Alienated not apathetic!

Political apathy in Britain appears to be on a high. The expenses scandal in the Houses of Parliament has increased people's distrust of those who seek to lead and legislate on our behalf. But, is this a new phenomenon, or just a symptom of a malaise that has been spreading over the years?

In 2003 in an article by the BBC's Sean Coughlan on young people's attitude to voting he said, "Politicians are seen as sleazy and untrustworthy, parliament is seen as a mysterious pantomime and political coverage is seen as incomprehensible and dull." One student interviewd even believed that Tony Benn was the leader of the Conservatives, so non recognition of party leaders is nothing new. To perhaps add insult to injury, the politicians and the journalists were seen as living in an enclosed world, separate from everyone else.

I believe this to still be very true. Indeed, I would extend it slightly to the world of the political activist. Those who are actively engaged in the process, and follow it closely, often fail to realise that the vast majority are switched off by it, and find it boring.

However, it is not only the young who are less involved in party politics. Membership of the main parties has decreased sharply in recent years. The Conservatives have seen a drop since 1950 of over 2.5 million members, with a slight increase in the period following Margaret Thatcher's first election victory in 1979. However, since 1992, probably following 'Black Wednesday' their membership has declined substantially. Labour have fared no better, with a peak in the early fifties as political participation increased across the board, a dramatic fall in the late seventies, a bubble around 1997, then a steady decline since. The other main party the Liberal Democrats have experienced a steady decline since the late sixties. Indeed, in 2005 the total membership of the main parties was just 1.3% of the population.

In stark contrast to this, has been the rise of membership of single issue groups. These are not necessarily parties, but organisation such as Friends of the Earth and the National Trust. The National Trust by 2008 had almost as many members as the Conservatives and Labour combined. Political pressure groups such as Oxfam has also increased substantially, though others like CND have seen a drop in membership. All this indicates is that over the years people's focus has shifted. Nuclear weapons still exist, but the environment is seen as the big issue these days.

Minor political parties have also seen increases in participation, though more incrementally. The exception being UKIP who have seen a sharp decline from the peak of 2004, when they received a lot of media attention because of Robert Kilroy Silk. The Greens and BNP are the English parties who have benefited, whereas the SNP have also increased their membership in recent years, after in big drop in the years immediately following devolution.

As recently as 1983 party membership as a proportion of the electorate was around 4%, and has now declined to less than 2%. So, although there have been peaks for individual parties, the trend for the main ones has been downwards since the fifties. But, as we have seen, membership of quasi-political organisations, and minor parties has been on the increase.

The problem, in reality, is not one of apathy but alienation, and the belief, by the public, that they lack an effective voice. After all, we have all seen the anti-war, anti-globalisation protesters on our television screens. The participation of people, especially the young in pressure group politics, indicates that people are passionate about issues, but feel outside the main political bubble.

The desperately low turnouts of 2001 and 2005 however, may not be indicative of dislike of parliament. It could be an indication of content, and not seeing the need to make a radical statement. I would say this was true of 2001, but 2005 was overshadowed by the Iraq war, which might account for low turnout, but also the failure of minor parties to benefit. This is where 2010 may differ dramatically. The increased dislike for the politicians in parliament could well affect all the main parties, and anybody not seen as part of the 'Westminster village' increase their share of the vote substantially, though whether under the forst past the post system this will convert to seats, is another point altogether.

In the mid-nineties the Conservative government of John Major suffered a series of setbacks. A big campaign called 'back to basics' was derailed by the behaviour of some Conservative MPs, in financial and marital scandals. Although the campaign was never intended as a moral one, it proved a field day for the media, and along with the Prime Minister's problems with his anti-European rebels, and the ramifications of the ERM catastrophe, the impression was formed of a government past its time.

The 'new' Labour government of Tony Blair was embraced across the political spectrum as something exciting and fresh. The massive majority that Labour obtained that year was seen as a mandate for change. However, although much has happened since that heady day, much of it for the better, the public are more disillusioned than ever. The expenses scandal has encapsulated public discontent with mainstream politics, but it takes more than a number of dishonest MPs to turn voters away.

The image of politicians has never been good. Jonathan Swift wrote in Gulliver's Travels, published in 1726;

"(T)hat whoever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to the country than the whole race of politicians put together."

The cartoons of Hogarth and Gillray are images that stick in the mind once you've sen them, and these were appearing in the eighteenth century, not recently. I would go as far as to say that I doubt our modern politicians could survive the portrayal they received at these satirical hands. As a student of seventeenth century English history, I have read many damning pamphlets about the political masters of the day, and the insults thrown make ours sound very weak, so it is important to view the current situation in context. The difference now is that with twenty-four hour media coverage, everything will be analysed to the nth degree.

Watching parliament can be an interesting, yet painful business. The endless debates, the long drawn out process, and the complicated procedures which are straight out of an eighteenth century book on etiquette. This seems ridiculous to even us political watchers most of the time, why should William Hague be the 'member for Richmond?' Mr Hague would be good enough, and might be more useful to casual viewers, and indeed visitors. Yes, there is a certain charm to the archaic procedures, but they do little to inform or enlighten.

