As I have already noted here, I was out birdwatching yesterday. These occasions are rarely, however, wholly free of debate about the politics of the moment because they are usually shared with my wife, who is a much more active partner in the activities underpinning this blog than public perception usually suggests.
Yesterday we were discussing the difference between politics and political parties.
Politics is about the choices we make when deciding how we live.
Political parties are about securing power.
Too often the two overlap only a little these days.
And, much too often, given the crass electoral system that we have in the UK, those aligned to political parties now reduce the decisions that they are willing to present to the electorate as binary choices. The trouble is, that is almost always a misrepresentation of reality. Most of life does not involve binary choices. It involves nuance, and complexity, as well as an honest acceptance of uncertainty.
Politics, it seems, is able to embrace these realities of life.
Political parties rarely seem able to do so.
No wonder the political choices that most parties present us with are so unappealing.
And no wonder politics has moved towards hardcore neoliberal thinking, unrelated to anything even vaguely approximating to the real world, as that philosophy is.
I happily do politics, as do many people.
Party politics is an altogether different place for me, and most of us. That place is one where I would rather not go right now.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I agree with much of what is said, but.
Whilst EU countries in most cases still have functioning social systems (including health care) and varying degrees of PR, nevertheless, they have still been captured (like the UK) by the neolibtards who decades ago recognised the primacy of money/finance. The priesthoods are the same be they in Whitehall or Frankfurt. The politicos are, for the most part, either very poorly informed, willing to go with the flow or unquestioning cretins. Parties? when it comes to money – there is no difference (Germany – CDU vs Scholtz & co – no diff, Spain – Francoists vs Socialists – no diff etc etc, UK Tory1 vs Tory2 etc).
UK, EU it makes no difference. Same with the meeja. Euractiv France published an article today which was incoherent, once one deploys even a modicum of knowledge. The journo used stock sentences. The juron is an unthinking moron.
Thus is politics, political parties and the 3rd estate, locked into a neolibtard organised system, operated by & for a priesthood. I don’t have any solutions, but one thing for sure, the leolibtard regieme will come to an end due to the climate disaster. This is a certainty.
Don’t forget the supposedly ‘non-political’ institutions such as the BoE , European Central Bank, the Fed, etc etc who couldn’t be more neoliberal in outlook if they tried (and they won’t try).
Neoliberalism has been ensconced long enough that pretty much nobody in these institutions would be in their roles if they didn’t toe the line.
It leaves us with such idiocy today as Huw Pill once again assuring us that the floggings must continue until morale improves.
I do wish a journalist would ask him just why it is that it is so vital we knacker what is left of the economy so we can hit the arbitrary 2% inflation target. Ask him to show his workings at the same time.
I suspect that any journalist who actually asked this question would find themselves eased into a role where he/she was less likely to have the opportunity to ask Important People to explain themselves properly.
A thought-provoking distinction you and your wife are making between politics and political parties. Would that it were more widely utilised, especially among politicians. However, most of our current politicians seem to be on the dim side, on both sides of the aisle, for whatever reason. I wonder whether they would understand the distinction you two are making.
Power, as someone, most likely an American, said, isn’t the most important thing, it is the _only_ thing.
We have to stop looking at things as they are presented to us, & react to that, as is the intent of the presenters; we have look at them as if in the worst possible case, look at them as if the fascists have already taken over, by way of suppressing any parliamentary opposition, the two major parties having ideologically combined many decades ago. Labour was not always the insipid Neoliberal mess that it is today.
Then with that lens, look at the current situation & see what comes out of that.
I did that exercise in Australia & the results are horrifying.
But hey, that could be just me
Peter Relph
A simple but far-reaching, insightful piece.
Would that our so called “political correspondents” in the media were more honest and called themselves “political party correspondents” because that’s all we get from them – gossip about the latest jockeying for position or the latest scandal in this or that party. We deserve better, and should continue to demand it: then we might get a more informed, truly political discussion.
Such a good point
It is becoming more & more obvious that the party political process is so far in the pocket of media & other oligarchs that it has very little to do with real life. Even the local Green Party seems to me to be well-meaning but mostly away with the fairies. Many of the larger voluntary organisations have become industrialised to the point of irrelevance, taken over by former management consultants & making the same neo-liberal assumptions as the political machines. Local government is largely bankrupt, having tried to use crackpot investments to make up for lost government funding.
The UK isn’t being so much governed as gouged.
As Cory Doctorow is fond of saying, something which cannot continue will, in the end, stop.
However, the stopping process may be very uncomfortable for everyone concerned – not least those reliant on the political machine for their daily bread.
The simple way of saying what you’ve accurately depicted is that we’ve allowed greed to dominate UK society.
