Author Archives: nathangamester

What the Electorate Really Wants

Cam-MiliThe Conservatives and Labour are fighting polar opposite campaigns. In the blue corner, the focus is on the strength of the economy. The red corner has prioritised the importance of the NHS. One common theme unites both parties: both David Cameron and Ed Miliband want to be placed in charge of Britain’s future prosperity.

Yet, however hard they try, neither side can break the deadlock as poll after poll shows the two parties neck and neck in the race to Downing Street.

Mark Twain once said that history doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes. This is certainly true of election campaigns. It’s “the economy, stupid” is the infamous phrase issued by Bill Clinton’s chief strategist, James Carville, during Clinton’s successful 1992 Presidential campaign. And this mantra seems to have been adopted by Tory strategists who are hoping that the economy will be the issue that convinces voters to back David Cameron on 7th May.

Labour, on the other hand is pinning its hopes on the health service. The NHS is a national icon and is – if you believe the polls – the single most important issue on the doorstep. By committing to increase the number of nurses and decrease GP waiting times, Labour is hoping this will be the issue that convinces voters to back Ed Miliband.

Without doubt, a flourishing economy which leads to more jobs and higher wages is a key part to the future prosperity of the country. The state of our healthcare system is also extremely important. But part of the problem for Cameron and Miliband is that neither leader has quite understood what prosperity means to people.

That is why the Legatum Institute asked leading pollsters YouGov to ask the public what prosperity means to them. The results that are published today are startling and could go some way in explaining why neither of the main political parties will be able to win a majority in two weeks.

Firstly, it is clear that the British public do not think economic growth is the be all and end all to a prosperous nation. Nearly half of people questioned (forty-five per cent) think public safety is more important than GDP. Only eight per cent of people – and remember this is a poll of 2,000 people of different ages, income groups, and voting intentions – think a stronger economy is more important than feeling safe. Yet crime, personal safety and security have barely featured in this election campaign.

The same is true of education. Forty-one per cent of voters think that a good quality education system is more important than economic growth in determining the UK’s future prosperity. Interestingly, there is a big gap here between the views of Conservative and Labour voters. Only a quarter of Conservative voters say that the quality of the education system is more important than economic growth, compared to fifty-five per cent of Labour voters.

The poll also found that fifty-one per cent of people thought the ability to start your own business was more important to the prosperity of the nation than economic growth. The numbers rose to fifty-seven per cent when you look at how would-be Conservatives answered the question. There is little doubt that the Conservatives have made a lot of noise when it comes to their record on job creation – two million new private sector jobs is a fantastic achievement – but the public want to know how a future government will enable people across the country to become their own bosses.  The long term economic plan aside, we haven’t heard a huge amount of detail when it comes to encouraging a new generation of entrepreneurs.

The results of the Legatum Institute survey should provide food for thought to all of the main parties in this election. Voters of all stripes want to hear about more than the economy. They want a positive vision of how schools and hospitals will help shape our country’s future prosperity. They want a government that will prioritise public safety and encourage aspiring entrepreneurs.

With most opinion polls showing a deadlock between Labour and Conservative and with only two weeks to go until the nation votes, time is running out for either of the major parties to distinguish itself from the other. Maybe, just maybe, a change of tactic is required – one that takes account of how the electorate defines prosperity. This could determine whether it’s Cameron or Miliband who is given the keys to Number 10 on the morning of 8th May.

This article first appeared here.

JFK’s Right Hand Man

I’ve just finished reading Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History, the memoir of Ted Sorensen, one of JFK’s closest advisors. It’s a superb book, beautifully written offering an insight into the mind of a truly brilliant man who Kennedy described as his “intellectual blood bank”. Here are a few thoughts on Sorensen, JFK, and a quite superb political autobiography.

