Democracy requires much more than voting every few years. It requires people to have the time, security and mental capacity to understand political choices, consider competing arguments and participate meaningfully in society. In this video, I argue that too many people are losing that capacity.
Work, caring responsibilities, insecure housing and financial pressures consume enormous amounts of people's time and attention. Meanwhile, constant media distraction increasingly reduces complicated political questions to slogans, reactions and instant opinions.
This is not simply a problem of individual political interest. It is a political economy problem. How we organise work, distribute income, provide housing and fund public services directly affects people's ability to participate in democracy.
Time and attention are also unequal. Some people have considerable freedom to engage with politics, while others have little capacity left after work, caring responsibilities and dealing with economic insecurity. Economic inequality can therefore create political inequality.
Democratic rights only work when people have the capacity to use them. The right to vote matters, but meaningful democracy also requires people to understand their choices, develop informed opinions and have enough security to think beyond immediate survival.
Disagreement is essential to democracy. The problem is not that people disagree, but that too many people are being denied a meaningful opportunity to participate in that disagreement.
If we want to save democracy, we need secure incomes, housing, reliable public services, reasonable working conditions and enough time away from work to participate in society. And with AI increasingly shaping how we receive information, the question is whether technology will expand that democratic capacity or diminish it further.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Of the many crises that I think we are facing in this world, the fact that our democracy is dying is one that worries me enormously.
People are lacking the capacity to take part in our democracy, and for me that matters because democracy requires much more than voting every few years. It requires time for people to think about the issues that shape their lives. It requires attention to understand competing arguments and choices. But work, insecurity and what I now think to be deliberate, constant distraction are taking that capacity away. That threatens the foundation of the society in which we live, and we need those foundations at present because we have a crisis coming our way, and the future has to be built on democracy.
So let me go into this in a little more detail.
Democracy is competing for our attention, and I think it is losing. Work and family pressures consume much of most people's available capacity.
Financial and housing insecurity add constant demands. Many people now need two jobs to survive. Meanwhile, media, of various sorts, compete relentlessly for whatever attention remains. And complex questions are reduced to slogans, reactions and instant opinions, squeezing out serious political engagement.
And I stress that this is a political economy problem and not just a failure of individual interest. How we organise work determines how much time people have. Income, housing and public services determine how secure they feel. Caring responsibilities consume time that economics frequently ignores. These economic arrangements shape who has the time, security and capacity to participate in democracy. Maybe this has always been true to a degree. I don't think I can dispute that, but we seem to be going backwards, and that is my concern at this moment.
As we know, time and attention are unequally distributed, just as our income and wealth. Some people have considerable freedom over how they use their time. Others have almost none after working and caring responsibilities. Economic insecurity also consumes mental capacity. Some don't face it. Too many do. They have little chance to express their interest in democracy.
Those inequalities determine who has the greatest opportunity to engage in politics. Political inequality can therefore follow directly from economic inequality.
Democratic rights need democratic capacity if they are to mean anything. That is vital.
The right to vote matters, but meaningful democracy requires the ability to understand the choices being offered.
Freedom of speech matters, but so too does having the time and opportunity to develop an informed opinion.
Participation requires enough security to look beyond immediate survival.
Formal democracy can therefore survive even while meaningful democracy declines. That is the risk that we are facing.
And disagreement is not the issue here. Disagreement is not a problem because democracy depends upon it. I do not want a society where everyone agrees with me. That would be horrendous. Who would I have left to argue with? I live by arguing. I need that disagreement. We all do because different experiences will inevitably produce different political views, and arguments can expose weaknesses and help us to develop better ideas.
The real question is whether everyone has the opportunity to take part in those arguments. Right now, I think far too many people are being denied the opportunity. And this is not a choice; it is something they simply cannot do, and that is the difference that I'm highlighting. Excluding people because of their circumstances is the issue that I'm worried about.
Democracy needs people who can think rather than simply react. People need time in that case to understand arguments, to distinguish evidence from assertion and to encounter ideas that challenge their assumptions.
Once there were institutions that helped create these conditions: evening classes, debating societies, the Workers' Educational Association, which appears to have largely disappeared, at least around where I am, and very much more. We have lost much of that infrastructure whilst insecurity, exhaustion, and constant distraction have increased.
An insecure and distracted society risks becoming a less democratic society. If we want democracy to thrive, we need to give people back their capacity to participate. That means providing them with sufficient income, secure housing, reliable public services, reasonable working conditions, and time away from work. It means giving people the security to look beyond today's pressures and to imagine how society may be different in the future.
I want more informed disagreement, and not enforced agreement. Saving democracy means giving people the capacity to use it.
And my question is: will AI give us that chance or deny it? My fear is that denial is most likely. It might swamp us with information, but deny us the opportunity to choose. We need to have that opportunity to choose. It's on that foundation that we can build a better future.
That's what I think. What do you think? There is, of course, a poll down below. Let us have your comments. We do appreciate them. We do analyse and read them. Please do like and share this video if you do those things. And please do subscribe to the channel and hit the bell button. And if you like what we do on this channel and you'd like to support us, please do buy us a coffee. There's a button to help you do so just down below.
Poll
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!
[…] talk in this morning's video about the threats to democracy and the fact that voting is not the only indication that democracy […]
it’s like what you said the other week about third spaces, make people work rediculous 9-5, with all life stacked around that and you have no a) time in your working week to be you or b) no place left for discussion. I’m feeling this keenly this week, I’m not a family person, I’m not a career driven person, I’m being failed by society because I cannot be a me, and a me is a ideas and debating type, the middle ground thinker. Society don’t like thinkers, dreamers or ideas persons and I can really feel the squeeze and the demands by society for a star shape peg to go into an ever increasing tighter square peg. With the failing of democracy, I propose a failing of individuality at the same time, we are a one,not of many parts yet we are not communist (yet), so what are we becoming?
“Society doesn’t like thinkers, dreamers or idea people”
Agreed
They are threats.
Richard
People dont argue with you they contradict you (With apologies to Monty Python)
Looking at the figures in the 1950’s about 5% of the population were members of either the Conservative or Labour Parties. There was also membership of Unions, Churches, Clubs etc – the Staff Sports and Social Club, Working Mens clubs, that sort of thing.
In one of his books about the GWR, Adrian Vaughan looked at the massive numbers of staff ‘activities’ for example ‘Amateur Dramatics’ bands Mutual Improvement classes etc and the description of a local stationmaster as a ‘Good Club Man’ – referring to the staff club.
All of these were organisations that could support and develop individuals to move on to different things – Vaughan describes a Mutual Improvement Class volunteer getting a post as a lecturer at Ruskin College.
So what happened? I suspect that Radio and later TV may well have had a lot to do with it, the break up of large monolithic employers who provided facilities for staff – sports grounds, club houses etc Private car ownership & the advent of package holidays – the days when Wills No 3 Factory in Bristol chartered ‘Bristols Own’ Britannia (fast paddle steamer) for a very long day trip to Ilfracombe which was the annual holiday for most staff are long gone.
So how do we get ‘mass political parties’ in the 21st Century? In particular set up in a way that can support ‘ordinary people’ in a way that they can enter Parliament? Especially if we move towards PR which may mean much larger constituencies – been there done that and its difficult enough in an existing urban one let alone a rural one.
I dont know…………..
It will not happen whilst there is a neoliberal worldview
Democracy is also being destroyed by the massive amount of disinformation, and downright lies about so many political and economic issues, right across social and mainstream media. How can voters make an informed choice under a barrage of untruths about climate change, migration, how public spending works, etc etc?
I would vote for all four of your questions. I cannot help thinking that the lack of real democracy is by design not circumstance.
Yes!
In addition, a lack of informed understanding severely limits or delays political choices – because it shifts the Overton window.
There’s a lot of ignorance, prejudice, misconception out there. Is it a result of a lack of ability to engage – or more sinister?
Ignorance was highlighted over the weekend when a guest speaker pulled out of a November meeting. As a stop gap, I floated the idea that we could show the Peoples Emergency Briefing. (I was astonished that so many of the consequences of Climate Change seemed news to folk at a screening I was at last week).
My suggestion was criticised by someone – since “Climate Change is a scam intended to frighten folk make money for so-called experts. Them [sic] don’t know about CO2 concentrations”.
But historically, folk had very long working hours and didn’t have labour saving devices like heating systems, washing machines, microwaves etc. But there were community meetings to discuss ideas, including working conditions, science and literature and even poetry.
I don’t know if it is a lack of time, or the targeting of folk with individualised click-bait, and, yes, a need to escape / get light relief. Discussing things in public is very different to feeding individuals “niche” content only discussed with like-minded others.
But the combination is possibly a threat to more than democracy.
British democracy is dying but in truth it has never actually been a genuine democracy. Its elections give democratic legitimacy to political institutions that have historically protected the influence of wealth and privilege.
