Lecture to the Social Market Foundation (SMF)
by Rt. Hon. HAZEL BLEARS MP
[CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY]
Thank you, David [Lipsey]
Let me start by thanking the Social Market Foundation (SMF) for the opportunity to step back from the noise and clamour of the political battle, and reflect on the state of our politics and the ‘fitness for purpose’ of our political system. And believe me, there’s plenty of noise and clamour at the moment!
As ever with an SMF audience, there exists in this room a wealth of knowledge and experience, and so I hope there will be plenty of time for discussion.
Let’s start with the seemingly simple question: what is politics for? For me, politics is not a ‘career’, nor a purely academic or theoretical subject, nor some kind of intellectual game. When I look at the benches opposite, I sometimes wonder whether my political opponents see politics as a giant game of chess, a kind of cerebral contest with the prize of high office for those who can play it the best. The electorate, if you’ll forgive the extended metaphor, are the pawns, to be manipulated in the interests of the major pieces.
If you come from where I do in Salford, with a background like mine in community activism, and then local government, then politics is seen as an intensely practical pursuit, judged only by its impact on the lives of individuals. It is the answer to the questions: how do I get on in life, how do I protect my families’ interests, how do my children get educated, my parents cared for, my street kept safe, my job protected.
Politics is therefore the system and pursuit which seeks to improve the lives and prospects of the majority of citizens. In the current context of concern about the rising cost of living, and the increased cost of a basket of shopping, it is quite literally about ‘bread and butter’ issues.
Now if we define politics in these terms, the next question is does it work?
Well, it should come as no surprise, given that this lecture is calling for a new politics, that my answer to the question - does politics work - is a firm no.
Of course you can point to the improvements to the lives of working people in this country which have come about because of political campaigning and government action: everything from the National Health Service (NHS), to public parks, from the National Minimum Wage, to statutory public holidays. As a Labour politician, you would expect me to be proud and indeed evangelical about the progressive things Labour Governments have achieved.
And the past ten years have changed the political climate too – no-one in the mainstream argues against civil partnerships, or investment in the NHS, or equal pay, or race equality.
But if we’re honest about the way politics is viewed, the way it is conducted, and the way most people judge their ability to affect political change, then our system comes up short.
We’ve all been watching with trepidation the falling turnouts in elections, both national and local. Devolution to Wales, Scotland and London has not stemmed the tide. Even in London on 1st May, despite the high-profile campaigns, the blanket media coverage, and the polarised voter choice, turnout was 45%. A record high turnout, with more people voting for Ken Livingstone than in 2004, but still over half of Londoners not voting at all. Ken of course joins Clem Attlee in the club of politicians who win even more votes than last time, but still lose because the other guy does better.
We’ve also seen with concern the class divides when it comes to voting, with the lowest turnouts in the most deprived neighbourhoods, with the danger signal that politics might continue to alienate the very people with the most to gain from it: the poorest, the unemployed, and ethnic minorities.
But these trends mask a much more disturbing development, which is people’s sense that politics is a tainted activity, something disreputable at best, corrupt at worst.
One of the underlying themes from the doorsteps in the lead-up to 1st May was an overwhelming sense of powerlessness felt by people. That their voices are unheard, that their views disappear into a vast black hole, without the faintest echo, that nothing they can do will make any difference.
This growing alienation from politics explains the growing ‘voter strike’, but it also helps to explain an other phenomena, from the election of BNP councillors, to the election of the ultimate anti-politician Boris Johnson in London.
This is the reason why our politics doesn’t work: because people feel powerless. Because in too many situations, they are powerless.
So the remedy to our political malaise must be rooted, not just in the reform of structures and institutions, but in the redistribution of power, away from the centre, and towards the community and the citizen.
My prescription is a shift away from our over-reliance on representative democracy, and towards more participatory democracy.
I have never seen these two ideas as incompatible; only in politics textbooks do they exist in isolation. Indeed participatory democracy is the best way to shore up and enhance representative democracy, and I find myself often telling councillors when they express concerns over participatory budgeting, petitions or referenda. An elected politician becomes better able to do their job, if there are processes and activities which let local views be heard and engage local people.
President Theodore Roosevelt, in a speech in 1912 stated that methods of direct democracy:
‘should be used not to destroy representative government, but to correct it whenever it becomes misrepresentative.’
It is worth reminding ourselves that the issue Teddy Roosevelt was addressing in 1912 was keenly contested by the Founding Fathers, with Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Kelly and Tom Paine arguing for the new United States to be a model of direct democracy, and James Madison, John Adams and George Washington arguing, successfully, for the US to be a representative democracy.
