I spoke last night at a meeting organised by the Hansard Society to discuss how to tackle political alienation in this country. There have been suggestions that, given declining trust in Parliament, it is necessary to have radical change of both Parliament and the constitution. The view I expressed was that constitutional and structural change was not the answer to the problem. Lack of trust in Parliament derives more from perceptions of government performance and general well-being than it does from how Parliament is structured and fits within our constitution.
To my mind, arguing that constitutional reform is the answer is essentially to take an easy way out. Survey evidence suggests that people perceive the problem resting with politicians and their behaviour rather than with the basics of the system. The answer, then, lies not with structures but with human agency. We have to move away from a perception of self-interest on the part of politicians to one of public interest. The task is to persuade politicians that it is in their own interests to adopt this approach. If they don’t, then they – and their parties – suffer in the long term; one is already seeing some of the efects.
Persuading politicians of this and tackling such issues as sleaze and party funding – which electors see as more important problems than constitutional reform – are the real tasks. Achieving it is far more difficult and messy than coming up with wonderful schemes of constitutional and procedural reform. I am not saying that some reforms may not be desirable. My point is that they are not the answers to the problem of how people in the country perceive politics.
I completely agree with you! Constitutional reform will only go so far, and is only part of the solution. This doesn’t mean though, that there shouldn’t be constitutional reform.
In my view, the real problem is the politicians, some of the tradition at Westminster, but more importantly the whole ethos that surrounds Parliament. People are alienated because when they look at Parliament they see very little they can recognise! The language is different, the apparence is different, the whole attitude of politicians is different and a world away for the norm.
Parliament needs to become more transparent, and more down to earth, losing the ivory tower effects of the Westminster villiage by opening itself up. It is necessary to also move away from the usual suspects who are MPs, Lords and also the staff working within Westminster.
My two pence worth! 😀
Is there an online copy of your speech at all?
During the 2nd day of the Hansard Society’s ‘Revitalising Politics’ conference there was a talk by Matt Flinders from the University of Sheffield who was arguing that there is a gap between the public’s expectations of government and what the government can realistically hope to achieve. The public expects too much and the government cannot hope to possibly meet those expectations and so has to, on the one hand, lower expectations and on the other, try to increase delivery. Thus, the public becomes inevitably disappointed.
It seems to me that the media and interest groups worsen public expectation. The media are overwhelmingly negative and interest groups increase public expectation by promising that we can ‘Make Poverty History’ for example.
What do you think about this?
Survey evidence suggests that people perceive the problem resting with politicians and their behaviour rather than with the basics of the system.
I believe the disconnect between the behaviour, standards, lives and professional conduct of politicians and that of the real public is a greater gulf than the politicians are capable of understanding.
But it’s nice to read that my Lord is being active on this issue.
Well some of your Lordships are as bent as hair pins and the ordinary people appear helpless, but we believe your time is coming to an end. There are men who serve with Integrity, there are others who would have been drummed out………….The Word of God has a cleansing effect even today. A fire goes before Him and Burns up all His enemies, the Hills melt like wax at the mention of His Name. He has seen those who feather their own nests and amass filthy lucre, and blood money, whilst the sons of honest men have taken the blame or worse, ended up dead with inadequate body armour. People switched off from political rhetoric half way through Blairs term and did not switch back in………1 Corinthians 10 and Proverbs 11
will clarify this for you. Who would be fool enough to pay callow youths for their limited and erroneous impressions This crisis is not about the world recession but corruption and the imposing upon a people values they did not wish to descend to, by weak men……….if we do not have a general election soon, there will be anarchy – Clintons policing methods were a disgrace and harmed the very democracy he pretended to defend. If Sarah Palin came over here, we would vote for her………..US had a change, we want one, now, it is not about Party but Persuasion………
It would appear that at last some one is beginning to see the light.
I have tried to explain, and I am not usually ‘quick on the uptake’ but if I can see the problem I know others have already got there before me. If Lisbon becomes ‘active’ there will be no need of a full complement of Ministers in our Parliament in this Country. I doubt there will be any need at all for a House of Lords. As the EU already instigates most of our laws now, I am rather surprised that the people are still contributing to MP’s wages and vast expenses especially the way our Countries finances are at the moment.
The shock will come to all eventually, that once out of Parliament, all the EU Legislation, the horrendous legislation that is absolutely alien to us here in the UK, will apply equally to all those that once sat on those seats of power, Ah yes, EU Law will apply to even those that so eagerly gave our freedom and Rights away.
No British MP seems to grasp that we elected our own British MP’s to instigate our laws, to obey our own Constitution-which was reputed to be the best in the world-so much so that other countries adopted parts of it-and we also foolishly still pay them (for now) to do just that. They might find that the people will not be so foolish as to pay them after the way the Lisbon constitutional Treaty was ratified for if it comes into being, they will have all made themselves redundant.
The people, who are losing their homes at the moment, their jobs, their pride, the faith in themselves most certainly cannot afford to pay for yet another layer of Governance, especially when this Country survived two world wars fighting to secure its own Governance rather than allow foreigners to Govern this Country, to rejoice that their own weak parliamentarians have given the governance of this once wonderful country to foreigners by stealth, not even having the courage to tell the true facts about what the EU was really all about.
I disagree.
I think that structural reform would have a positive effect on the operation of politics. I also believe that this would be extememly unlikley, so I’d support Lord Nortons statement, albeit grudgingly.
I do, however, utterly agree with you that constitutional reform would be the easy-way-out.
I do like the paradox however; the public aren’t engaged because politicians are percieved as self-interested, to get the public engaged we must convince politicians that engaging the public is in their self-interest. Hah!
