Taking the Party out of Politics

Award winning playwright Chris Lee takes time out his busy schedule to interview the host of Taking the Party Out of Politics, Andrew Brown, about the political ideas behind the podcast, about his motivation for putting it all together, and together they explore whether it will be possible to make the sorts of changes to our political landscape which are the conclusion of the podcast series. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's not that people don't care enough. Absolutely not.But when we campaign about single issues, we are separate. The thinking is not (obviously) linked up. And it too easy for government to nod, and to simply ignore.It's not that we need more consultation.But consultations can be simply a way of allowing the public to let off steam before the government does what it was going to do anyway. We need meaningful, engaged consultations, which look at the real impacts.It's not that we need more online petitions.But a collection of (potentially) uninformed online votes is too easy to justify ignoring. We need to demonstrate that our opinions are properly informed, and that we understand the wider context.We need to do more as individuals.We need to ensure that we are better informed. And to ensure that our elected representatives know what we are better informed.We need to use our systems differently.From Citizen Assemblies, to Citizen Scrutiny, to Citizen Government, to Citizen Information, to Citizen Thinking. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

None of us is as clever as all of us together. We need to listen to experts. But we also need to allow space for good ideas to come from anywhere.Together, not separatelyIt should be about the quality of the ideas, not about how good you are at lobbying; or how much money or power or connections a lobby group has.To run a country, all these things need to come together.People + good information = good decisionsWe need to be careful. We should listen, but we should not be herded into all thinking the same way.Sharing knowledge is power. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ignorance is bliss. And it can also be funny. But it can also be extremely dangerous.We need to know what the basic facts about the world actually are. Otherwise, how do we know when some new piece of information is important.We need to make sure that we have accurate, up to date information. We need to agree on the facts. We can't have political discussion descending into whether my statistics are more accurate than yours. Statistics should be … statistics. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Could selected Citizens (rather than 'elected representatives') actually be asked to do the jobs which our Government and Ministers are doing at the moment? How successful could they be expected to be? What might we gain, and what might we risk losing? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A system which uses informed, balanced, objective, engaged people – citizens – to call our politicians to account, to check that they are doing their job.It's not a party-political thing. But it is a political thing. It's making sure that the process of Scrutinizing what our elected Government and Ministers are doing is neutral, constructive, and independent. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Get a small group of people together. Maybe 100. Specially selected to be representative of the range of people and perspectives across the country. Young, old. Rich, poor. Different races and genders. Different political views.Give them all the information about a topic. Let them ask all the questions they need to. Let them discuss it, and think about it. Let them hear from the experts, and from the people who really care about the topic.Let anyone who wants to, listen in. Publicize the process. Publicize the information and the ideas and the background to the topic.And then: ask that group of people to make a decision on that topic, on behalf of all of us. A decision which is nuanced and informedAnd then ask our elected representatives to follow up on that decision. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

If you are just joining us today, then you are in luck, because today we are going to have a quick overview of all the big ideas which we have covered over the last 26 or so episodes. Why politics isn't working for us, the voters, and why it isn't really even working for the politicians who are trying to do their bests on our behalf, struggling to work within the political systems. Why there are some problems with the very nature of what we call representative democracy and electoral systems, but also why there are some problems which political parties bring on top of those structural problems.Today, we are going to group our review around three main areas: Voters and Voting, Representative Democracy, and Political Parties. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Why is it so difficult? Essentially, because of the three things which Brexiters wanted, you could only ever have two:1. The whole of the UK to leave the European Union on the same terms. 