On the morning of Friday 20th January 1961, after a night of heavy snowfall and in the shadow of a close-run election, John F Kennedy stepped on to the inaugural platform and spoke words that both defined and inspired a generation. “Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans.” This was more than rhetoric. His words ushered in a new era of optimism and a new generation of political awareness. Kennedy’s inaugural address is perhaps the most famous, most replayed, most quoted piece of political rhetoric from the past 60 years. Reading it afresh today, more than half a century later, it hasn’t lost an ounce of its impact.

JFK’s inaugural address might be the closest thing you’ll find to political poetry. “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country” is the best known line but the speech includes other gems such as “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate” and “If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich”. These words, although spoken by JFK on that cold January morning, almost certainly originated from the pen of Ted Sorensen.

Counselor CoverAlthough Ted Sorensen is often credited as JFK’s “speechwriter”, he was a lot more than that. Finding the appropriate description of Sorensen’s role in Kennedy’s life is difficult, such was the closeness of the two. His job title in the White House was the rather generic “Special Counsel to the President” which can mean anything and everything. Kennedy’s brother Bobby, who served as JFK’s Attorney General, says simply: “If it was difficult, Ted Sorensen was brought in”, while the New York Times obituary of his life describes Sorensen as JFK’s “political strategist and a trusted adviser on everything from election tactics to foreign policy”.

Counselor is the story of Sorensen’s life rather than JFK’s presidency, although the years spent campaigning for and then serving in the White House certainly dominate the pages. The book breezes through Sorensen’s early life providing some detail about his somewhat sheltered upbringing in Nebraska, including earning his bachelor’s degree from the University of Nebraska, and then graduating first in his class at law school. By the time he first made the journey to Washington in 1951, at the age of 23, Sorensen says of himself: “I had never drunk a cup of coffee, set foot in a bar, written a check, or owned a car.” Less than 10 years later he was, the Wall Street Journal notes, “the third most powerful man in the American government.”

Sorensen and JFK first met in 1953 when, eighteen months after making the journey to Washington DC from his home town of Lincoln Nebraska, Sorensen was hired as a researcher by the newly elected senator from Massachusetts.

Sorensen pic

Ted Sorensen

Although the book is a little light on Sorensen’s early life, it provides more detail about his post-Washington years in which he spent four decades as a successful international lawyer for New York firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. This work took him all over the world and included encounters with an eclectic cast of charismatic and inspiring world leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Fidel Castro, Charles de Gaulle, former President of the DRC, Mobutu Sese Seko,  Egypt’s former President Anwar Sadat (whom Sorensen describes as the “most intriguing” person he’s ever met), and Israel’s former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion (whom he described as the “most visionary”.)

Counselor also documents Sorensen’s own experience as a political candidate in 1970 when he ran as a democrat in the New York Senate seat previously held by Robert Kennedy. But Sorensen admits this was “a mistake”, describing how he believed (naively, it turns out) that by seeking public office he could simply continue the JFK legacy. “Frankly, it was an act of hubris on my part”, concedes Sorensen.

The pages of Counselor are soaked with loyalty and admiration towards JFK (it’s even been described as a “love story” by one reviewer). Sorensen’s loyalty remained undiminished long after JFK’s presidency was brought to a tragically premature end in Texas in 1963. In one candid section towards the end of the book Sorensen asserts that none of the nine people who have held the office of the Presidency since 1963 come close to his former boss.

In another example of both loyalty to JFK and ambivalence to those who followed, Sorensen admits for the rest of his life whenever he referred to “The President” in writing, in conversation, or otherwise, there was only one person he meant.

Ever since JFK delivered his inaugural address in 1961, questions over its true authorship have been raised. It has been suggested on more than one occasion that Sorensen is the source and inspiration behind all of Kennedy’s finest rhetoric. Sorensen addresses those questions head-on in Counselor and, perhaps unsurprisingly, remains loyal to his former boss referring to the speech “a collaboration” and even insisting Kennedy was the “true author”.

Sorensen remained active and intellectually alert into old age although his latter years were dominated by health issues following a massive stroke in 2001 that took away most of his sight – and could have been worse. Writing Counselor seems to have been a cathartic exercise for Sorensen who admits that it helped keep him alive for the six years it took to write following the stroke (he died two years after publication). It seems to have also brought closure: in the final pages of the book, Sorensen says that he believes the writing of the book signifies the conclusion of his service to JFK.

