[Closed] How do you inject an interest into politics?

In answer to the OP the problem you face is 50% the politicians and 50% people like my GF's sister vv
Had a very odd conversation with my her last night she lives in the Canary Islands and is over visiting so was meeting her for the first time, kind of proud that at 40 she has never voted "'cause who's got the time to listen to all that" and then went on to say she had no pension or savings etc and just expected the govt to sort it out when she's older, kept saying "it's not like the UK". I decided I had no idea where to begin and just went to bed.

Politicians who are truly willing to be radical enough to change things for the benefit of the majority of the population not only those who hold the purse strings and willing to see it through (and I'm not even a socialist).

Maybe have some politicians who aren't all exactly the same?

Are there any other walks of life where you'd voluntarily listen to someone crushingly dull, indistinguishable from a rank of equally spirit-crushingly tedious lookalikes, who all went to the same school, then all did the same course at the same university, and now all represent the same corporate vested interests, as they spout pre-prepared soundbites, delivered by a focus group, with all the burning passion of reading a Microsoft manual?

No... me neither

From the other threas
Well as I'm here and another 15mins before my flight and the business lounge bar is free...
If you disagree with my position debate me don't just oppose me, persuade me but accept that I'm persuading you. Our view points may be different but our views equally valid. Shake hands after and accept the result.
People need to be engaged and understand what the process is. In some ways the unelected house of Lords is a counterbalance to the self serving election seeking commons members. They can consider and question without fear of expulsion. This questioning is a good thing in some ways. In Oz the upper house is on 6 year terms to help avoid short termism.

Topless politics?

@thestabiliser - I don't really want to see Gideons nipples...

Hmmm...fair point. Allow nipple tassles?

Trust in politicians would certainly be a start. At my local council, members excuse themselves from any discussion or vote where they might have a vested interest. Why is that not, apparently, the case in the Commons and the Lords? In fact, it should be compulsory for journalists too.

I'm not even sure it's people's lack of interest in politics that's the problem so much as that the sort of people who make great local politicians and would actually also make great national politicians don't have the personal ambition to make it.

Edit: that possibly explains some of the difference mentioned above by scotroutes

Simple. Make people believe that their vote will make a difference to something that matters. The main parties are all so essentially similar that voting is largely pointless.

Oh and maybe also stop people voting for a party irrespective of its policies just because that's who they always vote for or think they should, be that Labour, Tory or anyone else as that means that large numbers of people don't vote because it's pointless.

Devon and Cornwall's PCC had a 'hold me to account' meeting.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-29356871 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-29356871[/url]

One person attended.

Total turn out for his election was 15% of which he got 35% of the vote. Dodgy maths tells me that he got about 5 in 100 people to vote for him.

That's not democracy, it's not showing people are engaged and understand the process and believe that their actions can or will make a difference.

It's an excuse for a democratic process that, imo, removed control from 'the people' and moved it to politicians. The previous process had much wider public involvement and democratic support.

Ian Martin (who is a writer on The Thick of it) wrote a great article in the Guardian yesterday about attending the labour party conference. Its a damning indictment of the labour party in particular, but modern politics generally....

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/23/ian-martin-labour-conference-thick-of-it ]A bunch of wonk-chic muppets, mixing austerity pancakes![/url]

Mind you we also hold some of the blame. You see it on here for example - any politician comes up with a decent idea that is anything other than the middleground and they'll be shot down by people not supporting their party irrespective of whether it's a good idea.

Even worse if they realise that maybe it's not going to work or have a better idea and reasonably backtrack, they'll be crucified for it, hence removing any incentive to actually propose anything other than the safe option.

The public perception is that you have a group of ex-Etonians with no real world experience debating things from slightly different sides of the same view point. Said individuals have no perspective as most have never worked outside of politics. They are all fighting over the same middle ground.