2. Leave the single market and the customs union, and 3. Avoid a border between the North and South of Ireland.You cannot avoid having at least one of the three things which Brexiters didn't want:A: leaving the EU and the customs union, means you have a border between North and South Ireland.B: not having a border, means the UK would stay in the customs union.C: Northern Ireland stays under some EU rules, meaning the whole of the UK didn't leave the EU on the same terms.This is what the Northern Ireland protocol entails. Checks are made on goods travelling between the UK and Northern Ireland.The disagreement is on how rigorously checks are made on goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What are the misunderstandings which led to an unsuccessful, draining referendum and Brexit?1. We joined late. The rules had already been set (e.g. supporting French small farmers).2. The EU was always political: about pooling the things used to make war, as a way of avoiding war. But, the UK joined (primarily) for economic reasons.3. Symbolism matters. Our politicians (and Media) love to knock the EU, to blame things on the EU, to make cheap political capital by emphasising differences; us and them. There were never enough UK politicians standing up for the benefits of membership.4. Brexiters were right. It was complicated. But then it was also never going to be simple.If you were the person who thought: “I'm happy to be a member of common Market, but nothing more”, then you were quite right in wanting to be out.But you shouldn't have expected it to be easy. That's wanting to have your cake and eat it. Or, as they say in France, to have the butter and the money for the butter.If you (correctly) claim that the EU influences every aspect of our lives, then you also have to accept that there is no way that extricating yourself from something that complicated was ever going to be easy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The idea of a referendum is to ask the people what they want. To give the people an opportunity to say what they really think. But it is really about resolving an argument between two different factions within a political party.A referendum needs a question which is easy to understand, and simple to answer. Otherwise the resulting vote doesn't give direction. But life isn't simple. Important questions aren't simple. That's why people argue for deliberative democracy.When all the dust has settled, and the campaigning groups have gone home, who is responsible for any irresponsible campaigning? What if any lies were told? Who is to blame? No one, it seems. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Public Health: maximizing population health gain."Basically, whatever resource we have as a system, then we want to use that in the most efficient, intelligent, effective way to get the most health gains for the population." (Andy Fox, Assistant Director of Public Health for Lincolnshire)In this podcast we explore what Public Health is attempting to do, and the balance between the timescales which are going to make a difference to helping whole populations to live healthier lives, and the timescales of the elected politicians who control Public Health budgets. This is important work that takes years … overseen by elected politicians who don't have years. Public Health targets of 10 or 20 years, or more. Sometimes much, much more. Overseen by politicians who will face re-election in 4 or 5 years.Would you trust elected politicians? They need to show results within a term of office.But, then again, who else could we trust?Balancing … Long Term Aims (e.g. Public Health) with Short Term Electoral CyclesIt's a balance which is at the heart of our political system, in this and many other parts of our lives. It requires good people to do the best they can, often working within a structure which is not only unhelpful but nearly impossible. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Citizens' Assemblies: +/- 100 people, representing a balanced cross-section of society, learning about an important issue, agreeing on what action should be taken.Literally representing all of us.Learning on behalf of all of us. Thinking on behalf of all of us. Agreeing on what action is needed ... on behalf of all of us.Reporting back to us, with what they have learned. Showing us why their recommendations make sense. Reporting back to our government, with what they have learned. Showing our government why their recommendations make sense.Is our Government grown up enough to listen? Or do the members of our Government really believe that they are the only ones who can know anything, can understand anything, or can take any decisions on our behalf? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

ProtestA crucial part of our democratic process. A way for citizens who are not embedded in the political process to engage with politics, to let others know what is important to them, and to let the government know how they feel.There needs to be a balance. It would not be appropriate for terrorists to hold the country to ransom. But does the new government Bill (which seeks to restrict the right to protest) hit the right balance?We explore how protest works, and how important it is, by exploring the success - and the techniques - of XR (Extinction Rebellion), who have successfully pushed the issue of Climate Change (or, the Climate Emergency) up the agenda for all of us, including for government. With input from Kathie Conn and Merijn van der Geer, from XR. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

