By Mathew Hulbert / @mathewhulbert
Watching BBC Question Time this week I was struck by how all too many of our politicians these days are, to use the phrase of a fellow Tweeter, 'political pygmies'. Shaun Woodward seemed, at times, to have trouble defending this Government's record on a number of issues. For the Tories Dame Pauline Neville Jones mumbled her way through some mediocre answers. The Lib Dems' Julia Goldsworthy played to the crowd in a perfectly pleasing but ultimately unsatisfactory matter. Even rower James Cracknell managed better, more coherent responses than the politicians.
But the star of the show (other than stand-in host John Humphrys...let him present it every week, I say) was undoubtedly Will Self, who gave intellectual answers and, to my mind at least, was correct in each of them.
All this made me think, where are this generation's truly excellent politicians, those who make us feel confident about our public life and our Government? You can count them on one hand as far as I'm concerned.
I don't agree with much that he says but Peter Mandelson is one such individual. He really gives you the sense that he's thought things through and has an intellectual basis to his politics.
Despite his apparent unpopularity I feel the same about Gordon Brown.
But what of the next generation?
David Miliband is obviously bright but is very awkward in front of the cameras. Meanwhile his brother almost has the reverse problem; he's better than his older bro in front of the cameras but, in political terms, is yet to really start shaving. I get the feeling James Purnell is both bright and articulate but, of course, is no longer in the Government.
And, well, who else is there?
Ed Balls may be many things but someone who inspires confidence in front of the cameras he surely is not. His wife Yvette Cooper is a far better performer but can come across as a tad stern sometimes.
Sadly, some of the best people in public life are, for the moment at least, unlikely to end up in positions of power. I speak of Vince Cable, the Lib Dems' economics spokesman and the Green Party's leader, Caroline Lucas.
This country's first-past-the-post voting system cruelly prevents people like them from ever having a chance of being ministers and putting their considerable talent to use for the good of all of our people. Instead we're left with too many second-raters.
Bad for Question Time. Bad for democracy. Bad for us all.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
With the names of the dismal James Purnell and Yvette Cooper being bandied about as possible members of the next generation of Labour leaders?
You cannot be serious! Surely!
Consider for a moment the following amendment to Purnell and Cooper's pernicious Welfare Reform Bill from the Lords, recently overturned in the Commons by a pack of obedient right-wing New Labour MPs:
Amendment 2 – Nothing in this section shall cause any financial sanction to be imposed in the case of a single parent with a child under five years of age.
The Commons voted against this amendment 286 to 236.
The most amazing fact is that the amendment's author was none other than Lord David Freud himself! The man who originally designed and inspired the welfare reform stampede undertaken as a part of New Labour's dismal swan song. Isn't it staggering that even Freud wanted to temper the cruelty and injustice inherent in this welfare legislation by injecting a modicum of protection and compassion in respect to single parents with very young children? - which morsel of protection and compassion the inglorious Labour Party saw fit to stamp on and destroy, with Christmas approaching the season of good will to all men almost upon us... good will to all men (and women) except of course those lazy feckless single parents with children under five!
Even the Conservative Party would have truck with this.
What on earth would the late John Smith have thought about two such needlessly cruel people as Purnell and Cooper?
Labour leaders?
Better the party die altogether than fall into the hands of amoral careerists as base as these.
Personally I cannot think of a single one - anywhere in the polical spectrum. Inspirational leadership needs a vision, the ability to communicate and, above all, integrity. No sorry just doesnt work for me.
The problem is the parties and their selection process. All parties have an inbuilt A-list. They may not call it that, but they all have them. The de Hundt system used in the euro-elections show these lists at their worst. "You vote for the party, and we will choose who represents you". Nasty.
The problem with these party lists is that a representative does not get elected by the people, they get elected by the party top-brass. Now, before you jump to conclusions I am not suggesting that open primaries should be used. Open primaries are a gimick, and are just another way for A-list candidates to be imposed on a constituency. The difference is that the people are fooled into thinking that they have chosen the candidate.
Instead I am suggesting a very simple change that can be applied straight away and will cost nothing at all: Make representatives local. Mandate that to be eligible for nomination as a candidate you have to have been resident in the area you want to represent for at least 5 years. (Of course, there should be exceptions for people who are in the services.)
