Electoral reform is not something the Liberals dreamed up to ensure they get a larger share of the vote at General Elections; nor is it a means of getting extremist parties elected when nobody really wants them. We need to ask of ourselves whether a Conservative government under First-past-the-Post would be preferable to an alliance with the smaller parties under Proportional Representation (PR). PR is a means of ensuring that every vote counts and that every voter has a part to play in the election of a government.

If we are afraid of those ‘smaller parties’ including the Far Right  extremists, we must ensure Labour ideas, principles and ethics are presented better to the electorate. The notion of fair elections under a truly representative system holds no fears for Labour thinkers as evidenced by those who support it (Fabians, Compass, Left Foot Forward, Progress): all left of centre think-tanks.

Robin Cook said he was not prepared to put up with a system which ‘gave Labour an opportunity every 30 years to get a majority the way the Conservatives do and then govern in the same way’. (Robin Cook 1998) The fact of political life is that one party turns the ratchet to the right and then another turns it to the left. The status quo remains the same. If we want change we must change the system of electing governments.

The real issue should be whether elections will deliver power for the electorate! Will the parliament be representative of the population? If the system is representative then the issue of how our country is governed will be a matter of policy rather than tactics, half truths and disputed statistics. Labour will no longer need to act as a one-party-coalition in order to please the whole electorate before trying to get re-elected. We can campaign on real issues of importance to ordinary people.

If voters were able to vote in favour of who they wanted they would be less likely to vote against those they did not want; and allow the extremists to get elected by default.

In 1951 under the current system of voting, we had the absurdity of a Conservative government with a 17 seat majority after having polled almost a quarter of a million votes less than Labour. In every election from then on Labour and Liberal parties have together polled more than the Conservatives. Yet there have been eight Conservative governments in that time.  Perhaps that is why the Tories plan to reorganise the boundaries to cut 10% of (Labour) seats if they ever win a general election. Then they will exploit their built-in majority to ensure an increasingly  right wing bias to policies. 

This might be the last significant chance for Labour to change the path of  ordinary citizens’ lives for the better. As Polly Toynbee points out:

“Despite the distorting mirror of its right wing press, this country has always had an essentially social democratic majority, split for historic reasons between Labour and Lib. Dems: Margaret Thatcher never had a majority.” (Guardian 26 Jan 2010 polly.toynbee@guardian.co.uk)

The dream of socialism appears to have vanished in 1979 but we can still dream of having socialists elected who will have a say in government if we have a fair electoral system.

Turkeys do not vote for Christmas; nor Tory MPs for PR. We must have a referendum as soon as possible. Then we can move forward into debate and fair representation.

In light of the unequal power relationship between working-class and owning- class in Britain it is not before time that John Denham on behalf of the Labour government declared that:

“For the first time, public bodies will have to take class into account and consider what action they can take to tackle entrenched socio-economic disadvantage.” (Denham, J. 14 Jan 2010)

Not least because the potential of many working people is being wasted and:

“We cannot afford the inequality and discrimination at work which restricts opportunities, wastes talent, and sets artificial limits on people’s careers and prospects.” (ibid.)

In Barnsley, where the vast majority  of residents are by most definitions ‘working class’;  there can surely be no real doubt that the status brings with it real disadvantage in a society which is hierarchical and competitive.

As a borough which had a culture of hard work and community solidarity, Barnsley was at ease with itself. The wages were low and the work was hard but coal-mining engendered comradeship and brought benefits of assistance from workmates and community members in hard times.

When the Tories under Thatcher destroyed the mines at a stroke they also destroyed communities. In the interests of global capitalism miners accustomed to a communal work environment found themselves competing for work as individuals against workers from poorer economies as well as the home economy. The education and training system until then had not fitted members of our communities to compete as individuals. There was massive unemployment as a result of pit closures and a switch in roles between the sexes. Many women now became bread-winners and since then we have witnessed many former ‘women’s jobs’ in service industries, being filled by men.

