There is a serious disconnect between
the public and the political system. I propose a reform, a monthly TV programme,
which would help tackle it
Many people
feel that the political system does not listen to them or engage with the
issues they care about. Some of those who feel ignored, vote for new parties not
identified with Westminster like UKIP. Many more simply do not vote at all. In
2010, taking into account over 6 million people who were not even on the
Electoral Register, only 57.5% of those eligible to vote did so and among 18-24
year olds it was only a shocking 24.6%.
I propose a
small-scale and feasible reform which could make a significant contribution to
improving public engagement with the political system. It is a monthly TV
programme, which I call People & PM
1-2-1. The details are set out below.
First, however,
I must explain the rationale behind the idea. A properly functioning democracy needs
more than simply allowing people to vote. One of the other necessary features is
that the agenda for the national political conversation should cover issues
that concern the whole population and not just a minority.
Currently in
the UK, this agenda is set, almost invariably, by a small group made up of
national editors, journalists and commentators who will themselves have been
influenced or pressured by politicians and lobbyists and others. These people
decide what to put on the front pages of the national newspapers or what to run
at ten past 8 on the Today programme or what should lead the 10 o’clock TV News
and so on. (The influence of social media, while growing, is still far less
significant in setting the agenda for the national political conversation.)
The agenda set
by this small group very often fails to reflect the concerns of much of the
population. For example, according to Oxfam, one in five of the UK population, that
is over 13 million people, live below the official poverty line. The issues
that these people face are rarely on the national political agenda. In
contrast, whereas only some 300,000 people pay the top rate of income tax,
issues of concern to this group are often on the front pages or lead the
bulletins.
This matters
for our democracy. When millions of people see no connection between the issues
they care about and the national political conversation they become disconnected
from the political system itself.
What is needed
is a mechanism which can widen – as far as possible - the range of people who
can put the issues they care about (and which others like them may well care
about) onto the national political agenda. This is what People & PM 1-2-1 is designed to achieve.
On People & PM 1-2-1, the PM of the day
would face members of the public in a series of five minute one-to-one encounters.
This would be on live TV and the combination of an element of reality TV with
the presence of the most powerful politician in the land is likely to make for
high viewing figures.
There would be something
thrillingly democratic in seeing the PM in conversation on an equal footing with
people from all parts of the UK, from all communities and of all ages above
voting age. The PM would have proper conversations with people such as the unemployed,
former members of the armed forces, single mothers, entrepreneurs, people with
serious disabilities, farm workers, new citizens, small business owners,
students, pensioners, nurses, fishermen, City workers, teachers, people earning
the minimum wage, environmentalists, carers, indeed the whole range of people
in our country.
It would be a
stark contrast with the current position where it is rare for the PM to be
questioned on live TV by anyone other than a middle aged white male who has an
Oxbridge degree and is based in London. Furthermore, some of the small band of professional
interviewers are too cosy with those they are supposed to hold to account.
Andrew Marr, for example, apparently saw no conflict of interest in holding his
recent book launch at No 10 Downing Street, hosted by the prime minister.
The likely subject matter and high
ratings would mean that the issues raised on People & PM 1-2-1 would inevitably become part of the agenda
for the national political conversation via social media, old media and word of
mouth.
These are the
detailed proposals for People & PM
1-2-1: -
•
Each
participant would have five minutes for a one-to-one conversation with the PM. When
a participant finishes they leave their chair and the next one takes their
place
•
It
would be live (with a short time delay to guard against illegal or offensive
language)
•
It
would be on at prime time
•
It
would be monthly in a different area each month so that after one year all the
UK had been covered
•
No
one should try and control the agenda. It will be up to the participants
•
There
would be no one chairing and no studio audience. There will only be an
occasional voice-over e.g. as participants change
•
There
would be ten participants per episode – one at a time in conversation with the
PM
•
The
PM and each participant would sit as equals as with a conventional interview
•
Participants
would not apply to take part. They would be selected
•
The
job of selection would be given to an expert organisation such as a polling
company. They would be funded so as to cover the hard to reach e.g. the
millions who are not registered to vote
•
The
detailed selection criteria would be published. The aim would be to select a representative
sample of all people of voting age living in the area covered by that month’s
programme
•
If
someone selected did not want to take part, then someone else in the area who
fits the same criteria would be selected.
