a ninth new reflection...'philosophy and presentation in politics'

Politicians may have a philosophical basis for their politics but they need to present the philosophical grounds for their policies to the electorate before discussing the ins and outs of the policies themselves.

There is apathy in the UK towards politics or indeed a lack of understanding because the average Joe, you or I, find it hard to translate what government, or the opposition or the Liberal Democrats are really saying.

Policies form the basis of electoral manifestos but who outside of government that is not directly affected by a deleterious ‘initiative’ such as the bedroom tax can really begin to comprehend the significance of Labour’s 2015 election pledge to abolish it? Or why it matters for the future of the economy that the UK stays part of the European Union when one isn’t able to unpick the acronym FDI? Or get a handle on the free schools debate without being intimately involved or without reading the broadsheets and political blogs whilst taking notes?

All three from Cameron, Miliband and Clegg could benefit by explaining the politics of their respective parties on a more emotive basis. For example, Miliband could put first his belief in the old leftist philosophy of politics being concerned with the support and wellbeing of the less well off, the marginalised, the weak foremost in explaining his desire to scrap bedroom tax which has left thousands of less-abled people in arrears on rent, scrimping on basic foodstuffs and being under constant bombardment from local authorities.

Beginning with the philosophical grounds for politics when engaging with the electorate is something the recently maligned Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party, in part understands. It is little wonder that Green Party membership has shot up in the last five years. Yes, green issues (small ‘g’) are increasingly rising up the political agenda (and rightly so in my opinion) but the Greens have also been able to present themselves as an alternative to the ‘big three’ by advocating their politics on a strong, or at least comprehensible philosophical and emotive level.

That the Greens will not threaten Westminster this summer is not down to the presentation of their political philosophy, or perhaps even their cringe-worthy manifesto launch at the end of February, but because they have proved consistently unable to communicate very well the practical application of their philosophies and ideals in real terms.

It is crucial that politicians understand the need to gen up on the ins and outs, facts and figures that will determine whether their policies will be able to be implemented if ever they get the chance, however, to re-iterate, I feel the communication of this information to you and I – the electorate – should come after they have explained why on a human level, a base philosophical-political level, they are trying to or will try to action a particular initiative.

Recently I was told by someone in the same ‘social group’, belonging to much the same socio-economic background – ABC1 – that Nigel Farage ‘had some interesting things to say’. He does have some interesting things to say but they are only interesting in the Noel Coward way – Coward used to use the term ‘interesting’ in response to people, their opinions, their art he thought diabolical.

But Farage appeals to people, in spite of what should be seen as his underlying racism, xenophobia, homophobia and sexism, not to mention his complete misrepresentation of a number of important statistics (see his recent comments on ‘immigrants with AIDS’ and drugs money used for ‘their’ treatment) because he has an emotive, quasi-philosophical element to his presentation, the ‘everyman’ with views and feelings ‘just like you and I’ (heaven forbid!).

While it may make Farage cry into his Weetabix, these days we live in the UK in a multi-everything society.  The 2011 census confirmed that we are a nation of nations with over 20% of the population coming from ethnic and cultural backgrounds other than White British. This is increasingly the case in Europe, and indeed across various parts of the world.  While it is true the diverse elements of society in the UK would likely benefit from becoming more integrated this will only happen with a larger interest, understanding and involvement in political discussion that begins from the bottom up. But, in turn, this somewhat relies on those at the top – our political leaders – better engaging and communicating their core beliefs before (though absolutely not excluding) the detail in their politics. After all, politics and the consideration and debate thereof should concern (and I associate the word concern with compassion, empathy, inclusion and involvement) as many people as possible; it might encourage the UKIP voter to look beyond the bridge of his or her nose and over the garden fence.