Value for Money or Pigs in Muck?: what should be the future of MP's expenses?

It is frequently claimed, but more often debated, that Britain's MPs are good value for money, however the revelations of expenses, from the employing of family for doing nothing to exorbitant amounts for window cleaning and mock Tudor gables offers a different picture. As the Speaker Michael Martin considers a yearly allowance, the real consideration is public perceptions of its representatives. If the low trust in politicians in general is fueled by a perception that they are doing the job for the perks, honours and ex gratia payments that are part of the job (in other words in it for what they get out) then any lack of transparency does not help. The key question here is would a company director be able to spend the company profits on having a flat near the office while having a second home elsewhere; the answer is no. So either MPs are paid to allow them to afford two houses, or an alternative is found. One that was mooted was the idea of having a hotel or hostel type building with permanent rooms for MPs that they could turn into a home but then give up once and if they lost their seat. This would allow politicians from outside of London to have a base close to Westminster but would not require a lot of nontransparent expenses. And it is the lack of transparency that is the problem. While the claims are not excessive by the rules, the headlines extracted from the published expense claims give an impression of widespread excess. This compounds the perception of MPs as having their "snouts in the troughs", one which is largely unfair but could be widely held as more is revealed that suggests nest-feathering and corruption. This needs to stop, but a system be put in place that is open and transparent, seen as value for money and not allowing MPs to do as they wish with the public purse. Parliament was created to curb the excesses of a monarch, it should not then appear to create its own excessive spending; the appearance here is the key and needs to be tackled seriously and with the public in mind.

Boring and predictable scuffles

The war goes on between our journalists and our party leaders, they hunt in packs and their target at the moment is Gordon Brown. So every journalist, Boulton, Marr et al, all want Brown to admit it is a disaster and he is failing, he knows that is true but plays up the positives and talks about communicating better. I just wish that these journalists would watch each other's programmes and not just replicate the same worn script. Yes it is a disaster for Labour, Brown will never admit it, live with it, move on and if that is all you want to say just don't bother. Is it any wonder that television audiences are less interested in political magazine programmes when they do not add anything to what most viewers already know. I am sure opponents do enjoy watching the leader they dislike squirm but there are limits surely.

Cynics or Sceptics and why?

Last Thursday and Friday I attended a conference on Political Socialisation organised by Universiteit Antwerpen, it was all fascinating stuff but one paper in particular made me think. That was offered by Henk Dekker, based on research into young people's political attitudes in The Netherlands. It discussed two important themes, firstly the nature of cynicism and secondly the sources.

Dekker made an important distinction which is often overlooked in studies; that is between scepticism (the rationale questioning of communication), and cynicism (the rejection of communication due to a mistrust of the communicator). The media often conflate and confuse the two on the basis that politicians are mistrusted so any questioning of campaign communication or manifesto promises are contingent on that mistrust. This may not be so and so cynicism may not be a widespread as is commonly believed. It is a question worth asking, particularly if studies look for cynicism as opposed to having indices for both cynicism and scepticism.

The second aspect that Dekker proposed is regarding one key source of cynicism, low self-esteem. Dekker argued that those individuals who feel they have not realised their own potential are more likely to blame others and create conspiracy theories to shift blame onto broader society and structures of power. So perceptions of powerlessness and feelings of low self-efficacy can result from personally not doing anything but the blame for that is easier to shift on the political structure than accept.

So, for example, non-voters may find it too difficult to make a decision, or even motivate themselves to go and vote, but may later feel guilty for failing to exercise their democratic duty (a feeling that may inspire low self-esteem). Their excuse however is shifted onto the political system by repeating negative press reports and claiming all politicians are the same and every vote is worthless.

