Commentators

Rain (AM and PM) 3° London Hi 9°C / Lo 6°C

Jon Cruddas & Jonathan Rutherford: The time has come for a new socialism

We only thrive as individuals when we have a sense of belonging

The economic crisis is a turning point in the life of this country. For a brief period, history is in the public realm and ours for the making; the opportunity will not come again for generations. People are angry and they want justice. We have to rediscover our capacity for collective change.

The recession has dealt a serious blow to the neo-liberal orthodoxy. It was the sale of council housing that helped to secure its popular support. In the name of a property-owning democracy, the modest economic interests of individuals were aligned with the profit-seeking of financialised capitalism. It was a new kind of popular compact between the market and the individual.

A similar compact between the business elite and shareholder value created a tiny super-rich elite – and became the unquestioned business model of the era. Its values of self-reliance and entrepreneurialism legitimised market-based welfare and pension reform, the drive to a flexible labour market and the transfer of risk from the state and business to the individual. New Labour entered government in 1997 having accommodated itself to the neo-liberal orthodoxy and with plans to deepen and extend its compact.

Growth in the UK depended on this compact. It was driven by mass consumption which required consumers buying cheap credit. The housing market turned homes into assets for leveraging ever-increasing levels of borrowing. The credit economy created an indentured form of consumption as it laid claim to great tranches of future earnings. The lives of millions were integrated into the financial markets as their personal and mortgage-backed debt became the economic raw material for global capital. This commodification of society engineered a massive transfer of wealth to the rich.

The neo-liberal model of capitalism generated unprecedented affluence for many. But it corroded the civic culture of democracy. Commodification and huge inequalities helped create a social recession with widespread mental illness, systemic levels of loneliness, growing numbers of psychologically damaged children, and an increase in eating disorders, obesity, drug addiction and alcoholism. It created monopoly forms of capitalism and an increasingly authoritarian, technocratic and centralising state. A ruling class accrued a dangerous amount of power and became a financial law unto itself. The gulf between the political elites and the population widened as economic restructuring destroyed traditional working-class cultures and communities.

While asset prices rose and the economy boomed these problems were evaded by the government. But the recession has exposed how the neo-liberal model has weakened our capacity to weather the economic storm. Britain fell into a recession with personal debt standing at £1.4 trillion, of which £231bn was unsecured. In the three months to January this year GDP declined at the annualised rate of 7.5 per cent.

This speed of collapse heralds a possible depression. The partial dismantling of the welfare state, and employment deregulation has undermined the economic stabilisers that act as buffers to deflationary pressure – secure jobs, decent wages and proper benefits. This lack of structural solidity is made more severe by government neglect of the manufacturing industry. The declining share of manufacturing in GDP, and the relocation of industries to low-wage economies, has reduced the income base of the working class.

The recession has destroyed the neoliberal compact that provided the economic and cultural glue of its market society. What kind of social values shall we put in its place? The Government has no alternative and nor does the Conservative Party. In all the fear and turmoil, the political elites offer no analysis of the crisis and no leadership. Their goal is to return the economy to business as usual. But the status quo has vanished, and there is no turning back to the past.

It is time to rediscover our capacity for collective change and to address questions of how we live as well as how we make money. We believe that a good society can be created through drawing on our traditions of socialism. We only thrive as individuals when we experience a feeling of safety, when we feel respected, when we feel we are worth being loved and when we have a sense of belonging. These are the basic social needs of human beings which a good society must value.

We need a new socialism not dictated by the few from above, but made by the many from below. It should be grounded in the interdependency of individuals and the value of equality. It should be democratic, because only the active interest and participation of individuals can guarantee true freedom and progress. It should be ecologically sustainable and pursue economic development within the constraints placed on us by the earth. And it should be pluralist, because we need a diverse range of political institutions, and a variety of forms of economic ownership and cultural identities, to provide the energy and inventiveness to create a good society.

