Something Rotten in the House of Commons

Watching cross party MPs turn on the Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, was somewhat perplexing. On one hand, his lack of leadership was instrumental in allowing recent expenses scandals to take place. On the other, it is hypocritical of MPs to expect one man to take the blame for something they all seem to have been aware of, if not actively involved in; not dissimilar to seeing a gang of criminals blaming their crimes on the chief inspector of their local police force. If only he'd arrested them before they robbed that bank ...

It is impossible to overstate the significance of today's events. If Mr Martin does resign, he will become the first speaker since the 17th century to be forced to do so, and I'm sure the House hope this will draw a line under the whole affair. He will become a high profile sacrifice to placate a public who have lost all confidence in the democratic process and those who administer it. But will it be enough? Do we really believe the entire blame lies at his door? I think not.

The expenses system was drawn up by the very people who so readily abused it, yet, they seriously expect us to believe with one sacking honesty and transparency will be restored. This belief that we can be so easily hoodwinked smacks of extreme arrogance! These are the people we elected to represent us, they do not seem to be doing that. They appear to be more interested in lining their pockets and advancing their own interests, which really isn't good enough. We deserve better!

Politics used to be seen as a form of public service. That may be an old fashioned idea, and it may not have always been true, but that ideal did set the tone of the House; MPs were there to speak for the interests of their constituents, not to further their own. Unless we return to that old fashioned notion the voting public will continue to feel unrepresented and disenchanted with the political process, and that could have far-reaching and disastrous consequences.

Hazel Blears says 'newspapers no substitute for town criers'

Image via Wikipedia

"In a clear reference to the prime minister, who has been ridiculed for his appearance on YouTube, the strongly Blairite cabinet minister says such use of 'new media' by politicians is far less effective than old-fashioned campaigning. 'YouTube if you want to,' she says in an article in today's Observer. 'But it is no substitute for knocking on doors or setting up a stall in the town centre.' "
Hazel Blears savages Gordon Brown over 'lamentable' failures - The Guardian

While I agree with the central point Ms Blears is trying to make - that politicians need to reconnect with voters - I do think she is denigrating the use of new technology unnecessarily. As other politicians have shown, it can be a valuable tool in the political process. And it's one that will only become more so.

Every year thousands of teenagers who don't really remember a world without social media become eligible to vote. Of course, talking to them is incredibly important. At the same time, given the choice between reading a pamphlet handed out in the street, or watching a video on YouTube, they are nearly always going to choose the latter. The same is true of many older people who make up a significant percentage of users on many networks. A leaflet is easily discarded, if someone has gone to the trouble of clicking a link they are likely view at least a small part of the content the page contains.

To dismiss new methods of campaigning as less effective is very short-sighted; in effect it's giving up the chance to reach people who would not have accepted a leaflet, or talked on their doorstep. It would negate their chance to make an informed vote by denying them the opportunity to hear a range of opinions. While some might argue that these people should take advantage of more traditional methods, I disagree. If they expect us to make the effort to vote for them, politicians should reach out to us using the mediums of our choice!

To come back to my earlier statement; I can see Ms Blears' point, but if new media has proved ineffective, it is not because people don't want to engage with it. It's because it has been used ineffectively.With the exception of some governmental and political Twitter accounts and the e-petitions site, Labour-style new media has been all about them talking at us, there is little interaction which is contrary to it's whole ethos. It's supposed to be a conversation, but I haven't noticed much dialogue.