1

Setting the Scene Amidst Turbulent Politics

THE WINDS OF political change are blowing through western democracies. The infamous spirit of recent political times is a reminder of the darker political days we thought had gone forever. It is a wake-up call to progressives who believe that humans are capable of achieving much higher levels of social, economic, political and cultural wellbeing. As Naomi Klein says in her new book, No is Not Enough: Defeating the New Shock Politics, ‘Trump, as extreme as he is, is less an aberration than a logical conclusion – a pastiche of pretty much all the worst and most dangerous trends of the past half century’.

The early years of the 21st century have erupted into a spectacular period of seismic political unrest which challenges our sense of purpose, shreds our certainties, and questions our path to progress in the post-war era. Volatile and angry electors are contesting social democracy and progressive politics. Populism, the rise of the right and the angry backlash of ‘left behinds’ are dominating politics at a time of unprecedented and accelerating change in every dimension of society.

My argument is that there is something profoundly wrong with our politics, democracy and governance that is impacting on the way we live and how we organise our society. This period of political turmoil demands a positive and progressive response and requires us to dig deeper to find out what populism means and how this is changing our politics.

I believe that the decision to leave the EU was a mistake, and we must examine why this happened and what the catastrophic consequences are likely to be. There is a need to contest, derail and ultimately defeat this act of collective self-harm, which has no benefits for Britain and is tearing the country, government and politics apart. As this nightmare engulfs us, countless important political issues are being cast aside – climate change, inequality, education, older people, homelessness and housing conditions (especially after the Grenfell tragedy in London), while Westminster gets down to work on seven new Bills, over an extended two-year period, to pave the way for Britain to leave the EU.

This makes no sense. Outside this country, people believe we have taken leave of our senses. Enough is enough. A new campaign is needed to make Britain sane again and win the EU back for Britain.

The future of Scotland is bigger than nationalism, populism or the SNP. I want to see Labour engage, interact with a wider audience and argue for federalism, acknowledging that the constitutional question will not go away and accepting the simple truth that if the SNP didn’t exist, we would still need a radical shake-up of the structure of the UK and a reassessment of Scotland’s role in it.

Over the last decade, Scotland has lacked choice because of the dominance of the SNP, the refusal of Labour to offer a viable and sustainable alternative and the intense disinterest of Westminster, which may ultimately determine the destiny of Scotland. Whether Scotland becomes independent is still a very live question. Despite the SNP’s momentum slowing, the stacking up of problems for the Scottish Government and party discipline being so rigid are preventing any debates on issues and new ideas. There now exists a set of factors which could change the dynamic of when a second independence referendum might take place and present Scots with a different choice. Brexit, which has overwhelmed and distracted everyone, has the potential to be a total game changer. With none of the other parties offering a convincing constitutional alternative, the actual reality of leaving the EU – and the devastating impact on Scotland if that happens – will change the parameters of the economic case for independence.

The behaviour of the present Tory government might be enough to reignite the Scotland question. There is no settled will of the Scottish people and the clear question thrown up by the Brexit fiasco is, what would constitute one? The lessons of the EU referendum should be ringing in our ears. Delivering the destiny of a nation is no easy task. There must be a much wider debate which transcends the tribal politics that characterise Scotland today. Old unionism does not begin to rise to the challenges of an aspirational Scotland or the circumstances of a bitterly divided and declining Union. So, the battle will be between a federal structure or independence. Independence is up and running. Federalism is barely at the starting gate. This is the challenge for Labour. Within the context of Westminster’s proven inability to reform itself over centuries, can federalism move from being a theoretical but inspirational option, to a runner as a constitutional future for Scotland? The odds on this happening are long, but the fact that so many Scots remain unconvinced by independence, after a decade of SNP dominance, suggests there is a future for a new idea.

‘What’s the matter with the UK?’ is a valid question that needs answering as its post-war decline continues, bitter divisions are reinforced and a dangerous, delusional and sentimental embrace of the past threatens its stability, undermining any sense of solidarity and putting at risk the existence of the Union in its present form.

