The New Generation Society

Michael Appleton

Michael Appleton is a 3rd year Politics Student at the University of York. He is also the Parliamentary Researcher to Angela E Smith, Labour and Co-operative MP for Basildon. Michael highlights the importance of ideology in party politics and discusses how clearing up the blurred lines of inter-party differences could reinvigorate a politically apathetic public.

It used to all seem so simple. Thatcher liked small government and tax cuts; Clement Attlee liked big government, nationalisation and the Welfare State. The divide was clear; and voters placed an ‘X’ next to the candidate that best represented their views. In the old days politics was a simple game.

To any politically active person nowadays, the phrase “I don’t vote” is all too depressingly familiar; and just as often the reason behind this decision is blamed on the whole process being far too confusing. For those of us who take the time to find out the beliefs, values and traditions of our political parties it is easy to sneer at this lack of conviction to exercise the fundamental human right of political participation. But take a moment to consider the parties as they stand today; who would you vote for if there were an election tomorrow? Labour? Conservative? Liberal-Democrat? Any of the others? Would you even vote at all? It still makes many of us pause for thought, and for millions of people in the UK the ideological standpoints of the parties within our political system are so confused they’d rather not vote at all.

Its not difficult to see why; political parties shift the priorities of their ideologies frequently for a variety of reasons, on occasion to the extent where appears that they lack any form of coherent ideology at all. Ideology is crucial to political parties, it forms the basis of the plan of change they have if they were elected, and for the electorate it provides the best aid to making the decision of who to vote for. Any political party must balance its traditional political beliefs, whilst simultaneously tempering the more controversial issues in favour of a more electorally popular set of policy goals.

The issue of abortion is a clear example where political parties shy away from an opportunity to lay out a solid policy commitment, yet none do. Abortion is a complex and divisive issue; Labour cannot afford to upset working class Catholics, or middle class liberals and Conservatives cannot afford to lose the socially conservative right wing, or the moderate ‘floating voters’. Every abortion issue that is raised in Parliament is settled by a free vote, whilst other issues, often with far more serious consequences, such as the war in Iraq, are subject to a party line. Such is the nature of British politics; sensitive issues are not hammered out in ideological debate, but are decided on their ability to change the Government’s majority.

I would like to apologise to you, my reader, for my misleading opening remarks as in reality this is nothing new. Thatcher failed to mention any de-nationalisation in her 1979 manifesto, meanwhile, many in the Labour party criticised Clement Attlee for not going far enough with his nationalisation programme. When Tony Blair dropped Clause Four in 1994, the clause that tied the party to state ownership, many claimed he was betraying Labour’s roots to gain popularity. In fact this had been tried before by Hugh Gaitskell in the 1960s, and Clause Four was largely ignored by Labour Prime Ministers Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan.

Liberal Democrat ideology proves to be a minefield. Whilst there are, to some extent, a few certainties regarding policy and ideology of Britain’s two major political parties, the ‘Yellow Peril’ remains hopelessly woolly regarding any solid ideological belief. Up and down the nation, the Liberal Democrats seem to be confused as to what they believe in, and seem content to fill the vacuum left by opposition to the dominant political party in a given area. Increasingly under the leadership of Nick Clegg, the party appears to be pushing an economically liberal party line, this is coupled, somewhat paradoxically, with a programme of higher taxation for richer members of society. Is it any wonder that both Labour and Conservative party members often view the Liberal Democrats with suspicion?

Political parties will bend their ideological stance to fit with a policy that will afford them greater electoral success. Do the New Generation want to prevent this from happening? If so, how can this be achieved? One way could be the greater use of democratic processes within the political parties themselves. As it stands, each party has a centralised policy unit, this views press coverage, and formulates and decides policy based on its pertinence within the minds of the general public. Across the Atlantic this is done quite differently. I speak of course about the ‘Partido dos Trabalhadores’ (PT), or Brazilian Worker’s Party. The PT began life in the early 1980s as a hotchpotch of Catholic liberals, Marxists and disaffected steelworkers. Within 20 years, they had transformed themselves into the party of government. This was done, in large part, through democratically hammering out the party’s policy through regional, and later national, conferences. This allowed the party to shift its policy away from unelectable Marxist policy towards a more moderate centre-left viewpoint. This is not dissimilar to the journey that the Labour Party embarked upon in the 1990s. However, within the PT it was done without much of the bitterness and cynicism, which accompanied Labour’s shift. What mattered was the publicly democratic formation of policy, which allowed the public, including non-party members, to view the shift as credible, not cynical. The party’s ideology is what the members make it.

A more democratic and ‘bottom up’ formation of policy within political parties could allow the public to view the policy making process as something that is done by ordinary people, not distant, highly-educated Mekons1 in ivory towers. The Labour party has explored this possibility with the Partnership in Power programme as a means of formulating policy, but this is done by local parties selecting members rather than as many as possible becoming involved. Involvement within policy making could be extended to non-party members, asking the people on the street to formulate their own policy ideas. Those that fit within the party’s ideology could be selected, credited, and put forward to a national vote of party members, almost like a giant Thinking and Drinking2 event.

It remains clear that to stay relevant within the political sphere, instead of telling people what they want, parties need to ask the public what would improve their lives, whilst ever mindfully keeping one eye on the hallowed ideology that has led them though the decades before.

References

1 “John Prescott’s suspicion of New Labour types…When David Miliband joins the environment department he recalls Mr Prescott introducing him to senior civil servants by saying ‘The Mekons have landed.’” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7424440.stm)

2 http://www.newgenerationsociety.com/thinking