The issue is that under Starmer (and under Burnham) Labour is no longer the party of the working class they have sold out to the Right like the Tories. The Greens are right to fight for the working class but the issue now is that the working class are becoming more disenfranchised because of FPTP and see Reform as having delivered Brexit the saviours of the working class. This is not right but pointing fingers seems to mobilise the racist base and also makes sense to the less educated. Look at the USA, an adjudicated rapist, convicted conman and known nonce has been elected to the top office not once but twice and is treating the country as his own personal piggy bank.
Farage wants to emulate that success here so he can gut the welfare system to line not only his pockets but those of his paymasters. He wants to end restrictions on employment so that employers can sack people whenever they choose without proper compensation. Do away with the NHS and replace it with healthcare for profit so only those able to pay get any kind of healthcare and forget insurance if you have a pre-existing condition. Health insurance is cheap now because of the free alternative but once that has gone then insurance companies here will push prices through the roof and refuse to pay for life saving operations for anyone who needs them.
And then the people who voted Farage in can complain that they were lied to. Like what happened with Farage and his Brexit. Frankly, I am losing my faith in ‘democracy’, notably because too many people in fact do not deserve it any longer.
The issue, as I see it, isn't with democracy but it has everything to do with people not getting the government they voted for. In 2019 under FPTP the Tories won with just 35% of the vote, in 2024 Labour won with less than that, 32%. If Reform win in 2029 it will be with under 25% of the votes cast. When 75%, 68% or 65% of the electorate see a party romp home with an overstated majority it breeds disenchantment with the process of democracy. We need to change from two party politics to multiparty politics which has worked well in other countries (including Scotland and Wales).
And, probably, people who go to no or little trouble to seriously inform themselves about what they want and who gives them some realistic reasons that he or she might lead a government that wants to get the nation to improve in ways the people want it. Not sit with the social media in massive bubbles telling you that specific ‘other’ people are wrecking your country and should be beheaded or kneecapped. For goodness sake we’re still within living memory of WWII, when precisely the same sort of ‘strong men’ brought about wars and massive killing. Hitler with his “Millions stand behind me” is no different from similar people supporting an idiot like Trump.
There you have it, social media is run by the people who support modern day Fascists which is why it takes only a few seconds to gather the masses of unwashed racists and get them to wreak havoc on anyone who looks different. All from the safety afforded by being out of the country at the time.
A well argued piece of analysis, much of which I agree with. If you've time you might want to check out our recent YouTube program on Makerfield (links above) and my own Substack blog.
For me the issue is one of linking the resistance to fascism, both ideologically and through physical resistance to the struggle to transform society completely, to overthrow capitalism and establish the foundation for a socialist society. Under that rubric you can indeed argue for a Green-Labour coalition extended to Jeremy and Zara and tactical voting while simultaneously building councils of action and red militia to take out fascists by physical force.
Any progressive leaning government will come under direct attack from oligarchic capitalism, Russian and US, Imperialism the deep establishment and fascists and will have to declare an immediate state of emergency, seize most of the economy without compensation and crush and exterminate the fascist Right completely. It is at that point that the councils of action and red militia comes into its own, under the slogan of a Workers Government.
I sympathise with the fighting talk, but I do wonder whether a semi-pacifist left would really be up for the struggle. Maybe the violence of the forces of reaction would compel us to mobilise in self-defence, but even then it would be very tough fight - I can't help thinking of the fate of the Spanish republic in 1936-39.
There is NOTHING radical about starmer or trumpty dumpty or any others of their ilk like farrago the fascist They are ALL reactionaries who deny the need for SOCIAL JUSTICE because not one of them cares about ordinary people. The sooner they are relegated to the pages of the history books, the better. They are all a dead loss and their inaction over the TERRORISM in Gaza makes them complicit in a GENOCIDE. Time to drag all three of them to the ICJ.
Progressive alliances become completely unnecessary under a ranked preference voting system.
Burnham wants PR eventually, but if he tweaked the system to AV for the next election as an interim solution, the far-right problem is solved, and zero progressive co-operation is necessary. Progressive parties can just start fighting over who leads the inevitable progressive coalition government.
Does the average British voter actually have the sort of insight in political co-operation that would enable working together in order to achieve a -reasonably- progressive government that most of all doesn’t make a mess like their ilk achieved in the USA?
