Do We Get The Politicians We Deserve?

The Fourth Estate has always been a powerful force in British politics; the concept that the free press will serve as a watchman against the hubris of the political caste is as comforting as it is essential for democracy to thrive. Witness the checks and balances offered by the Washington Post during the Watergate scandal that ultimately led to the downfall of the Nixon Administration or the exposition of MP's expenses by the Daily Telegraph and Heather Brooke. Political journalists can, and often do, offer a vital service to the public who rely upon their investigative abilities.

However, for every Heather Brooke or Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, there are many more political journalists that believe the only way to expose the truth from a politician is by claiming it from their cold, dead hands after besting them in an interview. This is a far cry from the political interviews of Harold Macmillan's generation, a more reverential era in which journalists would allow the politicians to make any claim without any form of intellectual challenge, therefore it was impossible for politicians to be held to account by the general electorate. Now political interviews are more a game of cat and mouse, in which the journalist will attempt to trip up a politician by a series of "hard" questions, whilst the politician will attempt to stay "on message" for as long as possible. The end result is a less glamorous, political version of Gladiators, sadly without John Fashanu and Ulrika Jonsson.

The issue is - politicians in many instances can only speak in insincere, vague half-truths that have been dictated to them by the Communications Director or the Party Whip; the new policy initiative might be contrary to personal beliefs or previous statements but the individual politician has to support it. The interviewer is fully aware of any internal conflict that the politician maybe suffering and spends the whole interview labouring around one specific point. Often there is no winner and the general public are none the wiser about any new policy initiative that the politician is attempting to promote.

Furthermore, there is a great dichotomy for any politician - how much of the truth can you divulge? A major theme during the last General Election was the news reporting, via vox pops and radio phone-ins, people just wanted the truth, the unadulterated truth; the general electorate where ready to hear the Uncomfortable Truth. Sadly, the quickest way for a politician or party to become unelectable is for them to start telling the public how it is; if during the election campaign any of the three main parties said that Britain was going to suffer a prolonged period of austerity in which VAT will rise to 20%, inflation would pass 5%, unemployment would continue to increase and many thousands of public sector jobs would be cut, how many people would actually vote for them? How many media outlets would utterly destroy that politician?

People would rather vote for Mary Poppins telling them that a spoon full of sugar will help the medicine go down, than for Private Frazer from Dad's Army tell us that "We doomed, I tell ye!". It is only natural...

So why are there so many bland and inter-changeable politicians? Well, as Darwin's theories on evolution state, the most successful species are the ones that are the quickest to adapt to their environment. The politicians we have now are the politicians that are the quickest to adapt to their environment, that is, they are the most electable - we get the politicians we deserve. As Jack Nicholson points out in the film A Few Good Men, "you want the truth, you want the truth... YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

And sometimes the politicians get the Paxman they deserve...

The Power of the Communications Director

Nick Davies and Andrew Sparrow, published in today's Guardian, have investigated the role of Andy Coulson (David Cameron's Communications Director) in the use of illegal journalistic practices, whilst he was Editor of News of the World. The article claims that Andy Coulson, in both his Editor and Deputy Editor roles, hired at least four private investigators with dubious criminal histories to research stories through various semi-legal and illegal methods. Mr Coulson has completely denied all knowledge and involvement in any illegal practices.

The power of these media gurus is worrying, but also it belies a presidential trend in British politics that started in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher and Bernard Ingham, and which has grown in significance ever since. This relationship between Prime Minister and Communication Director is inversely proportional to the power of the political party in parliament; as the power of the PM's closest advisers increases, the power of the political party has diminished. The Prime Minister has become to believe that on their shoulders alone does the fate of the party rest - reality or extreme hubris, only the perspective of history will allow full comprehension.

The diminishing role of the political parties can be attributed to a number of sources; the centralization of government, the focus of the media and the strength of the Government's majority. But the most significant factor is the rise of the career politician; a politician that is a product of the party machine, a politician that is more a voice for the party in the local constituency, rather than a voice for their constituency in Parliament.

Without the collective will and strength of the public and Parliament combined, this worrying trend will continue unabated. The Prime Minister and their Cabinet will continue to collect Parliamentary and legislative power, at the expense of democracy, in the end the Prime Minister will become President in all but name.

It is becoming all too easy to substitute Andy Coulson and Alastair Campbell for Charles Colson and Karl Rove; in a system in which style and media presentation are far more important than actual facts, it is easy to believe that the Communications Director can really determine the collective reality.

Cameron has gone a Courtin'

Whether it is the frivolity of summer still lingering in the air or a concerted effort, but David Cameron's first major speech after the summer recess was insightful in a number of respects. The speech itself was not incendiary or that demanding of its audience; in fact it was a pretty unspectacular opening gambit to the new parliamentary session. However, the speech shows a new target audience and tactic for the Leader of the Opposition.

