In the run up to last week’s local authority ‘general election’ the Positive Action Group invited Colin Hay, author of the thought provoking book ‘Why we hate politics’, to speak to the Group.

Written when professor of political analysis at Birmingham University, in a nutshell, he postulates that there has been a gradual ‘depoliticizing’, from the centre, of decision making to a non-political process of technical administration.

The talk, which was quite academic in its style and delivery, examined the reasons for the decline in interest in politics by the majority of citizens in western democracies. He highlighted the downward trend in turnouts at elections, and presented some suggestions of what should, or shouldn’t, be done to try to reverse this trend.

Professor Hay, who was making his first ever visit to the Island, remarked that politics had become increasingly negative in tone and character, to such a degree that ‘politics’ was now a ‘dirty word’.

However, he asserted that, in his opinion, self-interest was no worse than it had ever been, but that for some reason the public believed that it was; and this was the fault of today’s politicians.

He looked at some other aspects, such as the low level of trust in politicians, their perceived less ‘caring’ attitude and the diminution of their sense of civic duty.

He pointed out that all these issues had an impact on the decision whether to vote or not; and that if people didn’t get into the habit of voting, particularly at a young age, chances are they would be ‘lost’ forever.

Therefore, he said that it was important to engage with young people and to ‘politicize’ them otherwise voter numbers would decline even further.

However, he said we should pause and consider whether the term ‘voter apathy’ was just an excuse used by politicians to hide their own inadequacy.

He described how the public has become less deferential, more critical and more difficult to please; and that there are now greater numbers of disaffected citizens.

Disaffected citizens generally do not vote, he explained, which is why he thought the reduction in voting age to 18 had made little impact on voter numbers. He said 18 to 21 year olds tend to be socially disaffected whereas 16 years had not by then become totally disaffected. Perhaps if they could be enticed to vote they would be more inclined to carry on voting through the ‘difficult’ period; and the habit would be established.

He said that one of his biggest ‘bug-bears’ is the frequent use of the statement ‘political apathy’; and he gave his opinion of what he thought lay behind its appearance and use.

He was highly dismayed at the rise in ‘personality’ politics in the place of ‘policy’ politics; with the emphasis now on ‘branding, product placement, credibility, honesty and trustworthiness’ rather than simply policy.

He explained that the depoliticizing of major decisions, albeit bringing power “closer to the people”, resulted in the off-loading of responsibility for the decision to the unelected.

He told the audience, which included a smattering of MHK’s, and at least three Ministers, that the disengagement by politicians, from the decision making process, was the reason for the lack of interest in politics. They had become political ‘actors’, he said.

So what was to be done, he inquired.

He commenced by listing what he thought were not the solutions.

Lowering the voting age, making it easier to vote, compulsory voting, citizenship lessons and citizen juries were all dismissed; some, such as voting by email etc, for being cosmetic exercises that did not address the core issue.

The yeses comprised ending depoliticizing of decision making (essentially passing the buck to someone else), a return to ‘conviction’ politics (so the public know and recognise what they are voting for) - which drew calls of hear, hear from the audience, a compact between parties and politicians on a ‘code of conduct/terms of political engagement’ when dealing with each other and a similar compact between the media and politicians.

He ended his talk by stating that essentially politicians needed to have a ‘conversation’ with the public on the subject.

P A G Chairman, Roger Tomlinson then invited questions from the audience.

Joe Duffy had noted what Professor Hay had to say about politicians accepting responsibility for decisions but pointed out, in the UK, they were handing powers over to the EU as fast as they could give them.

Professor Hay didn’t dispute this point but countered by giving the example of the recent ‘covert’ re-politicization of monetary policy.

Paul Chambers said that one of the problems in the Isle of Man was the number of people not registered to vote by either choice or a deficiency in the system that misses them out.

Professor Hay thought this was an important point as the data on voting was based on the numbers registered, so it would over inflate any results. However, he didn’t have an answer as to how the latter could be resolved in the Island.

Quintin Gill MHK, was intrigued by the use of the term ‘political actor’ and wondered why Professor Hay had not used the term ‘political worker or volunteer’.

He responded by saying politics was a form of drama; and that ‘conviction politics’ was even more so. He explained that he had been looking for a neutral term and quite liked the term ‘political worker’. However, he added that too many politicians had lost the ability to say what they stood for; which gained the endorsement of the audience.

