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among today’s young generation, and shows a lack of understanding that tribal politics is slowly becoming outdated.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”
James Graham
I’m similarly puzzled by Babs’ response to Alix. Isn’t there the danger that a new tribalism will emerge/is emerging, an anti-politics tribe whose members attack anyone working within the party political system with exactly the same dogmatism and petty point scoring that they accuse parties of? It seems to be on display here.
Millennium Elephant
@alixmortimer Not sure what Miss Babs is actually arguing FOR http://is.gd/8IoXQ
Sunny H
Actually I have some sympathy for Alix’s point of view here: not everything is defined by evidence and policy. And it’s not so easy deciding what has merit.
Take abortion or climate change: In the first there is no ‘evidence’ as such that can persuade some one virulently right-wing to accept abortion should be a right. They just buy into a different set of values.
On climate change: there is evidence but right-wingers still don’t accept it. What do you do? Sit there and constantly go on about evidence? It will make a little difference but you may still lose the war on public opinion.
Both require that fighting back go beyond just an appeal to evidence. They can also be deeply emotional issues (CC for example is also about protecting our environment, energy security, wanting cleaner conditions, justice etc).
Martin Crosby
Party politics is the most effective and safest mechanism for the social engagement you’re looking for Babs. There needs to a capacity within parties for internal (but public) debate.
The non-establishment movements that engage young people in the US (Ron Paul, Obama etc.) happen within a party mechanism. They are made possible because political power is spread around enough that people can run on a ‘the system isn’t working’ message and then, to a lesser or greater extent, enact it.
My worry would be that community networks like New Turn or 38 degrees makes us feel warm and fuzzy without tackling the entrenched problem of political power being held in the UK by the ‘system’. Parliamentary politics won’t ‘find its way again’ by accident, but has to be made to find its way through a mixture of dynamic party political debate and constitutional renewal.
Babs Williams
I shall stop being a polemicist, and in doing so apologise for my earlier tone Alix.
The trouble I see with your original comment Alix is that it doesn’t distinguish between political orientation and party politics. New Turn will always be classified as left wing, or conservative, or any other graduation along this line, dependent on who is writing for it at that time. But the reason it can, will, and must step away from party politics is because that gives it the freedom to adapt. By identifying with a party a group is lumped with every decision that party makes, and it becomes a conscious decision to oppose it. What we instead aim for is that by having numerous writers, each with a different perspective on politics, a range of articles and policy papers will be published. Undoubtedly each one could be classified as more left or right wing than another, but as a collection they will show that what is being written is simply what occurs to the writers as correct, regardless of what the parties are saying at the time. We do not wish to be anti-politics (James), opposing every party simply to say we are part of none as this ties us as much (if not more) as being associated with a party would.
I do not support single issue politics. Personally, I feel they breed a political narcism that is not desirable in any shape or form. They weaken the ability to rationally discourse, stemming from the fact that they undermine a need for compromise and understanding of opposing arguments.
Take for instance many of us who believe that climate change is real and happening in part as a result of humanity’s actions, many of our compatriots treat those who disagree with our viewpoint as fanatical heretics. We also do our best to stifle debate by tarring all those who dispute our views with the brush of “neo-cons”. But New Turn is not a single issue political organisation. It is just an organisation that wishes to proclaim that questioning is important, by encouraging these questions we hope more people will want to engage directly in party politics.
I do not feel there is a clear dichotomy between the existence of organisations such as New Turn and party political engagement, I hope one will lead to the other as young people start to analyse the issues and realise that the way to foster change is not only by believing in it but also by pushing for it. “Disengagement don’t change nothing.” I do not see anything wrong in pushing that message. Martin we are looking into writing a policy paper this summer with a major think-tank on what needs to done on the topic of constitutional renewal to increase engagement in our political system.
In terms of the importance of finding an emotional centre Sunny I agree with you. However, I cannot and will not devalue the ability to logically discourse merely because of emotional factors that cannot be engages in the facts or the figures. One, the relevance of empirical analysis may have its limits, but this does lessen its importance. Two, if you can’t quantify emotion, you can at least analyse why certain emotions exist on a particular issue, i.e. religion to abortion. Though emotion may inhibit New Turn’s and other bodies ability to find answers, and this does not exclude political parties, it will and should not inhibit our ability to find ask the questions.
Martin says…”The non-establishment movements that engage young people in the US (Ron Paul, Obama etc.) happen within a party mechanism.” They only happen within a party mechanism because there is a certain level of trust, a trust that the wider British populace do not have. You say in the U.S. operate on a “system isn’t working message,” I think we have that message here in Britain, except it is followed by apathy in far too many instances. You then go on to give a solution which though I support, I see it more as an end rather than a means or even the beginning. The wider British public will not just start trusting politicians merely because growing debate constitutional renewal and a democratic dispersal of power from the center…
… I personally believe that we can begin along this path again by encouraging ideology to flourish within British politics yet again. I.e. My kind of politician must have a vision. Politics must mean more than the tangible, it must also touch the realms of the abstract, replenish hope and alleviate fears, it must be passionate… Rather Obamafied, I know but I think we need to believe in politics first to actually believe in the sincerity of any constitutional reform.
BW.