Reform – what it means to me
A couple of weeks ago, a guest post by Guy Aitchison about Power 2010 was put up on the Third Estate website and I gave it exceptionally short shrift without justifying myself. Having today rubbished someone else’s proposal for reform (which was to abolish three line whips) and also managed a sideswipe at organisations likes Power 2010, and the Convention on Modern Liberty, I figured I should explain myself.
Power 2010 is an organisation funded by the Rowntree Trusts, which aims to squeeze from the people of Britain five ideas about reform, which shall become the “Power 2010 pledge”. Before, during and after the next election, Power 2010 will presumably be approaching candidates to ask them to sign the pledge and work towards the reforms which people (at least those who responded) want for parliament.
The problems with this approach should be fairly evident, and these problems exist whether or not I spend any time at all pointing them out.
They are not problems that can be fixed in the grand total of ten minutes I’ve spent reading and writing about this issue hitherto, or the half hour I’m spending writing about it now. So I’m going to take a break from writing about ‘revolution’ (which, judging by at least one reply in the relevant LibCon thread, you’d think I spent all my time talking about) to outline these problems and, more positively, what reform means to me.
Problems with the Power 2010 approach
The most obvious is the problem of representation. Millions of people won’t hear about Power 2010 and won’t contribute. Those who do will be self-selecting, as there is a wide body of opinion which not only eschews ‘formal’ politics but eschews the whole kit and caboodle of think tanks, pressure groups, NGOs and so on and so forth. These are the people who need to be involved with politics if we’re going to change it, and they need to be involved permanently – not just for the five minutes it takes to scribble down an idea.
Power 2010 goes no way towards addressing that most primary of concerns.
Secondly, allowing that the Power 2010 pledge might make it to primary legislation, there’s no reason to think that the top five ideas which make it into the pledge will tackle cause and not symptoms of an illness, or that they will ‘make things better’. It’s easy to take a few minutes to write a suggestion – as Josh Plotkin did in the article linked to above – but having the political equivalent of a phone-in or write-in poll doesn’t give the idea any more or less legitimacy, or any greater power than something thought up by any given politician.
As Power 2010 follows on from the Power Inquiry, it seems fair to link in the conclusions of that enquiry – that disconnection from politics “arises from feelings of powerlessness and a sense that parties and politicians are all the same” (thus Guy Aitchison). There’s nothing inherent to the way that Power 2010 is set up that suggests it will challenge either of those things. More fundamentally, there’s nothing to suggest that these things are actually the case, and that it is not perception that is the problem.
Such a survey as Power 2010 doesn’t give people any more power than they already have. In fact it still relies upon the consent of the political class and the co-operation of the mass media in order to achieve its objectives or even present itself forcefully. Therein lies the crux of the problem I have with it, and with the other variations on a theme of the organisation. The Convention on Modern Liberty, 10:10, 38 Degrees and so on operate within the same problematic framework and I include them in this.
One possible answer to this criticism is to say, “Well, if the consent of the political and media elites is on offer, why not take it?” Consider this in the context of 10:10. The motion to slash public carbon emissions by 10% by 2010 was defeated, though an additional £20 million may go towards reducing emissions. Even had the motion been passed, however, the next government – Labour or Tory – could simply ignore the motion, bury it under new legislation and then blatantly fib about it, or admit their failure to meet targets as soon as no one is looking.
This sort of thing is fully evident in the current government, which is well behind its emissions targets. And the Conservatives are unlikely to be much better, bearing in mind David Cameron’s terrible stunts when trying to play the green card. So campaigns like this push for something, reach their apex and maybe achieve it, everyone takes a curtain call (generally alongside the politicians who hopped on the bandwagon, like Nick Clegg in the case of 10:10, David Davis in the case of CoML and so on) and then it’s quietly forgotten about.
Even where there are a few examples of something being done, single-issue campaigns like this don’t provoke mass engagement and they certainly don’t provoke long term mass (re-)engagement, which is what Guy Aitchison of Power 2010 claims in his T3rdE article to be aiming at.
So whilst we can pat the people responsible on the head and tell them they’ve done something nice for everyone, it would be better still if everyone did something nice for themselves. It doesn’t seem like the two should be mutually exclusive, and technically they can both go on in the country at the same time – but the methods of the one are inimical to the methods of the other, so it likely won’t be the same group doing both.
Which is why I am in favour of the latter and cordially disdainful of the former, and why I don’t think this fulfills Sunny Hundal’s metaphor of crabs in a jar; none can get out because they won’t help each other. Some of us are crabs and others are sea turtles.
Based on the successes and failures of previous such campaigns, like Charter 88 and so on, it’s evident that reform can occur without fixing the trajectory of the political system. It is this sort of reform, I would suggest, such organisations set up and supported by charitable trusts, NGOs, celebrities and the media tend to specialize in, and what they will always specialize in as they work within the parameters laid out above.
Should we agree with Guy, for the sake of suppose, that Charter 88 et al really did ‘achieve’ devolution, or Freedom of Information, or the Human Rights’ Act, we can say that these are good things. But we can also look at each of these things and say that they haven’t really changed the trajectory of our political system even a jot. There are some differences, good differences, but a great deal of energy was expended to achieve them, energy which could more productively be integrated into other avenues and even these good differences are transitory.
Paul also points out to me that there is the question of opportunity cost; worthwhile as these single-issue avenues might be, are they achieving the full potential (in terms of creating the space for reform) for the amount of resources being allocated? Whilst I have no quantitative analysis, I would suggest not – and this touches on to questions raised by John Angliss in his comment here, about how much manpower the Left (which, broadly speaking, is the vanguard of reform) has and what we’re doing with it.
Abandoning our sake of suppose, I think it entirely fair to say that the Labour government in 1997 adopted a lot of these measures precisely so that it wouldn’t have to change the trajectory of the political system, and played each of these things up as being more radical than they really deserved. The absence of a well-organised coherent political movement, rather than single-issue campaigns, to hold Labour’s feet to the fire on things like social justice, inequality and investment in education, meant that there was no way to pull people together once they realised that the apex of the single-issue campaigns was really a series of false dawns.
There’s no way to stop that from happening again, reform or no reform to the institution of parliament, without a longer-term mass-orientated strategy. And I don’t care if you’re a Marxist, a social-democrat or a liberal, that should be fairly obvious having watched the last twelve years play themselves out. So, having had my say on the deficiencies of the Power 2010 approach and the approach of similar campaigns, what about that issue of reform? If I was going to make a suggestion to Power 2010, what might it look like?
