Richard Symons (London, Ministry of Truth): The press and public response to both the Elected Representatives (Prevention of Deception) Bill and our film, "the Ministry of Truth" has been extraordinary. Somewhere along the line we must have struck a chord - the Downing Street e-petition steadily grows as I type and e-mails / comments are flooding in. A minority of these are vitriolic in the extreme. Always a good sign.
Most of the vitriol has been aimed at the off-hand, sensationalist, comic tone of the film (some on this site) or simple naivety of the concept behind the Bill. The best was from political bloggers Westmonster and Unity, who dismiss us as a bunch of six formers led by a student from LSE with a camera. We wish.
Time to set the record straight because in some ways these criticisms cut to the heart of the matter. The initial idea was a fairly blunt instrument - could we get MPs touting honesty, transparency and accountability to sponsor a Bill that would make it an offence for them to lie? Cheap shot at an easy target? Perhaps. But worth looking into. As we dug into the research it quickly became apparent this was a deadly serious issue, incredibly complex, dry and almost certainly impossible to deal with inside the constraints of an hour long TV programme. Much better suited to a book. Any attempt to approach this in a traditionally structured manner would lead to the dullest hour of presenter-led television. Worthy, but a turn-off for all but the most dedicated armchair enthusiasts.
In fact, one of our first interviewees, Peter Bottomley, was quick to point out that even as an MP, one of the problems with today's media is you really have to fight for space as hard as journalists and programme-makers do - constitutional issues simply don't compete.
Unity's blog (the Ministry of Truth) is terrific, I'm a big fan. But his criticism missed the point. Seriously erudite politicos can lament the "Guido-isation" of politics and debate the disengaged, disenfranchised, disenchanted (basically dissed) electorate till the cows come home - but unless they find an effective way of communicating with the general public, it amounts to a lot of ivory-towered discourse. Ironically, sharing the same symptoms some MPs displayed during our interviews, "This is complex, important, serious stuff young man. Trust me, best leave it to us".
These attitudes shaped some of our thinking on how to deal with a very important but very, very dry and intangible subject matter for prime-time TV viewing. We were prepared to alienate those who wanted a serious, intellectual, in-depth analysis. They already knew the issues, understood the nuances and complexities. That level of detail was never going to engage the electorate, besides, we didn't have time for it when there were fundamental issues of accountability to be dealt with. I've been hen-pecked by armchair academics in the last couple of weeks "the people aren't sovereign - that's the basic flaw of your argument". Pointless semantics - ask any MP. We did. Parliament wrested sovereignty from the Crown in the name of the people centuries ago. Since then, democracy has evolved - enfranchising those who weren't land-owners, those who couldn't read or write, women. And now I'm getting into exactly the kind of debate that would fill an LSE lecture hall and keep the public watching Rebecca Loos make a pig ejaculate.
The path we chose was the academic's polar opposite without the farmyard. A couch potato of a man starts off with the simple question, "How do I prosecute an MP for lying ?" He discovers he can't, decides to do something about it and pursues the matter all the way from the Citizens Advice Bureau through to the palace of Westminster. Like or loathe that stylistic choice, it was made in good faith. The result engaged the public in difficult political subject matter, got an MP (Adam Price) to pick up on a serious issue and put it to Parliament. 2nd reading is today. To get this far is extraordinary: a real testament to much of the system we have in place. There's no time for the Bill to be debated in this Parliamentary session, but the response was so positive from the public that Adam intends to re-introduce it as a ten minute rule Bill in the next session. Am I surprised the politicos chose not to focus on that whilst omitting to debate the real issue we were addressing - a lack of independent legal redress? I guess I shouldn't have been - it's what a lot of the MPs did. They forget they're a minority, the people ARE sovereign - they may not be interested in the minutiae, but engaging them is a good thing.
