With the creation of the pro EU ‘Independents Group’ that has attracted seven Labour MP’s and Tories such as Heidi Allan, Dr Sarah Woolaston and the Rt Hon Anna Soubry, there has been much talk about similarities between today’s defections and the creation of the Social Democratic Party in the early 1980’s. However I believe that these alleged similarities do not entirely match up.
The Social Democratic Party (SDP) was primarily a centrist party that rejected both the left wingery of then Labour leader Michael Foot and to a lesser extent the perceived excesses of the Thatcher government. The SDP took its support mainly from disgruntled Labour centrists and also from the occasional old style One Nation Tory members who disliked the ‘new broom’ regime of Margaret Thatcher. The SDP and those who gave it support were, as I recall it from the time, mostly concerned with matters surrounding the economic management of the country and social policies. They were not, unlike the rebels who have formed The Independents Group, dyed in the wool European Union enthusiasts.
Yes of course there are side issues to the formation of the Independents Group, such as the disgust of the Labour members of this group for the growth of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, that’s quite obvious to any observer of this situation. However, the vast majority of this new Independents Group have not resigned their respective parties over issues of economic management or other aspects of party policy as did the members of the SDP, which is something that is both understandable and acceptable to me. The members of this Independents group have coalesced together primarily because they love the EU more than they love the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. They are EU fanatics who want, if they are able, to annul the result of the Referendum held in 2016, and tie Britain back into this undemocratic and oppressive monolith.
Those who formed the SDP back in 1981 left their parties after having policy disagreements with their former colleagues not because they want to sell Britain to a foreign power, which is plainly the main motivation behind those who have joined the Independents Group. Nearly all of those who have joined this EU group are Remainers and that I’m afraid really does show where this group’s loyalty lies. As I see it there is one main difference between the Remainer-dominated Independents Group and those who created the SDP. That difference is that those who made up the SDP did so because they were horrified by what they saw as the extremism of their own parties, the Independents group on the other hand are the extremists, fanatical pro-EU extremists.
As for how long this Independents Group can survive it is difficult to say but going on what I’ve seen so far it is unlikely to last as long as the SDP did before being absorbed into the Liberal Party in 1988. When the next election comes along it is likely that many of them will lose their seats. Some like Dr Woolaston and Anna Soubry may be unseated due to these constituencies having Leave majorities at the Referendum. Mike Gapes in Ilford is likely to become a victim of the Islamic bloc vote which is almost certainly going to back an official Labour candidate rather than an independent, if Mr Gapes stands as one.
Luciana Berger is also I believe going to fail to hold her seat as Liverpool Wavertree has been solid Labour, with some impressive swings to Labour, since 1997. It is sadly one of those seats where you could stick a Labour rosette on a dog turd and it would get elected. If Ms Berger stands as an independent, she may pick up some votes from disaffected Labourites or from individuals who believe she has been a good constituency MP, but I think that she will fail to be elected in favour of any official Labour candidate. I’m afraid the Independents Group are less likely to be a ‘Gang of Four’ than a ‘Gang of bore’ and I reckon that either the Lib Dems will swallow this group up eventually, or they will be voted off into political oblivion. This is not a group of principled politicians turning their backs on that which they see as political extremism, as was previous political breakaways. This is a group of self serving and EU serving opportunists who when they appear on the ballot box should be rejected as the anti democrats and despisers of ordinary Britons that they really are. I’m not a betting man but this group is so likely fail that I’m almost tempted to pop over the road to the Bookies and put a bet on this Independents Group not lasting more than two years. What do you think? Let us know in the comments section below. I reckon they are heading for an electoral iceberg unless something entirely unforeseeable happens. On the surface it can look like there are a lot of similarities between the SDP and the Independents Group but when you examine the motivations behind the creation of this new group, the analogy between these two parties starts to break down.
I’ll pick up on one of your remarks, about voting for anything with a Labour rosette. It is oft said of one safe seat or another that you could pin a Party X rosette on a [pejorative of choice] and it would get elected, but—as youtubing historian TIK likes to ask—is that really the case?
The constituency-based electoral system that we evolved is not designed for a political system where sovereignty (executive power) resides in one house (the Commons) and is wielded by whichever party commands a majority, but for a system where sovereignty resides with the Crown, balanced by the Lords and Commons. For that system, it’s fine: a constituency’s electors vote for the man they believe will best defend and promote their constituency’s interests in the Commons; but with the Crown reduced to a talking head and the Lords to an echo-chamber (our tripartite governmental system now effectively unicameral), a constituency’s electors will often be forced to ignore a talented local man in favour of a Party faithful parachuted in, because those electors prefer sovereign power in Party X’s hands rather than Y’s. And so the difficulty faced by independents and new parties, the latter’s difficulties aggravated if the new party cannot even field a candidate in a majority of constituencies, guaranteeing their inability to wield sovereign power.
Our political system needs changes—but… in which direction? The normal answer to our democracy’s problems is More democracy! So, sure, we can replace our constituency-based electoral system with a national one, introduce some form of P.R., whatevs. We’re busy turning our country upside down and inside out—why not stretch and mould it out of shape some more? So what if our Monarch and Parliament can trace their lineages over a millennium to Alfred? History-schmistory. And national P.R. systems are working out so well for the Swedes, French, Austrians, etc.—such exemplars of self-correcting stability that any conservative should wish to replicate…
It is at least within the realms of possibility that nationally-based voting and the various forms of P.R. are just panaceas that will ultimately deliver little to no improvement while removing us yet further from our traditions.
If one seriously contemplates how our culture and morality have eroded while criminality ever grows, our liberties reduced while our taxes increase, our public services demanding ever more of our money while delivering ever poorer service—frankly, our country is a veritable s**tshow; and all this occurred as we expanded our electorate and pursued the chimera of ‘equality’. Maybe—just maybe—more democracy is not the answer; that it is in fact the problem, the very cause of our current travails.
Ponder the famous Chartists’ demands, taught in our state schools as if Holy Writ:
• ‘All men to have the vote (universal manhood suffrage)’: Has that worked out so well, comparing the trainwreck that is 21st Century Britain with 19th or 18th Century Britain? We throw out votes like confetti, not asking for any knowledge or qualifications or public service—not even citizenship or obedience to our laws.
• ‘Voting should take place by secret ballot’: To protect people from intimidation but introduces corruption of its own—as we see in the US with the controversies over electronic voting, and here with postal voting (especially in Muslim areas). Where once we could look around and count the hands, now it is a matter of (as Stalin said): ‘It’s not the people who vote that count, it’s the people who count the votes.’
• ‘Parliamentary elections every year, not once every five years’: The only Chartist demand unimplemented, and with the 2014 referendum (for us Jocks) followed by the 2015 GE then 2016 referendum (UK), assembly (Scotland and Wales) and PCC elections (England and Wales), then the 2017 GE—how’s that annual election idea sounding now?
• ‘Constituencies should be of equal size’: The holy grail of equalliiddeeee. This removes links to constituencies, with communities split and bundled together, and frequently changed. Further, it increases the political weight of densely populated urban areas—whose residents share broadly the same issues—at the expense of smaller communities who find themselves haphazardly bundled together with other communities with sometimes quite different issues.
• ‘Members of Parliament should be paid’ & ‘The property qualification for becoming a Member of Parliament should be abolished’. As I have observed here before, we had far better MPs before we started paying them.
The Chartists were wrong. About everything.
Some really interesting points there – Thank you