There has been a lot written over the last couple of years about the declining interest in politics, and the falling numbers of people turning out to vote in elections. Reasons are looked for and answers are sought but no one seems able to find why people are becoming increasing disaffected by the political process and by politicians themselves.
A number of things stand out to me, that might point to why people seem to be less and less interested in politics.
All politicians basically look and sound the same. Increasingly we have MP's who seem to have come out of the same mould. Take for example the three leaders of the main political parties. They are all smart, well presented 40-something men, from well off families, who have received a good education at some of the best schools and universities in the country.
The messages they try to present are very much the same and a product of their upbringing and education. No longer do we hear senior politicians expressing views that might be controversial, or represent the real political ideology of their party. Today's politician is too concerned with popularity, voter numbers and opinion polls, to actually be able to say what they might really think, and what might actually be best. The differences between the Conservative, Labour and LibDem parties is now so slight, that its difficult to see the distinction.
No wonder young people look at politics and think what's the point, because there's nothing there for them to get passionate about or to believe in.
I grew up through the 70's and 80's and remember politicians and leaders like Harold Wilson, Ted Heath, Jim Callaghan and Margaret Thatcher. These were politicians who believed in something, who stood for something real, and whether you liked them or not, they engaged your attention. Politicians stood at the dispatch box and traded insults like boxers in a ring, slugging it out over harsh political realities. Politics at this time was about convictions in your political ideal. You stood for one party or other and there was no middle ground.
Even at school, the political lines were drawn. We were interested in politics well before we were old enough to vote, because politics was exciting, interesting, and politicians believed in what they were saying, and saying what they believed. They spoke to us in a way that today's politicians just don't seem to. There was passion, and conviction. You believed and trusted them. But most of all you could see what each one stood for.
Politics today, seems to me, to have become a blame-game. You'll never see a politicians get up and say they were wrong, or the policy wasn't working, they will always have a scapegoat, always be able to blame someone else.
A great example of this was yesterday when the Heath Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, got up in the House of Commons, to talk about the crisis in A&E units in many of the UK's hospitals. He outlined a number of measures to try to alleviate the crisis, but then went to great lengths to lay the fault for the problem, at the door of the previous Labour government.
And he isn't the first minister to do this, and won't be the last.
Frankly, as someone who has to make regular use of the NHS, I'm not hugely concerned whose fault a problem is. What I want to know is, how are you going to fix it, and will that fix work. By trying to lay the blame elsewhere it seems to me, you're trying to deflect attention away from your policy.
And how long do you have to be in government before you take responsibility for what's happening?
To constantly point the finger at previous governments and administrations, is weak politics. Get up say what the problem is and then tell me how you're going to fix it,. Don't point the finger at someone else in an effort to try to undermine them in the eyes of the electorate.
And its not just national politicians that have adopted this tactic. Yesterday I had the local LibDem leaflet put through the door, about the local council. I live in the borough of Croydon, a Tory lead council. The leaflet was full of bits about what isn't working, what needs fixing, aren't the council a disgrace and what they are wasting money on. There was nothing in any of the pieces to say what the LibDem's would actually do, or what they stood for - apart from their coffee morning. It was just "negative" politics.
As I said earlier, each of the leaders of the main political parties are in their 40's. Each of the them has been educated at good schools, and they have gone to the best universities. Having left university they have either had a short "career" lasting only 5 or 6 years before going into politics. In the case of David Cameron, he left university and went straight in politics.
If you contrast this with the 4 leaders I mentioned earlier, each of these were well educated both at school and university, but each had careers before joining the political establishment at Westminster, at about the age of 40. Harold Wilson became PM at age 48 but all the others were well over 50 before becoming PM.
This gave them the advantage of real life experience, working along side other "real" people. It gave them the opportunity to experience the hardships of having real jobs, the hardships of living real lives, and raising families. They could have a connection with the voting public, because they had lived lives along side them.
Contrast this with our career politicians today, who have never been in real jobs for years, struggled on a real salary, and never had to really make ends meet. How can they really connect with today's voters.
Both David Cameron and Nick Clegg are millionaires, and although Ed Milliband isn't reported to be in that league financially, he certainly isn't hard-up. And then people wonder why they can't connect with the electorate.
Politics at Westminster has become like "Stepford" where everyone looks the same, says pretty much the same, and everyone is afraid of stepping out of line, in case they upset the voters or affect the opinion polls.
It's bland, it's boring, and in all honesty, it's a turn off.
No comments:
Post a Comment