Aristotle distinguished democracy from oligarchy by who ultimately held power, not simply by whether elections occurred. British politics was once openly shaped by property ownership, inherited status and financial standing. Removing those formal barriers did not necessarily remove the underlying influence of wealth.
Today, established political parties determine who can realistically reach government. Advancement can depend on funding, powerful networks, institutional support and relationships with wealthy interests. Those interests need not control voters if they can influence which candidates become viable.
By election day, the public is therefore choosing between options already filtered through institutions responsive to concentrated wealth. Expanding the franchise was a vital achievement, but it did not establish that control over political power had passed to ordinary people.
Britain has arguably adapted oligarchic structures to democratic participation rather than replaced them.
We have democratised the choice between rulers without necessarily democratising who gets to become one.
Might it be that, like most countries in the “West”, the U. K is not a democracy but is, in reality, a polyarchy in which different groups compete for power and the advantages it brings to them?
AI Overview states that the Elite and the Established Middle Class have the most power in the U K, whereas the Precariat, the poorest 15% of the population hold the least institutional or political power. Such demonstrates that we do not have a valid democracy but have a subverted polyarchy, disguised by the emphasis on procedural democracy/elections=democracy.
Procedural/hollow democracy was and is a prime purpose of Neoliberalism and may have been facilitated by:
1) Control of the main stream media by the elite
2) Lack of public duty in the news and its derivatives by the B B C
3) The precariate being so busy that they do not even have the time and energy to potty train their children
4) The reduction of public meeting places effected through Austerity/Neoliberalism
5) The lack of an effective Parliamentary opposition to Austerity/Neoliberalism
6) The lack of education about the realities of democracy/valid polyarchy in the National Curriculum
7) The subversion of the Labour Party and the L. D. s into Neoliberal parties
8) Etc., Etc.
”Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.” (James Baldwin)
Thanks to you and your team for helping us to face a seriously harmful problem.
I am with Baldwin
In the 1820’s to 1840’s, Mechanics Magazine was published weekly, with advanced discussion of new inventions and their workings. The account of the Rainhill Trial of locomotives is still among the best. There were Mechanics Institutes and reading rooms in most Northern towns. It would be hard to argue that the readers of these had more time than we have now, or were less financially stressed, but they did have a hunger for education and self-betterment. We now live in a culture which is anti-intellectual, despises experts, and seems to think all opinions have equal merit. I’m sure there are other factors, but this seems likely to be one of them. And, maybe, if we don’t care enough about democracy to make it work, we don’t deserve it?
I hope we do still deserve it.
All the alternatives are worse, despite its weaknesses.
You know me – I’ve been everywhere – from not believing in democracy anymore, to being brutally honest about its weaknesses (which I locate in liberalism’s too sunny view of human nature itself) , to wanting a renewed and stronger authentic democracy. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, the ghost of Carl Schmitt looks down on us, laughing, taunting us. I’d like to put that to a stop.
The assassinated Russian MP Galina Starovoitova said in BBC’s ‘Trauma Zone’ ‘Democracy is a very dangerous way of ruling’.
Democracy is not dead yet, but it is in the emergency room, and there are factions in that room who want to see it dead. It’s still alive because you have been able to ask the question at all, and we were still able to meet in Ely recently. When that stops Richard, then maybe democracy is over.
But no doubt about it, democracy in this country is very gravely ill indeed.
From diagnosis to a road to recovery:
Stop private party political funding now and nationalize it (including funding from the unions).
Enhance OFCOM and make all political messaging subject to fact checking and balancing requirements and give them power to take it down and fine those responsible.
Outlaw divisive, anti-social messaging in newspapers/online – make it compulsory to present multiple arguments on subject matters. Newspapers are the machinery of FPTP.
Proportional representation based on political interdependence as a leveller of social issues so that we think in terms of win/win not win/lose.
We need more openness about how policy is arrived at. We need to know who is lobbying for what.
We need a broader spectrum of people in politics whose job is to represent their cohort and co-operate under PR.
Much to agree with
You know me – I’ve been everywhere – from not believing in democracy anymore, to being brutally honest about its weaknesses (which I locate in liberalism’s too sunny view of human nature itself) , to wanting a renewed and stronger authentic democracy. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, the ghost of Carl Schmitt looks down on us, laughing, taunting us. I’d like to put that to a stop.
The assassinated Russian MP Galina Starovoitova said in BBC’s ‘Trauma Zone’ ‘Democracy is a very dangerous way of ruling’.
