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...

National Bullying Helpline is Suspended

The National Bullying Helpline has just released a statement concerning the future of the organization, in which it states:

"Due to the situation at this time we are temporarily suspending our helpline... We would assure you that we are not politically driven in any way... We are currently considering the future of the charity. Christine Pratt is prepared to resign if necessary."

How did the situation get to this point? How did a leading anti-bullying charity get caught up in a political tit-for-tat?

There have been many rumours circulating recently in the press that Gordon Brown is quick to anger; with unsavoury accusations of furniture kicking, mobile phone throwing and lapel ruffling, the actions of the Prime Minister have been more closely scrutinized than the private lives of Chelsea footballers.

The most recent accusations have been made by former Labour Special Adviser Lance Price in his book, 'Where the Power Lies: Prime Ministers Verses the Media' which was serialised in the Independent, and by Andrew Rawnsley in the book 'The End of the Party' which had extracts printed in the Observer. It is obvious why these newspapers released these stories now, it is the perfect time to maximise circulation ahead of a general election, and given the precarious financial situation of these publications, a much needed shot in the arm. Ditto for the authors, if these books were released in mid election cycle they would cause barely a ripple in the pond of political intrigue.

However, the motives for Christine Pratt's disclosures are much less obvious. Why did the CEO of the National Bullying Helpline break many aspects of their own confidentiality rule to reveal that she had received four to five calls from Downing Street staff complaining of working practices within Number 10? The reason that Mrs Pratt disclosed the information were at best a naive and ill judged attempt to garner national publicity for her charity or, at worst, a cynical, politically motivated attempt to further pressurize the Prime Minister and the Labour Party.

Without the highest level of confidentiality any helpline renders itself redundant. Therefore it is a shame that through whatever her motives, Mrs Pratt has discredited much of the good work that has been undertaken by the National Bullying Helpline over the years and also has deflected a considerable amount of the attention away from Gordon Brown and his 'confrontational' work practices.

Christine Pratt... Indeed.

A Defining Speech by a Remarkable Man.

With all the eloquence of a Lloyd George or a Woodrow Wilson; Barack Obama addressed the Great Hall of Cairo University in an attempt to forge a 'new beginning' for American-Muslim relations. In a speech reminiscent of another great American President, John F. Kennedy's captivating speech to the American University in 1963, President Obama broke with his predecessors naive assumptions of 'us' and 'them' to create a potential glimmer of hope.

However, considering President Obama's nuanced approach during his speech, many media outlets have dubbed the speech as 'America and the Muslim world'. During the speech Barack Obama was at pains to differentiate the different Muslim groups from one another, and talked at great length about respecting and treating each group differently. But the main news rooms, CNN, Fox and BBC, have ignored this important nuance.

Whether the speech has been truncated in to digestible soundbites for the perceived ease of their audience or the journalists are still trapped in the language of the previous administration, this has yet to be seen. But to ignore the finer points has done the speech and Barack Obama a great disservice.

Sadly Jeremy Bowen urged caution; stating that by giving hope for a peaceful resolution for many of the conflicts around the world, Barack Obama has set himself up to disappoint many people. But surely by stating that he recognises that a more nuanced approach is necessary, President Obama is developing good will and political capital that can potentially be used to reach compromises in certain conflicts. Something that his predecessor certainly lacked.

Nadine Dorries Manufactures Discontent.

It is surprising that in the current political climate, in which MPs are the focus of much media scrutiny, that any Member of Parliament would attempt to attract any unnecessary attention by making indefensible and rash statements. By claiming that certain MPs are 'suicidal' and that there is a McCarthyite 'witch-hunt' in progress, Nadine Dorries (Member of Parliament for the lucky constituency of Mid Bedfordshire) has seemingly achieved the impossible. She has managed to create even less sympathy for plight of our harassed MPs.

It is possible to attempt to draw two conflicting conclusions from Ms Dorries' actions, firstly it was a naive attempt to garner sympathy amongst the her constituency and the general public for our beleaguered MPs. Or it was a masterful Machiavellian manoeuvre designed to throw the media off the scent by claiming something so outrageous that it would baffle and confuse. Thankfully, neither worked.

In future to attract similar levels of media attention, Ms Dorries will have to make bigger and bolder claims. Personally, I can not wait for the claim of a Stalinist Purge or the allegation that the media are attempting to 'restart civilisation'.

However, I am going to heed my mother's valuable advice, if you can not say anything good about a person, then do not say anything at all. So with regards to Nadine Dorries...

"







."