Some say British politics are broken. It is tempting to think that they really mean that politics are not going the way they would like. Politics by definition are ultimately about the people and how decisions of State are made. British politics have for many decades been epitomised by democracy, again by definition about the people being in charge, their power being exercised through the voting process and their representatives in Parliament. The long process of leaving the EU may have brought out some unpleasant traits in some individuals, not just politicians, may have created division and may have tested the viability of some UK institutions; but it was certainly an exercise in democracy and the institutions weathered the tests. So, politics have not been broken through that process.
PEOPLE ARE POLITICS
Given that politics are about people, politicians must focus on that and on equipping people to make decisions, and on things which help them, to meet their aspirations. There is a tendency to focus on differences between people, rather than what they have in common. And so, to classify them – box them up – and then generalise over what each box of people thinks, worries about and wants changed: that is a class or classification approach resulting necessarily in divisions.
Some talk of the workers, a working class as if they form a unified block waging a war against bosses and authority, in order to suit their political dogma. That class in the old sense no longer exists but there are people who work and people who do not (for good or bad reasons). Sensible Trade Unions have an important role but is there really a cloth cap brigade of workers being abused by industrial barons anymore?
Some talk of a liberal elite – perhaps a convenient box with a made-up name, which is mythical. There may be people who are well heeled and who think their values are superior and would say progressive compared to other people, and believe they know what is best for all: hardly worthy of a name as if it was a coherent sensible group, and certainly not elite! There are wealthier and poorer, tribes of different religions and ethnic origins; and Welsh, Irish and Scottish nationalists; and tribes whose county defines them, and a host of other clubs – often people are members of several different tribes, e.g. wealthy, playing golf and Scottish! The remarkable thing about the UK is that largely these groups live in relative harmony. There are small but vocal groups with different identity obsessions with a view of how their society might look, and they dominate the media disproportionately, creating and emphasising divisions, and so their extreme disagreements give rise to an impression of brokenness in politics. It is suggested that the only sense in which British politics are broken is the extent to which the politics of hate, disrespect and personal aggression have taken hold, consistently enabled by irresponsible use of social media.
THE MAJORITY
So, what about most people. Perhaps they have a lot in common, no matter where they live. Most are not by philosophy labour, conservative or liberal, and they could probably not explain what each party stands for: not dogmatic people, not nationalists, populists or obsessed with an ism. Fundamentally perhaps they want much the same thing: a reasonable chance to get on, opportunity; to make lives better for selves, family and friends; for people to be treated fairly; that those who cannot look after themselves will be looked after and those who suffer misfortune will get assistance. Because people want to be economically successful themselves, largely they do not resent others who have made more money through hard work and think it’s fine to keep those rewards. Of course, there will be various localised fears, prejudices and intolerances, and special worries, but largely this quiet majority will live and let live. As is often recognised, there are big differentials, and when they become excessive, or people become too concerned by them, the risk is that the political arena becomes distorted.
DIFFERENCES AND THE BIG OPPORTUNITY
Would there be great disagreement between political parties with the proposition that the role of Government, apart from keeping the country safe, is to create a framework where the opportunity for people to maximise their potential and where those who need protection are properly provided for so far as reasonably possible. Assuming those reasonable propositions, there can nevertheless be great difficulty on agreeing how to do that. But that is the great value of political debate in an open respectful society.
The present Government has a mandate to improve and transform society as the EU becomes but a partner not the overseer. The opposition parties have the chance to become real challengers holding the executive to account and still influencing outcomes. Perhaps the best outcomes will result if these parties cease to give excessive influence to their extremes, for Conservatives their more extreme right and labour their Momentum extreme left elements.
If the executive can implement real actions to close the poverty gaps, narrow the divides between North and South, and fulfil their promises to a reasonable degree, then maybe the cracks in British politics will close and some trust will be restored. The electorate, by granting a great majority, demand results and will not accept excuses for delay and failure. Where should focus be? Sherbhert has previously suggested house building, as an area where real determination to deliver can be demonstrated in short order. But what about the longer term? Infrastructure projects with their fanfare are needed. But always the real changes are less glamorous requiring rigorous long-term behaviours and commitments.
SELF-DETERMINATION AND EDUCATION
As mentioned above, for most people, perhaps, the secret of advancement is to do it themselves. This Government has promised skills training. Whatever one thinks of Tony Blair, his soundbite “Education, Education, Education” is more than that, it is the key to self- determination for people.
Perhaps the maximum effort should be to create real training and retraining throughout the UK in relevant and usable skills for the young, those in mid-life and older people with a focus on innovative and creative solutions. That there are millions of illiterate and innumerate individuals in the UK who are therefore held back is a sad reflection on the past efforts of society and past education failures. But it can be cured. There is no reason for anyone to leave school without basic skills. The ludicrous political focus on University education in impractical subjects and for people who really need practical education can be reversed. Perhaps education at all levels is where the political and productivity answers lie.
Historically it is through education and the realisation that, whatever their background socially, people realising their talents is a great equaliser, creating respect and removing prejudices. In work situations, provided a person does a decent job (and is moderately nice), in the UK, do many people worry about their racial, social or religious or academic background? Probably not, thank goodness. Quality education will depend on quality teachers, and ensuring a sufficient supply in the right subjects and locations will require proper attention and determination. For practical skills the commercial world can contribute considerably more to training of people more generally.
Politics being about people, perhaps education can rebalance the inequalities, give fairer opportunities, reduce divisions and conflict, and ensure the breakage of politics is a long way off.
