Should the Left be collecting or dispersing democratic and political power in seeking to bring about change?

The Labour movement column in response to Open Left‘s Which Way’s Left?

By Anthony Painter / @anthonypainter

Somewhere along the way, right on the cusp of gaining the keys to the British estate, political reform became separated from economic and social reform on the left. Rather like a covetous neighbour bemoaning the flashiness of the car next door, the objections became muffled when a windfall allowed a purchase for himself. But the question, after eighty-five years in which we have had three decades or more of Labour government remains: can social and economic reform remain detached from political reform or does that leave things unbalanced?

One thing is clear from the outset, without a belief in government and a legitimate politics, there can be no left. So it has to be of graver concern for progressive reformists rather than their counterparts on the right that the latest MORI trust poll has politicians on 13%, the lowest in the poll’s history; hardly surprising following the expenses scandal but also faintly alarming. Doctors are on 92% and this might explain why two GPs have won Tory open primaries so far.

So it is clear that trust is ebbing away from politics. That is bad news for the left. But it’s not just about trust. It is also about control. Voters are like back seat drivers who want to have their say and never fully feel wholly comfortable when someone else is at the wheel. The problem for politicians is that these ‘back seat drivers’ have to be listened to.

Trust and accountability – which is what we are essentially talking about – interplay in mutually reinforcing or destructive ways. In recent years, it seems to have become increasingly the latter.

The most centralised, majoritarian (democratic) political system in the world can’t help but fall short in a country that has become less deferential and more assertive. We may trust doctors but that doesn’t mean that we are not going to inform ourselves independently if we find ourselves in the unfortunate situation of acquiring a long-term health condition.

And that serves as a rather nice description of the malaise which besets our political system: it has a long-term health condition. And given that collective action requires trust and a feeling of accountability, there is absolutely a conflict between the desire for social and economic change and the current state of our political system.

So what to do? It seems that right at the heart of the problem is the relationship between Parliament and government. Separation of powers has become meaningless. Parliament is a consulted legislature but not a decision-making one. Actually, House of Lords reform offers a golden opportunity.

Why not have a House of Parliament that is not fused with the Executive? It could be elected on AV+ using the old European constituencies as a basis and could be elected on the same day as the European elections. It would be a rule that members of the new House of Lords would not be eligible for Government. If they accepted a Government post, they would have to step down from the House of Lords thus enshrining separation of powers in the constitution.

The minimum age for election would be 40, emphasising the fact that this House should have a focus on experience. How the parties treat the elections will be important too – expertise and a group of parliamentarians that is properly reflective of the diversity of the UK would be the order of the day.

By having a different source of authority – and timing – this new House of Lords would strengthen Parliament and make it more pluralistic. Adding in electoral reform of the House of Commons – the alternative vote – and the opening out of political parties through the introduction of primaries then the centrifugal nature of our political system begins to be reversed. There would be more counterweight in the system.

Wouldn’t this make social and economic reform more difficult? At times, perhaps, but it would also improve the quality of legislation as Governments would have to operate by consensus. It would also embed institutions that had broad consent beyond the lifetime of a Parliament or a Government. Pluralism, long-termism, consensus, and diversity could be locked into our democratic system.

Which brings us on to the trickier subject of devolution. The arguments in favour are obvious: at their best, local services are more responsive and there is more chance for local people to influence their provision. Because of this, they are more susceptible to capture by particular interests and inequalities can emerge – the so-called postcode lottery – if there is not a proper establishment of national standards of delivery and conduct.

In other words, we have to tread with care. There is little doubt that services requiring the coordination of many different agencies, which have different departmental sources of funding nationally could be better achieved with focus on local outcomes. For example, welfare, criminal justice, healthcare, and skills services significantly overlap. Shifting beyond multi-agency and multi-departmental approaches and focusing instead on individual needs would definitely impact outcomes: better educational achievement, less crime, more work, and better health.

Local innovation could provide new ways of tackling social problems that could be replicated elsewhere. There must be a cautionary note, however. Any devolution must be conditional upon genuine service improvements. The worst possible outcome would be a fragmented and poorly managed local services captured by particular interests. So change does require government to let go. But it must also be wise to the potential for failure and act to both pre-empt it and eradicate it where it occurs.

The most important reason to devolve power, ultimately, is to reconnect people to the public services they use. New Labour too often viewed service users as consumers and forgot that citizenship also matters. Why do so few people vote in local elections? Because so little is at stake. If the standard of your local school, healthcare, safer streets, public space, energy, local investment, taxation were all genuinely at stake then more would take an interest.

For the left, democratic reform absolutely does matter. Without greater trust, pluralism, accountability, effective localism and innovation, a progressive, social democratic agenda becomes more difficult to secure. It turns out that reformers in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century understood that a stool does indeed require three legs – social, economic and political reform. Without the third leg, it becomes a bit of a precarious balancing act. From time to time, you are likely to end up on the kitchen floor.