Clearly there are rationale arguments for being cynical, and research of media coverage can suggest there is an effect between cynical reporting and cynical public attitudes. but this is a fresh perspective worth some consideration. Perhaps we should consider whether data such as the graph (right) represents healthy scepticism or a cynicism that is corrosive to democracy. So perhaps what I take from Dekker's paper is a suggestion that research into non-voting and the causes of cynicism should be a little more sophisticated to attempt to assess how deeply the cynical attitudes are within the public psyche as opposed to accepting that cynicism is really rife and is a prime cause of political disengagement.

Old News & Non-News

While the big story of the last two days has been the sentencing of the 21/7 failed bombers, Blair's former spin doctor Alastair Campbell has certainly stolen the limelight. Despite most media outlets agreeing that the most revealing bits are those that are glaringly absent, the bones of each entry are being picked over for tit-bits that inform us of the machinations between Brown and Blair.

What do we learn? Well given Campbell's colourful references to journalists and politicians he is a lot closer in character to The Thick Of It's Malcolm Tucker that most perhaps hoped. That the Blair machine was often running a seat of the pants, pragmatic and ready at panic stations media operation; obsessed with getting the right coverage and the image thing. But perhaps relations within the government were no different to disagreements within the cabinets of Wilson or Thatcher, all of which gained media attention and have subsequently emerged in various, perhaps more revealing, insider accounts.

The great irony about the story is that many newspaper columnists and broadcasters are happy to accept there is little that is new or revealing, but they then give it huge amounts of airtime and column inches. The only winner from this is Campbell himself. While it may not be damaging to the government specifically, it is more fuel to the mistrust and cynicism that abounds when the masses thinking of politicians and political communication.

The Conservatives, according to the Independent, have "issued a statement including 15 extracts they said showed Mr Brown in an unfavourable light", I tried to find it and failed! Will it have any impact, no more than the Panorama show that detailed Brown's use of spin I imagine.

BBC too liberal: so let's not end world poverty

A report released by the BBC claims that there is insufficient partiality in certain areas of their programming. I would probably agree; at times. Curiously there are two instances singled out on the BBC's website: the Make Poverty History narrative embedded within one Christmas special for The Vicar of Dibley, and their coverage of Live8; while Andrew Marr is described as having an "innate liberal bias". The report concludes, according to the summary, that impartiality is "not necessarily to be found on the centre ground".

I found this report, or at least the bits extracted, as rather odd in a number of ways. Firstly, while endorsement within programming of ideas by favoured characters is persuasive, one does not get the sense that all programming supports the Make Poverty History cause; instead there are a number of narratives that could be called persuasive being run across the board. Having watched Spooks and Judge John Deed, I find them anti-government; Eastenders is often a vehicle for social marketing [highlighting the problems facing parents of babies with Downs Syndrome for example]; should all of these be balanced and how?

On the specific issue of Live8, perhaps news coverage prior to the event gave more time and focus to Bob Geldof than Gordon Brown, Tony Blair or the concurrent summit. But there is also a sense here that it was clear who had some form of mass support. If staunch critics had been given airtime, to say that the UK should keep its money and ignore the Third World, what effect could this have had upon the BBC's image?

While impartiality is a worthy goal, it is questionable whether anyone can be impartial? While BBC Trustee Richard Tait argues in the press release that one of the 12 principles must be that "Impartiality is no excuse for insipid programme-making", is this not actually the likely result of the criticisms? It is claimed that these standards will shape every sort of programme, of every genre, so will this limit the ability of drama writers to tackle controversial topics unless they present a balanced view?

Finally though, the greatest evidence for partiality, which seems unmentioned, is the cynical stance which Tony Blair was talking about last Tuesday; where the journalist simply adopts the attitude that all politicians are lying. While this is not descriptive of all coverage, it is questionable how that type of interview measures up against two of the key elements that those questioned denote impartiality: [Let us hear different people giving their own stories in their own words 80%; Stand back and ask critical and rigorous questions of others 71%]. I can imagine a few politicians would argue that the first element is usually overshadowed by the latter! And for evidence, independent of any ideological position, see this clip!