Tribalism and British politics, and the need for progressive electoral cooperation

I’m an advocate of proportional representation. My belief is that parliament should broadly mirror the votes made by the public, rather than being hugely imbalanced. I’m also keen on the idea of electoral pacts, in the event that parties outside of the conservative sphere have little other chance of making headway.

Polling suggests in the upcoming general election, a pact might not be enough to stop a Conservative majority anyway. But with a fully strategic approach, it’s possible many of 2015’s Liberal Democrat losses could be flipped (not least due to the party’s pro-EU stance), the Greens could make minor gains, and Labour could benefit in key seats through being backed by a majority of Liberal Democrat and Green voters.

The tiny snag is political parties and the voting public in the UK often won’t have any truck with this. The country en masse reverts to tribalism, and I just don’t understand it. Earlier today, I on Twitter spoke of a fantasy idea where the broadly progressive parties sat down and mapped out a way forward. A response I received was as follows:

Would this result in people being denied a chance to vote for policies they believe in, due to the party candidate tactically not standing?

I think this is the wrong way to look at things, but it’s also commonplace. The British have been trained to take an ‘all or nothing’ approach to politics. Compromise, concession and collaboration are all dirty words in the minds of a great many people across the entire political spectrum.

To illustrate this point, I for a while was a member of a Green Party group on Facebook, largely to try and get across to its members my thoughts on the party’s approach to copyright (which I considered deeply flawed) prior to the 2015 general election. There were people there fuming at the prospect of any cooperation with parties that supported nuclear power. When asked what their plan was, they responded they would wait until the time there was a Green Party majority government that could implement its policies in full.

The reality is that there will almost certainly never be a Green Party majority government in the UK, and nor will there be a Liberal Democrat one. There cannot be Plaid Cymru or SNP majorities, and it also seems vanishingly unlikely Labour will be able to get a majority either. And so we again come down to tribalism versus compromise.

My position is that I’d rather have most of what I want than nothing at all. Under a Lab/Lib/SNP coalition, the resulting policy will be more authoritarian than I’d like, with – due to Labour – more overt compromises on Europe. Similarly for those anti-nuclear Greens, imagine a coalition where Caroline Lucas is in government with the energy brief. She wouldn’t be able to shut down all the nuclear power stations, but she would be able to begin transforming the UK’s energy situation, rapidly increasing renewable power.

In other words, the compromise position will always likely be better than what you get in deciding on all or nothing. But, as ever, despite the most urgent need for electoral cooperation in modern British history, the chances of that happening at the party level are almost nil. In part, the voting system is to blame – with a proportional representation (or even a run-off) system, you’d be able to vote with your heart and provide subsequent pragmatic ‘support’ options for other parties. But mostly the lack of political will among fairly like-minded parties (most notably right now Labour and the Liberal Democrats) and among voters will stop millions getting anything close to what they want, and will leave them with nothing.

April 21, 2017. Read more in: Opinions, Politics

No Comments

Taking back control: freedom from freedom of movement

Various sources report Theresa May will announce the end of free movement for new EU migrants in March. I find this terribly depressing. My family exists because of free movement. In 2002, I moved to an EEA country, because I could, and to see how things would turn out with someone I’d met and who subsequently became my wife. I was – as now – a freelance writer, but that didn’t matter. I didn’t need a visa. I didn’t need a job and a work permit. I just showed up, lived, worked, paid my taxes, and so on. After a while, we switched countries and moved to the UK.

Now, we’ve no idea what the future holds in the country of my and my child’s birth. The government has at varying turns suggested it would guarantee residency rights for EU and/or EEA nationals. But then there have been various caveats tossed into the ring: EU27 specifically (i.e. not necessarily EEA/Swiss); only those making “full” use of rights (i.e. in work); residency only (i.e. not necessarily including access to healthcare, making staying unviable for many and problematic for a great many more); and residency only for those who meet the UK’s arbitrary earnings threshold. Additionally, those people wishing to secure residency or citizenship have found the process opaque and in some cases blocked by broadly unknown technicalities.

It’s not a good time for those of us in this situation.

But while this kind of story is already somewhat in the public consciousness, I do wonder how many Brits – and especially those who voted to leave the EU – realise this cuts both ways. I’ve seen various surveys that show a huge disconnect in the way British people see immigration. Such surveys asked British people whether EEA nationals should have the right to settle in the UK, which met with a broadly negative response. The same people were asked whether British people should have the right to settle in the EEA, at which point the majority view switched. It probably doesn’t help that language in the media and beyond for years has referred to Brits overseas as ‘ex-pats’, as thought they are somehow different from other immigrants.

They are not, and this is something the UK is going to become very suddenly aware of. Because when we are free from freedom of movement, that adversely affects the British too. Had your eye on retiring in Spain? Tough. Fancied moving to Sweden, just because you could? Too bad. Got kids hankering after university in Germany or the Netherlands? Best hunker down with a pile of paperwork for visas and hope for the best.

I mentioned this on Twitter earlier, wondering at what point we’re going to see the Daily Mail and co. recognise this problem, and scream about “EU SPITE” regarding their readership’s rights to reside overseas suddenly evaporating. Someone noted Daily Mail readers were up in arms on day one. One political commentator I follow online also mentioned a while back that a Conservative MP in a Commons debate said many Brits want to retire to Spain, and this “important right” should be retained – all while his party was dismantling the regulations that make such movement possible.

