‽istis wonders in common‽ (weekending June 22nd 2024)
This week ‽istis has been wading / paddling / floating / treading water /
floundering / drifting / sinking (delete as appropriate) through the UK
political parties’ manifestos or ’contracts’. Ticking (sometimes
double-ticking) the elements agreed with; marking with a question mark the
unsured about; marking with a cross the elements disagreed with – sometimes
with added exclamation marks. The odd ‘interrobang’ also might have found its
way into the marginalia from time to time…
But this was
preceded by pondering and making a note of the issues that ‽istis cares about
especially:
· Health,
social care, public health (physical, psychological, community; children, young
people and families; older people; people who are disabled – not least by
current social arrangements, discrimination and exclusion)
· Values
and rights - plus duties, responsibilities, powers
· Climate
change, crisis, care and mitigation; nature, biodiversity
· Education
· Housing
· The
form and nature of governance and government – central, county, parish;
Westminster and the ‘houses; voting reform; principles
· Public
services, utilities, energy and power; public goods not private profits
· Who
owns the means of production, the means of provision, the means of persuasion
and influence
· Social
welfare; social equality/inequality; processes of minoritisation; inclusion/exclusion;
tackling poverty; wealth distribution/redistribution; the cost of living
· Defence
and security
· International
relations; international development and foreign aid; foreign policy; globalism
v nationalism
· Justice
and policing; rehabilitation; addressing the causes of crime
So, what beliefs
and convictions do I hold‽ What is then held in common and with whom -
especially the beliefs, convictions, values policies and proposals of the main
political parties and their representatives seeking election? Can political
types be identified – from ‘Mondeo Man’ to ‘Waitrose Woman’, from ‘Spotify Dad’
to those within the ‘Red Wall’, ‘Sea Wall, ‘Blue Wall; or ‘Purple Patches’[i]
and who might ‽istis be like most? Which party might best represent ‽istis’
views and values, aspirations and hopes…‽ Who should get the vote available (perhaps
the singularly most powerful unit of currency in a democracy) and why?
And this led
to one of those pretty customary, largely internet-based searches – and the
discovery of three[ii] web-based
‘quizzes’:
‽ ‘Plot My 3-D
Position’ from ‘Electoral Calculus’[iii] which,
through a response to 15 questions leads to:
· ‘See your own position on the Three-D Map
giving your economic position on the left/right axis, and also your position on
the globalist/nationalist axis and the socially liberal/conservative axis.’
· ‘Additionally you can see the position of
your local neighbourhood, plus the positions of our seven political 'tribes'.’
Algorithmic
(presumably) analysis of submitted answers to the questions provides a % figure
for your economic position – seemingly on a ‘left-wing’/’right-wing’ spectrum; your
position in relation to nationalism / internationalism / globalism; and your position
in relation to social matters - from ‘liberal’ to ‘conservative.
And these are the ‘tribes’,
one of which may be yours: Strong Rights, Somewheres, Centrists, Kind Young
Capitalists, Traditionalists, Progressives and Strong Left. (If you’ve read any
of these blogs, well you might be able to hazard a guess which ‘tribe’ ‽istis
might belong to…)
‽ A ‘More in Common’/‘YouGov’/’Britain’s
Choices’ survey[iv]:
· and ‘the Britain's Choice algorithm will
tell you which of the seven groups fits you best.’
These are the groups
or ‘segments’ on offer and more percentages are given, this time showing the
respective proportion of society that might fall within each group
1)
Progressive Activists (13%)
2)
Civic Pragmatists (13%)
3)
Disengaged Battlers (12%)
4)
Established Liberals (12%)
5)
Loyal Nationalists (17%)
6)
Disengaged Traditionalists (18%)
7)
Backbone Conservatives (15%)
Apparently, two of
the groups are orientated particularly towards politics (1 & 7); two are orientated
towards a stable, healthy society rather than engaging in politics (2 & 4);
two are characterised by disengagement (3 & 6); and one described as ‘more
patriotic, more threatened and thinks more in terms of us – v – them.’ (5).
If these
descriptions resonate and there’s time or enough interest for further reading,
then there’s a link to a report: ‘Britain’s Choice – Common Ground and
Discussion in 2020s Britain’[v]
from the ‘More in Common’ organisation; fascinating, I reckon!
‽ The ‘2024 Political
Quiz’ from ‘iSideWith’[vi]
· ‘Answer the following questions to see
how your political beliefs match your political parties and candidates.’
And there questions
about the following issues: transportation, technological, national security,
science, environmental, criminal, education, economic, electoral, housing,
foreign policy, social, immigration, healthcare and domestic policy.
