The true history of Brexit Britain: the real coalition

 I've been busy with the glue and paste and I've manged to piece together another section of the New Oxford History of Brexit Britain written some time after 2050. Read it ONLY HERE:

When people talked about ‘the coalition’ in the 2020s, they invariably meant the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government that ruled from 2010 to 2015, but the real coalition in British politics was the one between two ostensibly bitter rivals, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. And although, the Labour Party was an enthusiastic participant, this coalition was fiercely conservative, resolutely blocking the changes that Britain needed, to solve its deep-seated, long-standing problems.

The Labour-Conservative coalition obstinately defended Brexit even when most British people had long ago realised it was a terrible mistake, and that it had been imposed on them by a political process that could most kindly be described as ‘unsatisfactory’, and which had effectively been ruled illegal.

The Conservative-Labour coalition also fought like tigers against any reform of the undemocratic ‘First Past the Post’ voting system, which constantly awarded virtually absolute power to politicians most voters had rejected.

So more than 63 per cent had voted against the notorious Conservative government of 2015 that implemented the disastrous Brexit referendum, while more than 56 per cent had opposed Boris Johnson’s vacuous ‘get Brexit done’ regime in 2019, and in the three supposed Thatcher 'landslides' of 1979-1987 she never won more than 43.9 per cent of the vote. But Labour also benefited from this undemocracy, with Tony Blair gaining his first ‘landslide’ in 1997 with only 43 per cent of the vote, and his last election victory in 2005 with just 35 per cent. In other words, nearly two-thirds of voters opposed him.

As the 21^st century progressed, there was more and more agonising and hand-wringing from Labour and Conservative politicians about how voters were ‘alienated’ from the political process and about how dangerous this was. Yet it seemed to occur to few of them that constantly imposing on the British people governments they did not want would surely cause ‘alienation.’

As we now know, this fierce conservatism over Brexit and the electoral system would have severe consequences for both parties, and, sadly, for the people of Britain.

Brexitwatch: this wasn't meant to happen! Part 1

When Prime Minister David Cameron gave in to the Conservative Brexit fanatics and promised to hold a referendum on EU membership if he won the General Election of 2015, he also let them do a lot of other things - e.g. gerrymander the electorate by systematically excluding millions of people who could have been expected to vote Remain.

He never bothered to think about crucial questions - such as what would happen if there was a very small majority, and/or a small turn out? What if some countries in the UK voted for Remain and others for Leave? Should the Leave campaign have to come up with a credible programme for quitting the EU or should they be allowed to be all things to all Brexiters and promise a whole pile of often contradictory things that could never be delivered?

You see none of this mattered, because Cameron knew the Tories were not going to win the election. At best, they'd be back in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, and the Libdems would save him from holding the referendum.

Unfortunately, Cameron misjudged the ferocity with which his party would stab their former coalition partners in the back, and so, curses!, he won a majority. That wasn't meant to happen. 

So now he was stuck with the referendum, but still he didn't need to worry about the crazy, negligent basis on which it was being set up, because Remain was going to win. Leave was going to lose, and all but the most fanatical of the Brexiters could be put back in their box for a few more years.

To be continued

Election reflections: wakey, wakey Labour!

In the General Election, the Libdems' vote increased (by 3 times more than the Tories'), while Labour's vote collapsed, so Labour's Andrew Adonis used his New European column to call on the Libdems to disband! The NE has published the letter I sent in reply

Election reflection: Labour delusions persist

Wouldn’t it be nice if Labour showed a little humility after their catastrophic election performance? Especially as they were warned that their refusal to oppose Brexit would be a disaster.

Instead Lord Adonis (pictured), failed Labour candidate for the European Parliament, writing as Andrew Adonis in the New European, launches an attack on the LibDems, asking whether they should continue to exist!

Columnist Simon Jenkins writes in similar vein in the Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/16/lib-dems-tories-split-vote-labour

Inconvenient fact: while Labour's vote collapsed, the LibDems' increased by three times more than the Tories'. But because Labour has always teamed up with the Conservatives to prevent reform of our undemocratic electoral system, the LibDems actually ended up with fewer MPs.

