91热爆

Isn't it part of the British make-up that we love to hate those with either wealth, success, or ultimately, power?

I can't think of any fictional political hero or heroine recently except for Harriet Jones who became PM and conquered the Slithenes in the last series of Doctor Who.

And she ended up corrupted by power, killing a surrendering alien army.

...and even Harriet Jones was guilty of shooting down a ship sailing (all right, a star fleet flying) away from us.

Only saw the first episode but watched it with a mixture of nausea and mild anxiety but then again who would possibly believe that the electorate could be taken in with some well meaning honest individual with no real qualifications or policies but rather a collection of loosely articulated aims and ideals.
I thought the programme was a load of old cobblers - what were you thinking of?

...except that, of course, Harriet Jones ended up portrayed as a baddie for her use of the superweapon on the aliens (that the Doctor has persuaded to leave quietly).

And, no matter what your view on (real) politicians in general, it is probably the case that good politicians do not make for particularly exciting fictional characters.

Nick says the one of the few political heroes/heroines was Harriet Jones "who became PM and conquered the Slithenes in the last series of Doctor Who".

Nick obviously didn't see a following episode when she launches a cynical and "illegal" General Belgrano-style attack on aliens and is condemned and eveventually forced from office by the good Doctor.

She was a knave after all, as are all politicians. The thing that surprises me is that we expect them to be "good people".

My favourite fictional politician is President Jed Bartlett in "The West Wing" because he is not shown as being right all the time nor a hero, but an honest intelligent guy trying to do his best. My suspicion of English politicians began at primary-school age with the pompous Mayor of Trumpton. Ian Richardson's arch performance of Francis Urquart was brilliant, and I also cringe at Tim McInnery's head of MI6 in "Spooks" (but he's a Civil Servant rather than a politician)and his Thatcherite Tory MP in "The Line of Beauty". I suppose it's the innate conflict between doing what you think is right and doing what your are told or what you think will advance your career that most politicians struggle with, more or less successfully, that makes us dislike them and suspect their motives...

Harriet Jones however is shown to be flawed in the Christmas special broadcast last year where the Doctor criticises her and actually starts her downfall.

Still looking for a political hero.

What about Rik Mayall's wonderfully manic creation, Alan B'Stard from The New Statesman? If he was one thing, he certainly wasn't a fool.

Perhaps Nick Robinson may like to be reminded of the excellent series A Very British Coup which showed us a mixed bunch, but in their midst a nouveau who was determined, honest and very unconventional. It at least gave us a good man at the heart of politics, no matter what the colour of those politics might be.

Nick

Surely you are missing the point - the whole thing is about a revolution - not with guns but with pencils in the ballot booth. Whilst it maybe fancyful - the question is in general do the great British public not actually trust politician and isn't it time they all cleaned up thier acts!
Blair and now Cameron both are going down the same road - prostitute our principals and policies in the aim just to get re-elected and then con the public by doing opposite to what they promise! Blaair - no tax increase in 97.

Mrs P maybe fiction - but is a new type of politics what we need!

I have long felt that politics in country is far too focussed on critising the opposition, and not focussed enough on the good of the country. It would be nice to see our leaders to stand up there and say 'I'm going to do XXX because it is the right thing to do. A lot of people might not like it, sorry'.....At the moment both parties seem to be constantly fighting the next election campaign. Maybe this program is merely trying to reflect the thoughts of the general public....

Hugh Grant in Love Actually? Not exactly heroic, but at least cast in a favourable light. Jim Hacker did sometimes win over Sir Humphrey, but not very often, and certainly never heroically, despite his frequent Churchillian pretensions.

But you're right, it's hard to imagine a British version of, say, Air Force One. As a country we seem to prefer the 'ordinary bloke' style over the gung-ho, pseudo-military patriotism that prevails in American politics. Perhaps that's not such a bad thing...

