As is apparent from the traffic on this blog, people are taking time off right now. I always think that this last weekend in August, with its bank holiday in England and Wales, represents the last blast of summer, although I know that has already happened in Scotland. It is a final chance to take a break before life returns to something like normal in September. Most certainly, all aspects of my day job will be well and truly on the back burner over the long weekend.
That said, contrary to every expectation that I had, overall blog traffic in August has been very high. The month might well become the fourth largest ever in terms of readership in the blog's history.
It might also be the first where YouTube traffic might actually exceed blog traffic, with YouTube views likely to reach nearly 600,000 during the month, with most of those visitors watching over fifty per cent of each video they look at, which in practical terms means that most of those who made it through the first 15 seconds are getting pretty close to the end.
I mention this for a good reason. Interest in politics does not die during August. It is politicians' interest in the electorate that does.
That, though, raises another question, which is whether politicians are ever really interested in the electorate, except for those few weeks when they are desperately seeking out votes?
There was a time, quite long ago, when I think I believed that this indifference on the part of politicians was due to the pressure on them to get on with the job that I expected them to do, of representing us. I look back on that old self with both mild curiosity and even befuddlement. Was I right back then, or have politicians changed? My reason for asking is, I suspect, apparent: I no longer believe that politicians think it is their duty to represent us.
There is no one I have known who has not been appropriately cynical about the electoral campaigning techniques introduced into the UK by New Labour, in particular. People have always been bemused by the idea that politicians might form their opinions based on whatever a small group of people might tell them. But, of course, as we now realise, that was never the purpose of these things.
Focus groups always existed to work out ways in which a politician might best tell the electorate to think so that they might agree with the outcome that the politician sought. The mistake so many made was to presume that the politicians were seeking to learn from the electorate. That was never the case. Instead, politicians were trying to find the best way to persuade us to fall into line with them.
As a consequence, the focus group can now be properly and appropriately identified for its particularly pernicious role in the development of the Single Transferable Party from which we now all suffer, with whichever part of the party that is in power being the one that has the best currently developed methods of persuading us to deliver power to a group of politicians whose interests, aspirations and goals might have absolutely nothing in common with those things that we might desire.
The consequence of this is now apparent. After 30 years or more of politicians presenting us with the pretence that they seek to determine our views by consulting with representative samples of the population, what is now clear is that they do nothing of the sort. Instead, they just work out their marketing messages through the use of focus groups. The impact has been toxic.
The politicians have forgotten what they ever knew about representing people. Instead, completely contemptuously, they now think it is for them to work out what needs to be decided, irrespective of whatever opinion we might have, and for us to be persuaded that they are right. The result is an arrogance on their part that is plain for all to see in the likes of Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting, in particular.
For the rest of us, outside the Single Transferable neoliberal Party that seeks to maintain its control over us at all times, the loss of confidence in our politicians has been equally toxic. I am well aware that politicians have never been held in the highest regard. I equally doubt that public confidence in politicians has ever been as low as it now is.
The chasm that exists between politicians and the electorate is dangerous. Democracy can only survive on the basis of a workable relationship between politicians and the communities that elect them. If that relationship does not really exist, either because the politicians treat the electorate with contempt, or because the electorate realises that this is the case and respond in kind, then democracy is in peril.
Whether politicians realise this is open to doubt. Why would they, after all, want to understand something when comprehension of it would require that they change their behaviour when the current situation would seem to suit them very well? We might live in decidedly forlorn hope if we think that they are going to change as a result.
Will, in that case, the electorate change by rejecting what neoliberal politicians are seeking to do to them, in the process looking for alternatives beyond most of the current political spectrum, of which Reform (but not the Greens) are decidedly a part? I simply do not know, although I worry that this may not be possible because we've known of marketing for around a century now, and neoliberal politicians of the Single Transferable Party in all its hues have now captured this methodology for their own benefit for a long time.
The consequence is a dispiriting situation where the best that we might hope for is a trigger point that arises for reasons that we cannot as yet know that might precipitate change. Climate change might do that. I also suspect that there might be a limit to the degradation of public services that the public might tolerate. A disaster of some sort might be that trigger for change, but this trigger point might come from something else altogether. But, until it happens, it seems we must to live in the current fraught situation that has been created by politicians who have no interest in listening to or representing those whose votes they seek.
