A Sense of Proportion

"First Past The Post gives us the opportunity to kick the bastards out"? Really? The party of government has changed precisely once in the last 31 years. And that was 13 years ago. In fact, First Past The Post makes it practically impossible to create a new political force, keeps even extremely stupid or lazy people in Parliament for decades on end, sustains formations long after they have outlived their usefulness, and requires them all to appeal to the same tiny number of unrepresentative voters.

Speaking of whom, far from giving seats to the BNP, that organisation is now as good as defunct. Like the BUF in the Thirties and the NF in the Seventies, it made a lot of noise for a short time and then it went away. That is not a product of First Past The Post. It is just what these people do. I shall be in my sixties before they re-emerge. And they won't get anywhere then, either. Party lists are one thing, and there are numerous reasons why we must have nothing to do with them. But who, exactly, would give their second or subsequent preferences to the Nazis? To whom, exactly, would Nazi voters give their second or subsequent preferences? They would be eliminated in the first round, and that would be that.

Do you want a party for people whose priorities include the Welfare State, workers' rights, trade unionism, the co-operative movement, consumer protection, strong communities, conservation rather than environmentalism, fair taxation, full employment, public ownership, proper local government, a powerful Parliament, and a base of real property from which every household could resist both over-mighty commercial interests and an over-mighty State, while having a no less absolute commitment to any or all of the monarchy, the organic Constitution, national sovereignty, civil liberties, the Union, the Commonwealth, the countryside, grammar schools, traditional moral and social values, controlled importation and immigration, and a realistic foreign policy?

Do you want a party for people whose priorities include agriculture, manufacturing, small business, national sovereignty, the Union, economic patriotism, local variation, historical consciousness, traditional moral and social values, the whole Biblical and Classical patrimony of the West, close-knit communities, law and order, civil liberties, academic standards, all forms of art, mass political participation within a constitutional framework ("King and People" against the Whig magnates), conservation rather than environmentalism, sound money, a realistic foreign policy, a strong defence capability used only for the most sparing and strictly defensive purposes, the Commonwealth, the constitutional and other ties among the Realms and Territories having the British monarch as Head of State or other such constitutional links, the status of the English language and the rights of its speakers both throughout the United Kingdom and elsewhere, the rights of British-descended communities throughout the world, the longstanding and significant British ties to the Arab world, support for the Slavs in general and for Russia in particular as the gatekeepers of Biblical-Classical civilisation, a natural affinity with Confucian culture, exactly as much central and local government action as is required by these priorities, a profound suspicion of an American influence and action characteristically defined against them, and an active desire for a different American approach?

Do you want a party for people whose priorities include civil liberties, local communitarian populism, the indefatigable pursuit of single issues, the Nonconformist social conscience, the legacy of Keynes and Beveridge, traditional moral and social values, consumer protection, conservation rather than environmentalism, national sovereignty, a realistic foreign policy, the Commonwealth, the peace activism historically exemplified by Sir Herbert Samuel, redress of economic and political grievances in the countryside, and the needs and concerns of areas remote from the centres of power both in the United Kingdom and in each of its constituent parts?

Do you want those parties to act as permanent checks and balances on each other, bringing to each other's attention concerns that would never otherwise occur to them, and able to insist on the addressing of their respective concerns as the price of co-operation on other people's, Farepak for farming and vice versa?

The twentieth-century parties have lived too long. Whatever it was that these beasts were supposed to yield, they can no longer do so. The electoral reform that we really need remains the vigorous contesting of every seat by every party on behalf of a candidate in every case capable of being that constituency's MP, having been selected by submitting that party’s internally, but locally, determined shortlist of two to a binding ballot of all registered voters in the constituency.

I regret that this could not have been achieved within the existing system of coalitions honestly presented to the electorate, rather than cobbled together after our votes have been cast. The Single Transferable Vote will need a lot of work to make it effective outside the most urban of areas, and to stop it from eliminating candidates for whom many people have voted. Party lists remain an abomination. The constituency link remains sacrosanct.

But this chance may never come again. Indeed, if we do not seize it this time, then it probably never will. So let us seize it with both hands.