The political fault lines of a new era are starting to take shape. They divide those who believe that privileging the market and individual self-interest is the best way to govern society and those who believe that democracy and society must come before markets. These fault lines cut across party lines and divide them from within: Thatcherite politics versus compassionate Conservatives; market Liberal Democrats versus social Liberal Democrats; neoliberal New Labour versus social democratic Labour. The pro-market factions of all three main parties have lost credibility and there is now a growing crisis of political representation.

From the youthful cultures of cosmopolitan modernity to the conservative cultures of mainstream working-class life, people feel disenfranchised. They have no political organisation to give voice to their hopes and fears. For many Labour is seen as a party of war, injustice and insecurity. And despite their lead in the polls there is no great enthusiasm for the Conservatives either. As a priority we need changes to our electoral system to revitalise our democracy and create the conditions for new political alliances and new forms of political organisation.

The task is not to win the political centre ground – it is gridlocked and dead – but to transform it. A new social politics of democracy must be capable of creating the conditions for recovery, and setting out a set of principles and a political direction for the future, and it must also address the threat of global warming. The boom is over. In the future there will be less to go round and so let us share it out fairly amongst ourselves and embark on the deep and long transformation that will bring about a good society. It will be the great challenge of our time, and it will shape the lives of generations to come.

Jon Cruddas is the Labour MP for Dagenham; The Crash – A View from the Left, edited by Jon Cruddas and Jonathan Rutherford, can be downloaded at www.soundings.org.uk

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

The Future
[info]nonviolence1 wrote:
Tuesday, 31 March 2009 at 11:26 pm (UTC)
Jon, you are right - a new world order based on different values from the popular current ones is a'coming. It won't be stopped and a considerable number of Brits realise that - a shame that the majority of MPs and journalists don't have a clue of what is actually needed. Certainly fairness, compassion, empathy, taking out according to needs are basic. Right again when you say "We only thrive as individuals when we have a sense of belonging" - part of that belonging is now global and that brings concern for our fellow human beings. Having just seen what I consider duplicity and dishonesty by whoever in The Guardian, I rest my hopes with The Independent to lead some of the change but why do we always do things the hard way? Oh for a Gandhi, a Sir Thomas More to lead us for more than anything else it is about setting examples. But please improve your Comments - it is archaic by present day standards.
[info]broadbeen wrote:
Wednesday, 1 April 2009 at 08:17 am (UTC)
Let's start with a new internet political party
Anyone interested?
[info]nonviolence1 wrote:
Wednesday, 1 April 2009 at 04:28 pm (UTC)
I don't think a new political party is needed but a new morality certainly is and organizations based on and within the internet can be of enormous help. Well, about it Jon - what have you got to lose except a little time and effort. Certainly it would include taking out according to needs not wants, basing one's actions and thoughts not on self-interest and greed (and include a pile of fear based on those) but on opposite values. Obviously the general public has little faith in their elected representatives (or journalists for that matter) - methinks we are going backwards and I'm still waiting for someone to head us again in the right direction - hope springs eternal - yes?
Mr Cruddas
[info]tonytd wrote:
Wednesday, 1 April 2009 at 09:33 am (UTC)
I might feel more warmly disposed to Mr Cruddas after I've checked his expenses.
Socilism does not work. End of.
[info]wormery wrote:
Wednesday, 1 April 2009 at 10:31 am (UTC)
No-one wants socialism - look at the awfulness of destroying individual rights in totalitarian states for evidence. What people want and need is reformed capitalism and a mixed economy. Don't believe me? Ask the average yummy mummy, perhaps Harman or Schmitt, if they'd be happy to give up all the profits they've made on property, or the maternity pay they have greedily claimed over the less fortunate.

