Led by Donkeys remind Keir Starmer of his commitment to proportional representation.
Campaigners have draped a giant banner outside the headquarters of the Labour Party to ‘remind Keir Starmer what he once said about proportional representation.’Led By Donkeys – a group which specialises in creative and high profile political stunts – organised the action.
The group installed a banner with a photo of Keir Starmer and a quote of comments he made during the Labour leadership election. The banner quoted Starmer as saying in February 2020: “…millions of people vote in safe seats and they feel their voice doesn’t count. That’s got to be addressed by electoral reform.”
Led by Donkeys shared a video of their banner drop on Twitter, and said: “We’ve scaled the scaffolding at Labour’s London HQ to remind Keir Starmer what he once said about proportional representation.”
Sir Keir Starmer has since distanced himself from his 2020 comments on electoral reform.
…
We’ve scaled the scaffolding at Labour’s London HQ to remind Keir Starmer what he once said about proportional representation. pic.twitter.com/oK9q0G5lzE
The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has organised an emergency protest on Monday 22nd May for 6.00pm outside Parliament Square, as it fights to protect the right to strike which is under attack from the Tory government.
Mick Lynch from the RMT, Matt Wrack from the FBU and Kevin Courtney will be speaking at the rally, with Unison, USDAW and the PCS union all showing their support.
The government’s strikes bill, which will empower employers to sue unions and sack staff in crucial sectors if minimum service levels aren’t maintained, has been slammed as an attack on the fundamental right to strike and as a draconian piece of legislation. The Bill essentially means that when workers lawfully vote to strike in health, education, fire, transport, border security and nuclear decommissioning, they could be forced to attend work – and sacked if they don’t comply.
The TUC said in a press statement: “We can’t afford to lose the right to strike. But multi-millionaire Tory politicians are attacking our right to strike for better pay and fair treatment at work.
Former Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng has once more refused to apologise for his disastrous mini-budget which caused financial turmoil and which eventually led to him being sacked and Liz Truss being forced out of office.
Kwarteng, whose mini-budget resulted in chaos on the financial markets, the pound hitting an all-time low against the dollar and mortgage rates soaring, said he was ‘not in the business of forgiveness’.
“I’m not going to apologise,” he told Channel 4 News.
Former Tory MP and now Reform UK party member Ann Widdecombe has been widely condemned for her ‘out of touch’ and appalling comments on families struggling to make ends meet during the cost of living crisis.
Widdecombe was asked on BBC 2’s Politics Live programme about the cost of living crisis and what advice she would give to viewers who could not even afford the basics.
Jo Coburn asked the former Tory MP: “What do you say to those viewers who literally can’t afford to pay even for some of the basics – if they’ve gone up the way that cheese sandwich has, with all its ingredients?”
“Well, then you don’t do the cheese sandwich,” Widdecombe replied.
Her comments were immediately condemned by fellow panellist Rachel Cunliffe who said: “We’re talking about absolute basics and staples. We’re talking about own-brand pasta, we’re talking about bread, we’re talking about families who can’t afford to feed their children.
‘The First Past the Post system hands more power to the establishment than MPs or people.’
The Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, has set out the reasons for why the Labour Party should back a change to the voting system in favour of proportional representation (PR), despite party leader Keir Starmer saying that voting reform will not be a priority should Labour win power.
Although the Labour Party conference last year overwhelmingly backed a motion calling on the party to embrace a proportional electoral system, the leadership has made clear that it would not do as the motion says.
Since then, at the Progressive Britain conference last week, Starmer made clear that voting reform would not be among the priorities should Labour win power.
Burnham however has urged the party to adopt PR, saying that the current first-past-the-post voting system hands more power to the establishment than MPs or people and changing the system to proportional representation would mean “every vote would matter”.
Carla Denyer claims Greens are the strongest party on democratic reform
Carla Denyer, Cost of Living Crisis, Bristol, 2 April 2022
The Green Party has slammed the Tories for dragging democracy in the UK in a dangerous direction.
Speaking at an event last night, co-leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, Carla Denyer, laid out how the Tory’s have assaulted our democracy – and how the Greens would solve it.
Denyer discussed how to restore public faith in politics and argued that the Greens were the strongest party on democratic reform.