What I am sure of is that this is not sustainable in the long term.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
What we have seen over the last 40 years is the promotion of ‘supermarket’ politics.
Previously, even Right-wing politicians, such as Roy Jenkins, saw politics as a progressive (in all respects) process. Legislation had room for the notion of shifting (rather than just mirroring) existing societal attitudes. Hence legal changes on capital punishment, race discrimination, gay rights, (even seat belt use) all preceded changes in attitudes. Not popular when first introduced but all generating ‘progressive’ shifts in society.
Now we have the ‘supermarket’ approach. If people like sugar (even though its highly addictive) then laden the shelves with food products that have it as their first and main ingredient. ‘Give the customers what they want + to hell with whether its bad for their health’. This approach (using focus groups, which are only a means to an end, not the end itself) now pervades politics. If they say they want to ‘punish’ asylum seekers then give it to them.
This is now the very essence of the violence of a capitalist system because its driven by profit and that means consumerism (with its marketing methods) dominating ‘supermarket’ politics.
Even ‘change’ comes to mean changing the products on the shelf but only in terms of the brand name on the tin. The ingredients remain the same or even worse. We know what they mean when we see the words ‘new improved’ on a product. In Orwellian terms ‘new’ means the same ‘old’ but with a higher price (financial and otherwise). As with shopping, politics is on a less and less hopeful path and its consequences even more dangerous to societal health.
Thanks
Everything to agree with, and from the public sector side of things I would call what you describe as ‘perception management’ – a trick that we used pull on the Audit Commission under their audit regimes, or even just ‘public relations’ (with the audit commission, if their perception of us was bad, we’d then launch into a critique of perception itself – endless fun that was).
As you say, this approach in modern politics solves nothing as it is superficial and most of all conservative as it conserves things as they are, leading to ossification , making the wrong thing righter etc.
However, it would be wrong to exclusively apply critiques of organisations to this malaise such as ‘path dependency’ in politics (the way we have always done things around here).
Looking at change management and the resistance factors to be found there, one thing that is constantly left out is a simple one all too prevalent in our politics: Corruption.
With decision making in cabinets, sofas, ‘senior management team meetings’, visits to exclusively owned islands – a lot of which is not open to scrutiny – too much ‘informality’ – that is where things start to go wrong. And that my friends is where the money starts to creep in too, and that is the source of too much of the failure of modern politics.
Great post.
Thanks
Milliband seems to have discovered the energy price cap is a problem. His problem is that he and the Government keep talking about technology as the answer (GB energy, renewable development etc.,), but ignores the phoney domestic energy market; which remains an expensive and egregious disaster. Energy is just like water or railways; effectively, the undeniable producer monopoly, that you cannot pretend provides a competitive private market. It is a fraudulent political proposition.
The government is full of humbug.
I would be really interested to here Mr Parr commenting on the use of gas as the marginal price setter of energy prices. Gas use has fallen sharply; I think it is at about two-thirds the level in 2023, that it was in 2018. It will be lower now. In terms of actual reliance i understand it is down to 2% at some times; gas is given a unique status, because it is the go-to standby sources when other sources (mainly much cheaper renewables) are in low supply; but that means it determines the prices consumers paid, no matter how cheap the energy the consumer actually pays. there must be better ways to set these prices. this is idiotic; surely?
What am I missing, Mr Parr – as our resident energy expert?
A significant milestone on this downward spiral was reached when Blair was reelected despite having been caught in a massive and egregious lie about WMDs. The discovery that even such a lie doesn’t prevent re-election has been seen by politicians as a green light to manipulate the truth in far more extreme ways than ever before.
As much as I don’t want to be a Blair supporter, i have to say it is only a lie if one knows that what is being said is false.
Leaders are given information which often contradicts and is far from complete. They have to make decisions on that basis.
I read Robert Drayton’s ‘To start a War’ quite thoroughly . He interviewed most of the people involved just below the top level. He used documents de-classified later. Bush never assembled all the main decisions makers, State Dept, Military, CIA etc together but saw people individually. Obama and Clinton did’t do that. If Gore had been elected and taken office, he would have like the other Democrats and I would judge the real picture would have become apparent. Bush was encouraged to take military action by Cheney and Rumsfeld. It would seem those two were set on a war and Rumsfeld’s lack of a plan of occupation was a fatal mistake.