The politicians need to cut the negativity (stop saying "he's wrong because..." and start saying "I'm right because..."). They need to engage with other ideas not simply dismiss them. They need to answer the questions they are asked not turn them around to questions they want to answer. They need to stop giving easily clipped sound bites and give real information. They need to talk to stop being afraid of offending a tiny minority people and look at the majority. They need to put there hands up and say "I was wrong" and not feel like they'll get hammered to do so. They need to stick to the manifesto that they are elected on and, if they can't explain why. They need to stand for something different from the next man, not just be a different shade of grey.

Equally, public attitude needs to change. We need to stop saying "I'm a labour/Tory/UKIP voter" and start to vote on policies.

I have 3 big suggestions to do this.
1. No one can be an MP unless they have spent a minimum of 10 years working on a non-political role. It doesn't matter if that is as a builder or a banker, it just can't be politics.
2. Remove the name of the party from all promotional material and from the voting slips. You put the name of the candidate, what policies they represent and a brief manifesto. It puts pressure on the candidate to be more vocal on politics and forces the voter to think about policy not party.
3. Ban the use of financial numbers in policy and replace with % of UK GDP. When someone says we spend £xx million on the NHS the populous has no reference point bar knowing it is a big number. Say we spend xx% of the country GDP on the NHS means we know how much, compared to the total available, is being spent.

Simple answer, popular referenda

Look at Switzerland - if you collect 100k signatures, you can force a national referendum on an constitutional issue/less signatures for general law - and they hold a referendum session a couple of times every year

so on that basis any citizen may challenge any law approved by the parliament, or call for a change in the constitution, at any time, by gathering widespread support.

You might call for, ooh, maybe a million signatures in the UK? and the issue (via a neutral question under advice from the electoral commission) goes into the next referendum session (once a year maybe? allowing the political parties to campaign on the issue/put forward their position, you might want to put a safeguard against neverendums, maybe an issue (like EU membership?) could only be subject to a referendum once every parliament?)

you could even have the ability to call local referenda on council issues - council planning to close the local swimming baths/library? signatures from 10% of the electoral roll could force a local referendum on the decision.

nemesis - Member

Mind you we also hold some of the blame. You see it on here for example - any politician comes up with a decent idea that is an....

hold on there!

a 'decent idea' - from a politician?

proof, or it didn't happen.

And get people to take an interest in who their politicians actually are?

Change the system of government to a truly representative model where 'politicians' carry out the democratically determined wishes of their constituents instead of making decisions on their behalf. Politicians in this sense would no longer be politicians, and would instead be delegates. It has the added benefit of requiring the abolition of political parties and would directly engage the public in the democratic and decision-making process.

Vote Green..

The Whole Lab/Con thing is just so ****ing tired now, and people that try to justify buying into it are not really of sound mind

I'd vote for lunge! 😀

I think a lot of the problem with the present shower of shits goes back to the revolving door policy between government and the corporations who benefit from newly privatised public sector contracts. So that the actual bit about being a politician is no longer seen as public service, its merely and extended interview for a job where you then get to earn serious money. Labour, post-Blair are even worse than the Tories for this. In fact, Blair is the arch exponent. Utterly shameless!

So if you were a minister for health, then you're barred from immediately going working for a private American healthcare provider, now bidding for NHS contracts. No walking out of a defence linked position straight into a massively paid consultants job with BAE. Junior treasury minister... straight into Goldman Sachs. That shit has to stop! Its just a gravy train!

Devolution

@ Yunki - I would (and have) but they're bonkers.

More ordinary folk in politics would help maybe even something along the ancient greek lines of compulsion of citizens into positions to add a bit of disruption to the system.

a 'decent idea' - from a politician?

proof, or it didn't happen.

The infinite monkeys model suggests it has to happen even by chance at some point 🙂

are they bonkers though thestabiliser?

their manifesto would suggest not

The lack of criticality in the media is another factor. Their idea of insightful critique is to talk about the length of someone's speech while parroting press releases. If school kids have to do an hour of maths a day, so should political journalists because they really don't understand statistics.

The electorate needs to be properly informed before it can take action.

I found myself wanting to quote back so much of that Ian Martin article. But that would be a waste of time - just read it.

Mind you Beetham Tower as USB stick? Love it.

nemesis - Member

The infinite monkeys model suggests it has to happen even by chance at some point

true, but monkeys are generally more intelligent than politicians.

especially when that politician is called Ed.

Remoe the whip and make every vote a free vote so elected politicians vote on behalf of their constituents, not their party

Bin PMQ's, it is a national embarressment

Encourage more independent MP's

Get kids invoved from a younger age (not jsut the geeky ones)

Yeah, they are a bit.

Did you form that opinion from reading their manifesto or from reading newspapers though?

Neither - they just look a bit bonkers

Seriously though I voted green in locals and euros but couldn't bring myself to do it again based on their literature distributed at the last round. National policy might be different - haven't looked into them that deeply for a while. Can't rmember speifics now but was all a bit ideological environmentalism rather than evidence based.

Ministers should be appointed from the general public in a jury duty type way. The public then vote in a mandate for them to deliver.
Serving ministers get paid whatever they did in their previous roll, their employer needs to hold their position for them for when they go back 5 or 6 years later and they are prohibited from any form of profiteering.

I only looked into it as I thought it was time to be counted when the UKIP surge happened..
To be honest, the environmental stuff wasn't even half as interesting as the social and economic stuff..

I'll be voting Green for sure

1. World is a very complicated place. No-one really understands it.
2. No-one agrees what the best way to help people really is.
3. People have faith in their ideas though, and bang on about them.
4. Some of those people become politicians.
5. The politicans have to out-compete the other politicians by telling people what they want to hear.
6. Due to 1, when they get into power it turns out they can't really do much because the world is run by businesses.
7. People accuse them of lying and become disillusioned
8. Only the people from point 3 are left, and they look at all the evidence through confirmation bias

Repeat.

@yunki, I worked with a Green Party candidate (for South Oxford), he was a bit nuts !

You get people more interested by explaining to them how important government is.

Personally, I reckon we need a revolt against the utter lack of imagination that is the Labour party. It's a poor democracy when all one of the big 2 parties does is piss about with tory policy.

I'm with yunki tbh, the Greens are the way forward at the moment. The protest vote should certainly not be UKIP, it just confuses Labour further.

IMO, politics is poor and people are uninterested as Westminster has no ideas. It's not a one party state, but the ideology is only coming from one party.

Politicians with a bit of conviction and some real policies. At the minute you vote for the colour of the tie but you end up with the same government. I have no reason to believe that my life would be significantly different if the other parties had won instead. While politics does affect my life significantly on a day to day basis what is talked about in Westminster does not connect to my life.

Also proper representation so votes count. In Newcastle labour would win regardless of the candidate*.

I did vote, I didn't vote for the MP that got the job but the one we have is good and I have a lot of respect for her.

For me it's the voting system that's the problem. It's not representative of the country.

Proportional Representation is the only fair way of getting a proper representative cross section of the countries population in parliament. I know some people don't like it cos they say we'd just get hung parliaments, but i think it should be that if 35% of the population vote for a particular party that is the proportion of representation they have in parliament, and work down through the parties until there's none left.

I have always voted, but my vote has never truly mattered. I am very bored of it now.

Stop the shouty telly pantomime that goes on everyday on the news.

allow them to change their minds about stuff, I don't know anyone who knows for sure what the answers are, politicians are the only ones how don't seem to know that.

I'm not interested in who's in charge, I'm interested in the best answer for the most people, so get together to make plans, not argue about teeny differences in the same laws that will make no difference in the end to how much they **** up peoples lives

Stop treating poor people like a burden on society

Stop giving business everything to run for us. I want the council to run stuff, not some logo'd up employee on a bonus for smiling at me.

stop buying guns and weapons (I know they give boys hard ons, but really, grow up a bit) and spend money on stuff that's needed.

