The Wrong Target

Share

I was talking with a friend today and she made me wonder if there’s any point to all of this – I don’t mean life itself! I mean writing this, I mean speculating over every political nuance, every twist and turn in the Brexit and Independence journeys. Well I reckon there is, educating and informing yourself, even if you never discuss what you’ve learned with another living soul, is always worthwhile. An informed population is much less vulnerable to exploitation. An informed, engaged population keeps on asking “why?”

One theory for the “Leave” vote is that disaffected voters took the opportunity to “give the establishment a kicking.” Well, I’m all for kicking the establishment, but sorry folks, you got the wrong target. The real opportunity for said kicking was in 2011, remember the AV (Alternative Vote) referendum? Choosing to flounce out of the EU has given “the establishment” in the form of the Tory Eurosceptic wing what they want, and will give the UK public a kicking. Changing to a different electoral system would have forced the “establishment” to change; coalition and minority governments have no choice but to look for common ground. Smaller parties like the Greens, Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru would have a louder voice. And yes, UKIP would get a look in, but actually winning more seats might have revealed just how corrupt and inept they really are. The UK parliamentary system is characterised by a struggle between two old enemies. Labour, Conservative, left and right. The Lib Dems are tolerated as part of the established order. These traditional delineations are fracturing elsewhere in Europe, in Scotland too, but in England the major parties cling to their security blanket. Voting for a different electoral method would have kick-started real, tangible reform. It would have begun with Westminster and led who knows where – House of Lords reform, a UK wide debate about federalism?

The wheels of change in Westminster turn at a glacial pace, the biggest shock for the establishment in recent history was the Indyref near miss in 2014 and the following SNP takeover in Scotland. Were either of these events met with any real soul searching or analysis from the political establishment ? No chance! In 2014 we were treated to EVEL (English Votes for English Laws) followed by a few paltry extra powers, far from the Devo-max promised by the Vow Brothers. The Labour Party reacts to the SNP as though they are aliens from another planet to be opposed on principle. With the notable exception of Henry McLeish, there has been little examination as to why Labour has failed in Scotland, instead we now have the inelegant spectacle of Ian Murray (Labour MP, Edinburgh South) suggesting Scots vote tactically to keep out the SNP!

My point is that the British establishment will always protect its own, Labour or Tory, the Lib Dems mop up any misfits, that’s their part in the ritual. The Tories famously consider themselves to be the natural party of Government. In my lifetime Labour have been the natural party of opposition, or failing that, a punch bag. To form a government they had to become “Tory lite” and appeal to middle England. This is a game, everyone has their role to play, the pesky SNP don’t fit and refuse to play. So Labour and the Lib Dems and middle England regard them with horror. Instead of examining what the SNP have to say, or considering the case for independence on its own merits, they oppose the interloper – just because.

The turnout for the AV referendum was pathetically low (42%) and the idea was rejected by 68%, an interested, engaged electorate would have understood and relished this opportunity for reform. Instead five years later a large portion of the voting public decided that all the UK’s ills could be laid at the door of immigration and the organisation responsible for this was the EU. So commenced the kicking and unfortunately although the EU looks a little sad, I can’t see any bruising. Our huff seems to have induced a collective eye roll across the channel but no meltdown. EU establishment in one piece. If “Call me Dave” and his Eton chums were the target – I don’t think their lives are ruined, lucrative speaking careers here they come. George already has a fortune and 5, or is it 6, well-paid jobs? The poor and disaffected took a swing and sabotaged their own futures – many of the “Leave” voting communities of England, have benefited from EU funding, and those areas reliant on the car industry for employment have imperilled their own job prospects. Instead of reform and consideration for neglected areas, Brexit has raised the possibility of Government using the delightfully titled “Henry VIII Clause”. This will allow the UK Government (I’m assuming this will still be Theresa and her cronies) to amend legislation with minimal scrutiny. An informed population would quail at such an idea and oppose it. Instead support for the Tories appears to be growing. “Strong” government shouldn’t mean hoarding power and burying the opposition. Why is collaboration and consideration of opposing view points seen as weakness?

Since the announcement of Brexit re-loaded, second chance Thursday, the 2017 General election, the BBC has been out and about in England and Wales engaging in that fun activity – asking unsuspecting members of the public about politics. Always a depressing, bewildering listen – Theresa May is strong and sensible, overseas aid should be slashed, migration must be reduced, little mention of the ailing NHS, the Tory election expenses scandal, the rape clause, the money pit that is Trident. The mainstream media shapes the debate and a large section of voters allow themselves to be steered. A majority of the English electorate will not vote Conservative on the 8th of June, a majority will be concerned about NHS funding and the direction of Brexit, but the Tories will likely be first past the post and gain extra seats in the Commons. Dissenting voices will find no space within Government.

