Cooperation in Politics

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has recently caught quite a bit of flak from members of his own party for working with David Cameron on the pro-EU campaign.

I think this is symptomatic of Labour’s problems at the moment. Shadow chancellor John McDonald made the claim that sharing a platform with the Conservative party discredited Labour, which frankly I find ludicrous. All parties share a platform, that platform being the government itself. To act as though other parties don’t matter, to pretend that yours is the only voice worth hearing is patronising and irresponsible at best. I admire Khan’s decision to work with Cameron, I think it sets a good example to politicians in this country. The only way to change someone’s mind is through empathy and understanding, ignoring and isolating other people will only widen the division.

Khan’s decision also shows that he cares more about the country than he does about his party. I wish all of our politicians could think this way as too often minister’s votes are forced because their parties wish to maintain their brand identities. I think this contributes hugely to the current disenfranchisement people have with government. The party whip removes the personal aspect of voter choice, reducing the vote to blue or red. For those with sympathies for policies from both parties this can be very frustrating, and gives the impression that politics is about what the party wants, not what the voter wants.

In part voting is about electing people who are willing and able to make difficult choices on our behalf. In times of crisis there will not be time for referendums or inquiries, and I believe that ministers should have much more freedom to vote for what they believe to be right.

A common counter-argument to this is that ministers must represent the people that voted for them, and that free votes will jeopardise this. The logic is that if left-wing voters elect a minister, a vote for a right wing policy is a breach of democracy. I disagree with this conclusion. In this context a free vote only jeopardises democracy if the voters were not aware of the minister’s biases. And this would not be a problem if voters were encouraged to think of politicians as people and not the pawns of a monolithic organisation.

I believe that freer votes for our ministers would result in better decision making, more mature political debates, and increased voter participation. The problems we face in this century are huge and unprecedented. They are too important to allow party politics or personal greed to sway the solutions, these are problems we must get right the first time. There will be no more second chances.