Latest news with #pro-Europeans
New European
22-05-2025
- Business
- New European
PR is the way to stop Farage ever becoming PM
At a meeting of Labour MPs after unveiling his Brexit reset deal, Keir Starmer was clear about the danger that lay ahead. 'The Conservatives are not our principal opponent. Reform are our main rivals for power,' he said, telling his audience they had 'a moral responsibility to make sure Nigel Farage never wins.' But what if there was a way to take the fight to Farage – one that would indeed ensure he never reached power – that the prime minister is ignoring? Whatever you think of the trade deals and benefit cuts engineered by Starmer and Labour's chief strategist Morgan McSweeney so far, their willingness to take decisive action cannot be denied. So the duo will miss a trick if they fail to consider using their control of the statute book to reform Westminster's electoral system. Of course, Starmer is right to be wary of Farage. The English local elections and the Runcorn & Helsby by-election show why. So do the last 24 national opinion polls, 20 of which reported Reform Party ahead and four joint-first with Labour. Britain seems to be transitionining from a two-and-a-half- to a five-party system; or a six-party system in Scotland and Wales. The BBC projected the May 1 votes as Reform 30%, Labour 20%, Liberal Democrats 17%, Conservatives 15% and Greens 11% while YouGov's latest poll, released on May 20, had Reform 29%, Labour 22%, Lib Dems 17%, Tories: 16% and Greens: 10%. This new multiparty shape of Britain's electorate was also evident at last July's general election when the combined Tory-Labour vote share slumped to 58%, a record post-war low in a long decline from 1951's 97% peak. Now, the BBC's 35% and YouGov's 38% joint share for the two former main parties underline the old duopoly's demise. Whatever the attractions of more voter choice and fluidity among parties along a left-right spectrum of Greens, Labour, Lib Dems, Tories and Reform, multiparty politics is a bad fit for Britain's first-past-the-post (FPTP) election system for Westminster. Potentially delivering Farage as prime minister on a Reform national vote share in the high 20s would be a defeat for pro-Europeans as significant as 2016's referendum or 2019's general election. Nonetheless that is the direction in which polling and elections point. Entering YouGov's latest poll into the Electoral Calculus seat predictor produces a hypothetical House of Commons in which Reform has 346 seats, up 341 from the five Reform MPs elected last July, with an overall majority of 42. Labour would be the official opposition with just 145 seats (down 267); the Lib Dems would be the third party with 73 (up one); the Scottish National Party fourth with 39 (up 30); and the Tories' fifth with 17 (down 104). British politics would be turned upside down, all on a 29% Reform vote share. One way to prevent this – and the most far right and inexperienced government the country has ever endured – would be to introduce the Single Transferable Vote for Westminster elections. There are several good reasons for Starmer to do so. First, in a lesson that shouldn't be lost on Labour's leadership, STV would more evenly divide the nationalist right. Because STV produces more proportional results than FPTP, both Reform and the Tories would be broadly represented according to their national vote share in parliament. In 2024's general election, the Tories took 24% of the vote to Reform's 14%, splitting the combined right's vote roughly 63% to 37% in the Tories' favour. But under the current electoral system the right's share of seats divided 96% (121 seats) for the Conservatives and 4% (five seats) for Reform. YouGov's latest poll, with Reform at 29% and the Tories on 16% is a roughly 64% to 36% share of the right's vote in Reform's favour but would translate into a seat share of about 95% for Reform and 5% for the Tories. Such results are a travesty of current party support. A purely proportional parliament with 2024's results would have given the Tories 24% of MPs and Reform 14% of Parliament's 650 constituencies, and the total for a divided right 38% of MPs, making a coalition of the two impossible. A purely proportional parliament on YouGov's latest poll would give Reform 29% and the Tories 16% of MPs, 45% of all seats, still not within reach of a Reform-Tory majority. A broadly proportional parliament isn't instant good news for the parties of the left either. 2024's combined shares for Labour plus Lib Dems plus Greens equal 52% while YouGov's latest poll gets the pro-Europe three to only 48%, and only to 51% if the SNP are added – problematic for Labour and the Lib Dems as unionist parties. Nonetheless the left's range of support is higher than for the two parties of the nationalist right – and a far cry from FPTP's extreme distortions, with Labour's recent decline somewhat compensated by Lib Dem and Green upticks. STV produces more proportional results in terms of party vote share by using multimember constituencies in which voters rank their candidate choices in order of preference. Under STV, the Boundary Commission might divide Britain's 650 current single-member constituencies into 130 five-member constituencies. To summarise and simplify, ballot papers are sorted by first preferences and a quota