Politics – Where To Go ?
Ever since I was young I have always been fascinated by
political issues and have been gripped by the hope that life for people in
general could be improved. I am a lower middle-class Englishman who has been
lucky enough to benefit from a post-war system of Grammar Schools and a
debt-free university education. My parents both left school at 14, wanted a
better life for me, and would have wanted my own children to have the same. Sadly
that no longer feels like a realistic prospect either here in the UK or in the
USA, the one other country I know something about.
In the UK we seem to be polarised by tribalism which dates
back to the 19th century. We have a Conservative party mainly
sponsored by a relative few very wealthy people and a Labour party which has
its roots in the trade union movement. A good number of the electorate will
vote for their party “come what may”, and election results are determined by
the number of seats rather than votes cast. The printed media is dominated by
the right-wing, which is becoming increasingly powerful. In the US the Tea
Party / Trump phenomenon is very much a factor.
There is a total lack of serious political discussion. For
me the key questions are :-
1. What is the kind of world we want our children
to grow up in ?
What is the best means of achieving that ?
Let’s address the first question. The overall story of the
world’s history has been one of moving away from “nature red in tooth and claw”
towards a society which acknowledges that human beings have a brain and a heart
which look beyond the raw needs of survival. Slavery has been abolished, women
have attained more rights, racism is gradually being addressed, and the rights
of minorities have been more respected. The UK, much to its credit, has until
recently maintained an allocation of funds from its GDP for overseas aid.
So if that is still the goal, then we come down to the
means. The dominant view in the West is that the goal is best achieved by
free-market capitalism, which encourages individuals to make money, start
businesses etc., in the hope that this will generate jobs for others and
overall wealth which can then fund necessary public services such as health,
roads, social care etc. This line of thought encourages low taxation on the
basis that entrepreneurs will be motivated to work harder and generate more
wealth which will “trickle down” to others. On this analysis “the state” is the
enemy of human progress.
The alternative view, emerging from the trade union and
Fabian movements in the early 20th century, is that human progress needs
to be designed into the fabric of government rather than expected to happen
“naturally”. On this analysis provision needs to be made for the poorest in
society and opportunities opened up for all, irrespective of background. Crucially
this needs to be built into the way society is governed rather than merely
facilitated.
It's pretty obvious that elements of both need to be in
place to achieve the goal. In the UK we must harness the innovative skills
which we undoubtedly have (going back to Bletchley in the second world war)
while also ensuring that everyone benefits. This is something that we
singularly failed to do in the 1980s – we disposed of the ageing industries
without considering the fate of the people affected. It seems as if we’re going
the same way with the rise of Artificial Intelligence.
Trying to achieve a balance between these contrasting approaches
is made especially difficult because :-
·
We have a confrontational political system based
on factionalism and a “first past the post” electoral system.
·
The media is heavily biased one way or the
other.
·
People are increasingly less engaged with
politics and are influenced by “sound bites”.
·
The UK is divided, and Westminster does not
consider the needs of the devolved nations.
·
There’s a lot of nationalism in England in
particular stemming from nostalgia for the lost Empire.
The dilemma is how we get to a point where issues are
discussed seriously, factionalism is transcended, and the country can move
forward again. We don’t have the answers at this stage; all we can do is form
agreement around the questions.
