Does British politics need rebranding? (Part I)

Occupy London: Some people still get passionate about politics (©Max Nash/PA Wire)

On Saturday I was invited to represent Catch21 at a Bite the Ballot debate on rebranding politics at the Youth Enterprise Live event at Earls Court. The key issue was how politics could evolve to be less elitist and more appealing to people in order to create a fuller democracy, and whether young people could lead this change. The discussion was audience led and there were some very strong opinions put forward. Although by no means unanimous, there was a generally held view that politics was elitist, out of touch and needed to be seriously modified to reconnect with people.

My fellow panellist Shaun Bailey, who came from a council estate to having the ear of the PM, told the crowd “you don’t know how good you’ve got it” and came close to being heckled. He argued that compared to other, far more corrupt systems of government elsewhere in the world, we in Britain had the power to really change things for the better, but it was down to the individual to do this. The murmurs of discontent were understandable from an audience who sees the current system as synonymous with the highly stratified society we live in. When a teenager in the riots gets six months for swearing at a police officer, is it any wonder that London’s politically aware young people get mad when David Cameron backs Andrew Mitchell over pleb-gate?

Of course, both sides are correct. Politics does need to be rebranded and reinvigorated; it needs to be more representative of society, and matter more to more people. Undeniably however we are also blessed with a (relatively) uncorrupted system in which citizens can make a difference. Labour MP Gloria de Piero has conducted a study into why people ‘hate’ politicians and identified some core problems. She argued that the man in the street did not believe that politics particularly affected him, or that he could really change anything or get involved. She also said that people did not see politics or parties as representative of the public.

The latter problem is already well known; governments on both sides (but particularly on the right) are always keen to get more people from business into politics, in an attempt to break the cycle of career politicians. But how to do this? Party politics is not an overly appealing prospect for top business chiefs used to the freedom of dynamic private sector businesses. The former of Ms de Piero’s issues could simply be a matter of marketing. However I think both are symptoms of a bigger problem in our party political system.

Unfortunately, this problem is not likely to change very fast. British politics is a zero-sum game. The winner gains power for five years and has control of policy. It is therefore in the parties’ interests to do whatever they can to work against the other. Through this, complex issues are given black and white answers. Answers that should require nuance become a simple choice of ‘us versus them’; parties promise one thing, and then find that the reality makes their actions more complicated. Politicians defend their failure if they are in power, or condemn success when they are in opposition. All sides come out looking like liars.

I would obviously not make a good politician; I’m probably a bit too honest for my own good. I think if we saw a bit more honesty from politicians however, a bit more willingness to admit mistakes, and a bit more cooperation across the parties, the public may think that they are less out for self gain and more working in the interests of the country.  The effects may not be as damaging as politicians would fear: An interesting article from Matt Paris has argued how the cliché ‘a week is a long time in politics’ is only really applicable to a select clique of interested observers. For Joe Bloggs, ten years is a more appropriate length of time to judge parties on. The conclusion is that things such as ‘pleb-gate’ or departmental cock-ups like the West Coast rail franchise affair may not be noticed by the public as much as everyone in the inner circle fears. To draw a tangent, you could argue that if politicians were more down to earth and honest, they could gain more in their successes than they lost in popularity from their failures.

So we come back to the issue, and perhaps the solution – how to get more ‘ordinary’ people into politics; how to make more politics more representative and prevent the majority from feeling isolated. There seems to be cross the board agreement on this need. But neither ‘ordinary’ people nor business chiefs are going to be interested in playing the party game when it’s so messy and mired in slander.

In part two of this discussion, I will look at some more practical measures to draw in young people and the population as a whole, things like devolution, elected mayors and media. Finally I will look at how the nasty side of politics can actually be turned into a strength: Politics is exciting and you only have to look back a few decades to see how invigorated and passionate young people used to feel about politics. Maybe it could just be an issue of connecting politics with young people in a way that they find exciting and appealing. 

Read more from Iain at: http://www.catch21.co.uk/blog

Gove's Reforms: A Blast from the Past

Michael Gove’s well publicised recent Education reforms which call for a return to a two-tier secondary qualification, akin to the old O level/CSE system, came as a surprise to many, not least to the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

Not only is this yet another clear example of the increasingly ‘behind close doors’ attitude that has engulfed Britain’s governance since the advent of the coalition, it is also one of the most controversial policies. Mr. Clegg has suggested he will vote against the propositions simply because ‘he was not consulted’ (roaring passionately as he throws his toys from the pram). Cameron for his part has now, fairly limply it must be said, got behind the proposals, but Gove has since been forced to retract somewhat and pull his neck in, lest he be beaten to death by Lib Dem cabinet members with what remains of their 2010 election manifestos.

So what of the remaining proposals themselves? Most notable amongst them is a move towards a single exam board that will set standardised, cross-the-board papers, in an attempt to enact a more rigorous approach to examinations. Moreover, there will be no more re-sits, except in the key disciplines of English and Maths. Whilst I do agree with Mr. Gove that British education is in dire need of reform, I also firmly believe that this is not the way to do it. Mr . Gove wants to build an education system for the future, to compete with the likes of Singapore, France and the USA; as the White Paper of April this year argues. However, these proposals are anchored in the past. If Britain wants an education system of the future (presumably to build an economy of the future), the past is not the place to find it.