Ted Sorensen has been described as the speechwriter’s patron saint. This is an appropriate epithet. It’s certainly true that for aspiring writers, Sorensen’s name towers above others. But even a cursory look at his professional life shows that he was far more than a speechwriter. Counselor is a fine account of his distinguished life. Moreover, it offers an authoritative behind-the-scenes assessment of a presidency that electrified the nation. I have no doubt that Counselor will stand through the ages as one of the definitive accounts of JFK’s presidency, written by someone who lived and breathed every minute.

One of the endorsements on the back cover is from Barack Obama who states that “Sorensen has written a book that will be cherished for generations.” I happen to think he’s right. I hope he is.

Sorensen’s life of service, idealism, and loyalty provides a shining example for aspiring politicians and political advisors. I can’t help thinking that US politics – characterised as it is by gridlock, partisanship, and short-sightedness – would be a far better place if there were a few more Ted Sorensens around today.

Marriage, Illegitimacy, and Social Norms

Last week I had the privilege of chairing a discussion as part of the annual Charles Street Symposium. The discussion was based on three essays, which considered the question, Why Do Societies Prosper? David Ruffley MP acted as the discussant for the session.

The first essay was titled More on the What and Less of the Why, by Bernardo Fazendeiro1. Bernardo argues that we are asking the wrong question and before considering why societies prosper we must first consider what we mean when we talk about prosperity. He concludes by stating that “taking a step back is more necessary than ever, so that we can deliberate on versions of the good, whatever that may be…”

The second essay titled The Ethics of Disutility was by Mats Ekman2. Mats’ considers whether it is morally right to force a person to maximise his/her own utility, ultimately concluding that it would be wrong to do so, arguing that “right” and “good” are separate qualities.

The third (and most provocative) essay titled Social Norms, Illegitimacy, and Liberty was by Carissa Mulder3. Carissa argues that “America is suffering from an illegitimacy crisis.” Drawing on evidence that compares the life outcomes of children from married families versus children from unmarried families, the essay argues that people from higher socio-economic groups are more likely to marry before having children compared to those from lower socio-economic groups due to the presence of social norms/expectations, which are absent among the lower class (note: the essay uses US data and focuses solely on the US).

“Social norms can only exist if there are consequences for violating them” argues Carissa. “Conforming to these behaviours results in societal approval. On the other hand, people must experience negative consequences for violating these norms if they are to be effective.”

In an issue as complex as this, it is far easier to diagnose the problem than it is to prescribe the right solution – a point that came through clearly in the subsequent discussion. The essay offers some suggestions (with examples) but struggles to reach a practical path for progress, partly due to the complexity of the problem and partly due to the limited space available (the maximum word count for essays was 1500 words). The following paragraph offers some broad-brush suggestions:

“Elites should preach what they practise: present the picture of a married couple raising their biological children as the paradigmatic example of the good life; be explicit about why fathers are important; emphasise the benefits to children in terms of staying in school, avoiding abuse, avoiding drugs, and avoiding involvement with the justice system. People who are married and those delaying childbearing until marriage should be frank about why they are doing so. This should be done in a sensitive manner. But sheepishly muttering the truth, rather than explaining it in a straightforward manner, doesn’t make it any less true. It just means that those who most need a clear plan of life to follow will not understand it.”

It may be tempting to see this essay – that essentially advocates marriage as a prerequisite for having children – as a classic right-of-centre, pro-marriage argument the like of which is familiar among American conservatism. With this in mind, it’s notable that the essay steers clear of the familiar anti-government, pro-individual liberty arguments that one might expect. Indeed the essay argues that the government can play an active role in providing a solution, citing the example of the US government’s “decades-long anti-tobacco campaign”, which has resulted in a dramatic fall in tobacco use, despite tobacco products remaining legal and available.

