Dear Sir Keir Starmer
Is it OK if I call you Sir Keir? I must, of course, first congratulate you on Labour’s overwhelming victory in the general election. And I note with satisfaction your commitment to immediate action to repair the damage done to our nation by the preceding government. However, the result is broader than it is deep, and obscures a number of issues which I think need to be brought to the surface.
Less differentiation
Firstly, there is far less differentiation now between the broad political agendas of Labour and the Tories than there was in the past. Many voters find it hard to choose between you. Perhaps because of that, the two main parties managed to attract the support of just 57% of the electorate – the lowest since 1945. Yes, the turnout was low, but Sir Keir, something else is also going on.
Voting patterns seem to be less determined by traditional party allegiances, and new challengers are arising, with Reform winning five seats, the Greens four, and Independents six, not to mention the dramatic recovery of the Liberal Democrat vote. I am sure, too, that it won’t have escaped your notice that Reform came second in 98 seats, 89 of which went to Labour.
Added to this blurring of ideological boundaries, the electorate is becoming more heterogeneous, changing the political landscape in unprecedented ways. The old charts are no longer reliable guides to the lie of the land. As Lewis Baston wrote in the Guardian the day after the election:
“There is a kaleidoscopic range of contests – Labour against independents and Greens, Conservatives against Reform, Labour against Reform, Conservatives against Lib Dem, Labour against SNP, and more than a few three- or four-way pile-ups where victory is possible on a low share of the vote.”
Political scientist Paula Surridge sees this fragmentation of the vote as highly significant:
“Whatever the next parliament brings, understanding the different party competitions happening within different geographic and demographic groups will be critical for when we do this all again.”
Restoring trust
It is due partly to the failure of our political systems to adapt to these challenges that the electorate has lost faith in them, in government, and in politicians. We know that you understand this because you have pledged that you will work to restore that faith and that your government will put the interests of citizens first:
“Service is the precondition for hope. Respect, the bond that can unite a country. Together, the values of this changed Labour Party are the guiding principle for a new government.. Country first, party second”
But there is a lingering feeling that your government has entered a probationary period and needs to prove itself to the electorate. As Jonathan Friedland commented in The Guardian:
“They may have lent their votes to Labour, but they are not ready to commit: they want to try before they buy.”
A second issue is the downright disproportionality of the seats you gained – 63% – versus your share of the vote – 34%. This is one of the most disproportionate results ever. And it surely warrants reflection that Labour actually got fewer votes (9,698,4090) this time round than did Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 (12,877,918) and 2019 (10,295,912), and he lost to the Tories both times.
Most disproportionate
But the qualitative argument against the two-party system and its iniquitous first past the post (FPTP) voting procedure is even stronger. Just like navigating a narrow canyon, the outlook is constrained within the two walls and, to all intents and purposes, the surrounding terrain may as well not exist. Under such polarisation, a government elected under FPTP becomes increasingly blinkered and unrepresentative. Valuable nuances are lost and alternative visions stifled.
Faced with a political system designed to support a two-party rotating autocracy, an increasingly heterogeneous electorate can no longer satisfy its political appetite with just one party or another; an individual voter may find some of her/his values represented by one party and others by another. Voter choice is no longer constrained by party dogma and received loyalties.
As a result, a voter can be torn between two or more parties according to their own personal bundle of values, begging a ‘pick-and-choose’ approach to policy which is simply not on offer. The solution is to match voter sensibilities with equally heterogeneous policy agendas. Guardian columnist Zoe Williams hit the nail on the head:
“Allowing the possibility of a new voting system would open up meaningful coalition-building with the Greens. The radicalism on the Green side, fighting for civil liberties, social liberalism, human rights and the climate, shouldn’t be seen as a threat by any progressive government; only under the current system does it necessarily become one.”
Zoe Williams also points out that the risk of giving Reform UK more exposure through proportional representation is easily outweighed by drawing them out of their bubble where they enjoy ‘attention without scrutiny’ into the open where they can be challenged by more progressive voices.
Why stop there?
So, Sir Keir, on to my final point. You made much in your acceptance speech of your commitment to devolution, of reforming the House of Lords and eventually replacing it with a Council of the Nations and Regions. Both represent long overdue constitutional reforms, but why stop there? When you say ‘Country first, party second’, the ultimate beneficiary has got to be society and the citizens who comprise it. Would it really be a bridge too far to involve citizens themselves in the decisions which affect their lives so profoundly?
Summing up then, Sir Keir, I – and many others of like mind – would ask your government to undertake these three initiatives:
- acknowledge the need for more pluralistic decision-making to reflect the changing political landscape among both political parties and the electorate through extended cross-party working
- introduce a system of PR which provides fair representation and affords a voter the opportunity to choose multiple candidates who together match their personal political priorities
- underpin support for devolution through the introduction of regional and local citizens’ assemblies to develop and make recommendations for resolving difficult or controversial issues
I acknowledge that such a programme of reform might take more than one parliament. But the irony is, unless it is tackled with a sense of urgency, developments may deprive you of the opportunity to achieve it.
I wish you well in what will prove to be difficult times, but times which I am sure will lead to a better future for us all.
Yours sincerely,
Bob Bater
We want to hear your views. Please send any comments to editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk
Editor’s note: In paragraph 2, the figure of 35% was amended to 57% on 18 Jul 2024
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
