Simon sorry for the delay in responding. I blame The Difference Engine :)
Yes of course we can agree to disagree. I doubt either of us will change the other’s mind in these conversations but that doesn’t mean we can’t each learn anything new.
With regards to my being selective and the flaws in my analysis I’m unclear as to which of my points you are referring to — can you please give me some examples of this so I can respond?
I don’t see any formal electoral pact working for Labour. The SNP, PC and UKIP want to destroy Labour not work with it. There are no seats where Conservative and Greens are the top two choices so a pact with the Greens is of no practical benefit to Labour. Non-voters don’t vote.
That leaves the LDs. There would be benefits to such a pact for both parties as there are still many,many seats where the top two parties are Con/LD, mainly in rural and suburban areas where Labour has always been weak. Most of the other marginals are Con/Lab. By pursuing a mutual non-aggression pact in both types of seats there is a chance of reversing the ‘tactical unwind’ and reducing ‘wasted votes’ (and the number of Tory MPs!)
However, LDs are unlikely to want to team up with Corbyn (who I am sure, along with most of his supporters, feels much the same way). In any case the hostility from Labour to the LDs over the last six years means that it would be difficult to sell that to Labour members even if Corbyn were minded to. The only successful electoral pact I can see is a repetition of the informal one that existed from 1997–2010. But that would mean a big cultural change from Labour (both the left and the right) towards pluralism and a move towards the centre. This is not necessarily triangulation so much as focusing on tone, competence and listening to what voters are saying.
Re Smith I think the odds of him winning the Labour leadership election are very slim. Likewise a General Election in the event that he becomes leader. However as I said a slim chance is better than the zero chance Labour has with Corbyn as leader. Also, if Corbyn wins, and keeps winning internal elections, he’ll change the structure of the party to block any challenges and make Labour permanently unelectable.
In terms of my politics I am a Liberal first and a Lib Dem second. One of the main reasons I stopped supporting Labour is that the party culture, both left and right, is predominantly illiberal and hostile to any kind of pluralism. There are of course many genuine liberals and pluralists in the Labour Party. However, they are in a clear minority and that is unlikely to ever change.
I’m broadly happy with the system we have. It has its flaws but so does any system. The good thing about liberal democracy is that it is flexible and contains the seeds of renewal and reform within itself which we have seen many times throughout our history.
That doesn’t mean I’m happy with the flaws but most of the flaws are due to a culture of short-termism in this country and correcting them wouldn’t bring immediate benefits, practically and electorally, which is why Big Two politicians rarely do these.
(Some) Changes I’d like to see:
- Constitutionally — an elected second chamber, real devolution to the regions, increased self-financing of local government, proportional representation, more statutory oversight of ministers by parliament.
- Economically — Mainly supply-side changes — reduce restrictions on house building, boosting skills of workers so they can compete better, subsidise childcare enable more women to go out to work, encourage manufacturing firms to be more specialised and ‘higher value’ so they are less vulnerable to countries with lower labour costs, more economic devolution so local areas can attract investment suited to their areas, increase competition in sectors that are closed/oligopolies/cartels, reduce barriers to services in the Single Market which will create more jobs in Britain (this last one may be redundant now!). Things like investment in infrastructure are fine and helpful but they are only one-off things in terms of boosting employment. Long-term we need to encourage more free trade between countries which will also boost jobs.
Obviously there’s other stuff I’d like to change (like reforming the immigration system) but I’d rather take a gradualist approach and make some improvements to people’s lives than an all-or-nothing approach and achieve nothing.
A good example of a major change that was not much noticed, hugely beneficial and only achieved by being in government — the large reduction in teen pregnancies due to a national government strategy. Not something that swings a lot of votes but it did change many people’s lives for the better.
So in order to achieve change the best way is through winning elections. And you win elections by reaching out to voters, listening to what they want and adapting your policies accordingly. That doesn’t mean abandoning your principles…you still apply your principles to your policies in a practical way.
You also need to win under the system we have before you can change the system the way you want. So unfortunately politicians have to focus their attention primarily on swing seats and listen to the concerns of voters on those seats if they want to win. These seats tend not to be bastions of socialism waiting to rise up so it’s hard to see how Corbyn intends to win them over. Spoiler alert — he doesn't intend to at all. Winning general elections is not what he cares about.
All the rallies in the world mean nothing if you can’t enact the changes you want in government. How many changes to society did Labour achieve between 1979 and 1997?
The main reason why I don’t blog is because it’s so time consuming (even writing this reply took me a while!). But thanks for the compliment and if I have more free time in the future I may take up your suggestion. Happy to expand on any of my points if you need any clarification or read any refutations of my analysis from you :)