The Social Party: Renaming The Labour Party

The United Kingdom Labour Party was founded at the turn of the 20th century. For over one hundred years following its foundation, its name has remained unchanged. However, it would be advantageous for it to conceive of a new name for itself. This would enable it to undergo a much needed reorientation. It would be enabled to identify its raison d’être, namely the pursuit of social democracy. In so doing, it would be more able to align its policy agenda with its reason for being.

The name ‘Labour’ concisely evidences the Party’s origins. The Party was originally established as a vehicle through which the working class could be represented in the politics of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it began life under the name of the ‘Labour Representation Committee’. Eventually, it established itself as a conventional party, crafting policy platforms and standing candidates in elections to public office. Around the time of its foundation, universal suffrage was still in the process of being achieved, and as such the Party served an important role in representing a particular section of society which simply did not have a vote.

However, with the achievement of universal suffrage and the political currents of the modern world, Labour has grown to be much more than a party of one particular section of society. At its core, Labour is a social democratic party. The purpose of such a party is to implement the philosophy of social justice in a practical context. It should exist to make the world fairer and more equal; to maximise opportunity, guarantee wellbeing, and ensure a dignified existence for everyone; to have concern not for some, but for all.

Some may be reluctant to adopt a new name. They might perceive it as being a withdrawal from Labour’s traditional constituencies. This would be a misconception, however. Social justice is an all encompassing philosophy which urges us to have concern for all, including Labour’s traditional constituencies. Moving to a new name would not herald a movement away from Labour’s traditional constituencies, but rather enable the Party to consolidate its philosophical basis and in so doing faithfully pursue the goals of social justice to which it is committed at its heart.

To this end, ‘The Social Party’ would be a strong candidate for a new name. It concisely embodies all that the Party strives for. First, ‘Social’ is aligned with a conviction which lies at the heart of the Party, and is stated in Clause IV: ‘by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone’. Second, the philosophical basis of the Party is firmly oriented around social justice. In one simple word, ‘Social’, the essence of the Party is succinctly captured and made clear to all. The core of the Party should be a concern for the wellbeing of everyone, in pursuance of a better world. For this, Labour should become The Social Party.


Migration is a Social Imperative

The ‘debate’ – and this label is highly questionable – over immigration in the United Kingdom has come to establish a strong foothold in contemporary political discourse. But beyond the cheap populism which plays to the misguided perception of immigration being a negative phenomenon, migration represents a social imperative which we must defend earnestly.

The Conservatives have launched an all-out assault on immigration, seeking to curtail the right to free movement in the European Union, taking steps to combat the virtually nonexistent benefit and healthcare ‘tourism’, and aiming to reduce net migration to an arbitrary level. On the other side of the political divide, Labour has sought to apologise for New Labour’s stance on immigration, promising instead to in some way curtail low-skilled immigration, and to be more aware of the social impact of immigration on communities. Most senior figures in both parties recognise the myriad benefits of immigration, but have opted to embark upon the politically expedient path of immigrant-bashing, seemingly failing to recognise the immensely pernicious long-term effects of doing so.

The much more politically challenging, but ultimately just stance, is to defend migration as a social imperative. Migration is not merely economically beneficial, but also hugely culturally enriching as well. Moreover, migration has powerful philosophical and ethical groundings.

The economic justification for migration is a straightforward one – it greatly expands the range of individuals able to occupy vacant positions in the economy. The greater the number of people available, the greater the chance that vacancies in the economy will be taken by truly committed, proficient, and astute individuals. With proficient individuals driving the economy forward, the economy produces more advantageous and beneficial results for all in society.

Although rarely mentioned in contemporary political discourse, there are also manifold cultural benefits to society stemming from migration. Nigel Farage took many political observers by surprise when, in an interview with the BBC’s Nick Robinson, Farage suggested that ‘there is more to life than money… the social side of this matters more than pure market economics’. In the wake of this comment, some commentators have suggested that those in favour of migration simply cannot effectively counter those who oppose immigration from a sociocultural standpoint, as Farage has done. Quite to the contrary, the cultural dividends of migration are immense and hugely beneficial to society. The globalised nature of the modern world has made it such that many modern societies have evolved from being mostly monocultural, to being truly multicultural. These societies have been hugely enriched by the diversity of the many cultures that exist within them. Beyond the immediate cultural reward of multiculturalism which manifests itself in the proliferation of alternative ideas, lifestyles, art, and creativity, embraced multiculturalism also fosters much more tolerant, liberal, and open societies which are able to be much more aware of the world around them, and much more willing to engage with ideas which might otherwise be considered to be unusual or different.

