In The Times today (4 March 2014), a small article caught my eye called "An MP's worst sin: never having a real job". It is of course necessary to qualify what a "real job" is, it is one outside 'national politics, think-tanks, journalism or local government.' Respondents were given a list of 14 characteristics and were asked to pick their top three undesirable traits. Only the top four were shown: never had a real job outside politics: 55 per cent; went to Eton and don't understand how normal people live: 38 per cent; took cocaine or heroin when young: 13 per cent; and caught shoplifting as a teenager: five per cent. From the low percent of the third and fourth highest responses points to the fact that employment and "normal experiences" rank considerably higher than any other reason to distrust a politician. I want to explore the implications of this small article, as it has far reaching consequences to the future of our political system.
Traditionally, British politics was dominated by a political class, entering politics was often a result of the family seat becoming vacant. Politics was a career you were born into. Although the political dynasties have died out, it is no secret that David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband were born into privileged households. This is mirrored down the political hierarchy. As politics in Britain is often judged on the image of the leaders of the political parties, for example it is seen that Clegg broke his promise to not raise tuition fees rather than the Liberal Democrats broke their promise, it is not narrow minded to assume that the responses to the survey were based on the respondents views of the leaders of the national parties. The main reason for this trend is the rise of the party image, political parties wanted to make themselves more human to the British public and spearheaded their leaders as the image. Another reason is that beside the leaders, the majority of the British public do not know the names of many other MPs, beside their own MP. Looking at the results from the article in light of these views is clearly necessary.
So why is it that the top two responses are never had a real job outside politics and went to Eton and don't understand how normal people live. The obvious answer to this is that politicians are the people who legislate on tax increases, unemployment rules, benefits and spending budgets amongst other things. I highlight these specific ones because it is these things that revolve around money, money which at the moment a lot of families are struggling with. Obviously by not experiencing the everyday struggles of feeding and clothing their families and heating their home, politicians are seen to exist outside the reality which many people whom they serve live with every day. These factors are pushing the British public to either vote for one of the minor parties, which are now the SNP, UKIP or Green Party, or abstain from voting entirely. This was seen to some extent in the 2010 general election where no party won, Labour was deeply unpopular but still the Conservatives were not able to win a majority, which under normal situations in British political history has been the case. We were left with a coalition, for the first time in peace time, a coalition from an electoral system that almost guarantees a majority government, ironically the devolved electoral system in Scotland, which is meant to produce a coalition government without fail, saw a majority government formed by the SNP.
So when The Times seemed to suggest that the British public saw it was more acceptable for MPs to have been in trouble with the law in their youth than it was to have grown up with a silver spoon, the angle that they should have taken was that the British public are more concerned about the fact that the people they elect to govern their lives understand the lives they are living. There are no simple solutions to this problem, mainly for the fact a complete overhaul of British MPs to include more people who have grown up with the reality of money worries is impossible. If it were to occur it would also be seen as putting token people into power, such as with women and people from ethnic minorities, many of whom hold identical beliefs to the traditional white, male, British MP. The way into parliament is difficult without the backing of a major political party, the backing of a political party gives a candidate access to a huge political machine that an independent candidate cannot compete with on an even footing. There seems to be a huge obstacle in the progress of the British political system, with no magic wand solution. It is impossible to predict what the outcome of the next general election will be, mainly for the fact the British public do not know themselves. The only thing left to say is that political parties are not managing to receive more that a 40 per cent approval rating is not because of what they are saying, but because of who is saying the what.
Traditionally, British politics was dominated by a political class, entering politics was often a result of the family seat becoming vacant. Politics was a career you were born into. Although the political dynasties have died out, it is no secret that David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband were born into privileged households. This is mirrored down the political hierarchy. As politics in Britain is often judged on the image of the leaders of the political parties, for example it is seen that Clegg broke his promise to not raise tuition fees rather than the Liberal Democrats broke their promise, it is not narrow minded to assume that the responses to the survey were based on the respondents views of the leaders of the national parties. The main reason for this trend is the rise of the party image, political parties wanted to make themselves more human to the British public and spearheaded their leaders as the image. Another reason is that beside the leaders, the majority of the British public do not know the names of many other MPs, beside their own MP. Looking at the results from the article in light of these views is clearly necessary.
So why is it that the top two responses are never had a real job outside politics and went to Eton and don't understand how normal people live. The obvious answer to this is that politicians are the people who legislate on tax increases, unemployment rules, benefits and spending budgets amongst other things. I highlight these specific ones because it is these things that revolve around money, money which at the moment a lot of families are struggling with. Obviously by not experiencing the everyday struggles of feeding and clothing their families and heating their home, politicians are seen to exist outside the reality which many people whom they serve live with every day. These factors are pushing the British public to either vote for one of the minor parties, which are now the SNP, UKIP or Green Party, or abstain from voting entirely. This was seen to some extent in the 2010 general election where no party won, Labour was deeply unpopular but still the Conservatives were not able to win a majority, which under normal situations in British political history has been the case. We were left with a coalition, for the first time in peace time, a coalition from an electoral system that almost guarantees a majority government, ironically the devolved electoral system in Scotland, which is meant to produce a coalition government without fail, saw a majority government formed by the SNP.
So when The Times seemed to suggest that the British public saw it was more acceptable for MPs to have been in trouble with the law in their youth than it was to have grown up with a silver spoon, the angle that they should have taken was that the British public are more concerned about the fact that the people they elect to govern their lives understand the lives they are living. There are no simple solutions to this problem, mainly for the fact a complete overhaul of British MPs to include more people who have grown up with the reality of money worries is impossible. If it were to occur it would also be seen as putting token people into power, such as with women and people from ethnic minorities, many of whom hold identical beliefs to the traditional white, male, British MP. The way into parliament is difficult without the backing of a major political party, the backing of a political party gives a candidate access to a huge political machine that an independent candidate cannot compete with on an even footing. There seems to be a huge obstacle in the progress of the British political system, with no magic wand solution. It is impossible to predict what the outcome of the next general election will be, mainly for the fact the British public do not know themselves. The only thing left to say is that political parties are not managing to receive more that a 40 per cent approval rating is not because of what they are saying, but because of who is saying the what.
Comments
Post a Comment