WHO do the political parties represent

We've certainly been through a phase when top politicians had little experience outside politics, but that's beginning to change. Both Theresa May and Philip Hammond worked outside politics for a couple of decades.

I think the big problem is that politics is now a profession. Most of those in high places in politics have been at it man/woman and boy/girl. Few if any have any life experience outside politics.

In the past there have always been professional politicians (read the novels of Anthony Trollope) but the majority of MPs have come to politics after decades doing other things. Some of them have been the local squire or union apparatchiks (excuse spelling) but all of them have brought an experience of lives, professions and regional experience completely lacking in most of today's politicians.

Not only have today's politicians only ever worked in politics their friendship circles are all political. Once again in the past MPs had hinterlands. The labour MP was down the pub in the constituency with his mates, most of whom continued to work in the factory or works where he once worked. The Tory landowner or mill owner knew about their industry whether land-based or industrial. Their friends and associates were more likely to be fellow landowners or working industrial or professional. Given that all politics is self interest, Tory or labour, they did at least know what they talked about when they rose in the House to talk about agriculture or industry, even defence or education because they were grounded in their locality and constituency and had their fingers on the pulse of their constituents.

I do not see how any change can be effected unless we can deprofesionalise politics. How I am not sure. Limit MPs to two terms in Parliament unless selected for a cabinet position? Make 35 the youngest age for serving in Parliament? Insist that every candidate provide evidence of 10 years working right outside politics (that would exclude those working for political PR companies, lobbying companies and the like)? Make MPs come up through local politics - 10 years as parish/district/county councillors?

I honestly do not know, but I do think for most MPs it would help if politics was first their hobby, not their profession. An MP should define themselves as a software developer and MP or doctor and MP, but their definition should be first their profession.

My MP is a professional politician. I have no idea whether he ever has ever earned his living any other way.

One question worth asking is whether MPs are delegates or representatives.

In other words, are MPs representatives of a handful of political parties with a 'package' of policies and we choose the one closest to our or own beliefs, knowing that MPs will almost always make decisions based on the party's policies

OR

Are MPs delegates of the people who voted for them and it's their role to reflect the views of their constituents in Parliament, even if the views don't coincide with their own?

The system we have is that MPs are representatives of their party, which sometimes conflicts with the views of their own constituents.

A further complication is that constituency members don't necessarily coincide with the views of ALL the voters in a constituency.

PS. Hope that makes sense.

@littlefierce

Gggrrr! I've just written a lengthy reply, but my post disappeared due to some glitch. I'll try again a bit later. I don't get all my news 'off the peg'. If I read something which involves statistics or a report of a report, I try to go back to the original report or look up statistics from the ONS (Office of National Statistics) wherever possible.

I think we are all taken for mugs by the politicians and they represent their own interests (and pockets) and not much more. We're slowly learning not to be taken in by charismatic figures, be they politicians, priests or self-appointed gurus and a good thing too. But there's a vacuum now when trust is lost and it's hard to see where we go from here. The right-wing is trying to reinstate something pretty much akin to medieval serfdom while the left's ideals tend to lead to the greed and manipulation we see in government now being mirrored in the populace. I give up, I shall live out my life quietly and stay extremely sceptical of anyone in power!

If anyone is actually interested - and it could just be me on here - I have just heard the first question on Any Questions and it was very much about the changes taking place with some interesting answers.

I cant agree that politics is just an organisation. I think they are far more than that.

Are you a frustrated Liberal Democrat, Gg?

I do keep thinking I have said things but then get an acerbic reply so wonder if I am talking a foreign language [sigh]. I did say that my definition "... doesn't matter if this is totally accurate it's just meant as a starting point" and, in that sense, nor does yours M0nica - matter I mean.

What I was wondering is where we go from here. I don't agree with your simplistic way of how you see it now either; you just seem to be seeing the current parties through your own political views . I think roses "I want a bit of all those reasons mixed together" is where many people have got to but that would probably mean an organisational change in how we run the country. I just thought some might have ideas about that.

If we look at Organisational Behaviour (the study of) historically we will see that politics is just an organisation. Historically these have run on tribal formats, hierarchical (Kings, dictators, presidents for life,)flatten out and are now moving into a more fluid structure. What would this look like politically I wonder?

@ daphnedill, can I ask where you get your news from? I feel I've been forced online due to the blatant bias of the BBC & the largely right wing press, & feel like I've been walking round blindfold most of my life - it is through social media I've had the chance to discover news from different sources. Sites like The Canary are left wing, & I'm not stupid enough to assume they are unbiased, however I regard it as a counterpoint to the relentless onslaught of right wing news from the traditional sources. If you know of a truly unbiased news source, please enlighten me - I'd love to follow it. No sarcasm intended - I really mean it

Good answer Monica I agree with those definitions, the trouble is I want a bit of all those reasons mixed together! A completely new Party methinks.

