Episodit
-
Award winning playwright Chris Lee takes time out his busy schedule to interview the host of Taking the Party Out of Politics, Andrew Brown, about the political ideas behind the podcast, about his motivation for putting it all together, and together they explore whether it will be possible to make the sorts of changes to our political landscape which are the conclusion of the podcast series.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
It's not that people don't care enough. Absolutely not.
But when we campaign about single issues, we are separate. The thinking is not (obviously) linked up. And it too easy for government to nod, and to simply ignore.
It's not that we need more consultation.
But consultations can be simply a way of allowing the public to let off steam before the government does what it was going to do anyway. We need meaningful, engaged consultations, which look at the real impacts.
It's not that we need more online petitions.
But a collection of (potentially) uninformed online votes is too easy to justify ignoring. We need to demonstrate that our opinions are properly informed, and that we understand the wider context.
We need to do more as individuals.
We need to ensure that we are better informed. And to ensure that our elected representatives know what we are better informed.
We need to use our systems differently.
From Citizen Assemblies, to Citizen Scrutiny, to Citizen Government, to Citizen Information, to Citizen Thinking.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Puuttuva jakso?
-
None of us is as clever as all of us together.
We need to listen to experts. But we also need to allow space for good ideas to come from anywhere.
Together, not separately
It should be about the quality of the ideas, not about how good you are at lobbying; or how much money or power or connections a lobby group has.
To run a country, all these things need to come together.
People + good information = good decisions
We need to be careful. We should listen, but we should not be herded into all thinking the same way.
Sharing knowledge is power.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Ignorance is bliss. And it can also be funny.
But it can also be extremely dangerous.
We need to know what the basic facts about the world actually are. Otherwise, how do we know when some new piece of information is important.
We need to make sure that we have accurate, up to date information.
We need to agree on the facts. We can’t have political discussion descending into whether my statistics are more accurate than yours.
Statistics should be … statistics.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Could selected Citizens (rather than 'elected representatives') actually be asked to do the jobs which our Government and Ministers are doing at the moment?
How successful could they be expected to be?
What might we gain, and what might we risk losing?
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
A system which uses informed, balanced, objective, engaged people – citizens – to call our politicians to account, to check that they are doing their job.
It’s not a party-political thing.
But it is a political thing.
It’s making sure that the process of Scrutinizing what our elected Government and Ministers are doing is neutral, constructive, and independent.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Get a small group of people together. Maybe 100. Specially selected to be representative of the range of people and perspectives across the country. Young, old. Rich, poor. Different races and genders. Different political views.
Give them all the information about a topic. Let them ask all the questions they need to. Let them discuss it, and think about it. Let them hear from the experts, and from the people who really care about the topic.
Let anyone who wants to, listen in. Publicize the process.
Publicize the information and the ideas and the background to the topic.
And then: ask that group of people to make a decision on that topic, on behalf of all of us.
A decision which is nuanced and informed
And then ask our elected representatives to follow up on that decision.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
If you are just joining us today, then you are in luck, because today we are going to have a quick overview of all the big ideas which we have covered over the last 26 or so episodes. Why politics isn’t working for us, the voters, and why it isn’t really even working for the politicians who are trying to do their bests on our behalf, struggling to work within the political systems. Why there are some problems with the very nature of what we call representative democracy and electoral systems, but also why there are some problems which political parties bring on top of those structural problems.
Today, we are going to group our review around three main areas: Voters and Voting, Representative Democracy, and Political Parties.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Why is it so difficult? Essentially, because of the three things which Brexiters wanted, you could only ever have two:
1. The whole of the UK to leave the European Union on the same terms.
2. Leave the single market and the customs union, and
3. Avoid a border between the North and South of Ireland.
You cannot avoid having at least one of the three things which Brexiters didn't want:
A: leaving the EU and the customs union, means you have a border between North and South Ireland.
B: not having a border, means the UK would stay in the customs union.
C: Northern Ireland stays under some EU rules, meaning the whole of the UK didn't leave the EU on the same terms.
This is what the Northern Ireland protocol entails. Checks are made on goods travelling between the UK and Northern Ireland.
