The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

Demo for democracy

Nick Clegg addresses crowd marching for electoral reform.

A demonstration today brought together a range of democratic reform groups, blogs, campaigns and organisations at the instigation of Guy Aitchison, George Gabriel and others. It gathered in Trafalgar Square and then marched to Smith Square, where the Lib Dems were meeting to decide on their strategy.

Word went out that a delegation could go and meet Nick Clegg to hand in a petition. Over 1,000 voices cried "No" -- he had to come out. "You serve us," suddenly arose as a chant. Clegg came. I think this was a historic first: a major party leader being summoned by a crowd and speaking to it.

It was both friendly and determined. Many on the left think there is no political basis for the Lib Dems to close a deal with the Tories. But there is: a Freedom Act to roll back the threat to liberty from the database state and a referendum on PR, which the Tories can campaign against. Of course, Labour can offer more, but not with Gordon Brown at the helm.

The role of the demonstration was both radical and practical. Clegg can't now agree to the mere "inquiry" on electoral reform as offered by Cameron as his payment for a deal. To do so would ruin him. We don't need another inquiry -- we need a referendum.

If you have not signed the petition, you can still do so.

Anthony Barnett is the founder of openDemocracy and co-edits its British blog, OurKingdom.

8 comments

blue_samson's picture

I voted tory this time.

The liberals have being going on about PR for decades - and the culmination is yet another decisive election result which proves that its not a burning issue for most people. Yet here they go again crying over spilt milk, same old stuck record.

The liberals only got a minority 3 place share of the vote - its called democracy. They should use their influence to get the most traction on the issue of higher priority to the electorate rather like the economy. If they do, people will respect them and next time they will do better. Instead I think they will give away their influence to try to get consessions on PR.

Two observation for labour voters -
- PR means every government will be a coalition. There will never be a labour government ever again
- vote Nick, get David.

Come to think of it, some clouds do have silver linings.

Martha's picture

I'd like to point out to the comment previous commenter that actually, this election has NOT produced a decisive result - that is the point. That is why we now have a 'hung parliament'. More people voted against the Tories than with them...

Also, you say that if the Lib Dems get into bed with the Conservatives now people will 'respect them and next time they will do better'. It is in fact the complete opposite - a lot of people voted for the Lib Dems because they were disillusioned with Labour but couldn't bring themselves to vote Tory, and Nick Clegg appeared to present something different. If he now chooses to join forces with David Cameron, he will be betraying those people's hopes and they will not vote for him again.

You are basically completely out of touch with the real state of things, blue_samson. Just like every Tory.

Haggis's picture

I voted Lib Dem this time, primarily because it looked like there was an opportunity for PR and a meaningful voting system.

If Nick Clegg sells out to the Tories for some empty promises, a couple of cabinet seats, and implementation of some policies the Tories wanted to do anyway, without getting at least a referendum on PR, it will be the end of the Lib Dems. If PR isn't one of their lines in the sand, then what is the point in a third party who can't reach 10% of the seats in parliament?

I certainly won't be voting for them again if they manage to give up their position of power now - the only time they're like to do so for decades - without the reform that the countries electoral system badly needs. Why would I trust them again?

thinkov's picture

natural allies are lib/lab

can't believe the clegg/cameron axis will happen

surely the libs will evaporate completely should they bunk up with Cameron

can two toffs really ignore the will of the people for PR so brazenly?

Wilf Day's picture

If the Conservatives refuse to meet the Lib Dems' terms, there is an alternative, so the Lib Dems do have bargaining power:

The potential Democratic Reform Alliance consists of 329 MPs, in a house of 650 minus the 5 Sinn Fein MPs who refuse to take their seats, and the Speaker: 644 voting MPs, so 323 is a majority:

Labour 258
Lib Dems 57
SDLP 3 (sit with Labour)
Green 1
Plaid Cymru 3 (Labour's coalition partners in Wales)
Naomi Long, Alliance (They have proportional representation already in the N. I. Assembly, and want it at Westminster. She should sit with the Lib Dems.)
Scottish National Party 6 (They have proportional representation already in the Scottish Parliament, and want it at Westminster)

So with 6 MPs to spare, no mini-party would have a veto; not even the Scots Nats.