The essay concludes with a thoughtful discussion on some of the obstacles to establishing social norms. The section on virtue was particularly good: “Positive social norms often require the exercise of virtue—work, continence, delayed gratification. Virtue does not come easily to most of us. Developing virtue requires sustained effort and self-denial…So the first difficulty in establishing positive social norms lies in the difficulty of conquering ourselves.”

As I have said, arriving at a practical solution to a problem such as this presents a huge challenge. The statistics on children’s outcomes highlight a serious problem requiring a serious solution. But it’s a big step to then say that marriage is therefore the right prescription for everyone who has children. Forcing (or indeed strongly encouraging) this could easily end up with a completely different set of social problems.

That said, there is a strong case for helping people understand that a two parent married couple offers the best environment for children. Providing people with the statistics on this will allow them to make informed decisions about whether or not to have children. As the essay makes clear, it’s about gradually changing social norms rather than introducing heavy-handed policies that might result in negative outcomes. In theory, this is all well and good. But devising a method to achieve it is incredibly challenging.

I encourage you to read the essays in full, which are available at the following link (Carissa’s begins on p 38).

http://www.li.com/docs/default-source/publications/css2014_essays_web.pdf?sfvrsn=4

 

 

1 Bernardo is a research associate at the Centre for Critical Thought at the University of Kent

2 Mats is a doctoral student at the Helsinki Swedish School of Economics

3 Carissa is the Special Assistant to Commissioner Peter Kirsanow of the US Commission on Civil Rights

We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us

Ten minutes in to his party conference speech, Boris Johnson produced a red brick from the shelf of his lectern. His message both verbal and visual was clear. London suffers from a housing shortage; we need to build more homes. In his own words, “One way or another we will need 1bn bricks. So, brick, my little friend, you will not be alone in London.”

BRITAIN-POLITICS-CONSERVATIVESWith the population of the capital set to exceed 9 million, the demand for housing is growing daily. The important question facing the city’s planners and developers is not if new housing is needed but what type of housing is best for London. This matters because a city’s architecture has a profound effect on its residents. Put simply, where you live can determine how you live.

Surveys of people in the UK have consistently found that the large majority of people prefer to live in streets rather than in high rise blocks. Those who live in streets are statistically happier and less stressed compared to people who live in multi-story buildings. Moreover, in conventional streets crime is lower and people report to being more socially engaged compared to people in high rise buildings.

Back to Boris. Earlier this year the Mayor of London took responsibility for the fate of one of London’s most historic sites, Mount Pleasant, which is currently home to the Royal Mail sorting offices. A large part of this site is set for redevelopment and competing plans exist for how to do it.

Royal Mail has invested more than £10 million in its plans to turn the site into a series of large, high-rise concrete flats up to 15 stories high. The plan has been derided by many including Simon Jenkins who wrote recently that “No respect is shown for contour or urban context.” Jenkins goes on to explain, “The Royal Mail proposal has been overwhelmingly opposed by every local body, not least the local Mount Pleasant Association. It is a mockery of localism and drains whatever character might have been instilled in this potentially charming corner of London”.

An alternative plan has been put together by Create Streets and the Legatum Institute. This plan is far and away a better option than the Royal Mail plan. A quick look at the details of the alternative plan reveal why:

  • It includes 730 homes, which provides a higher density than the Royal Mail’s 681.
  • It’s popular. A recent survey of 258 local residents found that 99% of respondents favoured the Create Streets plan over the Royal Mail plan.
  • It’s better value. The estimated re-sale potential over 40 years is estimated at £280m more than the RM plan (which would mean an Mount Pleasant£84m loss for the British taxpayer given that we own 33% of Royal Mail).
  • It gives greater priority to green spaces, especially in relation to the impact on a nearby primary school.
  • It provides better connectivity for residents, with pedestrian routes that are 75% more accessible than the RM scheme.
  • Finally, it’s much, much prettier than the RM plan.