Reform – how can we dispel powerlessness and differentiate politicians (once more)?
We can’t. At least, we can’t do it by waving the magic wand of primary legislation. I’m as excited as the next person about a written constitution, and the abolition of the House of Lords, and the creation of the Supreme Court. And I’m sure as can be that there are things about these elements to our government that could be tweaked to increase how representative and fair they are. But if the conclusion of the Power Inquiry was that people feel powerless, and that politicians are all the same, then the problem is much deeper than the institutions of state.
If this is the case, then tinkering with those institutions won’t help.
The reality is that, feel it or not, people are not powerless. And whilst a great many politicians in the House of Commons are the same, increasingly so, some are not. Moreover, there are ways to change the composition of the House of Commons, because however flawed this democracy is, however formal, however fragmented by the power of capital and the brake of bureaucracy and the sensationalism of the media, it is in fact a democracy. Should the people make the wrong electoral choice, they’ll find out that ultimately power doesn’t reside in the Houses of Parliament, but that’s another issue altogether – the House of Commons is still elected.
Our problem is therefore organisational. People are increasingly encouraged to see ‘democracy’ as their position in the heirarchy, their relationship with authority, about how often a representative does what they want and so on. There is another, more important element to democracy – not an heirarchical view, but an associative one. What is our relationship to one another, and how can we alter it to shift the balance of power towards ourselves, collectively organised? And primary legislation cannot change this, for better or worse. It’s up to us.
While I’m on the subject, I may point out that this is my core problem with open primaries. People can walk from their home to the election booth, vote, return home and never speak to another soul about anything they’ve done. It happens in isolation, without reference to one another – and in my view, how we relate to one another is more important than how we elect our representatives. Because when our representatives do whatever the fig they want, it’s how we relate to one another that decides whether we can rein them in between election days.
This is why I consistently stress the drive towards party politics. A political party is a key set of associative relationships, key to wielding real political power over a long period of time, rather than being the poor cousins of our elected representatives, begging cap in hand. How we approach party political organising creates a culture that will define our movement and will shatter or re-affirm the preconceptions of the people we’re trying to recruit, the same people who told the Power Inquiry that they feel powerless and cynical about politicians and parties.
We’re not approaching organisation right, at the current time. That much is absolutely evident with the rise of parties like the BNP. It is pretty clear that Labour has failed not only to represent the people who elected it across the country but its core constituencies, its members, the people who cause the party to exist in the first place. That needs to change, or else there needs to be a long term replacement for the Labour Party, to represent the interests of millions of working people without the need to resort to the culture wars, racism and anti-immigrationism as catch-all excuses for the failure to solve social problems.
No single issue campaign and no piece of primary legislation will achieve that, which is why when it comes to reform I’m not looking towards our political class, nor the well-meaning (if seemingly narrow) group of people who populate Amnesty International, Liberty, Oxfam, Power 2010 and the rest. I’m looking towards the people whose picket lines I went to visit this morning, or the people whose doors I’m knocking on when out campaigning, or the people I see regularly when I attend local party political branch and student meetings. They are my constituency.
But I’m not asking them to tell me what the problem is, so I can pass it on to the people who will reform it. I’m demanding that they pick a side, get active and reform it themselves.
The most obvious is the problem of representation. Millions of people won’t hear about Power 2010 and won’t contribute. Those who do will be self-selecting, as there is a wide body of opinion which not only eschews ‘formal’ politics but eschews the whole kit and caboodle of think tanks, pressure groups, NGOs and so on and so forth.
Well, you can’t start a project on the assumption no one will contribute. Who knows, it might catch the people’s attention and millions may contribute.
In the initial discussions this was raised too, and we wanted to make it as accessible as possible. But there is a limit given the funds. But your view that this won’t reach millions and therefore useless isn’t a valid point IMO. It might reach the people genuinely interested in political reform (which won’t be everyone) and get them engaged.
, there’s no reason to think that the top five ideas which make it into the pledge will tackle cause and not symptoms of an illness
That’s a matter of opinion on what the illness and the solution is.
. In fact it still relies upon the consent of the political class and the co-operation of the mass media in order to achieve its objectives or even present itself forcefully
Not necessarily. It can also push issues on to the agenda like the Convention on Modern Liberty did and force politicians to withdraw if they think public opinion is turning against them.
Which is why I am in favour of the latter and cordially disdainful of the former, and why I don’t think this fulfills Sunny Hundal’s metaphor of crabs in a jar; none can get out because they won’t help each other. Some of us are crabs and others are sea turtles.
I see all lefties as the crabs. So it’s the same. If you think they’re sea-turtles then simply don’t get involved or spend any time disparaging them. after all, you speak different languages right?
it’s evident that reform can occur without fixing the trajectory of the political system.
And herein lies the problem. You want a complete overhaul. And therefore anyone who doesn’t subscribe to that is some form of a traitor.
I’ve said this before – some people live evolutionary change towards the kind of world they want, some want instant revolution. I’m happy for you to agitate for the latter. As long as you don’t spend time criticising those who prefer the former.
There’s no way to stop that from happening again, reform or no reform to the institution of parliament, without a longer-term mass-orientated strategy
As I said above, that was partly the intention. But then not everyone is interested in the issue.
Let’s say out of a population of hundred, you get 40 people interested in your campaign on better work rights. Assume the rest are not interested because it’s not a big concern. Does that mean you’ll give up and ignore the people who did sign up?
I’m demanding that they pick a side, get active and reform it themselves.
Yes, but any party like the Labour party is a coalition of a range of interests and people on different scales of the political spectrum. If the first thing you’re going to do is disparage someone who is in the coalition but not thinking the same as you, you won’t last long within the party I’m afraid.
Whilst I agree with you that you can’t start anything believing it to be a failure, and whilst I believe that you all have good intentions, I’d have thought the history of this type of campaign work would give a hint that millions of people won’t get involved, Sunny.
And whether you define the people it doesn’t reach as “uninterested” in political reform or not, the point is still valid on the simple basis that if people are uninterested, then that’s part of the problem. You can say that’s my opinion – but it’s Guy’s opinion as well, as outlined at the Third Estate, and he’s running the thing.
You also haven’t managed to demonstrate how it doesn’t rely on the consent of the political class and the media.
The Convention on Modern Liberty forced precisely zero change. The sheer volume of outcry caused the government to drop 42 day detention, and CoML rode the back of that, it didn’t cause it. Moreover, it was one measure which was dropped; we still have a raft of illiberal nonsense on the books and CoML and its successor have done little about getting people organised to fight them.