Sadly, these days, even a man in a professional job can't buy a house - because of all the immigrants and overcrowding and property speculation and two-earner households. That overpopulation means we're all FOOKED anyway!
Re: Socilism does not work. End of.
[info]agrawal wrote:
Wednesday, 1 April 2009 at 12:08 pm (UTC)
How do you know socialism doesn't work when socialism has never been tried? Don't tell me it was tried in the Soviet Union and the other Stalinist states.They didn't have socialism. As Trotsky said, they only had its legal premise; nationalisation of the economy. Socialism is a much higher stage of development than capitalism Therefore a socialist society must not only have an economy that is owned by the people, it must be classless, more democratic than capitalism and have much more freedom than capitalism. Tell me where there is one country in the world where those things existed? You can't , because real socialism has never exisated anywhere as yet. The wealthy elites who run this world know this. However, it suits this gang and its political and media lackeys to blacken the name of socialism by saying that The Soviet Union was socialist; and people like yourself fall for this crude propaganda.
Re: Socilism does not work. End of.
[info]wormery wrote:
Wednesday, 1 April 2009 at 12:33 pm (UTC)
YOur argument is uttterluy false and just as stupid as that of the Islamofascists who say an Islamic state would be perfect and when anyone points out that muslim countries are barbaric awful societies say that's not real Islam and a real Islamic state has never been tried; or like the feminazis who think if women were in charge there'd be no war. Silly, puerile arguments of silly nonentities.

The reason none of these pipedreams will ever work is that they go against human nature. People are essentially individuals who are members of a tribe - and will greedily and selfishly promote their own survival, not others'. We shall always have kings (real ones and communist ones and socialist ones like Cruddas et al too).

And the nearest that the world has come to socialism is communism or islamic states. Thanks but no thanks matey. YOu are the pne who has fallen for someone parroting nonsense sonny. Grow up, wake up and sort yourself out.
Re: Socilism does not work. End of.
[info]mikesc6 wrote:
Wednesday, 1 April 2009 at 08:49 pm (UTC)
"The reason none of these pipedreams will ever work is that they go against human nature. People are essentially individuals who are members of a tribe - and will greedily and selfishly promote their own survival, not others'. We shall always have kings (real ones and communist ones and socialist ones like Cruddas et al too)."

Professor "wormery" says it's not "human nature", call the whole thing off. It was totally an April Fool's anyway.

I usually make it my business not to respond to any of the puerile nonsense the lowly public likes to spout- but come on, what the fuck is this? "Human nature" is your "argument"? Are you a just repeating some silly quotable that you take at face value because it tallies with the fact that it is *your* nature is that of a capitalist fuck? Anything a human can concievably do is "human nature". If capitalism is "human nature"- was feudalism supernatural? Is the caste system supernatural? Is a capitalist economy that differs at all from your vision of a capitalist system supernatural?

Maybe your claim is right- maybe it is human nature to have a system of private property (don't tell that to all early civilisation, though) based in seizure of what is natural by dictators and monarchs. I'm gonna go ahead and say it's human nature to rape and murder and pillage. It's such an easy non-argument, it can be made about anything.
The John Cruddas article.
[info]agrawal wrote:
Wednesday, 1 April 2009 at 11:55 am (UTC)
Well done John. What you suggest is exactly what is needed. However, as you doubtless know, the point is not just to interperet society in various way, but to change it (excuse the paraphrasingg) When are leaders like yourself going to organise the 'masses' to force through this change against the powerful opposition of the wealthy elite and the forces it can muster in its defence.I'm sure there are millions of people out there, working class and lower middle class not only in the UK but in many other countries too who are eager to follow this kind of lead.?
Good description, but don't agree with your answers
[info]nerderello wrote:
Wednesday, 1 April 2009 at 11:58 am (UTC)
well written, and a lot of what I've been thinking for years (which is why I'm not one of the "indentured class").

But I'm not convinced that your answers to these problems will work (sorry, but I can't seem to get Peter Sellars, as Union rep Kite in I'm alright Jack, out of my head - with him [Kite] dreaming of fields of wheat and Ballet of the evening). I'm not convinced that any looking back to previous remedies will work.

Someone (not me, I don't have the wit or inteligence) needs to create a new way forwards.
Replacing one failed experiment with another
[info]sickofstupidity wrote:
Wednesday, 1 April 2009 at 12:44 pm (UTC)
Sorry, Jon - while I agree with your analysis of our current problems, I do not agree with your proposed solution - a return to a socialist model of society.

