I suppose that the UK’s 2024 General election will be best remembered as the one it which Labour replaced a Tory majority of 80 (but dwindling) with their own stonking majority of 172. However, it should in my view be equally memorable that for the fact that only some 52 %* of the adult population took part in it.
This should be a cause of considerable worry. As a political anorak or nerd I find it almost incomprehensible that, in spite of all the fuss, drama, gaffes, debates, reports, leaflets, and exhortations and reports which have saturated our news outlets, half the adult population just couldn’t be bothered to take part.
Some may have positive reasons. Some religious groups, for example, believe it is wrong to take part in “worldly affairs.” But for most I suspect it is either a belief that , whoever wins, it won’t make much difference (and they have a point) or, more seriously, that the system simply doesn’t work for them.
We need to see the present riots (thankfully taking a lull mid-week – let’s hope it lasts) in this context. Of course, many factors have contributed to the riots, not least the drip, drip, drip of poison fed into the system to distract attention from the failures of the government and direct it to the scapegoating of “others.”
But another is that our supposed democracy has degenerated into a system in which every four years or so, the major parties engage in an unseemly auction which offers packages of bribes of what is “best for you and people like you” and then, having won, act as an elected dictatorship to reward their supporters accordingly.
In 1961 the newly elected President J F Kennedy concluded his inaugural address with the famous peroration: “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”
This ideal features little if at all in our politics. The top-down “winner takes all” see-saw system is no longer fit for purpose (if it ever was). As outlined in previous posts we need a root and branch reform our system which will involve fairer elections, an executive controlled by parliament rather than vice-versa, genuine devolution to the regions and localities, so that decisions are made at the lowest practical level and the overwhelming majority of people can feel involved in the system and able to influence it.
It is called “participatory democracy.” It would be nice to think that somewhere in the minds of our new parliament are the glimmers s of ideas to move in its direction.
· *The official figure for the turnout is 59.8%, but that is the percentage of those registered to vote. The 52% is an estimate based on including also the number of adult residents who are not on the registers.
The 52% is an estimate based on including also the number of adult residents who are not on the registers.
ReplyDeleteNot all residents are entitled to vote, of course (nor should they be — merely residing in a place doesn't make you part of the demos, and if I were to move to, say, the USa, and not become a citizen, I would quite rightly not be entitled to vote in their elections) so presumably the true figure for apathy is somewhere between the two.
But for most I suspect it is either a belief that , whoever wins, it won’t make much difference (and they have a point)
This may be the only correct thing you have ever written, though of course your proposed solutions are all wrong.
But another is that our supposed democracy has degenerated into a system in which every four years or so, the major parties engage in an unseemly auction which offers packages of bribes of what is “best for you and people like you” and then, having won, act as an elected dictatorship to reward their supporters accordingly
If only they did! But no. The problem is that they offer promises in their manifestos and then, when elected, simply ignore those promises. Of course this isn't a new thing — no incoming government has ever held to all its manifesto pledges — but it has got worse, or at least more blatant, lately.
Of course the referendum to leave the EU played a big part in it: at over 72%, it had turnout larger than any general election since 1992; many people voted for the first and, perhaps, only time. Seeing the political class then attempt for years to find a way to avoid fulfilling the democratic mandate they received and stay in the EU was a profoundly disheartening experience, and I can't blame many of those who did vote for the first time in that referendum deciding that clearly there was no pint in voting again because their votes would not be listened to.
As to:
ReplyDeleteAs outlined in previous posts we need a root and branch reform our system which will involve fairer elections,
Our elections are perfectly fair; we just need parties to keep the promises on which they were elected. Fortunately the system seems to be working to encourage that, by punishing parties which break their promises. the Conservatives were elected in 2019, proceeded to do almost nothing of what they promised (though they did, to their credit, get us out of the European Union) and so were booted out at the next election. Labour are in the process of breaking the promises they made (they'll be whacking taxes up in the autumn) and so I expect the same thing will happen to them (they may have a massive majority but most of it is in marginal seats, so it won't take that big a swing to boot them out).
This will teach parties that in order to get re-elected they will have to keep the promises they made to get elected in the first pace.
Of course I suspect what you mean by 'fairer elections' is 'proportional representation', which would be a terrible idea because it would make it almost impossible to fore parties to keep their promises by punishing them for breaking them by booting them out at the next election. If you look at any country which uses proportion representation, almost never do parties of government — however badly they fail — get voted out. Instead they just come back as part of some slightly differently-shaped coalition. Look at Eire, for example, where the electorate turned decisively against the government of Varadkar — only to have him foisted back upon them a couple of years lter as part of a grubby coalition deal (thank goodness they managed to finally shame the slithery little reptile into slinking off after telling him exactly what they thought of him in another vote, the referendum earlier this year).
an executive controlled by parliament rather than vice-versa,
A terrible idea for reasons already discussed: you can't run a country by a committee of 650.
genuine devolution to the regions and localities, so that decisions are made at the lowest practical level and the overwhelming majority of people can feel involved in the system and able to influence it.
Another terrible idea: this would just hand power to local busybodies and the people (like you, I expect) with the time and inclination to try to influence the local administrations, all while costing us taxpayers more and more money.
We need fewer layers of government, not more. We need to abolish everywhere there are two tiers of local government (eg where there's a district and a county council), instead combining responsibilities and cutting regulation (for example, getting rid of the Town & Country Planning Acts) so that power is devolved to where it belongs: to individuals, to live their own lives, interacting with the state as little as possible and preferably only in emergencies,
A lot depends on how you define an emergency. In my view there is such a thing as society, and if, say, a prisoner is released but has no where to go that is not just an emergency for her/him but for all of us. Similarly if someone is robbed, can't feed their kids, has appendicitis, is run over by a bus or whatever. ....Ask not for whom the bell tolls!. Mrs Thatcher believed that charities should fill the gap: Liberals believe the state should care effectively for us all, whilst preserving the maximum amount of individual freedom compatible with tthe freedom of others
DeleteA lot depends on how you define an emergency.
DeleteA war would count, I think. A major earthquake. Volcanic eruption.
In my view there is such a thing as society, and if, say, a prisoner is released but has no where to go that is not just an emergency for her/him but for all of us.
Indeed. Prisoners should not be released — it just leads to them committed more crimes.
Similarly if someone is robbed,
Of course if someone is robber then it's the state's job to catch and punish the thief — not that the police bother with that these days, with most robberies going unsolved and a fair proportion uninvestigated.
can't feed their kids,
Depends why, doesn't it? If someone can't feed their kids due to bad luck then that's one thing, but if it's their own fault they can't feed their kids then that's on them, isn't it?
has appendicitis, is run over by a bus
I'm proud to be British, but If I had appendicitis or was run over by a bus I'd rather it happened in a country where the state didn't run the healthcare system. Wouldn't you? You'd have a much better chance of survival if it happened in a sensible country which had decent private healthcare provision like Australia, Switzerland, or even France or Germany, than somewhere that had the state run hospitals.
Liberals believe the state should care effectively for us all, whilst preserving the maximum amount of individual freedom compatible with tthe freedom of others
Nanny-statism is totally incompatible with liberty and freedom. The state should not care for us, because if the state cares for us, then it gives the state carte blanche to start poking its nose into how we live our lives and trying to either nudge or compel us to live more healthily, and then we are not free.
(And besides which, the state is incapable of caring 'effectively' for us because states are incompetent and incapable of doing anything effectively — hence why if you do need heathcare you're much better off if the country you're in doesn't have its healthcare system run by the state!)
Fundamentally we don’t need to give people more influence over the system; what we need is to give the system less influence over people.
ReplyDelete