Whisper it softly, it’s not a popular view, but politicians are good.
There is an air of cynicism in this UK election It’s not wholly new. From ancient hilarity about Guy Fawkes being “The Only Man Ever to Enter Parliament with Honest Intentions” we move to this election, with Robert Blackstock’s rude little question. Then there’s a much shared cartoon of the wolf at a lectern promising an audience of sheep: “I will become a vegetarian.”[1]
The distrust runs deeper. Recently Prof. John Curtice’s National Centre for Social Research “Damaged Politics” reported that:
“Trust and confidence in government are as low as they have ever been.”
The percentage of the population who say they would ‘almost never’ trust politicians to place the needs of the nation above the interests of their own political party have risen from 11% in 1987 to 31% in 2003. Distrust did pop up to 40% in 2009, the wake of the MP’s expenses scandal before coming down again. The ‘distrust score’ was 27% in 2021.
It’s now at 45%.
Various suggestions can be made for such a dip. ‘Partygate,’ the Brexit bus (you could just summarise: “Johnson”).
But politicians are good. Not all of them. But more than our particular affiliations may admit at any one time.
That doesn’t mean they are right. I could list loads that are wrong and tell you why. Somebody else would write a different list.
And that is the beauty of politics. It’s the complicated means by which we constitute our differences.
Politics is a transmission mechanism between passionate people and the community we form. If I disagree with you about something we have to do, I have two choices: violence or politics.
That’s what these good people do on our behalf.
Political cynicism, on the other hand, is both easy and lazy. It may also be dangerous.
The mantras, “They’re all the same” and “Can’t trust any of them” play to those who want to cultivate that very sentiment and convince us our politicians are bad, and politics is too. Ironically this cultivation is often for political ends.
There is a risk involved in political disagreement becoming identified with moral opprobrium because politicians can be wrong or mistaken without being bad and evil, and that vital distinction is becoming increasingly eroded. We saw it a bit during the divisive fallout in the Labour Party in previous years. We also see it in the way certain politicians find their stance on Gaza are identified with genocide and having ‘blood on your hands.’ It might even play out in such playful spaces as a badge that proudly declares “Never Kissed a Tory.”[2]
We need that distinction between a persons values and morals and the political strategy and policy they build upon it. That distinction is essential. It’s the means by which a dyed in the wool Lefty like me can acknowledge the good intent of my Tory friends. Let’s pop it here and light a fire: however misguided they may be – Ian Duncan-Smith may be politically bonkers, but he has a compassionate moral compass and Michael Gove genuinely strove to make education better.
They were wrong, though.
There definitely is morality at play in our politics – but if we cheapen it, we lose the chance to draw on it. When Farage stood in front of a misrepresentation of immigration and used it to garner votes, that was immoral. It could be that Sunak knows his £2000 tax claim is deliberately misleading. If so, using it is wrong. The debate about the morality of Blair hinges on whether he believed the claims made around Saddam Hussain and weapons of mass destruction.
The danger in failing to realize the good that goes on within politics is that those who do so either create, or are drawn into, a false redrawing of the political map. Populist anti-politicians want you and me to lump all politicians together into a lump that can be referred to in terms like “the political class” or “the Westminster Bubble.” In the wolf and sheep cartoon they are made out to be a whole other species (with the rest of us depicted as dumb sheep).
Such lumping is used by those who dismiss politics as failing to represent “the people”.
But watch them when they do this. Often in the next breath they are claiming that they do Farage, Anderson, alongside Orban, Grillo and Trump, have used this tactic; they claim to speak for the people while dismissing the politicians those very people elected. Reform’s recent take on a party election broadcast is an example of this – a blank screen that simply read: “Britain is broken. Britain needs Reform.”
It was an example of the simplistic dismissal of the political process and if we fall for its cynical appeal we may regret who pops up in its wake.
Last Monday I hosted a hustings in Church for our constituency. We do this every election. Though the former MP standing again for Labour declined to attend, we were blessed with a Tory, Lib Dem, Green and candidate from the Workers’ Party along with an independent standing on a pro-Palestine ticket.
I think these people are amazing. To sit there in a hot sweaty room fielding boos and heckles along, no idea what questions are coming while, lets face it, knowing you are possibly not going to overturn a 12,000 Labour majority. Pretty good.
Huw Thomas
Thanks for reading.
[1] The image is actually nicked from a sermon by William Ralph Inge (here) on the subject of patriotism
[2] 😉
Huw Thomas 