If our current woes point to neo-liberal capitalism being a failed experiment , then, equally, the history of socialism is also one of a failed experiment (show me one long-lived socialist society anywhere in the world that is not either (a) politically authoritarian or (b) economically ruined).

Both capitalism and socialism are based on simplistic models of individual and collective human behaviour, reinforced by ideological dogma and naive utopianism. Neither one has a monopoly on the truth, and neither one offers a comprehensive and infallible solution to the ills of human societies. This can be seen by the fact that the history of this country and many others is one of pendulum politics, where we constantly bounce from one political extreme to the other, only to find the new reality unsatisfactory, and bounce back again.

We need to break out of this vicious circle, we need to cut the Gordian knot. We need to acknowledge that capitalism is flawed because it fosters economic inequality and ruthless, antisocial self-interest, and socialism is flawed because it promotes a stultifying social conformity, suppresses individualism and denies people the right to dissent and the motivation to aspire to better themselves.

We need a third way, a way that is based on our best objective understanding of human nature, both in the individual and the collective senses; a way that does not deny the fundamental truths of either economics or social justice; a way that protects individual freedoms and encourages individual aspirations as much as it demands social responsibility and human compassion; a way that recognizes and exploits the creative tension that exists between the capitalist and socialist models, and implements the best ideas of both, while siding with neither.

We need a third way - not a return to socialism, because that is just one of the old ways, and it is thoroughly discredited.
Re: Replacing one failed experiment with another
[info]kalahari285 wrote:
Wednesday, 1 April 2009 at 10:29 pm (UTC)
Sweden
Re: Replacing one failed experiment with another
[info]kalahari285 wrote:
Wednesday, 1 April 2009 at 10:30 pm (UTC)
'show me one long-lived socialist society anywhere in the world that is not either (a) politically authoritarian or (b) economically ruined' Sweden
Re: Replacing one failed experiment with another
[info]sickofstupidity wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 09:23 am (UTC)
Haha - I knew someone would suggest Sweden. But Sweden is not exactly the sort of left-of-centre, proletarian Nirvana that the old left imagine when they talk about a 'socialist' society; Swedish society is more egalitarian than many other European societies, true, with an excellent welfare system, universal healthcare, high levels of education and literacy - and the high levels of personal taxation that are obviously necessary to pay for all that. But Sweden is still a strongly capitalist society, too; it just happens to be an unusually fair, compassionate, rational and well-managed one. And that is probably due to certain innate traits in the Swedish national character (I speak from some experience of this, as I used to work for a Swedish company, alongside many native Swedes, and was deeply impressed by their sense of fairness and social justice, combining level-headed economic pragmatism with a sense of individual responsibility and social awareness).

In fact, I think Sweden probably epitomizes the 'third way' model that I was describing; it is not a pure socialist country, but one that has successfully combined the best aspects of the socialist and capitalist models. Whether it would work in this country, with our different history, cultural norms and national character, is an open question, of course.
All talk...
[info]sara_sense wrote:
Wednesday, 1 April 2009 at 02:33 pm (UTC)
And no action! Heard it all before, yadder yadder!!
Painful decisions
[info]thorntongate wrote:
Wednesday, 1 April 2009 at 04:34 pm (UTC)
A good article as far as it goes, but Compass is operating on the basis that the neoliberal take over of Keir Hardie's old party can be reversed before the next election.

This is vanishingly unlikely, but should the next election result in a shattering defeat for New Labour, it's then much more possible, since the odds are on Cameron going to the IMF for a bailout replete with the usual conditionalities, which will further degrade what's left of the post-war social state and might finally wake people up to the reality of what's involved in 'commodified citizenship'.

Even if China and India get a larger say in the governance of the IMF, it's unlikely they will feel they owe a Western county like Britain any favours. ("Bankers with blue eyes")

The other dimension which I don't think Compass has factored into the equation is that Britain is a small island, and as climate change kicks in it's not going to be able to support a population heading to 70 million.