And even if you’re going to claim CoML was successful, it had massive co-operation from the political and media class, co-operation which it is more than likely will not be forthcoming for Power 2010, depending on what measures are proposed as reform. On which basis, I’d say Power 2010 is a dead letter.
To look at the broader question, as I had hoped was evident from what I was saying, I’m not opposed to reform and I don’t demand an immediate and complete overhaul. This is not a reform vs revolution thing. You can’t use that in every debate you know; sometimes it’s just not appropriate.
Quite the opposite; I support parliamentary reform. However I’m saying that if that’s what we want, then there are better ways to organise for it. Ways which will contribute in the long run to a rebuilt, repoliticized body politic. I also critiqued Power 2010 on its own terms, to say that even as a short term thing I think it’s a bad way to go about things.
And on that subject, you can disagree with the criticisms but you can’t attack my right to make them because I’m just another revolutionary with one thing on his mind.
Penultimately (as I have been dealing with your points in the order they come) the response to Power 2010 is not going to be 40 out of a 100. It’ll be shockingly successful if its 1 out of 100 – and my point was that this is nothing to do with whether people are interested. This is what I’m trying to say; we need mass engagement and single issue stuff isn’t going to get it done.
Finally (and linking to your crabs in a jar thing), the Labour Party is a coalition of interests. And you’re right, if the first thing I do is disparage someone who is in the coalition, then I may not last long. But here’s the rub: Power 2010 isn’t part of the coalition, and people like Guy Aitchison consistently talk like single issue campaigning is a replacement for party politics. And last you mentioned the subject, you’re not a member of ‘the coalition’ either, right?
So, when all you are, this is a criticism I’ll listen to.
It’s not one I’ll accept of course, because a) I attack Tories plenty and b) no coalition is worth it if it promotes unthinking, uncritical acceptance. But that’s for after we’re all part of ‘the coalition’ as you put it.
While I agree with much of this – especially the role that parties need to play (I don’t think we will get the sort of fundamental change we need until we can convince Labour that it is more important than temporal power no matter how many campaigns are run), I would strongly take issue with two things:
1. The idea that the Charter 88 reforms hasn’t changed anything fundamental is simply laughable. Politics has been irrevocably transformed, whether it is through the Scottish and Welsh Parliament, the Human Rights Act or the Freedom of Information Act. All three have created dilemmas for UK politics which have yet to be resolved but are leading in themselves to more fundamental shifts.
So it is that we are currently debating further devolution in Wales, further devolution and possibly independence for Scotland and the resultant mess that is England. We’ve yet to see what will happen in any of those cases but we know that the status quo can’t hold and there is no prospect of returning to the pre-1999 situation. So it is that all parties are currently calling for some kind of more entrenched Bill of Rights. We don’t know what what will be in that eventual document but we know that the HRA has released a genie that isn’t going back in the bottle (and is already helping thousands of people). So it is that after some threats by government to scale back freedom of information, that debate has now been well and truly won, even if the culture has yet to catch up. The debate is now which party is the most transparent – with FOI’s traditional enemies the Tories actually championing more openness. Whether it is MP’s expenses, transparency of lobbyists or local spending reports, FOI is snowballing.
If you are suggesting that the Charter 88 agenda has not moved as quickly as people had hoped in the 90s or in a straightforward way, then you are correct. But I’m surprised that a Marxist such as yourself seems to be ignorant of Mao’s insightful analysis of the French Revolution.
2. The proof of Power2010 will be what the final five proposals it comes up with and how successful the election lobbying campaign will be. Again, its too soon to tell. I agree that there are inherent barriers in the system that make Power2010′s work cut out – but that is true for all of us, regardless of what our campaign strategy may be. Criticising a campaign because it has a less than ideal consultation process (I doubt anyone would disagree that ideally it would be developed over a longer period and with a lot more money, but that’s life), it a little shortsighted.
You have missed the key chunks of my critique James, and for all you may smugly comment on my perceived ignorance of Mao’s view of the French revolution, I’m surprised you bother to use phrases like ‘the status quo can’t hold’ to someone you know to be a Marxist and expect not to get laughed out of the debate simply because some constitutional trickery has given some alternative elites powers closer to where those powers are wielded. Theoretically, anyway.
So when you come off with hyperbole such as “politics has been irrevocably transformed”, I would point out that a) politics is a vast subject to have been in one swoop “irrevocably” transformed, so which element is it that you’re referring to? and b) that I don’t think ‘politics’ has been transformed. The same themes which permeate British national discourse affect the regions too; declining political participation, stretched public services, attacks on workers terms and conditions and so on and so on.
None of which is affected by this supposedly irrevocable political transformation. I’m not saying things are exactly the same; obviously they’re not. But markedly different? I would dispute that; space to the Left of Labour has opened up all across the UK, for example, and if it has only been taken advantage of in Scotland, perhaps to a lesser extent Wales, then that is simply because those regions have traditionally been more militant in their approach to politics. These are not things which are different as a result of devolution, constitutional niceties to one side.
As for this boast about the Tories and their support of Freedom of Information, a cursory reading of Private Eye every so often would demonstrate that the Tories are still not likely to give out the sort of key information on which we can judge the new economic orthodoxy, like PFI-PPP. As for what they are willing to give out, I have my own critique of their supposed post-bureaucratic state, which you can read here.
So don’t get triumphalistic just yet.
Lastly, the proof of Power 2010 is not just in whether or not they achieve their reforms. That is one proof, sure enough – and I’m confident enough that it will fail for the reasons discussed in the article. But the opportunity cost of the endeavour involves weighing that we’re taking funds and personnel away from other priorities (and other methods of achieving the same priorities) – and in that, fail or succeed, I think Power 2010 and similar organisations have a lot to answer for.
“I’m surprised you bother to use phrases like ‘the status quo can’t hold’ to someone you know to be a Marxist and expect not to get laughed out of the debate simply because some constitutional trickery has given some alternative elites powers closer to where those powers are wielded.”
James has at least made arguments to back up his assertion that the “constitutional trickery” has transformed the UK. How about making some arguments to back up your assertion that it is simply “constitutional tricky” that gives “alternative elites” power and nothing more?
“The same themes which permeate British national discourse affect the regions too; declining political participation, stretched public services, attacks on workers terms and conditions and so on and so on.”
