During last week’s Prime Minister’s Questions, Michael Meacher, MP for Oldham West and Royton, asked the Prime Minister an entirely reasonable (and, it has to be said, foreseeable) question about inadequate levels of business investment. The reply was a disgrace.
During last week’s Prime Minister’s Questions, Michael Meacher, MP for Oldham West and Royton, asked the Prime Minister an entirely reasonable (and, it has to be said, foreseeable) question about inadequate levels of business investment. The reply was a disgrace.
Obviously unbriefed on the issue and unable to offer an answer, David Cameron delivered himself of an astounding insult. He accused Mr Meacher – a respected parliamentarian of over 40 years standing – of “sounding as though he had taken mind-altering substances” and likened him to the disgraced Co-op Bank Chairman, the Rev Paul Flowers. This demeaning of high office did not go unrebuked. Required on a point of order to withdraw his remark, the Prime Minister grudgingly did so, taking refuge in the standard excuse for oafish behaviour: “it was just banter”.
It may seem pointless to draw attention to yet one more descent into puerile insolence – PMQs is often described as “gladatorial” – but it is this very privileging of aggression and expedient untruth over respect which is driving politics deeper and deeper into public contempt.
David Cameron has acquired the displeasing reputation of being a man who cannot control his temper and who appears to consider that personal insult is an acceptable instrument when facing the weekly requirement to be accountable. And although he is far from alone in this, it is only fair to say that behaviour in the chamber has deteriorated significantly on his watch.
Political discourse must have rigour. It is on the anvil of difference that the metal of a just society is hammered out. But that does not mean that it must therefore be mendacious, discourteous and pointlessly confrontational. If people are to be re-engaged with the democratic debate, it has to be moved away from the rebarbative dead-end into which we have let it slide.
What might a new political conversation look like? There are probably many answers. But let’s start with a few basic qualities: civility, truth-telling, humility, respect. (The last two being indivisible.) Restraint, the avoidance of point-scoring, divesting position from a sense of entitlement.
Perhaps the practise of these virtues might enable a higher level of listening and discernment. Nothing of worth can ensue when participants in debate are shouting across each other and gagging with eagerness to ‘win’ and to demolish their opponent. This kind of behaviour in the norm, not only in Parliament, but in programmes such as Question Time and The Daily Politics. It should go without saying that space for reflection and the grace to occasionally admit that one may be wrong or that one’s opponent may have a point, are essential to mining out truth. Most of us know this and practise it in our families, friendships and work environments. We don’t always get it right, but we generally know when the blaring ego is engaged in drowning out the still small voice.
How can we begin to change the culture which has turned people off politics and therefore disenfranchised them? It would be good to start a conversation about this. Maybe we need to let our MPs know when we are repelled by their behaviour (and not just where we don’t vote for them.) Perhaps we could consider ringing, tweeting or emailing radio and television programmes which seem to encourage puerile sparring. And let us not forget to examine our own attitudes – are we capable of standing for what we believe to be right without descending to the conduct which we deplore in some MPs, activists and commentators? And if you can come up with a good hashtag for such a campaign, please let me know!
——
© Jill Segger is an Associate Director of Ekklesia with particular involvement in editorial issues. She is a freelance writer who contributes to the Church Times, Catholic Herald, Tribune, Reform and The Friend, among other publications. Jill is an active Quaker. See: http://www.journalistdirectory.com/journalist/TQig/Jill-Segger You can follow Jill on Twitter at: http://www.twitter.com/quakerpen