Collaboration between "progressives" is certainly impossible with Labour under Starmer's leadership - for starter most other elements across the "progressive" spectrum currently reject Labour's legitimacy as "progressive" in the first place - Labour's courting of potential ReformUK voters and abandonment of social justice values were enough to earn them 'persona non grata' status in that regard?
Just one, among many other reasons why Starmer has to go and quickly, in order that Labour can investigate potential common ground with other parties across the "progressive" spectrum. I've been banging the drum for a "progressive majority" electoral strategy for more than a year now - finally it seems as though key elements of this complex equation are beginning to align themselves favourably - a year ago I was scoffed at - now what was once unimaginable is being considered at least possible with Compass (I'm a member but definitely NOT of any political party) in the vanguard of initiating serious cross-party dialogue?
This process must be approached carefully because right now the UK is still stuck in a First Past the Post dictated political culture, where tribalism is deeply embedded in the psyche of party hierarchies - for me the first step would be to initiate conversations focused on what potential partners in any post UK General Election (I still think it will take place approx. 3 years from now?) environment boasting a "progressive majority" Parliamentary complexion - something akin to:
• Labour, 180 seats
• ReformUK, 160 seats
• Conservatives, 90 seats
• LibDems, 90 seats
• Greens, 52 seats
• SNP, 40 seats
• Your Party/Socialist Independents, 10 seats
• Plaid Cymru, 10 seats
• Northern Ireland parties, 18 seats
might be capable of coalescing around and again (to me at least) the only common theme that jumps out is radical, wide-ranging and profound Constitutional Reform, in order to completely transform the nature of UK governance itself;
• The galvanising role of a succinct, formal codified (written down) UK Constitution, capable of engaging all citizens, replete with fiscal transfers and court to settle competency disputes and interpret the complex relationship between those who govern and the governed?
• Whether or not First Past the Post is now past its sell-by date in our more nuanced, complex society and should be replaced by a 'proportional' voting method to elect Westminster MPs?
• Meaningful and effective dispersal of political power, away from Westminster, perhaps through the prospect of a Federal Britain, constituted from an array of relatively large, robust, semi-autonomous sub-UK entities, rather than the sham versions on offer to much of provincial England right now?
• Replacing the House of Lords with an upper chamber (or Senate) accurately representing the constituent Regions and Nations of the United Kingdom?
• An adult conversation about the identity and role of the UK's head of state?
• and many others issues of profound constitutional import (such as hidden corporate lobbying)?
In this scenario the UK has the potential to become a very different kind of country; outward looking, focused on improved economic equality and dismissive of the regressive rhetoric propagated by the far right?
Very well said. We should be looking at other (especially European) countries which have rather more equitable strategies than the UK. We in the UK have for too long tended to follow in the footsteps of the US, which largely favours individualism and competition. We need instead to look far more towards, for example, Switzerland, which has very efficient devolution owing to public referenda and well funded cantons. As a result, they also have superb public services, available to all, not just those that can afford them. They are by no means a communist country, but have achieved far more equitability than purely market driven economies such as the UK and US.
Adherence to party politics doesn’t help. Those genuine MPs, whatever their party, who go into politics to work hard for their constituents (not those who seek personal aggrandisement and a route to power and financial gain) are restricted in truly representing their constituents because they are required to adhere to the ‘Party Line’.
If people were required, by law, to vote as in for example Belgium and Australia and if Current Affairs formed part of the educational
curriculum, maybe more people would gain a greater understanding of, and interest in, the role of politics in their lives. Until they do the downward spiral will continue and then it will be too late.
This article was so clearly written and so logical that it immediately answered my burning question of why things are not moving on to a progressive alliance. Thank you for taking the time to explain! No one else has :(
It seems the above analysis does not take account of the research that shows a very strong link between being right wing and having a low level of cognitive ability. I think a reasonable proportion of those people would vote for a right wing option whatever their social/economic circumstances and whatever progressive parties offer or achieve.
Part of the problem is that the parties are fractured on social and economic policy, whereas most progressive voters only differ on economic policy. Labour and Greens (both parties and voters) are strongly divided on Tax policy. But (almost all) progressive voters agree on (Rejoin, Drug-policy-reform, human rights; political protest; environmental action; PR; consequences for lying in politics, assisted dying, Gaza, ...).
Ultimately, this is why we need PR (or, better, AV) so that the Voters can keep Farage out, even when the Parties don't agree.