Enter Winston Churchill. In 1943 parliament was debating the plans to reconstruct the House of Commons chamber after it was destroyed by a German bomb two years previously. During his speech, rather than using the event to make a case for modifying the chamber, Winston Churchill argued for it to be rebuilt exactly as it was. Churchill argued for this because he believed the Commons Chamber represented more than bricks and mortar. The intimate design of the Commons chamber, Churchill argued, plays a vital role in preserving and upholding the style, culture, and process of Parliamentary democracy that had existed for centuries.

Churchill recognised that our architecture influences our culture. He knew that preserving the principles of Parliamentary democracy would have a substantial effect on wider society. This is what he meant when, during the debate, he said, “We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.”

Back to Boris. Picture the scene, the Mayor of London has both sets of plans for the Mount Pleasant site spread out on his desk. The first is the Royal Mail plan for an ugly, high-rise, concrete jungle, unpopular with local residents; the second is the Create Streets plan for an attractive, popular, design that provides more homes and better value than the first. This sounds like a no-brainer. And yet, bizarrely, Mr Johnson recently approved the Royal Mail plan.

This may not be the end of it. There’s still a chance for a government minister to overturn the decision or indeed for Johnson to change his mind. The excellent Mount Pleasant Association certainly hasn’t given up hope.

Boris Johnson is soon to release a book about Winston Churchill. He will undoubtedly be familiar with Churchill’s advice to parliament in 1943. Seventy years later, Johnson would do well to heed that advice.

Talk at the Brookings Institution

Last week I was in the US and spent time in Washington DC, Boston, and New York. I gave several talks and hosted various meetings including giving a talk and moderating a panel session at the Brookings Institution (video below).

The subject of the discussion was “Opportunity and Prosperity” and the four panellists were: Carol Graham (Brookings Institution), John Prideaux (The Economist), Richard Reeves (Brookings Institution), and Charles Murray (American Enterprise Institute).

 

This event page on the Brookings Institution website provides more detail about the event: http://www.brookings.edu/events/2014/11/18-prosperity-beyond-economic-growth

RFK on Moral Courage

rfk capetownAfter his election as Senator of New York in 1965, Robert Kennedy began campaigning for the Democratic nomination for president. In June of 1966 he travelled to Cape Town where he received a hero’s welcome, being greeted by a crowd of 18,000.

In his speech, RFK positioned the South African struggle for freedom in the context of the worldwide struggle to break down barriers of nationality, race and class. It has been argued that in this speech RFK laid out his core political philosophy.

The speech was delivered to the National Union of South African Student’s Day of Affirmation, an annual protest in support of human liberty and academic freedom in the face of government oppression. It has become known for the section in which Kennedy talked of ‘tiny ripples of hope’ that can ‘build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.’

The speech is superb from start to finish, packed full of wonderful prose. However, the section that stood out for me was the section in which he lists the dangers that can prevent people from achieving their dreams. After listing two dangers (futility and practicality), he moves on to the third:

A third danger is timidity. Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality of those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change.

This is so true – and just as relevant today as it was when Kennedy first said it. The world is full of people who are strong, brave, or intelligent. But the people who change history are those who have the courage to risk their own reputation in order to stand up for what is right.

9 reasons why assisted suicide should not be legalised

Assisted suicide is back on the agenda. Next week, parliament will again debate this divisive issue.

To the casual observer it may appear that the arguments in support of assisted suicide are overwhelming. Several high profile cases in the media combined with a determined campaign from well-funded lobby groups can make it feel like we’ve reached a tipping point. Resistance, it would seem, is futile.

When an argument is clothed in the language of choice, and compassion it can seem hard to resist. But resist we must. Between the savvy PR, large-scale advertising, and celebrity endorsements, we mustn’t forget that the case against assisted suicide is strong and credible.

Here are nine reasons why parliament should resists calls to legalise assisted suicide:

1)      The current law works.

