Tony Blair and Russell Brand are right: career politics must end

Both men recognise that politicians need to live, to experience the world, its hardships as well as its highs, before taking office.

At a Q&A at the Mile End Group earlier this week, Tony Blair was asked whether there was any hope that the Labour Party would one day be led by someone who was not a former special adviser.

He replied: "I think there is a general problem in politics, not just in our system but in Western democracy - I mean, it’s a far bigger topic this. But, I do think it's really important.

"You know, I advise any young person who wants to go into politics today: go and spend some time out of politics. Go and work for a community organization, a business, start your own business; do anything that isn't politics for at least several years. And then, when you come back into politics, you will find you are so much better able to see the world and how it functions properly."

Both Ed Miliband and David Cameron began their careers in Parliamentary circles soon after graduation: Miliband worked as a researcher at Channel 4 before joining Harriet Harman’s team, while Cameron started off at the Conservative Research Department until he went to advise John Major at 10 Downing Street.

On the face of it, Blair’s words appear to have nothing to do with Russell Brand’s guest editorship of the New Statesman, his appearance on Newsnight and the subsequent fallout. Yet Blair’s despair at the disconnection between politicians and the electorate - the former described by Brand as "frauds and liars" - gets to the heart of the latter's thinking, and offers a hint of a remedy that stops short of Brand’s revolutionary means.

Some argue that elevating Brand’s argument to that of serious political consideration is ludicrous given that, a, he is a comedian; and b, he does not vote. On the first point, Alex Massie, Nick Cohen and Tim Stanley fail to realise that comedians are some of the most observant and astute commentators on society the country has to offer. All three of the above used a typical "lamestream media" trick of belittling Brand, something infamously attempted by the Morning Joe crew: if you dress weird and talk in a Cockney accent, you ain’t got any right to talk about serious stuff. Massie described Brand as an "adolescent extremist", Cohen compared him to Miley Cryus, while Stanley decided he needed to talk a bit more "down-to-earth" to engage with the man from Grays, Essex: "Actually, Russell babes", began one of Stanley’s sentences. (NB: He would have got more Brand brownie points if he’d used a “z” at the end).

On the second point (that Brand does not vote and, therefore, should have no say), why should we ignore the growing proportion of the electorate that is disillusioned with politics? Thirty five per cent of Britons did not vote in 2010, so should we all ignore what they have to say, or rather try to engage with them and understand why Cameron, Brown and Clegg failed to entice them in 2010?

This brings me back to Blair and Brand’s similarities. Blair wants aspiring politicians to see the world first and then go into a career that can sort it out; Brand decries that "all of them lot" in power went to the same schools and followed the same path. It is this disconnect, between the career politician plus school pals and the vast majority of the electorate, that leads to the apathy that is at the heart of Brand’s essay. "Apathy is the biggest obstacle to change", is what he writes, as well as "Apathy is a rational system that no longer represents, hears or addresses the vast majority of people." And it is apathy which Massie and Stanley fail to address in their attacks on Brand. Both are content to attack him on his call for revolution. Rightly so. I don’t agree with Brand on the call to arms, but I agree with his eloquent description of the frustration of the electorate, which forms the heart of his astute observation of British politics.

Massie writes: "The more someone sneers about how stupid and venal and corrupt our MPs are the less likely it is that they know anything about an MP’s actual life and work". He says politicians work awfully hard, helping out their constituents at surgeries behind the scenes. No doubt that’s true. But that’s not what people are complaining about. How is it helpful for someone who has lost their disability benefits to go to their local MP, who is powerless in the face of the austerity juggernaut? Or for a pensioner to complain at surgery of rising energy bills in the face of corporate greed?

Massie thinks politicians are hard-working lovelies that want to see us all face to face and understand our problems. If that is so, argues Brand, why are the Tories taking the EU to court to stop it curtailing their banker pals’ bonuses? Cameron must have had a long queue of men from the City queuing up on the streets of Witney asking for some face to face time after the last election.

Brand is rightly criticised for his performance against Jeremy Paxman when he failed to describe how we solve this apathy. But he is a politically-aware comedian who has a talent at observation; he is not here to solve all our ills. Rather, the best part of the interview was when Brand leaned in and had Paxman silenced: "I remember I seen you in that programme, where you look at your ancestors, and you saw the way your grandmother were out to brass herself or got fucked over by the aristocrats who ran her gaff. You cried because you knew that it was unfair and unjust. And that was what? A century ago? That’s happening to people now."

Brand gets at what Blair is implying: politicians need to live, to experience the world, its hardships as well as its highs, rather than pal around with their mates in the corridors of Portcullis House waiting their turn at the table of the anointed. That’s why, as a believer in democracy, for all its failings, I’ve always admired the US system, which, despite its own problems, most plainly seen during the shutdown, has a capacity to better reflect its demographics.

I’ve argued before for primaries in this country, a sure way to allow career politicians to become a thing of the past and allow anyone to come to the fore and speak up for the people. Brand’s call for revolution and for the young to get out on the streets goes too far. If we simply allow a more inclusive grouping of people to be able to become our representatives, we can change the apathy than hangs over us. Brand says that "young people, poor people, not-rich people, most people do not give a fuck about politics." But I’m reminded of a friend of mine who actually did go out on the streets and did pound the pavements calling for change. The only thing is, she went over to Nevada to campaign for Obama. She had been a community organizer and had some life experience before she entered politics. My friend does not pound the streets for Cameron, Miliband or Clegg.

