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...

Blogging and the press

Driving to Aberdeen on Saturday was a strange experience for me. Listening to the news on the radio was the first time I'd seen (or heard) blogging dominate the Mainstream Media. The featured story was, of course, Guido Fawkes scoop regarding emails sent by (now former) Downing Street spinner Damian McBride and LabourList editor Derek Draper.

Listening to it I tried to think of the last time a newspaper broke political sleaze story that dominated the headlines for such a period of time. I'm thinking Paul Hutcheon in our Sunday Herald regarding the Wendy Alexander-campaign donations scandal... but even that was a while ago.

On the scandal itself, it brought to light something that I suspect most political parties have on stand-by as a tactic - not smearing as such but negative campaigning certainly. It's a plague on all their houses. The idiotic thing for McBride and Draper was not that they were discussing it, it's that they were doing it on emails - and got caught. Of course there's outrage and demands for apologies (on that note - why can't Gordon just say it - it's only a five letter word!) but I suspect there's a certain amount of celebration going on at Tory HQ. This kind of thing plays into their hands - another Labour scandal.

But what is equally interesting to me is how the MSM has covered the story - and how they have treated the blogosphere. Iain MacWhirter, he of Edinburgh rectorship (or should that be "rectum"?) has made his feelings about blogging rather clear in this piece for the Herald. Naturally, the blogosphere has hit back, in its own imitable (and that is it's beauty) style. Will, Jeff, Yousuf and Alex Massie all crit MacWhirter's journalism. And they are right: the newspapers "don't like it up 'em."

Basically all Guido has done here is what - if a newspaper ever got round to it - would be called "investigative journalism." It is nothing more sinister. Though MacWhirter does raise an interesting point: If Draper hadn't been so damning of Guido and Iain Dale over the Carol Thatcher gaffe then they probably wouldn't have looked quite so hard for an opportunity to get him. As it is, he made it easy for them - and it now looks like his blogging project is over (at least for him).

The end result: A big scalp for Guido and presumably a surge in readership, Labour painted with another scandal, a poll bump for the Tories, the end of the political careers of Draper and McBride and some MSM coverage for the blogosphere. And all because two guys are daft enough to think no one can access their emails.

To think we let them run the country...

Read more...

Put up or shut up

I've been reading "The Audacity of Hope", which, if I'd read before November, might have changed my opinion of Barack Obama prior to the election. But that's a separate post.

Anyway, I had a thought about it. Obama's first chapter is titled "Republicans and Democrats" and, understandably, that is what he discusses. It's a very interesting and paints - in my view - a fairly accurate picture of the partisan nature of US politics (again, something I may return to in another post).

He paints a caricature of gun-toting, bible-bashing flag-waving Republicans and gay-loving, weak-ass, pacifist Democrats who can't see eye to eye on anything.

Now, obviously, he (and I) have simplified the case somewhat, but does that remind anyone (on a smaller scale obviously) of anyone?

I'm talking about Nationalists and Unionists in Scotland. Maybe I'm over dramatising this particular conflict. But I haven't heard any representative of a political party - on either side of the debate - make a positive contribution to support their side for long enough. Its all relentlessly negative.

"Look at the economic mess of Britain," say Nats. "Look at your arc of prosperity now," say Unionists.

Forget about making a positive case. Just make the other side look weak and incompetent and their argument will fall apart. Which is rubbish. It just makes it look like you'd rather attack your opponent than actually propose anything yourself.

I'm pretty sick of the lack of debate on what is supposed to be the defining question of our generation in Scotland. Because at the moment its less like a debate and more like a school playground.

So here's a plea to politicians - on both sides of the debate - make your case. Or shut the hell up.

Read more...