Adonis and Jenkins also seem unaware that the LibDems have more than 2,500 local councillors in England and Wales. Do they want them to be forced to join the Labour or Conservative parties too? And to hell with the people who voted for them? 

Oh and by the way, do they want the Greens disbanded as well, and what about other Remain parties like Plaid and the SNP? If they all packed up, the Brexiters could get on with the job of wrecking our country without anyone asking them awkward questions.

It is infantile and demeaning to blame others for your own failures. If this is the best Labour can do, they're going to be in the wilderness for a very long time.

Brexitwatch: inter-Remain party co-operation - a reply from the Greens' Caroline Lucas

Well done the LibDems and the Greens in the local elections! The outstanding results they achieved makes it all the more disappointing that there is no plan for pro-Remain parties to work together at the European elections on May 23.

As you can see from my posts of April 12 and 18, I wrote to the parties on this issue, and received a disappointing response from the Greens. I have now received a further reply from Caroline Lucas, the party's sole MP, which you can see below. I hope she has not underestimated the danger that splitting the Remain vote may lead to more of Nigel Farage's Brexit Party being elected as MEPs - a development that might make the EU less willing to grant any further delays to the UK's departure date.

Dear John,

Thank you for your email about the possibility of an electoral alliance of Remain parties in the forthcoming European Parliament election.

As someone who strongly believes that the UK’s future would be brighter, fairer and greener if we remained in the EU, and having been a co-founder of the cross-party campaign for a People’s Vote with the option to remain, I very much understand your desire to see the pro-Remain parties working together to maximise the pro-Remain vote in the European Parliament (EP) election. Unfortunately, however, the particular form of proportional representation that the UK uses for EP elections (the d’Hondt system) presents very significant practical barriers to the formation of a formal or even an informal electoral alliance.

In terms of a formal electoral alliance – that is, with the alliance’s name and logo appearing on the ballot paper – such an alliance would need to be approved and registered by the Electoral Commission. The deadline for seeking such approval by, and registration with, the Electoral Commission was in early February, long before the EU Council meeting on 10 April which granted the Article 50 extension to 31 October that makes it possible to hold the EP election on 23 May.

As for an informal arrangement – that is, with candidates standing under the banner of their own party, but some parties standing down in each region to give one pro-Remain party a free-run – the d’Hondt system, and in particular the division of the UK into electoral regions of varying size, makes it very difficult to predict with any certainty which party is best placed to maximise the benefit of being given a free-run in each region.

Furthermore, it is not at all clear how such an informal alliance could have ensured compliance with the Electoral Commission’s rules on campaign spending (and there would be little point parties standing their candidates down to give another party a free-run, unless they then campaigned jointly for that party’s candidates). These practical and legal difficulties would have made any negotiations between the various parties extremely complex. What’s more, although in principle I was open to exploring the possibility of working together, it quickly became clear that Change UK were unwilling to consider such an informal arrangement. And, contrary to some media reports, the Liberal Democrats did not make any approach to the Green Party on this issue.

In short, as attractive as an electoral alliance might have been, it was simply not a viable option (and the deadline for registering candidates has now passed).

I realise that this is disappointing, but can assure you that the Green Party, the Party’s excellent MEP candidates and I will all be campaigning hard over the next four weeks to maximise the pro-Remain vote and resist the opportunistic populism of Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party and the far-right extremism of UKIP.  The Greens are well placed to build on the strong track record of our existing three MEPs on delivering not just a People’s Vote, but bold action on climate change too. We understand why many people voted for Leave in June 2016: the status quo is intolerable and we are pushing for the reforms necessary in both the UK and the EU to make a transition away from the current system – one which fails us all so badly, and hits the most vulnerable hardest.  

We have to redefine what success looks like in this EP election, and ensuring a majority of pro-Remain votes on 23 May is key – whether that translates into more MEPs, or not. If more than 50% of the voting public express a preference for Remain candidates, that massively strengthens the case for a People’s Vote, whereas alliances could in fact suppress the pro-Remain numbers (if traditional voters of one party felt unable to support a candidate from a different one, because although they agree on Remain, they have almost nothing else in common at all). Alliances might also not result in a pro-Remain MEP majority and strategically would not move us any closer to a ratification referendum. Even if the Brexit Party secures a majority of MEP seats, that will count for much less if the country has voted Remain overall and the pressure for a People’s Vote really builds.