established: in a five-member seat, one-fifth of total votes plus one. Any candidate reaching the quota is automatically elected. Votes surplus to the quota are then distributed to remaining candidates who don't meet the initial quota until all five members of parliament for the constituency are elected. Multimember constituencies and preferential voting empower voters, potentially better reflecting the 60% of voters who want to rejoin the European Union – a swing of 12 points toward membership since the 2016 referendum.. Obviously, a Reform-majority or Reform-led coalition with over 50% of the seats in a FPTP parliament gives anti-EU parties 100% of the legislative power while representing only 40%, the minority, of voters on this issue. The biggest reason why pro-EU membership opinion runs at 60% while backing for the three pro-Europe parties of the left currently runs only to the high 40s is the share of pro-rejoin Conservative voters who continue to vote Tory – including even in 2024's general election when so many of the party's former voters deserted them. Per YouGov, 85% of Labour and 75% of Lib Dem voters – the vast majority. For the Tories, the figure is 29% – a minority, but still sizeable. These Rejoin Tories would be better represented under STV with its multimember seats and preference voting. Under FPTP, a pro-rejoin Conservative voter has only one Tory candidate to vote for, currently someone backing the party line on the EU, or they can abstain, or vote for a non-Tory. But in a five-member constituency with preference voting, the one-person party-candidate monopoly ends. That voter could rank Tory candidates according to the mood music of their stance on the EU even if the party requires all candidates to sign up to the party line, or vote for some but not all the Tory candidates. The flexibility afforded by a system without 'safe' seats that never change party control at general elections, even in landslides like 2024's general election, won't only offer Tory candidates incentives to differentiate. Labour, Lib Dem and Green candidates might also go out of their way to stress pro-Europe credentials, attracting stray Tory voters' subsequent preferences but also boosting their chances versus other candidates of the left, as they aim to make the quota and get elected. By better representing the Rejoin 62% on YouGov's numbers, Labour and the Lib Dems can more easily move to back membership. By opening up elections and constituencies, STV could be a game-changer in the Tories' overall direction of travel on the European issue. It potentially encourages a more nuanced, pro-Europe position, enabling the Tories to cleave closer to public opinion. This matters for the future as returning to the European fold ought to mean at least one party of the right backing EU membership, as in other European nations and in the UK for 65 years pre-2016. Electoral reform also could be a game-changer at local government level, also preventing Reform winning on low vote shares in low-turnout elections. Restoring the supplementary vote (SV) system, in which voters get second choices counted if no candidate exceeds 50% of the vote, to London mayoral elections would benefit pro-Europe parties in a city in which YouGov says 70% back rejoining the EU. To encourage candidates to embrace the mainstream, SV should be reinstated for all mayoral elections. This would potentially prevent repeats of Reform's Andrea Jenkyns becoming Greater Lincolnshire mayor with 42% on a 30% turnout or former boxer Luke Campbell's election as Hull and East Yorkshire mayor with 36% of the vote on another 30% turnout. Taking the easiest items first, the Conservatives under Boris Johnson used their overall parliamentary majority won in 2019 to change mayoral elections from SV to FPTP, so there is a clear precedent for Labour using their majority to revert to these elections' original SV system. For Westminster elections the stakes and therefore the lengths to which parties will go in pursuit of their own interests are far higher. No 10 would have to consider how best politically to make the move from FPTP to STV. Referendums held late into governments, like Britain's second European vote, can unhelpfully become conflated with other issues and regarded as a plebiscite on the government of the day. But the danger of waiting until after yet another FPTP election is that it doesn't happen because Labour, even heading a coalition, don't win, as current polling and elections portend. Starmer and McSweeney should ask themselves: is it better to introduce STV now, or gamble on waiting until after yet another FPTP general election that may not bring Labour victory or a Labour-led coalition? Reform backs proportional representation now but that could change if they win under FPTP. A freak Farage win on a 28-30% vote is a real possibility. But it is one that can be averted by making 2024 Britain's last FPTP election. Barnaby Towns is a former Conservative Party government special adviser
New European
16-05-2025
- Politics
- New European
The flawed Assisted Dying bill still deserves to succeed
