Poor Gillian Duffy! She woke up this morning an ordinary Rochdale lady thinking about housework and shopping and what to have for tea. Tonight she finds herself at the centre of a political storm which could finally guarantee the downfall of a man who, firstly as Chancellor of the Exchequer and now Prime Minister, has been in power for thirteen years.
Mrs Duffy's moderate expressions of concern about the impact of immigration on the economy provoked Mr Brown to label her a "bigoted woman" - a paranoid over-reaction which revealed much about how he views the natural concerns of ordinary voters.
But behind Mr Brown's gaff lies a much bigger problem - the failure of all the main political parties to engage effectively with the issue of immigration over many years.
The standard mantra of the Labour Party (and, to a lesser extent, the Liberals) is to label anyone who suggests unbridled immigration may have drawbacks as a bigoted racist. The Conservatives, who traditionally have been less in favour of immigration, have exacerbated the problem by allowing themselves to be gagged, for fear of being labelled racist and losing the floating voters.
The effect of this stifling of debate is that the case for immigration has not been effectively made to the electorate, and there has been no recognition and mitigation of the effects on ordinary people of increased competition for jobs, social housing and health care.
This conspiracy of silence leaves a major concern of the voters open to exploitation by the far right parties - UKIP and the BNP - whose analysis of the issues and proposed solutions are simply unacceptable in a civilised country.
The major parties owe it to the electorate and the immigrant community to engage with their legitimate concerns and ensure that appropriate measures are put in place to deal with this issue.
Thursday 29 April 2010
Friday 16 April 2010
Manifesto 2: I don't want my leaders to be like me!
Don't get me wrong - I think I might make a good MP. I have a degree in economics and politics, I have a professional qualification and 48 years of life-experience to draw on. All these should make me eminently suited to serve my country in the political sphere. Except that I'm too lazy for all that campaigning and I prefer a quiet life.
What I mean is - I do not require my leaders to be like me in superficial ways in order to represent me in Parliament and make decisions on my behalf.
As the build-up to the general election gets under way, it is frequently commented by politicians, pressure groups and the media that the candidates are mostly white, middle-aged males who do not reflect the wide make-up of the electorate. In recent weeks, I have heard people suggest that there should be:
The first problem is practical - how do you ensure the right mix, without imposing candidates on the electorate before they vote? Women-only shortlists have been tried and found controversial, mainly because their imposition requires central party officials "meddling" with the appointment of local candidates. Where representation is based on geographical constituencies, it makes no sense to try to impose quotas in this way.
The second problem is also practical - how do you know what the "right" mix is? Who do you listen to? Do you select just one criterion - e.g. gender or age or ethnicity? Or do you try combinations of criteria? And how do you define the criteria? Will any Christian do? Or must we have quotas of Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics etc? And what about dog and cat owners? And motorists/cyclists/pedestrians? Don't they deserve a say?
The third problem is, once elected, the "representatives" may not always behave in the stereotypical way expected of them in this carefully-balanced mix. Individuals cannot be slotted into boxes in this way, and most of the issues considered by government cut across such divisions anyway.
And where does talent fit into this equation? The big political issues - economic, legal, foreign policy - are very complex, and require talented people to understand them. By emphasising superficial qualities, it is probable that genuinely talented candidates would be overlooked because they don't fit in the right boxes.
Good leadership is a very rare quality - very few great leaders conform to a stereotype - they are usually very special indeed. By limiting the political gene pool to "people like us" we risk overlooking true talent in favour of mediocrity.
What I mean is - I do not require my leaders to be like me in superficial ways in order to represent me in Parliament and make decisions on my behalf.
As the build-up to the general election gets under way, it is frequently commented by politicians, pressure groups and the media that the candidates are mostly white, middle-aged males who do not reflect the wide make-up of the electorate. In recent weeks, I have heard people suggest that there should be:
- More women MPs
- More black and ethnic minority MPs
- More Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Atheist/Jeddai MPs
- More retired/teenage MPs
The first problem is practical - how do you ensure the right mix, without imposing candidates on the electorate before they vote? Women-only shortlists have been tried and found controversial, mainly because their imposition requires central party officials "meddling" with the appointment of local candidates. Where representation is based on geographical constituencies, it makes no sense to try to impose quotas in this way.
The second problem is also practical - how do you know what the "right" mix is? Who do you listen to? Do you select just one criterion - e.g. gender or age or ethnicity? Or do you try combinations of criteria? And how do you define the criteria? Will any Christian do? Or must we have quotas of Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics etc? And what about dog and cat owners? And motorists/cyclists/pedestrians? Don't they deserve a say?
The third problem is, once elected, the "representatives" may not always behave in the stereotypical way expected of them in this carefully-balanced mix. Individuals cannot be slotted into boxes in this way, and most of the issues considered by government cut across such divisions anyway.
And where does talent fit into this equation? The big political issues - economic, legal, foreign policy - are very complex, and require talented people to understand them. By emphasising superficial qualities, it is probable that genuinely talented candidates would be overlooked because they don't fit in the right boxes.
Good leadership is a very rare quality - very few great leaders conform to a stereotype - they are usually very special indeed. By limiting the political gene pool to "people like us" we risk overlooking true talent in favour of mediocrity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