The divisive, dysfunctional two-party politics of the US requires urgent treatment as the marketisation of US politics expands. Trump has only made matters worse. The Pledge of Allegiance is likely to see ‘one nation under God’ replaced with ‘one nation under the market’ and the Gettysburg address adapted to read ‘for, by and of the lobbyists’.

The lack of a written constitution for the UK empowers Westminster at the expense of the people, starves the nations of the UK any real power, encourages political tribalism, perpetuates the myth of absolute sovereignty, weakens and devalues our democracy and undermines effective governance.

The future of our politics and democracy require us to do more than defeat Trump and Brexit, confront right wing populism and rebuild a progressive centre-left agenda. We need to address fundamental questions of how money and market involvement are damaging and distorting our democracy. We need to achieve a healthy fit between market capitalism and democracy and work towards re-establishing the idea of the common good.

We need, above all else, to create a new vision of the ‘citizen’, where consumers and consumerism give way to citizens and citizenship, and where the qualities of the new citizen give rise to a more active and mature democracy, a deeper form of politics and eventually more representative and collaborative governance. Living by the mantras that ‘greed is good’ and ‘financial wealth is worth’ results in people serving money instead of the opposite, and this distracts us from more important issues.

Early Politics and Enduring Values: Pits, Pulpit, Pitches and Politics

The early years, it was so easy then. The building blocks of a progressive narrative were just part of life and living. The turbulent and troubled politics of the early 21st century are in sharp contrast to my early experiences in the mining community of Methil, Fife in the 1950s and ’60s. Pits, Pitches, Pulpit, and Politics influenced and helped shape my life. Mining communities were tough but honest places, immersed in the values of solidarity, social justice, the common good, fairness and a broader humanity: the values that some people would wish us to give up on. This is not just a walk down memory lane, indulging in the sentiment or nostalgia of a bygone era where, viewed through the prism of the unprecedented political upheavals of today, life seemed to be kinder, more thoughtful, and compassionate.

These insights, into the social, political, and economic conditions of a Fife mining community have so much to teach us about fairness, respect for others and the ideas of community and social coherence. Football, politics, mining and the voice of the church were very much part of the community, strengthening the social fabric, reinforcing enduring civic values and constantly asserting the dignity of people. In a world of bewildering political change, it is worth remembering that there are values, ethics and principles that have no need to change. In one way or another, this was the Labour party at work. Labour and the community were inextricably linked with mutual respect, only the Communist party providing political opposition. The public was intimately involved in politics. Labour politics with its ‘socialist Sunday schools’ was identified with the church. Evangelical Christians, the Trades Unions, the Co-operative Movement and a multitude of other organisations, including football clubs, contributed to a sense of community, class consciousness and the idea of the common good. There is much to learn from the politics of the past as we seek new ways today of building better futures.

My family were deeply involved in the Labour party and the various organisations that dominated daily life.

The Glenrothes seat, as it is now named – my old parliamentary constituency – was a red stronghold for 80 years, including a Communist MP, Willie Gallagher, from 1935 to 1951. The year of the 100th anniversary of the death of Keir Hardie would have been a good year to carry on this tradition, but like every other Labour seat in Scotland, bar one, it fell to the SNP on 7 May 2015.

Born and brought up in the Methil area, knocking doors in election campaigns was for me like a walk down memory lane. My 30 years in elected politics, including my 14 years at Westminster, are all linked to this parliamentary seat. My father and grandfather were miners at the nearby Wellesley Colliery. My mother worked at the Co-op store in an area where the ‘divi’ (the Co-op dividend) was the real currency. She later became Labour party branch secretary in nearby Kennoway. My grandparents lived near Keir Hardie Street in Methil. My grandmother was a member of the Labour party and the Co-op party for over 60 years and worked alongside my grandfather in the soup kitchens in the 1926 miner’s strike. Like myself, my grandfather played for the local football team, East Fife, whose old stadium was literally along the street. After returning from the First World War, shocked and traumatised by his experiences, he became an evangelical Christian. He talked a lot about the common good; the fact that after 1900 working people were represented in Parliament; and that the private mines in which he worked were taken into public ownership and safety regulations were introduced. The trauma of the First World War and the story of trenches full of dead bodies made the idea of a decent life for everyone so important. His Christian faith was always founded on the poor, the vulnerable and the ideas of compassion and solidarity. Are these values any less relevant today? Why have they lost their significance in modern times?