Good post M0nica.

gracesgran. the simple answer is that since the war social structures that could divide people easily into groups no longer exists. A trivial point but now, no matter what are social situation we all talk about our 'pay'. Wage and Salary are words rarely used

In the past Labour = working class = rented council home
Conservative = middle class = owner occupation.

These divisions no longer apply and the stated aims of most parties are much the same. The argument is all about how to reach the nirvana they ll want to reach.

I would now see it this way
Labour = everything runs better if it is run by the state
Conservative = everything runs better if left to market forces
Lib/Dems = everything runs better of we all have a say in how things are done through co-perative working in all its forms.

I don't think I made it really clear what I was asking (although, of course, that may not be what you want to discuss).

Let's us say - just to get the idea going - that it used to be, just after the war that:

We had a mixed economy
Labour represented the waged man
Conservative represented the middle class or salaried man
Liberals represented the intellectual man

It doesn't matter if this is totally accurate it's just meant as a starting point. Labour would also have attracted those who thought we should change society to a more communist structure and the Conservatives would have attracted those who wanted to change society to a more capitalist structure.

Which party represents who now? Since Thatcher we have moved more towards the capitalist structure in the hope that this would benefit all but this appears to have failed with an even bigger disparity between the rich and the poor.

Will this continue? Will those getting less out of the countries overall economy do more than vote us out of Europe? If the country did this because it was the first time they felt there vote would really have an effect how can parties really represent people in very different circumstances.

I don't feel any party represents me and my situation in society and I don't think I am alone in this feeling. I haven't stopped voting yet but what if these parties represent so few people and more and more feel that the party they felt represented them in the past doesn't now. What if even more people stopped voting because no party comes anywhere near to representing them?

Thank you Daphne for sanity. Unfortunately Labour is in disarray so there is not a valid opposition. As long as The Daily Mail and The Sun are bought by women and men of this country who lack the awareness to see beyond being manipulated by rich vested interests who also own the satellite media we will bump along viewed as the underclass. Cannon fodder does not change, just its chains. I am altruistic and would pay higher taxes and have done so. Fairness and morality have been trampled on and truth and facts despised.

LOL - a great way to debate, hey!

Totally agree about the broad spectrum of the Labour party and identity. We've all heard the sarchastic comments about so-called 'Champagne socialists' and the massive criticisms when they happen to 'do' differently to what they 'say or believe'. Personally I totally understand, for instance- Labour members sending their kids to private school if their local schools are over-crowded and have problems. Totally understand how they would not wish to sacrifice their kids to their principles- and at the same time say that the local schools should be better funded to cut class size, etc. FOR ALL CHILDREN not just their own.

We were very lucky to have good comprehensive schools in our area- both at middle/upper/ and 6th Form. Had this not been the case, i would not have hesitated- but then used all my energy and 'influence' to improve the local schools.

obieone daphnidill will love that, she gets a bit confused & bored if people keep agreeing with her

daphniedill, I will agree to differ with you on everything on here. Makes it easier that way!

@MOnica

I think it's a bit more complex than that. Obviously, there are some altruistic souls who do vote for higher taxes, etc, knowing they will lose out. There are also people who vote Conservative, because they don't want to admit that actually they're one of the plebs. I suppose it's some kind of misplaced pride. My mother would never vote Labour ever, despite the fact that she's suffering from cuts to social care and disability benefits.

The Labour Party has always appealed to diverse groups, which is, I think, why they're having problems with their identity.

Even under 18 year olds surf the net for political news. It has never been easier or quicker to find out real information and to check the rubbish sometimes thrown at us by the MSM. People have no excuse.

PS. I don't accept the 'families have no time' argument either. My 85 year old mother worked for most of my childhood and I hardly ever saw my father apart from on Sundays.

@ obieone

I didn't introduce the referendum - you did. I meant any kind of representation. If people are content to behave like sheep, that's their choice, but I don't see that they have the right to make decisions.

M0nica. But people do need spare time and switch off time. Hobbies and finding out about politics would come after that for lots of people.

The average person would include those people who do not have jobs and those who are below the age of 18 I would have thought.

But presumably 52% of the population are happy with the result. The ones who you suggest were manipulated.

People have 1 person 1 vote. And I for one am glad about that. That they dont have to pass some sort of test devised by other people in order to get it.

The suffragettes didnt put stipulations on it, but now it seems, some people want to.

If people rely on 140 word messages, headlines, soundbites and incomplete statistics, they only have themselves to blame if they're manipulated by people who spend time finding out how politics works. If people can't be bothered finding out real facts, I'm not sure they have any right to play a part in the democratic process which affects other people.

Most people vote for self-interest and vote for the party they think will best serve their interests.

It has always been so and always will be.

I am not convinced by the 'families do not have as much spare time' argument. The average person spends 25 hours a week surfing the net and more hours on top of that watching television (some of it online). They have the time to visit the supermarket on a daily basis, where most of our generation could only find time for one large organised shop a week. It is rather that many families rate their leisure pursuits above the ties of family.