As a prelude to a bit of election-related fun research, I’m compiling a list of the different attributes that we expect to see combined under the bonnet of the perfect MP.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I don’t expect any candidate to fit firmly into any of these categories – I’m going to be looking to see what different attributes we are expecting from them.

Once I’ve finalised the list, I’m going to do a ‘constant value’ survey on this blog – giving you all a fixed number of ‘tokens’ to spread around the different character-types. It would be interesting to see what voters want from their politicians – and I may repeat the exercise with local councillors at a later date.

Please note: This list / descriptions are rich in prejudice (mine). If you can come up with a better list, counter-proposals, better descriptions, etc, let me know in the comments?

Now, are there any that I’ve missed so far?

• The judge – a learned and experienced civic leader, hearing different arguments from constituents, weighing them and reaching a decision that everyone has to accept most of the time. Wouldn’t expect to take sides and would expect to refer constituents to the Citizens Advice Bureau: “It’s my job to make the laws – show me if they’re not fair and I’ll try to change them – but I’m not your social worker”
• The juror – an everyperson who has to be studiously fair-minded. A juror has  to be free of any personal interest in a case and should step aside if this is not the case. They expect evidence to be presented to them, then they then reach a decision based upon their own informal framework of fairness rather than a rigid and mechanistic application of the law. We don’t have high expectations of them as individuals, but in groups, we are reasonably confident of their ability to be wise and fair
• The people’s politician – sticking up for the silent majority – knows what people really think and will always stand up to the self-serving elites. Less interested in what metropolitan elites think and more in tune with the natural wisdom of the people who write to them. A good ear for popular discontent.
• The monk / nun – someone who is a (perhaps) improbable example of virtue to all of us. Hair-shirt types with a fairly inflexible and easy-to-understand morality. You can depend on them though….
• The entrepreneur - lively, adventurous, risk-taker. Careful – but not that careful. Good with figures and tight on spending. Creative and lateral-thinking, win-more-than-they-lose, expect hefty remuneration and like to be in charge.
• The entertainer – clever, witty, not over-ideological but a good conversationalist – likely to be generally even-handed and able to bring the best out in people. Trusted, mostly….
• Beacon of virtue – a successful high-profile individual who stands up against corruption rather than getting involved in ideological debates. Using their wealth and success in the public interest
• The includer – someone who goes out of their way to make sure that everyone has the chance to have their say – outgoing, open-minded and non-doctrinaire and terribly earnest
• The social worker – takes up cases of the less fortunate people who visit their surgeries. Lots of time spent on casework and letter-writing. Spends more time solving constituents problems than attending to high-flown matters of state up at Westminster.
• ‘Our scoundrel’ – on the logic that ‘if they don’t know how to look after themselves, they won’t be able to look out for us either’. This MP pulls the odd flanker to get a bigger budget for a local project and probably awards a few of the contracts to a few associates. But so what ? We got an a better MRI Scanner for our hospital than the jobsworth who represents the constituency up the road, didn’t we?
• Tub-thumper – not necessarily conventional views, but always worth listening to. Strong views – often controversial and provocative. Good at getting people talking and starting a debate. Fairly fixed in their views and hard to budge when they think they’re right
• Youth Club Manager – works long hours, keeps any eye out for the more vulnerable kids on the estate. Firm, fair and pragmatic. Probably  not a genius but not overly dogmatic either. This MP cares about others so that we don’t have to.
• Senior-serious-smart – a combination of the old-fashioned head teacher / bank manager /mandarin. A good chess /poker player. Knows how things are done and how to organise a department. Makes their own decisions because they know things that you don’t. Know that you don’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.
• The party activist knows that there is no ‘i’ in team and understands the need for consistency. Accepts collective decisions and sticks to them. Used to think that politics is about a clash of big ideas (and still does sometimes) but also knows it’s about striking a balance between principle and electability – after all, if you lose elections, all of your moral posturing is for the birds.
• The gamer – a problem solver. Very creative and lateral thinking. Doesn’t need paying much but a bit of social status would be nice. Takes lots of risks, fails a lot with serious consequences for all. But a good gamer can make a massive impact on a problem in the end by looking at things the way that others wouldn’t
• Think tank director – funny-shaped head and really irritating little square glasses. High level thinker, politically astute and business-savvy. Knows what works and is able to sell ideas. Knows how to create strategic paths to bring make gamechanging policies work.
• Community activist- someone who knows how to get things done at a street level. A bit nimby-ish but very keen on the local environment. Nose-in-everything, won’t-take-no-for-an-answer, personal-hygiene-not-a-priority, writing-a-bloody-letter-to-The Guardian, member of Greenpeace, heart-in-the-right-place-though and we’re glad there are a few like them around…
• Community warden – someone who goes around making sure that bureaucrats do their job. Finding examples of things that should be done but aren’t. This MP makes sure everyone knows their entitlements and responsibilities and a gallery of these can be seen on Glum Councillors.

