Does Politics Have the X-Factor?

Last Sunday I spent two thirds of my day hanging around in the cold at Old Trafford waiting for my one and a half minutes in front of an X-Factor judge. Yes, I succumbed to the temptation of bright lights, fame, fortune... not quite! I auditioned, safe in the knowledge that I am neither a good enough, nor bad enough singer to get beyond stage one, so it was never about any of that stuff! My interest was purely one of experience and exploration. I took it as an opportunity to get some audition practice for the one that really matters - for a Sing Live Beatles solo audition, which will be next weekend! It was an interesting experience. I had some fun and it has ended up being a surprising confidence booster, so I'm glad I did it.

While standing there waiting in the longest queue I've ever stood in, it occurred to me that if people paid as much attention to politics as they do to X-Factor, Britain's Got (So-called) Talent and Big Brother, British politics would be much better off. Mind you, the thought of Gordon Brown singing and dancing on a Saturday night for votes kinda makes me want to vomit! But seriously, millions of people that won't vote for free in an election will actually spend money to vote for contestants on these shows - and it's not just sixteen year old girls either! How many people talk about X-Factor on a Monday morning, compared with how many people talk about local or national government (except to have a moan)? It seems that people are quick to complain and slow to act.

I think one of the main problems is a lack of understanding. I have lost count of the number of times recently when I have had to explain the concept of two elections on the same day and I constantly find myself explaining the importance of local elections to people who only vote in parliamentary elections. So many people seem to think that when they vote they are doing so to elect the Prime Minister. They don't realise they are actually electing the individual that will represent them in Parliament and that the Prime Minister is never actually elected (except as the MP for his or her own constituency). With so little understanding of how our system of government works and why it has been set up that way, it's no wonder people think their vote doesn't matter.

So, what's the answer? Do we need to change the way things work? Well, yes, sort of. I support Lib Dem electoral reform policy in full. However, I do not believe it will promote understanding (who here knows how proportional representation works?) and consequently I believe it is unlikely to improve voter turnout or encourage people to engage in politics. Instead, there are three things I would personally like to see introduced.

First, I would like to see politics and citizenship taught in school. Obviously, party policy must be kept out of the classroom but that isn't what I'm talking about here. Our kids should be taught about national and local government, how it works, why it's important to vote and what the affect of non-voting might be. This is a factual subject that can and should be taught. I believe that understanding will promote engagement.

The second thing I would like to see introduced is compulsory voting. There are many that disagree with me, including my poor husband who gets bullied over the subject at regular intervals. There is a general concern that compulsory voting is like putting a gun to person's head, but if an individual doesn't want to vote for any of the candidates they still have the right to not vote by removing or spoiling their ballot paper. In recent years, so many people have said to me that they don't vote in order to 'send a message'. Indeed, in the Irwell Riverside by-election last year, voter apathy was particularly high as many electors stayed home in the wake of the expenses scandal. But staying home doesn't send a message, it just makes you seem lazy. If the vote was compulsory, by removing or spoiling the ballot you would be sending a much clearer message. There is a risk that compulsory voting would mean people would make an uninformed and random choice, but I believe that having to make a choice (whether that be to vote for a candidate or to not complete the vote) would encourage people to make themselves more aware of their options. Understanding does not fall in fairy dust (or volcanic ash!) from the sky; it is something which you must seek out and choose to accept. When you are 'forced' to make a choice (for example, from a restaurant menu) do you just pick something without knowing what it is or do you ask (the waiter) for information or a recommendation?

Finally, I would lower the voting age to sixteen. I was initially against this when it was put to me (how can a sixteen year old make an informed decision about something a thirty year old can't?) but on reflection, if politics was taught in school, I see no reason why not. At the age of sixteen an individual can serve in the armed forces, can get married, can work (and consequently pay taxes) and can leave home. If you are considered responsible enough to make these decisions about your life and future, you should be responsible enough to make a choice about your government representative. Furthermore, politics is just as relevant to young people as it is to adults and if you speak to young people, you can see that kids as young as thirteen or fourteen are already becoming aware of community, society and government. They know what they want and need in their community - just ask them; they have some great ideas. Sixteen year olds are becoming increasingly accustomed to voting, whether it is for their favourite Big Brother contestant or the best singer or group on X-Factor. Rather than look down my nose at that, I'd prefer to use it! Get people to start voting young and they will continue to do so as they get older.