If you want to be a greedy person how can you be open about your greed otherwise you’d face “reverse dominance” and this is why the majority of the mainstream media in the UK is under the control of greedy people. They work hard at discouraging an open debate about what policies would best meet the needs of the many. Not only do they do this they also work hard at infiltrating and subverting political parties who try to challenge greed.
https://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/readings/boehm.pdf
Money and its investment in assets obviously subverts reverse dominance!
Politics is about conflict resolution when different entities make different choices about positions they take on policies.
A decent electoral system fosters cooperative problem solving and seeking common ground instead of mustering support for respective positions.
Great article sir, thank you for your great minds.
My understanding is that power lies with the people and politics and political parties have the task of harnessing this power and putting it to use for the betterment of humanity. The issues of yesterday are no longer the issues of today. We must work together to address issues that affect us all and to do that we must ask the electorate what they want, we must collate and document peoples responses accurately before making proposals and deliberation for consensus.
We must also provide all the necessary facts and information to help the electorate make decisions inspite of our opinions.
This should provide a high standard of governance for now and the future.
The challenge is how minority responses are incorporated into the voting process as your article suggest, this is food for thought which needs to addressed by the electorate.
Politics and political parties are simply there to serve the people who ultimately have the power.
Thank you for your hard work.
wote.uk
Are you suggesting elections are more like referendums? I am not sure I follow, although you raise interesting points.
Thank you sir for your kind comments, the point is that we are governed by the electorate and the party sets out to make enquiries of the electorate with the purpose of finding out what the electorate want. There will always be a disparity but by finding a consensus within the disparities that arise the party will seek to implement the will of the electorate within the resources available.
It is vital that education and information required to make a decision will be made available to the electorate.
For example, the electorate have the power to make decisions on climate change, our task as a political party will be to enquire from the electorate about their position having provided sufficient education on the climate situation.The party will then make propositions to the electorate based on the enquiry which the electorate will decide on. Within this proposition will be a road map of how the will of the electorate will be implemented.
There are so many social issues to discuss, but for us to serve the electorate effectively, the idea is that we are willing to put aside our opinions for deliberation and ensure that we implement the will of the electorate within the resources available.
More grease to your elbows.
So are you suggesting a form of People’s Parliament?
I am unsure how this consultation is to take place
Thank you sir for your kind comments and request.
Indeed parliament is there to represent the interest of the electorate and to ensure that the will of the electorate is implemented by the government. This is why our members of parliament must solemnly agree to put aside their own opinions for deliberation and ensure the implementation of the will of the electorate, thus keeping the government accountable.
The consultation process can be expensive, but we will deploy the media and new technologies to effectively reach the masses for their opinions. By exhausting all possible options we are likely to collect quality responses from the electorate, which we will then analyse and put into recommendations to achieve a consensus.
For example we are consulting potential MPs who are ready to serve the electorate by making enquiries about what the electorate want, and who are willing to make propositions from the response of the electorate and further design implementation plans within budget or resources available. We are currently using media available to us including face to face campaigns at high footfall locations and events. We are also providing the public with information about being MPs, so that they are able to make balanced decisions about the way forward.
In government, we also intend to use the civil service to enquire further about what the electorate want, using techniques that are widely used by the corporate sector in design and marketing.
Thank you for your undivided attention.
Thank you, but this does not accord with any plausible version of U.K. politics, in my opinion.
I simply do not think that politicians should be mandated in the way you describe.
I can imagine a society with plenty of free time so that every morning citizens voted on various proposals maybe having watched MPs debate.
However, our system is to elect MPs to take decisions , not mandated. I think it’s quite a good system.
The Labour Party, of which I am a member, has fallen into a dire situation where conference motions are passed, such as for proportional representation, but the leader can ignore this. They can expel members on flimsy grounds and impose candidates that local constituencies do not want. It’s a very slow process to change our rules but it is possible.
Re economics I think it’s the total absence of any education at school or via tv that accounts for the almost complete ignoring of modern monetary theory or any alternative view to the Thatcher myth that public finance is to be regarded like an individual budgeting.
We need to press tv to run programs about economics, about other systems in other countries- done in a measured way not a few second outbursts.
Thank you madam for the lovely insight. The idea that heavy decisions fall on one person is quite alarming, hence we find ministers often abstaining from decision making. That’s because of a litany of past events which I need not mention.
Moreover when issues arise, there could be voices and people with viable solutions who feel stifled or unable to come forward with their ideas.
With the proliferation of new technology, the electorate can exercise its power.
At least, lets try to make time and save our planet for future generations.
Thank you for your hard work
Thank you very much sir for your observation and opinion. Politics starts from the home, we must educate our children well then enquire from the children what they want for now and the future. We then make proposals to the children showing how we are going to implement their choices and vice versa. Eventually the children should be able to run their own homes while we go on retirement.
Have a peaceful day.