RESTORING TRUST IN POLITICS

PARMJIT DHANDA

Our political fortunes are entwined with the issue of trust. I believe we need a more deferential government, where the public has more control. And by looking, sounding and behaving more like the people we seek to represent, we’ll have every chance of serving Britain for another term.

But right now parliament, its structures and its MPs are facing a crisis. As the incumbent government, Labour is disproportionately tainted by sleaze, by the expenses row and by the public resentment that accompanies a decade in office.

Finding the right response 

As a party, we have yet to get to grips with the nature and depth of this crisis; our response appears to put it down to a general mistrust of politicians without realising that this is specifically Labour’s problem to deal with, because we are in government. Without adequate diagnosis of the problem, we’ve rushed to dish out the wrong medicine.

Take the recent Norwich by-election as an example. The idea that Labour could win back support by being seen to be tougher than Cameron and Clegg on alleged abusers of the expenses system was patently wrong. Our response needs to be deep, not shallow. By being knee-jerk and reactive instead of calm and more considered, we have created more problems for ourselves.

To restore trust properly, we need to accept that the disenchantment of the voters is not just about recent events. It’s about the public perception of a wider loss of control of their country and their democracy. They do not feel engaged – and when they do engage, for example by marching against the war in Iraq, they don’t feel listened to. Firstly, Labour needs to accept that the electorate have fair grounds to be brassed off with us. Secondly, we need to accept that this disenchantment is not something that can be put right by a review, by a little repositioning or through a reactive media strategy. Only then can we make progress.

This is, first and foremost, about power. It’s not about structures, although structures can play a part. By rushing to a structural solution – for example by changing the voting system –  Labour could, again, be accused of being reactive and looking for short-term political gain.

A unique time 

To get to the root of the problem, Labour must look to see where power lies. Then we need to fundamentally alter the settlement between government and the citizen. This is a unique time to be reformers. We should systematically shift power away from the executive and from parliament and place it firmly in to the hands of the people. The recent contest over the Speakership of the House of Commons was distant and sterile for most ordinary people, because it was a tussle of power within our existing institutions. It was a debate about moving power from one group of politicians to another, with no reference to the public.

To close the gap and restore trust requires much more deferential governing institutions and a shift from parliament towards citizens. We need more direct democracy and we need to use ‘new media’ to set parliament’s agenda. It’s not without risk. But by removing power from political front benches and instead letting the public, at their home computers and in their workplaces, set the issues for topical debates in parliament, we could transform the relationship between governors and the governed.

To move some of the instruments of power, including for example parliamentary adjournment debates, out of the capital and into town halls, we could shorten the gap between communities and parliament. The cultural gap in decision-making would also be narrowed. After all, it’s much harder to insulate yourself from the impact of your decisions as a minister when you’re feeling the strength of local arguments at the coalface. 

I believe these kinds of changes will eventually happen. But it needs to be the Labour Party that is making these arguments. As a party, we have ceded territory on the issue of direct democracy and we come across as shy about combining politics and technology.

The party of communication

As well as shifting power away from our governing institutions, Labour must again become the party of communication – a party that speaks to and for modern Britain. A decade in power has allowed distance to grow between us and the country. Our language has changed –  it is couched in the jargon of government and our messengers are not sufficiently like those who receive the message.

Harold MacMillan was an old Etonian who surrounded himself with old Etonians in government. Many of his colleagues, even those in his cabinet, were his relatives. We’ve moved on a great deal since then, but the narrowness of the ruling elite (albeit a Labour elite) in terms of schooling, connections and employment history is not sufficiently removed from MacMillan’s time. To be trusted by the British people, we need to be more like them. We need to talk like them, look like them and be more like them.

David Cameron is an Eton-educated, Oxbridge, ex-Bullingdon Club boy. How did we ever get to the position where he is seen to be more in touch with modern Britain than us? It’s not just down to his sales pitch –  we need to look at ourselves too. To widen Labour’s appeal, we must open up our selection processes.

All-female shortlists worked, but we need to introduce them for ethnic minorities too. And class is not an issue we can afford to ignore. If we are to increase social mobility in our country, the Labour Party and its politicians need to lead by example. A lot of talent exists that has not been through the traditional political networks, and we need to tap into it.

Labour can restore the public’s trust. But in government we need to be more deferential to those we represent. And we need to be more like them in the first place.

HOME