Some have suggested that the rise of the internet allows for a rebalancing of democracy, so that Jefferson may win over Madison after all.
Anyway David, so far, so theoretical.
Let us leave Philadelphia and get back to the streets and estates of Salford. How can a new politics work in practice for the people I seek to serve as MP? How can we pass political power to the people, in a real and practical sense?
Let me offer some solutions:
First, political power should be exercised as locally as possible.
It is through local organisations that people learn the core skills of democracy. As JS Mill pointed out you don’t learn how to swim by reading about it, you learn to swim by doing it. But as the traditional organisations such as the churches, co-ops or trade unions have declined, the opportunities for people to learn the skills of democracy have declined too.
So we need to build a new generation of organisations, campaigns and networks to create a vibrant civic society.
One way to achieve this is the transfer of assets from local authority ownership to community ownership. These assets might include leisure centres, street markets, swimming pools, parks and land, as well as disused or derelict facilities such as a disused school, shop or pub.
What asset transfer does is to create a new cadre of active citizens, owning, directing and running a service.
It creates new co-operatives, mutuals and social enterprises. And it should also create a facility or service which is responsive to local need, reflects local ambitions, and which generates loyalty from the local community.
Of course this throws up some practical questions about unrepresentative groups ‘capturing’ an asset, about the limits of asset transfer, and some theoretical questions about the nature of public ownership. Is a park owned and run by a community group less in ‘public ownership’ than one owned and run by the council? I argued in Communities in Control, my 2003 Fabian pamphlet, that public ownership in the old sense of being owned by the state is largely imagined, whereas public ownership via a local co-op or mutual is real.
What I want to see happen next is a major expansion of asset transfer in order to unleash the creativity and energy of local people. And we need especially to do it in ways which create income over the medium term, for example rents from land owned by Community Land Trusts, so that the projects are not simply propped up by state subsidy.
And let me say loud and clear that I do not buy the argument that local people are too apathetic, busy, or uninterested to run local assets. If we create the right conditions, people are capable of extraordinary feats of organisation, imagination and energy.
Second, we need new ways to exercise political power, beyond casting a vote.
I am publishing a White Paper on passing power to communities later in the summer which will contain a range of measures to give people new access points to the political system.
The kinds of ideas we are discussing include how do I as a citizen gain access to information, how do I influence political leaders through petitions, citizens’ juries and panels, how do I seek redress when public services let me down, and how do I stand for office if I think I could do a better job myself. I want to really capture the mood of the public with this White Paper, because people are telling me they want a real say.
Third, we need to make our existing political structures more accessible.
One of the things I heard again and again on the election campaign trail last month was ‘you’re all out of touch’. The rows about expenses, the lists at John Lewis’s, the travel perks, the relatives on the payroll, the second jobs. These things have seeped into the public consciousness. People think politicians are on the make. They think we’re living in our own world, unaware of the harsh realities, and so we need to fix that.
For example, why shouldn’t the Cabinet meet in locations other than the Cabinet Room at Number Ten Downing Street?
Just imagine if the Cabinet meeting took place at the British Legion, Swindon, the Town Hall, Grimsby, or the Victoria Community Centre in Crewe. There is no good reason why not. Imagine if the meeting was preceded by sessions with Cabinet ministers meeting local people, listening to their concerns, engaging in discussion. Local schools getting involved. Interviews for local newspapers and community radio. And no doubt it would have a direct impact on the decisions made.
Last summer, I introduced the idea of cabinet ministers getting back to the floor by spending some time in workplaces, away from the media, doing a real job. I ended up at Tesco’s for three days, stacking shelves and on the tills. I won’t tell you which one of my colleagues got to be a train driver for the day.
This should become the norm. Every Government minister should immerse themselves in the lives and communities of the people they serve. It is all too easy for Ministers to become remote, cooped up in departmental offices, driven from meeting to meeting, and enveloped by civil servants. We need to create the space for Ministers to remain grounded and normal.
All of this agenda – changing our political culture, passing power to the people, reforming the system – is core Labour territory.
It echoes the Labour philosophers such as RH Tawney who called for democracy to be:
‘not just a political system but a type of society and a manner of life.’
Or GDH Cole, who wanted the:
‘widest possible diffusion of power and responsibility’.
And it reflects my own belief that politics should be practical, and judged against its impact on real people in real communities.
Finally, I believe that this agenda for empowerment should be at the heart of the political battle in the coming months, because it will allow the Government to prove that it is still on the side of the people who pay our wages, and afford us the incredible honour and privilege of serving as MPs or Ministers.
Thank you for listening.
[ends]