Reader TTS

Nobody could claim that the British people are marching to their  polling stations today in a mood of euphoria. The gruelling schedules of the  closing days of the campaign have been

especially fractious. The  wintry weather has imparted a downbeat mood. It doesn’t help that we only had a general election a couple of years  ago, while there had been another one a couple

of years before that. For those of us who have been making an effort to follow  proceedings attentively, the messages have been repetitive.  The politically aware should, however, bear in

mind that this  “message discipline” is for the benefit of those who prefer to spend their time on other matters. Even if someone has only spent five minutes listening  to Boris Johnson over

the past five weeks, they will surely have heard  him pleading for their vote in order to: “Get Brexit done.” While the Conservatives are expected to win, the whole tenor of their  campaign

has been exasperation at the obstructive behaviour of the  “dead Parliament”. Thus the election is a tiresome necessity to “clear  the blockage”. The focus has been on that immediate task —

and not on the  sunlit uplands that may follow. Boris Johnson has shown some of his natural  flair for photo ops, but this has been constrained by his team’s “safety  first” approach. The

Brexit Party, so triumphant only a few months ago in the European elections, has declined into irrelevance or, indeed, has mutated into the anti-Brexit Party. The only remaining interest in

them lies in identifying the seats in which they might  get enough Leave votes to allow a Labour or Lib Dem candidate to beat  the Conservatives. The Lib Dem’s, who began with high hopes,

have slid down the polls. The voters have not warmed to their prissy, bossy new leader, Jo Swinson. For the Labour Party, the campaign has been especially grim. In 2017 there was an 

anti-establishment frisson about Jeremy Corbyn. He gained huge  audiences for his rallies around the country and was received with  adulation. Now the novelty has gone and his Brexit

neutrality message  excites nobody. The crowds are smaller and the atmosphere subdued. Meanwhile, those critics of Corbyn who persist in standing as Labour  candidates have run out of

excuses. Their attempts to explain away the  anti-Semitism of the leader and his followers have been excruciating. Then we have the media: preening, self-absorbed, full of a spirit of 

entitlement and smug superiority. When errors are made, both the politicians and the media are too quick to accuse each other of deliberately seeking to mislead. So nobody is happy. Yet

drifting into the claim that election  campaigns were better in previous years is probably lazy and misguided. Interviewers undoubtedly do interrupt too much now. But in the past, the

deference  also went too far. When television broadcasting was getting underway  in the 1950s, the art of the political interview was in its infancy. “Minister, do you have anything to say?”

was the extent of the interrogation. When it comes to hearing the same campaign lines tediously recited, that has long  been the nature of election campaigns. The difference is that such

repetition is  now incessant, whether via TV news channels or by scrolling down Twitter and other social media. But those who are addicted to election coverage can scarcely complain. If we

struggle to break away from it, that is our problem. Nor am I convinced that politicians have become more dishonest. The  difference is that it is harder for them to get away with it. We can

  all fact-check away on the internet to our heart’s content. Is there more violence and intimidation than there used to be? Greater  personal abuse? Are more posters torn down? I suspect

not. It can all  be filmed on mobile phones and then exposed to a wider audience. That  means we hear about such instances more, but they probably happen  less often. There are

disadvantages, though. Conducting more of our politics online  has diminished the human element. The political parties have fewer  members and fewer volunteers willing to campaign. We are

less likely  to argue in pubs or in public meetings. Worst of all has been the “group think” in the media and the startling erosion of free speech in our universities. Attention spans seem

to have shortened and a decline in political oratory  has been much lamented. The two may be connected. The routine is for a party leader to travel great distances, speak for a few minutes

to provide  soundbites” for the media and then quickly move on. Gladstone used to speak  for five hours — and he was not the only statesman who gave proper speeches on the stump. It may be

that if and when Brexit is finally delivered, that will enhance the  political process. Not just because attention will move on to other  matters, but because politics will matter more as

our politicians will  really be able to decide the laws we live under. It could be just the  start: the “take back control” mantra should extend to all those  quangos and other powerful but

unelected bodies. So don’t complain too much. Our democracy is a great source of pride.  The boisterous impatience we show is messy, but it is all part of the  process. A lot of

technological changes have increased accountability  and diversified the exercise of power. As our self-government is restored, it will have greater resonance. It may well be that our

leaders are still felt to  lack certain credentials of statesmanship. The ultimate challenge,  indeed the patriotic duty of those who feel this, is to enter public  life themselves.