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...

Second, Third, Fourth Job.

This Westminster saga might feel like the Big Brother series from hell, thankfully without Davina McCall, but the MPs' expenses scandal is still rumbling on. On July 1st 2009, MPs will be forced to reveal all their various other "interests", this means that any MP with a second (and in many cases third and fourth) job must openly publicize their incomes and hours worked away from Parliament.

Apparently this is to create an atmosphere of transparency and openness in Parliament. However the only logical consequence is the exposing of more revelations concerning MPs lack of dedication to their constituency.

For instance, sixteen of the twenty-two frontbench Conservative MPs have second jobs; these range from non executive directorships at big financial institutions, such as Oliver Letwin at NM Rothschild, to writing newspaper columns like William Hague. In total the Shadow Cabinet consists of twenty-six members who currently hold one hundred and fifteen directorships (yes that is right: 115) between them.

Obviously is not just confined to the Tory Frontbench, it is endemic across all parties, but as an example it illustrates the point perfectly.

How can this beneficial to the country and their constituency? As a shadow cabinet their main purpose is to scrutinize the policy and actions of the incumbent government, rather than feathering their own nests. There have been many occasions that the current Tory Frontbench have failed to hold the government to account recently, and it has fallen to the Lib Dems and the press to expose government policy.

This point is illustrated by a previous blog post; The Rise and Fall of the Career Politician.

Christopher Kelly is currently investigating all aspects of MPs' expenses and outside interests, as part of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Hopefully, this will draw the only logical conclusion possible; that it is a conflict of interests for a current Member of Parliament to hold any permanent position outside Westminster. Furthermore, if any MPs wish to continue working in the private sector, then they would be forced to step down as an MP.

There are some obvious comparisons between the House of Commons and Big Brother, but at least in Big Brother it is possible to vote out certain housemates. However, it is doubtful that many MPs would be shown their "best bits"...

Shock, Horror: MPs stay until next Pay Day!

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the MPs that have been forced to stand down, due to public opinion, have decided to remain in their positions until the next election. These MPs have defined themselves by their arrogant money grabbing actions.

Douglas Hogg, Peter Viggers, Anthony Steen, Andrew McKay, Nicholas Winterton, Ben Chapman, Ian McCarthney, Julie Kirkbride and Margaret Moran have all committed themselves to stepping down at the next general election, with most claiming that they are staying for continuity reasons.

But it is a very decent bet that if these MPs were allowed to claim all the benefits that they would receive for stepping down at a general election, for stepping down and forcing a by-election, the public would not see them for dust.

For a leopard to change its spots is like asking Boris Johnson to be quiet and not offend a nation, city, religious or ethnic group every time he opens his mouth. Impossible...

At the risk of sounding repetitious, most of these MPs are 'career politicians' who have been placed into constituencies due to the safe nature of the seat. They act as a party spokesperson in the constituency, as opposed to representing the people of constituency.

With seven out of ten constituencies being considered 'safe', there needs to be considerable reform of the selection process.

The Rise and Fall of the Career Politician

There have been many slings and arrows aimed at politicians in Britain recently, some unjustly but many with legitimate justification. The exposition of MP's expenses and the usurping of the Michael Martian, the House of Commons' Speaker, has resulted in a rightful perception that most politicians have their proverbial snouts in the expenses trough.

However, for all the moat cleaning, mock Tudor beam installing and HobNob eating MPs, the expenses issue has distracted public gaze form a more serious, underlying problem - the rise of a very slippery beast - the 'Career Politician'.

The 'Career Politician' can be identified in a number of ways:

• Being planted into a constituency that they have very little knowledge of or affiliation with.
  
• Always voting with their Party, even when their conscience dictates otherwise.
• Asking questions in PMQs that are specifically designed to deflect attention away from more important issues.
• Complaining that the MPs salary is not adequate, whilst claiming the full expenses amount.
• And, most importantly, standing for election as a career move as opposed to a genuine belief that they can legitimately attempt to improve their constituency by their candidature.

The 'Career Politician' adds very little to the democratic political process in the UK today, by continually following the party whip they are depriving their electorate of true representation. Since MPs in government will often vote according to party policies as opposed to what ultimately in the interest of their constituency.

It maybe wishful to think that politicians will run for Parliament as individuals, rather than a political Party product, but it is a shame that more people can name and recognise the perennial backbencher Dennis Skinner than the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions James Purnell. Parliament as an institution is only as strong as its current occupants, which is why it is too readily perceived as weak and ineffectual in this current climate. The 'Career Politician' is in danger of disenfranchising whole sections of the population by becoming 'faceless' advocates of a Parliamentary system that few trust.

It is too simple to get misty eyed at the Parliaments of the past, the firebrand speeches, the presence of characters and ideology, but this system was deeply flawed too. The Parliamentary system lacked any genuine representation or transparency and corruption was rife, this is not a system that would attract too many advocates in this present time.

Therefore it is to the future that people should look, a system developed around the concept of a fair wage for all MPs with transparent (albeit minimal) expense account, set by a independent authority. Furthermore, it is vital that to curtail the rise of the 'Career Politician' that the local party in the constituency decides the Parliamentary candidate independently of the national party. This will hopefully allow the MP to become more representative of their constituency and signal the end of the 'Career Politician'.