…
The Greens have said they would apply proportional representation for all elections to all levels of government, along with bringing the voting age down to 16.
They would introduce devolution, mirroring systems in Europe by giving more power to local and regional government and Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Parliament. They would also introduce an elected upper house to replace hereditary power in the House of Lord and set up a Citizen’s Convention.
Introducing a fairer system of state funding for political parties, which would hope to eliminate the dependence of large private donations and strengthen transparency on political lobbying and donations. One in four people believe that party donors have the most influence on government decisions, according to Unlock Democracy.
Denyer also accused the media of preventing democratic conversations through its bias towards certain political parties.
His spokesperson told Byline Times that the Labour Leader has a “long-standing view against PR”
Labour Leader Keir Starmer actively opposes a move to proportional representation for the House of Commons – putting him at loggerheads with the party membership and trade unions, Byline Times can reveal.
On Wednesday, this newspaper reported that the 350,000-strong union USDAW had become the latest to call on Labour to back scrapping Westminster’s winner-takes-all voting system, First Past the Post.
Two-thirds of trade unions that support the Labour Party now back a major change to Westminster’s voting system amid a mounting campaign among the party and union grassroots.
But Starmer’s official spokesperson has now revealed that the Labour Leader has a “long-standing view against proportional representation”. When asked to clarify if the Labour leader was against PR he said “yes”.
“He isn’t looking to change the electoral system…It’s not something that’s a priority for him,” Starmer’s spokesperson added.
Labour delegates overwhelmingly backed PR at last year’s party conference – after mega-unions Unison and Unite supported the shift. But they do not control the manifesto – a process that is steered by the Labour Leader and his allies on the National Executive Committee.
When Parliament was rocked by the expenses scandal in 2009, politicians pledged to clean up their act. But 14 years on, how much has actually changed?
This week, an investigation by openDemocracy revealed a £180m spending bonanza, with politicians charging taxpayers for a litany of controversial claims.
Among them, we found that a peer had claimed £18,000 just for turning up to the House of Lords, despite not speaking or voting in the chamber, and that MPs have been billing us for huge sums to heat their second homes, while ordinary Brits struggle with spiralling energy costs.
We found that, over the past three years, MPs have splurged £1.1m of taxpayer money on private PR firms offering to boost their “personal brand” and “incumbency”. Politicians also claimed for business class flights and personal photoshoots, while others claimed tens of thousands of pounds on London hotels rather than simply catching the train.
Incredibly, none of the cases we reported on are against the rules.
Despite some important reforms to the system after 2009, a culture of omertà prevails in Westminster. Most political leaders choose to avoid talking about MPs’ expenses altogether, for fear that one of their allies will be exposed and embarrassed.
Last month, for instance, Labour launched an attack on the Tories over “lavish” spending by government departments. But the party has remained silent about openDemocracy’s investigation, which covers MPs and peers from all political parties.
Our findings come as MPs are set for another pay rise next month, bringing their wages up to £86,584 – while many still rake in extra cash from second jobs.
MPs have splurged £1.1m of taxpayer money on PR firms offering to boost their ‘personal brand’ and ‘incumbency’
It would be disingenuous to suggest that nothing has changed since 2009. Back then, MPs were caught claiming expenses for duck houses, porn videos and the cost of cleaning out the moat of a country estate. After the scandal broke, more than half of MPs agreed to pay back the money and a new expenses watchdog was set up, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA).
But the truth is that Westminster’s expenses system is still in need of major reforms. Too often the rules are lax, allowing politicians to claim for things that seem excessive, unreasonable, or ethically questionable.
In some ways, we have actually gone backwards. For instance, before the expenses scandal, there was an explicit ban on using taxpayer money for “advice for individual members on self-promotion, or PR for individuals”. But this line is not included in the current rulebook. Indeed, our investigation suggests that spending on PR services is rife and that IPSA does not even check the content created – using our money – by private contractors.
And when expenses are used to pay consultants or businesses, there is no obligation for MPs to award this work in a fair or competitive manner. We found dozens of cases where money was being handed to companies run by friends or political allies. The rules only ban payments to family members or businesses that an MP has a direct financial interest in.
