ALTHOUGH the belief that politicians are in it only for themselves, are fundamentally untrustworthy and are all as bad as each other is widely held, it is not a serious analysis. In fact, such an opinion, however often voiced in saloon bars up and down the land, indicates naivity about politics. Many MPs and MSPs in every party are diligent and sincerely believe their policies will improve life for their constituents.
Unfortunately, it does not follow that every politician passes those tests, or that elected representatives are invariably of the calibre that the job requires. There is a persistent instinct, in every era, to believe that the current crop of parliamentarians is especially poor, though history provides no shortage of duffers, crooks and charlatans. But the conduct of politics at the moment is sufficiently slapdash, casual, and blithely impervious to public opinion and external realities to be a matter of genuine concern.
Analyses of what many see as an objective decline in standards of conduct, competence and trustworthiness focus on all manner of factors: increasingly polarised political discourse, misinformation peddled by digital media, the malign influence of monied interests, or of illiberal activism, nativism and populism, the growing sense of division between the governed and the establishment.
As those disparate suggestions imply, this is not confined to one party or country – “post-truth” politics and disaffection are allegations levelled at all manner of figures. It’s clear enough, however, that there are clear instances of the public being ill served by its leaders, and they begin at the top.
Scarcely a week – a day – goes by without Boris Johnson being called out on some failure to follow the rules, or manifest distortion of the facts, inexcusable carelessness or refusal to be held to account. Some of this is, naturally, his political opponents making hay, or trying to confect outrage over some unimportant matter. But far too much of it is not.
This week, we returned again to the wallpaper saga. It hardly matters whether this is of any great importance, or whether people much care. But it matters greatly that Mr Johnson should have left out crucial information (some disobliging texts) in his testimony to Lord Geidt. Whether or not it would have made a difference to the findings is irrelevant, as is the standards investigator’s acceptance that the Prime Minister did not intend to mislead.
The point is that it is not good enough. All politicians brush off occasional shortcomings, but Mr Johnson does so again and again. Christmas parties, favours to party donors, side-stepping parliamentary procedures and due diligence, presenting claims that go beyond putting the best spin on matters and veer into demonstrable falsehoods – no politician, not even one with the Prime Minister’s remarkable ability to dodge consequences, should be able to get away with this.
He is not alone, but his cavalier attitude sets a dreadful example. When he unilaterally alters travel rules without regard for the discussions among the home nations, what message does it send about co-operation and respect for the devolved governments? If he is not hauled up on his false claims on heating (in this week’s PMQs), why should anyone be surprised if John Swinney distorts the Covid figures to make claims they do not support?
There are plenty of examples of sharp practice and casual indifference in all the parties; indeed, politicians around the globe – from Donald Trump to Emmanuel Macron – have been guilty of blatant distortions, playing to the worst instincts of the crowd and unaccountability. But such behaviour must be held to account. We are entitled to expect higher standards from our representatives. The most significant danger is that, if shoddy conduct of this sort is not challenged, it becomes the norm. If, seeing their opponents get away with it, many politicians adopt the same poor standards and contempt for the electorate, even the sanction of chucking out one lot will not lead to improvement. This is a rot, and it needs to be cut out now.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel