No place for the curious

I have written quite a few posts that promote the increased use of direct democracy. This seems a little hopeful given that in the UK we are only just considering the Alternative Vote. And doesn't a coalition prove that tribal politics is dead?

When Members of Parliament simply ignore what they promised to do before the election, people get rightly annoyed. But essentially, MPs have no particular reason to honour pledges based on issues, as their jobs depend on geographical support and party patronage. The coalition has actually increased this problem, offering the option for MPs, caught breaking promises, to blame their new partners for their behaviour. "I would have reduced university fees, but they said we couldn't."

But the main reason for insisting on the need for as much direct democracy as we can manage, despite recognising some of its crowd sourced woes, is that party politics is very bad for independent politicians.

MPs who don't follow party orders are allowed to fail at every opportunity. What amounts to failure today, is the inability to defend yourself against media allegation - whether justified or not. The myriad news and journalism channels that now exist keep many eyes on what politicians do. Keeping yourself clean of shit is not possible without someone to watch your back and help wash it off. MPs who wish to say things that have not been cleared by a battery of lawyers quickly find they are friendless, or adopted as lightning conductors to keep the really bad character alive a bit longer.

By contrast, MPs who can navigate the media successfully are guaranteed long and healthy careers - and are essential to support the government. The classic example is of course Peter Mandelson; he has simply not been allowed to die, despite several political deaths.

But a more sinister example is Phil Woolas. He is hardly the first home office minister to use the race card, but his tactical use during an election was unusually brazen. Only months after his victory in Oldham, his thug antics have caught up with him. Yet Ed Miliband clearly didn't believe his dubious character would make him an inappropriate choice for shadow immigration spokesman. Indeed his skill at playing both the media and his own party totally trumped any other consideration. Tellingly, many Labour party old timers are still supporting him.

A party leader must now be an expensively educacted 40 year old baby faced white man whose most important asset is that you didn't notice him two years ago. All those close to him must be able to "run interference", that is displace the media agenda if it's unfavourable. Everyone else must fend for themselves, which is well nigh impossible in the 24 hour media circus.

While this situation is not new, it has grown steadily worse over the years. Survival means joining the club. Given that character or personality flaws are fairly common in those who spend little time considering how they look to others, it is unsurprising that the curious are fast being displaced by the merely competent.

One way to puncture this is to accept the limitations of parliament and do as much outside it as possible. Direct democracy doesn't rely on the ability of the public to judge a party on how its members deal with Jeremy Paxman. It forces issue based debates - which help to highlight those with genuine ideas. Considering new ways to elect the same MPs does nothing, on its own, to stop the steady collapse of political life.