The issue is that under Starmer (and under Burnham) Labour is no longer the party of the working class they have sold out to the Right like the Tories. The Greens are right to fight for the working class but the issue now is that the working class are becoming more disenfranchised because of FPTP and see Reform as having delivered Brexit the saviours of the working class. This is not right but pointing fingers seems to mobilise the racist base and also makes sense to the less educated. Look at the USA, an adjudicated rapist, convicted conman and known nonce has been elected to the top office not once but twice and is treating the country as his own personal piggy bank.
Farage wants to emulate that success here so he can gut the welfare system to line not only his pockets but those of his paymasters. He wants to end restrictions on employment so that employers can sack people whenever they choose without proper compensation. Do away with the NHS and replace it with healthcare for profit so only those able to pay get any kind of healthcare and forget insurance if you have a pre-existing condition. Health insurance is cheap now because of the free alternative but once that has gone then insurance companies here will push prices through the roof and refuse to pay for life saving operations for anyone who needs them.
And then the people who voted Farage in can complain that they were lied to. Like what happened with Farage and his Brexit. Frankly, I am losing my faith in ‘democracy’, notably because too many people in fact do not deserve it any longer.
The issue, as I see it, isn't with democracy but it has everything to do with people not getting the government they voted for. In 2019 under FPTP the Tories won with just 35% of the vote, in 2024 Labour won with less than that, 32%. If Reform win in 2029 it will be with under 25% of the votes cast. When 75%, 68% or 65% of the electorate see a party romp home with an overstated majority it breeds disenchantment with the process of democracy. We need to change from two party politics to multiparty politics which has worked well in other countries (including Scotland and Wales).
And, probably, people who go to no or little trouble to seriously inform themselves about what they want and who gives them some realistic reasons that he or she might lead a government that wants to get the nation to improve in ways the people want it. Not sit with the social media in massive bubbles telling you that specific ‘other’ people are wrecking your country and should be beheaded or kneecapped. For goodness sake we’re still within living memory of WWII, when precisely the same sort of ‘strong men’ brought about wars and massive killing. Hitler with his “Millions stand behind me” is no different from similar people supporting an idiot like Trump.
There you have it, social media is run by the people who support modern day Fascists which is why it takes only a few seconds to gather the masses of unwashed racists and get them to wreak havoc on anyone who looks different. All from the safety afforded by being out of the country at the time.
Well said!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sC5JzlkSfc
A well argued piece of analysis, much of which I agree with. If you've time you might want to check out our recent YouTube program on Makerfield (links above) and my own Substack blog.
For me the issue is one of linking the resistance to fascism, both ideologically and through physical resistance to the struggle to transform society completely, to overthrow capitalism and establish the foundation for a socialist society. Under that rubric you can indeed argue for a Green-Labour coalition extended to Jeremy and Zara and tactical voting while simultaneously building councils of action and red militia to take out fascists by physical force.
Any progressive leaning government will come under direct attack from oligarchic capitalism, Russian and US, Imperialism the deep establishment and fascists and will have to declare an immediate state of emergency, seize most of the economy without compensation and crush and exterminate the fascist Right completely. It is at that point that the councils of action and red militia comes into its own, under the slogan of a Workers Government.
I sympathise with the fighting talk, but I do wonder whether a semi-pacifist left would really be up for the struggle. Maybe the violence of the forces of reaction would compel us to mobilise in self-defence, but even then it would be very tough fight - I can't help thinking of the fate of the Spanish republic in 1936-39.
There is NOTHING radical about starmer or trumpty dumpty or any others of their ilk like farrago the fascist They are ALL reactionaries who deny the need for SOCIAL JUSTICE because not one of them cares about ordinary people. The sooner they are relegated to the pages of the history books, the better. They are all a dead loss and their inaction over the TERRORISM in Gaza makes them complicit in a GENOCIDE. Time to drag all three of them to the ICJ.
Progressive alliances become completely unnecessary under a ranked preference voting system.
Burnham wants PR eventually, but if he tweaked the system to AV for the next election as an interim solution, the far-right problem is solved, and zero progressive co-operation is necessary. Progressive parties can just start fighting over who leads the inevitable progressive coalition government.
https://ewanhoyle.substack.com/p/av-as-the-necessary-interim-step?r=2u1072&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Does the average British voter actually have the sort of insight in political co-operation that would enable working together in order to achieve a -reasonably- progressive government that most of all doesn’t make a mess like their ilk achieved in the USA?
