Sunday Sermon: With us or against us?

In the first of a regular feature Big Smoke takes to the pulpit. This week Jim Jepps takes on tribalism in politics.

With the Occupy Movement creating a unique fusion of camping and political philosophy (spawning the greatest political pun ever “This is the winter of our discount tents”) it’s worth reassessing whether the party political with its consistent with us or against us point scoring is really getting us very far.

After all all genuine political parties are alliances. There isn’t a single significant party in history that hasn’t had a number of political currents and tendencies. Often blurred at the edges (after all what was the fundamental difference between a Blairite and a Brownite?) these factions often have distinct ways of looking at the world and ways of attempting to change it.

Those tensions within parties can be extremely healthy. As long as the atmosphere does not become poisonous it saves parties from being such an ideological mono-culture that it can never survive a change in the political environment. One nation Conservativism may have gone out of political fashion in the Tories, but its spirit lives on, mainly in the Labour Party.

A certain breadth in political opinion also allows a party to reach into constituencies a one tune band could not. Even for the few remaining Liberal Democrats it is useful to have both the repetitive beats of Clegg’s technocratic rave and the old school brass neck band of Shirley Williams, et al.

However, Occupy is just one example of how millions of people are passionate about politics but are left utterly cold by the cloying consensus of the three largest political parties. While renationalising the rail or increasing regulation on the international financial casino are commonplace views in our communities they find little welcome in the mother of all Parliaments. So why not look to other ways of changing the world than the furious family rows in the House.

Sure like any family there is plenty of venom spat in Parliament from one side of the Commons to the other but, frankly, that rage is partly a reflection of how similar the policies of the parties have been over the last fifteen years. The tribalism is only necessary when half the front bench of either side could fit quite comfortably in the place of their opposite number.

I think that’s where tribalism comes in handy. If you’re Labour through and through, if you’re going to support every Labour candidate put before you even when they completely oppose everything you stand for, it helps to see the party label as more important than the political content.

In fact, while tribalism is an essential tool for building a stable party capable of running councils and nation states it cuts against fluid political debate and can find loyalists voting in favour of candidates they hate against candidates of other parties who hold far closer views.

This is justified, when it is justified, by the idea that there is a larger political project at work and even a crap, say, Green Party candidate is an advance for the cause they so poorly represent despite a candidate for another party being a keen environmentalist and lefty right-on person.

For me I’ve never really been a tribalist. I’ve obviously been enthusiastic for particular candidates or parties over the years, but my party right or wrong has never been something I’ve ever felt quite comfortable with. I happen to think that’s quite a healthy position to hold, but it does create problems.

Without going outside of electoral politics there’s no facility to recognise that politics is so much more complex than what colour rosette someone is wearing. Where does that leave people who have a looser, more open minded attitude towards politics? Well, they could opt out of the ballot box, but that’s rather unsatisfying unless you’re a die hard anarchist or fan of fascism.

In 2012 Londoners will have at least three ballot papers in front of them. There’s no party that would allow someone to advocate voting Lib Dem on one, Green on another and Labour on the third – even though, once the specific candidates are all in place, there could be good arguments for doing just that. Not that you’ll catch me voting Lib Dem this side of Armageddon.

Does that make all party tribalists natural liars? No, not at all, some people are just stupid and actually don’t know that there might be a difference between candidates of the same party. Others are so base they don’t care what the political views of their candidate is as long as it gets them personally one step closer to power.

I guess this side of the abolition of all parties it’s a false choice we’re all stuck with. Being part of those movements that argue their politics on the streets, in their workplaces and in cold and dark community centers does not mean you can’t take part in elections but it is incompatible with a my party right or wrong approach that puts loyalty before principle.