There was a palpable sense of disempowerment and a lack of identity on the part of men in our communities: though it was beneficial that women now found a new sense of power and identity. If the transition from coal-mining to alternatives had been handled sympathetically our communities could have grown from it. Instead it appeared as a means to destroy communities and the power of trades unions, which had represented and educated miners for generations. In place of stable strong communities with lower than average rates of crime and disorder, we now have higher rates of crime, weaker communities and disempowered workers: a classic case of working class communities and individuals being victim to the capitalist system.

When a member of the upper (owning)-class loses a job they often have friends and contacts who will ensure they get another career opportunity: e.g. Tory MPs to TV presenters, disgraced bankers to business consultants, etc. When workers lose their jobs they are at the mercy of ‘the (international)market’.

Discrimination and disadvantage stem from an unequal power relationship: in Barnsley’s case between the Thatcher government and the miners; in other cases capitalism and workers; in disempowered communities long-term residents and migrants. The capitalists in the form of Bankers, Press barons, C.E.O.s of multi-national companies, etc. wield disproportionate power to control the lives of working citizens, internationally. 

John Denham also pointed out in his recent speech, that: “…we’ve also got to recognise that the context for what we are doing has changed.” Tony Blair said that it would take three terms of Labour government to change Britain for the better. It has taken three terms to get to a point where we must do something about inequalities or we will all suffer further from divisions in society. Whether it is the Conservatives with their small government, few services, devil-take-the-hindmost philosophy where Britain is ruled by a classically educated ‘elite’; or a Nationalist party’s strategy of divide, discriminate and rule; we will be victims of disadvantage if we are not (as John Denham said in his speech:) “…committed to tackling disadvantage wherever it exists”.

For Barnsley that discrimination would be due to working-class disadvantage and the deliberate discrimination of a Tory government against the working (by hand and by brain)-class. Most immigrants into Barnsley are members of that working class, just as they have been for generations. We must be careful not to allow the forces of the far-right to drive a wedge between us and create a false divide between workers, of whatever ethnic/cultural origin. We are stronger together.

Barnsley Labour Party extends a big ‘Thankyou’ to the thousands of workers in essential services who have maintained our quality of life through the last few cold weeks. We are thankful to the snow-plough and gritter drivers, personnel in the emergency services, shop workers, social workers, bus drivers, etc. and all the back-room administration staff who keep our borough working at times of stress. They are part of the network of workers who deliver universal services to all those in need regardless of ability to pay. (Even bankers get the benefit of emergency care and rescue.) The cold weather is not ended yet, according to weather forecasts, but we all know that these workers will continue to do their best for all their fellow citizens. Thankyou!

The snow and arctic conditions have been with us in Europe and parts of the USA for several weeks now: almost as if the weather has taken over from where the economic crisis left off. We all appreciate it is not anything that could be controlled by those in government but still the Press appear to want to blame someone: they whine about ‘lack of grit, not enough snow ploughs, salt running out, roads clogged etc. etc’. Actually it’s just winter and if we all appreciate that winter comes and winter goes in a natural cycle; and we tailor our life to the conditions, we would be less stressed.

We can only control the consequences of nature to a limited extent. Gritter vehicles cost approximately £100,000 each; salt about £50 per ton. Barnsley has 11 grit spreading lorries to cover approx. 1,500 Kms. of road. Your Labour council could change the budget to buy more resources but that would affect other services which are needed all year round, instead of the few weeks that the roads are frozen. What service would you like to see cut to pay for the cost of a £100,000 lorry which is not used for most of the decade? It would be useful if citizens requested grit bins to put on their streets for the next time we get snow. Barnsley has 500 of these bins out already which enable residents to clear their own streets when lorries cannot. That way we can pay in effort rather than money.

It all comes down to the fact that ‘you get what you pay for’. If everyone contributes, we all get more from our services. Even those with high salaries get more from universal benefits. After all, high earners still depend on workers on low wages to clear the roads, run the emergency services, staff the shops, work in hospitals, etc. It is at times of stress on the system that we most appreciate the people who oil the wheels of society … from the bottom up.  If we did not have universal benefits for all members of society we would all have to pay for emergency services as they do in other parts of the world. The workers who supply the services would then be paying to be rescued to provide a service for those who pay their wages. Sounds like business people get it both ways then.

Thankyou again to all those who work (often for low wages) on our behalf to keep society healthy.