Rob the Gob

“Ladies and gentlemen – it’s time for Celebrity parliamentary clean-out! Esther Rantzen, Joanna Lumley and Jamie Oliver head up an all-star celebrity task force to clean out the House of Commons. Hosted by Ant and Dec.”

Regardless of whether-or-not this should be important, the recent expenses scandal (well-engineered by the Telegraph , it has to be said), has really worked the media up into a turgid frenzy, and they in turn have whipped-up the public in a predictable feedback-loop of irritation. MP’s and party leaders have been squirming, unsure of what to do. The speaker’s gone, but he won’t be the last. Brown seems paralysed as usual. David Cameron is calling for a general election, thinking to capitalise on the currently horrific poll results of Labour, however, he’s grandstanding, knowing that he can try once again to appear to be the moral agent in this with impunity, as Brown will not call an election over this. He’d be stupid to, and Cameron knows it. He’s trying very hard to appear to be the outstanding leader here, but despite his valiant efforts to seem ‘really cross’ about expenses, his own house (very literally) is hardly in order. He already owned a house in his Oxford constituency, and another one (worth about two million pounds) in London outright, but fancied another. So – and despite his own considerable wealth and the six-figure income his wife has – he thought it prudent to use the ‘second home’ mortgage allowance to pay for a lovely sprawling pile in Oxfordshire worth three-quarters of a million quid. These mortgage payments – rather conveniently – came to almost exactly the maximum allowed by the regulation (£22,000) at £21,293.86. George Osborne did something similar. And plenty of the other Tory MP’s have been caught with their noses in the trough. Or moat.

What would happen if an election were called today? This scandal surely means that people would be unlikely to want to vote for the two major parties as they stand, but might vote against the current government simply to punish them. This would be Cameron’s ideal hope and is why he wants a ‘snap election’, but I feel he might be disappointed with the change (a word he repeats so often, trying to identify himself with Obama, that I strongly suspect he’s had it tattooed onto the inside of his eyelids to remind him) we might get if there is any period of time at all for any others to prepare. The Lib Dems – despite Vince Cable’s notable integrity – haven’t been squeaky-clean themselves, but might be able to capitalise if Nick Clegg continues to take the initiative. I’d say that the other, smaller political groups are the ones more likely to benefit right now. The Greens might pick up a fair few votes. A few days ago I had a leaflet posted through my door informing me that ‘People like you voting BNP’. Well, apart from the poor English (it’s also intended as a poster, you see, but the missing ‘are’ would have made it work both ways, cretins), I can assure you that they are wrong – people who are anything like me would rather smear jam on their genitals and place them in a wasp’s nest than vote for the BNP. Sadly, they might also do better, however, as the ‘simple solutions’ offered by the right tend to appeal to people who would rather think the world is simpler than it is. Likewise UKIP and the others. But still, the smaller parties are not, I think, going to be the biggest change. Rather, I think we might see a huge surge in the numbers of independent candidates. Especially ‘celebrity’ candidates.

Of course, it would have been nice if we’d seen a bit more enthusiasm for independent candidates when both major parties decided it was a good idea to bomb part of the Middle East into vaguely radioactive dust so that the Americans could secure more control over oil. Having killed lots of people unnecessarily and spent billions, it’s only when the public find out that they have been ripped off for – what, a few quid each, so that people can have nice things like plasma TV’s? – that people really get upset. But then, it always seems that way.

Martin Bell, (although, perhaps really he shared the campaign credits with whoever made that famous suit) set the precedent for this when he ran against the disturbingly strange, sleazy and mentally challenged Tory Neil Hamilton in 1997. There have been a number of other independents elected since, though usually they were less well known (the possible exceptions here being that rather odd but well know fellow George Galloway, and the UKIP MEP success of Robert Kilroy Silk). Though Martin Bell was aided massively (and motivated) by the particular situation and notoriety of Neil Hamilton and his (frankly frightening) wife Christine, the fact that he was well known almost guaranteed his success. His victory showed that fame can be used to get you a seat. As Blair showed the same year, even just associating with the famous can score you votes, and he dutifully courted various stars who dutifully responded with various amounts of enthusiasm and confusion. The reverse-engineered version of this tactic was more recently used by bonkers buffoon Boris Johnson and the Conservatives to win the London Mayoral race, thereby proving that being well known (even if you are well known for being an arse) is more important than possessing qualities such as integrity, ability and sanity.

Who then, might, we get this time?