This will involve some very painful decisions which will be outside the multiculturalist rule book.
[info]britfree wrote:
Wednesday, 1 April 2009 at 04:34 pm (UTC)
watch out ! now that there seems to be no hope of them retaining power , some "socialists" are crawling out of the woodwork ,claiming to have a great concern for all the things ,the party they, (still, despite war ,the murder of david kelly, big-brotherism etc etc ad nauseum ), belong to, indeed all the things it has crushed under their police state heel . if you see ANY manifestation of british labourism , its likely to be as big a lie as it ever was . british pig brutilism is on show today . the labourite left is despicable . we have believed in their leftist in opposition /rightest in government rubbish once to often , if this english M P cruddas is STILLl in the labour party , he is as big a piggy as harriet harman or jaqui smith .
[info]mikesc6 wrote:
Wednesday, 1 April 2009 at 08:28 pm (UTC)
People in this country won't have socialism. Bond slaves, sweatshops and infant labour fuel the relative luxury of even the most meagre of us. Right now I'm wearing clothes made in sweatshops, I'm about to eat a Mars bar (known for it's use of bond slaves and children on the Ivory Coast), I'm typing on a laptop made by a company known for its use and abuse of illegal immigrants.

Maybe we could have had socialism, before globalisation drove the worst excesses of capitalism to the periphery of our vision, abroad where it festers. It is still the morally right system, private property is nothing but seizure. But nowadays it is so ingrained, and people seem to be so steeped in Daily Mail right-wing populism, that we'll sooner see fascism in Britain than socialism. Capitalism won't last forever in this country, developing capitalist countries have nowhere to outsource their filth to, and I shouldn't think the workers of those countries will stand it forever.

Anyway, it doesn't matter whether Labour is seen as the party of injustice, insecurity and war. What matters is that they *are* a party of injustice, insecurity and war. Like all of the others.
[info]sickofstupidity wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 10:10 am (UTC)
As I've already said, mikesc6, socialism - at least in its naive, utopianist, crypto-Marxist form - is a failed experiment; it has never worked anywhere, and never will work anywhere, because it is philosophically naive, ideologically dogmatic, economically unworkable and based on a profound misunderstanding of human nature (Marx, for all his economic insight, had zero understanding of psychology...).

So change the record, 'cos we've heard that tune so many times before, and open your mind to some NEW ideas, eh?
[info]mikesc6 wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 11:09 am (UTC)
"Human nature" and psychology- you lot are a fucking joke. I *know* that there will be no socialism- not because it can't work, but because people in this country like your motherfucking-self would make it their business to make sure it didn't. Socialism is a very young phenomenon, it's been attempted in a handful of third world countries over short period of time. People are cunts, we like our slave chocolate, we feel warm and fuzzy knowing whatever we have, we have it because little foreign kids far away have had their lives taken away to deliver it- and we pat ourselves on the back for our ingenuity whenever we invent a new High School Musical or some bullshit nobody needs and wouldn't want if it wasn't there.
Now, now...
[info]sickofstupidity wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 02:46 pm (UTC)
...No need to get all uppity and indignant and start flinging unjustified allegations at people based on what your prejudices make you *assume* they believe and want.

"there will be no socialism- not because it can't work, but because people in this country like your motherfucking-self would make it their business to make sure it didn't."

If I thought for one minute that socialism *could* work, and was also a *desirable* system of politics (i.e. free of any shortcomings) then I would welcome it with open arms. But it *can't* work, because - as I have said - it is an abstract intellectual ideal, based on a naive utopianist philosophy and an ignorance of human psychology. And because of that, I *would* resist any attempt to impose it on this country or any other, because I think that would be to the detriment of the population concerned.

