In our previous post we made the simple point that many of today’s politicians don’t look like us. Another reason we feel so disconnected from our politicians is that they seem so detached themselves, and because they express little feeling or passion. The current political class is increasingly technocratic because politics is increasingly a profession rather than a calling. They’re in danger of becoming Stepford politicians, opening up a ‘passion gap’ that can be occupied by dogmatists who do demonstrate their passion but for their own dangerous ends.
If you haven’t already, check out Julia Gillard’s recent speech on sexism and misogyny in Australian politics. Gillard used the speech to brand her opponent, Tony Abbott, who is the Leader of the opposition Liberal Party, a sexist and misogynist. What stood out was her anger and passion. Gillard told Abbott that if he wanted to know what a misogynist in modern Australia looks like then he should look in a mirror. She called him out on a range of sexist views he has espoused during his long political career. It was authentic, passionate and unspun.
The video of Gillard’s speech on YouTube has gone viral with two million views, and the speech was a top ten trending item in Australia on Twitter as well as trending internationally. It made headline news in South Africa, India, Canada and here in the UK. Jezebel, the popular American website for women lauded Gillard as “one badass motherfucker” after what it called her “epic speech on sexism”. Gillard’s approval ratings have risen significantly in the first public opinion survey since her speech. Almost 42% of Australians now think her opponent is sexist and the poll also shows that Gillard is 10 points clear of Abbott as preferred Prime Minister.
Contrast this to President Obama’s performance in the first US Presidential debate. He lacked passion, was detached and professorial, whilst his opponent Mitt Romney demonstrated energy and passion. Romney left the debate with a momentum which has carried through into the polls, wiping out Obama’s advantage. Romney has also been accused of being technocratic and wooden – probably the only reason why the election is close at all. The debate also highlighted one of the weaknesses of Obama’s presidency – his failure to maintain the energy and passion that he engendered in his supporters in 2008. Romney highlighted this in his nomination acceptance speech at the Republican convention:
“Hope and Change had a powerful appeal. But tonight I’d ask a simple question: If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldn’t you feel that way now that he’s President Obama? You know there’s something wrong with the kind of job he’s done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him.”
It’s become a common complaint that today’s politicians lack passion and are too technocratic. Mayor Boris Johnson has been labelled by Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome as the “Heineken Tory” who can reach parts of the electorate that other Conservatives struggle to reach in part because of his energy and passion. The same could have been said about Tony Blair in his early days as leader of the Labour Party – he connected with middle England in a way that no other senior politician on the left was able to. Sarah Palin is yet another politician who cut through to energise her party’s base because of her energy and passion – although in her case the euphoria unravelled quickly because of her lack of experience.
Of course, Prime Minister’s Questions has an element of passion – but it’s largely fake, a yaboo politics that disaffects rather than engages. It’s not so much passion that we want as authenticity – the feeling that politicians actually care about something and will take political risks to advocate for it. This is why Gillard’s speech stood out – she really believed in what she was talking about, and her anger and passion were genuine.
Part of the problem can be traced back to the rise of a professional political class. Politicians increasingly see politics as a career rather than a calling. The way to get ahead in politics now is to start out as a researcher to an MP after university, become a Special Adviser to a Minister or Shadow Minister, and then seek selection to a winnable seat before becoming part of the government shortly after entering Parliament. This aspiring politician might have a small period of time working for a think tank, a charity, in PR or the media, but generally in a role connected to politics. We now have a whole class of politicians whose whole careers have been inside the Westminster bubble – they have not held a job outside of politics. David Cameron, George Osborne, Andrew Lansley, Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Andy Burnham have all trodden this path. The careers of Nick Clegg, Ed Davey, David Willetts and Danny Alexander have all centred on Westminster as well. In fact a third of the cabinet worked for a politician or political party before they became an MP:
- David Cameron: Special Adviser to both Norman Lamont as Chancellor and Michael Howard as Home Secretary
- Nick Clegg: EU policy official and adviser to Sir Leon Brittain as EU Commissioner*
- George Osborne: Special Adviser to Douglas Hogg as Agriculture Minister, worked in No 10 when John Major was Prime Minister and worked in William Hague’s office when he was Leader of the Opposition
- Vince Cable: Special Adviser to John Smith when he was a Cabinet Minister in 1970s
- Ed Davey: Adviser to Sir Alan Beith
- Andrew Lansley: Adviser to Norman Tebbit MP* & Conservative Party (Director of the Conservative Research Department)
- Michael Moore: Researcher for Archy Kirkwood MP
- David Willetts: Researcher for Nigel Lawson as Chancellor, worked in the No 10 Policy Unit when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister and is the former head of the Centre for Policy Studies.
