Valuing Young People

Young people are often depicted in the media as the scourge of their communities - if they're not knifing each other to death or hoodies nicking stuff then they're boozing themselves silly and being generally anti-social.  Even the quiet ones are moody and prone to go on suicide websites or develop eating disorders.  An all-round plague on society, only topped by asylum seekers and paedophiles if you believe our beloved tabloid press. 

Of course, no-one would deny that there are widespread concerns about the attitudes and behaviour of some young Britons today, worries that young people themselves are often the first to express.  But it is vital that the Labour party and the government don't appear to be putting forward a one-sided negative stereotype of young people  - as though they are a solely a problem which adult society has to contain and overcome.  There is a danger that if young people are only ever represented as a hostile element then they will begin to identify with this social role - as indeed was the case with ASBOs becoming a "badge of honour".

Therefore whilst is surely reasonable that young people are asked to meet basic social repsonsibilities, this should not be the limit of our message to them.  A state that simply acts as a stern disciplinarian parent might achieve a measure of obedience but it will never be sufficient to earn affection from its young subjects.  We need to demonstrate that alongside the responsibilities asked of young people are offered a range of rights to enable themselves both to fulfil their own potential but also to make a positive contribution to their communities.  We should demonstrate that we believe they have something valuable to offer - whether it is in terms of giving school-leavers the right to a decent minimum wage from day one of their employment, or giving community groups and youth workers the power to engage young people in making decisions on how leisure facilities are allocated, we need to listen, to empower and to value rather than simply lecture.

One way of demonstrating that Labour is serious about listening and empowering would be to lower the voting age to 16 - thereby giving a concrete right to for young people to have their say over how the country is run.  Of course many might choose not to exercise this right - it will surely take much greater efforts to overcome apathy towards political parties who sometimes act more childishly than those they would patronise.    But by including them in the wider electorate to which politicians must account, political discourse would be given an incentive to take their concerns seriously and address young people in a positive light.  This would definitely be a change for the better.   

 

The single step that can transform our democracy

Perhaps the single most important measure that can be introduced in the first 100 days of any government is one that  makes democracy work properly. By that I do not mean making it more transparent or extending it beyond the present confines. What I mean is simply equipping people to use it rationally for the common good.

You can have the most perfect democratic processes imaginable but if they are being freely exploited by rabble-rousing radio and TV presenters, newspapers, bloggers, politicians, mad mullahs and potty priests to bend opinion their way then democracy per se can run counter to the benefit of all. You have only to look at the right-wing pieces on climate change referred to in Jessica Asato's latest post to see what I mean. Not to mention the twisted logic of most of the comments on a typical political website (not this one,of course).

In the final analysis the only way to combat such an abuse of the system is not to limit the expression of opinion (except in the most extreme of cases) but to give people the means of seeing through the debating tricks frequently employed by those seeking to shape public attitudes. In these days when thinking clearly can mean the difference between joining or not joining a terrorist group it is even more vital to immunise people in this way against the virus of false argument.

Fortunately there is a 'vaccine' in existence which does just that. It's Straight and Crooked Thinking, a classic book written in 1930 by a Cambridge psychology lecturer, Robert H Thouless which is as relevant today as it ever was. Those who have read it are effusive with their praise. Here are a few quotes from the reviews.

Reviewer (1)

"I last read this book about 15 years ago as a student and the lessons of the 38 dishonest tricks used in arguments detailed in the book have left a life-lasting impression on me."

Reviewer (2)

"Reading this book opened my eyes to exactly how badly crooked thinking runs our society today: how little emphasis we place on actual evidence and argument, what kind of dishonest argumentation our politicians and news providers use, etc."

Reviewer (3)

"This book should be required reading for anyone that takes public policy issues seriously. It explains the various techniques and ploys by which emotionally loaded words and various debating tricks can transform an intellectually honest debate into a propaganda campaign, and gives techniques to counter these ploys. I cannot recommend it highly enough"

Reviewer (4)

"This is one of the most useful books that I have ever read. The author points out how debates are often lead away from the main issues by using arguments that appeal to emotion rather than to facts.He clearly describes how it is done and how to avoid being lead away from the issues by such devices. Important reading for anyone who has been in a debate and wonders why the opponent didn't sound convincing and yet you were unable to answer him/her."

Although the book was written so long ago and is now out of print, it is no doubt possible to reprint it and bring it up to date with a view to giving it a prominent place in the school curriculum. Such a simple step could quickly transform the quality of our democracy and put many a political scoundrel out of a job. Maybe that's why the book has not been given the publicity that is due to it - until now.

Why Strictly Come Dancing is a must for people like us

I don't suppose there are many Labour activists who tune into Strictly Come Dancing on a Saturday evening. They should, for all sorts of good, political reasons.

First, it's a nice example of people being happy, which, according to the economist Richard Layard, is something that should now be centre stage in Labour's political thinking. Although Layard generally decries the telly viewing habit I'm sure he would make an exception in this case. Here we have terpsichorean novices from different parts of the celebrity world, learning a new ballroom or latin dance with a professional partner every week and then performing it in a knock-out competition which this week reaches its final stages. The tyros have to endure much toil and trouble during the week to hone their newly acquired skills. But by the Saturday they invariably come up trumps, surpassing their and our expectations with a dazzling foxtrot or samba that looks like a joy to do and is certainly a joy to watch. Helping ordinary people to do the same could well do more to improve their health and well-being than any other  single measure ( apart, of course, from giving them more time to undertake this kind of activity). In this respect it is encouraging to note that the government intends to promote dancing lessons in the schools and on the NHS, as a means of combatting obesity. Who knows, the feel-good factor generated by this boost to dancing could even swing a tight election.