The Bill that Parliament has been considering has, from the start, been extremely narrow by comparison with other jurisdictions where assisted death is legalised. But while there are many eloquent proponents of the measure, they have been consistently out-manoeuvred by a vociferous army of opponents with many different motives but a single aim: to kill the Bill or turn it into something so unworkable that it will simply wither away. The tensions were painfully clear in Friday's parliamentary debate and will be back in June, when the Bill should complete its progress through the Commons. The issue of assisted dying inevitably arouses strong feelings, but so extreme have been the objections raised in some quarters that a newcomer to the debate might have assumed that the proposal was to make it mandatory for certain categories of people. 'Are you past your prime? A bit sickly and in need of costly medication? Time to press this button and off you go.' But, despite overwhelming evidence that the majority of the public now believes that the option of an assisted death should be available to the terminally ill, it now looks more uncertain than ever whether MPs might deprive them of a choice that some – me included – believe would actually be life-enhancing. The opposition's tactics have varied from extreme scaremongering about people being coerced or encouraged to opt for an early death to the spurious claim that palliative care is the only necessary answer. They have argued that the Bill, with its insistence that the option should only be available to those with less than six months life expectancy, is just 'the thin end of the wedge' and would gradually – or quickly – find the scope being extended to become tantamount to 'death on demand'. A few have admitted to religious objections to such legislation and many more with religious motivations have kept quiet about them while raising other objections. Read more: Assisted dying: the price is far too high It is, perhaps, a more nuanced campaign than Brexit, with its single 'Take back control' mantra, but there is a similarity in that, at its core, is the message that those who favour assisted dying are as zealous in their belief and as dangerous to the ordinary British way of life as were the pro-Europeans. The reasoned arguments put forward by those advocating for legislation have been no match for the numerous, often wildly hypothetical, different and frightening scenarios mooted by the other side. And true to form, here is the Brexit cheerleader-in-chief offering his considered opinion on the Bill: 'I voted against the assisted dying bill, not out of a lack of compassion but because I fear that the law will widen in scope. If that happens, the right to die may become the obligation to die.' Those people who are desperate for the Bill to become law in time for them to benefit from it will take little comfort from knowing that Nigel Farage MP has a degree of compassion for them. A subject as controversial as assisted dying is not one any government would readily pursue, although it can be done: in 2013, for instance, the coalition government, under prime minister David Cameron, did introduce the law allowing same-sex couples to marry rather than have to content themselves with a civil partnership. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was launched as a private members Bill which puts it at an immediate disadvantage against government sponsored legislation. Its prospects were probably not enhanced by it only reaching MPs because a relatively new MP, Kim Leadbeater, who had won the opportunity to initiate legislation opted to take on a cause for which she had not previously been known to have any great adherence. Leadbeater had previously been best known for being the sister of Jo Cox, who was killed while the MP for the seat she now holds. It may be that a more seasoned MP with a strong parliamentary network would have been better placed to cope with the complicated parliamentary process, which has involved an extended committee stage and numerous amendments, a last-minute batch tabled by Leadbetter herself, fuelling criticism that she was floundering. Certainly some argue that changes Leadbeater has agreed to the Bill have made it less safe, and there is particular concern over the removal of the requirement for a judge to approve that an application for an assisted death meets the very strict criteria that are demanded. While some believe that the panel of three experts that has replaced the judicial oversight might be more effective, it has certainly provided another piece of ammunition for the sceptics. The detail is important but, even with the very best of intentions, no draftsman could produce a Bill that covered all possible eventualities. That great expert on legislating, Cicero, himself warned: 'More law, less justice.' He also believed that 'While there's life, there's hope.' But there are some health conditions that become so grim, and where palliative care cannot provide an acceptable answer, that a sufferer wants the right to call an end. There is surely at least as high a risk of coercion where an abortion is under discussion as there might be where an assisted death is the focus, but the UK decided that the woman's right to choose was the principle at stake. The advocates of assisted dying must trumpet the single message that what is asked is simply the right for the terminally ill to choose the manner of their death. That is crucial as the Bill heads to its final stages – otherwise they might prove fatal.
