Nice Post Scott – J

You agree mate?

Do you find that not only the parties, but the concept itself, is so removed from us, that we just think “why bother?”

Curious to know if others share my experience.

Yeah I agree.

I guess I look at personal experiences relating to the bigger experience, as that for me is what counts. This is what I base my decision on.

The corruption shocks and appalls me.

Its starting to grate also the use of the first wives in the campaigning, my vote will not stem from what 'your wife' looks like… Rather the policies which 'You' put in place – which affect me?

Totally – all we see is contradiction. We vote for one thing, get another – so the line of thought is then, why vote?

great post Scott, and thanks for the props.

I totally agree with what you are saying.The stats are telling aren't they? One bit I think I can add is that “engagement” is falling across all age groups, it's just that younger people are quicker to catch on.

Part of the problem is the political/voting system: because of the way it works, only people in marginal constituencies actually wield any power. People of my generation (the disaffected 40-somethings) either vote tactically or do so out of habits that their parents taught them to. Even now most people I know of my age group vote the way their parents did.

So another part of the problem is that its tribal. If you don't fit a tribe you don't feel emotionally connected and so you don't bother to vote.

A further part of the problem is complexity. The processes in parliament are too complex for even interested, motivated and reasonably switched-on people (like, ahem, myself) to understand properly. Watching the recent DE Bill go through “wash up” was an educating experience for me, I had simply no idea about it.

Politicians (even great ones like Tom Watson, and incidentally I don't think I even know what party he's from) can only do so much: the system will probably collapse before it can be allowed to improve.

What's more important is what can be done to improve things? Better education about how and why it works, and why it's important, is part of the equation as you've correctly identified. A more rigorous code of conduct for campaigns and debates would also help. And electoral reform might work – how it happens in other countries is an area I want to look at.

As Martin said earlier – through not voting it devalues us.

However, I don't feel any of the parties provide me with a good enough reason to vote.

Take for example this idea:

A person works for say 25 years, buys into the idea of capitalism, works hard, pays his/hers taxes. Becomes self-employed after becoming jaded by the idea of working for someone else. Parents Die – allows the person to buy property (small amount, 2 cheaper houses up north) at a cost to his family (death). Essentially he/she has brought into the idea of working hard and reaping the rewards.

When the work stops coming in completely – he or she cannot even claim Jobseekers Allowance, despite the fact that they have correct 'adhered' to the system (work hard, pay taxes – be rewarded).

I look at this and see it as a complete travesty – why should I go along with a system (politics, capitalism etc) which fundamentally is going to screw me over EVEN if I correctly adhere to its principles.

Big change please.

Hey Martin

Thanks for the deep thinking comments – I appreciate it and glad we can talk it through.

I agree – education is important. Jamie Oliver said that you can't expect kids to eat foods that they can't name – and the same applies in this case – if we are ignorant of how it works, then we can't be expected to vote.

I certainly don't feel emotionally connected. I was talking to my brother in law (who is very into politics) and discussing this and his comment was also that this is tribal. The issue we have is that before we even talk about parties, we have the issue of getting us just to align ourselves with politics in the first place.

I think it is ludicrous that we don't teach this in schools.

A very interesting post Scott. I take issue with a few points though. The first being the point about how the education delivery system fails to deliver when it comes to informing the electorate on how the system works and how to participate. Surely the onus is on you the voter – to exercise your initiative first to understand the electoral system – and then your right to vote second?

What is troubling to me is that those that are eligible to vote but elect no to are the same individuals whose families would probably benefit the most from a change in policy or government – the active inertia based on apathy and not any political fundamentals is their trump card and their worst enemy. I believe that the major challenge in getting the public to vote is the public SOCIAL CONTAGION centered around the belief that politics is dirty and nothing will ever change – A SELF FULFILLING PROPHECY IF YOU NEVER VOTE.

In regard to playing to orchestrated emotional card – ref David Cameron above – the public though moved by the raw emotion shown in that particular interview are infected by the SOCIAL CONTAGION once again and settle back into the natural equilibrium of suspicion of politicians despite the case being rather compelling in isolation – It does seem rather shady for him to choose the first official day of the election campaign to talk about a child he lost.