Bush had a simplistic view of the world and the evidence suggests he was manipulated. He had no doubt he made the right decision and has to take responsibility. I am sure Blair thought Bush with all his intelligence services must be right and decided he had to follow. And, probably, it would not be good to alienate the ‘chief ally.’ And, yes, he could have taken a chance and not joined the invasion like France and Germany.
But a million of us marched against the war in London, and he ignored us all….. Did it not ever cross his mind that he might have been wrong?
@ Ann Owen
Indeed, but WMD is not just nuclear weapons, but chemical and germ warfare, Saddam had used nerve gas against the Kurds and Iranians.
No one could be sure and there would be consequences if he and the million marchers were wrong. We can agree he got it wrong and your march was right. But he only lied if he knew the story he told was incorrect. I might seem pernickety but I think truth and accuracy is important.
Ian Stevenson said: “As much as I don’t want to be a Blair supporter, i have to say it is only a lie if one knows that what is being said is false.”; and “I am sure Blair thought Bush with all his intelligence services must be right and decided he had to follow. And, probably, it would not be good to alienate the ‘chief ally.’”
Even if you are correct (and I think you are being far too charitable), the fact is Tony Blair has still not apologised for his part in getting us into the Iraq war. In my view, he seems to be lacking some vital part of his soul.
Just a slight counter to this from the normally depressing Umair Haque, coupled with a hope from me that for once the cold we catch from America is a good one….
https://www.theissue.io/untitled-51/
In a nutshell Single Transferable Party politicians behave egocentrically not democratically.
One thing that is noticeable is the way the voters are not using their vote at elections as frequentlyas they used to in the past. They are choosing to disengage from the whole political process. This is in itself worrying. I suggest that this actually opens the door to extremism; never a good idea.
I have been wondering for some time why I bother to vote, living in an area where the tory always gets a solid majority; does my vote actually matter? So I suppose that this is the first stage of withdrawal. I used to write to my MP. I always got replies, but never any real satisfaction. Those letters didn’t seem to change anything, except, perhaps, on one occasion about 13 years ago.
Many MPs do take up an individual’s problem and fight for them, I accept. But I see that as a totally separate issue from policy making and its delivery.
From my perspective, the MPs are the front line and they seem now bound up in party politics to a much greater extent. For example, at frequent intervals, the tories seemed to form small Whatsapp groups to exert pressure on their leaders. At times they could hardly be called one party the views of these groups were so obviously incompatible with each other. I am expecting the labour party to do something similar.
It’s all a sign that they are loosing the service ethic and have lost sight of the need to choose and implement policies in a competent way that benefits the whole electorate and their families. Also, both parties seem unable to assist the least well-off in society – a disastrous state of affairs. The numbers struggling financially are growing. Whose going to make a point of engaging when their famished and cold?
Nicky Campbell, BBC Radio 5’s programme is covering energy; and the angry proposition is being aired that Labour has decided pensioners vote Conservative, and therefore may be ignored; presumably because they will judge Labour’s electoral future depends on a different demographic.
This may well be wrong, but it is easy to see why Labour policy could easily be thought to demonstrate that proposition.
The underlying problem is that nobody believes that Government is there to serve everybody. That will tend to happen if there is only a Single Transferable Party to vote for (that fewer and fewer electors turn out to vote for in general elections, and nothing is done to redress it).
There is a second issue that was raised, and it is about universal versus means tested benefits. This debate is stupid. Means testing is typically more expensive to implement that it produces, and it is inefficient. A significant number of people do not claim benefits they are entitled to under means testing. The way to fix the problem is cheap, and effective. Pay the universal benefit, and claim it back through income tax, above a determined threshold of income. Simple.
It’s also a cunning vehicle for political opportunism. Take the financial misery Reeves is touting for ordinary folk, whose votes were a good proportion of Starmer’s win for govt.
That type of viewpoint may have been what some directed focus group had accepted for labour. Starmer will be held liable for the tumultuous backlash over austerity, cutting winter fuel payments, social rent increases above CPI and any other Tory nasties in her little red briefcase.
So when Starmer is blamed and possibly sent packing by labour, Reeves will probably be the poster person for the directed neoliberal focus groups as his replacement. Bingo, a labour Maggie Thatcher stooge, all is well, Tory’s gone and Reform in the wings if that does not work for wealthy elites using any political or marketing to retain excessive wealth, power and privilege.
It is extremely dispiriting to have a new Labtory government utterly fixated with the myth of “we can’t afford it”.