Democracy is not dead yet, but it is in the emergency room, and there are factions in that room who want to see it dead. It’s still alive because you have been able to ask the question at all, and we were still able to meet in Ely recently. When that stops Richard, then maybe democracy is over.
But no doubt about it, democracy in this country is very gravely ill indeed.
From diagnosis to a road to recovery:
Stop private party political funding now and nationalize it (including funding from the unions).
Enhance OFCOM and make all political messaging subject to fact checking and balancing requirements and give them power to take it down and fine those responsible.
Outlaw divisive, anti-social messaging in newspapers/online – make it compulsory to present multiple arguments on subject matters. Newspapers are the machinery of FPTP.
Proportional representation based on political interdependence as a leveller of social issues so that we think in terms of win/win not win/lose.
We need more openness about how policy is arrived at. We need to know who is lobbying for what.
We need a broader spectrum of people in politics whose job is to represent their cohort and co-operate under PR.
Much to agree with
Lack of knowledge of what is at stake.
During a parliamentary committee about wildfires last week, there was appropriate talk of the fire services needing aircraft to extinguish flames. Perhaps I missed it but, I heard no mention of restricting water usage. ‘Officials have declared 71.3% of England is now in drought, … driest July since records began in 1836.’ (BBC 10 August 2026). ‘England and Wales received only 9-10% of their normal rainfall in July. … This is … what climate scientists have long predicted.’
Surely the government has powers to forbid excessive usage; to publicise the need for water economy; to urge us all to turn off taps, repair leaks, take shorter showers and (Is this unthinkable?) use only bucket of water to wash a car – or let it stay dirty for a while. There used to be tariffs that charged low rates for essential use and progressively more for more extravagant use.
‘Crucially, concern is shifting from cost alone to the security of food supply. Inflation hits the poorest people hardest … Drought also hits wildlife. River and lake ecosystems are stressed by heat and low levels of water, while wildfires damage habitats. Pollinating insects, fish and reptiles, bird and mammals all suffer. Farm finances are now under the spotlight.’
In contrast to the virtual silence on these matters, Strictly Come Dancing’ cannot be missed.
Privatisation consequences
“Carney warns Burnham over Thames Water nationalisation. Canada calls for compensation for its investment in utility if Prime Minister goes down route of state control” (Telegraph 11 October 2026)
Much to agree with
In 1945 half a crown (12½p) could buy you 2 pints of beer.
It could also buy you one of the following pocket-sized books:
* “Can the Tories Win the Peace? and how they lost the last one”
* “Why Not Trust the Tories?” by Aneurin Bevan MP
* “Guilty Men” by Frank Owen, Michael Foot, Peter Howard
* “When the Men Come Home” by Emanuel Shinwell MP
* “Why You Should be a Socialist” by Wing-Commander John Strachey
* “Vote Labour! Why?” by Licinius
There were more, but I don’t own those – yet.
Can you also imagine a government publishing an abbreviated version of “The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists” and making it available to servicemen through the Military Education program?
Once you had tried out your skills in the pub or over your “snap” you could go home and talk with your wife and your children, and you wouldn’t be afraid to speak up in Union meetings.
Now only 12% of workers are in a Union. Many pubs are no longer places to talk but places to watch the footie. Lunch is now a literal moving feast, or a sandwich at your desk.
We’ve lost the desire to talk about the things that matter, and the MPs we have are not venturing into print – they are leaving no lasting legacy, just Facebook posts that can be deleted along with their majority.
Kindle publishing allows them to produce personal manifestos. Some publishing companies can put out e-books for ten bob (£0.49). It shouldn’t be beyond their wit to arrange something for less than the price of a couple of pints that demands to be read.
With the Winter and a hungry Spring approaching, surely now is the time to provide more than bread and circuses?
Thank you
In this day and age it is absurd that a secure and reliable digital voting system cannot be deployed. This would permit sampling public opinion over a diverse range of issues.
Agreed
The other thing is the internet/mobile phone items that are designed to be compelling – addictive. I have spent too much time absorbed – then regretful and critical of myself.
Yet these programs are wrapped around with things that are ‘interesting’ or ‘informative’ or ‘entertaining’ or ‘important’.
There is something dreadful about clever people using normal human desires to make money, callously wasting our time and driving many of us crazy – knowing our time could – and should – be better spent.
We want to stop – but not to miss something …
Our time – the community’s time could – and should – be better spent.
I know it’s not just me!
Much to agree with
How can we say that we have a democracy if we have a so called ‘royal family’ foisted onto us ..no choice.