- David Laws: Economic Adviser and Director of Policy and Research for the Liberal Democrats
- Danny Alexander: Press Officer for the Liberal Democrats.
*paid as civil servants
The current approach to using interns in think tanks and charities reinforces this closed shop approach to the professional political class. In many ways, policy is the new ‘international development’ – to get a paid job you need to undertake an unpaid internship. This means that policy is increasingly only open to people whose families can support them financially.
This new professional political class lacks the backstory that politicians like Vice-President Joe Biden, Alan Johnson, Paddy Ashdown or David Davis bring to the job because of their experience outside of politics. Joe Biden is a single parent, Paddy Ashdown served in the Royal Marines, David Davis grew up on a south London council estate, whilst Alan Johnson started his career as a postman. Much play was made at the party conferences about the lives of the main party leaders before they became politicians, but no matter how these speeches were portrayed by the spinners, our current party leaders don’t have the wealth of experience outside of politics that the likes of Johnson, Ashdown etc do. They pale in comparison.
What matters here is the content – the policies that politicians advocate for and their real world consequences. Rich Yeselson argues that it isn’t the ‘truth’ of people’s personalities that matters but rather the factors involved in the reality of politics, such as the size of the majority in the legislature that influences policy. However, politicians’ backstories also matter. As Nadine Dorries, the backbench Conservative MP, has argued in relation to Osborne and Cameron:
“I think that not only are Cameron and Osborne two posh boys who don’t know the price of milk, but they are two arrogant posh boys who show no remorse, no contrition, and no passion to want to understand the lives of others – and that is their real crime.”
Politicians can’t be passionate if their real passion is the inside game of politics rather than standing for something that matters to the rest of us. The real danger is that this passion gap creates the space for dangerous dogmatists who do demonstrate their passion – the far right politicians such as Pim Fortyun and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands or the wholly self-interested politicians such as Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. If we want to avoid being subject to someone else’s passion, we will have to find our own – our political class is not providing it.
Andrew Mitchell was eventually forced to resign from the Cabinet on Friday for allegedly calling a police officer a ‘pleb’. Like the best political scandals, plebgate has revolved around a politician telling the truth, because compared to the Cabinet we are all commoners. It doesn’t matter what Mitchell actually said – the real issue in politics today is not individual personalities but the demographic profile of our politicians.
The Cabinet doesn’t look like their backbenches
More than half of the Cabinet attended an independent school (17 ministers), while Theresa May and Michael Moore attended both private and state schools. Whilst 19 Cabinet Ministers attended Oxbridge (61%), 12 didn’t (39%). The full list of Cabinet ministers, their schools, universities and careers is as follows:
|Minister||School||University||Career before becoming an MP|
|David Cameron MP, Prime Minister||Independent (Eton)||Oxford||Politics & PR|
|Nick Clegg MP, Deputy Prime Minister||Independent (Westminster)||Cambridge||Media, EU policy & politics (MEP)|
|George Osborne MP, Chancellor||Independent||Oxford||Politics|
|William Hague MP, Foreign Secretary||Grammar and comprehensive||Oxford||Management consulting|
|Theresa May MP, Home Secretary||Independent and comprehensive||Oxford||Finance & councillor|
|Chris Grayling MP, Justice Secretary||Grammar||Cambridge||Media, management consultant & councillor|
|Vince Cable MP, Business Secretary||Grammar||Cambridge||Politics, economics & business|
