As General Election Day approaches it is increasingly apparent that the real issue is not bigotgate or the fear of a hung parliament. It is the fact that we have no clear idea what is to be served to us in the future, whatever permutation of parties are in power. The carefully constructed statements from the main parties are notable for the absence of detail about what they will do about most issues from Afghanistan to Care in the Community. Their willingness to threaten what other parties would do or to argue for change, without defining what it means, are the only messages emerging from party machines. They are so defensive that the contest resembles a Spassky-Fischer world chess match from 1972 with a stalemate as the likely outcome. It begs the voter to ask many questions
- What will the new government do about taxes?
- What will a defence review throw up?
- How will the government support the growth of businesses?
- What will happen to the funding and management of schools and hospitals?
- How will they improve health and wellbeing, rather than safeguard the health budget?
- What are the plans for care in the community?
- Will the car be banned from cities?
- Will investment in public transport and cycling take precedence in our cities?
- Will the exponential growth of air travel and its massive carbon footprint be regulated?
- What measures will be taken to reduce climate change?
- What sort of and how many new houses will be built and where?
- How will the government help create new jobs?
- What will be the future of pensions?
- What will happen to the minimum wage and universal benefits?
- What do the government see as the future population of these Isles?
- How will the city be regulated to prevent the outflow of capital from the UK?
- Will the government stop financial institutions from claiming off incomes and savings from most paid workers?
I was searching for a track on Last FM yesterday when an advert for the Tories scrolled down the screen and I watched David Cameron on YouTube for 3 minutes and 52 seconds. He said it was the Conservative contract with the voters delivered with Etonian panache but simply empty rhetoric and failed to explain a single policy or proposal. It was a model example of whitewashing and blackballing that typified this election. The other parties are also guilty, albeit less brashly, of similar scurrilous innuendo and deceit. It is key evidence of the decline of democracy, or more bluntly the scandal of the can't tell, won't tell election. Let's call it Votergate.
One of the purposes of a political party should be to present a set of policies and values that can be scrutinised by voters and deciding whether the proposals reflect our preferences. But they are scared to do this in the searchlights of a pluralistic society with far greater diagnostic capability than the parties themselves. All parties are still infatuated with keeping on the right side of News International and other press barons. Instead of policies, we are littered with simplistic and misleading leaflets and shoddy soundbites that echo around social media platforms. They are an insult to our intelligence. They are the product of the disruptive intent of party politics and the growing influence of social media. The shift in the balance of power in a functioning democracy should be towards the voter through of the greater availability of information by the parties to enable objective reporting and analysis by the fourth estate. This has been disabled by political parties that are frightened of voter scrutiny.
The voter as a consumer should be given a choice of policies and values not a hotchpotch of party megalomaniacs to choose from. This should be possible for each constituency by constructing a grid of important issues for the constituency and asking all candidates to state their position on them. The voter would then choose the candidate(s) whose views best represent their position. This would allow the voter to weigh the relative importance of different issues in determining their vote. Instead of meaningless phrases like 'big society' and 'fairness', we would have direct and measurable ways of holding our MPs to account in a real-time democracy.
One of the purposes of a political party should be to present a set of policies and values that can be scrutinised by voters and deciding whether the proposals reflect our preferences. But they are scared to do this in the searchlights of a pluralistic society with far greater diagnostic capability than the parties themselves. All parties are still infatuated with keeping on the right side of News International and other press barons. Instead of policies, we are littered with simplistic and misleading leaflets and shoddy soundbites that echo around social media platforms. They are an insult to our intelligence. They are the product of the disruptive intent of party politics and the growing influence of social media. The shift in the balance of power in a functioning democracy should be towards the voter through of the greater availability of information by the parties to enable objective reporting and analysis by the fourth estate. This has been disabled by political parties that are frightened of voter scrutiny.
The voter as a consumer should be given a choice of policies and values not a hotchpotch of party megalomaniacs to choose from. This should be possible for each constituency by constructing a grid of important issues for the constituency and asking all candidates to state their position on them. The voter would then choose the candidate(s) whose views best represent their position. This would allow the voter to weigh the relative importance of different issues in determining their vote. Instead of meaningless phrases like 'big society' and 'fairness', we would have direct and measurable ways of holding our MPs to account in a real-time democracy.
Political parties, and the attendant tribalism and sycophancy, would become less dominant in this process and would need to be reformed along with the House of Lordwhose lifelong peers and party donors could be dismissed It would be quite easy to construct grid and provide this as part of the electronic voting process. The successful candidate would have a clear manifesto from their constituents, not the other way round. Their votes in the House of Commons could be captured and made available online to ensure that there was an acceptable level of concurrence with their stated intentions. This would require the Party Whips to become moderators rather than dictators.
Alternatively, we could carry on as we have suffered over the past few weeks with Votergate. I found that track I was looking for on Last FM - I'd Rather Go Blind' by Christine Perfect with Chicken Shack. It perfectly sums up my take on political parties in this election.
No comments:
Post a Comment
thanks