The rulebook is also confused when it comes to geography. How can it be right that the constituency of Windsor – which is more than half an hour’s train ride from central London – is considered by IPSA to be within the capital, yet the commuter town of Harpenden is not, despite the fact that a train from there takes just 26 minutes? This distinction means the MP for Harpenden and Hitchin is entitled to an extra expenses budget that is denied to the Windsor MP.
Peers can claim £332 a day for simply turning up – or even for attending an online meeting
Meanwhile, the rules governing the House of Lords are still written internally and don’t even fall under IPSA’s remit. Peers can claim up to £332 a day for simply turning up, regardless of whether they contribute to proceedings. In fact, they can claim this even for attending a ‘virtual meeting’ online.
There is also little attempt to cut costs, even by those setting the rules. Peers are specifically told that they are “entitled to be reimbursed for the cost of a business class [plane] ticket”.
Parliamentary expenses may be a thorny issue for many in Westminster, but ignoring the problem won’t make it go away. Defenders of the status quo often say that the vast majority of claims are legitimate – and perhaps they are right. But we need an expenses system that allows no leeway; a system that can assure the public that every claim is in their interest and constitutes value for money.
Everyone agrees on this, but authorities have actually moved to undermine these principles. IPSA has even made expenses less transparent, in a supposed bid to improve security after the murder of Tory MP David Amess in 2021 (despite there being no evidence that Amess’ attacker used Freedom of Information laws to plot his attack). Last year the watchdog was also forced to U-turn after telling MPs they could claim expenses to cover an office Christmas party.
It is easy to blame MPs over excessive and controversial expenses claims. And be in no doubt, in many cases the criticism is justified. But if we really want to clean up the system, we need a major review of the rulebook itself.
OPINION: To avoid another government committed to continuing Thatcherism, we need new tech that makes votes count
After nearly 13 years in power, the Conservatives have a problem. They are surrounded by the consequences of their own policies, and the place looks like a bomb site. Living costs have soared, the NHS is in crisis, and staff across the public and private sectors are on strike. The party’s friends in the media are doing their best, but even the most incurious and forgiving voter can see that all is not well.
Not surprisingly, support for radical change to Britain’s economic and political model is overwhelming. Most Tory voters support wealth taxes and the re-nationalisation of the energy infrastructure. A majority of Labour voters want to introduce PR and a majority of all voters are in favour of some kind of electoral reform.
Given all this, it would be a massive missed opportunity if Labour emerged as the main beneficiary of the Conservatives’ collapse. Keir Starmer, the party’s leader, has refused to give a whole-hearted voice to the desire for change. Instead he has dropped the reform pledges that secured his victory in the 2020 leadership contest and is now sounding off about fiscal responsibility and tough choices.
Comparisons with the 1990s are easy. But there is more of a hint of 2008 Barack Obama in Labour’s current posture. The elite are nervous; the scams have become too obvious and the cruelty isn’t being confined to the usual victims. As in the US immediately after the collapse of the banks, British capitalism needs its Team B to give the appearance of change without conceding its substance. And Starmer is all too willing to play his part.
Anthony Barnett, the founder of this site, points to another historical analogy, far less flattering to the Blairites who now control the Labour Party: 1974. Back then the Labour Party won an election at a time of escalating crisis. But rather than make the radical reforms necessary to revive the postwar social order, first Harold Wilson and then James Callaghan presided over years of desperate brinkmanship until Thatcher took power in 1979 and imposed her own radical vision on the country.
Presented with a series of provocations from the Tories, the Labour leader has repeatedly sided with the right in an attempt to demonstrate his reliability to the UK’s media. At a time when living standards are rapidly declining and organised labour is fighting to protect what little of the postwar social compact remains, the Labour Party is laser-focused on the fact that government departments buy stationery.
The response of the democratic left to the restoration of the Labour right since 2019 has been hampered by the massive damage done to the Liberal Democrats by Nick Clegg and the Bennites’ recent and fraught stint at the pinnacle of the Labour Party. Many with a public platform who support radical change seem to think that, while extra-parliamentary activism is all very well, there is no realistic alternative to voting Labour at the next election.
But a 2024 Labour government committed to the Blair-Thatcher status quo, which refuses to meet the UK’s accumulating crises with a programme equal to it, will only aid a nativist and authoritarian right that offers its own, hallucinatory solutions. Our likely trajectory, absent fundamental reform, is one that discredits the centre-left in government and empowers the extreme right in opposition.