And yet for some Brexiters, even none of this is a concern. They slam residents here for not taking citizenship (even if many cannot, for various reasons), and note that British people have for years been able to move, live, work, study, and love in countries beyond the EEA. The movement point is of course true, but freedom of movement within the EEA was broadly about security and ease. It didn’t come attached with massive costs and administrative burdens, the immediate threat of deportation if you lost employment, the limitation of a single country, and a lack of security on your status always looming in the background.

Brexiters like to think that without immigrants, the UK will suddenly revert to some kind of glorious age – but they’re wrong. (And which age? That halcyon moment never existed anyway.) They also think that the British will benefit when freedom of movement is abolished, and that this doesn’t come with any downsides. They’re wrong about those things too.

February 27, 2017. Read more in: Opinions, Politics

Comments Off on Taking back control: freedom from freedom of movement

Alt history: what happened after Remain won the 2016 European Union membership referendum

Friday 23 June, 2016. The votes all counted, the UK has decided to remain part of the EU. 17,410,742 – 51.89 per cent – ticked that particular box, with 16,141,241 (48.11 per cent) against.

Prime Minster David Cameron’s cabinet reshuffle promotes heavily pro-EU Conservatives into senior positions. Pro-Brexit ministers resign before they are pushed. Over coming weeks, the new position of the UK becomes clear. The government announces immediate plans to join the Euro, thereby dropping Sterling. Immense pressure is placed on the EU by the British to instigate a federal system, akin to the United States of Europe. The UK also immediately barges its way into the Schengen Area, eliminating border controls with the rest of the EEA.

Of course, this is all bollocks, because this would never have happened. It’s the most extreme flavour of Remain, rather than the status quo, or, more likely, the UK using a narrow victory as a means to extract further concessions from the EU. And yet extreme Leave is now what the British seem to be heading for. This makes no more sense than extreme Remain, and yet we’re increasingly told that’s what we all voted for. Presumably all the ballots had an extra page no-one thought to attach.

November 22, 2016. Read more in: Politics

Comments Off on Alt history: what happened after Remain won the 2016 European Union membership referendum

No, I will not be quiet – I can support more than one thing at once, thanks

On Twitter today, a person I admire had a go at someone for supporting Let Toys Be Toys. The reason, seemingly: there are more important things to support.

This is a response I’ve had to my own writing at times, on various subjects, or my public support for certain campaigns. I occasionally write about accessibility in software, such as motion sickness triggers. This writing is sometimes dismissed by people who say I should be writing about actual horrors in the world, like war and famine. (And, no, I’m not kidding.) But I am not a journalist that covers war. I write about what I know. And these smaller things are nonetheless important to many. I don’t know how much influence my articles and feedback had on Apple when iOS 7 was making people sick, but we do now have an OS that is far less likely to make people ill. Did that fix inequality across the entire planet? Of course not, but I still see it as a net win.

Similarly, I fully support the Let Toys Be Toys campaign. I’ve done so since I first heard about its aim to stop limiting children’s interests, due to marketing’s tendency to promote certain toys as specifically ‘for boys’ or ‘for girls’. My support does not mean I don’t want to see greater women’s rights and equality elsewhere. It means I see societal links. When toys are telling young girls to be quiet, pretty, love only pink, and so on, and boys to be noisy, violent, loud, that’s a fucking problem. When advertising almost never has boys and girls playing together, and even board games are gendered, that’s a fucking problem. (I’ve seen pink plastic Jenga ‘for girls’, with ‘gossip suggestions’ on the tiles, and a pink mall Monopoly, because god forbid girls buy property.)

We have room for more than one thing in our heads. And dismissing the likes of Let Toys Be Toys is indicative that someone does not see that overly gendered marketing is indicative of a larger problem that’s endemic in society. Yet we see companies directing girls away from certain kinds of activities, but they somehow act all surprised when there are shortfalls in the number of women active in certain areas of society.

That’s not to say there’s a direct link, but it would be naive to think there’s no link at all. Besides, it’s abhorrent to suggest girls should just sit quietly in a corner and like only pink (and equally to assign certain behaviours to boys). Let kids be kids. Let toys be toys. And let those who want to support something that you don’t see as the most important thing in the world do so without ridiculing them.

October 27, 2016. Read more in: Opinions, Politics

Comments Off on No, I will not be quiet – I can support more than one thing at once, thanks

Unicorns (a Brexit tale)

Brexit: “We want a unicorn each!”
Remain: “But there’s no such thing.”
Brexit: [mulls] “OK. A pony each then!”
Remain: “How would we even begin to afford that?”
Brexit: “Stop talking Britain down!” *votes for ponies*

Eleven seconds after referendum
Brexit: [furious] “Where’s my bloody unicorn?”
Remain: “But we said…”
Brexit: “I don’t care what you said. I was promised!”
Remain: “Not by us, and—”
Brexit: “NOT MY PROBLEM. I VOTED UNICORN! YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD A PLAN TO GIVE US ALL THE UNICORNS!”

August 21, 2016. Read more in: Politics

Comments Off on Unicorns (a Brexit tale)

« older posts