Conclusively – I doubt whether “engagement” is the answer as its apparent that society is engaged but not COMPELLED to act in the WAY that politicians would like. They act according the to the prevailing wisdom on the street and complain about the outcome – politicians haven't done themselves and favors wither with scandal after scandal. Everyone to some degree wants to see positive change in society – politicians promise this change – the problem isn't that we don't hear their message – ENGAGEMENT – Its that we don't believe them – ITS NOT COMPELLING.

Hey Munya

Thanks for the comment and the challenge!

1. I think everyone should be taught the basics of our government and political style at school and college. I don't see how any one can disagree with this. Not doing this is going back to the old method of votes only belonging to those with land, only it is those with middle class families.

2. Yes the ones who don't vote would probably benefit. I'm not doubting that for one second – I'm just point out the fact that they don't even know HOW voting would benefit them, and have lost all motivation to vote.

Yes there is this hideous self fulfilling prophecy that voting doesn't work. But this lives under a fog of mystery and ignorance. An engaging politician can rouse the interest and motivation of people to vote.

3. I disagree that we are engaged but not compelled. We are NOT engaged. The reports I have above, if you read the rest of them, will see that under 25s are completely detached and unengaged – mostly because they are ignorant of how this whole things work, secondly because they are discouraged by social contagion, thirdly they think they make the difference themselves.

AGAIN – I'm not saying this is right. When we look at how people fought for our right to vote, it is tragic how so few do. But consider our Church. If the congregation are not receiving the word, is it their fault, or is it my duty as a pastor to adapt and engage with them in a level more suited to where they are? Yes, there comes a time when they must stand for themselves – but for the most part the commandment is, “Feed the sheep”

Very well described, Scott! And this disengagement has been growing for many years.

However, as you know, I think that there are other ways of looking at this.

Surely it is backwards to expect the politicians and parties to engage with us? We are all on a bus and we get to choose the navigators and the drivers. If we do not all express our opinions about who we would like to navigate and drive, then those who do express their opinion will decide and that road can lead to dictatorship. We need to engage with them!

Whatever may seem to be the case, the politicians are not in charge of the country; they are serving their country. We (the people of the country) have an administrative system consisting of legislative, judicial and executive functions which include posts in which people serve, if they are willing to serve and we directly or indirectly elect them. Of course, we are interested in how they would serve the country if elected, and we vote accordingly. We also allow them to try to persuade us to vote for them.

That is the gist of it anyway; in reality it is more complex because the monarchy is a very important stabilising mechanism; and the fact that the military swears allegiance to the monarchy not the government means that, in theory, we are immune from military coups, etc.. This is because the monarch can throw out the government, force a general election and so on … as happened to their great shock to the Australians not so long ago!

Anyway, in general, the elected representatives are not able to do anything, unless we allow them to; but we do need people to fill those roles and, if we do not vote, then the minority of people who do vote will decide on our behalf. Ultimately, the big concern is that if not enough people vote, then people with extreme objectives can get in and one of the things that they will do is to reduce or remove our powers to elect or remove them!

We have a whole host of problems, many stemming from our almost complete failure to separate the executive (government) from the legislature (parliament). One symptom is that MP's have become much too subservient to their parties. Hopefully, with many MPs standing down and so many new MPs being elected, a proportion of them will start to represent their constituents, as they are supposed to do, instead of toeing party lines. One way in which this might happen is if more independent-minded people stood as MPs and we got a much higher proportion of people who are independent of any party.

In some people's view (including mine), the most effective way out of our political mess is via a hung parliament. This might result in an initial failure to form a government, causing another general election, which would probably be even more hung, with the result that they would be forced to sort it out.

This route might lead us to proportional representation, which is what we desperately need. In that case, there would be no safe seats in which votes have little or no effect and we might end up with both a parliament and a government which only do things which are closer to what the majority of people want them to do! In almost all other areas, when there is no consensus, they would end up doing nothing; this would be just fine with me!

So, this other way of looking at things is that there are administrative roles which we need filled and into which we put people whom we elect. That administrative system is ours to populate with people; we should be looking to candidates for those roles to get us interested in the process.

But, in the end, someone needs to navigate and someone needs to drive, who do we want them to be? Of course, we are not only electing them, we are also pedalling the bus along and if they take it up a steep hill, life gets tough for us … and if they make it easy for us by heading downhill, then, in the end, we will have to pedal the thing back up again!

