Our job is to defend and extend democracy

In the debate about voting systems, the unions have a vital role to play, says Brendan Barber

by Tribune Web Editor
Thursday, January 21st, 2010

In the debate about voting systems, the unions have a vital role to play, says Brendan Barber

Trade unions were part of the great campaigns to extend the franchise in the 19th and 20th centuries. More recently, unions have been important players in winning devolution in Scotland and Wales.

This is not surprising. Unions exist to give people at work a collective voice that can overcome the inherent inequality of the employment relationship. In wider society, the rich and powerful call all the shots unless elected institutions give ordinary people at least the chance to grab back some of that power.

At our Liverpool Congress last autumn, the TUC agreed to stimulate a debate about whether we should move to a more proportional voting system for Westminster – something that we have not discussed for many years.

We have started the debate with a new pamphlet entitled Getting it in Proportion? This sets out the pros and cons of change, and explains the different systems without requiring everyone to put on their anoraks.

There are strongly held views on all sides within unions – passionate advocates of change and doughty defenders of the first-past-the-post status quo. So the pamphlet is carefully balanced. But it does suggest some starting points for the debate.

There is no perfect system. All have advantages and disadvantages. What works best in the United States would not suit a country newly emerging from dictatorship.

However, this cuts both ways. Our current system is not ideal, but nor is any other.

There needs to be a strong case for moving from a tried and tested system that people understand.

Nevertheless, conditions can change over time. First past the post probably suited the 1950s with its high turnouts, two dominant parties and strong party identification. Now, with declining turnouts and the rise of third, fourth and even fifth parties, conditions may have changed sufficiently for us to consider a new system.

The electoral system shapes how parties behave. First past the post makes parties concentrate on swing voters in the minority of constituencies that are marginal. This means parties can ignore voters in safe seats and motivating their core supporters in favour of chasing this swing vote in focus groups. This is not, then, a dry academic debate for north London’s world famous dinner party tables. It can make a real difference to ordinary voters.

If we do conclude that change is needed, a referendum is the right way to go about it. Sitting MPs have a vested interest in the status quo. With the Conservatives strong supporters of keeping things as they are,

there is a strong argument for a decision

by this Parliament that there should be a referendum, perhaps giving a citizens’ assembly the task of drawing up a new system that retains the best of what we have already with whatever changes are needed to deal with its imperfections.

I have no idea how this debate will conclude. But with widespread cynicism about democratic politics, unions should do what we have always done. Our task is to defend and extend democracy – and we must now decide whether more proportionality at Westminster is the way to proceed.

Brendan Barber is general secretary of the TUC. Getting it in Proportion? is available to download at www.touchstoneblog.org.uk

The only place you can read all of Tribune's articles as soon as they are published is in the magazine. To find out more about subscribing from as little as £19, click here.

About The Author

  • terence patrick hewett

    I think the overriding debate is not the nature of the political voting system but the nature of the Labour Party and the nature of governance itself which applies to all political parties. Should it be Top Down with its state control, suppression of individual rights and radical social engineering? Or by Bottom Up grass roots who are concerned with family, mutuality, toleration and respect for people. In the light of recent history I believe that the Top Down scenario will be difficult to sustain: if only for the reason that in the age of the internet everybody knows what everybody else is thinking. Certainly the Unions are going to be a major part of the debate; they after all have all the money.

    This debate is not likely to be resolved in the short term for the simple reason that the Unions themselves will undergo an evolutionary change due to changes in technology. These sorts of ideas are highly unpopular in some quarters, but speaking as an engineer I know this to be true; technology is a global matrix and its influence cannot be resisted, but it can be used. This has to be faced, like it or not, it is no use wishing that the future did not exist; this is Realpolitik, not What I Would Like in my Stocking for Christmas. The billions wasted on state IT projects is a failure of governance not of technology.

    Unions need to face the fact that their representation in the public services is likely to be reduced in the medium and long term due to advances in computing, quantum computing, materials, nanotechnology, biotechnology and cognitive science; the world will change in ways we cannot hope to predict. But I believe that Unionism will rise to the challenge and become the overriding ethos of left wing politics and also become more representative in the private sector, providing services that people value and need.

  • terence patrick hewett

    I think the overriding debate is not the nature of the political voting system but the nature of the Labour Party and the nature of governance itself which applies to all political parties. Should it be Top Down with its state control, suppression of individual rights and radical social engineering? Or by Bottom Up grass roots who are concerned with family, mutuality, toleration and respect for people. In the light of recent history I believe that the Top Down scenario will be difficult to sustain: if only for the reason that in the age of the internet everybody knows what everybody else is thinking. Certainly the Unions are going to be a major part of the debate; they after all have all the money.

    This debate is not likely to be resolved in the short term for the simple reason that the Unions themselves will undergo an evolutionary change due to changes in technology. These sorts of ideas are highly unpopular in some quarters, but speaking as an engineer I know this to be true; technology is a global matrix and its influence cannot be resisted, but it can be used. This has to be faced, like it or not, it is no use wishing that the future did not exist; this is Realpolitik, not What I Would Like in my Stocking for Christmas. The billions wasted on state IT projects is a failure of governance not of technology.

    Unions need to face the fact that their representation in the public services is likely to be reduced in the medium and long term due to advances in computing, quantum computing, materials, nanotechnology, biotechnology and cognitive science; the world will change in ways we cannot hope to predict. But I believe that Unionism will rise to the challenge and become the overriding ethos of left wing politics and also become more representative in the private sector, providing services that people value and need.

  • Pingback: Web links for 22nd January 2010 | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC

  • Robert

    I thought the TUC was about making sure working people had a decent job with decent pay, but of course not it’s about earning money getting good jobs and stuffing the workers.

    The problem is the TUC has a love affair with Labour in a one way marriage.

  • Robert

    I thought the TUC was about making sure working people had a decent job with decent pay, but of course not it’s about earning money getting good jobs and stuffing the workers.

    The problem is the TUC has a love affair with Labour in a one way marriage.