There must be some kind of way out of here

Listening to the debate about Europe has been a pretty depressing activity, in spite of the fact that I am a huge fan of Europe, especially if that means closer integration.

The trouble is that the debate itself, and the way it is being conducted, is so alienating.

It does raise some questions, though.

Isn't it about time that we looked carefully at our adversarial approach to politics ?  The house of commons is still working as if there were two parties and two parties only: government and opposition. Result ? Discussion which is not conducive to any useful synthesis of opposing arguments. Adversarialism quickly leads to an unedifying slanging match, and from there to personal attacks.

Do political discussions have to be run along the lines of formal debates ? If formal debates were ever useful, surely they too were carefully structured to reflect a discussion between two sides. We have a far more nuanced collection of party-based political views than ever before. And debates encourage scoring points off each other, which in turn leads to the kind of personal attacks which make politics so ugly. PMQs is a great example of how to turn politics into a burlesque, and how one side can undermine the the other, no matter how genuine and sensible the point raised for discussion.

Could politicians find ways to make themselves appear trustworthy ?  It would be helpful to think that when a politician made a contribution to a discussion, it was because they had some belief in that point of view. Cabinet responsibility and whipping lead to a perception first of insincerity, and then to a lack of integrity.

Whatever the reasons, there is growing public distrust in politicians, and not just in the UK. It is a hole below the waterline which leads to alienation and disaffection which weakens democracy as people do not turn up to vote.

What could the political elites do to project a more attractive image and regain a little trust ? That they need to is not in question. It's how they might do it which is interesting.

If you feel that the politicos are doing just fine, and are perfectly trustworthy, try this little test.

If there was some dreadful disaster which seemed overwhelmingly threatening to you and the people you loved, and all choices seemed dire who would you trust, as an outsider unknown to you personally, to give you good advice and a truthful assessment of the facts ?

If you would put your trust in a politician above everyone else, how many can you name in whom you would have implicit confidence.

I bet your list is a very short one.

That seems pretty sad to me.