If ordinary Brits are to have any chance of precipitating change we need to be able to recognise when we’re being offered genuine, positive reform (AV) and when we’re being chucked out of a plane without a parachute (Brexit). Passively waiting for politicians and the BBC to pipe relevant information into our homes isn’t enough any more, we have to take responsibility for educating and informing ourselves.

In the run up to 2014 Scotland woke up, and in 2015 we decided to stop colluding in the Westminster game. We sent 56 SNP MPs to the Commons to properly represent our interests and stand up for Scotland. To make progress, to become a truly democratic, modern nation the traditional structures of UK governance have to change, and frankly there seems to be no hope of that happening any time before 2020. Independence offers Scotland a chance to create something new and in the process I think the remainder of the UK would be forced finally to re assess its political structures. Independence offers all of us the chance to change. The 2017 General election will likely reveal just what different paths Scotland and England are on. Time to separate and find out what we’re really made of – authoritarian, mired in the past with disfunctional political structures or modern, democratic and European. I know which vision I prefer.

Share

4 thoughts on “The Wrong Target”

  1. Hi Christabel,
    Thanks for that post. I’d like to respond to a few things you’ve said but first of all A.V. (I think a good link here would have been useful)
    Probably a good time to discuss the AV system in the wake of the council elections as we’ve just used it here. Given the confusion it seems to cause amongst those with more than a passing interest in politics, I cant help thinking that those who are used to voting in a first past the post system, and who don’t have the time to study it get well-confused. There is also the added dimension about not knowing the candidates well enough and what they stand for, to vote all the way down. I cant help thinking there not currently a good enough explanation of how it works that hits the mark with most people. I wonder what you think?

    1. The AV voting system is not the same as that used in the Scottish Council elections, which was by Single Transferable Vote (STV), regarded by the Electoral Reform Society as the gold standard of voting systems. The AV referendum was sponsored by the LIB Dem coalition partners in the 2010-15 UK Government. AV is the simplest form of proportional representation and is really FPTP plus (see Electoral Reform Society website for more details). The LibDems opted for the AV system, I think, because the Tories wouldn’t agree to a referendum on STV and because it’s the simplest form of non-FPTP voting (easiest to understand). Basically the Tories sat on their hands, let the LibDems do the campaigning and probably got the result they wanted. While AV is not regarded as a real proportional voting system, the benefit would have been, as Christabel points out, to break the mould of British politics and perhaps, eventually move on to STV.

      On the wider point of the use of three different voting systems in Scottish elections (FPTP, STV and D’hondt), I’m not surprised that many voters marked their Council Election voting papers with an X as the average, non politically astute voter must be thoroughly confused.

    2. Hello Grace, AV is a bit of a half way house between first past the post and single transferable vote (STV). To understands how STV works you do need a degree in advanced problem solving! FPTP and D’hondt are more user friendly, but I think systems which ask the voter to rank candidates are a good idea. It means the candidates have to try harder and campaign positively, safe seats suddenly become a lot less safe. They aren’t just competing for first place. As a voter, during the recent council elections, I did something I’ve never done before and went to a hustings. I wanted to rank the candidates from 1 -12, so I really needed to understand what they were each offering (obviously the Tory got a 12, he looked bored anyway.) If we’d been using FPTP as England has for it’s council elections, I don’t think I’d have been as interested, I’d have just voted SNP and not really considered the other candidates. Yes we’re not used to STV, but we’ll be more familiar with it next time, and teenagers learn about it in Modern Studies at school. I employ a 14 year old in my business and she understood STV! The next generation of voters won’t be as settled in the FPTP groove. I think FPTP encourages apathy (on the part of voters and politicians), if you live in a safe seat and don’t like the predominant party, voting can seem a bit pointless.
      Undoubtedly there needs to be work done to raise awareness of how alternative voting systems work. It doesn’t help that we are using three different systems in Scotland and electoral reform has never been a hot topic in the UK. In an Independent Scotland hopefully we’ll use STV and everyone will get the hang of it.

  2. I’m currently on holiday in Cornwall. Lots of Cornish flags flying and on car registration plates and in car windows. Cornish independence is highly unlikely however due to the massive influx of non-Cornish residents. As one of the most economically challenged areas of the UK and as a big recipient of EU funding, I can however understand why so many Cornish voters opted for Brexit. While a high proportion of locals are in low paid work, everywhere they look are signs of obscene wealth – in property prices (shacks no better than the Carbeth huts being sold I gather for more than £300,000), and many billions of pounds worth of yachts all bobbing at their moorings, rigging tinkling. I would want to kick back at any Government that enabled such inequality to occur.

Comments are closed.