It has become blatantly obvious in recent years that an increasing majority of people share a general dissatisfaction with politics. The tendency has been for this section of society; mostly lower-middle/working class individuals, to back increasingly populist and nationalistic campaigns in a strange sway towards a more extreme form of the conservatism they hate. At the end of the 90s, with the landslide election of Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, it was perfectly clear to many within the political class that the British Conservative Party was a dead duck. Indeed, in Peter Hitchens' "The Broken Compass", updated as "The Cameron Delusion", he describes the Conservative Party- perfectly rightly- as a "ghost brand"; something that continues to attract a certain section of support from a slowly dying section of society. It seems rare these days to find young people who support the Tories. That is, apart from a certain type of public school boy or businessman's son. The Tory's certainly have an electoral niche, but it is a declining one. The party is now viciously divided over issues such as Climate Change and the European Union. The section of the party that takes a progressive view towards these issues has failed to compete with other parties which frankly take a more progressive approach towards them. On the other hand, the section of the Tory party that takes a more traditional approach has and is ever rapidly losing ground particularly to the United Kingdom Independence Party- a strange mix of right wing think tank managers, regressive aristocrats, climate change deniers, and other cranks of one persuasion of another.
The miracle of the Conservative party, it seems, is that it is run by and for the interests of the rich business classes, but at least traditionally attracted a large slice of the working class population at elections. What is strange is that these individuals who have deserted and are deserting the Conservative party, are not doing so for warmer climbs, but for the populist anti-immigration, economically illiterate, and morally bankrupt negativity of UKIP and the BNP. In some cases they abstain from voting altogether, even though more favorable options may well be available to them.
Political discussion amongst "ordinary people" has become dominated by phrases such as "they are all a bunch of liar's and cheats",and whilst this s sort of understandable, given that it is what they are fed by the toilet paper press every day, an proper response such as "no, just all the ones you know about" is necessary to defeat lazy ideas such as this. It is strange for instance that Liberal Democrat defects have flocked to Labour in the wake of the cuts, when it was both Labour's fundamentally misguided economic strategy that had caused many of the problems we had. They, the Labour Party, did not even have a plan to sort out the mess they had caused. The Lib Dem defects seemed to have been suffering from some sort of political amnesia. At least the Green Party for example suggested a way to reduce the deficit, based on eliminating pointless items of military spending such as the renewal of trident- something which they the Liberal's had long been against. And at least the Green Party opposed tuition fees, whereas Labour actually introduced, and then tripled them. At least the Green Party recognized some of the truths about wasteful public spending, but had rational and progressive solutions to them. If it wasn't for the selective straight jacket of the media classes, perhaps coverage would be given to parties with sensible policies, rather than healthy campaign treasure chests. Of course, we are forgetting that this is the "corporate" media, who are really all for the dominance of money, rather than the dominance of argument. Whilst we can place some blame on the media, some must also go to the fickle Liberal Democrats yet again.
Now it is time to return to the issue of the Tory party. It seems that those who have floated away from the left of the party have typically been middle to upper class woolly liberal types, who were attracted to either to a once burgeoning Liberal Democrat Party, which grew from 20 to over 60 parliamentary seats during the last two decades, or to the ever more center-right aligned "New Labour". As I have said, those who continue to float away from the right of the party have selected UKIP, and in some cases the neo-Nazi British National Party as their new political home.
The common problem from all of these different groups of defectors, as well as those who stick like rotten glue to their old party- which whatever it is will have failed miserably in some respect or another- is that they have mostly forgotten what they believe in. Most of those who have not forgotten, seem to have contracted a peculiar case of political amnesia, for they routinely fail to make any link between party policy and party ACTION, when placing a cross in the ballot box. This could, I muse, be a problem of old age. Electoral turnout amongst the older age groups are certain much higher than in the young ones, but in a political scene where it is old people who routinely fail to live up to their promises, and other old people who routinely vote for parties and their representatives on local councils and in general elections up and down the country. Such as the Liberal Democrats and Tories who vote routinely vote against planning permissions for Wind Farms, despite their respective parties alleged "environmental" credentials. Such as the stealth cuts and wasteful bureaucracy of one local Labour regime after another. Then there is the Oxfordshire county council's description of student's as "ugly and badly dressed"- something which was even reported in the New York Times; and the very man- Keith Mitchell, could very well be described as an "old" person himself. The list of political failure's goes on and on, and we all know of a few anecdotes and horror stories, wherever we live.