You see, mikesc6, politics is not an abstract intellectual game; this is not 'The SIMS' or 'Second Life' you are talking about, but the REAL LIVES of REAL PEOPLE. And if the application of your abstract political theories to real world societies ends up fucking things up, you cannot just press RESET and start again; the damage is done, and it is permanent.

Neither you nor anyone else has the right to impose a *theoretical* political system on a real society just to satisfy your intellectual curiosity about what would happen. You cannot play games with people's lives like that. To attempt to do so is the height of arrogance and irresponsibility. And recent human history is littered with the causalities of societies that had untried, half-baked political ideologies foisted upon them by philosopher-politicians, armchair economists and deranged megalomaniacs who thought they knew better (Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Mao, etc., take a bow). The consequences of these failed experiments in social and economic engineering were ruined economies, ruined societies and MILLIONS OF DEATHS from war, poverty and starvation. (And please don't trot out the usual pathetic excuse of socialist apologists - i.e. that Soviet communism was NOT socialism, but a perversion of it; we can only judge a theory when it is put into practice, unfortunately, and every time socialism has been put into practice on a scale and with a zeal that its proponents desire, it has led to totalitarianism and economic disaster for the societies concerned. Soviet communism might not have been what Marx and other socialist philosophers had in mind when they dreamt up their theories, but it is nevertheless typical of what happens when those theories are put into practice).

Please, for fuck sake, will people like you finally learn the lesson of the past 100 years of failed 'socialist' experiments? Centralized command economies DO NOT WORK. PERIOD. Forcing 'egalitarian' conformity onto a society of INDIVIDUALS with different abilities and aspirations DOES NOT WORK. PERIOD.

Ergo, socialism WILL NOT WORK. PERIOD. And you're damned right that I, and many other people, would resist its implementation, for that simple reason.
Re: Now, now...
[info]sickofstupidity wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 03:48 pm (UTC)
I've just thought of another failed socialist experiment to add the the list, and it's a very contemporary one - Zimbabwe! What a fantastic advertisement for socialism that car-crash of a failed state is, eh?

Or are you going to claim that Mugabe was a pro-Western, crypto-capitalist lapdog of the US, mikesc6? Haha...
Re: Now, now...
[info]mikesc6 wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 04:05 pm (UTC)
We've managed to establish some things:

It won't work because you say it won't.

You don't even know what it is.

You're a fucking disgrace, talking to me about making impositions on people when what you support is a system based slavery and infant labour, a system the fucks of this country only challenge when it goes to town on their house prices.
Re: Now, now...
[info]mikesc6 wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 04:22 pm (UTC)
Also, I'd be much more comfortable if you started arguing as assholish as me. It's much more fun with overblown insults, cockeyes.
Re: Now, now...
[info]sickofstupidity wrote:
Friday, 3 April 2009 at 12:25 pm (UTC)
"It won't work because you say it won't."

Whereas you say it will work, and so it MUST work? Never mind the 100 years of evidence to the contrary, oh no - don't let DAMNING REAL WORLD EVIDENCE undermine your BEAUTIFUL THEORY, eh?

"You don't even know what it is."

It's only a political theory, not particle physics, so it's not that difficult to understand. And yes, I do KNOW what it is, and WHY it is flawed and will never work, though I suspect you only THINK you know what it is, which is why you won't acknowledge its shortcomings.

"You're a fucking disgrace, talking to me about making impositions on people when what you support is a system based slavery and infant labour"

There you go again - if you don't have any credible and cogent arguments (which you don't), you just slander and demonize your opponents, and try to attack their moral character with groundless accusations, eh? That is sadly typical of the way narrow-minded left-wing dogmatists like you think and behave, I'm afraid. And it is totally one-sided, of course: Why don't you mention the MILLIONS who suffered and died, including children and infants, in the forced (i.e. slave) labour programmes of Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc., etc., all in the name of 'socialism'? Why don't you mention 'Year Zero', the gulags, the persecution of intellectuals, the 're-education' (i.e. brainwashing) programmes, the failed five-year plans, the failed harvests, the mass starvations, the ethnic cleansings, the forced mass deportations of entire populations to doomed agricultural projects in barren wildernesses, or the fact that the entire Soviet bloc finally collapsed after years of economic failure, political dissent and popular unrest?

