BEN FEARN: WHAT I STAND FOR
I’ve written a blog highlighting my values over the last couple of years, but in short I’m a social liberal who believes in an active (but not overpowering or illiberal) state as a vehicle for helping the poorest in society.
-
Support greater devolution to end generations of over-centralisation in London, and to give more power to citizens
-
Re-engage the youth vote; I support votes at 16, provided that increased political education goes with it. My message is that people should vote, even if it isn’t for me; get change by voting for change e.g. Attlee
-
PR voting system as both a fairer system for reflecting votes with seats and as a way to re-energise elections and boost turnouts
-
Renationalisation of British Rail; privatisation has led to increased fares and inefficiency, but still with taxpayer subsidy
-
Windfall tax on the privatised utilities to raise income and to lower escalating costs of fuel and energy for taxpayers
-
Favour a Glass-Steagall style banking regulation
-
Heavily influenced by the New Deal in the USA under FDR
-
Favour a return to ‘full employment’, defined with an unemployment rate of 3% or less
-
I’m in favour of TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), and I believe certain media perceptions have been exaggerated, such as NHS privatisation. However, it is important that these concerns are addressed and properly scrutinised.
-
I support the restoration of EMA (Educational Maintenance Allowance). As someone who was a recipient of EMA, I know just how much of a difference it made during my sixth form studies, and I have concerns that the cheaper replacement system isn't helping post-16 students from poorer backgrounds.
Five ways to engage / re-engage people with politics
1. ELECTORAL REFORM
Many people will not feel inclined to vote in a seat where the outcome is almost inevitable. In too many seats, more people vote against the successful candidate than for them, yet the MP is often left with a comfortable majority. Nationally, what the country voted for is not reflected in terms of the number of seats, as this chart demonstrates.
Whilst defenders of First Post the Post argue that it results in strong and stable governments, a declining voter turnout and 2010 hung parliament will disagree.
Proportional Representation (PR) would link the share of a Party’s vote to the number of seats. Furthermore, under the STV (Single Transferable Vote) variant of PR, multi-member constituencies would mean that a voter could choose to talk to the MP which bests represents their ideological preference rather than one who doesn’t. Tactical voting would be removed, allowing for people to vote for the party they want rather than the party most likely to defeat their lowest preference. My 2011 blog entry on electoral reform explains the benefits of PR in more depth.
3. STATUTORY REGISTER OF LOBBYISTS
This is also under consultation. The example of former Conservative co-treasurer Peter Cruddas offering “premier league access” to the Prime Minister for £250,000 (and possibly influence party policy) in 2012 was a disgrace, along with Tory MP Patrick Mercer being caught up in a sting by a fake lobbying firm from Fiji. Similar to the party funding elements, voters need to know that questionable individuals will not be influencing the Government.
4. REFORM ELECTORAL REGISTERS / MOVE ELECTION DATES
I’ve grouped these two together as they are similar in terms of practicality. The Electoral Reform Society has recently highlighted the risk of people falling off the electoral register. In terms of busy schedules in everyday life, many people indifferent to voting may not prioritise registering or re-registering for elections, especially if the process is lengthy and problematic. Registering should be simplified, with the possibility of being able to register on election day suggested by the Electoral Reform Society. In my first year of University, people in halls of residence were automatically registered to vote, and I believe a similar element nationwide (admittedly an idealist aspiration) would be beneficial.
On the issue of General Election dates, this proposal may sound rather piecemeal. Elections are usually held on a Thursday, supposedly to allow the incoming Prime Minister a weekend to formulate a cabinet and start business on Monday. However, even with a 10pm poll-closing time, certain individuals many not have the time after a long shift to travel and queue. The 2010 Election in particular had cases where hundreds of voters were turned away from polling stations.
Perhaps Elections could be held on a Saturday, where voters who have the whole weekend off can vote earlier, allowing for those who work on a Saturday the chance to vote after their day has ended in polling stations with smaller queues. Electronic voting has also be considered, allowing for people to vote online or through mobile phones. Such a system would need to be rigourously tested, but with the boom of mobile applications over the years, surely voting could be on the agenda? This could reduce cues further. An incoming Government could also be allowed until Wednesday to form a cabinet to compensate for the lost weekend.
5. VOTES AT 16 & 17 / POLITICAL EDUCATION
I disagree with cynics who believe that this is a pointless proposals due to teenagers not possessing political knowledge. I’ve no doubt that there are 16 and 17 year olds out there who are clued up on politics (ask 17 year old William Hague and his speech to the Conservative Party Conference), but for those who aren’t, there is a reason. At the age of 16 I had no interest in politics, and a lot of this was due both to a lack of information and necessity; why should a 16 year old near an Election show interest if they are not able to vote? Any attempt at taught political education was not displayed until sixth form, and General Studies is not a suitable or effective form, as millions of students will testify. Ultimately it was studying history at GCSE and A-Level which lead my slow conversion to politics.
2. PARTY FUNDING REFORM
Thankfully, this process appears to have re-entered the political discourse after numerous abortive attempts. Too much big money is in politics, whether it’s the trade union influence in the Labour Party, the backing of wealthy individuals in the Conservative Party or the questionable £2.4 million donation from a crook to the Liberal Democrats in 2004. Trust in politicians will never be a given, but it will be improved if voters know that they are voting/supporting a party which has transparent and legitimate funding. The proposed £10,000 annual cap on donations (or, better yet, a £5,000 cap) is a good starting point, and one which should be embraced by all of the major parties if they are to remove dogma and self-
interest from their ranks. Getting rid of powerful special interest groups is a must.
REGISTER TO VOTE >