I'm definitely voting for emsz!!! Pretty much bang on there!

Proportional Representation is the only way to get people to reconnect with politics. Its become so tribal that basically the only votes that count are a few thousand people in a few key marginals, who are courted. The rest of us are taken for granted and don't matter. Thats a safe Tory seat. Thats a safe Labour seat, blah, blah, blah....

So it swaps from one party to another, both of whom are now indistinguishable from one another, and make not even the slightest pretence to represent the citizens who elected them, and instead listen exclusively to the demands of the private equity firms, parasitic beneficiaries of privatisation, corporate lobbyists, global financiers, and a war-mongering military industrial complex.

At least if we had PR, then some voices from outside the far-too-cozy neo-liberal consensus might actually have some influence on policy. As it stands it really doesn't matter who you vote for. No real alternatives are being offered. Its just one lot actually love *ing everyone over, and don'tt care who knows it, the other lot look uncomfortable and wring their hands as they obediently do their corporate masters bidding!

It *s me right off!!!! 👿

I vote for a Binemsz coalition!

Electoral reform so you could vote for who you really wanted without worrying that you need to vote tactically for a major party to avoid an even worse one getting in.

I prefer the STV system to straight PR though as I find the idea of 'party lists' horrible, and would still like to maintain that local MP(s) link and also give independents a proper chance to be elected.

[quote=binners ]So it swaps from one party to another, both of whom are now indistinguishable from one another, and make not even the slightest pretence for represent the citizens who elected them, and instead listen exclusively to the demands of the private equity firms, parasitic beneficiaries of privatisation, corporate lobbyists, global financiers, and a war-mongering military industrial complex. +1 It is pretty much the case that we could save ourselves all the hassle of voting as the power isn't in the hands of the people anyway.

Politicians with a bit of conviction

allow them to change their minds about stuff

See there's part of the problem. It looks good if you stand up for what you believe in, but that's often actually really bad. But sometimes not.

An even simpler modification to the electoral process would be to abolish political parties.

At least if we had PR, then some voices from outside the far-too-cozy neo-liberal consensus might actually have some influence on policy.

Do you think? If anything it could make it worse!

The problem with PR is the selection of candidates - if someone can come up with a way of delivering PR whereby the system isn't filled with 'petit princes' for example Jack Straw, Tony Benn and Neil Kinnock's offspring, chosen by head office (as per the safe labour seats at the moment) or parachuted in by the Unions, then I'll back it 100% - even Scotlands version remains stacked with 'list members'

There are degrees of changing your mind. Going from hard left to hard right is not the same as, for example, rethinking a view on the Euro for example based on current (or reasonable future projected) economic circumstances.

ninfan - agreed. Theres nothing more unappealing than the nepotism of a 'political dynasty'. We bemoan the fact that the politicians are clueless as they all follow the same predictable career path, and have no 'real life' experience

So how could the political parties respond to these accusations? They make it worse? I know. They could anoint their indulged offspring, born and raised in an environment of flipped second homes, inflated expenses claims, closed westminster clubs, and matter-of-fact corruption.

Fantastic!

Only one thing is more boring than politics, and that's shouty people telling you to be interested in politics - it's all shite.
I've not ever noticed a single tangible effect on my lifestyle that could be directly attributed to my local or national government, so for that reason I have never, and will never cast a vote 😛

ninfan - Member

...if someone can come up with a way of delivering PR whereby the system isn't filled with 'petit princes' for example Jack Straw, Tony Benn and Neil Kinnock's offspring, chosen by head office (as per the safe labour seats at the moment) or parachuted in by the Unions, then I'll back it 100%...

AV was a workable solution*...

(*not PR based, but y'know, a step in the right direction)

If politicians actually truly represented the people who elected them rather than the party line or their own self interests. Then the electorate would care more.

Hilldodger -
NHS?
Universal education?
No streets wher you live?
Bins not emptied?
Sewage taken away from your house?
Water goes in?
Gas?
Electricity?
Labour rights?
Policing?

To answer the OP.

Lions and tigers in the House of Commons. Live televised debates/maulings.

Monkey Butlers on the steps of Westminster.

Sorted.

Now ask me another.

Meet Mara Carfagna, Italian politician.
[img] [/img]
Shallow? Well yes. But could she really do much worse than Ed, Nick or Dave?
If we're going to be fed bullshit, we may as well be fed it by someone nice to look at. Might take the edge off the taste.

Ok.. here's a question

Say the unthinkable happened and someone else got voted in.. The Greens or UKIP or whoever..

Would the mafia let it happen or would there be a cover-up..?
Or would there be a military coup or a junta or something..?

I don't imagine they would just hold their hands up and say 'what-Ho! Jolly well done chaps, fair's fair'

More participatory democracy, with publicly funded political parties, devolved govt for regions and much smaller local councils with real powers holding meetings open to the public and at times when the public can attend.

[i] devolved govt for regions and much smaller local councils with real powers[/i]

the trouble with devolved powers is that everyone just starts complaining about 'Postcode Lotteries'.

I think removal of the party is a bloody good idea, get people voting for what they believe not what their party does.

You also need some real characters in the system to provoke emotion in people. In the 80's, you had Kinnock and Thatcher. Now you can argue about their policies but people cared and had passion about them. The current lot are grey, boring and basically the same as each other.

The Scottish referendum:

1). Everyone's vote counted (rather than the handful of marginal constituencies under FPTP).
2). The choice was genuine and would make a meaningful difference to people's lives.

Result = 85% turnout.

Since this partly relates to the referendum: I was staying up late to watch the results. Around 1 am the BBC did a discussion between some invited guests. After about a minute of this I hit the mute button. It then occurred to me that the much vaunted assertion that Scottish politics had changed for ever might not necessarily be true. I agree that listening to people lecturing each other with no sense that they are ever going to modify their opinions is irritating and demoralising.

Out of curiosity, does anyone actually follow whats happening in day to day politics? While I agree the parties are bland and offer very little, they are that way because we allow them through indifference.

Think it's one of the things that is going to come from the ref, for me personally, is that i'll be taking alot more interest in what they are saying and doing.

Guessing my thinking there is that you can't battle against something through cliches, you need to know more of the inner workings.

In that respect, we as citizens share some of the blame.

btw I agree 100% with abolishing party politics.

Out of curiosity, does anyone actually follow whats happening in day to day politics? While I agree the parties are bland and offer very little, they are that way because we allow them through indifference.

I disagree: I think we're indifferent because a) few of us hold any sway over who's in charge and b) there's little difference between the main parties' offer.

As I said earlier, real change that we all participate in results in a great deal of interest, with very high voting turnout.

How about we revise the party funding?
Each party gets an allocation of money from UK PLC to fund their campaigns etc. Same amount for each party.
That way, we don't get a party indebted to big business or unions or other vested interests. The whole thing is corrupt if you ask me.

Each party gets an allocation of money from UK PLC to fund their campaigns etc. Same amount for each party.

