations. No stepping back from our core principles. – abandoned Feb 2020
2. Social justice
Abolish Universal Credit and end the Tories’ cruel sanctions regime. Set a national goal for wellbeing to make health as important as GDP; Invest in services that help shift to a preventative approach. Stand up for universal services and defend our NHS. Support the abolition of tuition fees and invest in lifelong learning. = abandoned March 2020
3. Climate justice
Put the Green New Deal at the heart of everything we do. There is no issue more important to our future than the climate emergency. A Clean Air Act to tackle pollution locally. Demand international action on climate rights. – abandoned summer 2020
4. Promote peace and human rights
No more illegal wars. Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act and put human rights at the heart of foreign policy. Review all UK arms sales and make us a force for international peace and justice. – abandoned Sept 2020
5. Common ownership
Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing in our NHS, local government and justice system. – abandoned Sep 2020 (CBI conference)
6. Defend migrants’ rights
Full voting rights for EU nationals. Defend free movement as we leave the EU. An immigration system based on compassion and dignity. End indefinite detention and call for the closure of centres such as Yarl’s Wood. – Aug 2020
7. Strengthen workers’ rights and trade unions
Work shoulder to shoulder with trade unions to stand up for working people, tackle insecure work and low pay. Repeal the Trade Union Act. Oppose Tory attacks on the right to take industrial action and the weakening of workplace rights. – abandoned Jan 2921
8. Radical devolution of power, wealth and opportunity
Push power, wealth and opportunity away from Whitehall. A federal system to devolve powers – including through regional investment banks and control over regional industrial strategy. Abolish the House of Lords – replace it with an elected chamber of regions and nations. – abandoned Jan 2021
9. Equality
Pull down obstacles that limit opportunities and talent. We are the party of the Equal Pay Act, Sure Start, BAME representation and the abolition of Section 28 – we must build on that for a new decade. – abandoned summer 2020
10. Effective opposition to the Tories
Forensic, effective opposition to the Tories in Parliament – linked up to our mass membership and a professional election operation. Never lose sight of the votes ‘lent’ to the Tories in 2019. Unite our party, promote pluralism and improve our culture. Robust action to eradicate the scourge of antisemitism. Maintain our collective links with the unions. – abandoned Oct 2020
As a Green Party member, I am delighted that Caroline Lucas has been appointed a vice president of the European Movement.
Our relationship with Europe is one of several key issues which are not obviously Right versus Left issues. Over decades, there has been disagreement on Europe within each of our two major parties. The fact that at present the Conservative Party has been captured by its extreme is very alarming. It is now blindingly obvious that our withdrawal from the customs union was disastrous but the Brexiteers are never going to admit it. There is a very restricted choice of possible replacements for Truss and none of them will admit their mistake. I believe that under FPTP the views of the European Movement will never get an adequate hearing. We must have Proportional Representation.
On current showing Labour would win the next election, but will this solve anything? In July Starmer made it very clear that he would not contemplate rejoining the customs union (for example). He has not attempted to unite his party. In fact he has done all he can to neutralise or expel all those who do not support his right wing policies. Many have left the party making it much more dependent on billionaire donors. He does not appear to have any policies to address the situation we are in. Worse still, he will not support his members’ vote to support proportional representation. He says that it is not a priority for him, and that it will not be in his manifesto. He has no intention of cooperating with any other ‘progressive party’. He is thus preventing any other party ever having a say in government. His is a fake opposition; he is part of a governing cartel with the Conservatives – a dictatorship in all but name. He must be removed.
It seems inevitable that the economy will collapse this winter.
These views are my own and do not necessarily reflect Green Party policy
David Smith
As trust in politics declines, so does party membership. This allows partries to be captured by extreme or unrepresentative elements which can break or change the party’s rules to their benefit.
Party leadership elections have a huge influence on politics, but there is no mention of these in the Cabinet Manual which was suppose to record the state of the constitution in 2011 whan it was published. There is an ambiguous clause,
“2.18 Where a Prime Minister chooses to resign from his or her individual position at a time when his or her administration has an overall majority in the House of Commons, it is for the party or parties in government to identify who can be chosen as the successor.“
Do the words, ‘the party or parties in government’ mean the parliamentary parties or the ‘wider’ parties? In advising the Queen to appoint Truss as his successor, Boris Johnson adopted the latter interpretation thus making Tory backbenchers very unhappy. Effectively, the approximately 160,000 members chose Truss as the new PM. Two months were wasted in choosing the new Conservative leader, a choice that is likely to be overturned by events very soon.
