Friday, 16 April 2010

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)

3 comments:

Reddood said...

I think that last part is a good idea, pick a party and vote them in! Local candidates have no interest in the local area anyway, a lot dont even live in the area they are standing in.. OOOooppps, like you.

Kat Middleton said...

Hi Dan. Thanks for your comment. I like your fish. :o)

I think people generally find it difficult to identify 'the good guys' when it comes to politics. There are plenty of people that are involved in local and national politics for all the right reasons, but then there are people that are career politicians that are either in it for the money, for the personal glory or have forgotten why they got involved in the first place. I think people will (and should) make their own judgments about who is who.

In an ideal world I wouldn't be standing in Irlam; we'd have a candidate that lives in the ward and is already involved locally. The Salford Liberal Democrats always aim to offer people a local candidate but on this occasion we did not have anyone local to Irlam that was willing to stand. I wanted to stand in Irlam to ensure that people have a choice. It is shameful that Labour consider miguided Mr. Congestion Charge a suitable candidate, and the independent candidate, Mark Armstrong, sounds like a broken anti-Peel Holdings record. I fear, like Cllr Houlton, if elected he will disappear five minutes later and never be seen again!

If I'm elected, I commit to be available to the people of Irlam by phone and email. I commit to attend as many local meetings as possible and to ensure the community committee meets more frequently. I also commit to attend as many council meetings as possible and will ensure the voice of the people of Irlam is heard in the council chamber. If people agree with my politics and believe the sincerity of these intentions, they will vote for me. If not, at least they had the option.

Dave Fallows said...

mad-dan expresses the cynicism that plagues politics today. Of course local candidates have an interest in their local area - they're certainly not in it for the money! There are precious few fat cats in the foot soldiers of local councils. And then again, how local is local? In Salford, it's merely a footstep from one ward to the next. Where I am a councillor, in Highland, it is sixty five miles from one end of my ward to the other. Yet the reality is that I care for my local area, but at the same time for the whole of my local council area - over one third of the land mass of Scotland. In the wider scheme of things, that's still local - and many miles from the mandarins of Westminster. In Salford, you desperately need people who care not just for the wards they represent, but also for the City; for its place in relation to the megalithic giant of Manchester; and its presence on the map of England. I must admit, I didn't know Kate had been persuaded to stand for Irlam - but I do know that she would be a far stronger voice for ordinary folk than many, many who have gone before.