|Philip Hammond MP, Defence Secretary||Comprehensive||Oxford||Business|
|Ed Davey MP, Energy Secretary||Independent||Oxford||Politics & management consultant|
|Andrew Lansley MP, Leader of the House of Commons||Independent||Exeter||Politics, civil service & lobbying|
|Michael Gove MP, Education Secretary||Independent||Oxford||Journalist & writer|
|Jeremy Hunt MP, Health Secretary||Independent (Charterhouse)||Oxford||Business & PR|
|Eric Pickles MP, Communities Secretary||Grammar||Leeds Polytechnic||Business, councillor & Leader of Bradford City Council|
|Justine Greening MP, International Development Secretary||Comprehensive||Southampton||Accountant|
|Lord Strathclyde, Leader of the Lords||Independent||University of East Anglia||Politics|
|Grant Shapps MP, Co-Chairman of the Conservative Party||Grammar||Manchester Polytechnic||Business & writer|
|Danny Alexander MP, Chief Secretary to the Treasury||Comprehensive||Oxford||PR|
|David Jones MP, Welsh Secretary||Grammar||UCL||Solicitor|
|Michael Moore MP, Scottish Secretary||Independent & grammar||Edinburgh||Politics & accountant|
|Owen Paterson MP, Environment Secretary||Independent||Cambridge||Business & agriculture|
|Patrick McLoughin MP, Transport Secretary||Comprehensive||Staffordshire College of Agriculture||Farm worker & miner|
|Iain Duncan-Smith MP, Work and Pensions Secretary||Comprehensive & military school (HMS Conway)||Sandhurst||Army & business|
|Maria Miller MP, Culture Secretary||Comprehensive||LSE||Advertising, marketing & PR|
|Theresa Villiers MP, Northern Ireland Secretary||Independent||Bristol||Barrister, lecturer & politics (MEP)|
|Sir George Young MP, Chief Whip||Independent (Eton)||Oxford||Policy & politics (councillor & member of GLC)|
|Kenneth Clarke MP, Minister without Portfolio||Grammar||Cambridge||Barrister|
|Francis Maude MP, Minister for the Cabinet Office||Independent||Cambridge||Lawyer & politics (Westminster councillor)|
|David Laws MP, Minister for Schools||Independent||Cambridge||Banking & politics|
|David Willetts MP, Minister for Universities||Independent||Oxford||Politics & think tanks (Centre for Policy Studies)|
|Baroness Warsi, Minister for Faith and Communities||Comprehensive||Leeds||Solicitor|
|Dominic Grieve MP, Attorney General||Independent||Oxford||Barrister|
This is somewhat different to MPs. 112 MPs were educated at Oxford, whilst 53 went to Cambridge – this means that ‘only’ 25% of MPs went to Oxbridge compared to 60% of the Cabinet. According to Kavanagh and Cowley in The British General Election of 2010 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010) the parliamentary parties elected in 2010 break down as follows:
- 34% of Conservative MPs went to Oxbridge, compared to 30% of Liberal Democrat and 18% of Labour MPs.
- 54% of Conservative MPs went to an independent school, which is similar to the Cabinet but is higher than the 40% of Liberal Democrats MPs and 14% of Labour MPs who did so.
We have a Cabinet of lawyers, politicos and ex-businessmen and women; this is broadly similar to the party backbenches. Kavanagh and Cowley found that:
- 41% of Conservative MPs elected in 2010 had a career in business before entering the Commons (125 x MPs), 18% were solicitors or barristers (56 x MPs) and 1 in 10 worked in politics (31 x MPs).
- 31% of Labour MPs had a career in politics (as local politicians, union officials or political organisers – 81 x MPs), 14% worked in education (35 x MPs) and 10% were solicitors or barristers (26 x MPs).
- 19% of Liberal Democrat MPs worked in business before becoming MPs (11 x MPs), 18% worked in education (10 x MPs) and 12% worked in politics (7 x MPs).
However, the main Cabinet jobs are held by individuals who have never held a job outside of politics and PR. Cameron, Clegg, Hague, Alexander and Osborne don’t have a background in business or the law in the way that their party backbenchers do. There is also a dearth of local government experience in the Cabinet – only five Ministers – Grayling, May, Maude, Young and Pickles have held elected office as a local councillor.