Declining political participation has been a long-term worry, granted. Stretched public services is a relatively new debate on the national level, certainly (perhaps not the regional one), caused by the knowledge that increases in spending of the kind experienced over the last few years will not be possible further into the future, as inevitably the budget will need to be balanced (there is nothing neo-liberal about this; it is a simple statement of fact, government debt cannot spiral indefinitely, even if it is the best way to tackle the recession currently).
As for attacks on worker’s terms and conditions, though I don’t doubt that it has featured, you’re going to have to show how it’s been a prominent theme over the last decade.
“None of which is affected by this supposedly irrevocable political transformation. I’m not saying things are exactly the same; obviously they’re not. But markedly different? I would dispute that; space to the Left of Labour has opened up all across the UK, for example, and if it has only been taken advantage of in Scotland, perhaps to a lesser extent Wales, then that is simply because those regions have traditionally been more militant in their approach to politics. These are not things which are different as a result of devolution, constitutional niceties to one side.”
This is simply not true. A cursory glance at political developments over the last ten years will show that the left has had a greater impact in Scotland and, to a lesser extent, Wales, because of the opportunities granted by more local decision-making.
Well actually I don’t think that James has advanced anything more substantial than I have. But sure, I’ll take up your gauntlet.
To begin with regional vs national discourses, the first thing to point out is that none of the major parties either at Westminster or in Edinburgh, Belfast or Cardiff have challenged the neo-liberal orthodoxy. Some, like Scottish Labour and the SNP, have moderated it slightly with extra redistributive measures, but my point is that each of the major parties is much of a muchness when it comes to being in power.
On that basis then, even the different themes of politics operate within the same framework.
But the themes aren’t all that different. Declining political participation you’ve conceded to me. Stretched public services is not a new debate, not on the national level, not on the regional. In fact it was one of Labour’s ’97 election pledges, on things like hospital beds, and the resultant policies – the foundation hospitals – has dogged Labour the whole term of its office.
Same for schools and other public services: the PFI-PPP response is not something unique to England. And how I know this is that when the FBU, CWU, NUT, local government unions and several other unions went on strike, it wasn’t just the English workers who were out. It was across the UK, reaching even to the little backwater where I’m from.
These national strikes have pervaded the course of Labour’s administration too, which should give good grounds for asserting that the terms and conditions of workers have always been at the forefront of national debate, in one form or another. The raising of the minimum wage is perenially debated, whether it’s Labour pushing it up for the country or Glasgow City Council pushing it up for their workers.
All of these made national and regional headlines, none of it was limited to England.
But look at the framework of national debate too. For example, the way the media everywhere treat politics as a special form of celebrity gossip. If the UK has worries about what pills Gordon Brown is taking, then Wales has Lembit Opik’s girlfriends and Scotland has the one-man circus that seems to be Kenny McAskill these days. These are just examples which I’ve looked at over the course of the past several years; I’m sure you could supply others too.
Politicians are still corrupt; people everywhere are still worried that corporate lobbying seems to achieve what level-headed debate doesn’t; unemployment, the collapse of the banks, crime and so on and so on. These are dominant themes across the country that haven’t been affected by the move towards devolved parliaments. Not to say that nothing has changed – that would be absurd. But nothing fundamental has changed.
In fact, to shatter the idea that somehow devolution, FOI or the HRA marked an “irrevocable transformation” one only has to study how the roots of our present situation lie in the Thatcher and Major government years. For example, concern about ‘civil liberties’ which many people seem to think has only taken on such prominence recently, goes back to the 1986 Public Order Act, and its extensions and amendments by the Tories.
The ‘irrevocable transformation’ doesn’t seem to have affected the trajectory of government in that area! The power of the executive is another area in which questions have been raised since Thatcher’s day – in academic circles at least – and where questions are now all the more urgently asked because of the collapse of any sort of effective regulation of the executive by Parliament.
I’m not flagging this up as part of the national or regional debate, I’m simply saying it’s something the ‘irrevocable transformation’ of politics hasn’t managed to arrest, something which has been heading in its current direction for decades.
To round off, with the point about what has been achieved by more local decision making, I was never arguing that beneficial things had not been achieved. Merely that we should view them in some sort of perspective. The redistributive measures of the devolved governments are to be applauded. But nothing of what they have done is irrevocable.
Indeed, common themes such as the relationship between the business sphere and the political sphere assure that. To return us to the original topic, none of that will be changed by the Power 2010 methods – and this is the thesis which underpins my criticism. Whatever Power 2010 may do to the good, better can be achieved using the resources to hand with different methods – whilst still achieving piecemeal constitutional reform along the way.
As a very final note, I’m not sure why my comment about ‘alternative elites’ has been scare-quoted as though the issue is one for debate. Is Alex Salmond not part of the political elite? Are MSPs and MLAs and AMs not wined and dined by their opposite numbers, if you like, in the corporate world, exacting election commitments in similar ways to how they are extracted from MPs?
I mean, it may just be me, but the Alex Salmond and Stagecoach debacle is strikingly reminiscent of the Tony Blair and Bernie Ecclestone debacle, don’t you think? No matter, there is where I rest my case.
Dear me Dave, I really didn’t come here looking for a fight – indeed I prefaced my comment by saying I agreed with much of what you’d written. You seem to be remarkably defensive.
All approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. Things like Charter 88 can only ever get you so far – and much to my chagrin, the limitations of political parties have become all too apparent in recent years. Perhaps the biggest failure of all have been the far left which has argued itself out of any relevance whatsoever even in the face of things like illegal wars and global economic meltdown.
I’m not hyping up the Tories – I’m quite confident that once they get back into power they will attempt to revert to type as quickly as possible. My point was that the genie is out of the bottle. They can’t go back to the pre-1997 situation. Charter has left a lasting legacy.
The great irony of it all is that it has left the political class more exposed than ever. You seem to think that proves that nothing has changed – I can’t figure out if you are being cynical or hopelessly naive there. The way political scandal has been dealt with by both the media and the public in the past five years bears almost no relation to how it was dealt with in the decade before.
This is a system in real crisis. I’m sure you don’t see it because to do so would challenge all your preconceptions. Nonetheless that is the case and Charter 88 deserves a lot of credit for lighting the blue touchpaper.
Not every cross-party campaign of this type will achieve the same and some will no doubt sink without trace. That doesn’t make it a worthless strategy to pursue – merely a very fraught one. Anyone who claims there is only one way to organise politically, frankly, doesn’t have a clue about what they are on about.
“To begin with regional vs national discourses, the first thing to point out is that none of the major parties either at Westminster or in Edinburgh, Belfast or Cardiff have challenged the neo-liberal orthodoxy. Some, like Scottish Labour and the SNP, have moderated it slightly with extra redistributive measures, but my point is that each of the major parties is much of a muchness when it comes to being in power.”
