Political engagement in the UK

[doublesaint]

As seen from the US elections, people can be wholly engaged in the political process, which is something that is amiss in the UK, though irrespective of your political viewpoint, this speech from Hazel Blears sums up a lot of what is wrong in my opinion and a few decent solutions as well.

Article from todays online Guardian...

 

 

Corrosive cynicism, fuelled by politically nihilistic blogs and a retreat from dispassionate reporting, is endangering British political discourse, Hazel Blears, the communities secretary, will tell a Hansard Society conference today on growing political disengagement in Britain.

She will lambast the growth of a hermetically-sealed professional political class and call for a support network on the lines of the political women's action group Emily's List to help more people from ordinary careers into full-time politics.

In a hard-hitting speech, she will warn that the fall in turnouts among working class voters in some British cities is now so marked that it amounts to a reversal by stealth of 19th century reforms that spread the franchise.

Blears contrasts the apparent collapse of interest in British politics with the surge in turnout in the US elections.

All political parties will have to learn how to use the web as a campaign and fundraising tool, she will say, and how to engage ethnic minority groups and the working class.

"We are witnessing a dangerous corrosion in our political culture," she says. In part she will blame "a shrinking and increasingly competitive newspaper market" which demands more "impact" from its reporting - the translation of every political discussion into a row, every difficulty a crisis, every rocky patch for the prime minister into the "worst week ever".

She will, however, also turn her fire on some political bloggers.

"Perhaps because of the nature of the technology, there is a tendency for political blogs to have a 'Samizdat' style. The most popular blogs are rightwing, ranging from the considered Tory views of Iain Dale, to the vicious nihilism of Guido Fawkes. Perhaps this is simply anti-establishment. Blogs have only existed under a Labour government. Perhaps if there was a Tory government, all the leading blogs would be left-of-centre?

"But mostly, political blogs are written by people with disdain for the political system and politicians, who see their function as unearthing scandals, conspiracies and perceived hypocrisy.

"Until political blogging 'adds value' to our political culture, by allowing new voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge, and until the mainstream media reports politics in a calmer, more responsible manner, it will continue to fuel a culture of cynicism and despair."

She will also warn that the development of career politicians is making ordinary people feel excluded.

"Increasingly we have seen a 'transmission belt' from university activist, MP's researcher, thinktank staffer, special adviser, to MP, and ultimately frontbench. Now, there's nothing wrong with any of those jobs, but it is deeply unhealthy for our political class to be drawn from narrowing social base and range of experience."

Politics needs "more people who know what it is to worry about the rent collector's knock, or the fear of lay-off," she will say, "so that the decisions we take reflect the realities people face. In short, we need more Dennis Skinners, more David Davises, more David Blunketts in the front line."

She will propose an Emily's List-style programme to help people in ordinary jobs win nominations, and highlight proposals to decentralise power and increase community engagement, including her idea for communities to help draw up council budgets.

She will say that if voting trends were to continue as at present: "We will see a politics which increasingly speaks with a middle-class, middle England accent, and the people with the most to gain from democratic politics - the poorest and most vulnerable - being the ones least likely to be involved in it."

Academics at the conference are expected to criticise the government's constitutional reform programme as merely passing power from one elite to another and one paper is due to warn that Blears' plans to encourage civic engagement at local level will only raise false expectations.

[bridge too far]

I think what she says about career politicians is very pertinent. A large number of MPs from either side are Oxbridge educated and often lawyers. Having said that, didn't Obama study law? However, I digress......

 

I well remember the old days when the Labour Party used to have its 'A' and 'B' lists of potential candidates. The A List comprised people that were to be considered for winnable seats. Many of them (and my ex-husband was one) were supported by Trade Unions.

 

Although a lot of people moan about the influence of the Trade Unions on the Labour Party (conveniently forgetting the equal and parallel influence of the city and big business on the Tory Party), this did at least mean that some potential Labour MPs had 'normal' backgrounds. For example, my ex-husband, although a full-time official for the construction trade union, had started his working life as a joiner.

 

I guess part of the problem is that MPs are actually not that well paid, considering the work that the good ones do. A working class MP might feel unable to take the risk of becoming an MP because, should his / her seat be lost at the next election, it might be difficult to get back into the previous employment or trade :smt102

[OldNick]

I think people have got sick to death of all the politcal parties.

It infuriates me that cabinet memebers when being interviewed are allowed to fudge and not answer the question. This turns people off as they see that they are not accountable

[Jillyanne]

Can someone please sum up the first post for me.

[Danny]

Can someone please sum up the first post for me.

 

It's about politics.

[doublesaint]

Can someone please sum up the first post for me.

 

Dat politics iz boring innit, unless you iz one, and dat iz well unsafe......da Blears ***** wanna make it easier to become an MP, even if you is a single muvver......

