Chris Tarquini examines yesterday's Fabian Society Next Left conference debate on political reform and the 'Democracy Challenge' - where does it go next?
Left Foot Forward’s Chris Tarquini, a local ‘Yes to fairer votes‘ campaigner, discusses the “Democracy Challenge: what really needs to change?” session at yesterday’s Fabian Society Next Left conference, which featured John Denham MP (Labour, Southampton Itchen); Anthony Barnett (the founder of openDemocracy.net); Jessica Asato (the Director of Labour Yes!); Michael Wills (Baron Wills, former justice minister); and the chair Jason Cowley (Editor of the New Statesman)
The afternoon session on the ‘Democracy Challenge’ involved a very broad range of topics. The opening question from the chair involved Anthony Barnett and his previous support for the Liberal Democrats at the election. Barnett argued that stopping Gordon Brown and Lord Mandelson was something he was proud of, whilst outlining a future for the progressive movement:
“I’m proud we stopped Mandelson and Brown, it was tragic for the Labour party that they had to be, but they had to be stopped. However, I’m becoming a more vigorous critic of the coalition we now have…
“Clegg has overseen a catastrophe for his party… he’s a Eurocrat. He doesn’t understand democratic politics, his vision comes from Brussels
“There’s a a lot of things we can learn from this process. The new politics has already began, the anti-cuts movement that is student-led includes 16-year-olds who have seen their Education Maintenance Allowance cut, the lecturer who sees cuts to humanities…”
Despite the the initial criticism of Brown and Mandelson, Barnett continued with his agreement regarding Ed Miliband’s earlier call in his keynote speech to:
“…link to progressives wherever they are … we must have a much wider campus.”
Barnett’s criticisms of Labour’s past led John Denham to give a reflective response on the issue, whilst outlining his reasoning behind his support for electoral reform, admitting there were:
“… many reasons why Labour lost the last election in terms of policy and in terms of politics.”
Denham justified his support for electoral reform (in contrast to some figures within the Labour party) by explaining FPTP (first past the post) was a system for a time when only two parties mattered, in contrast to an era of greater political choice which is becoming wider all the time. His further reference in support of reform to the House of Lords provoked a response from the Cowley, who questioned Denham on whether the lack of reform on these issues under massive Labour majorities was a ‘missed opportunity’.
The suggestion was accepted by Denham who admitted it was a “huge missed opportunity, the small c conservative culture in our party is still there today”, whilst arguing against opposing the ‘yes’ campaign on electoral reform due to short term political advantages. Denham concluded with one of the central tenets of his argument, the nature of ‘New Politics’ :
“New politics is like a wave on the beach, it changes the shape of the sand, of the beach, but it doesn’t usually replace it straight away”
Denham and Jessica Asato went on to disagree with a question from the audience that asserted that AV gave disproportionate influence to smaller parties. Denham himself admitted “there is no perfect electoral system” and that another way to look at it would be to argue that parties who gained 36 per cent of the vote but a majority of seats could also be seen as a disproportionately powerful small party, a situation FPTP perpetuates.
Denham’s comments correlated with Asato’s argument that the current system actually penalises smaller parties, as well as allowing people to more clearly signal who their preference would be in a coalition. She took the opportunity to mention the TaxPayers’ Alliance’s Matthew Elliot and other former Conservative operatives were at the forefront of the ‘No’ campaign as big business and the right knew that they have the most to lose from the progressive reform.
The topic of discussion turned to the message in support of AV and the issue of reform regarding an English parliament. Shows of hands amongst the audience saw a huge majority in favour of AV as well as very little support for an English parliament, with Asato arguing the message on AV should be:
“It’s easy as 1,2,3.”
Lord Wills spoke of England’s dominance in the current parliament, a response which concurred with a lot of the questions presented to him. He went on to explain the argument that an English parliament could undermine the British union whilst admitting ‘thank God’ there was no groundswell of support for the idea, a position that seemed almost universal throughout the audience.
The discussion was a broad and open one, with a large percentage of the time for questions. However the general agreement amongst both the panel and the vast majority of the audience meant it didn’t allow for a vigorous debate. A campaigner against reform may have been able to present a more diverse argument and allow more people to engage in different elements of the conversation.
One audience member fell asleep during the session, which whilst perhaps unfair to provide as representative of what was a useful reaffirmation of the direction of the progressive movement also showed the banality of some of the discussion. It was a useful tool to look at past mistakes and champion a direction for the future, but it lacked the slightly greater excitement and perhaps more constructive elements of some of the morning sessions.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
16 Responses to “Where does the reform movement go next?”
Hotspur
Fabians against England…what else? | Left Foot Forward: http://bit.ly/dO0Hhj via @addthis
Mr. Sensible
Stephen I just do not agree with you on this idea of an English Parliament, or breaking up the union.
Jessica Asato
Here's a write-up of the democracy session I was in at the Fabian conference yesterday in case you missed it http://bit.ly/h4cNwn #fab11
Stephen Gash
Despite the fact I got the wrong bloke, Willis instead of Wills, there is no earthly good reason not to put the choice before the English electorate. Baron Wills, like all of the Labour Party is institutionally Anglophobic.
What he said about there being no groundswell of support for an English Parliament was true in 1997 when the Scots had their referendum. However, Labour’s and the Lib Dems’s rabid Anglophobia prevented the English having a say then, when the “nos” would have won the day.
If there is truly no support for an English Parliament, then Lord Wills should be pushing for a referendum. The fact that he doesn’t shows that he really believes the “yes” vote would win.
Unlike you er Mr Sensible, I reckon it is time the English had a say in what is supposed to be a mature democracy. If the rest of the UK cannot stand the English being put on an equal democratic footing, then I don’t want to be in a Union with them.
On every measure the English have come off worse in post-devolution Britain. I fail to see what there is in the United Kingdom that is of any benefit to the English. Under Labour we were even denied our status as a nation.
JoolsB
What arrogance to say an English parliament would undermine the union when the opposite is true. It’s denying England equal status to the rest of the UK which will eventually break up the union. As for English dominance, well as England overwhelmingly voted Tory at the last election we would now have the government of our choosing if we had our own parliament and not a coalition or even worse a Lab-Lib coalition backed by the Nationalist parties overturning the wishes of MPs with English seats which could very well have happened in May if Brown had got his way and it could very well happen again in the future. Only an English Parliament will stop this discrimination. Why not try asking us what we want instead of telling us what we don’t want. Blair and Brown obviously left us out of devolution because they needed the Scottish vote to push through leglislation on English only matters such as tuition fees but why on earth are the Tories not doing something about this. They won’t even mention the word England. We only have tuition fees in England thanks to Scottish MPs voting for them and yet when have we heard any MPs with English seats questioning their right, never mind demanding an end to it, they should be ashamed of themselves!