The cash-for-access scandal continues, with former Home Secretary Jack Straw on the Today programme this morning making a very leaden attempt to score points.
None of the political parties has fully grasped the seriousness of the situation, which is likely to blow up in a similar way to the expenses scandal.
The political parties are reliant on "big money" because their membership base has collapsed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12934148). Their membership base has collapsed because the elected MPs have usurped power from local constituency party members and become completely disconnected from the people they are supposed to be representing. Why be a member of a political party when you have absolutely no control over developing policy, ensuring election commitments are fulfilled, or recalling (and dismissing) errant MPs?
By limiting political donations to a maximum of £20 or £30 per party member the political parties will HAVE to build a wide party membership or cease to exist (and their place taken by new parties that are willing to be governed by their members).
I am also not happy about the role played by advertising in deciding elections (and this includes social media - we currently have a plague of asinine 140 character statements by our elected representatives, who presumably think they are "communicating" by means of this twaddle).
By taking "big money" out of politics and limiting their power to advertise the politicians will be obliged to communicate by calling on their constituents one by one and talking to them. And not just at election time, but on an on-going basis. If we can ally this to the removal of the Murdoch influence then democracy should be re-established and re-affirmed (rather than the present self-perpetuating all-party oligarchy).
An analogy can be seen in the music industry. At one stage all music was live performance and the performers were directly connected to their audience (who would boo or clap or demand their money back). Then recording technology intervened and "captured" the process of making music and "big money" usurped decisions on what music got selected and promoted. Performers became disconnected from their audiences - to such an extent that there were periodic rebellions. Then technology changed again, and music become more or less free of big money control. Performers were forced to go out on the road to reconnect with their audiences.
Eighty years ago politicians had to connect with their constituents by canvassing and big public meetings. Then communications technology made them think they could mostly just sit back and win elections through advertising and PR. Now they must go back on the road and reconnect.
None of the political parties has fully grasped the seriousness of the situation, which is likely to blow up in a similar way to the expenses scandal.
The political parties are reliant on "big money" because their membership base has collapsed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12934148). Their membership base has collapsed because the elected MPs have usurped power from local constituency party members and become completely disconnected from the people they are supposed to be representing. Why be a member of a political party when you have absolutely no control over developing policy, ensuring election commitments are fulfilled, or recalling (and dismissing) errant MPs?
By limiting political donations to a maximum of £20 or £30 per party member the political parties will HAVE to build a wide party membership or cease to exist (and their place taken by new parties that are willing to be governed by their members).
I am also not happy about the role played by advertising in deciding elections (and this includes social media - we currently have a plague of asinine 140 character statements by our elected representatives, who presumably think they are "communicating" by means of this twaddle).
By taking "big money" out of politics and limiting their power to advertise the politicians will be obliged to communicate by calling on their constituents one by one and talking to them. And not just at election time, but on an on-going basis. If we can ally this to the removal of the Murdoch influence then democracy should be re-established and re-affirmed (rather than the present self-perpetuating all-party oligarchy).
An analogy can be seen in the music industry. At one stage all music was live performance and the performers were directly connected to their audience (who would boo or clap or demand their money back). Then recording technology intervened and "captured" the process of making music and "big money" usurped decisions on what music got selected and promoted. Performers became disconnected from their audiences - to such an extent that there were periodic rebellions. Then technology changed again, and music become more or less free of big money control. Performers were forced to go out on the road to reconnect with their audiences.
Eighty years ago politicians had to connect with their constituents by canvassing and big public meetings. Then communications technology made them think they could mostly just sit back and win elections through advertising and PR. Now they must go back on the road and reconnect.
No comments:
Post a Comment