BLUNDERS: things which went wrong, which were foreseeable, but which the government did anyway.A very strong executive (government) makes it possible for policies to get rushed into place, without proper checks or thinking. No consensus + No consultation = Ineffective policiesBehavioural causes of BLUNDERS:IgnorancePrejudiceLack of judgement.Lack of appropriate/relevant experienceNo rewards or sanctions Over confidenceCarelessStubbornCultural Gap: don't understand votersStructural causes of BLUNDERS:Poorly designed decision-making processes.Deficit of deliberation – too efficient & decisive; scrutiny disempowered. Operational disconnect. Professional politicians haven't run anything. No long-term responsibilityParliament – becomes a bit of an irrelevant spectator.Whips ensure that Parliament is not able to rein in this behaviour.Scrutiny committees are disempowered by party loyalties, and by ministers either pressuring their fellow party members or simply bypassing the scrutiny process – and sometimes parliament itself – altogether.Public accounts committee (actually one of the most useful bits of what Westminster does) only checks on activity after the fact. All of that does not add up to a recipe for good government. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Too much power in one set of hands risks that all that power might run away with itself, rather than being used for the general good. The “Separation of powers" protects political liberty by dividing government powers.The legislative is ParliamentThe executive is the Government, and the Civil ServiceHowever, the Government is also a subset of the Parliament.Problem 1: A log jamIf the executive is from party, and the legislative is dominated by another (e.g. in the UK) everything the President (executive) tries to do can be blocked by Congress (legislative)Problem 2: Too much unrestrained powerThe government and ministers are able to push through new laws and plans without proper reflection and consultation, because their own party in Parliament doesn't want to cause too many waves.Problem 3: Conflict of Interest for MPsAn MP is expected to scrutinize what Government does. BUT: the only way to get promoted is to follow the 'party line'.How much meaningful scrutiny of their own party do you think that MPs really do? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Wicked Issues are the things which are really important, but which don't get dealt with.Climate Change. Saving for retirement. etcOur MPs believe that the short-term challenges of dealing with the Wicked Issues mean they won't get re-elected.Any MP who says that we should invest now (to save money or difficulties later) is an easy target for the media and for the opposition. Easy to say that they are irresponsible - even though they are actually being responsible!Like NOT eating healthy food, or NOT getting some exercise, NOT dealing with The Wicked Issues just makes them harder to deal with later on.But our MPs are wrong. We aren't that shallow. In 1997, Labour was elected on a promise to tax us more, so that there would be more money for the NHS. We recognised that this was the right thing to do.How do we make it clear to our representatives that we do want them to take on The Wicked Issues ... before they get even worse? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The MediaIndependent Perspective or a Spotlight which burns too brightly?Journalists take pot shots from the side lines, but if they really knew better than our elected politicians, why aren't they standing for election?Grabbing your attention!The pressure of grabbing the headline, of getting the perfect soundbite, of analysing and speculating before the announcement, all in the overexposure of a 24 hour news cycle.Too much power in too few hands.It can seem as though we have different newspapers, TV and radio stations, but actually an awful lot of it is owned by just a few companies and people.Digital MediaIt can seem as though we are by passing the 'controlled' media, but actually we end up with no filter, no quality control, and so we end up listening to certain sources - we create our own control, in our own internet bubble.Bad news sells. If it bleeds, it leads.It can be hard to have a sense of perspective, but every day, billions of people have a perfectly good day. Good things happen slowly, but they still happen. Bad things just grab our attention. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Ministers have a lot of power, in a focused area, and can really affect our lives.Ministers are Political Party creatures.Ministers are mostly from 'safe seats', which means that they are actually 'selected' by the active members of their constituency Political Party.Ministers (and most politicians) are from a particular 'class' of people, who are all able to cope with the hassle, the pressure, and with being part of the machinery of a Political Party.The Media spotlight often pressures politicians to be perfect and consistent, rather than to think afresh if the situation changes, or to admit to an honest mistake.Ministers have an average tenure of just 18 months. This is their chance. They're in a hurry! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Parliament: It's supposed to be about our representatives doing their best for us. It's supposed to be careful consideration of new laws.It's actually dominated by the needs of Political Parties. It's actually an old system, dominated by slick, centralised, powerful Political Parties.When it works, it's because good people are making it work DESPITE the system. If it weren't for those good people, the system would encourage and enable things to go wrong more often than they already do. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Being an MP: It's supposed to be you representing your constituents, checking on the quality of new laws, holding the government to account, and doing a good job.It's actually a process of trying to find your way and to organise your time, getting ordered around and told how to vote, and then getting dropped by your party or voted out.It's supposed to be you working with the system to make things better.It's actually you working against the system, to do your best to make things better - DESPITE the system.It's supposed to be you doing the right thing. It's actually you doing what your political party tells you to do. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

