Skip to main content

Fed up of tribalism in politics

There is much wailing, moaning and gnashing of teeth* on the ineffectual nature of politics and politicians in the current general election, with the newer thrusting parties like the SNP, the Greens and UKIP (there's an unholy alliance) blaming the old guard and the Westminster elite.

Actually, I'd suggest that most of the problems with politics are caused by tribalism, and nowhere is tribalism stronger than amongst the likes of the SNP, the Greens and UKIP. They aren't the solution, they are even more dramatically more of the same.

I suggest it's time to redesign parliamentary democracy for the 21st century. After all, we don't do medicine the way they did back when Parliament was establish - why should the democratic processes stay the same in an internet interconnected world?

Here's a few suggestions:
  • MPs become solely local representatives. Their full time role is helping their constituents.
  • As well as a local MP, we vote for policies, which have to be fully independently costed before the election (it may be better for there to be a rolling set of policies with 'NHS week, defence week, education week etc. to avoid overload)
  • Each policy has a champion who is not an MP but an expert in the area, whose role after a policy is adopted is to manage it into practice using the civil service.
Of course there is a lot of detail you could moan about. For instance:
  • How would you balance the economy if people could vote for any old policy? Clearly you couldn't expect it just to happen by osmosis. There would have to be a balancing mechanism where you could only change policy to one that costed more if other changes enabled funding to be released.
  • But what if people voted for a policy that is bad? Erm, this is democracy. The most contentious issue is with things like the death penalty and ring-fencing the aid budget, where the 'elite' generally has a different view to the larger populous. The line between democracy and mob rule is an interesting one. I'm really not sure about this one, as I'm with the elite on both those examples, but I don't think it highlights a problem with my suggestion, but rather a problem with democracy as a concept.
And there will be lots of other picky details. Well, of course. This is a fuzzy handwaving idea, not a proper proposal. You wouldn't expect to sort out politics in half an hour. But I still think that this is the kind of radical re-think we need. Anything else is just tinkering.

* I can't type 'gnashing of teeth' without retelling the old Ian Paisley joke. 

Paisley is preach hellfire and damnation and tells his audience that when the sinners among them go to hell there will be a wailing and a gnashing of teeth.

'I'm sorry, Mr Paisley,' says an elderly lady from the audience. 'But I have no teeth.'

'Teeth,' responds Paisley firmly, 'will be provided.'


Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou