Viagra Super Active Pill Pyridium For Sale Keflex Order On Line Abilify Birth Control Pills Mail Order For Lexapro

Never mind about Parliament, Hazel: what about actually giving real power to real people?

2:30 pm - November 9th 2008

by Stephen Tall    

      Share on Tumblr

Forget Hazel Blears’ ill-considered assault on ‘nihilistic’ blogging, in her speech to the Hansard Society this week: let’s consider instead her attack on politicians who live on ‘Planet Politics’:

… there is a trend towards politics being seen as a career move rather than call to public service. Increasingly we have seen a ‘transmission belt’ from university activist, MPs’ researcher, think-tank staffer, Special Adviser, to Member of Parliament, and ultimately to the front bench. Now, there’s nothing wrong with any of those jobs, but it is deeply unhealthy for our political class to be drawn from narrowing social base and range of experience.

Few people will disagree with her analysis. Indeed, ‘The Rise of the Career Politician’ (Peter Riddell, 1993) and ‘The Triumph of the Political Class’ (Peter Oborne, 1997) has been the subject of two (very different) books. Much of the hand-wringing, as ever when hands are wrung, is overwrought: a narrow political class is not a modern political phenomenon. It’s simply that the narrow class which dominates politics has changed over time.

Oborne, a chippy Tory whose vapid broad-brush polemic disregards almost any event that hasn’t taken place in the last 25 years, does at least make the comparison between the early C.21st and the late C.19th:

In all the Political Class contains approximately 5,000 fully fledged members – most MPs, peers, MEPs, MSPs, lobbyists, quangocrats, researchers and special advisers. This number, which is growing all the time, is comparable to the ‘top 10,000’ who governed Britain in the nineteenth century before the arrival of universal suffrage. (p. 13)

The big change, then, is not that a political class, drawn from a narrow section of society, exists. Rather it is the steady increase in those who are effectively full-time politicians when they are elected to the Commons, or appointed to the Lords. As Riddell explains:

A large part of the explanation for the rise of the career politician lies in the increasing specialisation of all jobs over the past fifty years. Virtually every trade or occupation now demands a full-time commitment. The days of the gentleman amateur have gone … In general, those wanting to reach the top in any large organisation have had to give up the idea of running for the Commons. Political ambitions are frowned upon as a sign of not being seriously committed to the company. Only the self-employed, such as lawyers, small businessmen and farmers, or those in public sector jobs allowed time off, such as teachers and lecturers, are able to pursue political ambitions, whether on their local council or in the Commons.

Ms Blears herself is a prime example of this. After graduating in 1978, she trained in the law, before working for four separate local authorities as a solicitor in their education departments. She was able to combine her professional life with serving as a councillor for eight years, as chair of a community health council, and as trade union branch secretary, while also standing for Parliament twice, prior to her election as MP for Salford in 1997.

And I don’t say this with a sarcastic undertone to diss Ms Blears. She dedicated her life to becoming an elected politician, and chose a career path with the flexibility to enable her to do so. Fair do’s.

Where I think she is being naïve is in thinking that some kind of Emily’s List is all that is needed to diversify the backgrounds of those running for elected office. The reason the political class is drawn from such narrow backgrounds is because of the time and commitment which is expected to achieve success, not the least of which is finding a compatible career.

Is it really so surprising that those who work long hours and/or are in the private sector – whether they’re employed as the cleaner or the chairman – should decide that politics isn’t their cup of tea? The sacrifice that is expected, both of self and of family, is just too high for many sane people to think that being a professional politician is a viable life choice.

And even if politicians were drawn from more varied walks of life than is now the case, what guarantee would we have that they would behave much differently than today’s political class? In his sparkling new book, Britain Since 1918: The Strange Career of British Democracy, David Marquand quotes a comment made on the eve of the First World War:

The men who direct the great dominating interests, commerce, the law, finance, the press, are brought very close together. Even the brilliant platform rhetorician, who may have been lifted into power as the champion of the masses or the minor bourgeoisie, is apt to forget his clients and his past in this constant association with opulent and well-born persons, whose luxuries and tastes he shares. (p. 39)

And even if politicians were drawn from more varied walks of life, and resolutely pursued the interests of their electors, this would still beg the big question: are they using their power well?

Surely part of the explanation for career politicians, certainly since Victorian times, is driven by the growth of the franchise and the growth of the state. Government now touches more parts of more people’s lives than either Gladstone or Disraeli could ever have imagined.

Politicians are expected to understand the complexities of means-tested benefits, housing waiting lists and drug treatment co-payments. These, after all, are the issues on which constituents seek out politicians’ help, expecting them to act to make their lives better. In turn, this promotes ‘active government’ (a subtly different concept from ‘big government’). Here’s Riddell again:

… active government is a characteristic, and possibly a result, of an age dominated by the rise of the full-time politician eager to be busy … the distinguishing feature is not the scale of government but rather its level of activity. That reflects the desire of career politicians to do something, to find an outlet for their ambitions. Change is the order of the day. Active government initiating a heavy legislative programme has been as much a product of the Thatcher era as of the earlier collectivist phase since 1945. (p. 269)

And so we see the warped full-circle of what has made the political class what it is today. Anyone with political aspirations needs to choose the right sort of career, at the right sort of age; they will then get sucked into a system which will change them far more than they can change it; they will work their socks off all year round, to the detriment of friends and family, to prove to themselves and their electors, why they deserve re-election; and their fate will as likely depend on the national political picture as on their personal endeavours over however many years.

All of this is seen and understood by the public, who look on bemused from the outside; a bemusement which would likely turn to astonishment if politicians like Ms Blears then suggested they might want to become part of this political system. Sure, there are steps which can and doubtless should be taken to broaden the intake of Parliament. But ultimately high-politics is a vocation which will remain the preserve of those with a copious combination of high-stamina and high-ambition.