I could go on, but I think most people will get the point, even if you still refuse to.
Changes to our electoral system
[info]joepatterson wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 09:18 am (UTC)
Cruddas

Quote :As a priority we need changes to our electoral system to revitalise our democracy and create the conditions for new political alliances and new forms of political organisation. Unquote

This has been a priority for many a long year. It was a priority in 1979 when Thatcher gained power with the support of a mere one third of the total electorate. It was shown to be a priority even more clearly in 1983 when the LibSDP got a quarter of all votes cast which should have given them around 167 seats - they got 23! At the same time Thatcher was enthroned at the head of an elective dictatorship with a phoney overall majority of 144 seats just about the equivalent of the LibSDP deficit of seats. This of course enabled her to ram her vicious policies down the throats of the majority who had not voted for them; and we are now reaping the whirlwind from the wind she sowed.

It was a priority in 1997 when Blair won with a phoney majority of 179 seats even though he had the support of a mere 31 % of the total electorate. However, we thought that we were going to see the end of the antediluvian first past the post system when NEW Labour put in their manifesto the following unequivocal commitment.:

We are COMMITTED to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system."


However we reckoned without the party tribalists who had no compunction whatsoever in just cynically reneging on this commitment , something which of course neither Cruddas nor Rutherford mentions. So we still have this ramshackle system and another minority elective dictatorship elected in 2005 with a mere 35% of the vote and support from an even smaller proportion of the total electorate, 21%, but nevertheless with a phoney overall majority of 65 seats.

So without fundamental electoral reform where is a new democratic system supposed to be coming from , and indeed where is the old democratic system where governments always represent a MINORITY never a MAJORITY? It is now too late to intrdouce a truly representative electoral system before the next election and we can be absolutely certain that the Tories when they get in again in 2010 will not have the slightest intention of getting rid of a system that has kept them in power (even when not in government) for a century
Re: Changes to our electoral system
[info]sickofstupidity wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 09:31 am (UTC)
Hear hear! I have always said that we are fooling ourselves (and indulging in false flattery) if we actually believe that the UK is a true democracy; it is nothing of the sort while we still have this absurd 'first past the post' system of voting.

The ONLY true democratic system is one based on PR. But the main political parties in this country will never adopt it voluntarily, because it is not in their interests to do so.
Re: Changes to our electoral system
[info]kalahari285 wrote:
Sunday, 5 April 2009 at 12:34 am (UTC)
So both Capitalism and Socialism are discredited by naive utopianism and empirical failure. To a certain extent I agree. Experiments with a fully centralised economy have failed and the market routinely demonstrates that it does not produce equitible outcomes and is not self-righting.

You advocate NEW ideas but offer none. However, a concentration on failed totalitarian experiments ignores the very real contribution that socialist ideas of egalitarianism and equality have made to the european welfarist model. Although admitting its an open question, when you suggest that such egalitarianism would not work with our Anglo-Saxon institutions you buy into the myth that with our individualistic political and economic history we are locked into a path-dependent trajectory that no human agency can alter. Were we always like this? Is it part of our national DNA? or rather is it the result of a philosophical possessive individualism that has developed over the last 400 years through argument and advocacy, therefore making it challengable by the same processes. This myth is itself a dogma, a socially constructed 'truth' that is used to justify resistence to a very possible transformation to a more equitable model demonstrated in the post-war period without starvation, war, or death by our european cousins

Columnist Comments

mary_dejevsky

Mary Dejevsky: Cool realism is a political virtue, too

No ideological vision could have replaced sound judgement in 1989

terence_blacker

Terence Blacker: Reality TV police shows are criminal

For half an hour, the real world is presented in black-and-white terms

dominic_lawson

Dominic Lawson: The only options are to double up in Afghanistan or leave

At a risk of sounding callous, the number of casualties is actually small for a war


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion