Explain or Resign!

The revelations of MP's expenses is perhaps the final nail in the coffin of public confidence in Westminster; all reference to it should now be buried and it needs a proper wake. It also needs to be replaced and that means MPs need to do something. it is something of a travesty that parties and MPs have been saying that the publishing of expenses is going to be 'embarrassing'; the easy comment to make is if it could be embarrassing then why claim for 'a bath plug' etc. Then there is the grotesque sight of MPs squirming on camera saying it was within the letter of the law; suggesting perhaps a 26p wooden spoon is essential for one MP to carry out their work - are they HoC cook perhaps? The rules are of course wrong. Half the country commutes some distance and cannot claim expenses for doing so, they hope their wage will cover that along with all the other bills. Most of us pay for our own home improvements, not it seems MPs, hence these inequities further demonstrate the disconnect between our houses and the Houses of Parliament. This will not be forgotten and it needs action, reform certainly and a reform that puts MPs in the same bracket as the man in the street, but also this needs resolving. If those MPs who have acted within the letter, but not the spirit of the law, cannot appear on camera (or YouTube, or in public letter) and explain their claims to the penny as part of the job as an MP they should resign. I am sure there are many who would like to become MPs, but perhaps a few less than previously if the gravy train is to run out, lets have by-elections or a general election if there are too many and have a new set of representatives with a new set of rules. Of course the problem is that only MPs can decide if this will happen and turkeys are unlikely to vote for Christmas, but if they want to create a new confidence in politics it needs doing and all those with guilty secrets that are difficult to justify should go now!

Cartoon is by Matt of the Telegraph

Bad PR

It is quite common for MPs across all parties, across every decade, and independent of the economic situation to talk of public restraint in pay demands but be perceived to be not following suit. While I have some sympathy with the comment made by Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party, Dame Angela Rumbold, in reply to an OAP's letter concerning MPs' £9,000 pay increase 'I am really rather fed up with people who complain about a rather modest increase. ... If pensioners were working 90 hours a week, as I am, maybe there would be more sympathy for your case', the way she said it did little for her case. This is equally the case with the fact that two Councillors in Poole, Dorset have been disciplined for voting against an increase of up to 67% in expenses for some councillors. The councillors, who may well be fighting an election soon perhaps won themselves more votes when one of those, Carol Deas (pictured), is quoted as saying “I’ve been thrown out for representing the residents.” but the image of the Conservative party does not look great if this goes unanswered and there is no more to it than simply that two councillors decided it was not a good move to increase their expenses in a time of economic crisis and when they represent wards full of elderly and less well-off individuals struggling to pay their council tax. They seem to have public support, their ward's resident's association minutes that "The Southern Poole Chairmens’ Group had issued a unanimous protest since these Councillors were respected for their support for Residents’ concerns". If politics is all about perception then this does the party no favours while enhancing the independent status of the councillors in question.

The dangers of being in the promise business

On Wednesday morning at busy subway stations and transport interchanges across major US cities, thousands of free copies of a spoof edition of The New York Times were distributed. The headline “IRAQ WAR ENDS” is said to have surprised commuters, though the piece on the indictment of Bush for treason is much better. The 14-page paper is dated July 4, 2009, and "imagines a liberal utopia of national health care, a rebuilt economy, progressive taxation, a national oil fund to study climate change, and other goals of progressive politics... the pranksters — who included a film promoter, three unnamed Times employees and Steven Lambert, an art professor — financed the paper with small online contributions and created the paper to urge President-elect Barack Obama to keep his campaign promises". It is said that Internet support were provided by the Yes Men, who were the subject of a 2004 documentary film, they issued a statement. They talk of "describing the gains brought about by eight months of progressive support and pressure, culminating in President Obama's "Yes we REALLY can" speech" and in a quote Bertha Suttner, one of the newspaper's writers. "We've got to make sure Obama and all the other Democrats do what we elected them to do. After eight, or maybe twenty-eight years of hell, we need to start imagining heaven."

Barack Obama was criticised way back by Hillary Clinton for being in the promises business. Early statements on the intent to close Guantanamo Bay fuel the expectation, there is in America a movement for change and they are firmly behind Obama. However, he is going to be pushed to deliver all the way. While a small stunt, this has gained the Yes Men and the authors of the spoof New York Times a lot of media coverage, this gets the ideas a wider audience and fuels expectations among all those groups that supported Obama. The big question is whether he can deliver 'heaven' for people like Suttner.

Political Marketing - a failed idea?

Political Marketing was heralded by at least one authority as a potential solution to disengagement, instead it seems that it is a source of deepening disengagement and dissatisfaction. This, I contend, is not because the idea is flawed; but that the way marketing is used by political parties is actually not marketing but a form of marketised communication strategy.

A study of the UK parties use of marketing at the 2005 General Election noted that rhetorically Labour was most market-oriented but that on the whole the focus when creating policies was internal, it was the process of communication design that was external. This misreads marketing.

If the parties were interested in reconnecting they would not be limiting choice to the electorate, nor would voters be seeking the least worst option or looking more to the quality of local candidate than who should be Prime Minister. Parties approach corporate strategy and communication like magpies; if it looks shiny they will steal it, but anything too complex is left to the high street brands. Hence consumers have relationships with their favourite stores, yet the parties' loyal voters are becoming a feature of history.