Born a few hundred yards from Keir Hardie Street, it was difficult not to inherit a sense of real belonging and become absorbed by political history and family ties. We live in different times but there is still a powerful and enduring set of values, principles and ethics that can be harnessed to improve the lives of people, provide the soul of a new progressive politics and create a mood for radical change.

The powerful community forces at work in Methil were the same forces which created Labour party in 1900: trades unionism, evangelical Christianity, the Independent Labour party and the Co-op movement. It espoused the cause of working people – the common good, tackling inequality, creating a fair and just society and defending people in the workplace.

Labour was built on a broad coalition of interests. The world has changed, and 102 years after Keir Hardie’s death, there is much for us to reflect upon. The Labour party had won the respect and confidence of people and were credible and relevant to what was going on. Labour was of the people and the community – ‘of them, by them and for them’. Being Labour was as easy as breathing.

Being optimistic about the complex issues of today is a tough ask. Change isn’t easy. But in a period of profound disquiet about our politics and the seismic upheavals in our democracy and governance, we need to make sense of what is happening, explore new and better ways of engaging with each other and find new ideas for tackling the myriad of problems and opportunities in this world of unrelenting and unprecedented upheaval. The past has a great deal to teach us. A society with soul and substance will allow people to feel they have control of their lives and influence over what is happening around them. This loss of control and the feeling of exclusion are undermining personal confidence and paving the way for assaults such as Trump and Brexit to win success.

Social Democracy in Crisis: The Rise of Populism and the Political Right

In western democracies, the pillars of post-war politics – security, stability, solidarity, social cohesion and social mobility – are under threat. The wind of change is getting stronger. The questioning and contesting of the traditional is intensifying. A new consciousness is stirring and complaining. The post-war political settlement is in danger of being torn up. A new era has emerged where anger, angst, uncertainty, insecurity, fear, grievance and resentment are changing the opinions of millions of people. The agony and humiliation of feeling you are losing out or falling behind are increasingly shaping the face of our politics, which in turn is weakening democracies and delivering ineffective governance. The heretical is becoming the commonplace. Many are looking for a new future that offers hope and populism is capturing the minds of those who feel politically excluded. Populists and the right have corralled and exploited much of this revolt. Progressives see this as a step back into a darker past and as a direct threat to social democracy, socialism and liberal democracy. They see freedoms and progressive policies under attack in a populist backlash that reminds them of the uglier parts of history and the myriad evils which accompany authoritarianism, intolerance, economic nationalism and right wing extremism. In the sweep of modern political history, is this transitory or transformational? A tipping point or a blip? Background noise or clear signals of a new normal being formed?

The context. The forces shaking and transforming the old political order are globalisation, automation, technology, the digital revolution, the Facebook era, the marketisation of society, the economy and politics, austerity (the ongoing effect of the financial crisis of 2008), the atomisation of society and the rise of individualism. Deepening inequality and the decline of social democracy and progressiveness are scarring our societies and crowding out hope for the future. Populism offers the past in a new garb.

The events. Brexit 2016, the Scottish referendum 2014, the US presidential election and the migrant crisis in the EU. Trump 2016, Macron/Le Pen 2017, Wilders 2017 and the 2015 and 2017 UK general elections and the 2017 constitutional referendum in Turkey.

The causes. People falling behind, being excluded, feeling that no one is listening; the breakdown of traditional loyalties and allegiances; the entitlements of elites; and mainstream parties taking people for granted; erosion of respect resulting in a backlash from the ‘just about managing’.

The emotions. Especially in England, a sense of frustration, anxiety, loss of control and influence, nostalgia, longing for past conditions (real or imaginary) the lure and the loss of greatness, a sense of not belonging in a changing nation, fewer landmarks directions and signposts, fear of the unknown, heightened social anxieties, real material deprivation for many (both in or out of work). One grievance runs into another, anger and grudge become more combustible and people are receptive to emergent ‘heroes’ who appear empathetic, offering hope and a direction in which to channel grievances and blame as an outlet for their anger. Trump and Brexit exhibit all of these. The idea of the ‘political fan’ is emerging where ‘we will support you evermore’ becomes a powerful mantra from the tribal world of football.