If you click around the categories and tags (below) you’ll find more articles on this general subject ….. (it’s not a new one here)

Kerry McCarthy MP tweeted last night that she will be going in to bat for tweeting MPs on Radio 5Live later today. Her adversary on the show will be John Pugh MP – and Torcuil Crichton explains the background:

Dr John Pugh, the analogue Lib Dem MP for Southport, has a motion down condemning the growing tendency of hon. members to text, e mail and twitter their way through parliamentary debates. According to his motion “greater interest is shown in e-mails and messages than in the contribution of parliamentary colleagues”, although he admits the practice is “at times quite understandable”.

I suspect that this is more of a topical debate than something Dr Pugh would die-in-the-ditch about, but it’s worth breaking down anyway. Does he have any valid arguments here?

Firstly, if MPs are sitting there gardening their inbox, then there is no question that he’d have a point. And if a bunch of MPs simply thumbing lengthy responses to emails into their Blackberrys during PMQs, it would soon take the life out of the whole spectacle. It would lead to the suspicion that they were in the chamber simply to be seen to be there.

Certainly, the body language around the chamber during PMQs doesn’t suggest this.

The other question is whether MPs are paying more attention to what their peers on Twitter are saying than what is said in the chamber. Leaving aside the fairly boring point that Dr Pugh is asking (we would surely expect MPs to be able to multi-task), the question of whether it is proper to tweet from the chamber rehashes some old questions raised elsewhere on this blog. For example…

• Would we allow a juror to tweet during a trial? And isn’t an MP supposed to be a bit open-minded in the way a juror is?
• Surely parliamentary debate is a closed system that relies upon a voter-mandate? You need to get elected to take part – not just qualify by thumbing 140 characters into a text message?
• Is tweeting really a recreational activity? And surely MPs should be sitting on very uncomfortable chairs plainly not enjoying themselves whenever we are looking at them
• Does it slightly damage the image of parliament by showing MPs engaged in a slightly trivial pastime?

… and there are plenty more similar questions whose answers would reveal what kind or representation we really want.

Then there is the question of how this improves the quality of thinking. On the one hand, Twittering – like getting involved in comments boxes on blogs – leads one into multilateral conversations of the kind illustrated on this old post of David’s – better than the very orderly (!) unilateral conversations that dominate parliamentary debate. Anyone who has used Twitter at a conference to conduct wider conversations will know the value that this can add. This must be a good thing, no?

On the other hand, there is the question of quality. Dr Pugh would have an open and shut case in arguing that conversations on Twitter involve snatches of commentary that are taken out of context. It would be impossible to offer much by way of context in 140 characters.

Critics of twitter characterise it (usually from a distance) as a confederacy of airheads. It would be hard to treat Twitter as a sober academic conversation. It is, however, a bubble of noise that one can tune into. It’s a way of keeping lots of people in your peripheral vision, and of being able to get an instant catalytic reaction out at the right moment.

I’d be interested to see if there are any examples of an MP either reacting to something in Parliament on twitter in a way that game-changed the debate (in the way that a good parliamentary heckle can). Or, failing that, has an MP picked something up from twitter that they then used as an effective heckle?

Another question: Has anyone had a Parliamentary question suggested to them on Twitter and then used during a debate? If an MP could illustrate that their performance as a questioner improved because of Twitter, then it would be a slam-dunk of an argument for Kerry.

Then there is the question of demagoguery. The pro-Twittering MPs argument is that it’s a good thing that people who make decisions are reacting to debate in a very candid way. This bespeaks a certain honesty and a willingness to justify oneself. But does it also leave the way open for demagogues to provide a populist running commentary on Parliamentary proceedings?

The allied question is the one about the use of reason. MPs are supposed to be open to debate. Does Twitter have the potential to reinforce popular mandates – particularly on totemic issues?

Leaving aside the rabble-rousing potential, this candid exchange is surely a good thing though? There have long been suspicions that elected representatives have been ‘captured’ by pressure groups. Moreso in the US, but it is still an issue here. MPs have sometimes had their offices staffed by willing ‘interns’ supplied by lobby groups, and this has stretched as far as having MPs using pressure groups to co-ordinate the conduct of a debate.