Things are done differently in Eire. The constitution provides that, “The President shall, on the nomination of Dáil Éireann, appoint the Taoiseach, that is, the head of the Government or Prime Minister.”
A Fine Gael leadership election was triggered in May 2017, when Enda Kenny resigned as party leader. Voting began by members of Fine Gael and Young Fine Gael on 29 May 2017. On 2 June – less than a week later – Leo Varadkar was announced as the victor, beating rival Simon Coveney. With Fine Gael being the governing party at the time, this election effectively appointed a new Taoiseach for Ireland.
Varadkar became Fine Gael leader immediately upon the announcement of the result, but did not immediately assume the office of Taoiseach. On 13 June at a Fine Gael parliamentary party meeting, he announced that the runner up Simon Coveney would be appointed the deputy leader of the party. Varadkar was appointed by the President to the office of Taoiseach following his nomination by a vote in Dáil Éireann on 14 June.
If things worked in similar fashion here, Liz Truss would have known she faced a vote of the House before being appointed PM, and may have modified her approach.
It is interesting to speculate what would happen if the King were to announce that the next time he was called upon to appoint a new PM he would ask the resigning PM what evidence she had for claiming her choice would secure the support of the House; had it been confirmed by a vote of the House?
If the performance of a government proved so disastrous that the House of \Commons felt it should be kicked out within days, this would not be possible under current conventions. A motion of no confidence could be passed but a party leadership election would be triggered, wasting another two months. In the meantime the House would descend into chaos. If the Irish rules were in force then the House could choose a new PM, and the King would have to honour that choice.
But we are not going to take any lessons from the paddies. We are British and will go to hell in our own fashion!
Meanwhile, although under Corbyn’s leadership the Labour party had close to half a million members, that number has dramatically reduced under Starmer. Not only that but the right wing of the party seems to be determined to neutralise or expel as many left wingers as it can as evidenced by the Al Jezeera exposé ‘Labour Files’, and repeated reports from Skwawkbox. So what are right’s motives? It seems that they are not prepared to face down hostile and dishonest right wing media, and will not upset billionaire donors. Starmer is not offering any real opposition. He is not challenging the Tories over their attack on democracy; he is not challenging the unacceptable level of inequality in income levels and wealth and is not challenging neoliberal economic thinking which academic economists do not accept. Finally by not supporting proportional reprsentation he is effectively denying any other party from offering real opposition.
Britain is supposed to be a democracy, but is it? I submit that it is now a cartel.
For most of the 20th century there was a simple form of democracy in which two main parties competed for power. Governments were mostly composed of a single party When the government was defeated in an election the new party of government tended to reverse much of what its predecessor had done. A hung parliament was seen as a problem. This system has been propped up by our First Past the Post voting system (FPTP)
Up until the first world war the two main parties were Conservative and Liberal. During the war there was a coalition, but when this broke up in 1922 the Liberals were fatally weakened and the Labour party took over its role. The Labour Party’s heyday was after the 2nd world war when it implemented the Beveridge report, including the NHS.
With the advent of Thatcher, Labour policy under Michael Foot became very left wing, way to the left of Corbyn, and in 1981 the ‘gang of four’ left to form the SDP. They quickly formed an alliance with the Liberals. In the next few months the Alliance polled 35% and some forecast that in those circumstances FPTP would work for it and they could win an absolute majority in an election.
Then came the jingoism of the Falklands campaign; support for the Alliance halved virtually over night. Thatcher was saved.
During the 1980s, partly due to Thatcher’s deal with Murdoch, right wing media became increasingly dominant. In addition globalisation was taking off. Trade deals have favoured corporations rather than the nation states who are the formal parties to the deal.. Any government or party that sets out to adopt even mildly socialist measures, ( i.e. putting people before profit), will be attacked without mercy.