The law acts as a deterrent. It is right for our laws to be devised so as to offer protection to the majority. And yet it is also right for the law to be applied with compassion and understanding. If a person helps to kill another person it is right that the facts of that case are examined. This process prevents people with malicious motivations acting unlawfully. If the facts reveal that a person has acted purely on compassionate grounds, it is highly unlikely that s/he will face prosecution. The recent DPP guidelines have made this clear.

2)      The medical profession doesn’t want it.

If assisted suicide or euthanasia is legalised the responsibility for ending a life would fall to nurses and doctors. And yet, surveys consistently reveal that these medical professionals don’t want to be involved in ending life. The most recent survey of GPs published in February found that 77% of GPs oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide. This makes perfect sense given the very nature of the medical profession is to protect life. The Hippocratic Oath states that medical professionals should “do no harm to anyone” and indeed the Oath goes further to state categorically that doctors should “give no deadly medicine to any one if asked”. Furthermore, the four leading UK medical bodies – the Royal College of Physicians, of GPs, of Surgeons, and the British Medical Association – are all opposed to the legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia.

3)      Medical prognosis is not exact.

The question “How long have I got?” is one that many doctors will be sadly familiar with. It is natural to believe that when faced with this question our medical professionals are able to answer very precisely. In reality, however, they can’t. The Royal College of GPs has warned about this stating that the scope for error in predicting how many months a person has left to live “can extend into years”. This means that the clause in Lord Falconer’s bill requiring a six month prognosis is unreliable as a safeguard. The reality is that, despite Lord Falconer’s best intentions, people who have longer than 6 months to live would qualify for assisted suicide.

4)      The law should protect the vulnerable.

For people who are seriously ill or facing death, the security of knowing that the law protects them no matter what their circumstances is hugely significant. A patient requiring regular care can often feel like a burden to those around them. In this case it can be all too easy for the patient to express sentiments along the lines of “everything would be better if I wasn’t here anymore.” In these circumstances the response from doctors should not be, “Ok, let’s talk about assisted suicide; I’ll fetch the paperwork.” We need our doctors to provide reassurance and comfort to their most vulnerable patients. It’s revealing that one of Britain’s most active disability rights campaigners, Baroness Jane Campbell, has said recently, “as a severely disabled person, I fear a change in the law to permit assisted dying.”

5)      Parliament has debated and rejected this several times in recent years.

There is a belief that parliament has deliberately avoided debating this subject. This is wrong. In fact, parliament has debated this issue at length several times in recent years. Three bills seeking to legalise assisted suicide have been considered in the past 10 years and twice the proposals have been put to a vote. Every time this issue has reached a vote, parliament has rejected it. On one of these occasions the debate lasted for over eight hours and included over 90 speakers. In the resulting vote, the proposal was defeated by 148 votes to 100.

6)      The slippery slope is real.

We need to recognise that this measure would be the first step on a very dangerous path. We’ve seen in Belgium (where euthanasia is legal) how quickly the law has been extended. Not only is the Belgian law applied very loosely (specifically to those who are not terminally ill) but most recently it was extended to allow children to be euthanased. I’ve written before on the detail of what’s happening in Belgium.

7)      The ‘Oregon model’ is flawed.

Campaigners in the UK hold up Oregon as the model for us to follow. However, a close look at the Oregon law reveals worrying trends. Assisted suicides in Oregon have quadrupled since the law came into force. Oregon’s death rate from assisted suicide is the equivalent of approximately 1000 cases a year in England and Wales. More worryingly are stories like that of cancer patient Barbara Wagner who was told by her insurer that the chemotherapy drug she had been prescribed was too expensive but if she chose assisted suicide, the cost would be covered.

8)      It’s not just religiously motivated people who oppose assisted suicide.

Some people do object to assisted suicide based on their religious beliefs. Many others object for a variety of other reasons. It is not true to say that the reason this law has failed so far is due to religious motivations. In the last House of Lords vote, 14 bishops voted against the bill. Even if you discounted these votes the measure would still have been comprehensively defeated.

9)      Advances in pain relief & end of life care.

