
A major new series from Imprint Academic on the use of randomisation in education, politics and other public policy areas. Special discount prices for OurKingdom and openDemocracy readers.
Part of the openDemocracy Network
Sortition and public policyLabour After BrownFrom Milibland to Johnson land?: Jeremy Gilbert argues for Labour without neo-liberalism. Magical thinking on Britishness: Anthony Barnett critiques Liam Byrne on fraternity. Rule of law at risk: Geoffrey Bindman calls for a turn away from the marketisation of government. A new Bill of Rights for Britain?: Guy Aitchison analyses Parliament's proposed new Bill of Rights. Miliband - by our rights we will know you: Claire O'Brien puts forward a new progressive vision for Labour. NOT A DAY LONGER
England Awakes?England, Britain and multiculturalism: an OurKingdom exchange A mild awakening?, England's turn? by David Goodhart OurKingdom TagsNavigation |
Democratic reform is Brown's real chance at a visionJon Bright (London, OK): When announcing that there would be no election on November the 1st, Gordon Brown said he wanted time to set out his "vision" for the country. On Monday, Sunder Katwala released a Fabian Society pamphlet urging him to do just that - and to make it a bold one. His basic premise is twofold. The tactics that have won Labour the previous three elections (a sort of "safety first", broadly inclusive manifesto, combined with the unelectability of the Tories) won't win the next one: the Tories are re-energised, and Labour cannot continue to ask for "more time" after what will have been 12 years in government. So Katwala argues that Brown should therefore lay out a "progressive vision" for society. Previous Labour policy has almost been tantamount to trying to bring in "social democracy by stealth" - implementing progressive policies whilst not really talking about them. Now Labour should be explicit, and Katwala lays out a five point plan for this new vision (tackling the challenges of inequality, democratic reform, the environment, civil liberties and planning for a putative multipolar world). On democratic reform, he says: Labour should bite the bullet and back a written constitution. But the party should also pledge to put a more radical ‘democracy package' to a public referendum. This should propose electoral reform - the Alternative Vote for the Commons, so that every MP must seek 50% of the vote in their constituency - which should be combined with proportional representation for an 80% elected second chamber. Most people who talk about politics perceive Brown as being in crisis (though Mike Smithson points out that Brown's polling numbers perhaps aren't as bad as they are often made out to be). So Katwala is right, I think, that Brown should try and regain some initiative and set out a clear vision. But the key point is time. Brown has the time he asked for to set it out - but not that much. He needs action as well as words; and of all the five points Katwala outlines it is only in the areas of democracy and civil liberties that Brown can really make noticeable progress before the next general election - and he would only be able to do so in civil liberties by tearing up measures introduced by his own party. Democratic reform therefore seems like the only field where Brown has an opportunity to do something bold, something historic, something visionary, before going to the polls. Will he take it? Post new comment |
Just Posted
Just Commented
Email AlertsFill in the form below to sign up to our automatic daily alerts, or weekly editorial summary (you will be taken to another page to confirm which options you want).
OK is reading
They say about OK"the ever-stimulating OpenDemocracy"
Ekklesia "See OurKingdom to keep up" South Belfast Diary "...an essential guide to understanding the dynamic constitutional situation..." Peter Oborne "...becoming a daily read for me." Iain Dale "To make sense of it all, check out OurKingdom..." Matthew d'Ancona "Worth a look...it is, however, recommended by Matthew d'Ancona." The Wardman Wire "Fast becoming the best political website around" Tom Waterhouse, CEP "...attracting energy from a range of contributors." thenextwave "...looks very promising..." The England Project "The excellent new OurKingdom blog from OpenDemocracy..." The Green Ribbon "On the internet, I keep in touch with openDemocracy, a website on global current affairs, and its useful offshoot, OurKingdom" Andreas Whittam-Smith "thanks to the fine folk at OurKingdom, (who manage to communicate a variety of perspectives in the way that only a decent group blog can)" Nostalgia For the Future |
ourkingdom (not verified) said:
Thu, 2007-11-15 19:28Yes, Sundar discusses the problems of winning a fourth election and the fact that trying to do so by re-running 1997 won't work. he is right about this. But recently David Miliband said that showing the government was competent is the essential thing they need to do. He needs to read Sunder. In 1997, after nearly two decades in the wilderness, Labour did need to demonstrate its competence - its fitness to govern. It did so which is why it won again. But also, by the time the opposition were seen as hopelessly incompetent.
HBere is the quote in full from the Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3157790.ece
"Mr Miliband also warned that Mr Brown could lose the next general election unless the Government was seen to be effective and competent. That was seen as a signal to No 10 that it has to "raise its game" following blunders over the timing of the general election, the retreat over capital gains tax, the Northern Rock fiasco and the row over the leaked Home Office memorandum on illegal immigrants. "The next election is Labour's to lose and not the Tories to win," Mr Miliband said, adding that it would be the Government's decisions that would reveal its competence, and its vision in office. "I believe if we are both a competent and effective Government, we will be in a very strong position in the next general election," he said."
Why won't this work? Because the crucial factor is whether or not the _opposition_ is seen as competent. There is little the government can do about this. Once it is so perceived then the game is over for this approach. Voters will think, well, if the government are only running on their competence and effectiveness why not give the other guys a chance now they don't seem to be too bad. Change is good and if the risk is low...
As the Tories under Cameron have indeed made this breakthrough, the game is over for Labour merely to run on its ability to govern well. It must offer a way forward that is attractive and distinctly its own. Whether Sunder has gone far enough to provide this is for debate, but on the fact now that this has to be done he is spot on.
Anthony