In order to win the 1997 election Tony Blair had to persuade the party to drop clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution, (which called for common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange); and develop a close relationship with Murdoch.
The reasons for Labour’s poor showing in the 2019 general election were complex. It is far from clear that it was because left wing policies were advocated.
During his bid for the leadership Starmer accepted large donations from very wealthy donors. During the campaign he made 10 pledges, all of which he is accused of having broken. He continues to rely on wealthy donors rather than rebuild membership. He makes no attempt to unite the party but uses dodgy tactics to suppress left wingers. He downplays any suggestion that he might cooperate in any way with any other progressive party, as the mainstream media would attack him for it. At the last conference most members supported proportional representation and the major unions are now coming on board, but Starmer won’t come out in favour, He thinks he can win the next election. Maybe he can but he will quickly be blamed for the mess the Tories have created. But in any case his donors will not let him pursue progressive policies.
The two and a bit party system under FPTP requires that the two main parties are broad churches. In fact both have been captured by their right wings. They are in a cartel. Most people probably think that a cartel is about price fixing and other anti competitive practices, but there is a broader definition of cartels: “A group of parties, factions, or nations united in a common cause; a bloc”
This cartel, supported by First Past the Post, shares power, believes in unregulated markets, accepts there will always be winners and losers (stuff the losers), and only pretends to address climate change and the cost of living crisis.
So long as Starmer remains party leader, general elections will be a sham. He must come out for proportional representation and resign. He is not serving his country.
Should the House of Lords Establish a Committee to Monitor Adherence to the Nolan Principles?
We need to counter political lying, propaganda, and secrecy.
Political lying and propaganda is now so rife that most voters are in no position to make informed choices. especially if they rely on mainstream media owned by very wealthy people whose interests lie in preserving a corrupt system. Heterodox views do not get a look in. Most of those who sense that the current orthodox views of austerity and neoliberalism are wrong have neither the language nor the knowledge to challenge them. As life gets tougher for most, they do not have the time to learn from other sources.
Peter Oborne has spent much of his time as a journalist in exposing political lying. He has worked for various newspapers including the Spectator, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, from which he resigned in 2015. Since then he has written for Middle East Eye and Open Democracy. He has written two books on political lying, ‘The Rise of Political Lying’, 2005, and ‘The Assault on Truth’, 2020. During the Leveson enquiry he floated the idea of a law against political lying. In the run up to the 2019 election he set up a file of ‘Johnson Lies’. Later in 2021(?) he set up a searchable database, though I cannot find it.
Oborne has written about how media and government have collaborated in the manufacture and manipulation of news, thus giving newspaper editors more power than parliament. This must cease, but there is a problem which Oborne has failed to recognize. Most of the mainstream media is owned by very wealthy people who pursue their own interests rather than those of the majority. When Bannock was leader of the Labour Party he suffered a deluge of personal attacks, a mixture of lies, half truths and innuendo. It was pure propaganda; no evidence was offered of Kinnock’s alleged failings. It was to protect Blair from a similar fate that Alistair Campbell adopted a manipulative and aggressive relationship with the media [see note 2]. This of course is no long term solution to addressing media bias. Other means must be found – quite a challenge.
I have thought about possible legislation to establish a criminal offence of political lying, but I have rejected it for the following reasons:
- No government elected under First Past the Post would enact it
- It would be too limited in scope. Half truths, omissions, secrecy etc. probably do more harm than direct lies.
- It would be impossible to enforce. It might start as a private prosecution. Even if the CPS did not call it in there would be an impossibly long wait for court dates, given the mess the courts system is in. If the CPS called it in, how likely is it that it would be seen as in the ‘public interest’ to pursue it?
It could be left to civil society organisations to publicize the failings of politicians and media, but that would require mainstream media, who are often guilty themselves, to cover this.
The other approach is for a parliamentary committee to use parliamentary privilege to report lying and propaganda. There is the Committee of Privileges, a Commons select committee. This committee considers only matters referred to it by the House. Current enquiries are,
- Should select committees have more power to summon witnesses? This is still in progress. and
- Has the Prime Minister ‘s behaviour over ‘partygate’ amounted to contempt of the House? This enquiry is accepting evidence up to 29th July.
