On Saturday, I found myself in an all day meeting of the strategic body of a campaigning organisation, and I found myself thinking something that hadn’t previously shown a fin in the ocean that is my political consciousness – is having policy spelled out to the nth degree really a good way to run a society? Indeed, how many people care about the details?
I am a member of a political party, and therefore have more of an interest in ideas of governance than most. But, like most members of political parties, I have an awareness of our policies, rather than a firm grasp. Indeed, there are vast swathes of policy where I assume our stance to be liberal rather than being able to swear that they are. And if that is my position, then put yourself in the position of normal people, the vast majority of people who don’t, and probably never will, join political parties, for whom Westminster politics is about people doing things to them rather than a process of active participation.
What knowledge of our policies, or anyone else’s policies for that matter, do they have, as opposed to information? I differentiate between knowledge and information for a reason. Very few people go to the source for information, i.e. a Party website, and even if they did, how easy would it be to find the policy and, equally importantly, its justification? No, they rely on the media, on their social connections and on their gut instinct, in no particular order.
Let’s be honest, the media are almost entirely partial in their approach to policy. And why not, it’s a free media, isn’t it (a debate for another day, perhaps but let’s assume that it is)? So, obviously, most of the analysis of policy is done through the prism of the newspaper’s philosophy, or even less accountably, the prism of the individual analyst’s personal, and usually understated, prejudices.
And before we politicians get too self-righteous, how many political leaflets express a positive message, and how many of those provide more than a superficial justification for a particular stance? Not many – the tabloidisation of politics has affected us all. We put simple messages to the public, in bullet point form, couched in language that won’t scare people (unless we want to scare them, of course).
So, how much specific policy does a political party need? Detailed, prescriptive policy is in many ways a restraint, especially if it does not respond to a changed environment. What is unchanging, or at least relatively so, is philosophy, that underpinning of any campaigning group that lights its direction of travel, that guides its path. It is the thing that should be used as the yardstick against which any idea is measured, and best of all, it is something that allows flexibility in responding to an ever-changing world.
The emergence of intricately detailed manifestos is a recent development in our political history, whereas in ‘ye olden days’ we had causes, like free trade, or a land fit for heroes. And now, we have managers rather than leaders. Perhaps we need to look back, to the idea as politics as a moral cause based on a philosophy, rather than as an exercise in creating detailed policies that are seldom actually carried out in reality. We can let the electors judge politicians against the yardstick of an espoused philosophy, rather than against pages and pages of manifesto they haven’t read.
And you know something, I think that the public are waiting for someone to tell them what they believe in, rather how they will run things or what they’re against…
Mark Valladares is a bureaucrat, for which he apologises. He lives in a small village in the country where he has learnt to stop worrying and start thinking…
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Where I stand on the new Lib Dem groupings
Introducing... Lib Dems Against Factionalism
“A shitty time to be a liberal”: The Economist's must-read piece on the Clegg paradox (and 2 reasons why it's wrong)
The original text of today's speech from David Cameron
Health and Social Care Bill: a letter from Ed Milliband
The Independent View: The major environmental tests facing the Liberal Democrats in 2012 (Part 1)
Opinion: Liberal Democrat, not Yes Minister, values must prevail on Risk Register
Opinion: Secularism is a friend to Religion, not its enemy
Opinion: The Liberal Democrats must welcome disaffected Blairites and One-Nation Tories
Opinion: Work-fare or work fair? Why I shan't be shopping at Tesco
Liberal Democrat MEP McMillan-Scott gets European Hunan Rights Portfolio
Tesco "climbdown"?
Comics and things: Update
Licensing Act 2003 Subcommittee Wirral Council 22/2/2012 Part 1 Appointment of Chair, Lifestyle 82-84 Town Meadow Lane, Moreton, CH46 7TB
Licence Application: Morrisons, 418B Wilbraham Road, Manchester, M21 0SD
Sefton Lifeguards
Liberal Eye
Richard Dean
George Kendall
Michael Hall
14 Comments
Quote – “the media are almost entirely partial in their approach to policy. And why not, it’s a free media, isn’t it (a debate for another day, perhaps but let’s assume that it is)?” In an article about ideas and manifestos, that is an assumption that I would never make.
As for – “put yourself in the position of normal people, the vast majority of people who don’t, and probably never will, join political parties, for whom Westminster politics is about people doing things to them rather than a process of active participation.” – I would say that the corporate sector, especially finance, dont have to join political parties to be involved with them, now that we have had 2-3 governments in a row who are keen to work on their behalf.
A party manifesto has a quasi-legal status vis-a-vis the House of Lords, so it would be impracticable to do without it.
Absolutely agree with Mark Valladares thesis. And perhaps what we ought to believe in is the necessity of institutions to protect ‘normal people’ from the excesses of the rich and/or powerful. That, after all, was what the idea of ‘parliament’ was supposed to do right back (in England) from the time of Magna Carta. Of course who was ‘rich & powerful’ and who was ‘normal’ has changed over the centuries as has Parliament but the principle is still valid and, over the last 30, 50, ?? (make a choice) Parliament has become a total & miserable failure in that regard with the result that now dominates the headlines.