Ok, I’ll accept this — particularly as Salmond was keen on the Islandic system of finance until recently. What’s more, the slightly more left-wing policies pursued by the Scottish government have been divorced from decision-making on taxation — something which I think needs to change.
“Stretched public services is not a new debate, not on the national level, not on the regional. In fact it was one of Labour’s ‘97 election pledges, on things like hospital beds, and the resultant policies – the foundation hospitals – has dogged Labour the whole term of its office.”
Granted that it isn’t new, but Labour — until recently — effectively killed the national debate when it came to funding of services, which increased significantly. The main problem switched to being one that people couldn’t see the results that they might naturally expect to come with such funding increases.
Foundation Hospitals was part of Blair’s own public service reform agenda (well, I say Blair’s, but a lot was down to figures like Adonis, etc.). It counts as relative tinkering compared to the big splurge in public service spending — and it was based upon a different (flawed) philosophy. The funding increase was a relatively consensual agreement that public service funding needed to be increased at least to European average levels. Blair’s public service reform ideas were far more contentious, and evidence that they were good reforms is far more thin on the ground.
“These national strikes have pervaded the course of Labour’s administration too, which should give good grounds for asserting that the terms and conditions of workers have always been at the forefront of national debate, in one form or another. The raising of the minimum wage is perenially debated, whether it’s Labour pushing it up for the country or Glasgow City Council pushing it up for their workers.”
It indicates that terms and conditions for workers have been at the forefront of national debate from time to time, yes. However, debate hasn’t been driven in this particular direction, strikes have flared up, and have subsequently died down again. I appreciate that you’ll probably bring up media bias, which to a point I’d accept (particularly in light of the coverage of the postal strikes), but at the end of the day, if strikes are sustained enough, they can influence the direction of national debate — if even not always in a way favourable to the striking workers.
“The raising of the minimum wage is perenially debated, whether it’s Labour pushing it up for the country or Glasgow City Council pushing it up for their workers.”
I’d give that as an example to back up one of James’ points — the minimum wage has had an extremely positive effect, for the most part, as well as the way Labour introduced it, which took into mind the economic considerations necessary for implementing it successfully.
“But look at the framework of national debate too. For example, the way the media everywhere treat politics as a special form of celebrity gossip. If the UK has worries about what pills Gordon Brown is taking, then Wales has Lembit Opik’s girlfriends and Scotland has the one-man circus that seems to be Kenny McAskill these days. These are just examples which I’ve looked at over the course of the past several years; I’m sure you could supply others too.”
Indeed (and, in fact, I’m largely cynical about the way that media treats politics in this country). Indeed, I don’t think much has changed on the media front (I agree with Paul at Bad Conscience that things probably won’t change unless there’s some effort at reform of the ownership of the media). However, I do think that despite that being a constant, and turnout levels being a continuous issue, the reforms Labour introduced in their first term (and one or two in their second) have generally resulted in improvements. Devolution has resulted in a very different attitude toward decision-making in areas affected by it — even London. The Human Rights Act has had a fairly good success at curbing governmental excesses — in fact, it was indirectly responsible for Labour’s attempt to bring in 90 day and 42 day detention without trial, because of the A and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] judgement, which prevented the government from holding people indefinitely without trial in Belmarsh prison. The reforms may have been conservative in scope but they have had a genuine transformative effect, albeit incompletely.
“Politicians are still corrupt; people everywhere are still worried that corporate lobbying seems to achieve what level-headed debate doesn’t;”
I agree that some politicians are still corrupt — I think the nature of the job will mean that a certain level of corruption is around. But again, some progress has been made. Party funding has been reformed, to an extent — enough of an extent to result in Labour having fallen foul of it in a most embarassing way to them. Wider electoral reform is of course necessary, but at the end of the day, this won’t be possible until there is strong consensus. At least movements like the ones you and James reference are actually trying to achieve this — to find some way of resolving a stalemate over electoral reform. It probably won’t succeed, but it may result in it becoming more engrained as a serious consideration in people’s minds.
“In fact, to shatter the idea that somehow devolution, FOI or the HRA marked an “irrevocable transformation” one only has to study how the roots of our present situation lie in the Thatcher and Major government years. For example, concern about ‘civil liberties’ which many people seem to think has only taken on such prominence recently, goes back to the 1986 Public Order Act, and its extensions and amendments by the Tories.”
Indeed, and the HRA has actually highlighted this, by taking the government to task for certain civil liberties breaches which would earlier have been taken as granted (Afghan hijackers case 2006, . It has been particularly instrumental in establishing privacy protection, to an extent which some have recently argued has gone too far (cf recent select committee hearing on privacy and libel law).
Indeed, the HRA has recently been used to rule against a councillor in my constituency, in favour of someone who had intended to stand against him through a by-election, but was badly advised by the county council. What was amazing was that the case was not determined because of bad advice from the council (which was taken for granted by most), but, from what I can gather, because the plaintiff hadn’t been properly represented in his original appeal — despite the fact that he was so lax as to send his petition off 4 weeks after the deadline. This is probably the sort of precedent the Supreme Court would overturn, as they did in Price v Leeds City Council, as it seems a very liberal interpretation of the act (though I haven’t looked into details yet, so I may be wrong), but before the HRA such a possibility would have been unthinkable, particularly as it involved electoral law.
“The ‘irrevocable transformation’ doesn’t seem to have affected the trajectory of government in that area! The power of the executive is another area in which questions have been raised since Thatcher’s day – in academic circles at least – and where questions are now all the more urgently asked because of the collapse of any sort of effective regulation of the executive by Parliament.”
Collapse, really? Over the last decade? There are more rebellions on average, in fact, and other statistics indicate that the government is not less scrutinised than it was in Thatcher’s day — far from it. The system has merely been skewed by the effects of two excessive majority governments, bigger than Thatcher ever achieved.
Admittedly, I agree that there is a big imbalance here — and that reforms such as ratification of appointments, non-partisan allocation of time to government business in the Commons and secret ballot election of Select Committee chairs are needed. But I think the decline is not just exaggerated, but actually refuted by many facts — though not to deny of course there have been alarming attempts to undermine parliament, some of which have failed.
“Whatever Power 2010 may do to the good, better can be achieved using the resources to hand with different methods – whilst still achieving piecemeal constitutional reform along the way.”