The reactions. Anger towards establishment elites and experts with hostility to traditional parties in some quarters, identity and nationality politics shaping the debate and the scapegoating and ‘outing’ of people, difference becoming a focus for anger. Groups of people or someone or something blamed for our national decline.

The conclusions or outcomes. A new extremism – of the left, but mainly of the right. Profound dissatisfaction with the way people feel they are being treated. A fragile and uncertain politics, the emergence of intolerance and a new era of ‘isms’ threatening the political space and undermining what was a fragile consensus. Fake news, fraud news, alternative facts, the post-truth debate and the lying press (all of which have overtones of the conditions under pre-war nationalist regimes in Europe), are in danger of destroying the basis of rational and constructive debate. This is politics without a trusted base of facts and evidence, where consensus crumbles and each political base develops its own parallel universe.

The exploiters. The constellation of populists, the right, the treacherous, the cheap patriots who say they love their country (but do everything to damage it), the ideologues, all the ‘isms’ and racism. The media (especially the right-leaning press) engaging millions of people by ostensibly offering to reflect their emotions, patriotism and love of country, but in reality encouraging them to vote against their own economic interests, abusing truth on an industrial scale and promoting right wing fanaticism as common sense and in the best interests of the country. The press has moved from giving commentary to becoming key players in the unfolding of any political drama.

The enemy within. The mindset of the right in the Conservative party, delusional extremists and fanatical ideologues in Government and Cabinet. (We need to smell the coffee and accept there is a political enemy within – in some cases encouraged by right wing tabloids, often shunned as inappropriate by broadcasters, ignored and nurtured in equal measures by the Tory leadership, seldom on the radar screen of the public and often obscured by Oxbridge accents, elite backgrounds and plausible and intelligent narratives. We hear about the hard left but never the hard right!)

The consequences. A Union and politics in decline, bitter social and economic issues, the cumulative effect of post-war decline being a disunited kingdom with no sense of national purpose – ‘four nations’ a lie, but not recognised.

The depth of this social fracture was captured by Benjamin Disraeli – Conservative prime minister and novelist – in Sybil: Or the Two Nations. Referring specifically to the divide between the rich and the poor in 19th century Britain, he wrote:

Two nations; between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by different food and are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws.

Money, ideology and the highly destructive advance of the market into the social and public realms are dividing today’s Britain. Politics is no longer out in the open. A market economy is fast becoming a market society where no alternative narrative of public philosophy exists.

Our Democracy is Weak and Ineffective

For the majority of people, voting is their only link with the complex structure of democracy, politics and governance that helps shape our society and makes sense of the tough process of arriving at collective decisions out of a bewildering array of multiple and competing interests, opinions, ideas and lifestyles.

The Greek words ‘demos’ (people) and ‘kratos’ (power), combine in the word democracy to become symbolic of an inspiring and powerful but remarkably difficult idea to deliver. It was Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg address who said, ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from this earth’.

How do these lofty ideals reflect what is happening at Westminster, post election? How can a Conservative party with 29 per cent of the eligible votes cast on 8 June 2017 form a Government? Why do 60 per cent of those who did vote, but voted for other parties, end up having little influence on how Britain is run in the next five years? Can it be right that the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) with only 279,000 votes and 10 seats, be influential in shaping the future of Britain’s future?

More to the point, we are seeing Government of the party, by the party, for the party, where narrow partisan party politics eclipse any notion of the national interest, further diminish the credibility of our democracy, allowing an ‘elected dictatorship’ to function;
71 per cent of all voters did not support the Conservatives or the DUP. The injustices and inconsistencies of our electoral system run deep.

The struggle for universal suffrage, the right to vote, was a great victory for working people and remains the most important means at their disposal to influence their own lives, the fortunes of their families and indeed the course of history.

Despite the efforts of the Whigs and Tories and the ‘nobles, burgesses, and shire commissioners’ before them, the struggle for universal voting rights became unstoppable, but was only completely achieved in 1969. For the founding fathers in the US and the privileged classes in Britain, extending the franchise was fraught with fear of the people, rather than power of the people. The idea of ‘mobocracy’ and the ‘behaviour of the masses’ was a threat to elites.