The disagreement is on how rigorously checks are made on goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
What are the misunderstandings which led to an unsuccessful, draining referendum and Brexit?
1. We joined late. The rules had already been set (e.g. supporting French small farmers).
2. The EU was always political: about pooling the things used to make war, as a way of avoiding war. But, the UK joined (primarily) for economic reasons.
3. Symbolism matters. Our politicians (and Media) love to knock the EU, to blame things on the EU, to make cheap political capital by emphasising differences; us and them. There were never enough UK politicians standing up for the benefits of membership.
4. Brexiters were right. It was complicated. But then it was also never going to be simple.
If you were the person who thought: “I'm happy to be a member of common Market, but nothing more”, then you were quite right in wanting to be out.
But you shouldn't have expected it to be easy.
That's wanting to have your cake and eat it. Or, as they say in France, to have the butter and the money for the butter.
If you (correctly) claim that the EU influences every aspect of our lives, then you also have to accept that there is no way that extricating yourself from something that complicated was ever going to be easy.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
The idea of a referendum is to ask the people what they want. To give the people an opportunity to say what they really think. But it is really about resolving an argument between two different factions within a political party.
A referendum needs a question which is easy to understand, and simple to answer. Otherwise the resulting vote doesn't give direction. But life isn't simple. Important questions aren't simple. That's why people argue for deliberative democracy.
When all the dust has settled, and the campaigning groups have gone home, who is responsible for any irresponsible campaigning? What if any lies were told? Who is to blame? No one, it seems.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Public Health: maximizing population health gain.
"Basically, whatever resource we have as a system, then we want to use that in the most efficient, intelligent, effective way to get the most health gains for the population." (Andy Fox, Assistant Director of Public Health for Lincolnshire)
In this podcast we explore what Public Health is attempting to do, and the balance between
the timescales which are going to make a difference to helping whole populations to live healthier lives, andthe timescales of the elected politicians who control Public Health budgets.This is important work that takes years … overseen by elected politicians who don't have years.
Public Health targets of 10 or 20 years, or more. Sometimes much, much more. Overseen by politicians who will face re-election in 4 or 5 years.
Would you trust elected politicians? They need to show results within a term of office.
But, then again, who else could we trust?
Balancing … Long Term Aims (e.g. Public Health) with Short Term Electoral Cycles
It's a balance which is at the heart of our political system, in this and many other parts of our lives. It requires good people to do the best they can, often working within a structure which is not only unhelpful but nearly impossible.
ZiNXJNKRuSe8Ne7Y2SOi
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Citizens' Assemblies:
+/- 100 people, representing a balanced cross-section of society, learning about an important issue, agreeing on what action should be taken.
Literally representing all of us.
Learning on behalf of all of us. Thinking on behalf of all of us. Agreeing on what action is needed ... on behalf of all of us.
Reporting back to us, with what they have learned.
Showing us why their recommendations make sense. Reporting back to our government, with what they have learned. Showing our government why their recommendations make sense.
Is our Government grown up enough to listen?
Or do the members of our Government really believe that they are the only ones who can know anything, can understand anything, or can take any decisions on our behalf?
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Protest
A crucial part of our democratic process.
A way for citizens who are not embedded in the political process to engage with politics, to let others know what is important to them, and to let the government know how they feel.
There needs to be a balance. It would not be appropriate for terrorists to hold the country to ransom. But does the new government Bill (which seeks to restrict the right to protest) hit the right balance?
We explore how protest works, and how important it is, by exploring the success - and the techniques - of XR (Extinction Rebellion), who have successfully pushed the issue of Climate Change (or, the Climate Emergency) up the agenda for all of us, including for government.
With input from Kathie Conn and Merijn van der Geer, from XR.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
BLUNDERS: things which went wrong, which were foreseeable, but which the government did anyway.
A very strong executive (government) makes it possible for policies to get rushed into place, without proper checks or thinking.
