So pleased to read this and see that Andy Burnham has expressed what I have concluded: that parties of different colours should be able to find common ground and work together to find democratic solutions, for the benefit of the majority.
Absolutely right, Kathryn. It sounds a bit twee in this context, but that old saying "If you want to go quickly, go alone; if you want to go far, bring the village" can teach us a lot about the value of finding common ground and working together...even if, at first, it appears to be slowing you down.
I'm delighted to see that in addition to getting rid of FPTP, Andy Burnham has highlighted reform of the Party Whip and the Lords. He just needs to tackle Tufton Street, lobbying and party funding too, and then we're moving in the right direction which is away from corruption and cronyism.
We really do need some form of PR to bring democracy back into British politics. Up until the last election, when the Tories "handed" the baton to Starmer's Labour Party, (aka the STP; Substitute Tory Party), we've had a two-party system and were following the USofA down the political sewer. So Andy Burnham is a breath of fresh. Especially when Starmer said he would look at it, which was obviously a lie. He had no intention of pandering to the people who got him elected.
I'll be surprised to see any meaningful change to the electoral and government system in my lifetime. As the article points out, politicians are keen to talk about it when out of office, but once in power they find 'other' priorities. FPTP provides hundreds of MPs of all parties with a sinecure and any threat to that will be resisted across the board.
I share much of your pessimism, Gareth...but I do sense we might be nearing one of those moments when a 'tectonic' shift might actually be possible. If so, we have to be ready to capitalise on it.
💥 Note added at the start of the piece to reflect Andrew Gwynne's post-publication announcement that he does indeed intend to stand down as MP for Gorton and Denton, opening the door for Burnham to return to Westminster.
That first bit sounds like a challenge, George! Happy to have a go! 🤣 And you raise a very good question re the NEC. Starmer certainly has majority support there but would he want to be seen to block a challenge from someone with such significant support amongst party members? I’m not sure that would send out the right signals. Interested to know what you think about that.
Like Henry and his tiresome bishop in Canterbury, Starmer only has to talk about it in company for the dastardly deed to be done. He is without and thus not involved.
I don’t think Burnham will run in Denton & Reddish. I don’t think Labour’s NEC will let him, and even if they did, he could lose to a Reform candidate. They (Reform) would be going all out to get him, of course. Also, Labour could lose the Manchester mayoralty. They wouldn’t want that, either.
I think Burnham should bide his time. He’s still relatively young. Or does he just look it? If he jumps now, it might be the end of his career.
I still support electoral reform for Westminster though. Perhaps the topic will move up the agenda if Labour’s current unpopularity continues.
All very good points, David. (Burnham is 56, I think. I know what you mean - I’m a year younger but look a decade older!) I’ve heard on the grapevine that Team Burnham has in recent months been crunching the numbers hard (not just for this seat) for precisely the ‘Reform’ reasons you set out. I can only assume the ones here look positive enough.
All this and far more is dealt with in my book Reinventing Democracy: Improving British poltical governance.
Sadly, the entire poltical establishment believes that new ideas should only come from the present (failed) players. Burnham is an exception in that he thinks for himself, but the problems are far deeper than you describe in this circular.
You're right, David...the country's problems are many and deep. But fixing a problem as fundamental as our dysfunctional democracy is an essential first step to solving all the others.
I agree PR is needed but it doesn’t fix any of the problems listed below. Working through the present system is too slow and not much more will be done for decades. It’s essential to face two facts:
(a). The present system of political governance has failed and needs complete replacement as an integrated whole, not a patchwork quilt of individual fixes.
(b). Actors in the present system, including the media, will not compromise their use of/dependence on patronage/sources (all combinations are valid). Therefore new ideas have to come from the people.
These are some of the problems that PR of itself will not fix, and will take too long if we go on as before (I have prefaced my own ideas with a hyphen):
1. UK breaking up. Once Northern Ireland exercises its Belfast Agreement rights, it will be impossible to deny Scotland a leave referendum. Ditto Wales.
- a federal constitution, with a federal government mainly responsible for defence, foreign affairs, and common standards. The nations responsible for everything else, subject to common rules.
- as an added thought, any nations that leave and rejoin the EU would make rules for England to largely follow. Poetic justice indeed.