Err...even Harriet Jones turned bad - she fired on a spaceship that was moving away from Earth (you can draw your own analogies there!), so the Doctor brought down her premiership with the seemingly innocuous phrase 'Doesn't she look tired?'.

So... no political heroes at all then?

We generalise, of course, but portraying politicians as fools rather than heroes is surely because most (national) politicians are either journalists or lawyers. No technical expertise then when it comes to tackling massive IT projects or understanding the (pseudo-)science of biometric ID cards. Seems a tad foolish to me.

And, if Jeremy Paxman's comments in 'Political Animal' are true, nearly all politicians compromise, and often severely compromise their beliefs. How could this make good TV? A journalist spouting views in front of a camera with which he or she doesn't agree? Dissembling like mad in front of a national audience? Only a fool could think they'd get away with it...

You're naive.

Sorry Nick, but I think many poeople in this country think politics IS a giant con on the voters. No-one tells you the truth (go on - name three) they are up to their eyballs is sleaze, and all politicians do is follow the party line, rather than what the people want. They are all career politicians from school to government without a real job in between. I wish a real Mrs Pritchard would come along and shake them all up a bit.

I'm glad you raised this. Out of our 646 (?) MPs, I'd probably stab a guess that at least 620 of them work extremely hard.

Your earn far less than people think, have far less holiday than people think, far more responsibility than people think and care far more than people think.

You work 4 days a week away from your family at home, working around the clock. You work equally as hard home in your constituency, and when you do get 5 minutes to put your feet up with the paper, you can't avoid reading about how everyone hates you. Who'd be a politician?!

So a housewife who beomes a politician is not a 'real' politician? I think Lady Thatcher would beg to differ.

Perhaps you meant a political novice as opposed to a career politician.

I think there are a number of women on both benches of the House who are both housewives and 'real' politicians.

I think I know what you meant but your choice of words was...unfortunate.

Personally, I find The Amazing Mrs. Pritchard to be an amusing piece of pie-in-the-sky wish fulfillment and have to say that last night's episode brilliantly illustrated a salient point in the argument for more women in politics.

One of the arguments against positive measures is what does it matter if most MPs are men? Don't they still represent the interests of their women constituents? This view fails to recognise the importance of actual participation by women and how positive it is for women to be visible in political roles, how this inspires and encourages other women to become involved, whether in voting or party membership or actually running for public office. Last night's episode brilliantly highlighted this issue in that it was amazing to see a House of Commons (albeit fictional) where the majority of Members on at least one side of the House were women. I wonder if men who feel there is no value in more women entering parliament can look at that scene and not begin to understand how it can feel for a woman to look at the House and see nearly all men. How would men feel if the vast majority of Members were women? Yes, they would represent the interests of their male constituents but it would also be preferable to have some men in the House........

Participation is the key.

You're evidently not keeping up with Doctor Who, Harriet Jones had her downfall in later episodes. Well she was looking rather tired.

I will call you naive and ask that you expand on your view that politics is not a giant con on the voters. Politicians make mistakes then they cover them up, lie about them and/or try to make out they don't matter (just like everyone else in ewvery walk of life). If you understand this, as the 91热爆's chief political correspondent, then you have no business being in that position.

Also Harriet Jones was only portrayed heroically in her first appearance. In her second appearance (the Christmas Invasion) she was portrayed as a bloodthirsty warmonger who cold bloodedly wiped out an alien force after the Dr had defeated it, it surrendered and was leaving.

Harry Perkins was a heroic Labour PM in Chris Mullin's A Very British Coup, dramatized very successfully on Channel 4 in the late 1980s. Perhaps it was Tony Blair's spin-centred 'renewal' of the Labour Party which did for the heroic portrayal of British politicians?

geena davis as president of USA in commander in chief. just started showing on more4. she' portrayed as honest, down-home and good hearted but able to make tough decisions..

It's the idea that "they said it so I will say the opposite" that is one of the problems.

