By Marcus Vickers

Brexit, immigration, the NHS, so many topics form part of the political debate, with so many different opinions. The Speaker of the House of Commons calling for “Order!” with jeers and waving of paper from politicians of all sides during these debates can lead us to think that our representatives are childish and out of touch. But at what point does a difference of opinion get out of hand or go too far? At what point does amicable debate cross over to abuse? What is the impact of thinking about politicians in this way?

Social media has been a great tool for politicians to connect and keep in touch with constituents, but disagreement can become disrespect and abuse. Over 3,000 offensive tweets are sent to UK Members of Parliament every day (BBC News, 2022) with Boris Johnson receiving the largest number at over 19,000. Jess Phillips MP reported over 600 death and rape threats in one day. At what point do we think it’s acceptable to talk about another human being like that, be it in writing or verbally, regardless of their politics? I can only think of politicians and referees where it’s almost part of the job, to be called an array of names or of accusations.

At what point does the media help or hinder such behaviour? We see aims at genuine political debate such as BBC1’s Question Time, but these are always subject to claims of “BBC bias” or “they had more air time”. We can also see now a leaning towards USA style news anchor television like Hannity and O’Reilly of Fox News, with the growth of GB News, Talk TV, and many other political channels on Youtube such as Politics Joe and several online podcasts. All of them can quite rightly claim to be providing the public with information, but all are often accused of bias or “not giving the full picture”.

Is there a solution? What about the online safety bill? (Parliament Online Safety Bill, 2023). The Bill hopes to remove illegal and harmful content, protect children, and make organisations such as Facebook or Twitter responsible for removing harmful content such as revenge porn or face fines and criminal prosecution. A sticking point was the requirement to remove “Legal but harmful” information (information already banned under the providers’ terms) to try and stamp out online “trolls” and to screen content users do not wish to see. There have been objections from companies such as WhatsApp, with alterations following accusations the Bill is an attack on free speech.

With toxic culture, does fault lie at the top and solely with politicians? We see politicians subject to recall petitions, breaches of MPs’ code of conduct with suspension from the house, and MP’s losing the whip for crossing the line through their social media use. Do those who are perhaps under the most obligation to abide by the standards of public life (Nolan principles) (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 1995) and fail to do so, set the agenda for the rest of us to follow suit?

Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty & Leadership. These are the values we expect (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 1995) but at what point have we all, as normal human beings, sometimes become “a little bit selfish”, told the odd ‘little white lie’, favoured one thing over another? Is it our politicians aren’t perfect so neither are we, or are we not perfect, so neither are our politicians?

Perhaps we all feel so strongly about a subject that there is no room for amicable debate or objectivity, but surely the idea of debate is to meet in the middle, to strike a balance somewhere or even to just say “lets trial it and see”. Debates now appear to be who can get the best soundbite over the other, and less about the content.

A phrase comes to mind, that “opinions are like (I’ll let you insert your own noun or explicit) – everybody’s got one!” so how do you balance all these opinions? If you deep dive a group’s opinion, they will be more than likely differences amongst its members. Let’s take Brexit: most people were a “leaver” or a “remainer”. What’s the further detail on either side? Did leavers want to leave the EU fully, or still form part of the European Free Trade agreement? Did remainers want to remain in all parts of the EU, or just functions like the Custom Union? We can go on and on, and we can do this not just at national level, but local government level as well.

The toxicity of social media perhaps doesn’t just stop at political debate and discussions, but goes further. How many videos appear online of neighbours or strangers holding up their phones saying “I’m filming you” and “this is going on Facebook” arguing over anything and everything? Perhaps this is where we see the divides in the House of Commons and childish behaviour replicated in society, or is society reflected in the House of Commons?

Politicians are elected to represent us, and as human beings do we not all have faults? As individuals we all have traits that do not make us perfect. Can the same be expected for politicians both nationally and locally or are they non-excusable? The toxic venom that is allowed to be vented without being held to account is sadly at times evidenced in extreme outcome, when we see the murders of sitting MPs such as Jo Cox and David Amess. The risk also is that the continuous toxicity and bombardment will affect people’s mental wellbeing. What chance one day we read of an MP’s suicide?

Perhaps it all comes back to the simple phrase “treat others how you’d expect to be treated yourself”. Sadly I don’t think any legislation would be successful in managing individual opinion, emotions, persona or character. However we should always remember in any walk of life that the people we are dealing with are human after all, subject to the same faults as us, and with their own lives to live.

We all have a right to free speech, and an obligation to speak the truth.

We all have the right to our own opinion, and an obligation to respect others.

In a world where we can be anything, let us be kind.

About the author:

Marcus Vickers is currently studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics at The Open University. He has previously worked in the NHS and currently works in local government.