Robert's picture

Yes Wilf - Plus Lady Harmon makes 330.

Nick Clegg should not have gone down the route of saying to Labour folk who WOULD have tactically supported him that he would take the fact they did not vote Labour ('cos they voted tactically for him - Duh!!) as a sign that he should support the Tories.

Bad signal. Bad mistake.

This is an opportunity to redeem himself in the eyes of progressive Labour voters.

swatantra's picture

Tosh! PR is the salvation of all Parties that get hammered by an unforgiving electorate that suffers from collective amnesia. They've forgotten all the good things that Labour achieved in 13 years which the Tories and Lib Dems voted against all down the line. It makes me weep when Cameron tries to pose as the Party of the poor, the underpriveliged, the vulnerable and the sick. PR in all local and general elections will deliver a more representative legislative body of peoples. In Essex, Labour have only one County Councillor and few District Councillors and little prospect of ever forming an Administration other than in coalition with other Parties. Now that is no way for a democracy to run, when one Party has perpetual rule. That can only lead to arrogance, corruption and dismissing the concerns of the electorate. The same argument is even more relevant to central government.

blue_samson's picture

"They've forgotten all the good things that Labour achieved in 13 years".

Hmm. There has been a substantial negative long term cost to the standard of living and jobs for ordinary UK people caused by this Labour administration. People can ignore but it wont help the country or the next generation.

13% of GDP is supported by government borrowing - its not sustainable to live on borrowing. Popular myths are that government borrowing does not belong to ordinary people and that it does not need to be paid back. Its led to the belief that the UK government can borrow an infinite amount and that it is free money where the liability falls on the rich and on businesses or that there is some economic wizardary which means the debt does not really exist.

Labour started spending heavily and borrowing heavily from around 2004 which ran out of control so that the problem is not new. The recent economic crisis has flushed it into the open from behind the closed doors. I hear from Labour insiders they are worried about the books being opened up just like they were about MP's expenses because the true position of the country is going to be a lot worse than is currently known e.g. the secrecy around what has been lent to the banks. The national debt could be over £1 trillion worse than is publically known due to the different financing arrangements the government has used and projects like the PPPs. It is going to reduce the UK's credit rating with a big knock on effect on interest rates for everyone.

If the economy breaks all records and grows at 3% per year for 20 years, it will take 11 years to reset current government $167bn per year borrowing (there is an growing interest charge which we are paying as borrowing is piled on borrowing each year) and a further 9 years to repay the extra money we borrow from today onwards. To do it faster will need some awful austerity measures including more taxes and big public sector cuts - its going to result in a lowering of the standard of living for the vast majority of people who supported labour over the last 13 years. But not for the multi-millionaires (of which labour has as many as the tories).

The truth is the economy is set for sluggish growth for many years because the private sector has been stifled, is small and depends heavily on the financial services sector. Whoever you vote for, its going to take at least 25 years to get the country's finances back to just to where we are today.

There is a red-blue political choice to be made between paying of off the increase in debt built up from today onwards in less than 30 years or leaving it to our children to deal with. The electorate has spoken that Scotland want to leave the debts just to the English to pay off on their own whilst England has voted for the UK to pay the debts off in less than 30 years.

The period from 2004-2010 will go down in history as the worst for the UK economy ever. Its probably the end of the UK as a union.

Cutting the public sector is going to result in frictional unemployment -- it will drive down pay levels, make the economy more competitive and accelerate growth of the private sector. The Labour team agrees with this - the only issue is how quickly the switch from public to private sector is made and the measures put in place to help the transition.

Well done Labour. You have earned full credit for the legacy you have left us with. No one else you can blame this time.

Introducing PR can only be a good thing - it means there will never be a Labour government in England for a generation.

Latest tweets