How can one party be right on everything and the other be right on nothing?

How about Ray McNally in Chris Mullin's A Very British Coup

Hugh Grant in 'Love Actually' - what a guy.

I realise that this is usually intended as a serious political blog, but my inner nerd wants to point out that PM Harriet Jones authorised Torchwood to massacre the peacefully departing Sycorax during last year's 'Doctor Who' Christmas special, thereby incurring the Time Lord's emnity (and causing her implied downfall).

See? Even the politicians of British science fiction end up as bad'uns.

'It must be true because I saw myself reporting it'. In fairness, Nick, you don't report facts, which may be described as true or false. You report opinions. You are a commentator who claims legitimacy by showing up on the scene. You talk about 'the mood', the opinions of 'ordinary voters' and other untested and uncited notions. Get off your high horse. When has the 91热爆 News ever cared about 'truth'?

In taking a view on politicians, the Americans are overly defferential whereas we are ovlerly cynical. To the Americans, naked ambition is a virtue whereas in the UK it is regarded as a little unsavoury and somehow invites suspicion. Ambition and politics are closely bound, which is perhaps what leads to the UK view of politicians. The oft expressed opinion that the last people we want as politicians are those who want to be politicians is the paradox we are faced with. The problem is self-genrating so long as we make life so hard for politicians that those well-suited to the job are scared off.

Your article only has meaning within the context of the 'era of celebrity'. If you strip away the plastic... then even in the US the politicians would seem less likely to be the hero. Politics and celebrities should not mix. One has only to believe in a celebrity during their 5 minutes of fame, politicians need to be believed for longer than this.

Respect and trust on the scale you're talking about has to be earned.

Not only are the British generally more hard to impress than the Americans, but we generally take less than kindly to being lied to.

As for the 'the job is difficult' section, perhaps they might start telling us the complexities they're arguing out instead of the usual propaganda. See your own blog "Cut the ..."

Nick,
I agree with you on the point about politics not being a con - but the bigger point that Mrs Pritchard does make is about the lack of connection with politics and the people,and not just the low voter turnouts. The idea of moving the Government to Bradford was inspired - have you packed your bag yet!!

For god's sake stop advertising 'The Amazing Mrs Pritchard'. So far the actress who play's her has been on This Week and Sunday AM also Newsnight used clips from the show, is this really acceptable? Should the 91热爆 Political Editor be used as a mouthpiece for a awful show such as this? I car'nt imagine someone like John Cole penning an article outside his brief. Stick to the politics Nick.

Hey Nick,
I'm really not shocked or surprised at your appearence in the series. And don't worry, I didn't belive what you said in the programme either. I'm sure your quite used to being payed to spout fiction...

Paul

Through personal experience I can say that do not believe in the "giant con" theory of politics. Actually I believe that for the greater part politicians have the best of motives.

However...

I imagine you will not agree with this but...

When I listen to (say) the Today Programme or watch Newsnight, there is the feeling of an innate, even unconscious assumption that the "How is this lying ... lying to me now?" is the basis for every interview.

(To be fair I don't get that feeling from your commentary / interviews)

The effect of this is that even when more often than not no intrigue is identified, the interview is over and the listener is left with a more than nagging doubt that somehow he/she is having the wool pulled over their eyes.

I Know and understand the arguments about limitations on time, and maintaining the interest of the audience, but I am increasingly intolerant of those arguments.

If the net result of the modern political process is that the Media will only grant sound bite sized slots to the politicians, do not be surprised when what the politicians say is framed in sound bites.

There are exceptions from time to time (Jeremy Paxmans approach to the Muslim veil debate a few days ago sticks out as a example of a presenter enabling debate rather than the usual interrogating a prisoner approach) but seem to be exceptions and not the rule.

