'Change' has undeniably been the buzzword of this election campaign with Cameron, Clegg and Brown all professing to be the gate keeper of this metamorphosis. Since the expenses disgrace the electorate has been promised a transformation in how politics is done, and more importantly, a transformation in the form of politicians. But has the public seen any evidence of real change during this election campaign? Have you seen any genuine transformations in the nature of the political process? Have you shit. It has seemed like the same old same old to me, a spectacle of superficiality and spin.
The expenses scandal crystallised, for many people, thoughts they have always held about politician's; that they are deceptive, untrustworthy fucks, living in a different realm to the majority of the public. It's a pretty crude and general summation but a seemingly accurate one. Within the realms of possibility, could there have been a much worse revelation for the cause of the politician than that of a member of parliament spending tax payer money on the cleaning of his moat? I don't think so. It's fair to say that politicians have never been thought of as lowly as they are right now. And so the scene was set for 'change', a cleaning of the decks, an evolution in the process of British politics. From now on politicians would be sincere. Politicians would now be honest and true. Of course this change could not happen overnight but this election campaign, coming so soon after the expenses debacle, would give politicians an opportunity to display a uniform improvement....I'm still waiting for it.
There has been no change in the approach of politicians this time around. Here was a chance for politicians to walk away from the 'spin' nonsense which has plagued British politics for years. An opportunity to leave the vein concerns about image behind which preoccupies government workers and ultimately prevents them from getting the job done. A chance to get back to basics and focus upon policy, and be real people once again. However we have seen a continuation of the directed, cringe inducing circus that has become all too familiar. The same obviously coached body language and speaking techniques; the same phoney conversations with 'members' of the 'public'- who are in fact cherry picked party enthusiasts; the same cheesy smiles and forlorn hand shakes for the news reel.
The proliferation of 'spin' has not just been consigned to aesthetics during this campaign but rhetoric also. The country finds itself in an unfavourable position, fighting a war on two fronts, battling the worst international economy in decades and confronted with the all encompassing problem of global warming. It is a time which requires strong leadership and radical change in policy. However all one has heard, for not want of trying, is the same ear friendly but ultimately empty words, words of no significance, without depth or gravitas. Words which sound good but upon reflection don't actually say anything, uttered expertly up and down the country to plastic applause. One can listen and listen all day long, trying to derive the substantive messages in the words, trying to understand what the words leaving the mouths of these men and women mean in terms of future action, but it alludes. The various speeches sound as though they have been concocted in a consumer research farm somewhere, designed to achieve impact without revealing anything or upsetting anyone. Never ever has a strong, meaningful political message been delivered without upsetting somebody; isn't it amazing how the leaders of the three respective parties have managed to not do so thus far?
Just like before they squirm when asked a direct question. How come? Politicians are in the business of hegemony, convincing people that their ideas and opinions are the correct ones. Surely when a politician is asked a question, it is an opportunity to champion the merits of the party? Every interaction with an individual, especially a member of the public, is a chance to declare where the party stands on a particular issue, or at least it should be. As ever though, it seems the public address and the private thought of the politician are two very different things. The posibility of agitating a potential voter with the wrong answer is a risk not worth taking, so again, we've seen a perpetuation of cunning and ambiguity, traits synonymous with the previous epoch of politics that we are apparently departing from.
The surge in support for the Liberal Democrats indicates that the people of England are ready for change of some description. I thought Gordon Brown, the dour yet authentic scotsman, was going to be the icon of change and the one supported heavily in the polls in and around May. For it is he, more than any other politician, that embodies the substance over style formula that the country so desires. Or at least he was. His essential nature during this campaign has been anything but genuine. The labour party, more than any other, have been excessively concerned with the outward image of their leader. His appearances have been phoney and ingenuous throughout. I fear if he is to smile any harder his jaw will break. It begs the question, Why? Why Gordon? Why at a time when the nation is hankering for a man of substance to lead them, have you decided to put an artificial, undesirable mask on? His attempts to be warm, accessible and likeable are translucent and quite simply backward. His reform in response to criticisms from the media has alienated many, previously supportive potential voters, who see right through the facade. Has he completely forgotten why people liked him in the first place?
The 'Bigot' remark directed at that oh so nice woman from Rochdale is a perfect example of Brown's failure and hypocrisy. He declares to be this man of frankness and actuality, yet he is unable to tell a woman on the street that he thinks her views are slightly bigoted? Why was he unable to do this? Why did he feel the need to apologise for his opinion? The people of England want a leader that is straight forward and sincere, Brown has shown himself not be, not just in this instance but on various occasions on this campaign, and in doing so, he has completely compromised his character. Why oh why are these politicians so scared of being themselves?
The fact that around only 3o% of people who where eligible to vote last election did, suggests that politics needs change as much as the country does. The paltry turnout was not born out of disinterest or disengagement of the British public with politics, but out of distrust. Distrust of politicians and the political system. The British Public no longer identifies with politicians or their policies. They view politicians as contemptible liars. This could have, and should have, been amended during this campaign; or at least gone some way to do so. The shackles should have been off, with parties and politicians clambering to reveal who they really are, and what they stand for. Now was the time for real progression in this area. Instead we have had a tedious, if at times entertaining popularity contest. The same guarded men and women are evident as before, unable or unwilling to speak freely what is in their minds, professionals, conditioned by the political framework that they find themselves working within. If this election is to be remembered for anything, it should not be for the prospect of a hung parliament or the emergence of the Liberal Democrat Party. It should be remembered for the inability of the competing parties, and particularly Gordon Brown, to seize the opportunity to change how we do politics in this country for the foreseeable future.
People want sincerity.