The speech centred around the necessity for spending cuts and fiscal prudence, but rather than discuss any number of viable and significant spending efficiencies, Mr Cameron chose to target the 'bourgeois' MPs (it is ironic given it is only weeks after Alan Duncan's Oliver Twist impersonation) with a tabloid centric attack. Giving the newspapers an easy headline and easier target is nothing new for any politician, but the time and the style of the new attack is significant.

It signals David Cameron's attempt to court the tabloid audience in the election year with a performance that would not have been out of place at last month's Edinburgh's Fringe Festival. It is also significant that Mr Cameron has chosen a policy area that is the responsibility of the House of Commons instead of a government policy, in this respect David Cameron should share in some of the criticism that he has apportion.

The tabloid audience is not the usual target of the Conservative Party, most Tories would rather keep them at arms length, but political will is determined by political necessity and in election year every voter counts. It will be interesting to see if David Cameron pursues the tabloids with as much vigour as Tony Blair did.

On the positive side, the newly announced Conservative plan would shave a massive 0.002% off the national debt.

Man Bites Dog - The Summer of Silliness '09

Traditionally the summer news correspondents have been typified by the cliché of “silly season”, cyclical news reports to maintain readership have been commonplace for many years. The news daily’s reproducing gossip and rumour as fact has been a staple of media output in the summer months since the mass media was created.

There is no better example than last bastions of truth and exposition the Daily Mail and Daily Express as the purveyors of this silly season. These papers have single-handedly keep the public “informed” about the latest conspiracies concern the death of Lady Diana for nearly twelve years. Using trite stories, with sensational headlines and the overuse of the phrases such as “a source close to…” or “an insider revealed…”, the summer was a time of lazy journalism and even lazier readers.

However, this year has been slightly unusual in many respects; there has been a feast of news issues that have dominated the media over the summer - Afghanistan, Libya, the NHS, MPs living in poverty, the FSA and possibly the end of the recession. The media has avoided the temptation of heavily relying upon emotional stories to sell papers; instead they have preferred to report the news – now that really is a silly season.

A Tale of Two Inquests.

Last week Gordon Brown promised the Labour Party and the country a new candour in British governance, with the promises of openness and transparency, Mr Brown offered the keys of Parliament back to the electorate.

However, a week is apparently a long time in politics; with the lessons of last week having been quickly forgotten or ignored. Little more than ten days ago Gordon Brown promised the PLP a new start, in which he would consult, learn and listen with the Labour Party. Gone are the days, the PLP was told, of power politics, bullying and riding roughshod of MPs' concerns; this was a brave new world.

Instead, with the announcement of a private inquest into the war in Iraq and the two rail tragedies, the lessons seem little more than mythology. With Gordon Brown more secure in his position as Prime Minister, the veil of secrecy has been re-established and normal service has been resumed.

There is no requirement to have any of these inquests in private, in fact there is a requirement, no a necessity, that these are firmly under public scrutiny. All the private status allows is that the government can control the release of information and therefore control the news agenda to best suit there advantage. Without the luxury of owning or controlling the press, a private inquest is the next best thing; releasing or leaking information controls the news agenda.

It is almost as if Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell are in control of the Prime Minister's Press Office again...

Why is Iran Important?

There has been much discussion in the British media since Thursday concerning the Presidential elections in Iran between Mir Hossein Mousavi and the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. With the increase in media coverage, there has also been an increase in the credence of the concept of a "Green Revolution", similar scope to the "Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia.

It is too easy to let imaginations run wild at times of civil unrest; with the most pleasing or extreme results being offered up as almost certain outcomes. However, in Iran there is a chance for significant change, not the change George W. Bush would want; a pro-western government that is willing to sell the world its cheap oil. But change that the Iranian people would want; more civil liberties, more freedoms and most importantly, economic development.

These changes could potential occur in one of the most pivotal countries in the world.

Therefore it is curious that there have been calls from certain sections of the British media that there has been too much coverage of a foreign election. This reaction is surprising considering the significance of Iran on a regional and global scale. There are many reasons why a change in the style of government, by Iranian people, is significant to everyone in the world and not just on a local humanitarian level. Here are just a few:

• Iran borders Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey. Any civil unrest that threatens the delicate balance in Iran could force a mass wave of refugees across any one of these borders which in turn could destabilise the whole region.
• Iran is the second largest oil producer in OPEC and has significant reserves of natural gas. Any 'shock' to global oil supply can have significant impact upon a very fragile world economy.
• The current Iranian regime has significant associations with a large variety of terrorist organizations across the Middle East region.
• Iran in the near future will have an online nuclear facility. Even though this would no produce weapons grade nuclear material, it is a significant step in a dangerous direction.

There are a plethora of reasons why Iranian stability is vital to Britain, but to ignore it shows an alarming level of insularity. Whether some sections of the British media agree with it or not, every country's future is deeply intertwined with global stability and peace.