Richard Shaw |Post election |
Post electionIlkeston Life; post election 2019 It was such a clear cut victory! It ought to have expressed a corresponding level of approval and consensus! And yet there was little by way of congratulation or magnanimity on display from the candidates on the platform. Only, on the night, lots of rancour and a corresponding determination to ‘carry on the fight’. It was like this election, designed to solve everything, had changed nothing. And many of the remarks about the victor were so personal. It was like what ought to have been an equal victory for democracy, within a process that saw so many people working with such good will until well into the night, also failed to find its endorsement. Instead, the emphatic outcome seemed like a testament to failure rather than success. What is behind this curious anomaly? I don’t want this to be personal either: we all have our reasons for being as we are and doing what we do. And here I must try to separate my roles as a contributor to this paper and a candidate in the election myself. But there were certain factors here which cannot be denied and impressions which were equally strong. They seem to put our system of democracy here in the dock rather than give it the affirmation the end result ought to have delivered. The victor, with a substantially increased majority, thanked amongst others at the end ‘the police for keeping us safe’. It was a customary remark in some ways but a curious one in others. It’s natural to thank those who have played their part in making an event possible and such a success. But I didn’t witness any level of hostility or threat inside or outside the building - save on the platform at the end! What gave rise to this assumed level of threat and the need for us to be kept safe? Was it fact or imagination? And on a night that was or wished to be all about representation, what did this represent? A winning candidate embattled rather than championed for emancipating us all from some current oppression? What can be behind such a contrast? It is a sad state of affairs when there is such a disconnect between the one who has been victorious in this electoral popularity poll and the levels of magnanimity displayed by the rival candidates who, in an adversarial system, are also in a sense her colleagues. For it was almost like those - the voters - who were showing their affirmation were having to do so, rather than wanting to. Like they were obliged to! The campaign itself had largely been responsible for, or illustrative of, these things being perhaps also the icing on the cake of the ‘business as usual' levels of constituency engagement which had gone before. And here it was a story of what was missing, rather than what was present and potentially effective towards the end result. There were two Hustings events, one in Sawley on HS2 and the other in Ilkeston on the NHS. At both events the sitting MP was conspicuous by her absence. As a relative newcomer to all this I was amazed: how could the candidates seeking re-election not be present at these events and still hope to succeed? Here is where the People’s representatives come to meet the People, to hear their concerns and to penetrate the wall of assumption as to what might be happening, which can sometimes be aroused by always being one stage removed from the actual people, with the truth that can only emerge on contact: a truth which, for better or worse, has to be confronted. And yet somehow this all seemed to be something more like a monarchy than an expression of democracy: ‘Will the queen come this time? No, once again, no.’ But she would send a message! Voice of the people or voice to the people: listening to the people at first hand or telling the people how it is and will be - at one stage removed? Which is it? And why does the outcome then seem not to express the corresponding level of reward for the endeavour shown? Someone asked at the NHS Hustings ‘what are the qualities you would like to see in your elected MP?’ it was a question designed to illustrate an existing situation rather than conjure forth an ideal state of affairs but it hit its mark. ‘The one who is prepared to work hardest for, engage most with, his or her constituents’ was my immediate response; to be on a cold and draughty railway station at 6 or 7 am to catch the postal voters on their way to work, to send out more leaflets than anyone else (this is not me, of course) or to have an army of volunteers determined to knock on pretty much every door to rally the potential supporters and join them to the cause. But the problem may have been the cause itself and a cause fashioned miles away in Westminster rather than having anything much to do with local factors. And here, of course, is the reality. And as a barometer of public support and confidence this is what the result really shows. But where does this leave local democracy? For me, actually, it’s a lot like HS2, the subject of our first Hustings and how I for one conceive that. Whatever the other potential benefits and achievements of HS2, it stands on the premise that growth and development or the mainsprings of it are going to happen elsewhere and it’s how you build ‘connectivity’ so that the growth and development can get to you, or you to it, faster. But this overlooks one simple thing: real growth and development occurs where your sense of current need unites with your latent inner capacity and resources to find a solution where you already are, with full regard to the local context and all the environmental factors be they social, economic or physical (the natural world). To me, HS2 testifies to something other than that, to connectivity rather than real connection and is therefore suspect. It feels like something foisted upon us a bit like, dare I say, our choice of MP. Where is the local engagement, the human seed which germinates, which flowers and fruits towards its own expression, economically, socially and politically where it is? This is what is here missing and is so achingly missing. It leaves us sucking the sweet of consolation rather than enjoying the banquet of true self and society expression. It is this that really must change if we want to have a future anything like worthy of us. And I would like everyone to be involved in this, including those who at present they feel they have to be aloof from it for their own safety. I want trust and confidence to come from engagement, rather than the police throwing a cordon of protection around us. Much ugly human behaviour comes from a frustrated, denied idealism. And it can really help us to see it as such. It is this which will bring us the redemption we seek, not policies crafted elsewhere, however well meant. I think there will come a time when we can see our current system of politics as a quaint, curious, out of date notion, persisted with for want of courage or imagination to envisage something else; when we can see the absurdity of squashing a whole spectrum of human experience and perception into just two choices - for or against, blue or red or whatever else. Of course there has to be a decision at the end of the day. But it is how you get to it that matters. Just because it has to be ‘for’ or ‘against’ at the end doesn’t mean it has to be binary right from the start! It patently is absurd and it is time to recognise and respond to this. It had its place in our history but its place is in history. It is not in our current exchanges which now demand something else My interest is in exploring with everyone else as far as possible what this something else is. Richard Shaw December 14th 2019 (1375 words)
|