Earlier this week I attended the Orwell Prize debate which followed the nominations for best political author, journalist and blogger (the publisher Iain Dale is nominated in the final category).
The debate was entitled: Are Political Parties Bankrupt? I have to admit to a certain frustration with the debate which wasn't caused by a certain tired and emotional contributor. It was caused by the lack of any reference to a practical or institutional point, even by MPs David Davis and Frank Field.
What I mean is, there is evidence that people are disillusioned by political parties, and the economic crisis has perpetuated existing anger at the political class. But if the existing parties are bankrupt entities, what replaces them? It's very well talking about grassroots campaigning and the rise of the internet but people still have to vote for something at the ballot box. And if it's not to be the normal choices of Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem then what? The minority parties might make eye catching breakthroughs at the Euro elections but the language used seemed to suggest some people are giving up on the party system altogether in this country.
Party membership was in decline by 70% from 25 years ago in 2007. There are many people who are politically interested but reject the tribal nature of party politics. But they still need to rally around something. And I can't work out what that is.
Comments
Adam H / March 28 2009 12:52am
Most people I know don't think their vote will make any difference. Partly because politicians ignore the public on some of the most important issues (we get the odd little bone), and partly it's because of the lack of difference between the parties; isn't Cameron just Blair II? If Cameron, Brown and Clegg were in the Big Brother house they'd surely be the first three out.
We can keep political parties, just provide some serious choice, politicians who appear to mean what they say, and have elected parties keep their manifesto commitments. Also how about some local government? Perhaps some innovative use of the internet?
John Keen / April 15 2009 10:59am
What about the Jury Team. This is what the Jury Team was set up for!
john problem / April 19 2009 12:35pm
There are 646 MPs plus another 754 Lords for a population of 60 million here in the UK. A total of 1400 political leaders. In the USA - population 300 million - their elected leaders number 550. Proportionately, we would need only 90 MPs and 20 Lords. Each MP costs the country £608,000 per annum and each Lord, Lord knows what. Are we getting value for money? There can't be anybody who thinks so, except their families. But it would be most unkind to get rid of the majority of them - there is nothing in their cv's and they would be unemployable. So the decent thing to do is stay with what we've got and carry on grumbling.
Bill Westall / April 22 2009 10:00pm
I disgree that people are fed up with political parties, they are fed up with the existing ones. Who are all basically the same.
In the upcoming European elections a new choice is available : Libertas.
Libertas is commited to democracy, transparency and accountability to the electorate.
The current tribal way in which politics are conducted must be changed. Libertas offers that change.
Macha Maguire / April 30 2009 6:11pm
If we're to escape from the identikit nonsense of the 3 current parties, or even the stranglehold of the dominant two (and it seems likely to me that those two might soon be the LibDems and the Tories) then we need PR
Thus there's the strange reality that in order to have a vote that actually counts for something, we have to vote LD to stand a chance of gaining a fair, relevant voting system where each vote counts and where the large parties with their mindless pager monkeys are actually taken apart.