In so many ways the politics of the industrialised world has changed little from the 19th century. The big beasts of conservatism, liberalism and socialism still inform our understanding of social and cultural relations in most democracies and will continue to do so for some time. But like in previous centuries, ideologies and ideas have evolved and adapted to a changing world — new dimensions to politics that were once fringe have become central stage. The 20th century saw feminism, racial justice and green politics become mainstreamed in political discourse, we also saw longstanding and dominant ideologies such as nationalism and social democracy adapting to massive geopolitical shifts such as globalisation and the end of the Cold War. But what will the 21st century throw up? What kind of issues will shape the binding ideas and movements that urge political action? In other words, what can we expect to become the New Politics? …

Since the Great Recession petered out in the 2010s, analysts and commentators alike have made efforts to try to predict the next big global recession — few anticipated it would’ve come in the form of worldwide pandemic on a scale not seen for a century. Not dismissing the still increasing death toll, which has now reached an estimated 1 million worldwide, the economic consequences of the spread of the virus (and humanity’s efforts to effectively contain it) is already leaving a battered and bruised global economy, particularly for the world’s poorest, leaving a worldwide fall of GDP not seen since the Second World War. Winning the current World War against COVID-19 is our top priority, but with vaccines almost ready for deployment, it is now time to start planning for the peace. …

The Prussian general and military theorist Carl von Clausewitz has a famous quote “War is politics by other means”. Beyond the collapse of peace talks between nations the same aphorism can and should be applied when local politics comes to a complete standstill and political institutions fail to adequately address grievances and deliver justice.

The failure of politics in Minneapolis, and the United States as a whole, has given people no choice but to take to the streets and attack the police head-on as the killers of George Floyd remain uncharged with his murder. …

The 1992 United States presidential election introduced the political catchphrase “[it’s] the economy, stupid” — with a legacy and significance that has all but been forgotten in the haze of rapid change and confounded predictions of 21st century politics. The whole “rulebook” of political campaigning may need some updating but some old truths still hold true; what “the economy, stupid” reminds us is that a skillful politician or party can propel a dormant but transpiring crisis into a rallying vote winner. The combination of crisis with a catalyst, such as the early 90s recession, could be something to overturn an 89% approval rating and secure a healthy electoral victory like Bill Clinton’s in less than 18 months. …

I was originally pretty hesitant to write this at first because — if it isn’t obvious — I am a man. I never had, nor have any intention to have, a uterus and to bear children. Unlike other things I have written about, as a man I lack the personal experience to specifically put myself in the shoes of the women involved in a crisis where they must consider an abortion. Indeed, many women are hurt and frustrated at the arrogance of men in power to legislate on a topic that will never directly affect them. But silence is no longer a luxury we can afford, it is now time to speak up. It should be clear now, more than ever, that the politicians who pass these laws do not speak for the majority of women nor the majority of men. …

In 1964 then prime minister Harold Wilson said that a week is a long time in politics — that is still true today. British politics remains in constant flux with the Lib Dems written off as a serious political force just a week prior to the local elections and then hailed as the leading Remain party just a week after.
The Brexit Party, a force for hardline pro-Brexit sentiment has also shot up in the polls in just a matter of weeks. And it was only this week that we had official confirmation that Britain will take part in the 2019 European elections on May 23. …

On June 23 2016 I, after hesitating in the polling booth for a bit, voted for Britain to leave the European Union. That immediate vote was incredibly difficult for me to actually cast despite the fact that I had (from quite early on) spearheaded a local effort on behalf of a Leave vote on my university campus. However, I had purposefully deviated from the messages being delivered by Vote Leave and Leave.EU, arguing for Brexit on much softer, liberal and gradualist grounds than the main campaign.

There were many like me, according to some estimates approximately 20% of all Leave voters, who wanted some form of Brexit that didn’t give up our access to the single market, who wanted something that either was (or looked incredibly similar to) the EFTA/EEA arrangement that countries such as Norway or Iceland currently enjoy. We are called many names: soft Brexiteers, liberal leavers, or (with the propensity to pontificate on our own solution) smug EFTArians. …

It should be no secret to those of you who know me well that I consider myself a market-friendly liberal. Bolstered by an active state willing to redistribute and ensure equality of opportunity, I’m always impressed by the wealth producing power of markets. But beyond the pragmatism that markets are just more likely to leave us wealthier than centralised planning would, there is a moral dimension to markets that keeps me wedded to them: having relatively free markets allows for freedom of choice in the economic sphere; it gives freedom for the consumer to spend their money how they see fit and allows the producer to offer that freedom in tandem- individuals don’t greatly design how the market operates but with each little choice we make, whether to go vegan or choose one brand over another, we are influencing a greater system which is receptive and fighting to cater to our preferences.

To me, markets represent a kind of instant, democratic feedback system where the sum of individual choices are constantly adjusted- it is voting, only with your wallet, and the various firms competing for your money are much like the political parties that compete for the votes you cast every 4 or 5 years at the ballot box. Modern electoral democratic processes are not exactly markets in political preferences but maintain heavy elements of them. For those of us that have some confidence in the ability of markets to notice and respond rapidly to the ever-changing preferences of individuals and communities, it would make sense to ensure that our democracy would resemble more of a genuine market rather than a bureaucratic construction which does little to actually satisfy the wants of voters.

Britain, as well as a handful of other primarily Anglophone democracies, still uses the First Past the Post (FPTP) system to decide legislative elections. For the uninitiated, it is a winner-takes-all system in which the candidate with the most votes in a given electoral district (or constituency) wins the right to represent all voters in a given constituency, despite the fact that many voters in the same constituency may have very different preferences, in many cases, the majority of voters in each constituency would prefer to be represented by another party! To me it is ironic that often the most pro-market figures in the UK support an electoral system that functions least like a market and results in very distorted outcomes that fail to accurately represent preferences. Arguments about the freedom to choose, which such people often love to use for the economic sphere, don’t seem to extend to the electoral system where instead some would prefer to usher in arguments about stability and predictability- arguments that are similar to those of mercantilists and monopolists in the early days of the modern market economy during the dawn of the industrial revolution. As it stands, FPTP produces a duopoly on voter preference which would look terribly unfree if adapted to an economic context. …