I have met many local people who are inspiring leaders, but very few of them politicians. Such people have used their skills and abilities in other ways: running schools, hospitals, charities or businesses. Getting those inspiring and capable people into a position on the national stage is not easy when the party system favours political animals who have been groomed to be MPs. And the system itself (particularly the Press) are against such people: look at what happened with Gordon's GOATs. This is one reason why I think an elected upper chamber is a mistake. If the House of Lords is elected then you just get more of the buggers in there, we don't need more self serving politicians, we need people who can make a difference. Instead I suggest an appointed house where the appointment process is taken away from political patronage, and is based on ability and achievement. I think that membership organisations: professional organisations, unions, even groups like the National Trust should nominate people for a fix term of five years. (Note that political parties are membership organisations, but since their memberships are small they will have few members in the process.) The House of Commons will always be supreme, they will represent the people who elect them because they are tied to their constituencies; the upper house will be a revising chamber made up of experts with no constituencies.
These two changes will give us the leadership we need. By mandating local people for MPs more party effort will be put into finding and supporting capable local people rather than parachuting in party wonks. Such people are still party members and are still politicians, but it will make parliament far more representative because the candidates will truly come from the community they represent. The change to the upper house will get those people who are natural leaders, but who have put their efforts into other areas, onto the national stage.
I think you've missed an important point here. It's difficult to be inspiring when everybody hates your policies.
Your analysis of question time I agree with.
As for inspiring politicians of the left. There's a reason why the ones you mention are in other parties. They'd never get anywhere in a New Labour administration where even Mandy seems to have stopped pretending and seems to be proud to declare it's right of centre stance. (Of course he could have been spinning, but how do you know when he is not spinning.)
Shame is, Will Self's stance probably appealed to more Labour people than Shaun Woodward's on QT. But then he was at one stage the only MP with a butler.
It may not be inspiring but we will need someone who balances the different strands of Labour thought, instead of always choosing the policies of the right wing.
Anybody clearly identified as a zealot of the left or right is out. Which removes the people you mention from the list as they are all unashamedly on the right of the party.
Somebody who could come to national prominence now, without resorting to the government spin machine, which in any case is rendered relatively toothless because of the desertion of the Murdoch press, might demonstrate they have what it takes.
As the only thing the press will want to hear from No.10 spin machine is denigration, and slander of fellow Labour MPs who get out of line, or appear they might be populist threat to GB, we can only hope that they might engage brain before doing this again.
The Blairite / Thatcherite policies, the lies & spin, and weak regulation of the finance industry have shown just how shallow New Labour really is.
Anyway, why would anyone want to go into politics when we've signed away our real powers to an unelected EU bureacracy. E.G. The order to break up the British banks Lloyd's TSB & RBS last week came from the unelected EU Competition Commissioner, Neelie Kroes. EU non-democracy at work.
The reason we have career MPS is that anyone who disagrees with the goverment is branded racist on immigration, Wrong on the EU and the some loyal New Labour MPS blindly follow the whips without care for there voters , The expenses was the straw that broke the camels back , Voters are sick of lies ,spin , planted questions .Voters watch PMQS and wonder why they are paid so much ? Cant we all see it ? Spin might sound good at the despatch box but in real life voters treat it with the contempt desverved, One example , The recent debate about the EU treaty and Mr Camerons policy, Does anyone think that by boosting about that the voters think that Mr Cameron is wrong or do they remeber that We (Labour) broke our promise .
This is whats wrong with politics and if we carry on treating the voters as children then we will see the bnp get a seat in westminister , But it doesnt matter does it as long as we play games with the torys . why cant the leadership grow up and relise that they are there to serve us not treat us like children .
"I don't agree with much that he says but Peter Mandelson is one such individual. He really gives you the sense that he's thought things through and has an intellectual basis to his politics."
... Mandelson is the epitome of what is wrong in British politics, i.e. lies and spin and yet you hail him as an intellectual hero. Sorry dont see it.
I want to see a capable politician without all the gloss.
I agree with the premise of your article but the problem is the type of people that politics is attracting. Over the last couple of decades we have witnessed more and more the policy wonk/parliamentary researcher populating the Westminster benches, and the decline in the number of doctors, teachers and dare I say lawyers.
These party political types are focused on career advancement rather than the bigger picture. They reduce politics to a science rather than the art that it is.
I think that these things come in cycles. We will (hopefully) see less of these types in the future; I think there is already a growing urge for 'real' candidates. People are already yearning for local candidates more and more, which is a change at least but not necessarily a policy I support.
As an active Labour member in London I do pull my hair out at the number of young members with their hearts set on getting internships with MPs, working in Westminster or a constituency office, and doing nothing other than work in politics their entire life. Its not the way forward chaps - you are giving yourself no life experience, no leadership experience and you wont be good MPs if you ever get there. An MP should have experience of working, managing, hiring and firing, or long term organisational strategy. That is how leaders are made, not through answering Joe Bloggs letter to his MP complaining about the bins not getting collected.