Under each issue
heading three questions are presented initially. Answering just one in each
section - and, optionally, indicting the degree to which the issue matters to
you - leads to the whirrings of an analytical process as the comparison
algorithm hidden-handedly links your answers and priorities to ‘voting records’,
‘campaigning finance data’, ‘speeches, debates and public statements’… You are offered a comparison of your position
in relation to:
o Political parties ranked (with a % figure) from most similar
to least similar with your beliefs and ‘thumbnail’ descriptors for the parties
are also offered e.g: Left wing, Keynesian, Pacifism, Regulation,
Multiculturalism, Tender, Collectivism - would you guess that this is the
descriptor for the ‘People Before Profit’ Party? And which party do you think
might be described thus: Decentralisation, Assimilation, Individualism,
Deregulation, Libertarian, Unilateralism?
o Analysis across ‘themes’ is offered, suggesting where you may
be located on the following spectra:
§ Collectivism – v – Individualism
§ Progressive – v – Traditional
§ Tender – v – Tough
§ Unilateralism – v Multilateralism
And
thumbnail descriptors of these terms are suggested.
o Scales of ‘ideologies’ are presented, again with your
position plotted and illustrated, graphically: from Libertarian to
Authoritarian; from Left to Right and divided into ‘quadrants’ labelled:
Personal freedom, Economic freedom, Legislated equality, Legislated morality.
If sections within sections of the ‘quiz’ are opened and all the questions answered (I think that there are 200 in total!), the analysis and comparison presumably becomes more complex, comprehensive, ’accurate’ and nuanced.
‽istis is amazed at the breadth and depth of the questions. For some, the existing conviction was obvious and answering easy to do – the things that one might already have a firm view about. Others prompted more ponderance – including thoughts such as “I’m not even sure what this means!” to “I’d not even thought about that properly!” to “What do I really think about this?”
Here are just a few questions, to illustrate the range:
· Do you support the Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership (TTIP)? (under economic issues)
· Should critical race theory be taught in
primary and secondary school? (under education issues)
· Should homeless individuals, that have
refused available shelter or housing, be allowed to sleep or encamp on public
property? (under housing issues)
· Should people under the age of 18 years
old be able to receive gender-transition treatments? (under social issues)
· Should the government allow the
commercialization of lab-grown meat? (under science issues)
· Should the government be able to monitor
phone calls and emails? (under domestic policy issues)
· Should a politician, who has been
formerly convicted of a crime, be allowed to run for office? (under electoral
issues)
· Should the government restrict the use of
advanced technology in vehicles to maintain human control and prevent
over-reliance on technology? (under transportation issues)
· Should cities open drug ‘safe havens’
where people who are addicted to illegal drugs can use them under the
supervision of medical professionals? (under healthcare issues)
· Should immigrants to the United Kingdom
be allowed to hold dual citizenship status? (under immigration issues)
· Do you believe labour unions help or hurt
the economy? (under economic issues)
· Should the government regulate the use of
CRISPR technology for human genetic modifications? (under science issues)
· Do you support the use of Antisocial
Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)? (under domestic policy issues)
· Should researchers be allowed to use
animals in testing the safety of drugs, vaccines, medical devices, and
cosmetics? (under environmental issues)
· Should the top tax rate of income over
£150,000 be raised to 50 percent? (under economic issues)
· Should police departments be allowed to
use military grade equipment? (under criminal issues)
· Should the government increase or
decrease foreign aid spending? (under foreign policy issues)…
So, the process of looking at these three ‘quizzes’, of thinking
and answering the many questions, then considering the analysis and comparisons
offered has been fascinating, challenging and revealing. Those are not necessarily three words that some might use to describe the various leaders’/deputies’ debates or
the hours of media interviews that have been aired on UK television channels
during the campaign so far, or even the doorstep, high street, at work, on the
bus, or round the dinner table conversations that some of us may have
experienced!
With c. two weeks still to go before the votes are counted
(which as several possibly flailing prospective candidates and one-time
ministers seem keen to remind us, is the only poll that counts!), ‽istis has a
suggestion:
On TV, on the radio air
waves, in town halls, village halls, public meeting places - anywhere that candidates
(from the leaders upwards) are quizzed and clapped or heckled or argued with or
have been met with approval / head-shaking / disgust / disappointment / disbelief / hostility / admiration
/ enthusiasm… could these quizzes be used to tease out the beliefs,
convictions, policies and proposals of those standing to represent us, to
legislate and to enact policies that will affect us all? Why not work through
them in discussion and debate with each other, with us, with yourselves - theme
by theme, question by question?
Perhaps explain the
issues and even the questions to us. Possibly tell us what you (really) think. Maybe
even answer the questions without obfuscation or distraction, tetchiness,
vacuity or fudge - and with honesty.
Tell us why you are
answering in that way.
Tell us what all
those beliefs, convictions and answers will actually mean if we give you power.
Then we shall decide.
Will you get a ‘X’ (lent, tactically deployed, given - despite,
or confidently placed in the expectation that things can get better)‽
And will we get the politicians we deserve and need‽
©‽istis
NB: further reflections and comments linked to this
week’s theme and past blog entries to be found on X/Twitter with replies,
retweets (which don’t necessarily indicate approval, sometimes the very
opposite!) and ‘likes’: @Pistis_wonders.
X/Twitter ‘follows’ and respectful comment and dialogue welcome...
[i] https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/04/05/national-swing-man-the-british-electorates-new-old-tribe
[ii]
Others available, no doubt…