In the modern era, the ‘first past the post’ system for Westminster elections is archaic, politically repressive, unfair and unrepresentative. The lack of a written constitution means that absolute power remains with Westminster, not the people. The younger generation is crying out to be listened to, but Westminster will not extend the franchise or give a voice to 16-year-olds. The ideas of consensus, cooperation, and coalition, unlike Europe, are not part of the Westminster discourse. Proportional representation would help fix our broken politics, strengthen a weak democracy and tackle the remoteness of governance.

Reforming the voting system for Westminster is, however, not on the agenda. The status quo has preserved the dominance of Labour and the Conservatives, reinforced partisanship and, despite the emergence of a multi-party system, made millions of votes worthless in terms of political impact and fairness. This is a rigged system.

Continental Europe is showing the way forward. Post-war forms of proportional voting have overcome much of the tribalism that is still the hallmark of Westminster, and has resulted in a better match between votes cast, political party representation, the composition of government and successful coalitions.

The defeat of the modest ‘Alternative Vote’ system in a referendum in 2011 is only of significance to the point that this was a sham, a concession to the Lib Dems in the Tory Coalition, with little support from the two major parties. Voting is a powerful and undervalued democratic right in Britain. Often the media, right wing politicians and those obsessed with the ‘market’ ignore the importance of our democracy, our politics, and our governance. They remain content with first past the post, a system which dominates and distorts the consequences of voting and ensures millions of votes don’t matter.

The American author Mark Twain once quipped, ‘if voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let us do it’. In Britain, millions of people may have taken this to heart. From 1997, 30 to 40 per cent of the electorate haven’t bothered to vote in Westminster elections. In 2015, the SNP won 50 per cent of the vote but picked up 95 per cent of the seats in Scotland.

In similar vein, UKIP received nearly 4 million votes and only one MP. This doesn’t make any sense. The Tory victory in the 2015 General Election meant they formed the Government with just over a third of the votes cast and only slightly over a quarter of those eligible to vote in the UK. This was repeated in the 2017 General Election. There is now an undeniable case for change: the worth of a vote and the value of voting are at stake.

In today’s volatile political climate, the political, social, economic and cultural challenges demand a more inclusive, fairer, representative system of voting. Our politics are crying out for a civilised approach, co-operation, progressive coalitions and consensus. It beggars belief that in 2017 we hold on to the ideas that each manifesto is unique and precious, that each party has a monopoly of wisdom to solve every problem and that supporting or working with another party is a sign of weakness. People don’t think like this. This is not the European way. First past the post only reinforces this state of delusion.

But change is difficult. The status quo serves the self-interest of the two big parties. Their case against change is plausible but flawed. Simplicity, speed, MP–voters link, decisive results and strong and stable government, are seen as advantages.

First past the post has substantial weaknesses: MPs and governments elected without majority votes; parties that win large numbers of votes but obtain few seats; and smaller parties under-represented or not represented in the House of Commons. Key institutions of our democracy – parties, parliaments, and elections – do not command enough trust or respect.

Our politics and our electoral system are not coping. Proportional representation voting, votes for 16-year-olds to give them a greater say in the intergenerational debate and transferring power to the people in a written constitution, are long overdue. Voters are serious people. As citizens, not consumers, they recognise the fact that politics, democracy, and governance have profound consequences for their lives. Abandoning first past the post for Westminster elections is the next step in the struggle for voting rights. Let’s learn from Europe.

The worth of a vote should never be underestimated or abused.

Citizens and citizenship have become a convenient administrative label. For many people, their experience of democracy and politics is relegated to an outing to the polling station, at least for the 60 to 70 per cent of the public who use their vote in general elections. It is remarkable that our Parliament at Westminster seems unconcerned that 30 to 40 per cent of the population never vote. Maybe people have woken up to the notion that nothing will change.

The struggle for the universal franchise was a tough battle with the Whigs and Tories in Westminster. For many people, voting at the polling station seems more like a validation of the process than a real opportunity to shape the future of the country. Politics has become an end, rather than a means to a much wider set of social and economic objectives.