I’d love for Joanna Lumley to stand for Cameron’s supposedly safe seat. With her recent (and rather wonderful) championing of the Ghurkhas, she’d be unbeatable. Esther Rantzen (of TV’s ‘That’s Life!’ – a sort of comedy version of ‘Watchdog’ for those too young to remember it) may stand against Labour MP Margaret Moran (she who claimed £22,500 treating dry rot at her ‘second home’ – only 100 miles from her constituency) in Luton South. Lynn Faulds-Wood (who presents ‘Watchdog’, which, for those of you who are too old, is a not-funny version of ‘That’s Life!’) is thinking of standing – seemingly against anyone who deserves it. I’d suggest Gordon Brown’s seat in Dunfermline East. Interestingly, she might stand as a Lib Dem.

Which opens up another possibility. This situation seems destined to end in a cull of one type or another. A lot of new candidates are going to have to be selected. The trouble is that people don’t really know anything about their MP’s, they are used, primarily, to voting for parties. This is one of the problems faced by The Jury Team, as well as other minor parties and less-well-known independents. The personal qualities of the individual candidates are only now becoming conspicuous to the public. Parties might well de-select their currently corruption-encumbered candidates and choose to replace them with celebrities, minor, local or other wise. In order to prove that they are determined to clean up their act, they might choose to select people who are known, at least locally, for their integrity. The trouble there being that very few people take much notice of what goes on locally. Bigger name candidates, though, would be the ultimate prize, and might also battle the voter apathy that has plagued recent years. Could this be the new retirement dream of choice for celebs?

It is perhaps inevitable that, with our culture’s recent obsession with celebrities, that they should become intimately entangled with politics. Time for fear-mongering and irony – for though celebrities tend to be pretty left-liberal and cuddly, it’s really not universally true, and they also tend to be self-serving, arrogant and egotistical. Not exactly what you’d want in charge (though often what you get anyway). I’m not having a go at Esther, but let’s just think where this might go. Jamie Oliver as Minister for food, spitting, and mockney? He’d almost certainly win any seat he stood for, despite being a complete arse (see ’Boris Johnson’ above). Speaking of which, there are numerous sites devoted to the idea of making Jeremy Clarkson Prime Minister. He could almost certainly win if he picks the right seat. If he chats up the Tories, they might make him Transport Minister, and then the world will end.

Still, it could get worse. What celebrities might the BNP pick up? Jim Davidson? There are certain seats he might still win. More seriously, someone who appears to stand for ‘common sense’ and has a familiar face can win almost any seat, regardless of their actual ability, mostly because you don’t have to win a majority to get into power, and turnouts tend to be so small that smallish groups can have a large impact Lorrain Kelly or Fern Cotton could be your representative if they could convince a few students that it was funny and a fair proportion of stay-at-home mothers that they understood them. Soap stars have massive exposure, and can play to the appeal of their characters to bolster their support. Plus they feel ‘real’ because their characters are ‘normal’, despite the fact that they may be Silvia Young kids who have been in no other business for their whole lives.

With career politicians who’ll say anything and crusty old buggers who think they were born to rule, it’s difficult not to support almost any change in Parliament. People feel removed from their leaders, and getting people re-engaged with politics is imperative, even if this necessitates a vast re-arrangement of the system of government. I’d prefer it, however, if this focus was shifted away from personalities and onto issues, rather than increasing the focus on the characters involved. And remember, if I’ve thought of this, some sneaky bugger in Westminster will have. A few celebrity candidates can keep people on their toes, and can often bring one particular agenda right to the heart of government when it might have otherwise been ignored. But if there are lots, it might start to feel less like an election and more like the X Factor. I’m not sure that I want the cabinet to be formed by the cast of ‘grumpy old men/women’, regardless of how much it already looks like it is.

Of course, we haven’t had the House of Lords clearout yet. If there was ever anything that needed reforming from the ground up, it’s the Lords. I’ve heard some very clever ideas about what to do with the Lords one time or another, (and some damned idiotic ones about keeping it). For example – how’s about a minority of ‘citizen lords’ selected to serve for a year in much the same way that jury service operates? Alternatively (or complementarily), we could have appointed Lords that cycle every general election, but done on the basis of proportional representation (thereby giving us two democratically elected houses for the bargain price of one election). I might write upon this again. However, just for now, and purely for the sake of comedy, let me suggest this – the Lords is a better place for the moral conservatism and ‘common sense’ candidates to serve. One of our checks and balances that prevent misguided legislation from passing unchallenged into law. And it might well be quite good fun to collect our retired celebs together – after all, it has been a centuries-long traditional venue for weird-looking old busybodies to gather together and moan. And that will at least prevent someone from becoming Prime Minister just because we know what they look like.