It seems unlikely that any House of Commons elected under First Past the Post would establish a committee with more wide ranging powers.
There is a somewhat independent Committee on Standards in Public Life which advises the standards expected of public servants (including the Nolan principles – see below); but it does not investigate individual allegations of misconduct, or the general level of adherence to the principles.
However I see no reason why the House of Lords could not set up its own ‘Committee on the Adherence to the Nolan Standards’ without consulting the Commons. Standards are not – or should not be – a matter for politics. No matter how it is composed, it IS the second chamber, and as such, has responsibilities for the good functioning of the system of governing. Such a committee would take evidence from civil society organizations, which hopefully would protect them from subsequent libel action.
I believe that strict adherence to the Nolan Principles would eliminate much of the casual corruption that has arisen.
I argue also that two current practices could be interpreted as contrary to the Nolan principles:
- ‘Preferential lobbying’: Some lobbyists prefer to argue their case in private if it is controversial or unpopular. They could for example make political donations in exchange for a favorable decision. It would be difficult to obtain irrefutable evidence that private lobbying has occurred, but a sudden change in policy might be a strong indication that it has. A committee using parliamentary privilege could safely comment.
- ‘Client Media: Selected media are given greater access in return for favourable coverage in the media. Examples are Thatcher’s deal with Murdoch 1981, but only revealed 30 years later (though doubtless suspected at the time), and Murdoch’s support for Blair before the 1997 election following Blair’s attendance at a News Corporation conference in 1995.
The Nolan principles do not cover the behaviour of the media when not acting in collusion with government. They must be allowed to express opinions in line with editorial policy. However sometimes media launch very personal and defamatory attacks on individual political leaders. The victims do not usually sue for libel even when there is a clear case. I believe the committee would be entitled to pass judgement in such cases. It could invite the offending editor to explain the reasons for their views, preferably in person or in writing. If no such explanation were offered then the committee could suggest that the paper concerned is not a reliable source of info.
If such a committee were formed, its members can expect to be vilified, It will require some courage. It will have achieved nothing unless there is adequate coverage. It would need a substantial social media effort to support this.
END NOTES
1. The Committee on Standards in Public Life promotes a code of conduct for those in public life called the Seven Principles of Public Life or the Nolan Principles
- Selflessness – Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
- Integrity – Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organizations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
- Objectivity – Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.
- Accountability – Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.
- Openness – Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.
- Honesty – Holders of public office should be truthful
- Leadership – Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour and treat others with respect. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.
These Seven Principles apply to anyone who works as a public office holder including:
- those elected or appointed to public office, nationally or locally,
- those appointed to work in the civil service, local government, the police, courts and probation services, Non Departmental Public Bodies, and in the health, education, social and care services, and
- those in the private sector delivering public services.
2. For media attacks on Kinnock, and Alistair Campbell’s reaction, see:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/jun/24/mondaymediasection.politics
3. The author grew up in a Conservative household. The party was very different to now. It was not until Thatcher was elected party leader that he realized how much politics mattered. From then on he has campaigned for Proportional Representation and other constitutional changes. He is now a member of the Green Party in Dorset, though the views expressed in this note may not reflect party policy.
He has been inspired by the work of Peter Oborne, and wishes to acknowledge the contribution to this note of Ed Straw (who has advised governments as a partner in pwc, and subsequently written extensively on the reformation of government), and Anthony Tuffin who has supported the STV system of Proportional Representation for many many years. Any defects in this note are his, not theirs.
This is a commentary on the paper ‘Constitutional reform: Sustaining a viable United Kingdom through the 21st century’,
It is downloadeable at https://consoc.org.uk/publications/constitutional-reform-sustaining-a-viable-united-kingdom-through-the-21st-century-by-thomas-legg-stephen-green-and-martin-donnelly/
This paper sets out some thinking on reform that I believe is shared by many and is a very useful summary of that thinking. However I believe that more radical thinking is needed and recommend that anyone serious about reform should study the thinking of systems thinker and ex partner at pwc Ed Straw. go to his website at https://www.edstraw.com/.
In the meantime I would to comment on some points in the Reform Group paper. I focus on Part 2 – Solutions:
Para 44.1: It needs to be entrenched as well as codified.
