We have a few guests lined up at the moment, and here’s one of them.  We’re chuffed to welcome back Marcus Warner, a frequent contributor to Wales Home, who agrees with Malc’s thoughts about democracy.  But that’s not the only reason we’re publishing it, honest.  Think of this post as part of the ‘mini-series’ on democracy we’ve accidentally ended up doing…
I had planned to do this piece prior, but Malc’s post yesterday made me nod in agreement and spur me on some more. The issue I wanted to add is one of straw men and the tendency for us all to imagine cartoonish cardboard cut outs of our political opponents.
I have been a member of two political parties, a social democrat always and a nationalist as I got further into my political journey. It was surprising, but had I not made a journey from one party to the other, I would have probably would still have the cartoon version Plaid Cymru as standard. I encounter less, but still visible occasions when my Plaid comrades do the same towards Labour. I have noticed as well that often the people with the closest viewpoints on the political compass as it were are the most likely to paint these caricatures of each other.
But more widely than that, would we all not benefit from being a bit more gracious about the other side’s motives, strengths and weaknesses?
From a purely tactical point of view, knowing your enemy is often central to defeating them. Understanding them is crucial in seeking to beat them, but this takes a certain healthy respect and not to indulge in straw men versions of them.
I sit rather clearly and strong on the left of politics, but I  think as I have got older I feel that I have got to understand the right’s motivations more. Too many of us on the left refuse to accept that many on the right believe in lower taxes because they believe people should have more money to spend on how they want to.
They believe in a smaller state because they don’t feel the state can solve everything. They believe in personal responsibility around getting a job or choosing private sector services because they believe people themselves can do it better than the man in Whitehall.
Do I agree with the right’s ideas on how to organise society? No. But one thing we all need to start looking to do is making this about a battle of ideas and about creating a better society, not painting the other side as baby eaters who only have evil motives for putting forward their ideas. It takes certain aloofness to believe that and I point the finger at us all. We might believe we have better ideas on the issues that matter, but no one party, group or wing has the moral high ground from the get-go.
Too much of the political debate focuses on the person suggesting it, rather than the idea itself. Too often ideas are owned by the left/right/nationalists (Welsh, Scots or British) and then they shout ‘bagsy’.
The thing is and I accept this is my anecdotally evidence opinion, but most ordinary punters don’t think like those of us who read this website. They don’t think left, right, nationalist, trot, Friedman etc, they see an idea in the context it is presented to them (context is vital too) and take it at face value. Of course the context may present it falsely – in the positive or the negative – but the point is that voters don’t necessarily have a default setting that many of us in politics do.
This is not some paean to mushy consensus politics. I believe in my ideas and want to test them against other ideas in a vibrant democracy. But I think it would benefit politics, the strength and depth of all our ideas and the public at large if we were willing to understand the counter argument better. Let us not just assume that we only have our ideas out of deep thinking and genuinely held purpose, while everybody else is just a cynical, evil carpetbagger who just wants to lie their way to absolute power before bringing forth the apocalypse.
Next time you see your political foe, perhaps the time has come to buy him or her a pint. Let’s understand more and judge less.
#1 by Douglas McLellan on February 18, 2011 - 10:21 am
I agree with you. My own political journey has gone from the left to the centre (although some would argue its more to the right than that).
I really dont understand the level of contempt and even hatred that some activists in any given party have for activists in any given other party. In some respects we take our cue from the leaders of our parties in how we behave towards other parties but of course there are local variations.
And you are totally correct about how ordinary, non-political, ‘vote and forget’ punters see politics and make political decisions. It would be interesting to read a study of why people vote the way they do and what has actually influenced that vote. I would be willing to guess that direct political lobbying by parties and activists is not as strong an influence as we sometimes think it is.
#2 by Indy on February 18, 2011 - 12:02 pm
In real life political activists don’t actually have contempt for each other. I know most of the Labour activists in my patch and get on with them OK. Not quite on going for a pint terms but certainly on friendly terms. The ulttra negative and attack stuff is largely generated for the press, politicians do not behave like that in real life (there are a few exceptions to that but by and large people are quite friendly towards each other).
#3 by Douglas McLellan on February 18, 2011 - 12:42 pm
Certainly it is only some activists. I know a few Lib Dems who hate the Torys with an unbelievable passion and some Labour activists (for that was my former party) who viewed the SNP with contempt.
Perhaps the failing is not that politicians are actually unfriendly towards each other but instead that they play to the media and appear to hold negative beliefs about their opponents?
#4 by Shuna on February 18, 2011 - 12:43 pm
I remember a certain Mr Cameron when elected to be leader of his party stating that he wanted a new style of politics and wasnt’t going to go in for the Punch and Judy PMQs etc – and what did he promptly do? Yup Punch and Judy style PMQs.
I have managed over the years to be on perfectly civil terms with political opponents and activists – I even performed the marriage ceremony for one (Psssst Malc! your wedding anniversary is coming up, please don’t forget!)
One thing I have learned as I have gotten older is that things are not as black and white as I thought they were when I was younger. Consensus should play a bigger part in politics – then the non-politically active might regain some respect for their politicians.
Anyway – great post Marcus!
PS as a minority Labour Party member within this blogging community – happy to buy any of you a pint!
#5 by Marcus Warner on February 18, 2011 - 3:08 pm
Thanks guys.
The punch and judy/petty arguing is going to happen. I suppose what I was aiming at is at least giving the other side of the argument the respect of not reducing it to evil motives.