This mantra is the fig leaf to justify doing nothing positive for the majority. But as already seen the financial services sector and favoured others will be allowed to keep their subsidies.
Five more years of this and the UK will be more unhealthy, less educated, poorer, and possibly facing regular riots.
Why? With hope gone, you have nothing to lose.
Even Republicans members of Congress are telling Trump that they will not vote down Biden’s Anti Inflation spending because their constituents are doing well out of it.
Can I see any way out of this for the UK? To be honest no, unless the “can’t afford it ” myth is smashed.
But too many vested interests are making too much money to even contemplate change.
How to stop UK democracy being destroyed by the political elites is the question.
“That said, contrary to every expectation that I had, overall blog traffic in August has been very high.”
Very much due to Kamala Harris is my conjecture! LOL!
Yanks will always try and take all the credit! LOL!
Well, at least I meant to say – to hear, here! Roughly.
bbc 2024 election farce
By contrast, Labour won 34% of total votes cast, but about 64% of the 650 seats. General election results 2024. Share of the UK vote and share …
This is when democracy died in this country. The results under the tories in the presvious election were not that bad.the oppostion can go on holiday for the next 5 years.
labour now reneaging on promises just as the tories did
Thatcher knew all about hearts and minds being more important than policies!
3 May 1981: Thatcher interview for The Times.
“[…] It isn’t that I set out on economic policies; it’s that I set out really to change the approach, and changing the economics is the means of changing that approach. If you change the approach you really are after the heart and soul of the nation. Economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul.”
Plus ça change.
After the 2015 election there were two focus groups held in Nuneaton. The findings were the basis of the report presented by Labour’s think-tank Labour Together Limited and General Secretary David Evans to the National Executive Committee. I find pages 7-8 telling.
https://gqrr.app.box.com/s/2pdvj1p1gbiipen1e7iuugxv21en3gbk
How did Starmer become Leader? There’s your answer. It tells us just how much he is a placeman for the funders of Labour Together Limited – mostly the ever-present director Sir Trevor Chinn.
opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/uks-pro-israel-lobby-in-context
You think that the politicians seek to mould the opinions of the electorate? Never forget to look at who is pulling their strings.
It’s clear that the state of politics and of government in this country is depressingly poor, but attributing the decline entirely to politicians individually or collectively merely contributes to and normalises public disdain.
Contrary to your assertion, many, perhaps most, politicians are motivated by a genuine desire to do good. But the system they are obliged to operate within mitigates strongly against it. The imperative of getting elected means they must devote a great deal of time and effort towards fundraising and other activities which are to the detriment of spending time listening to ordinary people and which often has the unfortunate effect of making them beholden to their donors .
One can imagine a different system that would allow the administration to be formed from those best capable of governing, rather than those most successful at getting elected. But I have no idea how we get from here to there.
I acknowledge decent people go into politics.
But only the self interested ones seem to survive now.
I do not think this was always the case.
“One can imagine a different system that would allow the administration to be formed from those best capable of governing, rather than those most successful at getting elected.”
This is dangerous in a real world. This is EXACTLY what Oswald Moseley proposed when he was a member of the Labour Party during the 1920s – early 1930s. This idea can lead to a Fascist state.
The theory is good but I do not think the application of said theory would work as intended.
But the US Cabinet is created in that way.
True!
However, members of the US Cabinet are “appointed” by the elected POTUS and must be “confirmed” by the elected members of US Senate.
Agreed
I’m absolutely opposed to fascism and my utopian democracy would be a million miles away from it. I’m thinking more along the lines of an electoral system that rewards collaboration, consensus-building, and close attention to the lived experience of the general population, as opposed to the current adversarial, winner-takes-all character that is the inevitable consequence of the primitive, one-dimensional, so-called “first past the post” system we continue to suffer from. We also need to end the toxic influence of wealthy donors and media moguls, and seek to better educate and engage all citizens with politics so they can appreciate their own role in securing a decent life for everyone, which is something that an advanced part-industrial economy such as ours damn well ought to be able to deliver.
“We also need to end the toxic influence of wealthy donors and media moguls”
In the USA, the best way to get rid of the toxic influence of wealthy donors is “Federally Funded Elections”.
Media Moguls are less of a problem in the USA as the Yank “National Press” is very different from the British “National Press” and Social Media has supplanted traditional main stream print and television journalism.