Stuck in the middle with you

The Tory - Lib Dem coalition crystallises a monumental and frightening shift in British politics. Prior to the General Election last year there was a misplaced belief that the combined support for Labour and the Lib Dems represented a 'progressive consensus'. The acts of the government – spawned from the policies of New Labour – show that this is clearly untrue. The consensus which prevails is that of individualism, competition and marketisation. This right-wing swing means it's absolutely crucial that those on the left oppose the Alternative Vote – and the Lib Dems, by showing their true colours, are the ones to blame.

The arguments forwarded by the anti-AV brigade are largely flawed and self-defeating. Mehdi Hasan produced a terrific critique in the latest New Statesman:

The Alternative Vote isn't a foreign system. From trade unions to workplace committees, professional societies to student groups, millions of Britons already have experience of voting under AV. It doesn't require expensive voting machines, or cost £250m ... AV isn't a "confusing system" (David Cameron) or "fiendishly complicated" (Daily Mail). If the Australians can manage to rank candidates in a 1-2-3 order, so can we. AV doesn't automatically result in hung parliaments: over the past 100 years, Australia has had fewer hung parliaments under AV than the UK has had under FPTP. Meanwhile, Canada, despite using FPTP, has been beset by hung parliaments in recent years.

The arguments forwarded by the No to AV campaign are largely uninspiring because they are extolled by reactionary and conservative Westminster traditionalists. Arguments of complication and cost are largely irrelevant in terms of electoral reform and we should strive for a genuinely proportional system whatever the intellectual or financial cost. However AV is not a proportional system and – whatever the outcome of the referendum – it will delay moves to proportional representation. Furthermore – and by far the most compelling argument against AV – it will further entrench a centripetal party system which is becoming increasingly bland, centralised and uninspiring.

The key argument against AV is that – far from increasing choice – AV acts to eliminate differences between parties and, therefore, reduces choice. Parties are forced to compete for second preference votes and this, inevitably, blunts radicalism and forces parties to compete for the centre ground. The coalition has forced the shift of the political playground to the right and, as a result, Labour will have to further reconfigure their policies in line with market forces in order to win second preference votes from Tories and Lib Dems. For this reason – and to ensure Labour doesn't slip further to the right – the Alternative Vote should be opposed by socialists and progressives and we should champion a genuinely proportional system.

AV is not about increasing representation or democratisation, it is about ensuring the supremacy of liberal individualism and marketisation. We stand at a political crossroads: the expenses scandal – coupled with the Lib Dems' public sacrifice of manifesto commitments – has eroded people's faith in government; the organised labour movement – facing an unprecedented assault on public services – is reawakening from its slumber to lead the fightback. It is hoped that AV will be a political apathy panacea but, in the long term, by encouraging the convergence of party politics, the erosion of public support in government will be even greater.

Prior to the General Election, Nick Clegg described the Alternative Vote as "a miserable little compromise" (NB: he may have been describing himself). It pains me to say it but, with regards to that quote, I agree with Nick.

New is the New New

We were trying to write a short paragraph to sum up this blog and came across a problem. As we were attempting to pick appropriate adjectives we suddenly became aware that we sounded eerily like the Conservative manifesto. For a leftist blog this was a slight concern. Were we Tories all along? Luckily I have a politics degree so went through my extensive notes and happened across the answer below:

Great, that proves it then. Definitely not Tories. So why does every attempt to describe what we believe in sound like the result of some sort of overpaid PR yuppie? The answer unfortunately is that modern political debate has descended into lowest common denominator newspeak that is so simple it means everything and therefore nothing. The simplest message not only can be understood by the most people, it is also harder to challenge. A great example of this is “change”.

Change is generally used to combat incumbent administrations and was used effectively both by Obama and David Cameron. You can’t argue against change. Everyone wants it. If I lived under a government that gave me alone one million pounds a day I would still want change. I would want a million and one pounds a day.

“Progressive” is the newest gem. In the 90s Clinton’s New Democrats found that if you are “new” you are again beyond criticism. New has no precedent that can be held down and scrutinised. This was then copied by New Labour and then again by David Cameron. However, Labour’s new third way was very different to the modern Conservative approach. Whilst they genuinely tried to reposition themselves to straddle the centre ground (leaving them with an ideological deficit), the Tories have instead adopted the language of progressive politics without changing at all. This does mean though that occasionally they tie themselves in knots though. They are carrying out age old Tory policy under banners of “choice”, “responsibility” and “progressive politics”. The ConDem coalition helps them immensely in this regard as it can be sold as a new progressive system of government.

So where does that leave the young writers of a blog who find party politics unrepresentative of their knowledge and beliefs, who are trying to engage in a genuine debate to find left of centre answers? Well just as that sentence demonstrates, by using words like “engage” and “genuine debate” it leaves them looking like a bunch of Tories.