The Theft of Political Clothes

From time to time, we hear one political party fretting about another party stealing their clothes. If people want their ideas and policies adopted, isn’t it a good thing that even their opponents are coming round to promoting them? On the surface, that might seem so. But more often than not, such ‘borrowing’ of ideas is not to be welcome at all. Here are four reasons to be wary.

First of all, the sheer incompetence of the other side can give any policy they adopt a bad name and end up discrediting it completely. After thirteen years of mismanaging public services, failing to build desperately needed homes despite repeated announcements of new initiatives, mishandling everything from the economy to policing, it is understandable that a Tory government picking up a new policy may well be followed by the most muddled, disorganised execution of that policy, creating the impression that the policy itself is inherently undeliverable. The Tory policy commitment to Net Zero is a prime example.

Secondly, when it comes to policies with major funding implications, one has to watch for the half-hearted mimics. One party may want to close the funding gap for the health service, or provide what is necessary to reduce flooding. But the other side could come out to say that they are tackling the funding shortfalls in headline terms, when in fact they are not making available even half of what is actually needed, then the public – hearing figures about so many millions, or billions being added to current budgets – might think the financial challenge is met, and come to believe that one must not “throw any more money at the problem”.

Thirdly, we have the time-wasting tokenistic gesture of adopting a well thought out policy so that the party which had formulated that policy is not viewed by voters as the one with a distinctly good offer. In reality, once people no longer associate that policy with the party that sincerely seeks to implement it, the copycat brigade would put it on the backburner, or hand it to a small team with neither the staffing nor financial support for its development. The policy will never see the light of day, and many would have forgotten whose idea it was anyway.

Last but not least, there is the tactic of cynical undermining. This works by one party welcoming a policy idea which it does not want those who devised it to get a chance to secure its implementation. Having ‘adopted’ the policy, the manipulators would proceed to give it ‘special attention’ – by setting up a commission, a review team, etc. to determine how it should be taken forward. After months and years, lots of obstacles would be identified, and recommendations would be drafted and then discarded. The process would eventually achieve its aim of associating that policy with numerous insurmountable problems.

Next time we hear progressive reformists complaining about reactionary parties stealing their clothes, we should not blame them. Rather, we ought to help raise awareness about the lack of honour amongst those thieves.

Crimes Against Democracy

Since 2010, democracy in the UK has suffered from numerous attempts by Conservative-led governments to undermine it. In 2014, the method for electoral registration was changed despite warnings that it would cause hundreds of thousands of potential voters – especially youngsters and those in poor, transient households – to drop off the register. That was exactly what happened. To put off even more people from getting electorally involved, the Conservatives brought in the Elections Act 2022 which required photo identification for anyone wanting to vote in person, knowing that young people and those on lower income are less likely to have a passport or driving licence.

The 2022 Act also put an end to the Electoral Commission’s independent status that had hitherto enabled it to challenge the government. Henceforth, the commission would be placed under the supervision of a government minister. It’s unlikely that it would in future publicly castigate a Tory government for breaching electoral funding rules as it had done in the past.

All this and more have been taking place with no major public outcry – not because people are content to have their democratic influence diminished, but because they are not aware of what is being done and what impact it could have. If only people had generally acquired an early interest and understanding in how politics works, gone on to listen out for what implications various policy proposals might have, and followed through to use their vote to steer power towards where it would make the most positive difference.

For that to happen, we need extensive, high quality political education. What we get from the Conservative government, however, is guidance to schools instructing them to refrain from teaching anything which could be regarded as breaching ‘political impartiality’. And is political impartiality to be determined by an independent body guided by non-partisan experts? No, what is or is not an issue that is too ‘contested’ to teach is to be judged by the Conservative Secretary of State for Education, advised by advisors aligned with the interest of the Conservative Party.

Climate change apparently can be talked about at school, but not the ideas concerning what could be done about it, since that might involve policy suggestions that the government would contest. Similarly, race inequality can be mentioned, but not ideas about what are the causes and what might remedy it, since that might also involve explanations the government would contest. In short, anything the government does not agree with, and thus is inclined to contest as mistaken would be classified as unsuitable to teach at school. Political education would then be reduced to passing on information that the government is happy to endorse, but it would be cut off at any point it raises awareness of any fact, arrangement or practice that the government prefers to keep opaque. 

But isn’t it impossible to teach politics without getting tangled up with party politics? On this, there are two important points to note. First, scientists, engineers, doctors, economists, historians, etc all develop expertise in their fields and pass on their findings and criticisms to others who seek to learn from them – regardless of whether or not the government of the day find it inconvenient to hear those ideas and thus wish to contest them. Secondly, apart from facts and analyses relating directly to political processes, there are many skills that political education would inculcate – critical reasoning, assessing the reliability of claims made on different media platforms, conflict resolution, consensus building, fact checking, group development, empathic listening, etc. Some politicians may be against the teaching of such skills – as that would make it so much more difficult to deceive and manipulate people – but anyone who cares about democracy would welcome their cultivation.

--

You can find out more about the reforms needed to strengthen democracy in Time to Save Democracy (by Henry Tam): https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/time-to-save-democracy

For more on why and how we should provide more effective political education, see this collection - Who’s Afraid of Political Education (ed. by Henry Tam): https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/whos-afraid-of-political-education

[this is a shortened version of an article I wrote for Policy Press’ Transforming Society]