I believe that DW has it right with his/her statement that Parliament must become more transparent. This would surely improve relations, but not fix much.
We have not looked at two possible options however. One is that simply informing the public more about the very basic operations of parliament would, I believe, have a very postive impact. When I was (slightly!) younger, I was very interested in politics (still am), but I had no understanding of how the political machinery worked, I knew of my local MP and the Parliament and the other MPs and all the big stuff, but I did not know what the basic operation. I think that improving public understanding of this area would be a great help.
The second option is: Do we really care? The country seems to be ticking along quite nicely without the imput of these people, why bother to reach out to them?
***
And in very poor form, I shall awnser my own question to remind myself: Because these people are so much more susceptible to populism beause of this alienation. And I hate populism.
Anne, nice to see you again.
The EU is part of our Government because our Government is part of the EU. The people we send there are Government employees, which is why they all have different pay – they are paid by their own nations.
You mention alien legislation – I would like to know what you mean by this? And can you offer me some examples. Like I’ve said, I believe that the EU has been a force for good, so I value your critique.
“[W]e elected our own British MP’s to instigate our laws …”
There are two misconceptions in this paragraph. The first is that MPs no longer instigate Britain-only law, which is absurd.
And the second is that the EU passes complete law, which it does not. EU law must be interperted, and that is done in National Parliaments.
Anne, observe what the EU has achieved. You talk about the World Wars, but these started because of the very nationalism, and jingoistic beliefs you are promoting right now. No European (and we are all European) will ever go back to that dangerous system.
I agree with Lord Norton’s point but I would go a further, along the lines Brom mentioned: a big part of the problem is politicians pretending (to themselves and to us) that they can do more than they really can. The result is people disappointed in the lack of change and spotting the difference between what they promised and what they delivered.
We need politicians to do LESS! Stop tinkering, stop trying to fix everything and causing more problems on the way, stop messing with the legal system and historic rights, stop passing badly drafted legislation. Most importantly, stop grandstanding: stop pretending that you can “fix” problems like the economy, terrorism, child abuse — stand up and say out loud that these problems can’t be “solved”. Of course, emphasise that they need to be minimised, and their effects need to be dealt with most effectively but stop making policy in response to the latest outrage in the media.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I very much agree that politicians need to get out of the vicious circle of trying to out-promise one another. Electors are not daft. Making promises that cannot be met lower public estimation of politicians. Taken quantitatively, parties in government actually have a good record of implementing manifesto promises. However, the problem lies with the high profile, grand promises. There is a need for leadership based on being honest with electors and actually promising less, or rather promising to govern efficiently and not racking up new and costly policies. I very much agree with the point made by Graham Cobb. Government cannot fix everything and should stop pretending that it can.
Troika21 quite rightly identifies the paradox embodied in what I write. It encapsulates the problem: how does one persuade politicians that is in their interests to pursue public interest at the expense of self interest? Doing so is then in their own interest! If they can be persuaded that it is in their own interests to act ostensibly in the public interest, then they should be in a position to restore public respect. I think survey data demonstrate the plausibility of this thesis. The hard part is persuading politicians.
On the point about transparency, I agree that Parliament should be as transparent as possible. What, though, should we be doing that we are not doing? I will do a separate post on this. Contributions as to how we can enhance transparency are very welcome.
Incidental points:
Brom: It was a very short contribution (we only had a few minutes each) and I was speaking from notes, so there is no text available. Basically, I expanded on the points embodied in my post.
Windsong: As we might say in the Lords, well that’s one point of view.
Brennig Jones: I accept there is a problem, though I don’t think it is quite as bad as you suggest. I do bleieve that we can reduce the disconnect through greater self-awareness.
I disagree. I think the disillusionment is because people realise the system is not working for them. It’s a system that was the best possible …. several centuries ago. It isn’t the best possible today.
Why would I give a rats ass about who I vote for, when there are thousands (tens of thousands?) of different issues all being collapsed down into one vote, and without a doubt there is no candidate who agrees with me on every possible issue? And even if there was, I wouldn’t have the time to actually verify that myself.
This is a system that inevitably results in politicians drifting to the centre, to try and optimise their appeal. The result is inability for people to express their opinions on the handful of issues they actually care about.
Apathy is ended by personal responsibility. We almost have the technology to allow every bill put before parliament to be voted on by every citizen if they wish, and for their vote to be delegated to others (eg, their MP) if they’d rather not.
I realise this won’t appeal much to you Lord Norton given your views on referendums, but I think it’s the way to go.
Mike: I agree we may be moving towards having the technology, but there is no evidence that people would use it. Most or the issues that are discussed in Parliament are not high profile issues and the detail is not going to be of great interest. Political parties have always necessarily been catch-all parties and disaggregating opinions creates fundamental problems in terms of accountability. Referendums are blunt instruments that do not allow usually for voters to express priorties, nor to indicate reasons for their decisions. There are opportunities for people to express opinions already. Parliament has variously sought to extend these, for example through the use of online consultations. The problem has been that people have shown little interest. Extending the means of communication is not likely to increase involvement if there is no motivation to get involved. We run the danger of assuming that people are, or should be, interested in politics, since politics affects everyone, but the problem nowadays is that there are so many competing attractions.
Constitutional change is not required. But I want to elect a representative who works for me – not for the executive or his party. Blair’s carnage of the Lords did so much harm to the independance of the legislature it must be undone. I never understood the arguement about peers not being representative when more often than not they appeared to be more in tune with people at large whilst the elected MPs were simply party tools or bought off with plush and often pointless government posts. Make parliament independant of the excecutive – as it should be.