Para 50.1 The purists presumably rely on the 1688 (or 1689) English Bill of Rights which is only ordinary legislation passed in very different circumstances.
Para 55: should not be wholly elected.There should be some members appointed by the House of Lords appointments commission using criteria set by the House as a whole. Straw suggests they should have a roles in objectively judging the effectveness of government. There is an argument that the rest should be indirectly elected by lower levels of government as members of the Bundesrat are elected.
Para 56: AMS was chosen by the Blair government because the Labour party wanted a system in which they, rather than voters had more control. Party dogma is part of the problem it should be STV.
Along with most suggestions as to what should be included in a constitution the paper fails to mention features that any modern constitution should include including ending the blame culture and ensuring that mainstream media tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
If a plane crashes there is a thorough investigation of the causes; it is not always put down to pilot error. But for example if someone dies as a result of failings in the dwp someone is blamed rather than the root causes established. Inadequacies in systems and procedures are not corrected.
Corporate media cannot be prevented from expressing opinions favourable to their owners but they should distinguish fact from opinion; they should not be allowed to base their opinions on false ‘facts’. The BBC should be neutral and tell the whole truth; government should have no hand in its governance.
The British government is slowly but surely throttling what is left of our democracy. We protest at each new encroachment, but our power to protest peacefully is rapidly being taken away. We are on the back foot we need a clear vision of how we should be governed. We need to believe that a better future is possible in which the world can live within planetary boundaries and that Britain, and England in particular can avoid becoming a failed state. We need a vision of what Britain could be and part of that vision is a proper constitution.
Ideally we need a representative citizens’ assembly, but there are two problems: such an assembly needs much preparation, and the current government obviously will not support such an exercise. I believe that a few of us can create a vision to feed into an assembly once it is formed.
We have to hope that as the cloak of Covid19 wears thin, people will realise just what a mess Johnson’s version of Brexit is, and that a ‘progressive alliance’ can beat the Tories. But simply being anti Tory is not enough to unite the alliance for long. We must set out the vision; we have to show that politics can be done in a different way. Voting reform will help but in my opinion while it attracts widespread support that support is headly passionate.
I have thought a lot about the vision. My latest draft can be downloaded here.
( https://moneyversusdemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/writtenconstitutionpproposal-d5.doc )
Although I am far from satisfied I feel I have done as much as I can without criticism. Also at age 80 and in poorish health I do not think I can coordinate efforts effectively. Could Unlock Democracy (team@unlockdemocracy.org.uk) or Compass (info@compassonline.org.uk) do that? Please contact them if you think so.
But by all means copy me in on dhs658@hotmail.co.uk.
David Smith
Updated 10th April
You can see a draft Political Lying Bill at ( https://moneyversusdemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/political-lying-bill-doc-version.doc )
(Note that inter alia, it deals with lies by foreign owned media)
This Bill was inspired by Peter Oborne’s latest book ‘’The Assault on Truth: Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and the Emergence of a New Moral Barbarism’, published in February 2021.
At the Leveson enquiry in 2012, Oborne said that directors of publicly listed companies could go to jail if they make false or misleading statements on shares and assets. “Whereas politicians I have noticed, freely make entirely false statements about how they are conducting themselves and why one should vote for them,” Oborne added.
He said it would very healthy if such a criminal sanction could be applied to politicians and journalists.
Lord Justice Leveson put it to him that such a draconian penalty would have “a chilling effect upon journalism”. However, in view of the vast increase in political lying and propaganda since, Leveson’s view might have changed.
This is a strict liability bill, like manslaughter; intent to lie does not have to be proved. But unlike manslaughter those who make a false statement can retract and hence avoid penalty.
No majority government elected under First Past the Post, and our chaotic uncontrolled constitution, would give any Political Lying bill time. It would require radical constitutional change, possibly triggered by the collapse of society arising from government incompetence and corruption. However the Bill set out above just might embarrass the government sufficiently to improve their behaviour. Given the collapse of any morals in poictics democracy is now virtually impossible.
It is important to note that the Bill is not intended to censor opinion; it is only alleged facts that are addressed.
I am not commenting on the detailed wording. I am sure there are points that could be improved but it is the general principle I want to get across.
Money and Democracy 