Yes, you are absolutely right. In this instance instant run-off would probably have made no difference. It would be a longterm not shortterm fix. The idea is that, more even than proportional representation, instant run-off gives voters a range of options and thus encourages a more vibrant democracy. The problem with the current system (in both UK and US) is that reasonable people are made to feel that their vote is wasted on any party but the two majors–so people mainly do that except when in an irrational mood (resulting in support for extreme parties). Mostly they simply stop voting at all when they feel disgruntled (like ivan). And that can become a downward spiral of more and more apathy.
In the US Obama’s historic candidacy has temporarily changed that–hopefully for a while. But I see no such charismatic, “out-of-the-box” candidate in the offing in British politics. The Labour Party is Old Boy-ish; not much different from the Conservatives in that way, no?
I meant out-of-the-box in a different sense. You’re right that after years of Thatcher/Major Blair looked like a breath of fresh air, and the so-called third way a more appealing option than the Labour politics of the 1970s.
Obama’s politics are not all that different from Hillary Clinton’s but it’s who he is and how he comes across which has invigorated US politics, in part by attracting the young in large numbers. Although it will take more than this kind of symbolic adrenaline to tackle systemic problems (economic, political, environmental), and while I’m not sure that Obama will pull it off, his symbolic appeal works for many voters at the inspirational level. And that’s no small thing.
When you look at the BNP fiasco as a sitution of Labour voters sick of Labour party business as usual, yet perhaps, at bottom, not ready to commit to anything very politically different (whether a return to conservative policies or a move, say, toward Greens), you realize how effective some British version of an Obama might be (from either major party though, IMO, hopefully Labour). Perhaps an Asian or Afro-Briton who was exciting to young people and to immigrants and immigrant-descended Britons, but still established and qualified in ways that would appeal to typical Labour voters (and many Tories). I can think of no such person.
To be clear: I personally feel that there is need for much greater political reform than either Obama or any Labour candidate of Blairish persuasion is likely to present. But that is not likely to be a majority opinion for some time in part because changing the system (say, environmentally) will require real sacrifices that people need to be willing to get behind (and of course many vested interests will oppose these changes).
That being so, I feel Britain could do a lot worse than to find an Obama-like (young, inspiring, charismatic, multicultural) leader to get behind during times that are bound to be hard. But though such people doubtless exist it seems to me that British politics are too riddled by Old Boyism to admit them to the inner circle.
More seriously (aka after Googling) the closest would probably be the Transport Minister, Sadiq Khan. He’s not part of the Cabinet as such, but does attend Cabinet meetings.
On something of a tangent, Sadiq Khan used to be my local MP; indeed I voted for him at the last election, encouraged by his previous role as chair of Liberty, strident opponents of ID cards and detention without charge. He has subsequently voted nine times in favour of ID cards, and while he somehow mustered the strength to vote against detaining British citizens for 90 days without bothering to charge them, he followed that up with a vote in favour of the “compromise” 42 days, two weeks more than what was already by a distance the longest such term in any comparable democracy.
To say that I am annoyed by this turn of events is to put it very mildly indeed.
There’s also Lady Scotland, the Attorney General for England and Wales (one legal system) and Northern Ireland (another legal system) (she doesn’t have any power in Scotland!).
Yes, but I don’t know why. He always reminds me of a slightly shifty looking public schoolboy. Not someone I’d vote for. (of course in the UK, we vote for the party not the leader, but as the leader of the party becomes PM, it is almost a presidental type election by the back door).
Blair too never had any appeal to me, even as a I’m technically left leaning in my politics (although he wasn’t) but the grinning fool always looked insincere to me from day one. Cameron ditto and I’m not sure about Clegg.
I agree we need an Obama type person to head one of the three parties, although as has been stated, where this person will come from is uncertain. There doesn’t seem to be anyone suitable at present. Whether the British Public are ready for a minority leader for one of the big parties is also open to debate.
Well, IMHO he wasn’t that charismatic, in fact if he had green hair and lipstick he could have replaced Heath Ledger as the joker.
As far as policies go, he was actually to the right of the Tories on many financial issues and has left the support for old Labour without a voice in British politics.
Basically he sacrificed integrity and honesty and his party’s values in order to get elected. Typical politician really, so he was no different to any other, certainly not a step change or out of the box candidate. John Smith had more potential as a Labour leader for me, but sadly he died before getting the chance to win a general election.
I’m no fan of Blair, but you could far more convincingly argue that old Labour left its own support without a voice by comprehensively fucking everything up and then failing to win an election for nearly two decades, even when the Tories were doing everything in their power to lose. Old-style socialism just doesn’t win elections these days, and it was the marriage of fairly liberal economics with the promise of not being a complete bunch of cunts like the Conservatives that won Labour power. You can call it a betrayal of values if you like; I’d call it a normal democratic recognition of what the people want. There was a vacuum in the centre, and he filled it. Remember, John Smith was not from the party’s left either.
That’s political development for you; it’s not a pendulum swing between fixed left and right, the landscape is always changing. Maybe it would’ve been somehow more principled to have stuck with discredited and unpopular policies, but I’d call it stupid. Instead he fought and won a battle with his own party about its very essence, transforming the UK’s political landscape at a stroke. Not bad going for a guy with no charisma or integrity.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a far left socialist and I don’t start each day with a rousing chorus of The Red Flag, but I do think Blair would have been a more likely candidate for the Tories.
There is a difference between listening to the people and adjusting your position and completely changing your stance, which is what the New Labour Project did.
Part of their initial success was to capitalise on the “sleaze” that had dogged the Tories during John Major’s government, but it seemed to me that in record time they had caught up and overtaken the Tories for sleaze. How many times has Mandelson had to resign and he still keeps comng back?
This combined with the latest scandals and expense scamming has lead people to distrust politicians more than ever in my memory and has created a vacuum in which groups like the BNP can gain support.
With luck, Brown will stay in office until the next election, lose it and allow his successor chance to have 4 years to rebuild the party to stand a fighting chance at the following election. Any successor who takes over now would be accepting a poisoned chalice and would stand little chance of winning a general election.
That was my point- for all that America gets a bad rap on race relations, we at least have token minority representation in every cabinet, and non-token minority representation in most. The Transport Secretary is always a Hispanic, Housing & Urban Development is where you sit the black guy, and so on. I find it curious that there is a Pakistani-born bishop in the Church of England but no nonwhite minister in the Cabinet proper.
Definitely on a tangent now: having slated Khan somewhat, I should just note that his expenses are a veritable picture of propriety, consisting almost entirely of phone bills, office stationery and hire fees for constituency surgeries. And despite living all the way out in Wandsworth, for some reason he didn’t feel the need to have the taxpayer buy him a flat in Pimlico like some others I could mention. Anne Widdecombe is also notable for rigorously crossing out drinks and suchlike on her hotel bills, claiming only for the necessities. So they’re not all money grubbing bastards…
Never mind him - what about the Ugandan-born Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu? He’s basically the second–in-command (if anyone commands anything in the C of E, that is), and an outspoken person on a variety of topics.