Massie and Stanley would not like this US primary-style inclusive system. Why? Because America’s system has allowed, shock horror, comedians to become lawmakers. Al Franken, the current junior senator from Minnesota, was formerly a writer and performer for the television show Saturday Night Live. Franken was a key voice during the healthcare debates and has sought more financial regulation. He has focused on core progressive principles, showing people that comedians can be substantial.

Can you imagine Brand, that "adolescent extremist", entering Parliament, or attempting to keep quiet during Prime Minister’s Questions, or debating Osborne across the dispatch box? Actually, I can, even if he can’t and won’t.

Tony Blair speaks at the opening ceremony to the fifth annual 'Climate Week NYC' on September 23, 2013 in New York City. Photograph: Getty Images.

Kiran Moodley is a freelance journalist at CNBC who has written for GQ, the Atlantic, PBS NewsHour and The Daily Beast.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Bomb Isil? That's exactly what they want

The government appears not to answer the nature of its enemy, warns Maria Norris.

As MPs are set to vote on further airstrikes in Syria, it is difficult to shake off the feeling that the government does not fully appreciate the complexity of the problem Isil poses. Just a cursory glance at its magazine, the pronouncements of its leaders and its ideology reveals that Isil is desperate for Western bombs to fall out of the sky. As Martin Chulov argues, Isil is fighting a war it believes was preordained since the early days of Islam. Isil’s obsession with the city of Dabiq, in Northern Syria, stems from a hadith which prophesises that the ‘Crusader’ army will land in the city as a precursor to a final battle where Islam will emerge victorious. Dabiq is also the name of its magazine, which starts every issue with the same quote: "The spark has been lit here in Iraq, and its heat will continue to intensify -- by Allah's permission -- until it burns the crusader armies in Dabiq". Isil wants a war with the West. If we don’t negotiate with terrorists, then we also should not give them what they want.

Further, bombs are indiscriminate and will inevitably lead to the suffering of those trapped in Isil territories. Isil is counting on this suffering to swell their ranks. Civilian suffering from airstrikes only underline the narrative that the West is at war with Islam, which plays directly into Isil’s hands. And despite misleading headlines and the genuine government concern with individuals fleeing to Syria, Isis is supremely unpopular. It is no wonder that its magazine is filled with glossy adds begging people to move to its territories.  You cannot be a state without people. Terrorist attacks such as Paris thus have a two-pronged purpose: they provoke the West to respond with its military, and they act as a recruitment drive. The fact that fake Syrian passports were found around the sites of the Paris attacks is no coincidence as Isil are both seeking to stem the flow of refugees from its territories and hoping to provoke an Islamophobic backlash. They hope that, as more Muslims feel alienated in the West, more will join them, not just as fighters, but as the doctors, nurses and teachers it desperately needs.

In addition to this, airstrikes overlook the fact that Isil is a result of what Fawaz Gerges calls a severe, organic institutional crisis in the Middle East. In a lecture at the London School of Economics earlier this year, Gerges pointed out the dysfunction created when a region that is incredibly resource rich also is also deeply undemocratic, riddled with corruption, food insecurity, unemployment and poverty. This forms an institutional vacuum that is filled by non-state actors as the population does not trust its political structures. Further, the civil war in Syria is also the site of the toxic soup of Middle Eastern state dysfunction. Iran supports Assad, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries, fund anti-Shia groups in Syria. Throw in the Kurdish conflict, Turkey’s ambiguous position and Russian bombs, it is difficult to see how airstrikes will solve anything.

Finally, it is crucial that Isil is seen as a direct result of the Iraq war. The American-led invasion destroyed the institutions, giving the Shia majority power almost overnight, creating deep dissatisfaction in the Sunni regions of Iraq. On top of this thousands of foreign fighters flooded Iraq to fight the invaders, attracting disenfranchised and angry Sunnis. The result is that since 2003, Iraq has been embroiled in a sectarian civil war.  It is in civil war, inherently connected to the Iraq War, that you find the roots of Isil. As even the Prime Minister concedes that ground troops are necessary, albeit it regional ground troops with its own set of problems, it is important to consider what further monster can arise from the ashes of another ill-thought out military intervention in the Middle East.
We have had decades of military intervention in the Middle East with disastrous consequences. Airstrikes represent business as usual, when what we actually need is a radically new approach. Who is funding Isil? Who is buying its oil? How to curb Isil’s recruitment drives? What can be done about the refugees? How to end the conflict in Syria? What happens to Assad? These are questions hopefully being addressed in talks recently held in Vienna with Russian, Ira, the USA, France, Syria’s neighbours and the Gulf states. Airstrikes do not answer any of these questions. What airstrikes do is give Isil exactly what it is asking for. Surely this is reason enough not to bomb Syria. 

Maria W. Norris is a PhD candidate and a teacher at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Her PhD is on the UK counter-terrorism strategy since 9/11 and its relationship with identity. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.