I  hope that makes my position clear. I understand how worried and concerned you are, and hope that you will use your vote on 23 May to send a strong clear message in support of Remain.

Best wishes,

Caroline

Brexitwatch: working together to beat Brexit - a disappointing response from the Greens

Last week I wrote to the three main pro-Remain parties in England: the LibDems, Greens and Independent Group to ask how they would be co-operating in the local and European elections (see my post of April 12).

The only response I've had so far has been from the Greens. It was disappointing (and suggested a lack of understanding of how the voting system works): 

Hi John, 

Thank you for getting in touch. 

We released this statement on the matter yesterday: 

"The Green Party has no plans to field joint ‘remain’ lists in the upcoming European Elections. The Green Party has a long and proud history within the European Parliament - from being a strong and unwavering voice for Remain, to fighting climate change and standing up for workers’ rights. 

"The European Parliament election is conducted by proportional representation, which means every vote counts and every vote can make a difference. In the last European Elections the Green Party came ahead of the Liberal Democrats, with three MEPs elected. We would also resist any calls for us to stand alongside parties with whom we have fundamental ideological differences on austerity, economic policy and beyond." 

Kind regards, 
Culann 
Membership Team 
Green Party of England and Wales 

I have replied to the Green MP Caroline Lucas  caroline.lucas.mp@parliament.uk and to the party's leadership - leader@greenparty.org.uk

Dear Caroline Lucas & Green Party,

I am bitterly disappointed by the reply I have received to my question about how pro-Remain parties are going to co-operate in the local and European elections. 

You do not even mention the local elections, and your reply on the European elections reflects a tribalism that would fit perfectly in the Tory and Labour parties. It also suggests an ignorance of how the electoral system in the Euro elections works. Except in N Ireland, it is not a properly proportional system. A threshold has to be passed before a party can get any MEPs. The more pro-Remain parties fight each other, the fewer pro-Remain MEPs there will be.

If the election is handed to Nigel Farage or the Tory party, it will be a terrible blow for the Remain cause, and anyone in the pro-Remain parties who helps facilitate it will not be forgiven.

Please thing again.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch: Letter to a LibDem lord

It's good to write to members of Parliament to complain or cajole, but sometimes it's good just to say 'thank you'.

I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for being the only major party in England to oppose Brexit, so I wrote the letter below to their leader in the House of Lords, Lord Newby. This week the Lords will have probably the last chance to give Parliament a meaningful role in the Brexit negotiations when they consider Theresa May's back-of-an-envelope bill on triggering Article 50.

Dear Lord Newby,

I am grateful for all the Liberal Democrats' efforts in trying to prevent the worst excesses of Brexit. I hope you will keep up the good work in the Lords over the next couple of weeks.

I was deeply disappointed in the performance of the Commons - a point I have made forcefully on a number of occasions to my MP, who happens to be Sir Keir Starmer.

I have also written to the Labour leader in the Lords, Baroness Smith and to Baroness Wheatcroft on the Tory benches. If you have any suggestions about other peers I might write to, I would welcome them.

The points I have made were as follows. The referendum result does not represent the 'will of the people'. The vote was advisory only. If Parliament had wanted to make it binding, it could have done, but it chose not to. Nor is there any moral obligation to obey a result that was won by what the Leave campaign now admits was lies and deception, and yet which was still decided by only a tiny majority among a gerrymandered electorate.

So those members of Parliament who support Brexit are doing so out of choice and they will share in the responsibility for its consequences.

It is the duty of members of Parliament to act in the national interest. That requires the blocking of Brexit, The best option, therefore, is rejection of the A50 trigger.

If that cannot be achieved, it is vital that the Lords pass MEANINGFUL amendments, and if those amendments cannot be passed, then the Lords should reject the bill. 

MPs talked about three concessions they said they had won from the government:

1. A White Paper

2. Regular reports to Parliament on the negotiations

3. A vote for Parliament on the final terms.

In my view, these 'concessions' are meaningless.

The White Paper is so vague and uncosted that it constitutes an insult to Parliament.

