If there’s one sound that sums up British politics, it’s that ugly, dragging sneer that one gang of MPs uses to heckle another.
You know it well. And I bet you’d join me in saying it’s a little bit silly too. So let’s do better. I’m trying by setting up a parallel parliament, but first let me explain why.
The jeer you hear in the House of Commons is the sound of groupthink. In its immature way, it says “me and my pals disagree with you”. And all too often the people who use it have rarely considered the topic at hand, but their mates are jeering, so they’d better jeer too. Outside the House of Commons, we’re all guilty of following one viewpoint over another because the right people have convinced us at the right time. I don’t mean that we’re brainwashed robots, just that it’s easy not to consider conflicting values and contradictory research. It’s not easy, but we can try.
When a government minister proposes a course of action because “research shows” it’s needed, don’t you want to hear more about that research, where it comes from and what it means? When an MP votes down a motion as a “matter of conscience”, don’t you want to know more about their values and how they’ve formed them?
If you do, you’re like me and a whole load of other people who get fed up with politicians. I think we should do something about this. Rather than limiting ourselves to online commenting and tweeting to poke holes in the arguments of politicians and campaigners, we should set up a parallel parliament. Why can’t we experiment with political debate? Why can’t we pretend to be MPs who think freely and critically? Why can’t we have a more mature debate?
This is not a point about left and right. But it is about up and down. Far too many people see politics as ‘above’ them. That’s not an unfair view: politics is filled with people with prestigious educations who are influenced by a small number of powerful people instead of listening to everyone else.
Even the things that are meant to open up politics don’t really work. Look at the BBC’s Question Time: a panel of selected people who get to speak a lot, a tiny audience from which a handful of questions are picked, and thousands of people talking to their TVs at home, where no one can hear them.
I haven’t been on Question Time, but I’ve been to loads of panel debates with politicians, academics and campaigners and I’m fed up. I want more of a say, and I want to hear what everyone else who turns up has to say too. We should be able to do this if we create a parallel parliament. With funding from the Good Thinking Society and support from the Rationalist Association, I’m setting up an experimental debating society called the Rationalists’ Parliament. We’ll choose specific topics that researchers have studied, such as whether wind farms are worth it, whether badgers should be culled to stop TB in cows and what on Earth we should do about climate change. Every debate will incorporate relevant researchers, policy wonks, campaigners and other interested people – and everyone has equal right to speak and propose motions.
I'm hoping the Rationalists' Parliament will give us a new way of talking about politics, but don't take my word for it. Science writer Simon Singh is up for it too. He says:
“A parallel parliament, a rationalists' parliament, is such an interesting idea – hosting open debates informed by published experts, bringing good science and reliable facts out of the lab and into the centre of public debate.”
This may be ‘debate roulette’, but I bet it’s interesting. Let’s see what we find out. The first sitting of the parliament is on 10 September 2013 at Conway Hall in London. You can read our house rules and join our mailing list on the Rationalists' Parliament website. Are you with me?