Voter turnout has been slipping for years. I believe that fostering understanding of the electoral system and local and national government is the key to improving it. Alternatively, we can get rid of candidates and just have people vote for their favourite party by calling an 0901 number or texting at 25p per message... I am, of course, joking about this last part! :o)

Who's Fault is it Anyway?

No campaigning for me yesterday. I had other things to do (more on that subject later). However, I was out on Saturday afternoon posting letters around our ward. It was a gorgeous, warm, sunny day, which meant that a lot of folks were out and about or sitting in their gardens. The sounds of the Grand National rolled out of open doors and windows and kids were kicking footballs in the streets. On days like that it's a great opportunity to catch views and responses because, for once, people are not locked away indoors!

A couple of things were clear. Firstly, the level of awareness of the pending election is very high, which is great because I've campaigned in by-elections when no-one even knew there was an election due. Mind you... you would have to be living under a rock to not know about this one! The second thing that's clear is that there exists a group of people who insist on blaming it all on the immigrants... whatever 'it' is!

People are entitled to their opinion but this is something that thoroughly irritates me. It is a position that shows an utter lack of insight and a determination to bury one's head most firmly in the sand. There is no denying that immigration is an important issue; an incoming population can have both positive and negative effects on a society, but it is somewhat ridiculous to blame all society's problems on immigration - as some people seem so bent on doing.

Sometimes, immigration is undoubtedly a good thing. It allows us to employ the best and brightest and specialists in their chosen field. We should also welcome overseas students who come here to learn, because as well as skills and knowledge, they also gain an understanding of our society and culture. Many industries also rely on overseas workers for seasonal work like fruit picking, because it's something British workers are rarely willing to do. This is very good for business and for the economy. However, immigration can simultaneously lead to a number of problems, not least a loss of identity.

The human being is a social creature. We identify ourselves by groups that we belong to or are excluded from. How often have you asked someone where they were born or what they do for a living? How old are you? Are you a cat or a dog person? What's your favourite colour? Wheelchair-bound people are constantly and frustratingly defined by the fact that they can't walk rather than by their views or experiences; it isn't that unusual to hear people talk about 'seeing beyond the chair'. We seek out people who are like us, with whom we have a common ground, because it makes us feel comfortable and safe; we like to belong. Mass immigration, I believe, scares people because it threatens that feeling of safety and belonging. It threatens identity. This is particularly true because minority populations also want to belong so they often seek each other out too. Minority communities thrive within larger towns and cities. Is there a Jewish quarter in your town? Does your city have a 'China Town'? In the case of religious beliefs, there is the additional consideration that communities spring up in places where there is a church, temple or mosque, simply because it's convenient for the population that worships there. (It's really no different from someone moving to be nearer work, or a family moving to be near a good school.) The unfortunate side-effect of this is that 'native' people begin to feel like the minority, even when they aren't. Additional problems arise when the national sense of identity begins to erode too.

The British are a nation battered by negative phrases like 'Broken Britain', 'Yob Culture' and 'Brits Abroad'. We are losing what it means to be British and more specifically what it means to be English. The Scottish, Irish and Welsh are fortunate to each have clear national and cultural identities. They are nations within a nation that each have a proud heritage and cultural quirks that the majority both acknowledge and, in many cases, adopt. They are people that are proud of who they are. But what of the English? Bangers and mash and fish and chips have given way to Chinese Take-out and Curry Mile. Tea and Crumpets has lost out to Starbucks and Costa-lotta Coffee. Not that those things really matter - I love take out and curry and drink tea or coffee depending on my mood - but when people don't understand what makes them culturally unique, they are even more inclined to feel threatened by other groups. When you feel like you have nothing in common with your neighbour who looks like you, talks like you, has a similar upbringing, family and social status to you, of course you will be concerned by the fifteen people in the next street who - to you - all seem to be alike. It's because you feel alone.

Of course, none of this is the fault of immigration but people who are not like us are an easy target. It takes so much less energy to point the finger at someone with brown skin or a different accent than it does to acknowledge and understand the real sources of society's problems. The person who lives down the street popping out one kid after the next so they can live at home on benefits is more guilty of draining the welfare state than an immigrant who is entitled to no benefits at all, and the young men who ride around my area on uninsured bikes making a racket and putting the lives of others at risk are not from overseas but from right here, in Salford.