The second political reason for watching Strictly Come Dancing is that it's a salutary experience for us serious-minded folk  to indulge in popular passions from time to time - if only to keep our feet on the ground. The show has 10 million viewers and dance is the fastest growing pass-time, with more than 13 per cent of the population attending dance performances and more than 4.8 million people involved in some form of community dancing. Moreover a recent survey revealed that dance was second only to football as a favourite group activity for 14 year olds.

Third, the show leaves one with an enormous sense of what people are capable of given the right support. It should therefore act as a spur to everyone engaged in the social democratic project which, after all, is essentially about helping everyone to achieve their full potential.

Finally, Strictly Come Dancing should be watched by Labour activists for the judging. As is typical for these competitions there is a Mr Nasty (Judge Craig) and a Mr Nice (Judge Len). Judge Craig (otherwise known as Judge Dredd) is for ever dwelling on the faults and tends to mark low.No weakness is left unnoticed. No punch is pulled in pointing them out to the contestants. The atmosphere created is one of gloom and despondency. Those at the receiving end scowl and become very defensive. They admit afterwards that they have lost confidence as a result.

Judge Len, on the other hand, emphasises what the contestants have done right. He takes full account of the difficulties they have been up against, offers friendly advice on how their performances can be improved and generally marks up. If he has any criticisms these are usually preceded by some words of praise. Credit is given where credit is due. The contestants perk up, respond with a smile on their faces obviously happy to take Judge Len's advice and go away determined to do better next time. Judge Len brings out the best in them.

There are obvious parallels here for those on the left who are trying to influence government policy. You can either do it in a Judge Dredd sort of way or you can do it in a Judge Len sort of way. I know which method I favour. How about you?

Labouring the Point

The events of the past week seem to demonstrate that all of those old cliches are true: a week is a long time in politics, all political careers end in tears and the Harold Macmillan maxim that it is "events dear boy events" that are the driver of politics. As Robert Philpot pointed out in his earlier post these are turbulent times indeed to be holding a conference on anything Labour-flavoured.

It was with this backdrop then and with two days to reflect after seeing the PM for real at Progress on Saturday that we held our own symposium at Kingston University where I teach, entitled 'New Labour in Power - 10 Years On' gathering together a group of academics, journalists, practitioners and people who happily straddle divides.

The brief was to reflect on our anticipations of a decade ago and see how far we had been proved right and wrong. If we rewind to "1996 and all that" the event was a re-run of a conference organised by Kingston people back then which culminated in a well known and well received book

The day covered lots of the areas that tend to slip off the agenda when considering big P politics -we had contributions on the moral imperatives of Blairism, the feminisation of politics and on ethnic minority issues as well as more straightforward policy areas. We finished up with Clare Short MP and Fiona MacTaggart MP both resopnding to the day and providing their own projections for the next ten years. Clare's short sharp shock concentrated on the critique that she has honed in recent times. Fiona also spoke passionately - about the need to renew 'politics'.

The world has become an unpredictable place. I have no crystal ball for what comes next but if we're answering the question 'how was it for you?' this was always going to be about walking the tightrope of expectations management. After all New Labour was always an alternative to itself and as Fiona MacTaggart pointed out the left are never satisfied. As conference co-organiser Brian Brivati has remarked history will be kinder to Blair than the crazed atmosphere of the moment where naysayers seem to dominate the news agenda.

Universal, egalitarian socialism: not quite (admittedly) but I'd say Labour's record as the party of progressive social transformation is pretty much intact. Yes 'could do better' is an obvious thing for the school report but much has been done. It is regrettable that Iraq will be what this governement will be remembered for. As part of my presentation I flashed up a slide of a poster with Labour's last 'Forward not back' election slogan that had been defaced to read 'For war not back'. It would be foolish to reduce 10 years of acheivements at home with this reminder. Indeed other New Labour actions abroad have been laudable. Surely a government department established with a mission statement to accomplish worldwide poverty allieviation is a historical landmark. Clare Short's comments on Monday testify to the fact that, backed by significant money, DFID has become in relatively a short space of time an important player on the world stage. Bono and Chris Martin would have to agree that it's all steps in the right ... sorry, correct ... direction.

The domestic implications of foreign policy will be crucial in the next 10 years. They already are - witness all the European directives that this government has trumpeted as its own such as increased maternity and paternity leave. Look also at the disturbing rise of Muslim extremism - a multi-faceted phenomenon. For voters it will be quality of life issues that determine where they put their cross which in large degree ammounts to the economy (stupid). Anyway I began with a load of well-worn sayings so I'll end with another. I think it was Disraeli who said that 'politics' is an inexact science. As is the way with all cliches the saying is not entirely without foundation.

Fiona's point was on re-connecting was crucial though. This presents all the mainstream political parties with a central challenge. We need to reverse the pervasive tide of apathy that seems to be engulfing voters - the 'don't cares'. The people who believe that political class is all the same and different from themselves may fall into the hands of the political extremes if they percieve that the established political parties are failing to listen to there concerns. Chettering class types concerned about the environment could go green or even blue. The white working class in east london is showing a worrying propensity to vote for the BNP but the dissatisfaction that they are playing on represents a serious opportunity for UKIP or other english nationalist parties to try to plug that gap. It could be said extremism breeds extremism and at a Progress event on the BNP Bath University's Roger Eatwell made an intersting connection between The BNP and Muslim extremists. The recruiting arguments of both are sometimes not dissimilar.

For more blogging background to the meeting see
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_brivati/2006/08/new_labour_ten_yeas.htm