Finally, the philosophical and ethical basis for migration is hugely powerful. Although the members of humanity are born into different societies and cultures, we are all fundamentally human and inhabitants of the same planet. Thus, it is difficult to justify from an ethical perspective strict border controls which curtail immigration and prevent people from migrating to other parts of the world to build a better life for themselves, their families, and ultimately the global citizenry. Indeed, in this light, the nation-state’s ability to in essence discriminate against individuals from other countries is deeply archaic and unreasonable. In the globalised economy, there also exists a disparity between capital and people – in a world where capital increasingly knows no borders, nor should people. The European Union is a bright beacon for progress in this sense with its right to free movement for all European citizens within the EU, which forms not just a central component of the Single Market, but also a central component of the EU’s constellation of social rights.

Taken together, these aspects of migration make a powerfully positive case for migration. The rise of nationalistic, protectionist, isolationist, and anti-immigrant political movements was an inevitable byproduct of the global financial crisis, foreseeable as a distinct possibility by any student of history. It is notable that the United Kingdom has fared relatively well in its ability to eschew the sort of extremist politics which have come to threaten peace, safety, and order in some other European countries such as Greece. However, many mainstream politicians have found it politically expedient to appeal and provide succour to the reactionist anti-immigrant movement precipitated by the global financial crisis. In times of great economic hardship, the fear of ‘outsiders’ may be easily exploited by those seeking the most expedient path to power. While this may be politically advantageous in the short-term, such a course of action will be deeply pernicious in the long-term. Fundamentally, migration is a social imperative and to allow it to be strictly curtailed is to betray this imperative. Migration must not be sacrificed in the pursuit of short-term political expedience.

Credit: Karoly Lorentey -

An Encompassing Parliament

The UK Parliament, in its current form, is anachronistic, and needs to not merely reform, but transform entirely. Parliament needs to change from being composed of two separate chambers, to being composed of three distinct but collaborative representative bodies: national politicians, nonpartisan civil society envoys, and regional envoys.

The House of Commons is elected through an archaic, and in many regards arcane, electoral system which fails consistently to reflect the political and social fabric of the country. The system also makes it immensely difficult for political movements to produce substantial change outside the scope of the two primary parties.

The introduction of mixed member proportional representation (MMP) to the House of Commons would fundamentally alter and enhance the tenor and character of politics in Britain. It would empower every single voter, as currently millions are left essentially disenfranchised. This is owing to the nature of first-past-the-post elections and safe seat constituencies, wherein the votes of those who opt not to support the predominate political party within their constituency have virtually no effect on the wider national election result. MMP would also herald in coalition politics as a mainstay of our democracy, and in doing so ensure that a greater cross section of our society is represented in government than would be the case under a majoritarian electoral system. Majoritarian governments almost invariably represent a minority of the population, while coalition governments generally represent over half of all voters.

The House of Lords is, quite simply, not elected at all, and has virtually no substantial democratic mandate. While its nominal role as being a measured and nonpartisan collection of specialists, experts, and leading lights in all walks of life is an admirable and vital one, its composition must have democratic foundations which can only be achieved through democratic elections. The recent phenomenon by which governing political parties seek to, as it were, “pack” the Lords with partisan peers is also deeply disobliging in relation to the Lords’ aforementioned nominal role.

Owing to the immense dislocation in legitimacy experienced by the Lords, it should be abolished and its responsibilities assumed by two new representative bodies: nonpartisan civil society envoys, and regional envoys.

Civil society, in the form of charities, pressure groups, think tanks, and other similar organisations, have never been truly represented in the legislative process, and are often sidelined by governments. The transformation of Parliament would allow us to address this problem directly, with the most favourable solution being the creation of a representative body of civil society. This body would be elected nationally, preferably under the single transferable vote (STV) electoral system, possibly with staggered elections, with each candidate being a nonpartisan organisation. It could potentially be the case that individuals, alongside organisations, could be elected, with a share of the seats being allocated to organisations, while another share is allocated to individuals; for instance, a 75/25 allocation of the seats between the two types (organisation, individual) of candidate. In the allocation of seats to individuals, decision makers would need to be acutely aware of the dangers of personality politics. The imperative should be to ensure that this body effectively represents civil society in a measured manner.

Devolution has established a seismic shift in British politics, placing much more power in the hands of regional representatives. Devolution will almost certainly be extended in the future to the remaining English regions which currently lack the same degree of regional representation that their fellow Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, and London counterparts enjoy. However, there is no institutional representation of regional interests at the national level. This should be resolved by the creation of a representative body of regional envoys, each acting as a delegate for their regional government. This body of delegates would be similar to that of the Bundesrat of Germany.

Ultimately, the Commons would preserve its legislative supremacy, with the other two bodies scrutinising legislation emanating from the Commons, just as the Lords does currently. It could also be the case that legislation pertaining to devolution would require consent of the regional delegation body, though this is an area where discussion will be needed.

Significantly however, this model of Parliament would depart from the traditional concept of there being two bodies residing in two separate chambers. Instead, this model would establish ubiquitous and extensive interbody and intergovernmental collaboration. All three of the bodies would, for instance, attend Prime Minister’s Questions, rather than only the national politicians. Moreover, the bodies would often share the same chamber and debate. This would cultivate a much more fluid, flexible, and open legislative and deliberative process.

It is vital that we recognise that we have long passed the point of reform in Parliament. We cannot simply tinker around the edges in a piecemeal manner. We must tackle the issues and anachronisms of Parliament directly, in a cohesive and cogent manner. Anything short of a total transformation of Parliament will fail to produce the change in politics that is desperately needed in Britain.

(Featured Image Credit: Karoly Lorentey)

Labour is entertaining the concept of negative campaigning, a dangerous endeavour

Labour have released a political advertisement on their YouTube channel with the title “You can’t trust David Cameron with the NHS”. While I would agree with this title, the contents are wholly reprehensible and have the potential, if left unchallenged, to signify a dark turn in British politics and Labour campaign practise.

My discomfort with this advert stems from the fact that it is a form of negative campaigning. At no point does the advert outline Labour’s own policies in the health arena. It merely lists the failures of the coalition government. More than this though, it also teeters precariously close to being an attack ad. Government is not run by one person, it is run by a cabinet of ministers and supported by political parties, but this advert attacks David Cameron personally. The advert was likely created in response to the Conservatives having published a similarly distasteful advert of their own, which took aim at both Ed Miliband and Ed Balls. Clearly, though, stooping to the unscrupulous level of your opponents is never a positive campaign strategy.

The British electorate has been mostly shielded from the practise of negative campaigning, as political advertising on radio and television is strictly regulated, allowing only occasional time slots for party political broadcasts. The situation is manifestly different in the United States, where negative campaigning forms a central part of political campaigns, is essentially unregulated, involves billions of dollars, and cultivates a very dark and petty political culture.

The advent of the web, and its rapid ascent to the upper echelons of media consumption, while a positive thing for political discourse in many ways, has the potential to diminish the tempered and healthy state of political advertising enjoyed in Britain up to this point. General spending constraints are placed upon political parties and election candidates, but the legislation which regulates political advertising only does so for radio and television, leaving political advertising on the web essentially unregulated. Political parties, if they wish to do so and are able to raise the necessary funds, have the capacity to publish any type of political advertising on the web with no strings attached.

In order to prevent British political advertising from degrading into the obnoxious form present in the United States, the major political parties must come together to establish a cross-party consensus on how to move forward in adapting regulation in this area to respond to the innovations of new media. For instance, web-based political advertising could be limited in its quantity and restricted to only being displayed during particular periods of time. What is ultimately important, however, is that all parties recognise that the rise of negative campaigning in any significant quantity will considerably damage the tenor of debate, damaging all parties equally and substantially diminishing the quality of political discourse in Britain.