It's supposed to be good people, deciding to do their bit, making the world a bit better, representing local needs and preferences.It's actually career politicians, supported by a national party. It's actually a really big personal and financial risk. It's actually just producing people who are already indebted to a national party before they start. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The 5 Impossible Puzzles Bonus Season highlights different structural challenges with the way our electoral and political system is supposed to work. The fifth puzzle is the Impossible Puzzle for Parliament and Government. Government is trying to make things happen. Parliament is trying to make sure that those things are reasonable, and that they are in all of our interests. Parliament is supposed to be checking up on the Government, but the same political party which chose the Prime Minister and the other Ministers who make up the Government, also has a majority in Parliament. Of course, that is why that party got to choose the Government. But the Impossible Puzzle is that Parliament is dominated by the same party as the Government which it is supposed to be checking up on. That's like not having an independent umpire or referee, at any sporting event, and it's just not objective enough. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The 5 Impossible Puzzles Bonus Season highlights different structural challenges with the way our electoral and political system is supposed to work.The fourth puzzle is the Impossible Puzzle for Representative Governments. This is about how our national governments very often receive less than 50% of the national vote. Which means that more than 50% of the people who voted, actually voted AGAINST the government, not for the government.How can we claim to be living in a representative democracy, if about a third our representatives were elected with less than 50% of the votes in each of their constituencies, and then if our national government was elected with less than 50% of the national vote, with most people voting for other parties? [N.B. ALL national governments in the UK have received less than 50% of the votes, since 1935.] See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The 5 Impossible Puzzles Bonus Season highlights different structural challenges with the way our electoral and political system is supposed to work.The third puzzle is the Impossible Puzzle for Representatives. If you are elected on the basis of a set of promises (your manifesto), then only some of the people in your constituency voted for that manifesto. How is it then possible to be fair, and even-handed, and to represent the needs of every one of your constituents? Even the ones who didn't vote for you.To be responsible to the people who voted for you, you should really deliver on what you said you would do, in your Manifesto. But to represent everyone in your constituency, you should also respond to the needs and wants of all of the other voters – including all the ones who wanted different things, and who voted against you. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The 5 Impossible Puzzles Bonus Season highlights different structural challenges with the way our electoral and political system is supposed to work.The second puzzle is the Impossible Puzzle for Voting. This puzzle comes down to the fact that our First Past the Post voting system means that it is the candidate with most votes who gets elected, not the candidate with a majority of the votes. For example, if there are three candidates, and one of the candidates gets 40% of the vote, whilst the other two candidates get 35% and 25%, then it is the candidate with 40% of the vote who gets elected. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The 5 Impossible Puzzles Bonus Season highlights different structural challenges with the way our electoral and political system is supposed to work.The first puzzle is the Impossible Puzzle for Voters. This puzzle is the impossible challenge which we are trying to master, by trying to achieve three things with one vote – · choose a good local representative, · from a political party which looks as though it could form a competent national government,· and which appears to have a good set of policies (what we call a Manifesto), to do the sorts of things which we think should be done. All three things. Once every five years. With just one vote. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This is a special bonus episode, providing you with a summary of some of the key ideas we have covered during series one, and focusing on the 5 Impossible Puzzles of our political system. The Impossible Puzzle for Voters: 3 things, 1 vote, once every 5 years· a good local representative, · a political party which looks competent, and· a good ManifestoThe Impossible Puzzle for Voting: Our First Past the Post voting system means that it is the candidate with most votes who gets elected, not the candidate with a majority of the votes. This means that we can end up electing the 'wrong' candidateThe Impossible Puzzle for RepresentativesTo be responsible to the people who voted for you, you should really deliver on your Manifesto. But to represent everyone in your constituency, you should also respond to all voters – including all the ones who wanted different things, and who voted against you.The Impossible Puzzle for Representative GovernmentsALL national governments in the UK have received less than 50% of the votes, since 1935.Which means that more than 50% of the people who voted, actually voted AGAINST the government.How is that a representative democracy?The Impossible Puzzle for Parliament and GovernmentParliament is supposed to be checking up on the Government, but the same political party which chose the Government, also has a majority in Parliament. That's just not objective enough. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Manifestos are declarations of what a candidate (or party) plans to do, if elected. If we vote for a candidate, and with that vote also vote for a party, then we are also voting to approve that list of promises.After the election, the list of promises in a Manifesto is turned into a plan of action, in the Queen's Speech. After that, we should expect to see the government put those promises into action.However, Governments are not actually very good at delivering on the promises in their manifestos. And they sometimes deliver stuff which wasn't in their manifestos. Not just small stuff. Big stuff, too.We vote for the job lot, the whole list of promises in a Manifesto. Does that translate into us giving the government a mission to deliver on each one of those promises, individually? Does it become a Mandate? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Parliament or Government?Many people might think that they are the same thing, but they really aren't.If we are clear about the differences, we can identify problems with how the system isn't working in our best interests.Parliament has to look closely at (scrutinise) how the Government is running things, and at what the Government is planning to do, to make sure that decisions are open and transparent, workable and efficient, and fair and non-discriminatory.The Government is responsible for deciding:•How the country is run•Managing things day to day•Setting taxes•Choosing what to spend public money on•Choosing how best to deliver public servicesParliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK. Parliament can create (or end) any law.The Government is the group of people who are responsible for running the country.Parliament looks closely at the Government's plans, and monitors the way the Government is running things, to hold the Government to account for its actions… independently? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Episode 4 explores the problems with the way we select our democratic representatives, both at a local level (selecting our local representative) and at a national level (selecting the group of representatives who will form our government.The challenges of adequately representing the interests of not only majorities, but also the interests of minorities, too.What it means to get a majority of the vote – to get elected. In many instances, more people voted against our local representatives than voted for them.Can a political party, which goes on to form a government, ever actually get a majority of the votes cast? (Spoiler alert – not recently!)What about all those people who don't vote? Political parties form majority governments, without winning a majority of the votes cast nationally. But do we then really have a government which represents us?What does all of this that say about electoral mandates? – the legitimacy to make changes? – perhaps even big changes?And if the government doesn't represent us, then is it really a representative democracy? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode, we have a look at some different possible political systems, and use that to explore what we mean by the word ‘Democracy', along with other ideas, such as consideration for others and respect for minorities. Then we move from there to understand the particular form of democracy which we use. Because, though we might blithely use the blanket term ‘Democracy', we actually have a fairly specialised form of ‘Democracy'.The system we have is actually more accurately referred to as: ‘Representative Democracy'. But, what does that word ‘Representative' actually mean, in this context? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

An overview of why human beings come together, and why a certain amount of organisation and regulation of our lives (government) is good for getting things sorted out. We are able to live better if we cooperate and obey the laws (we give up a certain amount of freedom to do as we like), rather than to simply take what we want, and to constantly live trying to protect what little we have from someone bigger and stronger.However, have the rules by which we live been set up entirely fairly? We call the deal, between those of us who agree to be governed and those who do the governing, a 'Social Contract'. Laws in return for safety. Taxes in return for public services. But was our Social Contract entirely fairly - or has it always been to the advantage of the strongest and the the richest? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

An introduction to the first series of Taking the Party out of Politics, providing an overview of three big problems with the ways in which our political systems are not working as well as they could do: The Voters. The Wicked Issues. Scrutiny. For each of these big problems, there are possible solutions, which we will explore together over the three series of this podcast, by doing three different things: 1. We're going to start by looking at how things are supposed to work. 2. Then we're going to move on to looking at some of the big reasons why things aren't working as well as they could do. 3. Finally, we'll finish up by looking at three small things which we could be doing, to make things work better. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.