Which methods would you suggest? I sense that we’re possibly disagreeing less than I initially thought here, and perhaps I just had less of a reaction to ‘irrevocable transformation’ than you yourself did — I assumed that James meant by it than politics had been changed over the last decade in ways it couldn’t just revert from, which I would agree with.
“As a very final note, I’m not sure why my comment about ‘alternative elites’ has been scare-quoted as though the issue is one for debate. Is Alex Salmond not part of the political elite?”
I find the term very vague. MPs have a relationship with the elite, just as they have a relationship to the public — their role is, essentially, as arbiters (to a differing extent, depending on position, whether they are in government or not, and how they are elected, whether by FPTP or more accountable systems, etc.). Therefore I’m immediately sceptical of the term “elite” here — because I think to a large extent how much representatives *behave* as elites depend on how much people engage with them.
“Are MSPs and MLAs and AMs not wined and dined by their opposite numbers, if you like, in the corporate world, exacting election commitments in similar ways to how they are extracted from MPs?”
When a system is imbalanced by money (which ours is), there will always be scope for this sort of corruption. This isn’t to say that the public cannot act against it, nor that MPs are wholly corruptible. Politics is always a fight, and always will be — whatever system exists will grant people the freedom to abuse some kind of power. What is important is how people engage with it.
@7 James, I could care less which bits you agree with or disagree with, your attitude reeks of smugness, beginning with your comment about Mao, not to mention the condescension inherent to presuming to tell me that I’m either very naive or very cynical.
But let’s keep it substantive shall we?
You’re making a lot of bald assertions. Such as about how ‘the limitations of political parties have become all too apparent in recent years’. I daresay my knowledge in this area matches yours and it is not apparent to me. Perhaps the limitations of certain organisational methods, but far from political parties per se.
As for the failure of the far left, I think it is very narrow minded to see things as a group merely ‘arguing itself’ out of relevance. There is more than one actor on every political stage, and for every mistake made by the far left – or any group – there is both the objective situation and the subjective actions of others which can limit or compound matters. But absolutely the organisation of the ‘far left’ deserves rigorous inquiry as it has been far from perfect.
You keep coming back to hyperbole – your “irrevocable transformation” bit above, continued in “they can’t go back to the pre-1997 situation” as though, even were that true, it has an effect on the debate. My argument is that the HRA, FOI or devolution are commendable, but being achieved piecemeal and as a result of the consent of the political class, rather than as a result of mass pressure, they are the thinnest possible end of the wedge.
Aiming at reconstituting that consent, through continuing the media-orientated single issue campaigns, is therefore by definition a self-limiting strategy.
My argument is also that they don’t represent any sort of ‘real’ – i.e. fundamental – change of the sort which the speech-act of the people involved proclaimed they were interested in. In particular, with regard to Power 2010, I’m thinking of the Guy Aitchison article linked to above.
Certainly none of the reforms of Charter 88 have ‘left the political class more exposed than ever’. How is it that I was only into my teens when “Back to Basics” and wave after wave of Tory scandal broke but I have a clearer memory of this stuff than you? Corruption amongst the political class is fairly constant – it has just taken new forms with the changing shape (but not nature) of the State.
Exposure and how political scandal is dealt with, however, ultimately mean nothing if the people cannot control their representatives. Italy is a clear and perturbing image of this. And my argument is that this single-issue campaigning takes the focus away from that end, and that end requires a mass party political apparatus. If you think that is single minded, then I happily accept your accusation.
Thus I would argue this ‘system’ is far from in crisis, insofar as the recent revelations about the individual pecadilloes of parliamentarians, certainly not insofar as constitutional matters are concerned. If there is any crisis at all, it is because parliament has categorically failed to represent the full spectrum of political opinion in the country, and that is more the failure of political organisation than of the arrangement of the state.
To jump back a bit, though; even were I to accept all that you say about Charter 88, that’s not where we are now. The goals of Charter 88 were not implemented as a result of a cross-party campaign. They were implemented because Labour won a landslide majority against a habitually corrupt Tory government. Labour, which in 1997 still had vestiges of its former self as a mass party. We’re not there any more, and that is not what Power 2010 aims to match.
It’s certainly not what CoML aimed to match, with the cuddling up to David Davis. Basically even if you don’t accept my broader argument about the strategy in general, the contingent features of where are now rule it out as liable to be useful in this particular instance.
@8 David, more on this tomorrow – time for bed.
Rarely can so many words have been spent convincing so few people that so little can happen.
Sunny is right, to change things campaigns have to be launched. A lot then depends on the balance of forces.
The Convention was a big reason we got Clause 152 dropped from the Coroners Bill, which would have allowed government departments to exchange people’s data without informing them
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/feb/28/convention-modern-liberty-information. Also, far from there being massive establishment media support for the issues, the whole point of the Convention was to break the silence, which we did, except where it mattered most on the BBC.
On Charter 88 and changing the trajectory of the system see my article in openDemocracy on the revolutions of our time. You are right, we have not had ours in Britain yet. Of course, these demand cooperation with parts of the system, this follows from any peaceful strategy. If you want to argue for violent insurrection, go ahead.
This discussion isn’t going anywhere and won’t go anywhere.
This is mostly because Dave Semple has a different idea of what ‘change’ means, and also has a different perspective (a local campaigner on economic issues and academic as opposed to a London based civil liberties campaigner).
So you’re talking at cross-purposes.
But I will address what you said David S.
I’d have thought the history of this type of campaign work would give a hint that millions of people won’t get involved, Sunny.
So what? I might want to run a campaign to have magazines like Nuts and Zoo moved to the top-shelf. I won’t get mass public support for the campaign but that doesn’t make it worthless.
———-
The Convention on Modern Liberty forced precisely zero change. The sheer volume of outcry caused the government to drop 42 day detention, and CoML rode the back of that, it didn’t cause it.
Well that’s a matter of opinion and you have no proof that COML didn’t cause the other.
I don’t really see why you need to sneer at it though. Even if you didn’t like COML it took nothing off you and didn’t affect you. You can carry on doing what you do, others will carry on doing what they do. I see no reason why you have to intentionally criticise campaigns you weren’t part of, didn’t get involved with and weren’t watching to see how things changed. Like I said, I think it is a matter of opinion and I think it had an impact. whether the political media class cooperated is neither here nor there – it pushed in a direction and it had some success.
And lastly, the Tories will push back but that is the nature of politics. You can’t hope/pretend they’ll never come into power and undo some of your work.
———-
And on that subject, you can disagree with the criticisms but you can’t attack my right to make them because I’m just another revolutionary with one thing on his mind.
