Margaret Thatcher still defines much of British politics. Many MPs came into Parliament because they hated or adored her. The key priorities of this Labour government – public services, child poverty, Europe, economic stability – are answers to the failures of her government. The prism of many commentators was chiselled in 1979.
Yet, first time voters at the next election won’t remember Margaret Thatcher being in power. The miners’ strike, the Falklands War, the three million unemployed will not even be a memory. To engage with young people, politics needs to understand and react to the world as they see it.
As a 32 year-old MP, I try to interest young people in politics. But I already feel like a visitor in a foreign land when talking to eighteen year-olds. The only way that young people will be interested in politics is if politics takes their interests into account. The only way that will happen is if young people are in Parliament.
Some will think this is snowballs in hell territory. In 2001, less than two in every five eighteen to 24 year-olds voted, compared to nearly three-quarters of pensioners. What then the chances of getting some of them to become parliamentarians?
Young people in Stalybridge and Hyde are interested in political issues. But they do not feel part of the system. They feel out of the loop – political programming addresses older audiences, the mechanisms of the Houses of Parliament are complicated and archaic, the obsession of the media with spin and personality makes politics seem trivial and irrelevant.
Westminster seems a world away to them. The young people I speak to regularly are concerned about issues like education, jobs, the environment and world debt. Yet they might abstain from using their vote because they do not feel that there is much of a difference to be made. This is a different issue than the one regularly touted – that of a new generation of apathy.
Modernisation of Parliament is part of the solution, and I believe this should include a quota of young people in the new make up of the House of Lords. Labour’s 2001 manifesto stated: ‘We are committed to House of Lords reform… to make it more representative and democratic.’ If there is to be guaranteed representation for the nations and regions, women and ethnic minorities, then young people should also be represented.
The political parties and the independent Appointments Commission could be required to nominate a certain proportion of people under 30. The House of Commons already has a chunk of thirtysomethings – the missing age group is really eighteen to 30 year-olds. The white paper’s recommendation of fixed terms would allow young people to serve for a period and then develop a different career. They could potentially return to politics via the Commons later on.
It will be objected that you can’t tell whether a 21 year-old has the stature and experience required to be a Lord. I think that ignores the achievements of many young people today – the papers are full of young artists, scientists and writers who would add to the debates of the Lords.
The House of Lords is already a strong voice for the interests of older people. Its debates on the pension credit bill have been remarkably informed and interesting. Yet the interests of those who will pay for the costs of these reforms – today’s younger workers – have been largely ignored. It would not take a huge number of young people to allow a reformed House of Lords to act as a forum for this kind of inter-generational debate.
By acting as a voice for young people, a second chamber could help make a difference to policy formation, and give young people a reason for becoming involved in politics. It would also make it more likely that on debates like the age of consent or fox hunting, the views of the Lords more accurately reflect the debate in the country.