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.


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.

Credit: The Prime Minister's Office -

The coalition has, inadvertently, made the case for proportional representation

If, for one moment, we divorce the coalition government from its oft-controversial policies, and assess the government’s political stability, we unearth a startling discovery. British politics, having had a modus operandi of two-party majority politics for the better part of a century, is fully capable of dealing with the complexities and shift in political culture that is intrinsic within coalition politics.

It’s very easy now, after three years of coalition politics, to forget the challenges faced by the coalition as they entered government in the summer of 2010. Coalitions are never easy, and there are innumerable examples of them crumbling and fracturing political systems throughout the life of Western democracy, such as Weimar Germany’s troubled fledgling democracy and the more recent difficulties in Greece and Italy. The coalition’s survival, and its apparent strengthening as time goes on, is remarkable. The last time Britain was governed by a coalition was during the Second World War, and to stack the odds against the coalition further still, the junior partner, the Liberal Democrats, had not walked through the corridors of power since its predecessor’s (the Liberal Party) decline during the 1920s. The ideological chasm between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is also, arguably, notably greater than that between the Liberal Democrats and Labour.

Against the backdrop of such daunting odds, the coalition remains and has persevered through challenging episodes of disunity which would even be discomforting in political systems where coalitions form part of the status quo. The Liberal Democrats, lacking any experience of Downing Street prior to 2010, are now able to boast a showcase of truly ministerial personalities such as Vince Cable and Danny Alexander. And while not all elements of the coalition agreement have been achieved, the central tenets upon which the coalition was founded remain at the heart of government policy, with little prospect of this changing in the future. The coalition’s stability must also be seen as a crowning testament to the truly world-class nature of this country’s civil service, without the quality of which the coalition’s survival would have been much more tenuous.

In terms of the political reality of support for the coalition’s policies, the atmosphere is patently less rosy, and rightfully so. But the coalition’s political stability is hugely significant for British politics. Coalitions form a central part of proportionally-elected parliamentary systems in practise, and as a result the coalition’s political stability is a ringing endorsement for introducing proportional representation into British national politics.

(Featured Image Credit: The Prime Minister’s Office)

Parties should be funded by the state

Ed Miliband’s recent foray into Labour’s funding by trade unions has brought the question of state funding of political parties to the foreground, once again highlighting the reluctance on the part of the political class to consider state funding, due to fear of public opinion.

While it is true to claim that money yields far lesser clout in British politics than the infamous multi-billion dollar campaigns of the United States, our current system of party funding is not ideal.

State funding of political parties is commonplace in countries like Sweden and Germany. The amount of funding that parties receive from the state is usually relative to the share of the popular vote which they receive in elections. State funding helps parties in these countries focus on reaching out to the electorate and crafting policy for the population, rather than spending time chasing around and attempting to entice and impress potential donors.

Some commentators strongly deplore the concept of state funding, as they believe that parties with public support should be capable of raising funds independently. As for the public’s apparent disdain for state funding, it is understandable. The idea that technically a small fraction of your taxes will be helping to fund a political party you do not support appears rather unfair and unpalatable.

Funds raised through membership fees and average member donations account for only a small fraction of the total expenditure of modern political parties. The shortfall is primarily made up for by wealthy donors such as Lord Salisbury and Lord Ashcroft, alongside funding from groups such as businesses and trade unions. While British politics is by no means corrupt, the current system of party funding could be said to be democratically disproportionate in some cases (the Conservatives have greater campaign funds than Labour, even during Labour’s time in government between 1997-2010), and to some degree exposes parties to minor influence from individuals and organisations with considerable sums of money.

Parties are a pivotal and essential component of functional democracy. They organise broad but similar standpoints into cohesive groupings with clear agendas. The modern political party is in a near-constant state of campaigning, participating in elections for public office and also supporting local movements and issues. They mobilise activists, hire advisors and political staff, craft comprehensive policy, and commission and conduct opinion polls and studies. These are all crucial aspects of any liberal democracy, but all come with a hefty price which must be paid for by someone.

Of course, smaller parties such as the Greens and UKIP would receive minimal state funding due to the fact that our national electoral system is majoritarian, rather than because of state funding itself. Within a proportional system, smaller parties would enjoy greater representation in Parliament and subsequently receive proportionate state funding.

To conclude, in the grand scheme of things, no other scheme rivals state funding in its ability to tackle, and depending upon the extent of the funding provided, eliminate the role of monetary influence in the political process. There really are only two options when it comes to party funding: either continue to have parties rely upon wealthy donors, or have the state support electorally-successful parties, thus establishing a neutral revenue stream and greater transparency in policy-making.

Credit: Xavier Häpe -

Europe must move together

French President Francois Hollande recently called for a eurozone economic government with the power to raise taxes, borrow and have a budget. This is not really surprising, with the almost-unanimous agreement amongst economists that for the euro to survive, it needs a strong fiscal union in order to better handle future crises in the currency.

What is worrying however is the speed at which Hollande has advocated the idea. Clearly, there are 16 additional opinions to be heard on the matter, though there is a very real risk that a fiscal union could be implemented without a broader vision for the entirety of the EU. Many have termed this possibility as being a two-tier Europe, one in which the inner circle of eurozone countries move towards ever-greater integration both fiscally and, significantly, politically, while non-eurozone members become an afterthought on the sidelines. This would be a terrible course of action.

We are currently undergoing a substantial challenge to the EU, with minority and mainstream parties alike speaking of reform – a general spell of isolationism in an economic depression, hardly to be expected – a foreign enemy is always a convenient scapegoat. In some ways, it’s interesting to note that with all the integration up to this point, there seems to be a distinct lack of solidarity on the European level – Europe just isn’t together in fighting in the same corner against common adversity.

Of course, I would love to see dramatic reform of the EU, but only in a constructive and progressive manner with a unified vision of solidarity and compassion, and of sharp critique of isolationism. Following the same disjointed path as the United States would be disastrous – a situation where two catch-all centrist parties are at each other’s necks constantly, a constitution so entrenched that common sense need not raise its hand, and a federal government system where nothing gets done and the people with popular support are hamstrung by those without.

My key point is that we cannot rush reform, and more importantly we must not retreat from integration as a way to resolve the democratic deficit. Instead, we should work to strengthen the democratic heartbeat of the Union, the Parliament, by truly making it the absolute authority, discarding the Commission and other messy and undemocratic intergovernmental relics of which the Union is in abundance. Crucially, we, all 27 member states, must move together. We must look at the bigger picture, move away from technical issues and seriously ask ourselves the question: what do we want Europe to be?

(Featured Image Credit: Xavier Häpe)