Ming in a spin

Sir Menzies (Ming) Campbell, the elder statesmen among party leaders, yesterday laid out a variety of challenges for the next Labour leader. Interestingly the media decided to follow their own highly spurious agenda. Following an off the record briefing they were asking whether Ming's speech declared an intention to enter a coalition - was Ming also blowing a dog whistle to be heard by those who want power and are not totally anti-Labour?

A coalition may be likely, given the proximity the parties enjoy in the polls, but is Ming really setting himself up as the power broker? Or is the media just desperate for something interesting to write about the LibDems spring conference? Whatever the answer it is hard to see Gordon and Ming working together, even less likely a cabinet that may include John Reid and Lembit Opik; Margaret Beckett and Vince Cable; John Prescott and Steve Webb. But now the media have placed the idea on the agenda it will run, influencing attitudes and perhaps voting behaviour across the country. This could mean that tactical voting takes on a whole new meaning by the next UK election.

In the name of democracy?

Labour's former 'big beasts' are clamouring for a leadership contest, the media read this as being a Blairite coup to prevent their nemesis Gordon Brown sweeping away the old guard of Tony's cronies; but are there other readings?

How about that there was a negative reaction within the party and among voters when Michael Howard was given the Brutus role in the departure of Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith. The idea of the potential next prime minister being imposed was greeted with hostility, so what about the actual PM? Perhaps some in the Labour hierarchy may be thinking not of themselves but of democracy, that a contest is needed and that we need to see what the potential candidates may have to offer.

However I would go further with my demands, let us not let Labour decide, after all this will just extend patronage within camps, but let the country decide. This is Labour's leader, true! But this is to be our leader, should we not decide if we are a democratic nation? Or would this be against all the reasoning behind Clarke et al demanding a contest?

The X Factor

Polls indicate that voters would prefer John Reid or indeed just someone else than Gordon Brown to be the next UK PM. While some could extrapolate from other popularity polls that David Cameron is the preferred long term choice, see the Guardian for an example, this may not be as clear cut as all that.

Dave Brown, a Lecturer in the School of Communication Studies, Auckland University of Technology, commented at yesterday's conference that voters are seeking someone with the 'X Factor', a person with all the characteristics that we are looking for to solve the problems we as a nation are facing. This is probably someone we trust to handle the issues of importance but the connection would be as emotional and perceptual as it would be based upon their ability to present a coherent programme. Brown commented that the US may have that person in Barack Obama, he observes there is no such candidate in the UK.

I was initially dismissive, but perhaps Dave Brown has a point. Our politicians do not inspire us. Familiarity does not engender understanding or liking but contempt, and longevity leads to ennui. This presents all the parties with a problem, their top tier have been around quite a while yet fail to really connect with the voter's ideal party leaders - is there a solution?

Now all eyes are on Big Brother

Celebrity Big Brother finds itself at the centre of an international political storm as treatment of the Bollywood superstar Shilpa Shetty is condemned as racist. It is perhaps unsurprising that there is conflict within the house, the spoilt squabbling with the spoilt is perhaps not an unfair comment on the whole event; what is more interesting is that suddenly this has to be taken seriously as it becomes central to the UK's, and Gordon Brown's, image in India.

Last year's voyeur-fest saw elected politician George Galloway condemned for undermining Westminster, democracy, his RESPECT party and trust in representation. Unaware of the furore outside he was cavorting with Pete Burns and Rula Lenska in a bright red cat suit - at least the colour was right perhaps.

Prof. Stephen Coleman has argued for some form of merger in style between the houses of Big Brother and Westminster. That people only participate when they understand the workings of the institution, can identify with those whose destinies they control, and whose lives they can get inside. While plausible to some extent perhaps the behaviour of Galloway, or indeed Jade Goody, and the experiences of Shetty, suggest that such insights into the world of Westminster may well have a negative impact on our views of politicians.

What is it we see on Big Brother. People being manipulated yes, this is not something that happens in the same way, or to any close extent, within our parliament. But we do see people at their worst, perhaps them just being themselves. Exposing elected representatives to scrutiny, even via the tabloids, does not offer much to encourage democratic participation; imagine if we see them warts and all bickering, eating, apportioning tasks, the vision is ghastly. Perhaps Westminster needs to only show us the bits they want us to see. If not we may find our representatives have the same grace, subtlety and are as political correct as the doyen of reality TV herself: Miss Goody.

Spin - the human condition?

I want to put forward a hypothesis - we all tell lies from time to time, true? yes? We will flatter our friends, tell them they look good to make them feel good etc. We will also make ourselves appear better than we are. How many times do we tell someone when we are late that insurmountable problems caused our lateness, not the truth that we couldn't put down a book, had to finish the level on the game of the moment, took too long getting ready or actually couldn't be bothered to get out of bed. All of these things we do!

Yet we expect more from politicians, and in fact one small lie (white usually), one small deviation from the pure unaldulterated truth, and they are damned. Are we expecting too much. I don't suggest this out of a love of all those who enter politics, far from it, but from a recognition of them as human beings who share all the same foibles as the rest of us. Equally I want us to consider how new spin is. We may see it as an invention of Blair, Mandelson or Campbell (Alastair of course), but do you really beleive that spin was post 1997 only. There are famous examples from history, but also there are many instances we may wellbe unaware of - as it is only since there were rottweiler political PR men badgering journalsits that there was the rise of the rottweiler journalist who actively sought out spin to report it to a shocked nation. So should we not just accept spin as normal and not castigate the politician; or is there another reason for us getting worked up when we detect a lie from our leaders?