But the problem is Dave, you’re better at standing on the sidelines and criticising than you are actually at doing something along the lines of what you think is better.
If you want lasting change – go ahead and start organising for it and pushing for it. I’ll support you. Others will support you.
But the minute you start criticising others for not pushing in the same way as you, you are like a crab in that jar. And you’ll also get little support from others who may have otherwise helped because they’re on your political side.
Now you are doing stuff locally to organise whatever and push for the changes you want to see. Great. But others have a different way of working. And frankly there is no one way of doing things – there are just different opinions.
I’d support someone writing a letter to the Guardian supporting the London Living Wage and I’d support a convention by London Citizens : I think both can add value.
——————
But here’s the rub: Power 2010 isn’t part of the coalition, and people like Guy Aitchison consistently talk like single issue campaigning is a replacement for party politics. And last you mentioned the subject, you’re not a member of ‘the coalition’ either, right?
So, when all you are, this is a criticism I’ll listen to.
But I don’t buy into that frame. I’m here to help build a movement not a political party. A movement is wider and bigger than a political party and it has coalitions. Within that movement you can have single issue groups and you can have political parties. I’d support single issue people and I’ll support political parties as long as they are part of the movement.
But it IS sectarian to say that just because someone is outside your political party that you can abuse them, and you’re the only one building coalitions. Those days of everything being contained within the Labour Party are over.
The left movement is now outside and bigger than the Labour Party. I’m part of that movement.
Thank you Sunny, and Anthony. I don’t agree with some of what each of you have said, but I don’t think much can be added by parsing your words. If anyone has been reading the comments into this depth, they’ll clearly see where I might disagree with you (e.g. that to get peaceful change you have to co-operate with system, as Anthony said).
@8 David, sorry to have left this alone last night but here we go…
Broadly speaking, I don’t think we’re too far apart. For example we’ll each concede that devolution may have brought changes but it hasn’t changed the context of politics, which, as you say, is imbalanced by money – with all the concomitant issues that this brings. Same for the HRA and the FOI.
My point is not that no change has occured, but that the single issue pressure group is not a viable tactic to achieve the things we want, and that change in previous instances has resulted almost despite rather than because of such pressure groups.
Which is commensurate with the several points at which you outline politics as a fight, and say that a lot of it depends with how people engage. My basic thesis is that we need to engage people through a mass strategy, a solid structure in which they can be confident and hold their representatives to account.
The idea of pressure group as a replacement or addendum to such a political organisation is laughable, in my eyes, born as it is from the failure of particular political organisations to sustain that mass strategy, or in Labour’s case at least their direct opposition to a mass strategy, which gained supremacy with the Millbank Tendency.
Which is what the article, and the comments-debate centres around, rather than the merits of individual reforms. Such reform needs to be placed in its proper historical context where a) pressure groups or not, it may never have happened had people not been thoroughly ready for a change, something prepared over the course of years of struggle with a Tory government and b) what was achieved was still very narrow, compared either to the stated aims of the pressure groups or to what might actually represent a ‘fundamental’ change.
Which is my problem with the idea of devoting resources to Power 2010. Not my resources, granted, but the Rowntree trusts could still be doing something better, if you ask me.
Look: ‘they’ have the guns and we do not. They have the police, the newspapers, the broadcasting media, the tasers, the horses, the law courts, and we do not. If they don’t want change, how are we going to insist on it peacefully? At least SOME of ‘them’ will have to agree with us. See my discussion of Eastern Europe/Iran. Your problem is that while Sunny, Guy, myself James, go to the trouble of citing examples to counter your accusation you waffle on and now say we are “not far apart” having crapped all over the hard and difficult work of people really trying to do something. You should be ashamed.
Sunny – certainly the “left movement” encompasses more than only the Labour Party. I’d agree it includes single-issue groups too. But there is a difference between single-issue groups who organise people to demand change, and those who merely lobby for it.
I also think (as per my comments on the democratic centralism post) that although I want to grow the Labour Party, I also have to accept that there will never be a situation, even with an ideal Labour government, where everyone making a useful contribution to the left is part of the Labour Party. And that we need better relationships with those people (although that does require other groups being willing to work constructively with the Labour Party rather than just trashing us). But I don’t see that this Power organisation even see themselves as being part of a left movement per se, and I don’t see that they are contributing anything useful, other than being a way for political geeks who are already engaged to talk through process issues in an ill-informed way. That seems a million miles away from supporting people who aren’t yet engaged organise themselves for the things they need/want, which is more like my idea of what the left movement is for.
The hard and difficult work of sitting behind desks, taking the odd meetings with parliamentarians, fellow think-tankers and so on? Yeah, spot on Anthony.
Try living in poverty, alongside a bunch of alcoholic politicos, trying to cobble together funds to hold public meetings because fancy think tanks don’t want to take an interest in bread and butter issues like jobs. Or being out around tough estates knocking on doors trying to get people interested in fighting privatisation and the extra taxes that came with it, estates with gigantic union jacks drapped over the place that mean Catholics aren’t welcome. So basically, fuck you.
As for the examples you’ve given?
You may have noticed I am a socialist revolutionary. But that to one side, ‘they’ don’t have to agree with us on anything. We can put ‘them’ in fear of their positions, their jobs and ultimately we can replace them – so I need their consent not one bit. That they decide beating us all to a bloody pulp is worth less than doing what we want is hardly consent. Perhaps you disagree.
Incidentally, your hyperbole is shockingly ignorant of times in history where change has been achieved despite the police, the newspapers, the broadcasting media, the tasers, the horses, the law courts and so on. Sometimes this has happened peacefully, where the ruling class merely accepts the fait accompli, sometimes it has happened violently. I want it peacefully – and depending on how prepared we are for peaceful civil disobedience and resistance, we can win change peacefully.
You might say this is waffle because I’ve not given a concrete example, but on the other hand, the sheer volume of examples I’ve provided above in discussion with David W. don’t seem to have impressed you much, so why bother?
If you want to get all self-righteous about what you’re doing, that’s fine – but I never said I wasn’t far apart from you or Sunny and certainly not Guy. I’m absolutely happy to ‘crap all over’ it because I think it’s a waste of time. David W said that he and I weren’t as far apart as we might have thought, and I said he was probably right. What I said to you and Sunny was that I agreed with Sunny that the argument was unlikely to convince any of us, and that if anyone read this far in, they’d appreciate our differences anyway without having to go round in circles for ten more posts.
tim f: But there is a difference between single-issue groups who organise people to demand change, and those who merely lobby for it.
