Forum for former BBC staff

Forum for former BBC staff
http://www.ex-bbc.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl >> News and Comment >> Public life: Younger muses http://www.ex-bbc.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1076582663 Message started by Forum Admin on Feb 12^th, 2004, 10:45am

Title: Public life: Younger muses
Post by Forum Admin on Feb 12^th, 2004, 10:45am

The former MD of the World Service, Sam Younger, thinks we might be getting too tough with our politicians. This from the Guardian:

Jackie Ashley
Thursday February 12, 2004
The Guardian

It seems a long time since sleaze, not spin, was the major term of abuse to be flung at politicians.

A few Tory MPs accepting cash in brown envelopes during the 1990s saw the whole trade of politics besmirched, and led to the Neill committee on standards in public life. Its report tightened the rules on party funding and brought more transparency into who gets what from whom.

Five years on, the chairman of the Electoral Commission, established after the Neill report, believes the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Sam Younger says he fears the standards set for public life may be too high - and are discouraging people from entering politics: "For the vast majority who are honest and open, it does seem like there's an awful lot being demanded in order to improve confidence that the few aren't going to be in a position to abuse public trust."

As everyone from Tony Blair downwards agonises privately about the slump in party membership and involvement, Mr Younger argues that the post-90s rules are an obvious, if under-discussed, part of the problem. All the parties are reporting that "it's increasingly difficult to get people to act as treasurers of local parties."

Why? Because the transparency rules "have put an extra burden on local parties, a burden of accountability. There are written into the legislation penalties, including criminal penalties, for not getting reporting requirements right." He admits the balance will never be perfect, but wants to get it "a little less wrong than it is now".

But the news about the funding of parties is even worse than that. Not only are the regulations putting people off politics, they have also, apparently, failed to increase trust in politicians: "People mistrust simply because they now see that there have been significant donations ... Whatever the reality and however much politicians argue that large donations don't buy policy, the suspicions will be there."

At present, all donations over £5,000 made to a political party must be made public, which has, the parties claim, put off some donors. So if the publicity is not helping restore trust anyway, why bother?

Mr Younger is adamant that there should be no "going back on transparency", but he does question whether there should be a cap on individual donations. The Electoral Commission, an independent body responsible to parliament, is in the middle of an inquiry into party funding. Mr Younger says if donations to parties are to be limited, then the state will presumably have to provide some funding for parties.

But state funding would deter the already declining band of party volunteers who engage in fundraising activities. He finds a common view that state funding "must not discourage the engagement from parties at local level".

One solution might be to introduce "matching funding", where for every member signed up, the state matches the fees paid. But full-scale state funding of political parties is not on the immediate agenda. "There's no great appetite, far from it, for comprehensive state funding - from the public, those who have got a particular interest, parties, trade unions and others."

The commission is about to embark on a series of public consultations in London, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast and Manchester with a view to publishing its report after the Euro-elections in June. But the framework of the debate will be about whether there should be minor alterations rather than about wholesale change.

Yet something is needed to revive parties. I ask Mr Younger whether this could be the end of the mass political party. " There's little sign of the revival of the mass political party. At the same time, I can't see that there's a viable alternative to party-based politics." He wants "healthy political parties" to ensure the other half of the commission's remit - voter engagement - can be improved.

He doubts participation in the European elections can be improved very much. Research by his commission has been "pretty lowering stuff, showing what an enormous challenge it is". But the commission is accepting the challenge of trying to increase turnout. For now, e-voting is not on the agenda, since "e-experiments have not had an observable effect on overall turnout, the likelihood being that those who use the internet are interested enough to vote anyway".

Postal voting, by contrast, has had a significant effect. In the 2003 local elections, constituencies which carried out "all-postal pilots" increased turnout by around 15%. All-postal pilots are to be tried again in four regions for the Euro-elections: the East Midlands, the north-east, the north-west, and Yorkshire and Humberside.

Mr Younger is under no illusions as to how much changes to the way people vote can help solve the problem. The biggest obstacle to overcome, he says, is "a sense of it not really making very much difference which set of politicians are in power".

People are engaged in political issues, he believes. "The problem is disengagement from the formal political processes rather than apathy. Sometimes it's stronger than apathy, it's alienation."

The research will be pored over by all the main parties. Alienation is moving centre-stage as a serious political worry. But Mr Younger thinks the best way to deal with it is a simple matter of getting politicians back on the street: "The key thing is for politicians at all levels to engage directly with the electorate."

His research confirmed that people are much more impressed by politicians when they meet them. But he admits the time constraints on Westminster politicians, and regrets the decline "in all parties of committed volunteers and party members who will happily tramp the street and talk to voters".

So there's a blunt message to Mr Blair, Michael Howard and the rest of them. There's no point looking to thinktanks for the answers. They are, quite literally, at your feet.