Favours existing parties too much surely - the greens or UKIP (whether you support them or not) would get scraps from the table, at least at the moment, if something is a truly popular message, then it will garner support and funding - the alternative means that anything which sought to oppose the old order would be nipped in the bud by not being able to get funding. (of course, the alternative, all parties getting the same funding regardless means handing the same amount of money to the BNP as Labour)

Hilldodger -
NHS?
Universal education?
No streets wher you live?
Bins not emptied?
Sewage taken away from your house?
Water goes in?
Gas?
Electricity?
Labour rights?
Policing?

all of these things have 'averaged out' over the period I've been eligible to vote, a few blips and bumps but can honestly say I've not been able to tell which party was "in power" by the peformance of any of those metrics.
But then I've always been a fully employed London-o-centric person with modest expediture and no dependents, so probabaly not in the firing range very often 🙂

(of course, the alternative, all parties getting the same funding regardless means handing the same amount of money to the BNP as Labour)

wrecker - Member
(of course, the alternative, all parties getting the same funding regardless means handing the same amount of money to the BNP as Labour)

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Level playing field. They can also demonstrate their budgeting skills! No more cash for honours or favours.
I don't want to vote for the unions or the banks.

We could have a 1 in 1 out. Kind of like relegation for the shittest?

Out of curiosity, does anyone actually follow whats happening in day to day politics? While I agree the parties are bland and offer very little, they are that way because we allow them through indifference.

Of course not. That's because politics these days has ceased to be about changing society for the best interests of whoever it the politicians represent*, and instead has become a game where the aim is to score points against the opposition, which can then be reported in the media that night.

*I'll come back to this point, the problem IMO is the whole nature of representation. Politicians don't represent their constituents, they decide what's best for them. This decision is based on either their own beliefs, their party's or whichever corporation has offered them a non-executive directorship (cynical? me?). Until this power is removed and they are forced to represent the wishes of their constituents nothing much will change.

The problem with PR is the selection of candidates - if someone can come up with a way of delivering PR whereby the system isn't filled with 'petit princes' for example Jack Straw, Tony Benn and Neil Kinnock's offspring, chosen by head office (as per the safe labour seats at the moment) or parachuted in by the Unions, then I'll back it 100% - even Scotlands version remains stacked with 'list members'

This is a huge problem with PR, you might know who the first two or three on the list are but the rest are exactly the type of political apparatchiks we all hate.

Devolved power to the regions would be a reasonable start - but you would need a properly set up federal government with clear delimitation of responsibilities, and of course it means creating a whole load more politicians...

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/labour-conference-to-keep-happening-until-somebody-notices-2014092591075 ]Balls[/url]

Of course not. That's because politics these days has ceased to be about changing society for the best interests of whoever it the politicians represent*

Historically speaking, it was very rarely about this. Mostly it was about self interest 🙂

Historically speaking, it was very rarely about this. Mostly it was about self interest

See my second point. The first was more about the fact that these days it's less about actual policy, and more about scoring points on the news like it's some sort of sport. A good example being the ridiculous hoohah about Miliband forgetting a bit of his speech. Absolutely no substantive reason to go on about it as it will have absolutely no effect on any policy or future decision, but repeatedly analysed, talked about and written about in the media like it's the most important political issue of the day. I mean, it's not like we're about to start bombing people again is it?

Should make it illegal for the media to report trivialities not related to policy. I agree the media is a major issue. But if you did what I just suggested, they'd probably just not report anything. so that is difficult to tackle as the media question is a minefield. Especially when you consider advertising revenues, editorial direction and associated agendas. And further free press issues.

Problem, with agendas mind, is that if people agree with them, they deny their existence.

So wait.. is your name pronounced like Joseph or what?

Should make it illegal for the media to report trivialities not related to policy.

Was, for example, Prescott shagging his secretary a triviality?

Its easy to consider that as a politically loaded triviality and not in the public interest, but that leads you to Blunkett and Quinn (and the nannies visa)? Boris and Guppy? Mandelson and the rent boy etc...

I did concede it was a silly idea and unworkable. Just trying to generate, poorly, discussion on the media aspect. I've no real deeply held opinions on it tbh.

Molgrips, my name is Joseph. Joe. Josie. Jose.. Whatever ye prefer. I've many more less flattering names. 😆

Oh I see. I get cross with people for not making any kind of effort to get Welsh placenames right but I've really got no idea bout Gaelic, so I'll have to brush up before I next go 🙂