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Britain has no friends, no money, and no grasp on reality
Britain stands alone in a brutish world. Our small, impoverished yet special nation has spent too long lying to itself. The horrifying reality is that we have no real friends, just interests and beliefs. If we want to ensure the security, liberty and prosperity of the British people, and as Lord Palmerston put it, be 'the champion of justice and right', we will have to do it ourselves. Nobody, least of all the greater or lesser powers, has our back, or any interest in fair play. Donald Trump's America is putting itself first, reshaping the world, trashing allies and waging idiotic trade wars. Europe, mired in decadence and welfarism, is interested primarily in our military know-how, nuclear umbrella and, as always, our fisheries. Russia is a fascistic empire whose advances must be halted. China is a hostile civilisation. India doesn't really care. International institutions and courts serve as useful idiots for proto-Marxists keen to destroy the West. We comfort ourselves with tales of how we can serve as a bridge between Europe and the US, or build a coalition of the willing in Ukraine. It's inspirational stuff, but it would be madness to cling to the certainties of the past. It's time for a total reset of our assumptions, of our understanding of history, of our modus operandi, of our international role. We must reconstruct our economy, military and society for an era of trade wars, diplomatic blackmail, banditry, spheres of influence and power politics. We must embrace a neo-Gaullism with British characteristics, centred around a renewed love of country, a turbocharged, technologically advanced capitalist economy, much larger and more modern Armed Forces, a fully independent nuclear deterrent and a focus on resilience. We need to be able to operate our own military without having to rely on parts from unreliable providers, to withstand embargoes or sanctions or cyber-attacks or pipelines being blown up or star wars. We must learn from how Trump treats Ukraine, or how Biden treated Israel, suspending arms sales. We must be able to project power and defend trade routes worldwide. We must retain as much free trade as possible, and slash tariffs further on friendly nations, but make sure that we can always get hold of essential goods and commodities. We can no longer be naive, and assume that mercantilists who leverage trade for warfare are in fact followers of Milton Friedman or David Ricardo. In many cases, we will have to produce more military equipment in Britain, requiring reindustrialisation and greater steel manufacturing; in others, ensure a diversity of trading partners, buying weapons from Israel and Poland as well as the US, or food from Argentina rather than Spain. The Atlanticists and the pro-Europeans alike are wrong. We should be friendly to the US and EU, but beholden to neither. America saved Britain during World War I; it rescued us from totalitarianism in World War II; it destroyed Soviet tyranny in the Cold War. It earned the eternal gratitude of mankind. But those of us who love America must acknowledge how the US ruthlessly exploited its participation in the wars to demolish Britain's financial, maritime and geopolitical power. It treats its allies as vassals, rather than equals. In Stalin's War, Sean McMeekin recounts how Roosevelt suggested to Stalin in 1943 that India be taken away from Britain. It was best 'not to discuss the question of India with Mr Churchill', the US president said, arguing that America and Russia should remake India 'from the bottom, somewhat on the Soviet line'. Stalin couldn't believe his luck, or the way Roosevelt spoke of the greatest Englishman of all time. John Maynard Keynes was sidelined at Bretton Woods. The 1947 sterling crisis was precipitated by America. The US betrayed us over Suez. Ronald Reagan disappointed on the Falklands, and invaded Grenada, a Commonwealth member, without properly informing Lady Thatcher. The IRA spent decades fundraising in the US while murdering in Britain. The UK sacrificed much in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 for no return; the 'special relationship' started to feel abusive. Barack Obama and Joe Biden disliked the UK, and removed Churchill's bust from the Oval Office. Obama took the EU's side over Brexit. Trump is an Anglophile, and may offer us a trade deal, but has no interest in our perspective. Yet while America is now explicit in its leveraging of power for transactional purposes, Europe isn't the answer. The EU is an imperialist technocracy with an obsession with Hegelian dialectics and a hatred for traitor-nations that have thrown off the shackles of the acquis communautaire. Membership of the EU crippled Britain: our parliamentary tradition, common law and what Hayek called our true individualism, the