I am not asking for a return to "Now Mr. Prime minister, what would you like to talk about today" culture. But I am arguing that the current way of doing things (how long is your average piece to camera on the 10 o鈥檆lock news?) rarely allows a senior politician time to actually develop a detailed argument to a mass public audience, and that is is damaging to the body politic, because the audience fills in the gaps this leaves with the cynicism.

(Why cynicism? 鈥� because when one is starved of information as to identify a motive, the natural reaction is to be suspicious, and when inevitably from time to time one is proved right, then suspicion becomes cynicism)

BTW I am not blaming the media wholesale, but I am saying that the media does have a role in providing leadership away from cynicism, and that means demanding of the politicians and even more so the audience that they take time to describe and consider in detail what is currently communicated in sound bites.

Those of us who saw what happened to the Amazing Rosie Barnes - before, during , and after - know how the System treats us herd...

Its not about being difficult - its the way politicians seem to have a limited understanding of the word 'truth' and a deep committement to 'expediency'

"who would possibly believe that the electorate could be taken in with some well meaning honest individual with no real qualifications or policies but rather a collection of loosely articulated aims and ideals."

Hmmm..a man with no tie and nice green sribble for a logo perhaps?

Nick, i think you are naive. I have little, if any, respect for our politicians. I hear the same from everybody i meet! sad but true.

As a Bradford resident I was not delighted by the suggested move of Parliament to Bradford. It would become far too congested and expensive, spoiling the City. On the other hand I could then afford to move to London which would be much improved. Perhaps its not a bad idea after all?

Is it only in America that politicians are hailed as heroes? No, it happens in places like North Korea and Iran as well. And look what happens when you get a US President, who really does believe he鈥檚 a hero! I think that in this country we do have a very strong sense that our politicians are essentially normal people, with normal human flaws (not that we like it when they display them). But I鈥檇 take that rather that than a full blown American hero any day.

I don't know about Mrs P as fiction but I think our view of modern politicians starts with the fiction that Britain has a representative democracy. Well if we have it's the only one on the planet whre a minority of 36% is handed untrammelled power over the 64% who didn't vote for them. ( And I don't care which party we are talking about). What would any of our party leaders call it if that happened in a 3rd world country?

This allied to the nineteenth century party system which gives us a situation today where the the centre ground of the major parties is probably much closer than the "radical" wings of each party is to its own moderate element. These moderate elements are then forced to throw verbal custard pies at each other as they fight for buggins turn in power, neither of them ever really representing the majority will of the people.

The core message underlying Mrs P for me is that if there is ever to be a reconnection of politics with the people we need a fundamental realignment of the British political system that can only be brought about by introduction of a voting system where a real majority representation can occur. The current parties of course don't like this because they can only see the world from their own power hungry perspective ( or more often that of their whips) and not that of the voting public. They even have the nerve recently to suggest the taxpayer finds money for maintaining the current parties making it even more difficult for change to happen.

And before anyone starts that old whine that PR systems inevitably leads to poor govenance, take a look at Germany since 1945 and compare it to what they were like in the 50 years before that!

I'm sure politics is rarely simple, often the lesser of two evils and much else besides but it would at least be a great deal more convincing if the Prime Minister and cabinet were at least supported at the ballot box by over 50% of the public.

However, even the fictional American presidents are not always so clean and stain free. Look at 24: Sen/President Palmer starts out as honest and upright, but slowly becomes more and more compromised by power until he finds himself authorising his ex-wife to cover up her murderous behaviour. In a later series, we see a different president who is weak and vacillating, and apparently at the mercy of a shadowy adviser (Paul McCrane).

The party person I know works extremely hard -harder than most- and has equal ardour in the conviction that service to the nation is just that, to the nation not the self. Whether the same can be said for the cabinet I just don't know? If they invite me to follow them around for a week I'll go for it and find out for myself.

Politicians as objects of ridicule? Why not, I'm sure you'd need a good sense of humour to do the job, and besides it keeps them on their hoofs.