I think that Mark makes a very good point. For a long time, the Lib Dems have believed that, to be taken seriously as a potential party of government, we must have a detailed policy on everything – otherwise, we will be accused of not having policies, one of the jibes that has always been aimed at us by our enemies. I guess that we still need detailed policies, without getting bogged down in them, as we arguably sometimes do. As well as needing to make our overall philosophy clear, I suggest that a political party needs a “flavour”. Without knowing the detailed policies of Obama and Palin (forget McCain!), I knew where both were coming from. I knew what they were about. That’s something that the Lib Dems need – people instinctively understanding what we are ‘for’ as a party, what we are ‘about’. Sometimes, that’s going to involve the leadership acting on its own initiative – sometimes, the party leader will make a speech saying “this is what I think as leader of the party” and it’s got to be reasonable to say that the speech indicates where the party kinds of stands, even if we have not put the contents of the speech through our exhaustive policy-making processes, which sometimes take forever.
I agree it is a major concern that each issue is considered in isolation and that the cumulative effect may be having the opposite result than envisaged – there is an issue here of expertise and insight which is wrapped up in reform of the House of Lords.
But it’s also to do with how the media has taken a dominant position in political debate since first radio, then TV was allowed in Parliament and emphasis has increasingly been placed on PMQs as the weekly showdown between the parties, rather than in decisive Parliamentary debates or in the more technical committee hearings.
We may well wonder if we aren’t being distracted!
It’s what I was banging on about in a previous blog. Defining what we stand for is paramount. The policy detail will not cut it with the vast majority of people. And now that we are in Government, if is even more vital that we take this bull by the horns, as we will not get the protest vote next time.
Where do we start?
Coincidentally (or perhaps not!) I have just written a post arguing much the same.
Sorry, forgot to include the link.
http://liberaleye.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/the-overton-window-and-why-we-need-a-liberal-narrative/
Incidentally, please don’t appologise for being a bureaucrat. The problem is BAD bureaucrats of which there are too many, not bureaucrats per se.
Mike,
Alright, let’s assume that we want a free press, a diverse, occasionally contrary one. Yes, you can argue about control (and I would) but if action is taken to encourage and nurture a variety of media outlets, and I suspect that technology will do that for us, you are likely to end up with a media industry that reflects a broader range of opinion and is more open to new ideas than has been the case up until now.
And yes, the corporate sector has influence – of course it should. However, that influence should be open and transparent, but above all proportionate. Perhaps the News International furore will make this more achievable.
Frank,
I take your point. However, if a political party espouses a belief that those in positions of power should be democratically accountable, you really don’t need to explicitly state that House of Lords reform is intended, it should be a logical step to anyone who understands the meaning of the phrase. And, indeed, the reason why House of Lords reform is supposed to be in a manifesto is because of a convention. Not a law, not something that has been debated by those who represent us, merely a deal stitched up behind closed doors to make life easier for those involved, not necessarily those affected. Hope that all is well in Neath Port Talbot, please pass on my regards!
Helen/Liberal Eye,
Self-evidently, I agree. But it’s more than that, it’s an entirely different way of doing politics, not about exploiting the errors or positions of others for short term advantage or populism, but about explaining why we think a particular stance is right or wrong, about linking it to a philosophy, and explaining how it will impact on people and to what end. I’m not sure that we, as a Party, have understood the difference between tactics and strategy.
I’m sure that I sound a bit naive at this point, but what the hell, it’s the politics that I’m comfortable with.
Belated comment. Mark is spot on. I just say that Lib Dems are about freedom, fairness, green, international and then illustrate those anecdotally – works for me and seems to work with the audiences
I agree that we need a philosophy and narrative but I think there’s still a place for manifestos.
1) Even an agreed philosophy can have multiple interpretations when it comes to policy. Agreeing policy before hand can settle expectations and save infights and headaches once elected.
2) Some people do care about policy. It’ll be important to them that you have a plan and vision. Otherwise the rhetoric floating around the local press might be we’re a party with philosophical words but no plan.
Tim Farron’s piece in “reinventing the state” pointed out that we have done great policies that ready appeal to certain people but we fail to communicate them. You’re right that communicating a “flavour” is important, but there’s a time and a place for concrete policy too.
You’re right that a “how” and “why” should be included too, so as to integrate this policy into their overall image of us.
I’m going to respectfully disagree with Mark here. While I do believe we should do a better job of explaining the liberal philosophy that underpins our policy, detail allows practical contradictions to be spotted and ironed out.
The Green Party manifesto for the 2010 General Election is a case in point. If you read it, it says lots of what they will do in vague terms, much of which is contradictory. The lack of detail means that these contradictions are if anything more glaring – by saying how we’d achieve our intentions, we put flesh on the bones and make it look more convincing and believeable.
Of course, a balance needs to be struck – we don’t want to get into minute specifics which will be overtaken by events – but it’s not good enough to just say “this is what we stand for” if we want to convince people to vote for us.