Parliamentary parties don’t look like the electorate
People educated in the independent schools sector are significantly over-presented in Parliament. Only 7% of young people in Britain are educated in the independent sector, yet over half of the Cabinet went to a private school. Oxbridge accounts for a tiny proportion of the higher education sector in the UK – but over 60% of the Cabinet attended these two elite institutions. (According to the TES – 45% of places at Oxford and 40% of those at Cambridge are taken by pupils from the independent sector.)
Professions such as law, business and politics are significantly over-represented in parliament as well. There are more barristers and solicitors on the Tory benches than there are Tory women MPs. Indeed, there are nearly as many Etonians in Parliament (20 MPs) as there are former manual workers (25 MPs).
Women and people from BME communities are also still significantly under-represented in Cabinet and Parliament. There are only 5 women in the Cabinet (16%), and only 1 BME politician. Women also account for just 22% of MPs elected in 2010. Broken down by the main parties this comprises:
- 16% of Conservative MPs (48 MPs)
- 12% of Liberal Democrats (7 MPs)
- 31% of Labour MPs (81 MPs)
Progress was made in 2010 in the number of black and Asian MPs that were elected, which rose from 14 in the last parliament to 27 in this Parliament. They make up 4% of MPs in the Commons, compared to the estimated 8.7% of the total UK population.
Three women in the Cabinet – Baroness Warsi, Maria Miller and Justine Greening all hail from parts of Britain not usually considered true blue. Miller grew up in Bridgend, South Wales, Warsi is from Dewsbury and Greening from Rotherham. All three of them attended their local comprehensive and had a career before entering politics. Of course, both Warsi and Greening were demoted in the Summer reshuffle.
Attempts to diversify the make up of parliamentary parties have met resistance from party memberships
Party memberships are increasingly different to not only their parliamentary parties but also to the wider electorate – the membership of the Conservative Party is rapidly ageing for instance. It is well documented that the membership of the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats are in steep decline and compares poorly to the increase in membership of smaller parties such as the SNP, Greens and UKIP. Membership of both the Conservatives and Labour parties has halved since the 1990s, whilst the Liberal Democrats have seen their membership fall from 100,000 in the 1990s to 65,000 at the beginning of this decade. Attempts have been made to diversify the parliamentary base of the main parties but they have met resistance from local party associations. Political parties are no longer the mass movements for change that they used to be but their membership base still controls the selection of parliamentary candidates.
The result, then, is that the main political parties, Parliament, and especially the Cabinet do not look like us. That being the case, why should we expect the policies they propose and support to ‘look like us’ either?
Is consultation broken – or is it our political system? Consultation seems to have become the lightening rod for general discontents about politics and policymaking. Let’s improve consultation – but let’s also rethink how we do policy and politics at the same time.
In the Open Policy project with the Democratic Society in association with the Cabinet Office, we’re exploring what ‘open policymaking’ means in practice, and how we make it effective and democratic. But we’re starting the project in consultation – what works, what doesn’t, and how it can be improved.
A widely held view of consultation is that it is a sop – an exercise that governments are legally required to undertake but which rarely changes policies that have already been decided. This might be both broadly true and largely unfair. Consultation is only one mechanism, one particular stage in the policy process; it was never intended as the sole mechanism for engaging ‘the public’, let alone to ensure that policies have a democratic mandate that other parts of the political process have failed to invest in them.
In our previous post for this project we suggested how open policy represents a challenge to consultation. For us, taken to its logical conclusion (to its greatest openness), ‘open policy’ means we need to develop a radically different approach to policy and research. In terms of social policy, this means developing approaches that enable public service practitioners and services users to conduct and engage in research and policy analysis directly. These groups are at the frontline of public services and social issues, and as a result they have practical expertise and experience that could be used to improve social policy, especially to make policy more credible and pragmatic.
Where does this leave today’s approach to consultation? Consultations are often about what government intends to do. It hardly makes sense to complain when government does what it said it intended to (indeed, we commonly criticize government for the opposite). In the case of particularly contentious policies or those that haven’t been sufficiently publicly debated, consultation will never be able to resolve the perceived lack of a public mandate.
As a thought experiment, just imagine a consultation process that was much more ‘open’ – one whereby policy did change dramatically compared to what was originally proposed. The problem immediately becomes apparent: government could in theory find itself in an endless ‘consultation loop’, with each new stage of consultation radically changing the policy in question, to the extent that a new round of consultation would be required to accompany it. Government would never get anything done, and quite rightly this would generate accusations of endless ‘dithering’ and ‘u-turns’ – of being in office but not in power.