I only saw the trailer, not the actual programme, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Mrs Pritchard's appeal to the public (... politicians are all liars, I will tell the truth, I'm an ordinary person with common sense who can speak for you...) rather similar to that used by Robert Kilroy-Silk in his (thankfully) failed attempt to re-enter politics with Veritas? Surely he is a warning to anyone who thinks that the party system and politics in general are corrupt and compromised and that we need to bring in a new broom from outside politics to sort it out. Is there anyone alive who thinks Britain would be better off with the likes of RKS rather than Blair, Brown, Cameron etc, whatever their failings?

You, Essler, Walk all happily appearing in SATIRE? I think its disgracefull! Whatever next? News presenters doing light entertainment with Bruce Forsyth?
Hang on....

In 1996 I fell ill with an unknown neurological disorder.
It took 10 months to see a specialist due to the awful state the NHS was in after years of underfunding.

I go for regular Physiotherapy at the hospital where I was treated initially. The doctor who treated me (eventually, after an emergency admission) back in 1996 told me last week that if I had been ill now with the same condition. I would see him within 6 weeks.

Blair is a hero to me along with Brown. Politics is a serious business and the real problem with the British Public is that they couldn't cope with the truth.

Life is hard and then you die. I wish people would get real.

I think it's just how society is nowadays. In decades gone by, people didn't question so much, due partly to culture and also the lack of means (nowadays, if you don't hear about it on the radio, in the papers or on TV, you'll hear about it on the web - everyone has an information source and a voice).

A problem with all that information is that everything becomes muddled. Take the NHS: most people tell me of good experiences in hospitals and most people say it's improved, yet when you ask those same people what Labour's done for the NHS, they seem to think they've brought it to its knees. How can it be improved and failing? Where does the truth lie?

And spin doesn't help. Every time you see a politician being interviewed they dodge questions, say the same rhetoric over and over, and generally seem false. If politicians could be more open and sincere (example: Portillo used to irk me when he was an MP but now he's on This Week, talking candidly and appearing relaxed, he's likable) they would get more respect.

I rather like the premise of the programme. It may be highly improbable, but it does illustrate nicely the contempt in which a large slice of the electorate now hold "mainstream" politicians, and this in my view is highly dangerous for social harmony. It will drive up success for the extreme parties either side of the policial spectrum, mainly through voter abstention. I suspect that this is for three reasons:

1) Since Tony Blair invented "New" Labour and moved them to the middle ground (for how long it will remain there once he has departed who knows?)there is very little to choose between the two main parties. (Nobody really expects the Lib Dems to win an election). Politics needs to have a right and a left with blue water between them. Democracy without choice is not democracy.

2) We always knew that politicians lied, but they used to be discrete about it. The brazen way in which the present government have politicised the civil service, manipulated figures, double-announced new spending, mananged the media output and yes, let's be frank - lied through their teeth, even about reasons for going to war, has angered a lot of people, but worse, convinced them that all politics, and by extension, every politician is blatantly dishonest.

3) Most sensible people now increasingly realise that, despite all the rhetoric from domestic politicians, most of the real power has leeched away to the EU. Without the sayso from Brussels, many things which are promised us by the British government, whether they affect farming, public spending, immigration or criminal justice issues, are just so much hot air. Westminster is to a greater degree than they will admit, a sideshow, and likely to become more so. As we are powerless to influence a largely undemocratic, and increasingly authoritarian EU, why bother with politics at all?

A study of English history (and British history post-union) shows that the right man has always appeared to save the nation just in the nick of time. I pray that the right man (or woman) is even now waiting in the wings! I wonder if the name will be Pritchard?

Am I the only person in the country who doesn't watch Doctor Who?

I think all politicians should aspire to the level as seen in the West Wing even if most of them will only ever get to the level of Green Wing.