We have already entered a new age in how we communicate, work, play and interact. This is the information age and in the information age, the enlightenment notion that knowledge is power is becoming ever less important, whilst understanding is becoming increasingly so. We continue to persevere with the industrial revolution’s model of education, born out of the values of the enlightenment. This system is founded on principles of education for the masses; but what this has led us to in the 21st century is a lowest common denominator structure. Schools are run like factories; children are sculpted and taught to in the same way, treated as a batch and not an individual. As any teacher worth their salt will tell you, what works for one child will not work for another. Furthermore, why should Britain aspire to be like any other country in its education system? What is right for the children of Singapore may not be right for the children of Britain. If Mr. Gove wants to start building education reform we need to be progressive not regressive, leaders not followers and we need to think differently about what we think will best benefit our children and our society as a whole.

What I mean by this is that principles of creative, divergent thinking are what need to be taught to our children. Ironically, these are the very same principles which Mr. Gove has failed to apply to his own education reforms. An approach centered on children being encouraged into a culture of learning, of interaction, of modern skills and of personal discovery that can take them out into the world with a desire to learn, create, collaborate and improve. A lecture given by Sir Ken Robinson to TED followers ‘Changing the Education Paradigm’ rather neatly sums up this sentiment: That we need to think differently about how we educate our children if we want to move forward and Michael Gove’s proposals would certainly be a step backwards.

I will use myself as an example, I have just graduated from a Russell Group university with a degree in Politics & Philosophy. My degree result and previous application to my subject has been good enough for me to be offered a place to study for a Masters at that same institution. However, this educational success has not always the case. I finished college with reasonable A-Levels but decided late on that I didn’t want to take the university course to which I had applied (Sports Science).The ability to do re-sits allowed me to improve my grades enough to get into a higher standard of university and to subsequently to excel within that environment. This is a classic example of children maturing at different ages academically. At 19 I was among the least qualified of the students entering the course, but by the age of 21 I had developed enough to stand out within the right environment. Any education system needs to give young people every opportunity to succeed in this way, not penalise them and create a culture of failure because they are not at the same level as their peers at any given age in mental arithmetic or their ability to remember the names of the Tudor kings and queens.

Education is undoubtedly in need of reform and indeed always will be. The world changes at such a rapid pace that we need to be prepared to be constantly flexible in all our institutions to adapt and survive. If we cannot achieve this then they will fall into disrepair and generations of children will be failed. To achieve these reforms by reverting to an archaic method that simply closes down children’s options before they could even understand what they are seems unjust. Education needs change and it needs both imagination and creativity to help us to achieve this, not simply a reversion to antiquated, anecdotal notions of previous excellence. We have to reassess the most basic principles on which our model of education stands, the things that we take for granted, standardised testing, class sizes, methods of teaching, what we are actually teaching if we wish to move towards a brighter, more educated future.

J.P. CHESHIRE

Austerity vs Growth

In his recently released book ‘End this Depression now!’ Nobel-Prize winning economist Paul Krugman cuts against the current economic consensus, arguing for a return to Keynesian economics to push us out of the current recession. He believes that the deficit needs to be extended with more public spending in order to restore the confidence of consumers and businesses. With the recent democratic revolutions in Europe against austerity, Krugman has stated that today's voters across Europe have proved themselves "wiser than the Continent's best and brightest.”

Krugman’s arguments will be wind in the sails of Labour, who are advocating a ‘pro-growth’ strategy of enlarged public spending. The logic is that just like in the 1930s, governments must spend more during a recession in order to stimulate demand. The danger is that, as R. Rajan in Foreign Affairs has pointed out, the current recession is very different in nature to that of 80 years ago. He has argued that the recent growth has been fuelled by cheap borrowing – and this ‘debt-fuelled growth’ is unsustainable. Austerity is therefore necessary to cut the deficit and ensure the confidence of those lending to Britain.

So what is it to be – Austerity or Growth? With Europe’s voters rejecting austerity, the coalition is coming under increasing fire from both voters, in local elections, and many commentators also. Labour has rallied against austerity, blaming the coalition for the ‘double dip’ that the British economy has taken. However, the major extent of the coalition’s austerity has yet to hit, and with the EU being Britain’s largest trading area, the Euro implosion is undoubtedly having a significant impact.

Across the pond, Obama can take credit for overseeing a rejuvenation of the US economy with a significant stimulus package, evidence for Krugman and Labour’s cause. But US fiscal policy also mixes in necessary fiscal restraint, perhaps in part enforced by the brinkmanship tactics of the Republicans. Furthermore the US economy is also being rejuvenated by dynamic states who enjoy significant autonomy from the centre but are nevertheless required to balance their budgets – policies that are noticeably far from the Labour vision.

America is proving that austerity and growth are not necessarily mutually exclusive: Obama’s emphasis on ‘fairness’ is certainly a more palatable message to voters than the austerity enforced by centre-right parties across Europe (and facing widespread rejection). Yet the question has still not been answered as to when the bill will be paid. Obama’s plan, in an election year, may be successful in securing his re-election – in France, Hollande has been successful in using a more drastic plan to overturn Sarkozy. Here, Labour are promising much of what Krugman has advocated, but like Obama and Hollande are yet to decide when the budget deficit will be reduced. As a party largely reliant on high public spending, it is difficult to see them taking the plunge (if they are elected and recovery occurs) to cut spending when Britain is on the up again. It’s all very well promising more ‘debt-fuelled growth’, but Labour are yet to prove they are mature enough to keep the more sour end of the fiscal bargain – footing the bill during the good years.