2. England uses its numbers to dictate to the other nations (precedent set by the Brexit referendum)
- use segments of the Fibonacci series to set representation by nation in all federal bodies, so that England can be blocked by any two other nations and outvoted by three.
3. Sovereignty defined as “The Crown in Parliament”
- the people of each nation should be sovereign.
4. Parliament has no formal rights over foreign affairs e.g. international agreements, but is allowed token votes as a way of defusing disagreement
- explicit rights for legislators and investigators.
5. Royal assent is a farce, the monarch does as the Westminster government dictates even for devolved nations
- replace it by the People’s assent (details according to how close a government keeps to its manifesto commitments).
6. The House of Lords needs scrapping. Ditto the Privy Council, which makes legislation by the back door outside of the parliamentary system (called “Orders in Council”)
- replace both by an elected People’s Council, to give the People’s assent to legislation, or call a referendum
7. Unbundle parliamentary responsibilities. Making legislation is badly done at present. The inquisitorial powers of the Commons need more time and effort to hold all parts of the British state to account
- transfer investigatory functions to the People’s Council.
8. Gibraltar is a colony (if you disagree, please read the Gibraltar constitution)
- let Gibraltar choose full integration as a fifth nation, by vote of Gibraltarians. It’s probably the only way to prevent a Spanish veto over the UK rejoining the EU (and also the UK could be blocked from the single market, as only EFTA members have an automatic right to join the EEA).
9. Donations buying influence
- introduce democracy vouchers £5 per elector per annum. The cost is trivial. Electors can donate to a party of their choice, or tear the voucher up. One person one vote, not one pound one vote.
10. Aggression is baked into the opposing benches at Westminster
- New federal parliament sits in a new round or horseshoe chamber in another city. England can choose to keep its traditional aggression and bicameral parliament, or turn Westminster into a tourist attraction. Much cheaper than the present rebuilding plans. This enables London to stay the centre of England but not of the UK.
11. Lies, damned lies, and British politics. Evidence: Brexit
- Constitutional requirement that all political and government communications (incl. media opinion) at all times be “fair, clear, and not misleading”. It’s UK financial services regulation for financial advertising, so must be good enough for political advertising in all its forms.
12. Power of lobbying
- constitutional rules limiting it and granting equal access to the community
There is much more in Reinventing Democracy. If we go on trying to fix and work through the present system, it will be at a rate of one or two of these issues every five-year parliament (until England is left alone to face facts, in which case the present adversarial system could lead to civil war). Can we wait sixty to 120 years? No. But that is how slowly changing the present system works. Women’s emancipation took a century.
Admit that we are dealing with system failure. Then start thinking about what to replace it with.
Kind regards,
David Kauders
PS Reinventing Democracy print edition 9781907230202, epub e-book 9781907230226, pdf available for only £1.99 at https://payhip.com/b/x0ZQq
I think this intertwines nicely with the rise (and hopefully fall) of Farage and (so-called) Reform. Never before in modern (i.e. from early-C19th) politics have there been two parties of the right - it's always been on the left. It's be interesting to see where the Tories think their bread is buttered (and where their ill-earned knight- and dame-hoods will come from, scattered as they are like confetti at a large wedding). If they think Lab-Lib-Green can work more effectively together than Tory-Reform, then the Tory agenda isn't going to get very far and they'll want to do something about it - even if it means changing FPTP.
I do believe that there are three right-wing parties as Starmer (under Blair) has taken the Labour Party to 3 minutes past twelve on the political clock. Tories are 10 past with Farage at 25 minutes past.
Yes, Tony, the voting system is not the only problem with our democracy. Fair elections also require people to have access to reliable information on which to make their democratic decisions, for rules that stop 'big money' interests bulldozing through the will of the people, and for parties and politicians to be properly held to account when they break rules and promises. 👍🏻
So pleased to read this and see that Andy Burnham has expressed what I have concluded: that parties of different colours should be able to find common ground and work together to find democratic solutions, for the benefit of the majority.
Absolutely right, Kathryn. It sounds a bit twee in this context, but that old saying "If you want to go quickly, go alone; if you want to go far, bring the village" can teach us a lot about the value of finding common ground and working together...even if, at first, it appears to be slowing you down.
Absolutely! Time to have a way of agreeing our infrastructure development in the long term instead of flip flopping between parties.
