The State of Scottish Politics Follow-Up

Hey all, so I wrote a post several days ago about what would make people genuinely optimistic about politics. Once again, I was impressed with the number of responses and really appreciated all the different answers. I've decided to collate them here, as much for my own use as anyone else's:

Why is Politics Shite?

Answer 1: Power Inevitably Corrupts

One somewhat fatalistic answer was that power inevitably corrupts. This is a famous quote of Lord Acton:

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority."

Although I want to refrain from commenting too much on the answers, I would say 'power corrupts' is incredibly incomplete.

First, whilst power may have a corrupting effect, how we distribute power is itself a political question and by no means inevitable.

Second, I doubt that if you were to assess different countries by quality of governance that it would correlate simplistically with 'more concentrated power = worse governance.' Consider a reasonably well governed country, like Norway in the 2010s – is it the case that a Norwegian politican had less power than a Scottish one today?

In short, I think it is too course to explain fluctuating quality of governance between and within countries, and I think it is a pessimistic cop-out.

Answer 2: MPs/MSPs Reflect Their Pay

This was raised by a few commenters. An MSP earns £72,196, which is over double the national average (£33,332).

I suppose one could have two reactions to this:

(a) People should go into politics for reasons other than money. Turning it into a matter of financial compensation (and subjecting the job to supply-demand logic) misses the point of political duty.

(b) It is reasonable to expect that politicians will be experts and highly competent individuals, and we should not expect such individuals to work for the public without compensation matching the private sector.

I think, in support of (b), we could point to Singapore which – political position to one side – is effectively governed. Its annual salary for a member of parliament is $192,500 (£143,520). The argument, succinctly, would be 'you get what you pay for.'

In support of (a) is a more theoretical argument: that we are paying politicians with public money and that we are basically allowing them to ransom their rare skills and ability.

You could also suggest we still need the right type of person to get elected (politicians are 'employed' much longer than the average 'employee') and attempting to merely pay them more is insufficient (e.g., a combination of (a) and (b)).

Answer 3: the media have poisoned the public sphere

Basically, that the ordinary and somewhat mundane, but extremely important, process of political debate was converted into a spectator sport by the media. A simple comparison between Germany and the UK shows how this is not inevitable but a feature of national discourse, and again between the UK and the US.

Personally, I find the tone of the national news incredibly small and weasly. As one comment mentioned, any attempt to change is treated as a 'U-turn', tax raises are treated as 'tax raids', and small errors as career-ending 'gaffs.'

What Do We Need?

Well, in response to each issue:

(1) 'Power Corrupts.' Nothing because the problem is endemic to giving anyone power.

That said, reforms to FPTP would alter the balance of power. Likewise, the removal of party politics at local level would also likely play a beneficial role – local politicians would be less controlled by the central parties.

(2) 'Not enough MP Salary.' We need to pay MPs more (and possibly couple this with a cultural aspect to prevent greedy career politicians). One comment suggested:

"I'd like to see a system where the best in their field are invited to become heads of government departments, as nominated by their peers. Imagine the best head teachers being honoured to run the education department and adequately paid and respected by everyone. I'd like a government that governs, that looks to the future and guides the rest of us to a better future."

I think for this to work, we would need a least:

(i) Better pay – many of the 'best in their field' simply won't take a massive pay cut to become the head of a goverment deparment (as well as the stress of election).

(ii) Kinder process of becoming a politician – that is, less intense public scrutiny of personal life (thank you media), and less machiavellian backstabbing in the party system.

(iii) For some of the 'best in their field' to actually be forward looking and visionary enough to govern well. It is entirely possible there are currently no extremely qualified, say, computer scientists, who are willing to become public figures and serve the community.

One suggestion was to require this kind of expertise as a job qualification – which will work so long as either (A) the people mentioned in part (iii) exist, or (B) we are appointing civil servants to do most of the work. E.g., water down the democratic aspect and increase the weighting and power of appointed experts. This was succinctly captured by one comment asking for 'more technocrats.'

There is likely a negative feedback loop / equibilibrium between a bad culture of political parties attracting bad people. One comment noted:

"As soon as someone says they want to get into politics my opinion of them drops so fast. Picking between the political parties is like picking between dog shit and cat shit."

Not true for every politician, but many aspiring politicians I know are pathetic. I have experience a lot of institutions like this: whilst good cultures attract and retain good people, culture is fragile and such institutions can easily get filled with social-climbers and sociopaths.

(3) 'The Press is Shite.' I don't know how to resolve this except through a combination of the careful internal reform of the educational/training process of journalists, and likely some forms of government regulation. This is always going to be an awkward problem because of the liberal principle of the freedom of press.

What do we want?

Basically, for stuff to just work:

"I want a police force, NHS, social care, roads, justice system and effective use of the tax dollar " (note, I also inadvertently use the phrase 'tax dollar' sometimes because unfortunately it rolls of the tongue way easier than 'tax pounds')

Or some slightly more ambitious policies:

"Ending poverty and homelessness, raising wages and benefits, improving working and housing rights, tackling the climate crisis – those are top priorities. And independence too, because I don't see it happening any other way. "

Others want more radical proposals:

"For me, redistribute land so that everyone can own a home and not have to be packed in like sardines, legalise cannabis and psilocybin, legalise assisted suicide, and ban algorithms/machine learning from social media."

I would say that all of this stuff is kind of 'meat and potatoes' requirements. The combination of wanting experts in power, distrusting the independent press, a longing for simple, effective public services, and desiring government involvement in land and housing, looks very much like Singapore.

The fine balancing act is, of course, getting those things whilst also retaining a politically engaged, free, and powerful voting populace.

To conclude, one comment suggested:

"Why not stand yourself? Only way to change things." And this is where I announce my decision to stand fo… just kidding.

That said, it is entirely correct. Perhaps counterintuitively, one of my main takeaways from this has been that technocratic tweaking can only go so far. At the end of the day, people of good character need to actually exist and enter these institutions, rather than merely standing on the outside with their apt criticisms.

Anyway, thank you all again for your comments. If you feel I have missed out anything important, please simply comment below. I'll do my best to update this to reflect all your different views.