To contrast our political indifference, the reason that Barack Obama captured the imagination of America was that he was a politician who was not afraid to express his beliefs, giving his opposition clear grounds to argue against, and thus providing a clear choice for the American people. If we want to generate a genuine interest in British politics and reintroduce the "ignored underclass" to an integrated society, the politicians themselves have to engage in genuine and wide-ranging debates, rather than getting bogged down on figures and blame.

Take for example the recent story concerning Nadine Dorries and abortion. Here, it is obvious that there is more to the argument than the extent to which the current providers of counselling are able to give independent advice (hence her posse being dubbed "the anti-abortion lobby"). However, the underlying beliefs are not being addressed in public, partly due to the assumption that everyone in this country is at least a slightly left-leaning secularist, so therefore we can ignore crazies like Dorries. However much I would like this to be the case, there exists a huge range of beliefs, and if people like Dorries are to be successfully argued against, they have to be able to reveal their real argument. Instead she found herself on the defensive in this week’s debate in the House of Commons, reeling out evidence of how left-wing she is. So instead the debate was turned into one over the technicalities of the abortion providers, while the chance to discuss the fundamental issues concerning abortion was thwarted.

Perhaps it is our inherent fear of offending others, or just the monotonous slide towards centralist politics in the past decades, which has led to politicians doing everything they can to avoid being seen as a dissenter from the established status quo. Whatever the reasons behind this characteristic, it makes what should be an important ideological debate into a stifled and opaque blame-game. This applies not only to social issues such as abortion. The current debate over health reform has been similarly vague and ambiguous due to the sacred cow status of the NHS as it stands. There are clearly some people in government who do not view the NHS as the untouchable topic which it is assumed to be by others. However, although we have been inundated by arguments from the left against the privatisation of the health service and the regressive features of the reforms, the arguments from the right have been largely technical (“more control to patients, more power to doctors and nurses, less bureaucracy in the NHS”). Thus Lansley has avoided having to declare his opinion on widespread competition in healthcare, while the bill which he has created is clearly transforming this aspect of the NHS.

The only area of current British politics in which there is a clear left-wing/right-wing distinction is on law and order. Since the horrific sights in London at the beginning of August, there has emerged a healthy discussion over ways to deal with widespread civil disobedience, as well as over the judicial response to those involved in the riots. When the public follow the argument over the causes and the responses to the riots, they are presented with two very different arguments; either that the trouble was due to social and economic inequality and that the response should be focused on rehabilitation, or that it was an illustration of a moral deficit in Britain which can only be tackled through assertion of authority and family values. This range and openness in opinions from the political class is refreshing and will generate interest in the issue rather than put people off with never-ending personal attacks and overly-retrospective blame.

Most of what is left out of public debate comes from the right-wing. But this does not mean that those on the left have an unfair advantage. On the contrary, with a right-wing government in power, but without the disclosure of the beliefs behind their actions, those in opposition have very little to latch onto and argue against. The consequence of this is the passing of a trench of explicitly ideological bills and cuts under the pretence of inevitability and unavoidability, obscuring the public from the view of how radical these changes are and how profoundly they will change the way our country is run. Furthermore, with the common public response to politicians being "They’re all the same", an opening up of debates to clarify ideologies will expose the huge range of beliefs among our politicians and may just generate some interest from the public.

Originally published 13 September 2011