A review of Leeds International Festival of Ideas – Who does our political system benefit?

The Leeds International Festival of Ideas is in its third year running, and this year it has massively expanded in size: relocating to the Quarry Theatre in Leeds playhouse with a maximum of 850 Seats, and in its line-ups: from attracting the likes of former home secretary, Amber Rudd, to renown actor Christopher Eccleston. It is organised by the not-for-profit, Leeds BID, who work on development for the city centre and represent 648 businesses in Leeds.

I attended the discussion on “who does our political system benefit?” where a panel of recognisable faces discussed their perspectives on the question, and what could be done to improve UK Politics in relation to this question.

The panel was hosted by Lewis Goodall (replacing Jon Sopel), who helped find agreement between the panellists, and brought the debate from topics such as electoral systems to discussion over simultaneously growing apathy and disgust both with the system and individual politicians. Discussion was (as is now unfortunately rare in modern politics) respectful and thoughtful between panellists, and each had a unique perspective on issues raised, and possible solutions for these.

I was surprised that the figure emerging as a crowd favourite was Scarlett Westbrook – a 19-Year old climate justice advocate – whose more pessimistic stance on the state of politics appeared to resonate with the audience. Rounds of applause given at multiple points, including where Westbrook voiced disillusionment with the primary political parties, and when she commented on the cost of living crisis as being avoidable. This attitude was shown in particular when an audience member in the Q&A segment commented on panellists Amber Rudd and Tom Brake “assuming” that questions were directed at them, giving the first response to questions, and having spoken more than the other two panellists.

Magid Magid – former Lord-Mayor of Sheffield and Green Party MEP – voiced strong reservations both to the First Past the Post voting system, and the lack of cross-party dialogue. He focused both on structural weaknesses of the political system, and the worsening political culture – MPs increasingly treating their position not as a privilege, but as a right.

Tom Brake, who now serves as director of the pressure group, Unlock Democracy (formerly serving as a Liberal Democrat member of the coalition government) highlighted a number of representation problems, with the central message that unfit politicians, rather than democracy itself, were at fault for disillusionment with politics. He gave a number of policy proposals that Unlock Democracy were seeking to implement, including Citizens Assemblies, banning of second jobs for MPs, and lack of transparency or controls on donations to political entities.

Finally, Amber Rudd – former Home Secretary and Conservative MP – came out largely in support of the system: noting that it got rid of two Prime Ministers when they were unable to further serve the country, and stressing that during a period of political abnormality and instability, that our system had survived. Although she does not believe in reforming the voting system, as First Past the Post has produced a coalition and minority government of recent, at times when there was insufficient support for one party to form majority government. She did call for expansions to localism with more power to devolved bodies, and was applauded for defending MPs where they have to deal with abuse and threats.

While I was expecting the audience to be made up of mostly young people with particular interests in politics, the opposite would be the case – the majority were working-age to retired: teachers, architects, and retired people with no major interest in politics all made up the audience. One member I spoke to reflected the attitude shared amongst many – the exhaustion of the current state of affairs, and wish to see a reconnection between people and politicians. This intergenerational attitude of course explains Scarlett Westbrook’s popularity, and may worry former colleagues of panellists in parliament.

I did thoroughly enjoy the discussion – I think it certainly served its purpose of educating the public about the issues of the day, and where the solutions to these may lie. If I were to suggest improvements, I think the biggest weakness was the lack of disagreement: as areas where the panellists did not have consensus could be better explored. Equally, while the panel was impressive, the lack of a Labour Party oriented member does mean a large section of current political debate was absent.

But overall, the panel discussion was a popular success – providing a note of hope for an improved political system. This event follows a growing trend of public interest in politics outside of the two party structure, showing us that while the parties may be losing unconditional support from some members, that public interest in politics is not wavering as a result.