Twitter is much more candid than this, and any MP who is plainly dancing to a pre-determined tune would be less able to get away with it if s/he were twittering at the same time. Twittering is antithetical to opaque arrangements where the decision arising out of a debate has been pre-mandated either by a pressure group or party whips. It also allows MPs to illustrate the fact that most of these big arguments aren’t the binary questions that are presented by party spin-doctors. There’s often a much more granular discussion going on in the corridors and Twitter surely has the potential to reflect this? Especially at a time when the mainstream media are determined to conceal it as part of the process that Pierre Bourdieu described as ‘demagogic simplification‘?

But on the wider question, I’m finding it hard to be even-handed here. Surely Twitterers are being more interactive and conversational? How can this be anything but a good thing? And surely they are likely to be a bit more human and less narrowly dogmatic? They are plainly answering to a wider constituency by using social media tools. And surely they likely to be a bit more ironic in their detachment on big issues? Are they likely to be less prone to ‘the lust for certainty‘? Elsewhere on this blog, I’ve argued that these human traits in themselves provide important arguments in favour of representative democracy?

By Twittering, they are less unreachable and rare in their appearance. They may be more approachable as a result and enjoy a less adversarial relationship with local pressure groups?

And lastly, by using Twitter, MPs are staying in conversation with the people who elected them. They are showing their personal complexity to their constituents. If you would like the personal vote to become more important than party-voting (I do) then this will surely help in that direction.

On balance, I’m with Kerry on this one.

Update: Here’s Ton Watson on Twitter: @maggiephilbin As a minister, not a day went by where I didn’t glean insight from my Twitter community. As a backbencher it’s more fun too.

Supports Kerry’s point, doesn’t it?

Ming: The unacceptable face of British politics? (pic: Click for Flickr attribution).

The Guardian’s Catherine Bennett is right to be worried about the impact that a climate of hypercommentary on personal tics will have on politics:

“With the internet demanding ever-improving performance skills from its principal actors, Westminster can only become less hospitable to people who look more like Menzies Campbell than Ant and Dec. Unless, that is, they can produce an official ugliness pardon from Simon Cowell and his authentic, travelling freakshow.”

But, if this is the case, what kind of elected representitives are we going to be prepared to tolerate in the future?

Over on the Personal Democracy Forum (which proudly declares that ‘technology is changing politics’), we see Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill explaining how Twitter helps her to keep it real:

“That’s really why I do it. I think it keeps me in the discipline of not being afraid to say things that may not be perfect, that may actually offend, that may actually truly reflect what I’m thinking and why.”

Senator McCaskill’s example strikes me as being very close to being a priestly ambition – someone who is constantly begging the civil variation on the question ‘What would Jesus do?’

On another tack, here’s something Neighbourhood blogger Kevin Harris has sent me about how a magistrate has lost his job because he has embraced the level of openness that Senator McCaskill appears to be urging upon us all.

It seems to me that we – the public – have become increasingly unclear about what kind of people that we want to represent us.

Do we want someone with the kind of contrived celebrity grooming that Catherine Bennett saw in Tony Blair? Are we prepared to make occassional exceptions for people who don’t present the full manicured package but who do offer an outstanding talent?

Perhaps the political equivalent this year is Vince Cable? After all, he combines a great facility with lots of clever (but slightly boring) stuff, but he’s no oil painting. Michael Foot was another case in point: Few parliamentarians were as admired – even by their opponents – as Foot was, but his personal appearance and manner really capped a disastrous political performance for Labour in 1983.

Perhaps we want someone who has the qualities we would look for in a good magistrate? Or perhaps a juror? Or do we want someone whose concience is constantly on parade?

We clearly want politicians to be more accountable to us for their actions, their thoughts, their decision-making processes, their daily interactions, their income and expenditure, and even their body language and personal grooming. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that Gordon Brown’s unpopularity is, at least in part, down to a failure to compete in a beauty contest.

I’d like to look at each of these components over the next few weeks and break each one of them down to see what the implications are for politics, democracy and the quality of governance that we can expect in a more interactive age.

Here’s a really good post by Peter Levine. Commenting on the idea that public officials should be prosecuted if they can be shown to have lied:

“In favor of this reform: Lying is wrong. It can cause serious harm to other people. Lying by public officials can undermine the public’s sovereignty by giving citizens false information to use in making judgments. Although it can be challenging to prove intent, that is certainly possible in some circumstances, as we know from perjury trials.

Against: There could be a chilling effect on free speech, because people who participate in heated debates do occasionally stray from the truth. It would be bad to suppress such debates altogether. Also, criminalizing lying would shift power from the legislative and executive branches to the judiciary, which might therefore become even more “political.” The reform might reduce the public’s sense that we are responsible for scrutinizing our government’s statements and actions and punishing bad behavior at the ballot box.”

Do read the whole thing if you have a few minutes.