In recognition of the devalued nature of consultations and possibly the ‘one-size-fits-all’ manner in which too many consultations are approached, the Government has announced it is moving to a more “proportionate and targeted approach” (this announcement produced what is perhaps the least thrilling headline ever on the BBC News website). The new guidelines recognise the need to “avoid creating unrealistic expectations” by making it clear where policy has been finalised and will not be subject to change as a result of the consultation. This makes sense – much of the criticism directed at consultations stems from unrealistic or inaccurate expectations among respondents. The guidance recommends instead that the objectives of any consultation should be clear, and depend to a great extent on the type of issue and the stage in the policy-making process.
However, the new guidance also risks replicating the current confusion about consultation by advising that: “Engagement should begin early in policy development when the policy is still under consideration and views can genuinely be taken into account.” From a democratic point of view this is unarguable – but the problem is that consultation can’t hope to meet these aspirations. ‘Public consultations’ in most cases aren’t – they don’t reach the public or garner many responses from them. They also aren’t really a form of deliberation; they’re not about policy formulation, rather they are more commonly about policy adjustment. Why be cynical about what should be obvious? Government sometimes makes the mistake of trying to appear as if it is engaged in open policy formulation when it isn’t, but we don’t have to collude in this and then blame government when this turns out not to be the case.
We need new forms of participation for early policy development, and for research, evidence-gathering and analysis. This isn’t and can never be the job of consultation. Unless we create a much clearer distinction between consulting on policies that government intends to enact, and developing new policy agendas where government isn’t sure what should be done, we will see much more of what we call ‘guerilla policy’ – grassroots policy research and development that people and organisations do for themselves without being given ‘permission’ by the policy establishment. There have always been campaigns and protests of course; what’s different now is that people can mobilise, coordinate and share information so much more quickly – including to overturn official policy (or at least severely undermine its credibility). We happen to think that we need more guerilla policy – but we recognise that government might not.
What’s important about this project is that it encompasses how we can improve consultations today, but also how we can develop radical new forms of engagement in policy tomorrow. The extent of the crisis in democratic legitimacy suggests we need to do both. Sorting out which is which will be crucial to our work. So in the spirit of the exercise, let us know your view – are there aspects of consultation we should retain, or does ‘open policy’ require us to start again with a blank sheet of paper? Comment on this site or on the Open Policy forum for open policymaking and better consultation.
The G4S Olympics fiasco is only the latest example of what is now unavoidable – the conflict between two Government agendas, one for open public services and the other for open policymaking. Which of these two agendas wins out will decide the future of public services, perhaps irreversibly.
Over the past few months on this blog we’ve put forward the argument that policy should be made openly and wherever possible collaboratively with the people who are directly affected by it – in social policy this means the frontline providers of services and the people who use these services. As part of its recent civil service reform plan, the Government has committed itself to ‘open policymaking’, whereby policy “should be developed through the widest possible engagement with external experts and those who will have the task of delivering it.” However significant – and we think it should be supported – in reality the open policy agenda is likely to mean little as a result of another Government programme, that for ‘open public services’.
Open public services is about opening-up the provision of more public services to any ‘qualified provider’. Outsourcing is then a critical part of the open public services agenda. In his speech in July 2011 at the launch of the Open Public Services White Paper, David Cameron set out a commitment to challenge the ‘presumption’ that the state should deliver services rather than the voluntary or private sector. Although outsourcing certainly did not begin under this government, we are now witnessing a massive expansion of the role of the private and voluntary sector across a range of services – from prisons, community health services, hospitals, probation services, policing to schools. According to the Economist contracts worth at least £80 billion are currently outsourced to private providers by national and local government, with this number expected to rise to around £140 billion by 2015.
To its proponents, outsourcing is a way to reduce costs, improve efficiency and increase innovation. Fiascos like G4S’s hiring practices aside, the public debate has not reflected the scale of the change that is currently taking place. More than this, outsourcing is now threatening to undermine the very publicness of public policy.