Also you cannot get off the bus without getting on another one (that is, emigrating to a different country)! Which does lead to an idea … !

Yes, of course, and based on my long comment, we would probably be a lot better off if everyone was educated on the system and their role in it.

Just don't let the government decide the curriculum!

Good post Scott,

Admittedly i probably have a more middle class background for thinking (though unfortunately not the riches lol) and am a little more opinionated.

For me I intend to vote because i feel a moral duty to do so. But my views are similar to yours. I dont feel engaged, and even more importantly to me, I dont feel represented. If I look at my values I cant see many of them aligning to any party. As far as I see, there is always a lot of talk but little action. My values as a Christian seem to be further and further away from the direction the government takes us, and these are the less exreme parties. There is so much legislation and red tape, that even if someone did try to do the right thing, he would be limited or delayed in seeing it happen.

Furthermore voting has to be tactical, I may like the candidate for my constituency but he may be from a party who i dont want to have power! So ill have to vote against him in order to make sure the policies i agree with are brought into action!

I agree that education would help to a degree, but there does need to be a reform of the system, to ensure that people are represented, not just on one of the available bandwagons that i have to decide will be the least damaging.

With all this in mind I then consider that even if they seem good they will probably abuse their position in some scandal or other. And the point that voting is tribal – if my Gran votes for anybody besides conservative i will be very surprised (probably because she felt represented by them in her younger years and feels, through memory, more connected to them in a modern day climate), so does my vote in this area even matter?

Still, if i dont vote then i dont have a right to complain or to ask for a change!

Hi John

Thanks for this incredible comment – I'm trying to digest it! I'll go through point by point as I see them:

1. Like children learning to walk, we need help. We should be taught basic understanding of our government. To expect people to vote for something they don't understand is ludicrous. Otherwise, it is left to the few who understand…

2. I agree we need MPs to be more independent – which is tantamount to say that they need to be engaging!

3. If we can be taught the basics, have engaging MPs, then we can expect people to drive this bus with greater skill, with greater passion, with greater interest.

What do you think?

Hey Ben

Thanks for the comment.

It is a funny predicament. I think a large part of this is that I will probably follow the direction that my peers take. I love the idea of using Facebook to create groups that help people understand which parties align to their beliefs, etc.

“My Faith Informs my Votes”, which I've joined and am talking in, is an example of one of these.

Thanks for the comment mate – I know it's a hard one!

yes, great post and comments are thought provoking as well. moreover, from an American stand point, I can empathize. I think this was the first time American–especially those in their 20s and 30s cared about politics. Some might say it has to do with Obama's race–sure, to much an extent, but a lot of it had to do with empowering people with engagement. It wasn't about him but us and our future. We could not have another George Bush. And I like how you said it is linked to brand engagement as well.

Thanks for the additions Annie.

How did you personally feel drawn into the vote? And also, did you feel there was less ignorance and more understanding about the whole process?

Thanks,

Scott

I think that everyone's viewpoint is valid; and that each viewpoint is both similar and different from everyone else's to some minor or major degree.

While each of your points justifies a long answer, in general I think that they are all pointing in a useful direction. However, I am not sure that I concur with the general sense that other people are being obligated to do something for us.

In general, the people who drive the bus are “us”. We drive it indirectly, if we choose to express an opinion/vote. And we drive it directly, if we are nominated and elected: see http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk.

Nominations close at 4pm on April 20!

I've been meaning to respond to this for days and it's only because I have been focusing my idea development on work that I have failed to do so. But here goes…

The points you make on engagement are crucial: in order to facilitate a truly participatory democracy it is vital that all citizens feel their vote counts and that their values are being supported. But my concern is that politicians themselves shouldn't be regarded as an embodiment of values – and in an age of brands and televised debates,it's an unfortunate fact that a 90 minute tv programme can swing a vote in favour of a politician rather than policies.

