If I was happy with the state of British politics I would not want to change it.
There has been a long history of two party politics in Britain. whether it was the "King's Party" versus the Puritans or the Whigs and the Tories, Liberals and Conservatives, and later Labour and Conservative, the tradition, indeed the very structure of the British Parliament is based on a division into two groups: Aye versus No.
The result was that British political parties have had to be large coalitions. Blairites and Communists coexist in Labour and Social Conservatives and Libertarians coexist amongst the Tories. Power alternates between two parties and they survive in power depending on the irritation factor of the electorate.
The pendulum of politics swings, and no one group achieves dominance- it was not a bad way to protect democracy. The problem is that the political duopoly has smothered ideas and genuine debate. The parties are afraid of dissent and can expel members who will not conform. There is no other way to take a direct role in the political process except through a party- there is but one independent in the House of Commons (though- as cross-benchers- more in the House of Lords).
Increasingly few people are prepared to accept the political compromises that the bi-party system requires. Membership of all political parties has fallen, and increasingly citizens have chosen to participate through single issue groups. For example, membership of the RSPB is greater than the combined membership of all political parties. Electoral participation rates have been in long term decline for decades.
So, the swing of the political pendulum, if that is what the recovery in the Conservatives turns out to be, may not be of such dramatic significance. The convergence of Labour and the Conservatives has created a bland homogeneity, where no voter feels threatened and neither Labour nor the Conservatives step to far away from the bland marketing bromides that pass for political slogans these days. So the replacement of Blair with Brown or even Cameron will not change that much.
The problem is that this gentle decay of politics is a threat to our freedoms. Democracy is under threat not yet from tyranny, but from indifference- and indifference which suits the party duopoly.
The electorate are not stupid: they know that much of the posturing of politicians is empty, and that they are powerless in the face of much that occurs. We listen to statements that demand action on a range of issues where politicians can not do anything, but no one points out that the Emperor has no clothes, they just don't bother to vote.
Liberal Democrats should not simply aim to replace on or another of the two parties on the pendulum. Our view of politics is in opposition to the zero-sum game of the two party system. We accept that there is greater diversity in political opinion than is allowed for in a straight Yes-No question. We believe that a coalition of different parties is no worse than the coalitions within parties and does at least have the advantage of honesty.
It is not enough to change the government, we must change the system of government, and unless we do then the political class - increasingly professionalised and based on marketing rather than philosophy- will become divorced from the citizens that it is supposed, ostensibly, to represent.
Liberal Democrats have got to speak out: our creed remains, "Trust in the people, tempered with prudence". Our political system now excludes the majority of citizens and can easily fall into decay- and in the vacuum irresponsible and dangerous demagogues may lurk.
The pendulum is no longer a sufficient guarantee of our liberties.
There has been a long history of two party politics in Britain. whether it was the "King's Party" versus the Puritans or the Whigs and the Tories, Liberals and Conservatives, and later Labour and Conservative, the tradition, indeed the very structure of the British Parliament is based on a division into two groups: Aye versus No.
The result was that British political parties have had to be large coalitions. Blairites and Communists coexist in Labour and Social Conservatives and Libertarians coexist amongst the Tories. Power alternates between two parties and they survive in power depending on the irritation factor of the electorate.
The pendulum of politics swings, and no one group achieves dominance- it was not a bad way to protect democracy. The problem is that the political duopoly has smothered ideas and genuine debate. The parties are afraid of dissent and can expel members who will not conform. There is no other way to take a direct role in the political process except through a party- there is but one independent in the House of Commons (though- as cross-benchers- more in the House of Lords).
Increasingly few people are prepared to accept the political compromises that the bi-party system requires. Membership of all political parties has fallen, and increasingly citizens have chosen to participate through single issue groups. For example, membership of the RSPB is greater than the combined membership of all political parties. Electoral participation rates have been in long term decline for decades.
So, the swing of the political pendulum, if that is what the recovery in the Conservatives turns out to be, may not be of such dramatic significance. The convergence of Labour and the Conservatives has created a bland homogeneity, where no voter feels threatened and neither Labour nor the Conservatives step to far away from the bland marketing bromides that pass for political slogans these days. So the replacement of Blair with Brown or even Cameron will not change that much.
The problem is that this gentle decay of politics is a threat to our freedoms. Democracy is under threat not yet from tyranny, but from indifference- and indifference which suits the party duopoly.
The electorate are not stupid: they know that much of the posturing of politicians is empty, and that they are powerless in the face of much that occurs. We listen to statements that demand action on a range of issues where politicians can not do anything, but no one points out that the Emperor has no clothes, they just don't bother to vote.
Liberal Democrats should not simply aim to replace on or another of the two parties on the pendulum. Our view of politics is in opposition to the zero-sum game of the two party system. We accept that there is greater diversity in political opinion than is allowed for in a straight Yes-No question. We believe that a coalition of different parties is no worse than the coalitions within parties and does at least have the advantage of honesty.
