Politicians want young people to engage in business-as-usual party politics. But young people are not voting and are turned off the old approach to tribal politics.
Politicians want young people to engage in business-as-usual party politics but our generation is switching off this old approach to empowerment.
At the launch of New Turn, a new young person’s think-tank, Emily Thornberry MP said:
“All of you should be involved in a political party … make your choice, think about it very carefully and don’t ever move from that political party.”
This mindset is blind to the problems within the party political system that have helped to foster a culture of disillusionment among today’s young generation, and shows a lack of understanding that tribal politics is slowly becoming outdated. With the rise of interest group politics, swing voters are in the ascendancy.
In 1997, 67 per cent of 18-24 year olds voted. In 2001 and then 2005 this figure had dropped to 38 per cent and then 37 per cent. Thornberry may not have realised that the views she espouses are reminiscent of a party political system the population cannot trust, but recent studies indicate only 13 per cent of the British public trust MPs.
Tribal politics has become jaded as the ideological gaps between the three main parties have closed. Though this may not necessarily be a bad thing, parliamentarians must recognise that it makes it harder for party allegiances to be as definitive as they once were. In reaction to this we will need more organisations that are defined by their ability to neutrally question rather than their ability to mould their solutions to a political line. The young people who fail to identify with party politics in the manner that people used to, cannot be lost from the system of political engagement. Organisations such as New Turn and 38 Degrees are necessary to empower young people while parliamentary politics finds its way again.
At New Turn we realise the importance of party politics but, in order to be truly successful in encouraging the types of discussion that promote ideas on their merit rather than on their origin, recognise that we must transcend tribalism by being independent . Things need to change in politics, and they wont change merely because we believe they will, they will change the day we are willing to support ideology with action.
Our guest writer is Babs Williams, Vice Chairman of New Turn
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
16 Responses to “We need a New Turn from tribal politics”
uberVU - social comments
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Adam_Grant_Bell: @BridgetFox Emily Thornberry condemned on LFF ‘[Her]mindset is blind to the problems within the political system’ http://tinyurl.com/ykgsc4w…
Alix
“promote ideas on their merit rather than on their origin”
The problem you are going to have, as I’m sure you realise, is that it’s rarely the case that one idea will result in a lot of dead kittens, and the opposing idea will result in lots of happy, flourishing kittens. Normally, the outcomes of given ideas are less easy to rank according to “merit”. The abstract notion of “merit” does not exist. People develop an idea of “merit” based on their core values and assumptions. In other words, they develop a basic ideology.
Often, this ideology can be characterised as mostly liberal, mostly conservative, or mostly socialist. That’s not to say the party system isn’t a very debased format – it clearly it. It’s also not to say that there aren’t infinitely complex gradations within those categories (and I realise I am lumping things in slightly by including “anarchist”, for example, under the extreme end of “liberal”).
But these concepts have grown up and given rise to major political parties for a reason. Independence is certainly achievable, in the sense that no-one will be paying you and you won’t be subject to a whip, but it is stunningly unlikely that you will be the only people who are able to operate outside the whole spectrum of current ideology.
Babs Williams
Alix… As I am sure we both know your analysis of my article is one of a “SLIPPERY SLOPE” nature. I have no doubt that you understand the crux of the article, but instead for the sake of point scoring have taken it to its extremes.
Of course ideology will always play a part in the solutions we dream up, what I am advocating is not something that ignorant of that, but in an article as short as the one above it is difficult to create an argument that also incorporates political psychology.
“But these concepts have grown up and given rise to major political parties for a reason. Independence is certainly achievable, in the sense that no-one will be paying you and you won’t be subject to a whip, but it is stunningly unlikely that you will be the only people who are able to operate outside the whole spectrum of current ideology.”… Oh not another slippery slope comment?!!! As if New Turn by recognising the failures of our current political system is now attempting to replace it! Secondly, by focusing the article on New Turn and a bit on 38 Degrees, it has become obvious that what I was really trying to say (according to you) was that New Turn “will be the only people who are able to operate outside the whole spectrum of current ideology.” That slope just turned into a cliff and down we all go. I am now reminded of why I do not read The Sun.
No offense Dean read the quote! There is no need to add any personal interpretation to soften the blow of what was meant. I think the intentions of the quote are pretty clear without me needing to be willfully disingenuous and attempt a slippery slope argument.
Alix
“Alix… As I am sure we both know your analysis of my article is one of a “SLIPPERY SLOPE” nature. I have no doubt that you understand the crux of the article, but instead for the sake of point scoring have taken it to its extremes.”
Um. Sorry, but no. I was pointing out what I saw to be a major problem with what you said in the article. Of course, if your position is actually more subtle than that, but there wasn’t room in the article to say so, then good for you. But I am here as a reader, and all I’ve got to work with is the article, right? I read it, I see a problem, I comment. There’s no point you asserting that you “have no doubt that I understand” when, by your own admission, you haven’t had enough room to provide me with all the information.
Your second paragraph doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me, but I suspect that’s because I don’t understand how you’re using “slippery slope”. If you can explain, without resorting to sarcasm this time, that would be great, but if you can’t, then don’t bother. To be quite honest, I’m a little surprised and dismayed that your primary response to anyone criticising your set-up is sarcasm and unpleasant implications about point-scoring. I suggest maybe you should rethink this approach.
alixmortimer
Can someone sanity-read this and the comments for me, and tell me if I'm being frightfully unreasonable? http://is.gd/8IoXQ