Why bother: a response from an apathetic mind

Maybe that should read "a pathetic mind" in the title, but Wendy's guest post yesterday got me thinking about some more reasons why people are turned off politics. And for me, these reasons are a by-product of the political system - and little to do with the expenses scandal.

Maybe calling this a response is misleading. More of an addition, some extra food for thought. Don't get me wrong - Wendy's point is right. There's very little connection between "professional" politicians and the voters at the moment, and that is causing a great deal of exasperation with the system.

This is not a new phenomenon. Well, okay, the expenses mess is. But people were turned off politics long before expenses hit the headlines. And I have evidence in the form of stats.

1955 election:

Height of the two party system.

A turnout of over 80% - four in every five people taking the time to vote.

4 MILLION people across the UK a member of a political party.

Labour and the Tories combine to take 96% of the vote and 98.7% of the seats.

2005 election:

Turnout was only 62% - down to three in five voting.

Less than half a million people members of political parties (despite having much more choice of parties).

Labour and the Tories still dominant, but only to the tune of 68% of the vote and 85.7% of the seats.

Those are facts. Here's the analysis.

If you were to make a prediction based upon choice, you'd probably guess that giving people more choice would make them more likely to find a party that was similar to their views and vote for them. Stands to reason - more options, more choice, right? So what should have happened - despite the electoral system? Well, instead of having just two parties (Lab/Con) or, in a few constituencies three (Lib) in 1955 you have 4 or 5 or maybe as many as 7 or 8 candidates in constituencies in 2005. So you'd have more options on the ballot, more likelihood of finding a candidate you agree with and so you'd be more likely to vote, agree?

However, choice is a funny thing. While it would appear that you have more choices in the 2005 election (depending how you look at it) you may have had more choice in 1955. Sound bizarre? It is and it isn't.

After Margaret Thatcher won power in 1979, Labour's 1983 manifesto went wildly left - anti-EEC, anti-nukes, nationalise everything. Needless to say, they got thumped. And again in 1987. Neil Kinnock modernised the party in 1992, but there were still fears that their leftie policies would ruin the country. The Tories tapped into this, and won a marginal victory. By the time 1997 came round, Tony Blair had pretty much stripped the left out of Labour. Gone was Clause IV, equality and workers' rights and revolution. In its place? Thatcherite economics, steady as she goes stuff - low taxes, low inflation, low interest rates - with more social conscience and some increases in public spending. The result - a Labour party that had moved from the left to the centre-left (some argue, beyond), from socialist to social democrat. In doing so, the party competition in the UK changed too. It was no longer a left (Labour) v right (Conservative) fight. It was a centre-left v right fight.

Now that shift made sense - it was, after all, where the voters were. Around 75% of the electorate sits between centre-left and centre-right on a left-right spectrum. The only way to win a 1990s or 2000s election was to appeal to those voters. And this is what David Cameron's Tories are doing too - shifting away from the traditional Tory right (anti-Europe, tough on immigration) to a more "compassionate," "progressive" position - somewhere between the centre-right and the centre-left.

The problem with politics - at UK level anyway - is that there is very little distinctive difference between Labour and the Tories at a superficial level at least. And that has resulted in less, not more, choice for voters when faced with selecting their new government.

In the 1950s it was easy - left wing or right wing. Now neither are distinctive and neither offer big solutions to society's problems. That, for me, is why people are disengaging with the system. Well, that and corruption. But if they can't see a viable, credible, distinctive alternative to the current arrangement, they the question does remain: why bother?

Read more...

Guest Post: Politics: Why Bother?

A question I've been wondering about for some time. But given I have a vested interest in the answer (student of politics) I wasn't sure I should answer. But then I was emailed this argument. I don't know if I agree with all of it - but there's plenty to think about...

Guest post by Wendy Fraser (aka PJ)

I’m asked this question all the time by friends and family, bemused by my fascination with all matters political and bewildered by my addiction to Question Time, Newsnight, Andrew Marr and various (numerous) other political programmes. Their argument is often ‘it makes no difference what people outside government think or say’ or the all-too-common ‘all politicians are just out to get as much out of the system as they can’. So are they wrong? Well yes and no, and here’s why I think that.

There are two divisive topics regarding politics and politicians that, to me, define the lack of motivation to engage with the political process – empowerment and integrity. If the electorate do not feel empowered by our current political process to influence positive change then why would they bother to engage with it? If they don’t believe in the integrity of their political representatives then who can they believe in?

Now I don’t agree with either of those viewpoints but neither can I say that they are just misconceptions because they are so much more than that. At best they represent a lack of knowledge/belief but at worst an abdication of responsibility.

It’s so easy to blame someone else, to point the finger and say “It’s not my fault it’s their’s”. Sadly, we see this all too often in the public outpourings of frustration and anger directed between political adversaries (I was going to say parties, but that would have ruled out all the infighting!) The endless negativity, the personal attacks and backstabbing, sleaze and gossip – it does nothing to show politics in this country, or any other for that matter, as the immensely important arena that it actually is. I get tired of listening to it, and I’m a politics geek!