Professor replied that he would need to study the reasons for the reduction, but said he thought it was good to have such an intimate relationship with the electorate; as it was very difficult to hold people to account in larger numbers.

Mike Coleman picked up on the loss of deference to politicians and asked if Professor Hay thought the media was responsible.

He said the premise was correct but, with the rise in the ‘political spin doctor’, journalists saw it as their role to “punch through” the spin surrounding modern politicians and parties.

John Rimington thought that the more affluent societies, such as Sweden and the USA, to which Professor Hay had referred in his talk, were now more focused on material issues than politics; and, ignoring Mugabe and Putin, he was more interested in what was happening in ‘transitional’ democracies.

Professor Hay confessed that his ‘expertise’ was on the ‘established arguments’ of western democracies so he didn’t feel that he had the evidence base to comment; other than to say that the ‘insatiable desire’ for democracy was often quickly lost. However, he thought the ‘affluence’ point was interesting. He said that in the USA just as many people in socially deprived areas, as affluent areas, were likely not to vote.

Beastie Dovey said that in the Island it isn’t a question of voter ‘apathy’ but that the quality of candidates is often so low that people do not feel inclined to vote.

A discussion ensued about having a box, on the ballot paper, for ‘none of the above’ or RON - reopen nominations. It was suggested by Professor Hay that this could be a recipe for never filling a vacancy. This later drew a tongue-in-check, “we all ready have RON”, jibe from Roy Beale, “and it is called the Legislative Council elections”, he said.

Professor Hay said he had some sympathy for people who put themselves forward as candidates and suggested they deserved some respect; but conceded it is an issue if everybody thinks they are only in politics for themselves. He also added that it could be a “deeply political decision” not to vote.

Tristram Llewellyn-Jones stated that a political commentator had commented that Labour’s ‘Third Way’ produced a ‘triangulated twisted country’ which created a huge bureaucracy, not that he thought anybody was suggesting it was like that in the Island. The question was whether to get rid of it or to stick with it.

Professor Hay said that Lord Givens had raised the issue of whether, with the ‘Third Way’, you could turn ideas in to decisions or whether it would end up as the second ‘Bon moi’. It provides the rhetoric, “should you or shouldn’t you”, he said, but it wasn’t a fix. The authors of it had wanted the flexibility to respond to the political landscape, he explained; but, although he had nothing against civil servants per se, you need people to make decisions and the ‘Third Way’ had stifled this.

A concern was expressed, from the floor, that with the drift to the centre of all the main UK political parties it provided “open ground” to the far left and right to capitalize on the benefits of ‘conviction politics’.

Professor Hay agreed that this is a concern, especially with a ‘first-past-the-post’ system, as a decline in mainstream voters effectively increased their vote; and he thought there is very real possibility of this happening.

Jeff Garland, P A G’s Deputy Chairman then rounded off the evening with a vote of thanks.

In an amusing address Dr Garland said that Professor Hay had “stretched our minds and given them a good work out”. He said that Isle of Man was a strange place and, for security reasons we couldn’t present him with anything liquid; so he would have to make do with a different Manx ‘adult goodie bag’. Accompanied by laughter, Dr Garland said it would be popular with his family, but not with his dentist, and that he could play with it in bed. He finished by saying Professor Hay had been very welcome here in the Island.

Earlier in the evening Mr Tomlinson gave some feedback on previous meetings. He said that following the talk on drugs and alcohol, when a vote was taken to support a separate strategy for both, the Chief Minister had confirmed, in response to a parliamentary question, that he would be revisiting the subject.

He said he had obtained copies of the various departmental ‘service delivery plans’, and the one that interested him most was the Post Office plan. He had noted that it was intended to improve the contribution from the philatelic division. He recounted how he had emailed the post office and requested the turnover figures for the last 5 years. Back came the reply – we can not provide the information as the figures would need to be approved by Tynwald. An astounded Mr Tomlinson explained that the reply went on to say that as ‘segregated’ accounts were not required by Tynwald they didn’t present them in that format. Furthermore, as the management accounts were not audited they couldn’t provide those either and, in any case, the information was ‘commercially confidential’ so it was not available for the public to see.

Mr Tomlinson reminded the audience of what investigative journalist Gavin MacFadyen had said when he gave a talk to the Group, in October 2007; that it was too easy, and wrong, for the government to withhold information from the public by playing the ‘commercial confidentiality’ card.