I’m not going to lie: it did disappoint me when David Mitchell wrote that politics shouldn’t be about ideas but about money. Maybe because I admire him so much, both as a writer and as a political commentator, and I didn’t want him to eliminate every bit of hope I’ve ever had for the world. Maybe because the truth hurts.
Or maybe it was because I’ve been wanting to write about the importance of ideology for some time now, and his black-and-white reasoning challenged my arguments further. And I’m just not sure I’m quite ready to start arguing with Mr. Mitchell.
I’ve seen a lot of political freestylers around on Twitter lately, many of whom are highly intelligent, politically clued-in writers. They advocate what you could call a go-with-the-flow kind of approach to politics, suggesting that you don’t have to sign up to any particular school of thought but can make your mind up about any given policy in complete isolation.
I realise that this isn’t exactly what David Mitchell is saying, but in the absence of the fancy ideas he’s laughing at, we’re kind of left with nothing but freestyling, whether we like it or not. There is of course something quite attractive about this trust-your-gut attitude that people are promoting, but it’s got a flip-side too: if politics is all about money, surely it’s not a go-with-the-flow kind of person we want in charge? At the end of the day, how can we trust that tomorrow she’ll spend money the way yesterday she promised she would?
Mitchell’s column was inspired by the news that retail guru Mary Portas had been hired by the government to save the high street, and he’s got a point: it’s a gimmicky idea that probably does a better job ticking PR boxes than saving a sinking retail ship. Agreed. But he draws the conclusion that ‘we get distracted into thinking that politics is about ideas, innovation and “thinking outside the box”, rather than seeing the mundane truth which is that it’s primarily about money. Governments decide how much tax we pay and what to spend it on. They should express their values and priorities through how they take money from us and how they give it back – and that’s what we should judge them on.’
There are two important words here: values and priorities. To me, these words sum up politics better than any budget or equation ever will. When a government acts – when a budget is drawn up, when cuts are made, when funding is moved from one area to another – it puts our money where its mouth is, to use Mitchell’s clever words. But this is only one of many steps in a political process which, I will continue to insist, depends on ideology as some sort of backbone.
Like Mitchell writes, the way a government spends money is an expression of its values and priorities, and this is key; the values come first, not the money. At the very heart of a democratic system is an electorate that votes for candidates who represent their values and worldview – and the day they vote for something else, be it charisma, populist promises or a PhD in Economics, accountability goes out the window.
Let’s think about this go-with-the-flow attitude. In fact, let’s use as an example last year’s general election in the UK. Say you’ve always voted Labour. Then a wildcard is thrown into the pot, promising to abolish higher education fees. This is important to you, so you vote for them – it’s just one of many policies, but one you really care about. The wildcard, also known as Lib Dems, goes into coalition with the Tories and compromises on the one issue you really cared about, probably hoping that its sympathisers will appreciate a number of other liberal policies they manage to push through. Labour ends up representing the opposition. Now what? You feel robbed – but as long as Lib Dems keep fighting for their liberal core values, you can’t really complain.
In addition to values, Mitchell mentions priorities – because there’s a lot of prioritising and compromising in politics. This is why the freestylers have it wrong: you do have to make your mind up, sign up to some sort of ideology, and choose sides. You do have to decide what kind of world you want to live in, and accept that politics is about more than just the money in your wallet at this very moment. You do have to accept that in order for your values to be represented overall, compromises will have to be made – but it’s keeping your eyes on the goal that will make it all make sense.
That is why the go-with-the-flow people have it wrong. Motions get ignored and policies get compromised on. Circumstances change. But scrutinise yourself, and you’ll find that your core values – the way you look at people, your idea of what justice really is, your opinion on freedom versus obligations – don’t change that quickly. They’re bigger than that.
Decide where you stand and vote for a party that stands near you, and soon you’ll find that – more often than not – they’ll use your money to create your kind of world. Or go with the flow. Freestyle. Vote with your wallet. Follow your gut and vote for whatever feels important today, right now, for you. And end up feeling robbed, like those responsible for Lib Dems’ success in the last election – the students.
