‘Courage is rightly considered the foremost of the virtues, for upon it, all others depend’. This quote from Winston Churchill unfortunately doesn’t reflect the public’s attitude towards politicians. The electorate have competing, contradictory opinions towards politicians as individuals that make governing, and political progress, near impossible. This is partially because of an expectation of perfection. The public fail to realise politicians universally have flaws and will make errors. A ill thought through tweet or accusation of hypocrisy brings a demand for resignation and an end to a political career. Forgiveness and redemption have vanished from public discourse. Inevitably, this will reduce the diversity of politicians in future generations. In an age of social media, the baying public will lead many aspiring politicians to consider a career changing society is not for them, which will inevitably lead to policy stagnation.
This online expectation from the public for politicians to remain popular has led to a failure of political and policy courage. It is as though the public dislike being told unpopular remarks by a politician and being confronted with human truths. For example, in an ageing population, social care is a vital policy debate: how it’s funded, who pays and how to ensure a worthwhile retirement. When Theresa May tried to do this in the 2017 election campaign, the outrage from voters, not least Tory supporters, forced her to retreat. Similarly, the UK both needs more housing and sustainable energy resources. However, the public expect politicians to find space for these away from their local area. Nimbyism has meant politicians have been unable to liberalise the Green Belt to provide long term housing needs and energy resources like wind turbines. The public’s failure of a realistic approach from politicians is a wider reflection of the short term pressures from democracy. The public are also contradictory in the attitudes they expect politicians to hold towards one another. During much of the New Labour era, especially after the expenses scandal, there was an assumption that politicians were all the same. The media helped to present a negative picture of politicians, especially on shows like the BBC’s Question Time, of only being in office for their own careers rather than to serve the electorate. In terms of policy attitudes, it became harder to find divisions between the main political parties. However, the public have been just as critical towards politicians in more contemporary periods. During the Brexit divisions in Parliament, there was much criticism from the public as to why a Brexit arrangement couldn’t be agreed by MPs. There is therefore a contradiction from the public in opposing all MPs acting the same but also opposing politicians that profoundly disagree on a matter of immense constitutional importance. The biggest public expectation is the attitudes of MPs towards the electorate. The public have expected a delegate model of representation from their elected figures, where MPs determine their policies from the wishes of their constituents. This jars with the conventional trustee model, where the electorate allow MPs to use their own judgement before re-electing or punishing them at a future election. During Brexit, this was most obvious with former MPs like Anna Turley and Ruth Smeeth voting remain despite their constituencies heavily supporting leave. The public therefore expected MPs to give up their principles, despite previously denigrating politicians for their lack of principles. While MPs are clearly flawed, this is simply representative of the public. In their attitudes towards politicians as individuals, policy development, the relationship with other politicians and, most importantly, the relationship with the electorate, the public expect far too much from politicians.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|