Having watched the endless tittle tattle and schoolboy bullying is it really surprising that the public have responded with such fury and revulsion to the expenses scandal? When the perception of politicians is already so low there wasn’t exactly a pool of public goodwill to tap into! It is my hope that the expenses debate will be dealt with swiftly and effectively, those who abused the system should be punished, those who did not should be able to continue untainted by their association with a flawed system. Can we get back to solving the problems with the economy, poverty and the environment now please?

But we need to do more than just renew faith in our individual politician’s integrity we also need to renew faith in our political process. A more positive approach isn’t exactly a new appeal but it certainly would be a good start. Engaging with people at an individual basis is the key to success here I believe. I know many political activists from different political parties who are doing just this, wearing through shoe leather pounding the streets and knocking on doors to talk to people directly. I’ve never had anybody knock on my door (perhaps I’m blacklisted...) but I know I’d be pretty impressed if they did, and I am in awe of the activists who give up their time to do this for their parties.

I also think that mediums like blogs and Twitter have tremendous power to connect and inform people but at a more important level they also empower people to speak directly to those in positions of influence, and sometimes they even answer! I still remember being a bit stunned when Jo Swinson the Lib Dem MP for East Dunbartonshire sent me a tweet regarding a blog and Twitter debate I was involved in, how fantastic to be able to engage directly with someone who wasn’t even my MP but was significant in highlighting the issues at the centre of that particular debate! Jo is particularly adept at using Twitter to engage, and more and more MPs and MSPs are recognising its benefits and following suit. However, as has been found out the hard way, there are some inherent dangers for politicians who tweet without due thought and consideration...

My comeback to those who question my interest in politics is that I believe my vote is important and I’m not going to automatically give it to the party my parents vote for or my friends vote for, I want to make an informed choice. I get very angry with people who do not use their vote, who abdicate their responsibility to engage with our political processes. Yes, the system is not perfect but we have a responsibility to all those who have fought for our right to vote to use it and to use it well. We all have a voice that can be heard, although admittedly some are louder and more persistent than others....

Read more...

In defence of MPs... no really

This is probably against the grain of public opinion, but I have a degree of sympathy with some MPs. Not those who spent our money on duck houses and moats you understand, but those who have genuine expense-related claims but have found, through Sir Thomas Legg's audit that the rules have been retrospectively changed.

It is hard, obviously, to have sympathy for those who look like they've been fiddling the system but for those who have abided by the rules, consulted the Parliamentary authorities throughout and then claimed within (what they thought were) the limits before being saddled with a bill of over 12 grand when an outsider decides that the rules need changing.

Imagine you work for a company who allows you to claim fairly generous expenses. You work hard for them, for a relatively decent but not spectacular salary. You fill out form after form to claim back what you think is a fair amount, reflective of what you have shelled out. It is nowhere near the upper limit, and you feel comfortable that you haven't been screwing them out of money.

You then turn up for work one day where a letter awaits, demanding repayment of some of those expenses - to the tune of £12,000. The letter apologies for the misunderstanding that you undertook to claim your expenses within the rules, notes that you did so but that they've decided to change the rules - and want their money back. Can you imagine trying to explain that to your spouse when you return home in the evening?!

"Sorry, can't afford dinner tonight dear - have to pay back 12 grand in expenses."

"What?!! Didn't you claim it right? Provide receipts etc?"

"Oh yes. Everything was above board. I haven't even done anything wrong. They've just changed the rules now, and want the cash back. Apparently its all about public perception."

Which, in fairness, is entirely what this is about. Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg have either had to repay expenses and are being asked to provide more information on several items. Each have told their MPs that they should pay back what they've been asked for and shut the hell up. David Cameron has gone as far as saying that if his MPs don't pay up, then they won't be standing for the Tories again.

Which is all a bit ludicrous. You've stuck to the rules - both spirit and law - and yet you are being asked to return money for legitimate expenses. And if you don't (which you are under no legal obligation to do) then you're booted out of Parliament by your party.

I know MPs are not seen in a good light at the moment, and when the expenses scandal broke people thought less of them than, well, than they did before. But really, isn't there a sense that this might have taken a rather strange turn? Surely there is a case for being indignant - if you have abided by the rules, why should you pay back money just because some auditor guy thinks the rules should have been different?

Yes, those that have claimed ridiculously - the moats, duck houses, flipping homes and porn movies etc - should have to pay back these claims. And, potentially, consider their position as worthy to return to the House of Commons in the next Parliament. But for those who haven't remotely broken rules... well, aren't they just being tarred with the same brush?

PS - always nice when my views are directly opposite those of the Daily Mail.

Read more...

The Commons at its best

Yesterday saw the House of Commons suspend business after where PMQs should have been, and that event was itself replaced by statements by Gordon Brown, William Hague and Vince Cable expressing condolences to David and Samantha Cameron on the death of their son Ivan.

As others have noted, this was the Commons at its best. None of the usual "honourable gentlemen" or "the member for" rubbish. A House that was, to a man and a woman, silent, respectful and filled with sorrow.

So often politics is pilliored for being out of touch with the public mood. Yesterday emphasised that MPs are people too - with their own families - and that when one of their own suffered a loss they surrounded him with kindness.

I echo sentiments elsewhere. The Camerons should be allowed to deal with their personal tragedy outwith the glare of the public eye - and for as long as they need.

Read more...