Unless MPs suddenly discover some backbone, the regular reports will just be the Brexiters' usual mixture of empty slogans and wishful thinking.

As for the final vote, the government is saying it will still be 'take whatever terms Theresa May has agreed however bad they are' or leave without any agreement, which will be even worse.

So at the very least, the Lords need to pass the following amendments:

1. The government must keep us full members of the Single Market. Theresa May and every other Conservative MP was elected on this promise, and throughout the referendum campaign, Leave campaigners were falling over themselves to say they did not wish to leave it.

2. When Theresa May has completed her negotiations, she must come to Parliament for approval of the proposed settlement. If it is rejected by Parliament, the UK will remain a member of the EU.

3. To be valid, any final agreement must win the approval of the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies. Until this is given, the UK remains a member of the EU.

 Good luck!

John Withington

UK general election - 5 things we learned

1. The Conservatives have managed three surprise election wins in the last half century – 1970, 1992 and now 2015. Labour have achieved none.

2. The British electoral system is as undemocratic as ever. The Tories now get to rule us even though nearly two voters in three were against them. UKIP won nearly three times as many votes as the SNP, but they got 1 MP while the SNP got 56. So far, the Labour-Conservative coalition has blocked any move towards real democracy, but if Labour begin to feel they no longer benefit from the current unfairness, will they abandon the road block?

3. It was refreshing to see Messrs Miliband, Clegg and Farage accept responsibility for their failures and step down (though Farage rather devalued his resignation by saying he might try to get his job back). Wouldn’t it be wonderful if politicians in power took a similar attitude?

4. There is such a thing as a good election to lose. If Labour had lost in 2005, as they should have done after Iraq, they could have held to account the conspirators who created the war, and made a fresh start, while, through serendipity, the Tories would have been landed with the world economic crisis. Today David Cameron is a hero, but with a tiny majority, he could soon find himself the prisoner of the Tory extremists, and by 2020, he may have lost Britain’s place in Europe, and lost Scotland.

5. They say countries get the politicians they deserve. The Liberal Democrats made many mistakes, but when Britain faced a severe economic crisis in 2010, they put the British people before party interests by going into a coalition that many Lib Dems found unpalatable. The British people responded by giving them the worst electoral drubbing in modern political history. It may be a long time before another party puts the national interest before its own selfish interests.

Chinese lanterns and fires

 

On New Year’s Eve a few years ago, I stood on London’s Primrose Hill and enjoyed what was then the novel sight of a procession of Chinese lanterns floating beautifully through the night sky, without worrying too much about where they were going to come down.

Now it seems a Chinese lantern has descended in a wrong enough place to cause what some are describing as the worst fire ever in England’s West Midlands, a blaze at a recycling plant that occupied 200 firefighters and caused damage estimated at £6 million.

About 100,000 tons of plastic caught fire at the depot near Smethwick on Sunday, and a few firemen are still at the scene today.  A Liberal Democrat MP has now demanded a ban on the lanterns, and the local council has asked shops to stop selling them.

Their sale is already banned in Australia, while in most parts of Germany, it is illegal to launch them, as it is in South American countries such as Argentina, Brazil and Chile. They are also prohibited in the city of Sanya - in China.

Iraq - a deafening silence

Iraq has mainly been noticeable for its absence in the UK election campaign. In the leaders’ second debate last week, supposedly concentrating on international affairs, there was one innocuous question about the Pope that let everyone agree twice, but none concerning Britain’s biggest foreign policy disaster in at least half a century, though Nick Clegg made it clear that, unlike Gordon Brown’s Labour party and David Cameron’s Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats had always opposed the war.

From Iraq itself the very next day came a reminder of the continuing murderous chaos that the US-UK invasion has unleashed. A wave of bombings killed at least 58 people, most of them blown up near Shia mosques during Friday prayers.

The authorities blamed al-Qaeda. Yes, that is the same al-Qaeda that had been a nonentity in the country before the invasion. They also said they expected more attacks.

More than six weeks after Iraq’s own elections, there are still no officially certified results. Last year more than 4,640 Iraqi civilians met violent deaths. (See also my blogs of July 30, Sept 29, Dec 14, 2009 and Jan 28, 2010.)