In recent years we have seen significant medical advances in pain relief and end of life care. As such, one of the UK’s leading palliative care specialists, Professor Ilora Finlay has said, “terminally ill patients should no longer have to die with unrelieved pain.” Moreover, we have a first-class hospice movement in this country with a long and distinguished history. That doesn’t mean that they system is perfect – many improvements can still be made – but high-quality care should mean that the vast majority of people can be comfortable in their final days.

 

It’s important, in conclusion, to acknowledge the emotional complexities of this subject. Arguments in favour of assisted suicide can be very persuasive. Real life cases of people in desperate situations are incredibly moving. I can’t begin to imagine what it must be like to watch life slowly slip away from a loved one. I remain convinced, however, that neither assisted suicide nor euthanasia is the answer.

Instead we must continue to invest in palliative care and in hospices so that when death approaches we can face it with dignity, love, and compassion. As Churchill said: “you measure the degree of civilization of a society by how it treats its weakest members.” He was right. May the hallmarks of our society be the care, comfort, and compassion we give to those facing their final days.

Elections Matter

Democratic governance is about more than calling elections and it is about more than casting votes. Democratic governance encompasses a wider landscape of rights including factors such as the rule of law, freedom of expression, accountability of institutions and transparency of elected leaders. And when it comes to elections, it also includes the freedom to vote for your preferred candidate without fear of recrimination from the state.

In the UK, we accept these conditions as standard. A quick glance through history and indeed a quick glance around the world today, reveals that we stand among the privileged.

Glance through history - quoteThe former Soviet Union countries held elections for decades. Invariably these elections produced the same results. As John Feffer points out, the Communist Party candidates—or their close allies—won the elections often by farcical margins of 99.9%. Feffer observes the near-upset in 1980 when the Party in Hungary won with only 99.3 per cent of the vote!

While holding elections is a vital ingredient of a healthy democracy, it is only part of the whole recipe. This is evidenced by countries such as Zimbabwe, Azerbaijan, Sudan, and Kazakhstan, all of whom hold elections but none of whom are categorised as full and free democracies. Despite these exceptions, elections, when they are genuinely free and fair, represent a vital pillar of the democratic system.

The Freedom in the World report by Freedom House ranks nations on the condition of political rights and civil liberties. In their 2014 report, Freedom House categorise 48 countries as “Not Free”. This represents a quarter of all countries in the world and includes nearly 2.5 billion people, or 35 percent of the global population (though Freedom House point out that more than half of this number lives in just one country: China).

The good news is that the number of electoral democracies around the world has risen over the last 25 years. This year, the number of electoral democracies stood at 122, four more than in 2012. The four countries that achieved electoral democracy status were Honduras, Kenya, Nepal, and Pakistan.

Percentage of countries that are electoral democraciesAnd so, while one-third of the world’s population do not benefit from the right to self determination, many of those who do seem to take it for granted. In the UK a huge number of the electorate has disengaged with the electoral process. At the last general election in May 2010, voter turn-out was 65% meaning that over one-third of eligible voters were so unmoved by the choices before them they opted to stay at home instead of exercising their right to choose who governs them. 

Voter apathy is no doubt linked to the behaviour of our elected politicians who must bear some, if not most, of the responsibility. The expenses scandal followed by some high profile criminal cases such as that of Lib Dem MP Chris Huhne caused a lot of damage to politicians’ already fragile reputations. While it is true to say that the vast majority of British MPs from all parties are honest, committed, and hard-working, public perception is undoubtedly swayed by the exceptional cases.

So how should we respond? Today is election day in the UK—local and European. One way to respond is to re-engage with the democratic system. When respect for the political process falls, the best response is to pick it up and hold it high. We can blame politicians if we want. We can even try to blame the system itself. But in a democracy it is us, ultimately, who have the power to make a change. And that is what makes democracy by far the best form of governance ever devised.