Too many times (it works left/right more than each party perhaps), both reduce well thought out and genuine ideas on how to shape society to being about some nasty, hidden reactionary agenda.
#6 by Neil Craig on February 18, 2011 - 4:15 pm
“many on the right believe in lower taxes because they believe people should have more money to spend on how they want to.
They believe in a smaller state because they don’t feel the state can solve everything. They believe in personal responsibility around getting a job or choosing private sector services because they believe people themselves can do it better than the man in Whitehall.”
Well put. However I would be interested in seeing somebody on the left say why they don’t want a smaller state; do believe people should not get to make their own spending decisions; & do think Whitehall (or Edinburgh) knows best.
#7 by Marcus Warner on February 18, 2011 - 9:15 pm
Hi Neil,
“However I would be interested in seeing somebody on the left say why they don’t want a smaller state; do believe people should not get to make their own spending decisions; & do think Whitehall (or Edinburgh) knows best.”
Happily. It would be about where the line is – I see nothing un left-wing about having a smaller state, but if you shrunk the state, shrunk the tax take etc too much you would leave collective public services at the risk of underfunding. Clearly there is a need for collective pot of money to be spent by a democratically elected government to adminster public services.
I also would argue that those with more money and more ability to spend their own money would further entrench inequality by essentially hoarding all the resources. A well funded state delivering mutual and equally available public services mitigates against that.
I find the ‘high tax, government knows best’ stereotype of the left exactly what we should avoid. It is churlish to suggest we all cannot see how a tax cut in the right areas would stimulate wider collective benefits.
To me the state debate should not be about size, it should be about how proactive it is.
#8 by Jamie on February 18, 2011 - 9:26 pm
I’d say I’m on the left, Neil, but I don’t instinctively support a large state at all. In fact, on social issues I’m certainly very against a large state, but I gather we’re talking more about economics here.
I suppose the state is a means to an end. I believe everybody should have the right to free healthcare and education. I don’t think anybody should be left behind. And I don’t believe people have a right to loads and loads of money at the expense of poorer people. I do believe, however, in the right to have some money, and the “you earn wage, state taxes x%, state invests in public services” system seems to kinda work. I don’t see this as the greedy state stealing half your income, although the fact that it appears then disappears on your pay slip probably encourages that perception.
I’m coming from the “all property is shared” idea towards “you can keep some of it for yourself”, rather than from “all property is private” towards “let’s share a wee bit”. The state is just a convenient way to implement that.
#9 by douglas clark on February 19, 2011 - 6:02 am
Marcus,
Well, I agree with you too. It seems to me that politics is actually pretty boring usually, normally. I was trying to catch FMQ on the i-Player and found myself watching some ‘debate’ on Scottish Science Centres instead. It was kind of strange to watch every party basically praise the work that they did and argue for their continued development. I was about a couple of minutes into it when I realised I thought the Labour guy had been quite funny on discussing his joy of science – the old Van der Graf Generator and bunsen burner trick – when I kind of had an epiphany. I quite liked what he had to say and I quite liked what everyone else had to say too.
It is too easy to see the conflict – the FMQ level stuff that makes drama – and not see this rather more mundane and frankly laudible but boring stuff.
Even FMQ calms down after the almost required confrontation between Alex Salmond and Iain Grey. The rest of the debate is not something that appears on terrestial TV unless you are an anorak.
I would submit, for your consideration, that most of politics is actually boring. That, indeed, we do agree with each other most of the time and it is only outlier politicians that make news. Of course there are issues where me and her next door don’t agree, but generally speaking we’d probably agree on a huge range of issues, whether we voted red or blue, orange or green or any other shade.
Seems to me that that is the fabric of our society that politicians cannot admit, ’cause it would place them in the awkward spot of seeing themselves as somewhat lesser creatures than they, collectively, imagine themselves to be.
#10 by Indy on February 19, 2011 - 5:14 pm
The issue between the left and right isn’t really about a “large state” it is about whether we want to pay for and provide services on a collective or capitalist basis.
The vast majority of Scots want to have collective services and collective decision making i.e. some level of public accountability. They don’t really want “the market” to provide healthcare, education, social services etc. We can all debate how public services can be provided more efficiently and more responsively but the point is that we want public services – we don’t want to leave it to the market.
#11 by cynicalHighlander on February 20, 2011 - 7:11 pm
Lets get a proper democracy first.
#12 by Marcus Warner on February 20, 2011 - 9:34 pm
Hi Indy,
“The vast majority of Scots want to have collective services and collective decision making i.e. some level of public accountability. They don’t really want “the market†to provide healthcare, education, social services etc. We can all debate how public services can be provided more efficiently and more responsively but the point is that we want public services – we don’t want to leave it to the market.”
I agree. But I feel that is an incomplete analysis (not that I think you don’t agree with what I put, you perhaps have chosen to keep it short).
We don’t want to leave it to the market for more than just not liking the market, it is because human need and care cannot be reduced to market efficiency. We don’t want someone to worry how to pay for heart surgery, whether shareholder dividends won’t pay out if they invest in the newest equipment and that there will not be a multi tier health service if you introduce market forces into it.
I actually don’t believe people necessarily have the ‘public > private’ argument that strong in their heads, I just think they realise that they instinctly would not want the same market forces that exist in other parts of their life be involved in the care of themselves or the elderly.
And this was my argument – we have to get back to having ideas with backbone and difference. I believe that market forces in healthcare are a worse outcome than a non-profit/public one. New Labour (and it perhaps needed another party other than the tories) almost offered a non-plussed attitude to private/public, this had left a gulf in the argument.