Recently in the UK, electoral reform has appeared on the agenda, the Labour Party hinting that it may change the UK’s First-past-the-post (FPTP) system, should it win the next election.
"the UK has a political economy which perpetuates unequal outcomes, institutions such as the prominent finance sector, corporate short-termism and liberal labour market being associated with this."
As I see it, the institutions you mention developed within an economic landscape which is fundamentally tilted, creating a steady flow of wealth from the poor to the rich. But those institutions are not themselves the cause of those flows. The underlying drivers of inequality are derelict laws of land ownership (i.e. laws which have become detached from the circumstances which gave rise to them) and incoherent laws and conventions governing taxation and the monetary system*.
To my mind, trying to tackle inequality without addressing those issues will always take a huge amount of political energy and will never have any realistic prospect of long-term success. At some point, if we want to live in a stable society, we're going to have to get to grips with more fundamental reform.
Yes, structural explanations such as these are very common in academia, but seldom feature in public discourse. I think they're too fatalistic! Interesting point about land - this hasn't really come up in my readings - and will read your Substack.
Yes, I find most people take it for granted that some really fundamental features of the economy can't ever be changed and therefore aren't worth discussing.
You can find my analysis of land in the draft manifesto I wrote, following the Brexit vote, for a constitutional reform party (https://localsovereignty.com/additional-goals/derelict-law/land/). I need to bring it up to date really but, since core constitutional reform is almost certainly a prerequisite, that's been my priority for the last few years.
I've been wondering for a while about whether politics is, in some way, 'over' for the time being. The impression I have is that 'the market' and 'capital' are upstream of everything. Which is why you have that horseshoe effect of shared discomfort on the furthest ends of left & right.
So changing the way we distribute political representation is just tinkering around the edges, without addressing any actual rebalance of power.
Is this a reasonable intuition? Who else explores this area?
It's certainly a reasonable intuition and, in political science, this view is quite widespread. Have you read any partisan theory? Some accounts assert, more or less, that it doesn't matter who governs - outcomes are extremely similar!
I'm certainly exploring that area, Mike (and recently started bringing my explorations across to substack).
I can't agree with you, though, that 'the market' and 'capital' are upstream of everything. Upstream from them are the laws and conventions which underpin them (in particular the laws governing the allocation of natural resources and the conventions which determine how the monetary system works) so the processes which govern how laws are created and maintained are also upstream from them. It's true that their influence reaches back and distorts those processes but the market and capital are still downstream of governance.
I do agree with you, though, that PR campaigners' proposals for redistributing political representation are just tinkering around the edges. I've argued for some years that reformers should, instead, focus on the conflict of interest inherent in MPs deciding the rules for how they themselves are elected. To my mind, it would be more appropriate for MPs to a) declare the primary purpose of elections (be it 'the will of the people', 'fair representation for political parties', 'strong and stable government' or whatever); and b) delegate responsibility for the technical question, of what voting system would best achieve that purpose, to an independent body (whose decision would be subject to judicial review).
If you're interested in that argument, I republished it recently (https://malcolmr.substack.com/p/untangling-electoral-reform) as a prelude to some new arguments I've been developing (focused on enshrining a set of fundamental principles that all legislative and administrative activity would have to comply with).
I found a quote by Sir John Curtice, currently a popular talking head when it comes to this sort of thing. I used it in one of my pieces and it comes from, of all places, The Actuary.
What about proportional representation as an alternative? "In many countries, that was introduced as the price extracted by the elite to allow the expansion of the right to vote. The concern was, with a majoritarian system, the working class would dominate the legislature and public policy” (Sir John Curtice)
So, concerns about the working classes dominating the legislature. Well, we cannot have that, can we? It might lead to all sorts of inconvenient decisions.
Majorities are majorities. PR gets you every loony going. At least with our present system the 'working classes', the poor ignorant dears, get to have a say. And I have to say that 'working' is what build this country. Not farting about with a placard.
The risk with Labour deciding to tamper with the voting system is that it legitimizes their opposition also doing so. If you're going to franchise huge blocs of people because you think they'll vote en-masse the way you want, how can you complain if the opposition disenfranchises huge blocs for that very same reason?
There's another reason to avoid it. It looks weak. Labour have spent so much time out of power because their ideas are bad. Trying to change the game so they can win more often speaks to their inability to actually become popular themselves, with their only real chances of power under the current system coming when their opponents screw up or people get tired of them and want a change.
> Brexit has reconfigured the institutions of the UK political economy, entailing a level of disruption unseen since the end of the Second World War.
I don't understand where this idea comes from. The average person I know thinks that Brexit changed nothing, because it merely removed constraints on a government that wanted to do the EU stuff anyway. The idea it was disruptive or had some great impact on institutions seems bizarre. Where is this impact?
Hello Mr Prosser
I strongly disagree with what you are saying. PR is essential. Our absurd system is in urgent need of it.
Well done on Ukraine though.
Regards
Trevor Carter
Thanks! And disagreement/debate is good :-)
"the UK has a political economy which perpetuates unequal outcomes, institutions such as the prominent finance sector, corporate short-termism and liberal labour market being associated with this."