However, “shy” people who are selected should be given encouragement and
support to take part. This would be without any pressure at all on what
issue(s) they should raise with the PM
•
People & PM 1-2-1’s governance would be the responsibility
of a body which would also be made up of a representative sample of the public.
It would work to ensure that the programme operates consistently according to
its principles
The principal
aim of People & PM 1-2-1 is to
reduce the serious disconnect between the public and the political system by
widening the group of people who set the agenda for the national political
conversation. However, there would be other benefits too. The novel sight of
seeing ordinary people in conversation with the PM would itself make people
more likely to engage with the political system. Furthermore, the programme would
lead to the political class itself becoming better informed. And sometimes the format may even produce
genuine revelations – a PM may find it more difficult to evade a question from
a persistent member of the public than from a professional interviewer.
People & PM 1-2-1 could be a shot of adrenalin in the arm
of our sickly democratic system.
Below I answer
some common questions about People &
PM 1-2-1.
Frequently Asked Questions about People & PM 1-2-1.
Will participants be sufficiently
capable and articulate?
Not so long ago
this question was asked in relation to voting. For centuries, elites used to
oppose democracy out of “fear of the mob”. It was not until 1918 that all men
could vote in the UK and it was 1928 before all women could vote.
Ordinary people
are trusted to decide on the gravest issues when serving on a jury. They ought
to be trusted to talk to the PM for five minutes on live TV.
It is not
necessary to be very articulate to effectively express what is on your mind.
And the concerns of the inarticulate are as valid as everyone else’s.
Will a PM not run rings around
participants?
No doubt a PM
could run rings around many participants. However, a PM will be very aware that
they are with a member of the public on live TV and will be judged not only on the
issues but also on their character. A PM will not want to be perceived as
bullying or patronising.
Should there not be someone chairing?
Having someone
chair the programme detracts from the essential quality of one to one conversation.
It will be for the PM and the member of the public in that particular
conversation to deal with problems that might arise, such as two people
speaking at the same time. Just like in normal conversations.
What if a participant is aggressive and
rude?
There would be
a short time delay in case a participant uses illegal or offensive language.
Illegal language would include such things as incitement to violence.
Broadcasters would follow their usual guidelines on swearing.
If a
participant was otherwise aggressive and rude to the PM, the PM would have to
respond as best they could.
Why would a TV company agree to screen
People & PM 1-2-1?
The BBC might
agree to broadcast the programme as part of their public service remit. In
fact, as it may well achieve high ratings, a number of broadcasters may be
interested.
Why would a PM agree to take part?
Once People & PM 1-2-1 becomes
established as a monthly event then subsequent PMs would find it very difficult
not to continue. It would be part of the unwritten constitution like weekly
PMQs in parliament or leaders’ debates at elections times.
The first PM to
agree to take part might do so for a number of reasons. They might recognise
that the programme would help address the serious disconnect between the public
and the political system. They might
have pledged to do so in a manifesto. They might decide that the risk for them
in taking part is outweighed by the possible benefit of being able to appear
direct to the public unmediated by the press.
Would this be a good use of a PM’s time?
In a democracy,
meeting a genuinely representative sample of the population once a month may be
considered one of the most useful ways of all for a PM to use their time. The
PM meets the Queen once a week.
How does People & PM 1-2-1 differ
from Ed Miliband’s proposal for a Public PMQs?
No details are available
for this proposal which was announced by Ed Miliband in July. It appears to
differ in a number of crucial ways from People
& PM 1-2-1.
I would be very happy to answer any
other questions. I am on email tomlondon@rocketmail.com
and on twitter @TomLondon6
