Politics must become more fun!

Omitting the recent "Corbyn Effect", political parties have seen a decline in membership continuously over many years. Old tribal warfare such as Workers vs Bosses has faded into memories, even if the issues behind it are unresolved and painfully present behind the scenes. Most work is no longer carried out in huge factories but by "white-collar" mortgage-holders with new priorities. In our unequal country, having a job and a home, no matter how indebted, count as economic success,  apparently not meriting the energies of unions to wrest improvements from Gradgrind employers. This leaves the Left with out its main historic purpose.

Voting is now left to older generations with memories of how we got here and with the time to stay in touch with the mainstream media. They are familiar with the democratic process, unlike today's young. Yet the future belongs to the latter, even those not yet of voting age. How are they to be persuaded to engage in a process which seems so irrelevant to their daily experience, let alone join a political party? True, the aftermath of the recent election has seen a huge upsurge in parties' membership, perhaps because Corbyn's message, like that of Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland, could be conveyed in a sound-bite or in 140 characters.

And how sustainable will this engagement of the younger voter be, if or when the power-hungry sulkers of the Labour front bench show how disloyalty really works and the people's Labour Party is once again discarded? Then, focus group, who-can-be-least-radical politics expressed in spad-eeze will turn them off again, surely. The [mostly white, mostly] men in suits will once again be a distant oligarchy with no understanding of the lives of those struggling young workers, disabled or unwaged citizens.

Instead, these may more likely be engaged by what makes them curious, angry, or empowered. This may be a community cause, or a global conflict; a campaign or an injustice. So the young, as bright, lively and unselfish as in any generation, will form their own allegiances using their own preferred forms of expression and media. This will still be political engagement but not party-political, leaving them outside the process whereby decisions can be made. A thousand pressure groups will still need a mechanism through which to unlock resources controlled by an ever-narrowing, unrepresentative few. These latter will still cluster in Parties, which will still need voters; and the voters will still depend on the Parties; but the people may fall into neither category unless they can attract the young, the ethnic minority, the women voters currently put off by the profile of  "Politician". How to do this? The Parties must relinquish their capital stronghold, devolve and share power - genuinely, explain how governance works; offer social engagement and the fun of debate; actually listen and hear what is needed; and then show how politics can work for them and for the country.

This selection process is ridiculous!

Could the Labour Party really have found a worse system for choosing a new leader than it has?

A General Election lasts just 8 weeks, for 20m voters to elect 650 MPs, across the whole country. We are told that it requires twice that length of time for 0.25m members, most already relatively familiar with the candidates, who are armed with up-to-date contact lists, to select just one person (2 if you consider the deputy counts). This has to take place against the background of a rampant Tory Party, wreaking havoc with the lives of those whom Labour should be protecting, yet hardly noticed while the factions fight like rats in a sack. What a shambles and disgrace.

 

It had already been widely acknowledged that Labour made the mistake in 2010 of letting Tory lies about who was responsible for the deficit off the hook whilst Ed Miliband was elected, so what does the Party do but repeat the mistake and do it all over again? Osborne commands the media, claiming as "progressive" his imposition of yet more penal penury on the neediest; and the Party which should speak for them and to them argues among itself but publicly.

 

If hustings are essential, hold them daily over a short period, filming them for streaming or broadcasting. Let candidates publish their CVs and manifestos online so that anyone can read them at will. But 16 weeks of uncertainty, back-biting, neglect of Opposition and just looking incompetent is inviting oblivion, no matter who wins. We cannot wholly blame Ed M for resigning after his rejection, but maybe on reflection the Party should have been more loyal and persuasive of him at least to oversee the transition. As it is, those responsible for the process are every bit as culpable for whatever period is we have in the wilderness as the leader who arises from it.

Tom Serpell

Can political parties still command mass support?

It looks as though political parties have had their day, as voters (or rather non-voters) find new ways of collective thought and action. Organised politics has failed miserably to understand or adopt digital media, which are by now quite long-in-the-tooth. Single issue collectives like Stop the War, Hacked Off and UK Uncut have larger “memberships” than the parties. Online petitions regularly attract 10s and 100s of thousands of signatories.

So what can or should the parties do about this? Their portfolios of policies are as likely to put off adherents as to win them. A supporter of Policy A may be as strongly opposed to Policy B. And how can a Leader in today’s media’s preferred presidential politics possibly appeal sufficiently ever to be good enough?

It seems to me that the agenda and language of politics has to be shifted towards values, with a party’s policies described in terms of their consistency with these. A leader with values is surely a match for one with fewer or worse, regardless of how his/her looks may seem to the image-conscious.

It is surely not too late for Labour to espouse new media actively, to link itself to campaigns of others making as well as to its own supporters. The Party must see how digital communities work, not by preaching or imposing barriers to engagement but by creating conversations between people with common interests. Today’s digital policy seems at odds with this. Members receive regular top-down messages, usually accompanied by a request for money. How off-putting is this?

Take rural issues as an example. Voters living in the countryside far from the conurbations which set most of the political agendas have very distinct issues of isolation and cost of living not appreciated by the metropolitan majority. They are fewer in number but still have rights and needs; as well as being a significant minority which Labour should certainly not ignore. Yet how else can these voters have a collective voice if not by connecting them? The same can be said to apply to other otherwise isolated categories like disabled people, freelance workers, the care sector. If Labour could offer individuals the means to connect to others of similar interests, it would be better informed on these issues and rebuild collective behaviours under a common banner. And if Labour does this, perhaps it can justifiably ask voters who are not members to tick its box; and voters who do not buy the whole package will tick that box because the package contains what they need.

Tom Serpell @uckfieldlabour