Whatever can be done to introduce PR is a must and needs to happen asap
I'm delighted to see that in addition to getting rid of FPTP, Andy Burnham has highlighted reform of the Party Whip and the Lords. He just needs to tackle Tufton Street, lobbying and party funding too, and then we're moving in the right direction which is away from corruption and cronyism.
We really do need some form of PR to bring democracy back into British politics. Up until the last election, when the Tories "handed" the baton to Starmer's Labour Party, (aka the STP; Substitute Tory Party), we've had a two-party system and were following the USofA down the political sewer. So Andy Burnham is a breath of fresh. Especially when Starmer said he would look at it, which was obviously a lie. He had no intention of pandering to the people who got him elected.
I'll be surprised to see any meaningful change to the electoral and government system in my lifetime. As the article points out, politicians are keen to talk about it when out of office, but once in power they find 'other' priorities. FPTP provides hundreds of MPs of all parties with a sinecure and any threat to that will be resisted across the board.
I share much of your pessimism, Gareth...but I do sense we might be nearing one of those moments when a 'tectonic' shift might actually be possible. If so, we have to be ready to capitalise on it.
Nothing would please me more, electorally speaking
I've always liked Andy Burnham - Manchesterism is what we need ( & Prestonism too)
💥 Note added at the start of the piece to reflect Andrew Gwynne's post-publication announcement that he does indeed intend to stand down as MP for Gorton and Denton, opening the door for Burnham to return to Westminster.
Agree it's time for proper change in our electoral system. Unlikely to happen anytime soon. On Burnham going for MP, will the NEC block that?
That first bit sounds like a challenge, George! Happy to have a go! 🤣 And you raise a very good question re the NEC. Starmer certainly has majority support there but would he want to be seen to block a challenge from someone with such significant support amongst party members? I’m not sure that would send out the right signals. Interested to know what you think about that.
Like Henry and his tiresome bishop in Canterbury, Starmer only has to talk about it in company for the dastardly deed to be done. He is without and thus not involved.
I don’t think Burnham will run in Denton & Reddish. I don’t think Labour’s NEC will let him, and even if they did, he could lose to a Reform candidate. They (Reform) would be going all out to get him, of course. Also, Labour could lose the Manchester mayoralty. They wouldn’t want that, either.
I think Burnham should bide his time. He’s still relatively young. Or does he just look it? If he jumps now, it might be the end of his career.
I still support electoral reform for Westminster though. Perhaps the topic will move up the agenda if Labour’s current unpopularity continues.
All very good points, David. (Burnham is 56, I think. I know what you mean - I’m a year younger but look a decade older!) I’ve heard on the grapevine that Team Burnham has in recent months been crunching the numbers hard (not just for this seat) for precisely the ‘Reform’ reasons you set out. I can only assume the ones here look positive enough.
This would be great if it could happen. We need honest folk with guts. Go for it Andy!
Liked, restacked & shared to Bluesky (as always). We can hope that Andy Burnham is returned to Parliament.
Thank you, Black Pearl…very grateful. 🙏🏻
Thanks for bringing Andy Burnham’s name to my attention. I will be looking out for him and his progress.
Dear Mark
All this and far more is dealt with in my book Reinventing Democracy: Improving British poltical governance.
Sadly, the entire poltical establishment believes that new ideas should only come from the present (failed) players. Burnham is an exception in that he thinks for himself, but the problems are far deeper than you describe in this circular.
Kind regards
David Kauders
You're right, David...the country's problems are many and deep. But fixing a problem as fundamental as our dysfunctional democracy is an essential first step to solving all the others.
Dear Mark
I agree PR is needed but it doesn’t fix any of the problems listed below. Working through the present system is too slow and not much more will be done for decades. It’s essential to face two facts:
(a). The present system of political governance has failed and needs complete replacement as an integrated whole, not a patchwork quilt of individual fixes.
(b). Actors in the present system, including the media, will not compromise their use of/dependence on patronage/sources (all combinations are valid). Therefore new ideas have to come from the people.
These are some of the problems that PR of itself will not fix, and will take too long if we go on as before (I have prefaced my own ideas with a hyphen):
1. UK breaking up. Once Northern Ireland exercises its Belfast Agreement rights, it will be impossible to deny Scotland a leave referendum. Ditto Wales.
- a federal constitution, with a federal government mainly responsible for defence, foreign affairs, and common standards. The nations responsible for everything else, subject to common rules.