If the procedures of the Houses are regularly watched, then it can be seen that debate is often good and well mannered, if a little parochial on occasion. Members across the parties agree on things, and consensuses are reached. Unfortunately, all we mainly get is the pantomime of Prime Minister's Questions. Although this event dominates people's perceptions of parliament, it only became a regular occurrence in 1961. PMQ's is more about theatre and points scoring than really getting to the heart of issues. The governing party (whoever it is) will use it as an opportunity to say how well things are going, and the opposition how badly. But more than that, it is the behaviour of the other members of the House which creates the poor image of MPs behaviour.

Parliament comes across as boorish and childish, and along with scandals like the expenses, Profumo and Hamilton, their behaviour is considered unacceptable for those in positions of such influence. Then there is the way that it is perceived they ignore our views. In 1990 a large demonstration. which became the 'Poll tax Riot' was ignored by the Conservative government of Mrs Thatcher. Indeed, it was the way this policy led to her unpopularity and downfall later that year, that actually led to its abolition. In 2003 hundreds of thousands marched in Central London, and across the country against the upcoming invasion of Iraq, but this too was ignored.

Whilst we understand that we elect our MPs to represent us, and that they are not delegates, it too often seems as though once they get to the House, then we are forgotten until the next election. The above examples are extremes, but all over the country, and outside the House, people and groups are protesting against certain legislation and actions. The huge protests that occurred when the Chinese Prime Minister visited, show that people are not apathetic, they are passionate about issues, but feel as though their voice is not heard.

So, what do we do about this? What can be done to engage people in politics so that they will turn out and vote in the future, and become more engaged in the politics of this country?

Last week in the House of Commons a debate was held, in which the government stated if they were returned, a referendum would be held asking the public if they wanted a different voting system. This is called the alternative vote, and is meant to be part of a number of reforms that have been underway since 1997. But reforming the House of Lords, and even turning it into an elected second chamber is only window dressing, it is in the House of Commons that things need to change.

Changing the voting system may be a positive move, although whether the proposed system would provide any more than a temporary respite is open to question. It is in the conduct and accountability of our elected representatives that real change needs to occur. The new rules on MPs allowances are one measure, but at the moment, members are not helping themselves by often refusing to admit to wrong doing. But also their behaviour in the House needs to change. We want to see more respect for each other, not cat calling, and our ministers, including the Prime Minister, properly answering questions at the dispatch box. However, it is also incumbent on the opposition to ask questions other than those designed to embarrass ministers.

There is currently a spat going on regarding a tweet supposedly sent by Labour's David Wright referring to Tory members. Whether Wright actually said what is reported is not really important on its own, it is the reaction to it that lets us down. Instead of ignoring it, and trying to give a positive message, many Conservatives are getting involved in the name calling themselves. How can they expect to be taken seriously?

The public also want their members to be more accountable. To start with, the idea the Tories have tried with local primaries is one worth trying. Naturally there are issues of oppositions voters supporting the weaker candidates, but if all parties did it then that would iron itself out. It could just be the public who decide the shortlists, and the members who pick the candidate, but an idea worth closer investigation. It may help the voter feel they have more of a stake in choosing their MP, outside the actual election.

But once in parliament, MPs would need to be in regular contact with their constituents. Perhaps monthly town hall style meetings in which electors would have the opportunity to question the member on his or her actions, and to raise issues of concern. Although surgeries and other forms of communication would still go on, this direct contact would allow the constituents to question face to face. Safeguards to prevent the parties trying to control the agenda would need to be in place, so perhaps local journalists could conduct the sessions.

In parliament, we would often like our MPs to be more independent. We understand about the need to get through a legislative agenda, but perhaps if three line whips could only be imposed on matters in the manifesto, it allow more freedom for members to vote with their consciences. The idea of MPs as 'lobby fodder' takes away from their real jobs to represent us in parliament. We don't expect them to be delegates, but with more freedom to vote as they see fit, governments would need to be a lot more careful about drafting legislation. This could well mean less of it, which as said on a previous occasion, may not be a bad thing.

Finally, education is also an important plank in encouraging people to get involved. Schools need to start teaching properly about how the parliamentary system came into being, and the brave men and women who often fought and died for the right to a greater voice. They need to learn how it works, as it by understanding, that the future generations may be better and make the changes, that we need to start now.

All this would require a huge shift in attitude from the party leaders, but if the public are to gain any trust in politicians, then radical changes have to follow, and not tinkering around the edges. As I have shown, distrust and disrespect for politicians has been around as long as politics, but just because until now nothing has really been done, it doesn't mean it shouldn't. As i have demonstrated, it is not apathy to politics people suffer from, it is alienation, and that is what we need to cure.

I would be interested to hear the ideas of others on how we can improve the system as well.