The big political ideas of the 20th century had a common denominator.

They united people. They provided hope. They looked to a better future.

In Britain there was the welfare state, the National Health Service and universal suffrage. In America, there was the New Deal under Franklin D Roosevelt and civil rights legislation under Jonh F Kennedy.

Political leaders who are successful at winning elections have some of the same attributes as those popular big ideas.

Their skill is to make us feel optimistic. Think Tony Blair winning in 1997 to the sound-track of Things Can Only Get Better or Barack Obama's slogan Yes, We Can.

Although we may come to regret our support of them (as I do, Tony Blair), they had the knack at the time they achieved power of appearing to talk to everyone. They appealed to voters beyond their party's traditional support. They were unifiers, not dividers.

Now, contrast this with politics in Britain today. As we approach the general election in May, the discourse seems to be mainly about pointing to particular groups in society and saying "you're robbing us blind" or "you're taking advantage".

Whether it's the rich, benefit claimants, immigrants, the propertied or the "undeserving" poor, there seems to be a never-ending list of villains who are being blamed for the state we find ourselves in. For Ukip, add in Europe; for the SNP, add in London or Westminster.

It's a type of politics I hate. Where are the big ideas? Which party is really trying to do more than keep the vote it already has with less than three months to go before the ballot boxes open.

I listen and watch our politicians with foreboding. Do they know what they are risking by this type of campaigning? Instead of unifying, they are deliberately dividing. And, of course, they hope to rule.

But they should beware the consequences. Our society is not so strong that it can stand all this making of scapegoats for political advantage. Instead of binding us together, it makes us feel a little more dissatisfied, a little more envious and watchful of others. It separates us out; the haves, the have-nots; and after David Cameron's pronouncement last week, the obese and the thin, or the addicted and the not-addicted.

Even a policy initiative like Jim Murphy calling for an end to the ban on alcohol being sold at Scottish football grounds is accompanied by the nasty whiff of division. Surely it should be argued on its own merits but no. Mr Murphy said: "I sometimes think the attitude to football fans in Scotland has a degree of class prejudice."

The implication is this: the middle classes are allowed to drink at rugby at Murrayfield so it's one rule for "them" and another for "us".

It plays to Labour being the voice of the working classes. History meanwhile shows that the ban was imposed after 1980s rowdy-ism and mob violence made football games a no-go area for families. His initiative comes as Glasgow Caledonian University has received new funding for a feasibility study on the link between football and domestic abuse.

Mr Murphy has a reasonable point, of course, but I regret he had to make it in an "us-and-them" way.

But, then, he's not the first, nor sadly will he be the last, in this election campaign.

Ed Miliband has pitched himself against high net worth tax dodgers, especially those who fund the Tory party instead of Labour. Nick Clegg wants to tax those nasty people who live in so-called mansions (some of them might be three-bedroom terraced houses in London).

Nigel Farage seems to think Britain's problems are all caused by foreigners of one sort or another. Mr Cameron and George Osborne appear to regard benefit claimants as the group most responsible for the country's mountain of debt.

And so it goes on, the politics of nasty. Even the SNP has caught the bad habit. Who would want to be a landowner in the Scotland of the future? It can seem that just owning acres in Scotland makes you a bad person - unless you put a wind farm on them. But then I suppose the SNP has learned the value of scapegoat politics. Westminster and London are demons that have worked for them.

It is tribalism and they are all at it. We voters are being asked to line up in this camp or that according to our income bracket, social class or interest group. It is a hateful way to conduct politics.

What we need - what we seek from this election - is political leadership that will steer us to a stronger economic future and a better, more equal society. We are looking for a leadership of ideas. We seek a political philosophy that will offer hope for our future and opportunity for our children. We want statesmanship. We desperately need someone who can transcend division, not create them.

What depresses me about this general election is that such a person doesn't seem to be leading either of the UK's biggest parties.

So, we seem to be destined for factional government. Coalition might be the only saving grace. But don't hold your breath for an outbreak of enlightenment or reaching-out.

Another recession could come our way. Look at the strain austerity has already had on communities and UK society at large. Now look at southern Europe and see the hardship and division there. In such circumstances, irresponsible political campaigning can be dangerous.

We will need unity and tolerance to have the best chance of surviving another downturn.

And we're not out of the woods yet as the continuing crisis in the Eurozone demonstrates. Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England has been playing down the risk that low oil prices could have the unwanted effect of tipping us into a deflationary slump. However, fingers crossed. Deflation stalked Japan for two lost decades.

Other threats loom too. Islamist terrorism isn't going to go away. The carnage in Denmark last week and in Paris last month shows where division gets us. Solidarity, social cohesion, a determination to maintain the values of our societies are the best, the only, responses we can have.

So please, politicians stop trying to divide us.

Yes the super- rich should pay their taxes. Yes those who are addicted or obese enough to be a burden to themselves and society should shape up. Yes immigration cannot be open-ended and yes it's good that people can have access to, and an opportunity to manage the land they live on. As for who drinks what at sporting events - who cares so long as they remain civilised.

To coin a phrase: we are all in this together. But nowadays, sadly, it's a slogan looking for a politician.