No consensus + No consultation = Ineffective policies
Behavioural causes of BLUNDERS:
IgnorancePrejudiceLack of judgement.Lack of appropriate/relevant experienceNo rewards or sanctions Over confidenceCarelessStubbornCultural Gap: don't understand votersStructural causes of BLUNDERS:
Poorly designed decision-making processes.Deficit of deliberation – too efficient & decisive; scrutiny disempowered. Operational disconnect. Professional politicians haven't run anything. No long-term responsibilityParliament – becomes a bit of an irrelevant spectator.
Whips ensure that Parliament is not able to rein in this behaviour.Scrutiny committees are disempowered by party loyalties, and by ministers either pressuring their fellow party members or simply bypassing the scrutiny process – and sometimes parliament itself – altogether.Public accounts committee (actually one of the most useful bits of what Westminster does) only checks on activity after the fact.All of that does not add up to a recipe for good government.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Too much power in one set of hands risks that all that power might run away with itself, rather than being used for the general good. The “Separation of powers" protects political liberty by dividing government powers.
The legislative is Parliament
The executive is the Government, and the Civil Service
However, the Government is also a subset of the Parliament.
Problem 1: A log jam
If the executive is from party, and the legislative is dominated by another (e.g. in the UK) everything the President (executive) tries to do can be blocked by Congress (legislative)
Problem 2: Too much unrestrained power
The government and ministers are able to push through new laws and plans without proper reflection and consultation, because their own party in Parliament doesn't want to cause too many waves.
Problem 3: Conflict of Interest for MPs
An MP is expected to scrutinize what Government does. BUT: the only way to get promoted is to follow the 'party line'.
How much meaningful scrutiny of their own party do you think that MPs really do?
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
The Wicked Issues are the things which are really important, but which don’t get dealt with.
Climate Change. Saving for retirement. etc
Our MPs believe that the short-term challenges of dealing with the Wicked Issues mean they won't get re-elected.
Any MP who says that we should invest now (to save money or difficulties later) is an easy target for the media and for the opposition. Easy to say that they are irresponsible - even though they are actually being responsible!
Like NOT eating healthy food, or NOT getting some exercise, NOT dealing with The Wicked Issues just makes them harder to deal with later on.
But our MPs are wrong. We aren't that shallow. In 1997, Labour was elected on a promise to tax us more, so that there would be more money for the NHS. We recognised that this was the right thing to do.
How do we make it clear to our representatives that we do want them to take on The Wicked Issues ... before they get even worse?
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
The Media
Independent Perspective or a Spotlight which burns too brightly?
Journalists take pot shots from the side lines, but if they really knew better than our elected politicians, why aren't they standing for election?
Grabbing your attention!
The pressure of grabbing the headline, of getting the perfect soundbite, of analysing and speculating before the announcement, all in the overexposure of a 24 hour news cycle.
Too much power in too few hands.
It can seem as though we have different newspapers, TV and radio stations, but actually an awful lot of it is owned by just a few companies and people.
Digital Media
It can seem as though we are by passing the 'controlled' media, but actually we end up with no filter, no quality control, and so we end up listening to certain sources - we create our own control, in our own internet bubble.
Bad news sells. If it bleeds, it leads.
It can be hard to have a sense of perspective, but every day, billions of people have a perfectly good day. Good things happen slowly, but they still happen. Bad things just grab our attention.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Ministers have a lot of power, in a focused area, and can really affect our lives.
Ministers are Political Party creatures.
Ministers are mostly from 'safe seats', which means that they are actually 'selected' by the active members of their constituency Political Party.
Ministers (and most politicians) are from a particular 'class' of people, who are all able to cope with the hassle, the pressure, and with being part of the machinery of a Political Party.
The Media spotlight often pressures politicians to be perfect and consistent, rather than to think afresh if the situation changes, or to admit to an honest mistake.
Ministers have an average tenure of just 18 months. This is their chance. They're in a hurry!
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Parliament:
It's supposed to be about our representatives doing their best for us.
It's supposed to be careful consideration of new laws.
It's actually dominated by the needs of Political Parties.
It's actually an old system, dominated by slick, centralised, powerful Political Parties.
When it works, it's because good people are making it work DESPITE the system.
If it weren't for those good people, the system would encourage and enable things to go wrong more often than they already do.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
- Näytä enemmän