[hypochondriac]

The main problem with this country is that it really doesn't matter who gets voted into power, they will keep the main things that are the same and will not try anything radical for fear of being voted out at the next election. I have no idea what Cameron stands for yet I have become totally disenchanted by labour, primarily because of the hoops they have made everyone jump through and because I know feel the state is making it so we cannot think for ourselves. This country desperately needs change, the trouble is all the main political parties will keep things relatively the same (and all the others are radical and will never get into power.) Obama has concentrated primarily on bringing the country together, British politicians will always focus on political point scoring and it makes them seem as if they don't care about Britain.

[jeff leopard]

Its tragic that as America embraces progressive change, this country is sliding back into tory rule with the daily mail deciding what is and isn't suitable for us. We really are in a desperate state, labour and the libdems have gone out of their way to destroy their reputations. But saying that, I'd rather staple the old chap to a land mine than ever vote tory. Cameron is a joke, if you cant see that now then you will after you've voted him in.

[Junction 9]

Its tragic that as America embraces progressive change, this country is sliding back into tory rule with the daily mail deciding what is and isn't suitable for us. We really are in a desperate state, labour and the libdems have gone out of their way to destroy their reputations. But saying that, I'd rather staple the old chap to a land mine than ever vote tory. Cameron is a joke, if you cant see that now then you will after you've voted him in.

 

can you eleborate on your feelings towards Cameron?

[EastleighSoulBoy]

The main problem with this country is that it really doesn't matter who gets voted into power, they will keep the main things that are the same and will not try anything radical for fear of being voted out at the next election. I have no idea what Cameron stands for yet I have become totally disenchanted by labour, primarily because of the hoops they have made everyone jump through and because I know feel the state is making it so we cannot think for ourselves. This country desperately needs change, the trouble is all the main political parties will keep things relatively the same (and all the others are radical and will never get into power.) Obama has concentrated primarily on bringing the country together, British politicians will always focus on political point scoring and it makes them seem as if they don't care about Britain.

 

A very pointed summing up of the sad and sorry state which exists here. I'm a Labour voter and I'm very disillusioned with them but I can't bring myself to vote for a party who's values I loathe. So, unfortunately, I am left with two choices. Labour or spoil my vote.

[bungle]

A very pointed summing up of the sad and sorry state which exists here. I'm a Labour voter and I'm very disillusioned with them but I can't bring myself to vote for a party who's values I loathe. So, unfortunately, I am left with two choices. Labour or spoil my vote.

 

We do not live in a two-Party state. FACT.

[bridge too far]

A very pointed summing up of the sad and sorry state which exists here. I'm a Labour voter and I'm very disillusioned with them but I can't bring myself to vote for a party who's values I loathe. So, unfortunately, I am left with two choices. Labour or spoil my vote.

 

I was thinking that way too ESB. I cancelled my party membership when we went to war, after many, many years of very active work for the party at a highish level. Even so, there was no way I could vote for the foppish lot or the fence-sitters.

 

I have, however, just rejoined. The main reason for this is because I KNOW that GB has and will continue to do the sorts of things I expect of a Labour government. Already huge steps have been taken to address child poverty issues and I can see directly, through my work, that there's been a great deal of investment in schools and hospitals. Not to mention his very genuine concern about the problems in Africa.

 

The press (well, certain sections of it) will lambast him because that's what they do but I know, first hand, that he's a very principled man. People will criticise him for having 'no personality' - as if 'personality' is all that's needed of a Prime Minister. I'd rather have no personality but very real principles, intelligence and gravitas any day.

 

And, if you know him for real, he's a very funny man too

[doublesaint]

I was thinking that way too ESB. I cancelled my party membership when we went to war, after many, many years of very active work for the party at a highish level. Even so, there was no way I could vote for the foppish lot or the fence-sitters.

 

I have, however, just rejoined. The main reason for this is because I KNOW that GB has and will continue to do the sorts of things I expect of a Labour government. Already huge steps have been taken to address child poverty issues and I can see directly, through my work, that there's been a great deal of investment in schools and hospitals. Not to mention his very genuine concern about the problems in Africa.

 

The press (well, certain sections of it) will lambast him because that's what they do but I know, first hand, that he's a very principled man. People will criticise him for having 'no personality' - as if 'personality' is all that's needed of a Prime Minister. I'd rather have no personality but very real principles, intelligence and gravitas any day.

 

And, if you know him for real, he's a very funny man too

 

Well he would have to have a sense of humour to support Raith Rovers.

[RoswellSaint]

I don't think the the level of political engagement in the USA is although different than in the UK. This year has been different. It would appear the highest turn out in many, many years occurred yesterday. But will it last? Come the next national election in two years will so many people be interested. Obama inspired a lot of that - he got a large section of the community who had not voted before to get out and vote. Rightly or wrongly (and I mean that because of the potential race issue), that inspired many others to vote to try to get their candidate elected.

 

I remember the complaints two and four years ago about a low turnout and lack of interest in the process.

 

What astounds me is the nummber of positions to be voted on. The electronic ballot paper had 11 pages yesterday - president, US senate, the House, state senate, state house, judges (many), school board and on and on. I have to admit that beyond the first three, I really had no clue who any of them were. Shame on me.