Mind you, if he fancies running, I’d probably vote for Stephen Fry.

Here’s an interesting little site, courtesy of Stephen Fry on Twitter: http://votematch.co.uk

We all face a huge problem with political prejudice, not all of it our own, and I am no exception. Everyone carries around with them a little veil that covers their eyes and ears and subtly changes the information around them so that it appears to be in accordance with their expectations. With class loyalties, family traditions, and the pressure to conform with, whatever social group currently surrounds you, all coupled to the lack of any real social mobility, it’s a wonder that anyone ever manages to change their minds at all. Still, it gets worse. The information we receive upon which we are supposed to make these judgements is filtered, re-interpreted and spun by the media that presents information only in accordance with whatever agenda dominates the particular publication. Sometimes, such as in the case of European regulation, the ‘news’ reported is just absolute lies designed to press an agenda (phantom banana and cucumber straightness regulations spring to mind). Further, any achievement any government or institution makes are hardly ever reported despite all their efforts to the contrary, because good news sells less papers / grabs less viewers / attracts fewer subscribers than bad. Add to that the fact that governments themselves try to ‘spin’ the information they release, cover up more than is ever discovered by the journalists, make up statistics and information seemingly at will, and try to make moral decisions conform to the desires of lobby groups and business, and you might just get an idea of how unlikely it is that anything inside your head has any direct referent in the ‘facts’. Indeed, you might well be forgiven for thinking that there aren’t any facts at all, and that it’s all the same no matter who you vote for, because it’s just spin all the way down.

I’ve commented before on my opinions on the new generations of career politicians. It really is almost impossible to believe that it’s not all just bluff and rubbish, an abstract game of words and money. News reports focus on moral issues and sell better when their subjects are highly emotive – often beyond reason – all the time behaving as if it’s their duty to do this. My own relationship with The News was changed fundamentally by ‘The Day Today’ and ‘Brass Eye’ (if you haven’t seen them, look them up now rather than reading the rest of this – it’s a better use of your time), and I thought this might wake us all up. As always, though, we quickly forget, and a similar function is now being performed by Charlie Brooker’s Newswipe (likewise, if you haven’t seen them, look them up now rather than reading the rest of this – it’s also a better use of your time), albeit in a rather more direct manner. The recent ‘Expenses’ scandal is a case in point. Obsessive media attention on this issue has reached such a height that it’s even produced this bizarre load of cobblers from New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/05/science-tells-us-the-mps-must.html Ultimately, when Mervyn King gets to invent £125 Bn when he ‘thinks it’s necessary’ by simply ‘assuming it’s there’, some Tory idiot getting the public to pay to have the hedge around his helipad clipped hardly seems important (incidentally, I was told by a barman in my local that I am not allowed to spend even a mere £5 that I suggested we just ‘assumed was there’). Noteworthy, certainly, but the public are only so angry about it because, unlike MP’s, most of us plebs don’t have expense accounts to abuse. Did we really think that they didn’t take advantage of their expense accounts? I’m only shocked that someone didn’t try and bill us for hookers. The most reasoned voice I’ve heard on this, in fact, is Stephen Fry himself (despite how much those of you who follow him on Twitter know he regrets saying anything at all) – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8045869.stm, although I would like to point out that, if you’re an MP, as opposed to a journalist or entertainer, you surely must expect that the public would spit like a home-made incendiary if they ever found out charge them for the horse manure you put on your roses or to clean your moat (MOAT?), so you might be less cheeky. The real problem is not the hypocrisy of journalists but the unrealistic expectations both they and the MP’s themselves instil in the public consciousness by claiming that politicians are not just political leaders but moral leaders too.

And what was that he mentioned there? Ah yes, that brings me back to…

Votematch can’t get round all of this, but it cuts through some of the higher-impacted excrement. Those who take a very keen interest in politics and scrutinise the policies are unlikely to be overly surprised by the results, but almost everyone will find out something they weren’t aware of previously. I found out about an independent I hadn’t even known was running in my area. By forcing people to consider the individual issues rather than party loyalties, it lets you see which of the policies you agree/disagree with each party on, and consequently which might be actually be pursued if you vote for them. And fundamentally, at the core, it is these policies that we use to shape our world. Of course, it cannot prevent political prejudice from re-asserting itself long before you reach that polling booth. It can only increase the chances that you realise just what types of prejudice are making that mark upon the paper.