source of much of our exceptionalism, were eroded; our ties with the Commonwealth largely severed. The French (via agricultural subsidies and the containment of Germany) and the Germans (via a Germanic euro and the single market in goods) got far more out of the EU than we did; the European services sector was never liberalised, discriminating against Britain's comparative advantage. The EU treated us abominably when we left, seizing partial control of Northern Ireland. We were regarded as enemies during Covid. In December 2020, France shut its borders to Britain, imposing a blockade that could have led to shortages of food and vaccines; the excuse was the Kent variant. In March 2021, Ursula von der Leyen threatened to block vaccine exports to the UK and to cancel private contracts. We remain too dependent on the EU, and on the Calais-Dover bottleneck. Any military help we offer Europe must come as a quid pro quo for easier trade. The Government should immediately launch a Year Zero review of all policies, on the postulate that we cannot rely on anyone. We need to decouple from China when it comes to high-tech. We must scrap net zero, and produce more of our own energy. Faster productivity growth is required, necessitating a bonfire of regulations, a smaller state and reduced tax. We need to pull out of the ECHR and UN conventions to restrict migration and forge a cohesive civic nationalism. Our early 21st-century settlement was predicated on an imaginary utopia in which we expected fair dealing from friends. In today's dog-eat-dog world, we must stand up for ourselves. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Britain has no friends, no money, and no grasp on reality
Britain stands alone in a brutish world. Our small, impoverished yet special nation has spent too long lying to itself. The horrifying reality is that we have no real friends, just interests and beliefs. If we want to ensure the security, liberty and prosperity of the British people, and as Lord Palmerston put it, be 'the champion of justice and right', we will have to do it ourselves. Nobody, least of all the greater or lesser powers, has our back, or any interest in fair play. Donald Trump's America is putting itself first, reshaping the world, trashing allies and waging idiotic trade wars. Europe, mired in decadence and welfarism, is interested primarily in our military know-how, nuclear umbrella and, as always, our fisheries. Russia is a fascistic empire whose advances must be halted. China is a hostile civilisation. India doesn't really care. International institutions and courts serve as useful idiots for proto-Marxists keen to destroy the West. We comfort ourselves with tales of how we can serve as a bridge between Europe and the US, or build a coalition of the willing in Ukraine. It's inspirational stuff, but it would be madness to cling to the certainties of the past. It's time for a total reset of our assumptions, of our understanding of history, of our modus operandi, of our international role. We must reconstruct our economy, military and society for an era of trade wars, diplomatic blackmail, banditry, spheres of influence and power politics. We must embrace a neo-Gaullism with British characteristics, centred around a renewed love of country, a turbocharged, technologically advanced capitalist economy, much larger and more modern Armed Forces, a fully independent nuclear deterrent and a focus on resilience. We need to be able to operate our own military without having to rely on parts from unreliable providers, to withstand embargoes or sanctions or cyber-attacks or pipelines being blown up or star wars. We must learn from how Trump treats Ukraine, or how Biden treated Israel, suspending arms sales. We must be able to project power and defend trade routes worldwide. We must retain as much free trade as possible, and slash tariffs further on friendly nations, but make sure that we can always get hold of essential goods and commodities. We can no longer be naive, and assume that mercantilists who leverage trade for warfare are in fact followers of Milton Friedman or David Ricardo. In many cases, we will have to produce more military equipment in Britain, requiring reindustrialisation and greater steel manufacturing; in others, ensure a diversity of trading partners, buying weapons from Israel and Poland as well as the US, or food from Argentina rather than Spain. The Atlanticists and the pro-Europeans alike are wrong. We should be friendly to the US and EU, but beholden to neither. America saved Britain during World War I; it rescued us from totalitarianism in World War II; it destroyed Soviet tyranny in the Cold War. It earned the eternal gratitude of mankind. But those of us who love America must acknowledge how the US ruthlessly exploited its participation in the wars to demolish Britain's financial, maritime and geopolitical power. It treats its allies as vassals, rather than equals. In Stalin's War, Sean McMeekin recounts how Roosevelt suggested to Stalin in 1943 that India be taken away from Britain. It was best 'not to discuss the question of India with Mr Churchill', the US president said, arguing that America and Russia should remake India 'from the bottom, somewhat on the Soviet line'. Stalin couldn't believe his luck, or the way Roosevelt spoke of the greatest Englishman of all time. John Maynard Keynes was sidelined at Bretton Woods. The 1947 sterling crisis was precipitated by America. The US betrayed us over Suez. Ronald Reagan disappointed on the Falklands, and invaded Grenada, a Commonwealth member, without properly informing Lady Thatcher. The IRA spent decades fundraising in the US while murdering in Britain. The UK sacrificed much in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 for no return; the ' special relationship ' started to feel abusive. Barack Obama and Joe Biden disliked the UK, and removed Churchill's bust from the Oval Office. Obama took the EU's side over Brexit. Trump is an Anglophile, and may offer us a trade deal, but has no interest in our perspective. Yet while America is now explicit in its leveraging of power for transactional purposes, Europe isn't the answer. The EU is an imperialist technocracy with an obsession with Hegelian dialectics and a hatred for traitor-nations that have thrown off the shackles of the acquis communautaire. Membership of the EU crippled Britain: our parliamentary tradition, common law and what Hayek called our true individualism, the source of much of our exceptionalism, were eroded; our ties with the Commonwealth largely severed. The French (via agricultural subsidies and the containment of Germany) and the Germans (via a Germanic euro and the single market in goods) got far more out of the EU than we did; the European services sector was never liberalised, discriminating against Britain's comparative advantage. The EU treated us abominably when we left, seizing partial control of Northern Ireland. We were regarded as enemies during Covid. In December 2020, France shut its borders to Britain, imposing a blockade that could have led to shortages of food and vaccines; the excuse was the Kent variant. In March 2021, Ursula von der Leyen threatened to block vaccine exports to the UK and to cancel private contracts. We remain too dependent on the EU, and on the Calais-Dover bottleneck. Any military help we offer Europe must come as a quid pro quo for easier trade. The Government should immediately launch a Year Zero review of all policies, on the postulate that we cannot rely on anyone. We need to decouple from China when it comes to high-tech. We must scrap net zero, and produce more of our own energy. Faster productivity growth is required, necessitating a bonfire of regulations, a smaller state and reduced tax. We need to pull out of the ECHR and UN conventions to restrict migration and forge a cohesive civic nationalism. Our early 21st-century settlement was predicated on an imaginary utopia in which we expected fair dealing from friends. In today's dog-eat-dog world, we must stand up for ourselves.
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
France divided over Ukraine as parliamentary debate sparks tensions
While French politicians across the spectrum are united in their support for Ukraine, a debate in parliament has highlighted the divide between pro-Europeans and nationalists when it comes to the best approach, reigniting tensions in the country's fractured political landscape. During Monday's debate in the National Assembly on how best to back Ukraine and protect European security, French MPs from all sides expressed their support for Kyiv and saluted the country's ambassador to France, Omelchenko Vadym, who was in attendance. However, MPs from the far right refrained from applauding Prime Minister Francois Bayrou's denunciation of US President Donald Trump's treatment of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House last week. The debate, which did not lead to a vote, was symbolic and allowed parties to position themselves on European and French security, but also to reiterate support – or opposition – to Emmanuel Macron's diplomatic efforts towards European solutions. Bayrou addressed the Assembly to lay out the government's "vision" on a need for European countries to come together, as the US pulls away from its traditional alliance, declaring: "It is up to us, Europeans, to guarantee the security and defence of Europe." The disagreement on spending came from the political extremes – on the left and right. Read more on RFI EnglishRead also:French PM Bayrou slams Trump's 'brutal' humiliation of Zelensky in Oval OfficeFront line 'getting closer', warns French FM as MPs prepare to debate UkraineFrance and EU move to secure Ukraine minerals as US pushes for deal