As I see it, the institutions you mention developed within an economic landscape which is fundamentally tilted, creating a steady flow of wealth from the poor to the rich. But those institutions are not themselves the cause of those flows. The underlying drivers of inequality are derelict laws of land ownership (i.e. laws which have become detached from the circumstances which gave rise to them) and incoherent laws and conventions governing taxation and the monetary system*.
To my mind, trying to tackle inequality without addressing those issues will always take a huge amount of political energy and will never have any realistic prospect of long-term success. At some point, if we want to live in a stable society, we're going to have to get to grips with more fundamental reform.
* I haven't yet brought my land reform proposals across to substack but, if you're interested, here's my analysis of what monetary reform is needed: https://malcolmr.substack.com/p/a-stable-monetary-system
Yes, structural explanations such as these are very common in academia, but seldom feature in public discourse. I think they're too fatalistic! Interesting point about land - this hasn't really come up in my readings - and will read your Substack.
Yes, I find most people take it for granted that some really fundamental features of the economy can't ever be changed and therefore aren't worth discussing.
You can find my analysis of land in the draft manifesto I wrote, following the Brexit vote, for a constitutional reform party (https://localsovereignty.com/additional-goals/derelict-law/land/). I need to bring it up to date really but, since core constitutional reform is almost certainly a prerequisite, that's been my priority for the last few years.
I've been wondering for a while about whether politics is, in some way, 'over' for the time being. The impression I have is that 'the market' and 'capital' are upstream of everything. Which is why you have that horseshoe effect of shared discomfort on the furthest ends of left & right.
So changing the way we distribute political representation is just tinkering around the edges, without addressing any actual rebalance of power.
Is this a reasonable intuition? Who else explores this area?
It's certainly a reasonable intuition and, in political science, this view is quite widespread. Have you read any partisan theory? Some accounts assert, more or less, that it doesn't matter who governs - outcomes are extremely similar!
One day I might have an original thought haha!
I'm certainly exploring that area, Mike (and recently started bringing my explorations across to substack).
I can't agree with you, though, that 'the market' and 'capital' are upstream of everything. Upstream from them are the laws and conventions which underpin them (in particular the laws governing the allocation of natural resources and the conventions which determine how the monetary system works) so the processes which govern how laws are created and maintained are also upstream from them. It's true that their influence reaches back and distorts those processes but the market and capital are still downstream of governance.
I do agree with you, though, that PR campaigners' proposals for redistributing political representation are just tinkering around the edges. I've argued for some years that reformers should, instead, focus on the conflict of interest inherent in MPs deciding the rules for how they themselves are elected. To my mind, it would be more appropriate for MPs to a) declare the primary purpose of elections (be it 'the will of the people', 'fair representation for political parties', 'strong and stable government' or whatever); and b) delegate responsibility for the technical question, of what voting system would best achieve that purpose, to an independent body (whose decision would be subject to judicial review).
If you're interested in that argument, I republished it recently (https://malcolmr.substack.com/p/untangling-electoral-reform) as a prelude to some new arguments I've been developing (focused on enshrining a set of fundamental principles that all legislative and administrative activity would have to comply with).
Very interesting - thanks Malcolm.
Interesting - I'm in on your stack
I found a quote by Sir John Curtice, currently a popular talking head when it comes to this sort of thing. I used it in one of my pieces and it comes from, of all places, The Actuary.
What about proportional representation as an alternative? "In many countries, that was introduced as the price extracted by the elite to allow the expansion of the right to vote. The concern was, with a majoritarian system, the working class would dominate the legislature and public policy” (Sir John Curtice)
So, concerns about the working classes dominating the legislature. Well, we cannot have that, can we? It might lead to all sorts of inconvenient decisions.
Majorities are majorities. PR gets you every loony going. At least with our present system the 'working classes', the poor ignorant dears, get to have a say. And I have to say that 'working' is what build this country. Not farting about with a placard.
Thanks Titus, very interesting quote from Sir John Curtice! Yes, historically, the basis of demands for PR was very different!
The risk with Labour deciding to tamper with the voting system is that it legitimizes their opposition also doing so. If you're going to franchise huge blocs of people because you think they'll vote en-masse the way you want, how can you complain if the opposition disenfranchises huge blocs for that very same reason?
There's another reason to avoid it. It looks weak. Labour have spent so much time out of power because their ideas are bad. Trying to change the game so they can win more often speaks to their inability to actually become popular themselves, with their only real chances of power under the current system coming when their opponents screw up or people get tired of them and want a change.
> Brexit has reconfigured the institutions of the UK political economy, entailing a level of disruption unseen since the end of the Second World War.
I don't understand where this idea comes from. The average person I know thinks that Brexit changed nothing, because it merely removed constraints on a government that wanted to do the EU stuff anyway. The idea it was disruptive or had some great impact on institutions seems bizarre. Where is this impact?
Agree that it makes Labour look a bit weak! Bolder voices in the party have always supported FPTP!
On institutional change and Brexit, this piece explains my position in more detail: https://www.thepathnottaken.net/p/why-britain-may-never-rejoin-the
Let me know what you think!