Should Labour Fully Commit to Proportional Representation?

In blaring red, Labour’s manifesto is clear. Labour is ‘for the many, not the few’. Yet Keir Starmer has been clear that he will not back electoral reform for general election voting systems, despite delegates at Labour’s annual party conference voting in favour of a manifesto commitment to Proportional Representation.

The surge of support towards Proportional Representation (PR) could be credited to Labour supporters’ frustrations with the First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system. Since 1935 single-party ‘majority’ governments have governed near constantly yet these ‘majority’ governments have never actually been voted for by a majority of the UK’s voting population. In this way, the FPTP voting system stifles the UK government’s democratic duty to reflect who has genuinely been voted for and chosen to represent the public in an accurate and politically diverse government. Furthermore, FPTP encourages voter apathy in safe seats where votes for anything other than the constituency’s traditional winner seem unlikely to count.

However, a more likely story for Labour supporters running to the call of PR is the 12 straight years of Tory rule that has undoubtedly cast fears of a de facto one-party system. Labour no longer seems to have the pull on votes as it used to and a switch to PR could be the right political calculation to put Labour seats in government. With over half of people in the British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey recently voting that they want the electoral system changed and affiliated Trade Unions now supporting the motion, it’s clear Starmer’s opinion is the minority.

Starmer’s qualms may come from the disincentive of PR promoting coalition governments. However, with the Labour Party still split on what their aims truly are, the mass campaigning and tactical voting that could come about from a commitment to PR incentivising Green and Liberal Democrat voters could be exactly what Labour needs to win after their steady plateau in recent years (bar Corbyn’s rogue 2017 spike).

But, as the Tories sink further into the churning waters of a government embroiled in the Covid-19 scandal and economic chaos under Truss, it seems Starmer’s lack of commitment to PR comes from hopes that Labour will sail smoothly into the rarely-sighted port of a Labour majority at the next General Election. Whether that’s as presumed in 2025 or sooner with a petition to remove Liz Truss recently reaching a sizeable 500,000 signatures. Starmer’s declared stance of a switch to PR not being a ‘priority’ makes it clear he believes Labour can achieve this without the last dash to a system that would transpose divided Labour votes into more seats.

However PR, in its nature, would decentralise what has been standard for UK politics in recent years and help to displace the powerful elites that have reigned under the FPTP system that fundamentally discourages change. By committing to PR Starmer would show that Labour’s next manifesto is going to truly represent the UK in all its political diversity and vibrancy, and that Starmer himself respects the democratic rights of Labour voters. If he will not cooperate with the opinions of Labour delegates, it does not bode well for an already ideologically fissured Labour Party.

If Labour is ‘for the many’ – shouldn’t Starmer put that which ‘the many’ plead for into action?

Image Credit: Flickr

Lizz Truss’ ‘Most Diverse Cabinet Ever’: Monumental or Misleading?

Last week, the newly-appointed Prime Minister Liz Truss assembled the most diverse cabinet in British history. For the first time ever, none of the so-called ‘Great Offices of State’, the four most senior posts in the government, are held by a White man. Kwasi Kwartwng is the UK’s first black Chancellor. James Cleverly, the incoming Foreign Secretary, migrated to Britain from Sierra Leone and publicly spoke about his struggles as a mixed-race man. Suella Braverman, the new Home Secretary, is of Mauritian and Kenyan heritage.

This is clearly remarkable. The British political picture looked vastly different even just a decade ago. The UK had still never had a non-white minister in any of its most senior offices. Only 4% of MPs were non-white, and 78% were male in 2010.

For many, seeing their group represented on such a high level is extraordinary. Liz Truss has been lauded for appointing a diverse cabinet and encouraging diversity at the highest level of British politics. This move could help make minorities in positions of power commonplace in our society. It might encourage more members of disadvantaged groups to pursue a career in politics or strive for the top positions in their chosen fields. It brings hope that policies passed by this government will be more representative of minority groups’ issues and viewpoints. It creates the impression that all jobs, even the country’s top posts, are available and accessible to all. British society today thus appears almost entirely meritocratic and void of sexism, racism and other forms of discrimination. Anyone can climb up the ladder if they try hard enough.

However, this argument is largely flawed. The idea that success and influence are equally achievable for all is vastly misleading. While Truss’ cabinet might be diverse in terms of ethnicity, race and gender, 70% of its members have one thing in common – they are all privately educated. In contrast, an overwhelming percentage of the population (93%) attended a state school. Furthermore, more than a third of cabinet members are Oxbridge-educated, while that number is less than 1% among the wider British public.

Despite the new cabinet being more ethnically and racially diverse, it is still exclusive and unrepresentative in terms of educational background. It includes more privately-educated members than Truss’ five predecessors’ first cabinets. There has been little progress in this field over the decades: since World War Two, all university-educated Prime Ministers attended Oxford. In addition, the number of ministers who attended fee-paying schools consistently far exceeds the percentage of the population that is privately educated.

The idea that positions of power and influence are available to all regardless of background falls far too short of the mark. It is evident that those from the upper echelons of society still hold a crucial advantage over others. This reveals the classism and exclusivism that is still so deeply embedded in British politics. While political representation of some minority groups has improved, the representation of working or even lower middle-class Britons is lamentable. Opportunities are still unequally distributed and favour those from a more privileged background.

One might expect that more diversity at the government level will lead to policies that are beneficial to minority groups that often find themselves overlooked by lawmakers. However, Truss’ very right-wing cabinet ministers are unlikely to enact such policies simply due to their ethnicity, race or gender. Suella Braverman, whose parents are immigrants, is expected to take an extremely hard stance on immigration and advocate for the controversial Rwanda policy. Thérèse Coffey, the female Health Secretary, has expressed her personal opposition to abortion and has voted against expanding abortion rights numerous times. Kemi Badenoch, the black international trade secretary, has branded the term ‘white privilege’ divisive, dangerous and illegal to teach in schools.

There is no denying the significance of where we stand today. Diversity is becoming more common in British society, including at the highest level of government. However, having such a diverse cabinet is unlikely to amount to as much as one might expect. Some groups, such as the working class, are still severely underrepresented, and others that are finally enjoying more political representation are unlikely to see major benefits in their daily lives. While Truss’ diverse cabinet is a step in the right direction, it is not a paragon of progressivism that Conservatives claim it to be. 

Image Credit: Flickr

The Afghanistan Files: Drone strikes in the age of forever wars

The military withdrawal in Afghanistan represents a rejection of the forever war, a concept given to a conflict that never ends. However, the rampant use of drones as a tool of Extrajudicial killing suggests otherwise. Josh Bate reports on the fatal consequences of targeted killing in Afghanistan and what it might indicate for future governments.