[the stain]

"We are witnessing a dangerous corrosion in our political culture," she says. In part she will blame "a shrinking and increasingly competitive newspaper market" which demands more "impact" from its reporting - the translation of every political discussion into a row, every difficulty a crisis, every rocky patch for the prime minister into the "worst week ever".

 

All fair points I think. But she also needs to look closer to home and consider politicians dressing up every event, decision, u-turn and trangression as an unequivocally Good Thing for the public. Many of us are not idiots. We'd prefer it (and actually respect you more) if you told us when you'd ****ed up, changed your mind, or were doing something we won't like for an evaluated greater good.

[OldNick]

I was thinking that way too ESB. I cancelled my party membership when we went to war, after many, many years of very active work for the party at a highish level. Even so, there was no way I could vote for the foppish lot or the fence-sitters.

 

I have, however, just rejoined. The main reason for this is because I KNOW that GB has and will continue to do the sorts of things I expect of a Labour government. Already huge steps have been taken to address child poverty issues and I can see directly, through my work, that there's been a great deal of investment in schools and hospitals. Not to mention his very genuine concern about the problems in Africa.

 

The press (well, certain sections of it) will lambast him because that's what they do but I know, first hand, that he's a very principled man. People will criticise him for having 'no personality' - as if 'personality' is all that's needed of a Prime Minister. I'd rather have no personality but very real principles, intelligence and gravitas any day.

 

And, if you know him for real, he's a very funny man too

BTF you corrected me some time ago about the financial regulations being lifted under the Tories. Since that time it has been made clear that it was Brown taking away the Bank of Englands powers to regulate that has caused the banking crisis. Not my words but those by respected BBC journalists and others.

I see no wrong in helping others but we as a nation are going down a dangerous road by borrowing so much, and allowing the general populus to owe so much.

I dont know whether it has been factored in to the tax revenues but the City was our major money earner overseas, the revenues it is bringing in must have been slashed enormously. Unless it can recover quickly we all are in trouble as the pound is plummeting and that will lead to higher inflation as the majority of our imports are bought with $.

I wouldnt be so confident in Mr Brown, although you knowing him will no doubt cloud your view and also being an admirer you wont want to see.

[Roman]

We do not live in a two-Party state. FACT.

 

Depends how you look at it (which makes it quite a bit less than a FACT). Which party, other than Conservative or Labour, has governed Britain in the last, say, 50 years?

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

We do not live in a two-Party state. FACT.

 

Although fundamentally true, can you really see any party other than Labour or the Tories dominating the Commons?

[bridge too far]

NickH - the financial regulations were relaxed in the Reagan / Thatcher era. However, it is true that the financial sector was given more independence by GB. It's funny, isn't it, how people who normally moan about too much red tape also moan when red tape is relaxed.

 

I'm no economist but I can grasp that there are two ways out of the current global financial crisis. Remember it IS global so what one country does in isolation these days will have little effect.

 

1. Reduce taxes and give individuals the opportunity to spend more and thus kick-start the economy. The risk is that people hoard because they're frightened. And the other risk is that it won't immediately address the job losses and will therefore lead to an increase in public spending on benefits, and thus a further reduction in taxes received.

 

2. Borrow more. Our borrowing against GDP is still lower than many other countries. By borrowing, the public sector capital programme can be brought forward, creating more jobs thus stimulating the economy. More jobs = two things. Firstly, if people feel more secure about employment, they'll be more likely to spend and a trickle-down effect will ensue. Secondly, if more people are working, there'll be less public spending on non-tax raising exercises such as unemployment benefit and all the knock-on benefits like housing benefit, free prescriptions etc. etc. And more taxes will be paid to the Treasury.

 

Most countries are pursuing the second option (with the exception of the US at the moment, because Dubya chose to give tax breaks to the wealthy).

 

I do believe that lessons have been learned about the lack of regulation in the City. Steps are being taken to tighten things up again. We can't criticise this move if it means an end to irresponsible lending, both large and small and also means a return to the days of banks taking less risk.

[hypochondriac]

My big issue with labour is the fact that they keep telling me what to think and what to do. HIPS are one example, a total waste of money!

[bridge too far]

My big issue with labour is the fact that they keep telling me what to think and what to do. HIPS are one example, a total waste of money!

 

I sort of agree with you on that one (apparently being told what to think, not HIPS per se).

 

Nobody likes laws if they feel their individual liberties are being constrained. But sometimes laws are for the greater good of all of us. I don't like being told what speed to drive but I sure as hell would create if someone killed one of my family because they were driving too fast.

 

I don't like some of the Health and Safety Legislation, but if my mother broke her leg because a local council hadn't bothered to keep pavements in good condition and, being blind, she'd tripped up I'd be furious.

 

You and I might be sensible, rational people but sometimes we - meaning most of us - have to be protected from those that aren't, don't you think?

[TopGun]

If anyone is that bothered about a particular issue I suggest they stand as a candidate in an election rather than moan on here. Be an independent or use Lab/Con/LD as a vehicle for your views. Otherwise quit moaning.