The case for lowering the voting age to 16 or perhaps younger is a strong one. For the sake of arguement, I will make the case that the voting age should be lowered to 16. This seems a reasonable starting point, given that at 16 you can get married, leave home, leave school, becoming employed, pay taxes, etcetera etcetera etcetera. Firstly, it is hard to argue that people under 18 are somehow incapable of making sensible voting decisions, since this requires comparison with people who do vote, who seem to routinely choose rubbish government's who they are quickly dissatisfied with. If it is the case that 16 and 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote because they lack the ability to make the "right" decisions, then why is it the case that we call ourselves a democracy. Isn't a democracy where there is no such thing as a "right" decision, and wouldn't their extra difficulty in a making voting decisions c actually motivate them to be more interested in politics. If 16 and 17 year old are just "too young" to vote, then surely there must be some people who are too "old" to vote. Most people over say 85, are likely to be less able to make informed voting decisions compared to 16 and 17 year olds. Unlike the youngsters, they probably lack access to, or understanding of the internet. They may also be in the advanced stages of dementia. This is perfectly natural and excusable, but since the slight immaturity of 16 and 17 year olds is also "perfectly natural", so why should it warrant their utter alienation from the political system? Obviously there would be some people over a certain age, over an "upper voting age limit" who are perfectly capable of making properly reasoned decisioned, but this is not the point. There are arguably many 16 and 17 year olds who SHOULD be able to vote, but you have to have a general rule. Obviously I am just being difficult, but if you are a person of the "ageist persuasion", surely an upper voting limit is also desirable?
It is time people saw past the popularity contest which modern politics in Britain has become, and reflected on their mistaken voting decisions of the past. There are positive voting decisions that can be made that do not involve "giving second chances" or "making protest votes". Change which people are satisfied with is only going to happen if they pay attention to both policies and actions, and take responsibility for their failed voting experiences of the past.
Economic growth has become the addiction of modern society, and underpins most of the policy assumptions that the old parties make. The increased competition of distributive growth that has resulted from the breakdown in the wider economy is leading to an unpleasant struggle for more generous political treatment of the different warring sectors of the economy, the public sector and the business sector. Because of important long term constrains in the market, what cannot be done is "growth" in the whole economy, so what has happened is this conflict for growth WITHIN the economy. The failure of growth manifests itself in the volatile oil prices, and the semi-political, semi oil shortage motivated unrest in the Arab world, a feedback loop which is now rapidly worsening the problem that caused it. Another failure of growth is the climate change issue; something that their remains a lack of real political will to tackle without taking an enormous gamble with the futures of the younger generations. The biggest failure of growth is that people have not become more happy, despite becoming much much richer in recent years. In the first decade of the 21st century, the GDP of the UK roughly doubled. At the same time, many social problem became worse, and many people reported becoming more unhappy, and inequality worsened, despite the fact that the country actually became twice as rich. Yet people still want growth. It is a mystery.
People are also repeatedly dissatisfied with the political outcomes of their ballot box behaviors, but seem confused about what kind of change they want. In this book I have argued that what is needed is a proper diagnosis of the real problems that society faces, otherwise a false prescription will be made. It is this false prescription that manifests itself in the electorates uncertain election of the current Tory-Lib Dem coalition government, and their failed attempts to restart economic growth. The failure is because of a fundamental breakdown in the supply side of market economics, and a failure of faith in the old oxymoron of "sustainable" economic growth. It is time for a new kind of "change".
No comments:
Post a Comment