The much bigger point, not addressed by Ms Blears, is this. Too much power is concentrated within Westminster. In short, it is not the individuals who inhabit our political system who are our principal problem: it is the political system itself.

It is a system which invests too much kudos in those few, flawed individuals with the cojones to climb the greasy pole It is a system which assumes MPs’ omniscient omnipotence to benignly shape our lives in ways they believe we will find pleasing.

Here’s what we should be doing: working out how we can make Parliament matter less; how real power can be devolved not only to local councils, but further still to parishes and area committees, to cooperatives and residents’ and tenants’ associations; and – above all – to individuals. No-one should need to feel that they have to be elected to Parliament to have power over their own destiny; that power should be in their own hands already.

If only we had a Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who understood this. If only we had a Government which truly believed in putting Communities in Control, which really did want to return real power to real people. If only their words were more than verbiage. Over to you, Ms Blears.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  

About the author
This is a guest article. Stephen was Liberal Democrat city councillor for Headington in Oxford between 2000 and 2008, serving as Deputy Lord Mayor and the city's executive councillor for finance. He was Lib Dem 'Blogger of the Year' in 2006, and is commissioning editor of the Lib Dem Voice website.
· Other posts by

Story Filed Under: Blog ,E-democracy ,Equality ,Labour party ,Local Government ,Our democracy

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Reader comments

1. Mike Killingworth

Well, isn’t it naive to expect that the same people who, as you rightly point out, have sacrificed everything on the altar of a political career will be willing to give away the power which they have worked so tirelessly to get their hands on?

Perhaps what we need is a secret society of women and men sworn to the destruction of power above everything else, who then infiltrate all our political parties and, once elected, do all they can to destroy power wherever they locate it.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the story is told of a Labour candidate who, canvassing, was greeted with derision because “we only see you lot at election times”. S/he took this reproach to heart, and persuaded their ward party to knock on doors between elections. Then they were greeted with “why are you pestering us when there isn’t an election on?”

Power is never given, it is always taken. If people really want to take it away from the golden 5,000 or 10,000 or whatever, they will. But if they do, they won’t have anyone else to blame when things don’t go entirely to their liking.

Certainly if power can be devolved, I think it should be, although Mike K points out the practical political difficulty in getting MPs to relinquish some power to others.

However, putting aside class issues (just for a moment) there are serious knowledge deficits within our elected classes. Even if we cannot address the issues of social/class/identity representation in our MPs we urgently need to address the fact that so few of them are literate about statistics, science or technology.

Add in that the life cycle of MPs is so long, even those with a good education in some of these areas often lose touch with the changes out in the world.

You say “Here’s what we should be doing: working out .. how real power can be devolved” etc. Well why are you writing pathetic pieces attacking Hazel Blears then?

David, read the post below this one.

Its a good point that could have been made quicker perhaps . Labour are especially exclusive with an astonishing amount of power residing in a web of families stretching over the 20th century
Not hard to see why David Boothroyd wants that to go on. Its in the blood , , he is also a life time politician himself and has never got close to a job than consulting about politics . In Brown of course we have the ultimate mono-maniac he was writing political essays when he was twelve ( as you do ) and has got further along the autism spectrum ever since ., Milliband is much the same , his father was a Marxist writer favourably reviewed by the Toynbee clan.

One aspect of it that is especially pernicious is the development of a Priestly vocabulary which deliberately excludes and befuddles ,. This is much to the fore in the great EU con and once again Herr Braun is just the sort of gobbeldygook prattling power freak who clogs the arteries of the nation . Broadly speaking the progressive constituency are more exclusively drawn from the middle classes and have no experience outside talking shops .

6. dreamingspire

Power to the people is happening in another way: through the phenomenon known as the Information Society – and it does seem that Tom Watson, MP and Minister, is promoting that in his drive to help make data held by the public sector accessible. Close to the politicians is, not far behind comes, and wider but more diffuse and not centrally organised is the simple method of emailing a Westminster politician or responding via a web page. Locally, contacting Elected Members by email is equally easy. PPCs need to pick this up as well, making it as easy to contact them as it is to contact the MP, and the same for candidates in local govt. Much more difficult is getting to the well-dug-in civil servants, central and local, and to the quangocrats (including making FOI really work) – getting many more of them to work effectively for us is the real challenge, not just for us at the grass roots but also for elected politicians.
As for CLG: well, its a pale shadow of the ODPM, and tweetypie’s appearances make me want to throw something at the TV. But its fine for those living under a quality local govt organisation to ask for it to be given more control – some of us live in areas with dysfunctional local structures, which is something that CLG ought to be tackling. Sadly, too much of the UK public sector doesn’t understand that quality management methods apply to public sector services as well as to the private sector.

Our elected politicians are actually quite happy to give away power, they will freely hand it over to the quango for this or the commission for that, or out source it to the EU and the other transnational bodies. However it is only with the greatest of reluctance that they will send it back down the chain to individuals.

Maybe because they have got beyond a tipping point. After so many years of big government people expect the state to intervene and try to sort out their problems. Elected politicians are willing to hand over power to the various bureaucrats, because it means that they have a way of deflecting the blame for when things go wrong. They will not hand it to individuals because they would still get the blame when things go wrong because people still expect the big state to be their fixing everything with the politicians as easiest to identify representatives of the state.

Perhaps Blears is wrong in that blogging is not cynical and nihilistic enough. In order to fix the system first it must be discredited, so that the big state is no longer expected to be there to fix every problem. Only then when politicians are expected to fail will they be willing to hand power back down the chain to where it can be used most effectively.

Reactions: Twitter, blogs

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.