As living standards decline, the Labour Party is laser-focused on the fact that the government buys stationery
In these circumstances, our best option at the next general election must be a mobilisation that puts as many ecosocialists and sincere left Keynesians into Parliament as possible. Our priority should be to maximise the number of MPs willing to argue for replacing Thatcherism with a new green and democratic settlement. Once we grasp that, the question then becomes technical: how?
Part of the answer is down to the politicians. The Greens could help by formally adopting strengthened versions of the ten pledges that Starmer has now dropped. And the Lib Dems urgently need to apologise for their role in the austerity disaster, and loudly denounce Clegg.
But we also need digital resources to translate the public’s desire for radical change into electoral victories. We have no independent means to secure the full value of our votes. We don’t know what other voters in our constituencies think, how they would vote given various conditions, or what opportunities the political geography offers. Not only that, the entirety of the established media is always determined to treat each election as a national contest, as a presidential choice between Rishi Sunak and Starmer, in which we all have an isolated vote among millions.
Digital technology makes it possible to communicate voter-to-voter and voter-to-candidate more easily than ever before. We could, given the right tools, understand where we live in fine detail and use this to make informed political choices about how we vote. We only have to imagine what a BBC that wanted to make votes count would create and make freely available: vote-swapping tools, apps that allow voters to share what they would do in various scenarios, Reddit-style forums that allow groups to organise around local demands in their constituencies and to plan real-world candidate debates and meet-ups, mapping software that gives ordinary voters some of the insights currently hoarded by political professionals. Taken together, these digital resources would help to transform tactical voting from a Lib Dem ruse into a strategy for democratic self-assertion.
Labour branches and constituency parties could use such a technology to help re-elect incumbent MPs who are serious about promoting the policies we need, or to break with the party and run independent candidates – and not just in Jeremy Corbyn’s seat. Other parties, currently squeezed by the Con-Lab duopoly, will also benefit if they can persuade voters that they will represent the desire for change in Parliament, and not fall for the seductions of Westminster’s lobbying industry.
I recently spoke with a Labour Party member living in an English university town. They told me that every Labour member they knew would vote Green if they thought the Greens could win the constituency. These are not just Labour voters, but fully paid-up members. With the right digital resources, they could discover the extent of support for the Greens in their constituency, and act together accordingly.
To create this technology, we need a generous budget and lots of clever people. Exactly how much doesn’t really matter. The costs are going to seem trivial or exorbitant, depending on whether the project works or not. But we are probably looking at hundreds of thousands of pounds, rather than millions. Not much compared to the amounts wasted on futile or deceptive efforts to stop Brexit.
Starmer won’t reform a voting system that has just given him a landslide victory. His challengers on the left should
Who’s going to pay? The large unions are paralysed by their constitutional link to Labour and their long neglect of communications as an aspect of collective power. To give you some idea of how rigorous that neglect has been, Unite, Unison and the GMB have a combined membership of 3.2 million but fewer than 10,000 subscribers on YouTube. It would be nice to think that they could change in time, but it seems unlikely. As things stand they seem content to put their trust in Starmer and hope he doesn’t treat his assurances to them as casually as his promises to Labour members, or those who thought he was going to stop Brexit.
There’s another source of support that has enough money and is motivated to want the next general election to be at least a little bit democratic. If the wealthy liberals who support proportional representation and House of Lords reform are serious, they need to support a programme to make votes count in the next election, in spite of first-past-the-post. Starmer will not reform a voting system, never mind a broader constitutional order, that has just given him and his faction in the Labour Party a landslide victory. His challengers on the left will, if they have any sense at all.
The offshore right gave Dominic Cummings a few million pounds in 2016 to win the Brexit referendum for them. He built a superb propaganda machine, which comprehensively defeated the left in 2019. His success tells us something important about agency in a political system as centralised and befuddled by propaganda as ours. Relatively modest investments in technology can make a massive difference to political outcomes. If we can create the means for voters to communicate among ourselves in pursuit of our shared interests, if we then act with some fraction of the right’s energy and daring, with some fraction of their budget, we can begin to create a new economic and political settlement before the old impoverishes and demoralises even more of us. If we wait meekly for a Starmer landslide, we will get nothing, and deserve less.