I agree. But I think there is space for a range of activities.
But I don’t see that this Power organisation even see themselves as being part of a left movement per se
First, what makes you think many of them don’t see themselves as part of the left?
Secondly, all may not be because some right-wingers also care about civil liberties. That’s fine with me because sometimes the issue is more important than the political affiliation.
, and I don’t see that they are contributing anything useful, other than being a way for political geeks who are already engaged to talk through process issues in an ill-informed way.
That’s an assumption. There were lots of talks on how to engage people of all backgrounds.
Even if you don’t see it as contributing anything useful – what’s the point in going around trashing other people’s projects as useless and saying they’re not doing things the way you want them to?
Is that some new fangled way of making friends and building bridges?
@13 Dave Semple
“The idea of pressure group as a replacement or addendum to such a political organisation is laughable, in my eyes, born as it is from the failure of particular political organisations to sustain that mass strategy, or in Labour’s case at least their direct opposition to a mass strategy, which gained supremacy with the Millbank Tendency.”
I think this is a very good summation of where we part ways. I don’t have anything against “mass strategy”, but I do think that the potential for always campaigning for change based on this is limited, and that pressure groups can play an invaluable role in highlighting issues and turning them into widely known ones.
Ultimately, I think Democracy should be participatory, so if the system doesn’t allow for people to highlight their causes unless they build up a framework of mass support, there’s something wrong. And this may well be the case — I’d disagree, although I’m not sure how we’d even begin to argue that — but even if pressure groups can achieve nothing by themselves, they can still play a significant role in bringing issues to public light, which is something which I think you’re undervaluing, particularly when smaller groups work in alliance with more mainstream ones.
“Such reform needs to be placed in its proper historical context where a) pressure groups or not, it may never have happened had people not been thoroughly ready for a change, something prepared over the course of years of struggle with a Tory government and b) what was achieved was still very narrow, compared either to the stated aims of the pressure groups or to what might actually represent a ‘fundamental’ change.
For stated aims, isn’t that something to take as inevitable? A pressure group will never achieve its stated aims in their entirety unless it is entirely in sympathy with the rest of the population, which is very unlikely. As for what represents fundamental change, I think that political change is invariably slow, compromised progress, but that often even things which look small bring about fundamental transformation. I believe — and I appreciate that I may well be wrong — that devolution has brought about a fundamental transformation in the nature of government in the United Kingdom. Not perhaps a radical one, but one which it would be impossible to retreat on.
As for a), I think that change never happens unless a good amount of people are ready for change. Until then pressure for reform is the preserve of fringe, pressure groups. It doesn’t follow that pressure groups are worthless, however.
Well, on libcon, I simply said why I thought the specific idea in the post was rubbish. (And if I just didn’t care about what they were doing or thought they were merely useless, I’d ignore them and let them get on with it, the trouble is I actively disagree with some of their recommendations.) But I think Dave makes some valid points here about why their approach tends to lead to rubbish ideas. And a campaign group that focusses mainly on process can hardly complain when someone looks at their own processes.
I think Dave Weber above makes a lot of points I wanted to.
Well, on libcon, I simply said why I thought the specific idea in the post was rubbish.
Which is fine. Though I think people mistook his point – he didn’t want to get rid of the whip, only the three-line-whip.
the trouble is I actively disagree with some of their recommendations
that’s fine, it’s a democracy.
But I think Dave makes some valid points here about why their approach tends to lead to rubbish ideas. And a campaign group that focusses mainly on process can hardly complain when someone looks at their own processes.
I don’t think this a valid criticism. Any attempt with public participation will lead to some dud examples. That does not mean the process or the plan is rubbish.
Secondly, what exactly is there to disagree with of the process? It’s not transparent enough? It seems to me the main criticism is it doesn’t do things they way you want them to.
But there are criticisms of every process.
I have a great idea. Let’s spend all our time criticising each other’s processes and ideas and affiliations and outcomes. Eventually we may come up with the PERFECT plan and PERFECT process to involve everyone and sort out society once and for all. Then our victory over the right will be complete comrades.
Sorry if I slip into sarcasm there but this sort of infighting and lameness is what the Left is fabled for. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to buy into it.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’d gained the impression their process was:
“think tank comes up with ideas, then does outreach to get people to sign up to their ideas and support them, usually through lobbying. If the think-tank is more democratic than most, the ideas may get changed and prioritised differently in the process of reaching out to people”
That is considerably different from
“supporting oppressed peoples, organising around demands springing forth from their interests”
The first still disenfrachises people by setting up a hierarchical elite. The first is more of a liberal appraoch; I’m not a liberal so it’s hardly surprising I don’t think it’s best. Ideas aren’t my starting point. I identify tribally with groups of people and the ideas I use come out of their situations.
Like I say, the difference would matter less if I thought the ideas expressed were complementary to the process of organising the peoples I support.
Within the frame of reforming Parliament – they want people to come up with ideas and then vote on them to see which is the most popular.
Ideas aren’t my starting point. I identify tribally with groups of people and the ideas I use come out of their situations.
That’s fine, but theirs is clearlya different way as its a different context.
If you wanted to push for reform of parliament, given limited resources, how would you do it?
Hi Tim,
Power 2010 have a different process than the one you outline:
People send in ideas, then a panel of randomly selected citizens consider the ideas and pick their top five. These then get presented to candidates who are asked to sign up to it.
I quite like this process and am all for lots of different ways of campaigning, but some quick thoughts:
1. The ways of getting in touch are through the website (mainly) or post or turning up to a public meeting (details tbc). The responses are likely, therefore, to come overwhelmingly from people who are already politically engaged and economically well off.
To help get a more diverse set of responses, the public meetings could be held in partnership with local community groups in more deprived areas (possibly using the ‘Get Heard’ toolkit or similar). I’d consider, say, one in Rhyl, one in Glossop and one in Glasgow to get a mix of small town, rural and large town responses from across the UK (it’s almost certainly cheaper to hold events in these areas than in London, as an added bonus since the budget is limited).
2. Would be interested in the makeup & independence of the panel / safeguards against things going wrong. If someone sticks in a proposal suggesting, say, taking the vote off all immigrants, or abolishing all salaries & expenses for MPs, and the panel decides it is one of the top 5 would power 2010 really campaign for that?
3. What’s the incentive for MPs / PPCs to sign the Power 2010 pledge?
Sorry I’m late – been busy
Have posted my own comment on this robust debate as a separate post because of the timelag.