It is not enough to change the government, we must change the system of government, and unless we do then the political class - increasingly professionalised and based on marketing rather than philosophy- will become divorced from the citizens that it is supposed, ostensibly, to represent.
Liberal Democrats have got to speak out: our creed remains, "Trust in the people, tempered with prudence". Our political system now excludes the majority of citizens and can easily fall into decay- and in the vacuum irresponsible and dangerous demagogues may lurk.
The pendulum is no longer a sufficient guarantee of our liberties.
Comments
Lepidus.
Cicero it is one thing to ask Conservatives for principles it is another like you to ask for their manifesto now. An opposition's job from Disraeli on is to hold the Govt to account. That is because you are an opposition. Come election time you are for a few brief weeks a prospective Govt. Then is the proper time to put your proposals to the Electors. Speaking personally I'd say Patriotism, Liberty and compassion are sound Conservative principles for you to chew over.
Lepidus.
The real heyday of the two party system was from 1945-1974. Since then there has always been a pretty consistant 25-30% of the electorate who vote for other Partys, implying a three party system at least in terms of votes cast. It has taken a long time for those voters ballots to turn into MPs, but I would argue that from 1997 parliament has essentially been a three party system masked by Labour's vast majorities. That time has now come to an end. I think that increased Party political 'turbulence' over the next few elections will rekindle wider participation in politics.
Lepidus.
I agree that it is good to clean out the stables from time to time- but please notice that this happens about as regularly with PR systems too: the FDP are not in office in Berlin at the moment, and have not been for some time (it was previously a Red-Green coalition and is now CDU-SPD). In a democracy the electorate are quite capable of putting the boot in when required.
As to a referendum on PR- I am certainly not opposed, but if a government is elected with it in their manifesto, then a referendum is not necessary on PR any more than it would be on any other government policy (even a constitutional policy like creating an elected House of Lords, for example).
I agree that the two party system used to guarantee a measure of liberty- my argument is now that it is too restricted to engage most of the electorate, and that therefore the system should alter. People are voting for a multi party system, but FPTP does not deliver what people vote for. As a result this contributes to an increasing disllusionment and disengagement from politics. The fact that the Conservaatives have gnerally been beneficiaries should not blind you to the growing crisis of legitimacy that FPTP is creating.
I know Canada reasonably well- I went to Uni there- and FPTP is very tricky in a multi-party system, and Canada has five parties federal parties: Liberal (New) Conservative, NDP, BQ and various others, like the SoCreds on a provincial basis- what FPTP did was wipe out the old Progressive Conservatives- they got over a quarter of the vote but only two seats (and one of those, Jean Charest, defected to the Liberals to become premier of Quebec). Arguably the lack of a powerful opposition made the Chretien government rather lazy. I do not beleive that any politican should have a safe seat: PR improves the accountabilty of politicans quite dramatically.
James- of course this is right- and I echo your comments.
PR means they get booted out, err hello you remember Andreotti and the Christian Democrats pre "Clean Hands" don't you. Re manifesto well yes but it certainly won't be in the others. Any case Cicero how many LD voters not activists even a little vote for you because of that. This would be such a fundamental I would say assault you say change to our constitution that you must agree as a democrat that the people should be directly consulted. My fear of PR has always been paralysis of the sort in Italy. Mrs T had strong majorities but it was still immensely hard to pull the reforms the country needed through. With PR they would never have happened and this country would still be an economic basketcase. That the power FPTP gives a Govt can be abused is undoubted. But used wisely it is still far better than the alternatives. Second the only time it comes up is when the Tories do well, and is therefore merely an anti democratic device to block any Tory Govt. You are right the FDP are not in at the moment but three successive decades weren't a bad run! If you Lib Dems are afraid to have a policy of such fundamental importance to the nation if it happened sanctioned by referendum, then it s proof of what I suspect that this is all about your self aggrandizement as a party and a bid for a near permanent share of power. Finally Cicero imagine there is a hung parliament and Ming gets his call, ID cards consider them scrapped etc so on down the list. Finally PR, well Ming HoC no but let's talk about the Lords. Ming no that's it early elections or that. Ok early elections. One of the big two returned with a majority all of the above gone. If you had a chance to achieve somethings and had chosen stake it all or nothing on PR, and got nothing wouldn't you look a tad silly.
BTW was Mr Littleford's departure what you mean't by correction.
Lepidus.
You argue that PR would have avoided reform, I argue that we might not have got into such a mess in the first place if government had been more accountable.
Liberal Democrats are playing a long game- you don't join our party unless you have patience, and of course generally beleive in its principles, rather than simply using it as a convenient route to power. We will not give way on these fundamental issues, and it was for giving the impression that we would that we have parted company with the spokesman.
PR is not an anti-Tory conspiracy, but FPTP is a fix than denies our people an effective voice and reduces the accountability of politicans- it is simply indefensible. Slowly, step by step: Europe, Scotland & Wales, local elections, the House of Lords, PR is coming. Fair votes should not be list based- MPs should be personally accountable and STV would simply not deliver the kind of results that the Italian brand of voting gave.
Lepidus.
cep program