I'm dismayed but not surprised you never learned about politics in the home or at school. I did study politics at school, but I don't think that's where I learned about political systems in Australia. I'd say my understanding of politics was grounded in two primary experiences: my brother's time at an elite private boys school (which he attended on an academic scholarship) when compared with my own public schooling, and a thorough dose of Australian history and anti-authoritarian sentiment percolating through my childhood. The dismissal of Australia's Prime Minister in 1975 by the Queen's representative in Australia when I was just 4 years old set the stage for a lifetime of education about political systems, and the machinations of power. It did eventually lead to studying politics but I was never very good at it until I got to university and started to apply political understanding to issues – in particular to the development of policies and legislation pertaining to public sector broadcasting, pay television and telecommunications at the cusp of the development of the WWW. But as a result of these diverse experiences I learned that the exercise of power in a vacuum of ignorance of political process was inherently undemocratic. And I spent a great deal of time contributing to public education and developing curriculum that educated about processes and properties of governance in the new media sector. I even took on a political role, when I ran petitions in Queensland, Australia, campaigning for daylight saving to be adopted in the South East, in the face of phenomenal opposition in the north.

But the curious thing I also discovered through all these experiences, is how difficult it can be to get people to accept responsibility for their own participation. Citizenship – the active involvement in one's community – is being mistaken for community service, and involvement in the *development* of policies is being regarded as a problem for politicians.

Nowhere is this more pronounced than the decision to draft legislation in Committees appointed from the House of Lords. Instead of generating policy statements through engagement with stakeholders, there's a tendency in the House of Lords, to get a small number of high-profile personnel from industry giants to contribute to a *report*. The report includes little if any analysis of relevant and impacting legislation and includes no legislative instruments of its own. Then another Committee of appointed politicians in the House of Lords go about drafting the actual legislation which may or may not have any bearing on the wording of a Bill.

How is this remotely participatory? And why are not more stakeholders demanding a say over the wording of legislature, before it goes to debate in parliament? (And don't even get me started on appointed peers in the House. Personally, I regard the current system positively medieval.)

But, as they say, baby steps. It is indeed marvellous to have a politician actually providing individuals with an opportunity to help draft and vote on pledges. And it is wonderful that a few souls have taken the initiative to contribute. But again, few have taken up the challenge.

I believe it is Citizenship that should be taught in schools, not history. I don't disregard the value of history – I'm a huge history buff – but there are different channels through which history can be explored – in museums, art galleries, and in tourist ventures. But the value of active Citizenship and collective decision making (which can indeed result in better communities) is something that is not just lacking in education now, but which has been lacking for centuries.

We have an opportunity to redress that inadequacy in a more digitally connected age. And I'm hopeful that a new generation of voters will use technologies to put pressure on the exclusive processes of policy making and legislative drafting and debate. I like your style in 'selling' your vote for engagement. I think you don't actually mean a financial trade, but a trade in representation of your interests. That's true citizenship, and it's something that should be applauded.

Hey Joanne

Thanks for the thought through and giving comment – reading it has given me also the benefit of getting to know you better and your history.

I'm so glad you question how participatory the system, and call it 'positively medieval'. It is. In the same way that you had to have land to vote, today we have swapped land for understanding – a premium that few have. I don't know many people who understand our political system – and if I don't understand it, I'm unlikely to vote – let alone know who to vote for.

It is unfortunate to see all the press now praising Nick Clegg, like you said, because of a few well performed minutes on TV — who even knows about the policies.

Thank you as well for actually getting what I mean, when I say 'selling my vote'!

totally agree that getting people interested and informed is the major task.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/ap...

Interesting idea, and is the future I think. When I saw Tom Watson live-tweeting in the #debill debate and passing on opinions from the Twitterati I glimpsed the future.

Your comment about the Lords made me chuckle. It's true that the system is utter tripe: the problem is that in practice the Lords often make better, more rounded, wiser judgements than the Commons. I have absolutely no idea why this is the case, but it is true. I'm all for reform of the Lords but I think we need to identify which bit is the baby and which is the bathwater before we even start on it

RE: Lords v Commons… it's actually pretty simple. A majority in Commons is easier to attain as the sheer number of seats and the voting system makes majority rule rather immune to sensible debate. It's also true that most laws are drafted in Committees, and the vast majority of laws drafted in Commons committees that pass in to the upper house are simply drafted along party lines and are decimated on proper inspection. It's still a problem with parliamentary process, not with the 'value' of aristocratic heritage (ie: nil).