Or to consider the same from the opposite angle, as Winston Churchill famously observed: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

**********

This post first appeared on the Legatum Institute blog: http://www.li.com/blog/legatum-institute/2014/05/22/elections-matter
Graph source: Freedom House

Ed Miliband’s Southwark Problem

An expensive promise of Council-funded gym membership for all undermines Labour’s fragile economic strategy 

As often as he can, Ed Miliband likes to remind us that we’re in the middle of a ‘cost of living crisis’. His strategy is clear: by identifying the problem, Ed is hoping he can position himself as the man with the solution.

And his message resonates with a lot of people for whom the cost of living crisis is real. Over the past five or six years many people have experienced a fall in their standard of living and, in the run up to next year’s General Election, Mr Miliband intends to pin the blame on the Conservative Party. Making that charge stick is the first part of Miliband’s economic strategy. The second (and hardest) part is to convince the public that he and the Labour Party have a credible response.

This strategy becomes harder and harder as the UK economy gets stronger and stronger. And sadly for Mr Miliband, recent evidence doesn’t help: UK unemployment is currently at a five year low; for the first time in six years wage rises have caught up with inflation; the IMF is now predicting the UK economy will be the fastest-growing in the G7 this year; and by the time of the election next year, disposable incomes are predicted to be higher than they were at the time of the last election in 2010.

In response to this, it would be safe to assume that the guardians of Labour’s economic policy are keeping their people on a short leash making sure all MPs, councillors and Party spokespeople portray Labour as the party of fiscal discipline and good financial stewardship. If that is the case, the Labour-led Southwark Council didn’t get the memo.

In their recently-published manifesto, the Southwark Labour Party has pledged to provide council-funded swimming and gym membership for every Southwark resident. No, you didn’t misread that. If you live in Southwark, the Labour council will pay for your gym membership, no questions asked.

The reason given for the policy is to remove “the barriers that prevent people in Southwark from getting fit and leading healthy and active lives.” While this is certainly a worthwhile goal, I think Labour has overlooked an important point. Southwark is home to some amazing outdoor space including Peckham Rye park, which is not only beautiful (I’m biased, it’s my local park), but also offers a free-to-use outdoor gym. Given that Peckham Rye is just one of more than 100 public parks available to Southwark residents, it’s hard to see any “barriers” preventing people from getting fit.

Described on the Southwark Labour website as a “ground-breaking commitment”, the estimated cost of the policy is £6 million. In making the announcement, the leader of Southwark Council Peter John said, “I recognise that we will be implementing this proposal against a tough economic backdrop…” and yet Southwark Labour still thinks this is a good way to spend £6 million of the Council budget.

I wonder if Southwark Labour stopped to think about what else £6 million could pay for in Southwark. Bear in mind that the London Borough of Southwark has the second-highest proportion of 19 year olds lacking level three qualifications, and where two-thirds of wards have a child poverty rate of more than 25%, and where nearly three-quarters of wards have an above-average proportion of working-age adults claiming out-of-work benefits.

For those interested in what else £6 million can buy you in Southwark, my colleagues and I in the Camberwell & Peckham Conservative Association did the calculations: 232 nurses, 220 new teachers, 298 classroom assistants, or 428 nursery places.

It’s important to encourage an active population especially among pensioners, but Southwark already provides those over 60 with access to local gym classes for just £1. What’s more, there is already a policy in place for low income (or no income) residents to qualify for reduced prices on gym membership.

It’s worth mentioning too that Labour’s new policy is hugely unfair on private leisure centres and gym companies most of whom will be driven out of Southwark as residents inevitably opt to use the gyms for which they don’t have to pay. If Labour intend on expanding this policy into other areas, the effect on private leisure centres could be disastrous.

This leads to a wider question of whether this is official Labour policy? If it is, then we can fairly assume that other Labour-run councils around the country will follow suit. But why stop at gym membership? If the aim is to get people more active, how about free running shoes for all? I could do with a new tennis racket, perhaps the council will pay for that!

As I said at the start, Mr Miliband’s challenge ahead of the 2015 General Election is to persuade the public that Labour can be trusted with the nation’s finances. Offering to pay for everyone’s gym membership won’t help him achieve that.