My point is simply that society is far more complex than the 'blame it on the immigrants' attitude permits. There a thousand nuances to consider and immigration is only one facet of this little gem. There are sixty-one million people in the UK each with his or her own combination of problems, perspectives and circumstances, and I promise you that 'the immigrants' remain the minority by quite some margin. So don't come bleating to me about immigration. At least not until you have taken a long hard look at the issue you're complaining about. Understanding is the key - and not just understanding of the person who is different from you, but understanding of yourself and why you feel the way you feel.

It's All About the Money

The General Election is finally upon us but judging by the media, anyone would think that campaigning only started this week. The truth of the matter is that many activists, like myself, have been campaigning since before Christmas. Across the country, evenings have been spent in meetings or at home preparing leaflets, envelopes or the letters to go in them. Weekends have been spent meeting the public in the street, or posting leaflets through doors. However, now the real work begins.

Over the next few weeks I hope to try and blog regularly to give an impression of what it's like, as an activist, campaigning for local and national elections. I hope that you'll get some opinion, some insight and a feel for our constituency. I will try not to make it too dry. ;o)

So, the beginning of 'day four'. Where are we at?

Last night a group of us headed down to Salford Arts Theatre for a local 'Question Time' style debate. On the panel was the sitting Labour MP, Hazel Blears, Conservative candidate, Matthew Sephton, Liberal Democrat front-runner, Norman Owen, local journalist, Pamela Welsh and local TUC secretary, Alex Halligan.

There is a lot of ill feeling in our constituency (Salford and Eccles) towards the Labour party and Hazel Blears. During the summer of last year, it transpired that Hazel Blears had 'flipped' her home in order to avoid paying £13,000 in tax. She was far from the worst offender but has come out of this side of last year's expenses scandal very poorly. At the time, she showed up on TV waving a cheque, which she said would pay back the tax she had avoided. The reality of the publicity stunt was that the cheque was meaningless. Had she sent it to the Inland Revenue, they would not have had a mechanism to accept it. In addition, £13,000, the amount which seemed so insignificant to Hazel, is close to what many people in Salford get paid in a year. Thus, she came across as arrogant and effectively set herself apart from her voters. The only worse response would have been to stick two fingers up at the public on live TV. She followed this up by stabbing her party leader in the back and consequently losing her cabinet position. She saw an opportunity to progress her career and it back-fired. Needless to say, she is not a popular woman.

The event itself was very worthwhile and aside from a group of hecklers, served to genuinely engage the public. I think it was clear by the end of the meeting, that Hazel had done little to change the minds of those present, which is good news for our campaign! The event also served to confirm my worst fears about Labour and TUC politics.

Frankly, I have never seen so much ass-kissing in public. Throughout the event, the TUC panelist sucked up to Hazel at every opportunity. And the same was true in the opposite direction. There is a lot of back scratching going on and it couldn't have been more clear that the two organisations are in bed with each other if their representatives had stripped off right then and there! The TUC donates a significant amount of money to the Labour party, which in turn gives them a lot of power. I'm not saying the TUC dictates Labour party policy necessarily, but I do believe the Labour party is afraid of pissing off the unions for fear their funding will dry-up. Whether intentional or not, this will ultimately influence the behaviour of the party. At this point, you might be wondering what's wrong with that? Well, put simply, it's a conflict of interest. How can a government act in the interests of the nation when they are worried about their funding?

This is not a problem that is unique to British politics. It is a topic that featured in American politics time and again. Allowing unlimited donations to political parties and candidates means that it becomes possible to 'buy an election'. No-one really likes to admit it, but people are generally more impressed by a glossy full colour leaflet than by something produced in black and white on a Risograph, regardless of content. In also means that you can put more feet on the ground, stage more events and sometimes enables you to be more visible. Big money allows parties to campaign more aggressively over a much greater area and makes it more difficult for independents and smaller parties to compete. It's unfair and, in my opinion, undemocratic.

I think Lib-Dem policy puts it best:

"Politics should be a battle of ideas, not marketing budgets. No-one should be able to buy influence or buy an election. We will take big money out of politics by capping donations and spending throughout the electoral cycle."