Carnival of Socialism: Socialism, democracy personal ethics

Sorry about this one. In keeping with time-honoured left traditions, I'm a day late.

'A New Politics' is one of those phrases that is liable to get one's goat. Politicians of all stripes always want to lay a claim to newness. The public in any kind of free society is permanently annoyed with at least some politicians, so you can't really go wrong as long as you're thought of as being the ones who represent change. Change and newness are completely subjective terms. The title of this blog itself is both a sneering recognition of that fact and an attempt to use it.

New Politics as currently used is also about systems which are improvements on previous models. More democratic, more representative, cleaner. The socialist left can trace its roots in the UK to the Chartist Movement. Conservative commentators often speak as though Chartism achieved its aims. In reality, while some extremely key reforms such as the extension of the franchise to workers were made, they didn't get very far. It took them decades to extend it to women.

Even now we're stuck with a parliament that does not accurately represent the views of the people who elect it, can spend 4 out of 5 years evading public scrutiny without regular elections or recalls, is in thrall to the whip system, and is subject to the prerogative in terms of when elections are called. The revising chamber is not elected, the hereditary monarch can appoint minority governments, and MPs set their own wages and expenses.

Which is of course the current issue. Socialist commonwealth we are not.

It has been interesting, I will note at the beginning, to see the IPPR looking back to the far left of old for inspiration. All good stuff. The conversation has evolved into a campaign among pro-democracy groups, mirrored on a strictly-within-Labour basis by the Blairite magazine Progress. These campaigns have very, very similar goals, and worthy one. But moderate ones. I would argue, overly moderate ones.

Following it's recent launch, 38 degrees has proposed a real Chartist policy to deal with the expenses issue in particular. I can see why it works, but have yet to be convinced either way. How do you offset chaos? Perhaps chaos would be worth it to stop the cheats and idiots ruling the roost?

The blogs have been noisy. Kerry MP gives it from the inside. SWPer Richard Seymour wonders if the crisis will transform into electoral reform. It looks as though the SWP would back it, though I'm not aware what their previous policy was. It certainly makes them look a good deal more liberal then 'old labour'. Bob Piper, who may or indeed may not wish to self-identify as such, reminds us that wishy-washy types have always been into this stuff and what's the point really. As if it wasn't enough taunting our mate Dave so mercilessly. I won't even go into what Bob's new arch enemy (no, really), fellow-actually-good blogger Neil Harding makes of consitutional reform, because I'd have to reprint the whole blog. Ah, boys will be boys...

The Bearded Socialist (is there any other kind?) ponders the utter, abject stupidity of many UKIPers. Maybe we might want to look at ballot papers a bit more closely?

A few more concrete proposals come from Raincoat Optimism, where a knack in explanation certainly exists. Then again, maybe we just need more Morrissey. Meanwhile, in the flood of anti-politics feeling, Jury Team have been out plugging this awful argument along the lines of 'yeah mate, yeah, what we need is more independents, see'. Shiraz Socialist pretty much spikes this one. They are either mad or sinister. But the experienced would have expected nothing less.

One of the best left bloggers around is Labour militant (perhaps with a rather capital 'M') Dave Semple, who is reasonably well known for being able to take what you thought, drag it over hot coals, and force you to eat its smoking, charred body. Or something like that. In any event, he gives us a great series of posts on the complete collapse of politics, asking 'who governs' from a grassroots perspective. And the answer, unsurprisingly, is 'not you'. It is slightly bonkers to speculate to such an effect, but I am very surious as to whether comrade Semple and head wonk Rick Muir agree on something?

He also provides us with a rather wonderful (though seriously inspired) stand-up routine from John McDonnell, which is good viewing, before asking a little more about loyalty, a concept which I must concede that I have always found fascinating, if a little oversimplified by most. Elsewhere in Labour-world, Mil asks about status.

In the world outside, boffyblog is making a big sell, and helpfully analyses Brown's role. No PR here. Just getting active in your communi'ey, brahv. Comrade Quigley talks about voting and obligation. If only we'd seen a bit more of that tonight.

Largely, then, we're seeing two approaches from the blogs. Constitutional reform, and reform in the way the left physically does business. I don't think either can be argued with.

So two to round off with. Firstly, in the scramble over what politicians get, and how they get to where we are, let us not forget what they do, or what they fail to.

Secondly, before anyone starts debating no-platform, as is sure to now happen, read this.

Right, I'm off, I have a some stuff to work on, and of course the obligatory (emphasis on the 'tory') duck island to look after. Once I've worked out what on earth one is, and how to fill in the expense forms. After all, who are you proles to stop me?

And just remember, you should have voted Labour, hippy.