Thanks mate. I think the slightly older among us (of which, unfortunately, I have to acknowledge I am one) can learn a lot from people like you. And I greatly appreciate what you bring to the debate. Thanks for articulating your ideas and giving us all scope for imagining a better future.

Thanks Joanne – really appreciate the kind remarks. Means a lot. A few good words go a long, long way!

Appreciate the weight of your understanding as always,

Scott

Thanks for your post, Scott; it has stimulated an interesting discussion and several great responses.

I have always been strongly political and was brought up in a very politically active household so therefore I naturally *feel* engaged with politics. Your post has made me re-asses my expectations of engagement by politicians. I conclude that I am more focused on assessing their policies, than their engagement (that may be because I already feel “politically engaged” due to my upbringing).

A few months ago, I went to see David Cameron speak at a local school and tomorrow John Prescott is coming to town. Face-to-face engagement is pretty good in my book. I agree that it is difficult to distinguish between the major parties, so this year I have decided to download and read the 4 major manifestos. I agree that politicians could engage better with the electorate, and equally I agree with Ben in that we have a responsibility to ourselves to find out what exactly we are voting for.

Here are the links to the manifestos, I hope they're of use (I've not quite read them, just yet!):

Labour: http://www2.labour.org.uk/manifesto-splash
Libdems: http://www.libdems.org.uk/our_manifesto.aspx
Green: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/policies.html
Conservative: http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Manifesto.aspx

Thanks again for the interesting debate.

I started thinking about this from the politicians perspective. Just which master do they serve?

They have graduated into a world, by being very active in the community, looking after their core vote and dealing with correspondence. If they are a cabinet MP, the day job is at least 12 hours per day, every day.

The 3 main parties have huddled around the center ground, to chase an apathetic public. They liked Tony Blair's style, but in my humble opinion… New Labour never had substance. It was effective in being very centrist and at not making any decision that is too controversial.

Politics has become about being a safe pair of hands, and managing a relatively successful country. It lacks a “big idea” to get behind on all fronts. The most engaging message getting to voters at this time is “We're not Gordon Brown”.

So back to your MP's perspective. They have party leaders reacting to the polls, the media, trying to take on social media, trying to get out into the streets, trying to deliver the big message… In a battle for the middle ground, they are creating apathy not solving it.

The public at large, are actually quite comfortable, and just don't care enough to engage either. Yes politicians should learn social media, but with the speed government moves at, is that likely? Not until 2015.

10 Things Politicians could do:

1) Ask Questions – Chris Brogan is the master at engaging people using questions.
2) Admit fault – Our utterly brutal media have taught politicians that there are consequences for being honest. Time to reverse that trend. Brown got a little bounce from it.
3) Be Human – Cameron engaged people with a family tragedy. We want human politicians not robots.
4) Empathise – “I understand” is about the most powerful thing you can say to someone who is feeling let down by you
5) Avoid attacks – I'm not saying we need a charm offensive in politics, we need to restore that grown up respect that came from being Right Honourable. I want to respect my MP, give me a reason to
6) Explain – Policy is difficult, and complex. The public struggle to grasp that, yet there are great ways to explain complex problems. It's called leadership. It's there, it's just terrified of being eaten alive by our media.
7) Kill the Press Office – Alistair Campbell made British politics less human. We need to reverse that trend.
Embrace simplicity – Again, taking lessons from copyblogger and social media – We want simplicity, preferably in 140 characters.
9) Support Local Heroes – “Social Enterprise” still feels too much like an election ploy from the conservatives, but local is back. Who's doing great things in your constituency? Champion them, give them a platform.
10) Articulate your constituents problems – We have become a presidential style nation, which is very London centric. People feel disengaged because they don't know who their MP is, or how those local issues are being solved.

Hey Sara

Sorry I've taken a while to reply.

It is indeed interesting how your take on this is different to mine, because of your upbringing.

I didn't even know that Cameron and Prescott were down – this is the first I head of it. This shows how I am completely out of the loop. I've been speaking to more and more people my age, some a bit older, some a bit younger, and I've only found ONE who is voting thus far…

Thanks for posting the manifestos – wil check them out!

Love these points. I agree that SM is not making the difference this election – but will do next election. I'm already preparing for that