The current ‘closed-door’ approach to outsourcing, whereby details of the services including its performance and impact are hidden behind the cloak of contractual obligations and commercial sensitivities, undermines the openness of policy in public services. It reduces the ability of the general public to hold policy to account. It erodes transparency, ownership, control, accountability and impacts the responsiveness of services to the users and communities they are meant to serve.
As a consequence, this approach to outsourcing also makes for poor policy. Transparency and openness are critical to ensure that policy is tested and evaluated robustly. Put simply, if policy is not held to account then it does not improve. At Guerilla Policy, we’ve been considering how open policymaking could improve public services. We’ve argued that social policy would be better if it was opened up to wider participation by those who use and provide public services. Scrutiny isn’t sufficient – but even effective scrutiny is now being undermined by outsourcing.
This issue – how our public services are commissioned, by whom and from whom, and how this relates to open policy and public accountability – will be a continuing focus on this blog, alongside our developing manifesto through which we hope to describe an alternative approach. At stake in this conflict between open public services and open policy is whether we continue to have ‘public services’ at all in any genuine sense, in the sense of publicly determined, publicly accountable, publicly responsible – if not necessarily always publicly provided – services for all.
We welcome your views.
This is a series of posts in which we’ve invited people to give us their reactions to the New Think Tank project. This post: Alex Kenmure. Thanks to Alex for contributing the post, and we welcome your comments.
I’m ashamed to say that I’ve only recently started voting. For 12 years I’ve been a part of that nebulous and condemned portion of the electorate who have (in the eyes of many) forsaken any right to have an opinion on how the country is run. It’s an unusually emotive issue – in some ways I’ve wondered whether people have had more of an opinion on my non-vote than they would have if had voted for the British National Party (note: I didn’t vote for the BNP btw). So, tired of the judgement, I made my way to the voting booth a few weeks ago to have a vote on who should be our local councillor. It turned out to be an oddly pleasant but also dispiriting act. I was taken aback about how low-tech it all was – volunteer with a clipboard, pencil, paper, makeshift booth all enclosed within a quaint village hall. I felt like I could have been voting in the 1950’s and quite enjoyed the quintessential British-ness of it all.
And then it hit me. My vote, my say in how my local area is run, had been boiled down to a simple “X”. Was that it? What on earth could people read into that? It doesn’t say why I voted, if I have any reservations, my own thoughts on what could be changed in the area – in a simple act of participation I had actually disempowered myself and traded my own views for a validation of someone else’s policies. It would seem that at the end of the day, I am trading my research and opinions for a “best fit” generic model. My conclusion – voting, our single greatest tool in shaping the destiny of our communities, is enjoyable but rubbish. No wonder so many people don’t vote!
Where am I going with this?
Well, the challenge above is the main reason I like the idea of the new think tank project. I really like the concept that instead of a system that discards all the interesting stuff everyday individuals have to offer, a mechanism could be set up to capture the thoughts, solutions and challenges residing within all of us – the “lightning in a bottle”. As part of the branding workshop, it was interesting to hear the language we used to describe people: users, stakeholders, customers, frontline workers, policy wonks etc. I think we found it difficult just to use the word “people”, which to me is a little ironic given that the real “customer base” for this project is people plain and simple. There is a very cool opportunity here to create something that isn’t just about undermining a policy industry, but provides a genuinely refreshing alternative for people who have something to say to be able to contribute to a challenge and see how what they bring to the table makes a difference.
I’m not sure how it is going to work out – one day I think it’ll be a massive success, the next I think it’ll be a terrible flop (!), but as I watch it develop the one thing I would like to see is that it retains a sense of fun. Can it capture my unhealthy giddiness at voting, while at the same time being a million times more effective? Impactful, but a little bit cold doesn’t really cut it for me, nor would it for a lot of my friends I shouldn’t think. It doesn’t have to have the quaintness of a village hall, but it would be nice if something can be developed in such a way to make the act of participating feel as important and enjoyable as the result.
Who knows… maybe one day someone might post about the first time they engaged with the new think tank model as an important moment in their life.
Alex Kenmure from Camden Council has worked in policy and performance roles within local government for the past 6 years and is interested in developing new relationships, perceptions of value and outcomes-based delivery models between voluntary sector organisations and local authorities.