Collaboration between "progressives" is certainly impossible with Labour under Starmer's leadership - for starter most other elements across the "progressive" spectrum currently reject Labour's legitimacy as "progressive" in the first place - Labour's courting of potential ReformUK voters and abandonment of social justice values were enough to earn them 'persona non grata' status in that regard?
Just one, among many other reasons why Starmer has to go and quickly, in order that Labour can investigate potential common ground with other parties across the "progressive" spectrum. I've been banging the drum for a "progressive majority" electoral strategy for more than a year now - finally it seems as though key elements of this complex equation are beginning to align themselves favourably - a year ago I was scoffed at - now what was once unimaginable is being considered at least possible with Compass (I'm a member but definitely NOT of any political party) in the vanguard of initiating serious cross-party dialogue?
This process must be approached carefully because right now the UK is still stuck in a First Past the Post dictated political culture, where tribalism is deeply embedded in the psyche of party hierarchies - for me the first step would be to initiate conversations focused on what potential partners in any post UK General Election (I still think it will take place approx. 3 years from now?) environment boasting a "progressive majority" Parliamentary complexion - something akin to:
• Labour, 180 seats
• ReformUK, 160 seats
• Conservatives, 90 seats
• LibDems, 90 seats
• Greens, 52 seats
• SNP, 40 seats
• Your Party/Socialist Independents, 10 seats
• Plaid Cymru, 10 seats
• Northern Ireland parties, 18 seats
might be capable of coalescing around and again (to me at least) the only common theme that jumps out is radical, wide-ranging and profound Constitutional Reform, in order to completely transform the nature of UK governance itself;
• The galvanising role of a succinct, formal codified (written down) UK Constitution, capable of engaging all citizens, replete with fiscal transfers and court to settle competency disputes and interpret the complex relationship between those who govern and the governed?
• Whether or not First Past the Post is now past its sell-by date in our more nuanced, complex society and should be replaced by a 'proportional' voting method to elect Westminster MPs?
• Meaningful and effective dispersal of political power, away from Westminster, perhaps through the prospect of a Federal Britain, constituted from an array of relatively large, robust, semi-autonomous sub-UK entities, rather than the sham versions on offer to much of provincial England right now?
• Replacing the House of Lords with an upper chamber (or Senate) accurately representing the constituent Regions and Nations of the United Kingdom?
• An adult conversation about the identity and role of the UK's head of state?
• and many others issues of profound constitutional import (such as hidden corporate lobbying)?
In this scenario the UK has the potential to become a very different kind of country; outward looking, focused on improved economic equality and dismissive of the regressive rhetoric propagated by the far right?
Very well said. We should be looking at other (especially European) countries which have rather more equitable strategies than the UK. We in the UK have for too long tended to follow in the footsteps of the US, which largely favours individualism and competition. We need instead to look far more towards, for example, Switzerland, which has very efficient devolution owing to public referenda and well funded cantons. As a result, they also have superb public services, available to all, not just those that can afford them. They are by no means a communist country, but have achieved far more equitability than purely market driven economies such as the UK and US.
Adherence to party politics doesn’t help. Those genuine MPs, whatever their party, who go into politics to work hard for their constituents (not those who seek personal aggrandisement and a route to power and financial gain) are restricted in truly representing their constituents because they are required to adhere to the ‘Party Line’.
If people were required, by law, to vote as in for example Belgium and Australia and if Current Affairs formed part of the educational
curriculum, maybe more people would gain a greater understanding of, and interest in, the role of politics in their lives. Until they do the downward spiral will continue and then it will be too late.
This article was so clearly written and so logical that it immediately answered my burning question of why things are not moving on to a progressive alliance. Thank you for taking the time to explain! No one else has :(
It seems the above analysis does not take account of the research that shows a very strong link between being right wing and having a low level of cognitive ability. I think a reasonable proportion of those people would vote for a right wing option whatever their social/economic circumstances and whatever progressive parties offer or achieve.
Part of the problem is that the parties are fractured on social and economic policy, whereas most progressive voters only differ on economic policy. Labour and Greens (both parties and voters) are strongly divided on Tax policy. But (almost all) progressive voters agree on (Rejoin, Drug-policy-reform, human rights; political protest; environmental action; PR; consequences for lying in politics, assisted dying, Gaza, ...).
Ultimately, this is why we need PR (or, better, AV) so that the Voters can keep Farage out, even when the Parties don't agree.