- as an added thought, any nations that leave and rejoin the EU would make rules for England to largely follow. Poetic justice indeed.
2. England uses its numbers to dictate to the other nations (precedent set by the Brexit referendum)
- use segments of the Fibonacci series to set representation by nation in all federal bodies, so that England can be blocked by any two other nations and outvoted by three.
3. Sovereignty defined as “The Crown in Parliament”
- the people of each nation should be sovereign.
4. Parliament has no formal rights over foreign affairs e.g. international agreements, but is allowed token votes as a way of defusing disagreement
- explicit rights for legislators and investigators.
5. Royal assent is a farce, the monarch does as the Westminster government dictates even for devolved nations
- replace it by the People’s assent (details according to how close a government keeps to its manifesto commitments).
6. The House of Lords needs scrapping. Ditto the Privy Council, which makes legislation by the back door outside of the parliamentary system (called “Orders in Council”)
- replace both by an elected People’s Council, to give the People’s assent to legislation, or call a referendum
7. Unbundle parliamentary responsibilities. Making legislation is badly done at present. The inquisitorial powers of the Commons need more time and effort to hold all parts of the British state to account
- transfer investigatory functions to the People’s Council.
8. Gibraltar is a colony (if you disagree, please read the Gibraltar constitution)
- let Gibraltar choose full integration as a fifth nation, by vote of Gibraltarians. It’s probably the only way to prevent a Spanish veto over the UK rejoining the EU (and also the UK could be blocked from the single market, as only EFTA members have an automatic right to join the EEA).
9. Donations buying influence
- introduce democracy vouchers £5 per elector per annum. The cost is trivial. Electors can donate to a party of their choice, or tear the voucher up. One person one vote, not one pound one vote.
10. Aggression is baked into the opposing benches at Westminster
- New federal parliament sits in a new round or horseshoe chamber in another city. England can choose to keep its traditional aggression and bicameral parliament, or turn Westminster into a tourist attraction. Much cheaper than the present rebuilding plans. This enables London to stay the centre of England but not of the UK.
11. Lies, damned lies, and British politics. Evidence: Brexit
- Constitutional requirement that all political and government communications (incl. media opinion) at all times be “fair, clear, and not misleading”. It’s UK financial services regulation for financial advertising, so must be good enough for political advertising in all its forms.
12. Power of lobbying
- constitutional rules limiting it and granting equal access to the community
There is much more in Reinventing Democracy. If we go on trying to fix and work through the present system, it will be at a rate of one or two of these issues every five-year parliament (until England is left alone to face facts, in which case the present adversarial system could lead to civil war). Can we wait sixty to 120 years? No. But that is how slowly changing the present system works. Women’s emancipation took a century.
Admit that we are dealing with system failure. Then start thinking about what to replace it with.
Kind regards,
David Kauders
PS Reinventing Democracy print edition 9781907230202, epub e-book 9781907230226, pdf available for only £1.99 at https://payhip.com/b/x0ZQq
I think this intertwines nicely with the rise (and hopefully fall) of Farage and (so-called) Reform. Never before in modern (i.e. from early-C19th) politics have there been two parties of the right - it's always been on the left. It's be interesting to see where the Tories think their bread is buttered (and where their ill-earned knight- and dame-hoods will come from, scattered as they are like confetti at a large wedding). If they think Lab-Lib-Green can work more effectively together than Tory-Reform, then the Tory agenda isn't going to get very far and they'll want to do something about it - even if it means changing FPTP.
I do believe that there are three right-wing parties as Starmer (under Blair) has taken the Labour Party to 3 minutes past twelve on the political clock. Tories are 10 past with Farage at 25 minutes past.
Now that would be a package that I could once again have faith in politics. Bring it on.
However, as spelt out in Vulture Capitalism, global corporations will poor money into ensuring FPTP remains with all their direct lobby control.
Yes, Tony, the voting system is not the only problem with our democracy. Fair elections also require people to have access to reliable information on which to make their democratic decisions, for rules that stop 'big money' interests bulldozing through the will of the people, and for parties and politicians to be properly held to account when they break rules and promises. 👍🏻
All agreed. But Global Corps are in poll position to ensure there are no changes (unfavorable to their interest) in the current political setup
Many thanks. Concentration of power in Westminster has been a huge problem. This never helped Scotland and gave only lip service to proper devolution.