'Slitheen', not 'Slithene!' ;) Or even Raxacoricofallapatorians. But that's just sad. Not that it matters. They tried to turn Harriet Jones into Thatcher (a sort of "all power corrupts" metaphor) but it was badly fudged as she was quite right to shoot down the retreating Sycorax ship in "The Christmas Invasion", not the least after being practically goaded into it by The Doctor... ahem. And I'm a Liberal and proud...

By all means let's expose those who abuse the system, or just happen to be nasty little tits with God complexes, but while there's Red Tops around, no one cares about substance in politics any more, inside or out, Labour or Tory. So we'll never get to really *know* our politicans.

It's a kids show ... with swearing and hints of sex. Can't believe it ever got commissioned. Rubbish.

The point is that you are now being the news yourself. You are in danger of being seen as one of the in-crowd
rather than an observer and commentator. Indeed one well known Labour Minister commented privately
recently that he would rather be interviwed by you than by Paxman or Humphreys. The inference being that you ingratiate. Stop advertising TV shows and spend less time in boring soundbites in these quite pointless
2 ways with Huw Edwards. Andrew Marr was bad enough.

Not forgetting Alan B'Stard. The mild mannered doyen of the Tory Right!

what about alan b'stard! A true hero in my eyes! Blatent anti political correctness in an age where nothing is allowed! priceless!

I am a politics junkie and love Mrs Pritchard! I get the feeling there is going to be quite a nasty sting in the tail as well. I too loved the idea of moving Parliament to Bradford (actually Leeds would be a seriously sensible suggestion - why not?) but my favourite was the sending of her daughter to the local comp. If *only* more 'Labour' politicians did that instead of behaving like the Bremner, Bird and Fortune dinner party guests.

I personally thought The Amazing Mrs Pritchard was 30mins (or 60, I didnt watch it all) of poorly written feel good trash. I say this not becuase the concept was bad, I thought on paper it could of been rather good it was just that it was so unbelievably unrealistic (move parliment out of London? What???) and shallow that this program was just awful. However I do wish for politics to become more substance, less style, not as in less charisma just less david cameron style smoochiness, so that politicians can become respected and so that being politician is a role for THE best people this country has to offer.

You and I have our differences Nick, but I must commend you on an Oscar winning performance last night :P

Loving the series, some real fresh and imaginative thinking. But what's this rubbish about moving Parliament to Bradford?

If politicians want respect then they'd better earn it.

It's not too difficult to do. Just a certain amount of common sense (not too much) and some personal integrity, honour, and decency would suffice.

Anyone care to name any politico who has all of these qualities?

I find it rather amusing to observe parallels between the world of the corporate business and the world of government. Whether orchestrating resources for the good of the business or for the country, it all seems to go wrong when politics is introduced into the mix!

For those of us who are dissatisfied with the outcome of present day politics there is a third explanation to go with the knavery/foolishness that you have suggested. This is that contemporary social attitudes have made it impossible for the RIGHT decisions to be made, irrespective of who is put in place to make them. We insist on populism, and we hound out anyone who dares to suggest majority-thinking and wisdom are not synonymous. Is it any wonder that so many half-baked decisions are made?

I wonder what MPs think of this Mrs Prichard's idea. Got anything on that, Nick?

I could only stomach five minutes of this rubbish. In the space of one scene we learned that Mrs Pritchard had a meeting with her Chief Whip and the Leader of the House of Lords, and then she had to form her cabinet - so where the Chief Whip and Leader of the House of Lords came from is anyone's guess.

Then she walks into a room to be saluted by the Heads of the Armed Forces. Me thinks the writers have been watching too much American drama.

If they can't get the little details right why should we bother with it. You shouldn't be associated with this rubbish Nick.

The only political heroes are those who had the courage of their convictions and did what they thought was right, rather than what "the public" or "the media" thought they should.

In the last century, that inlcudes Churchill and Thatcher, both of whom did great things almost entirely despite their party.

It also includes Atlee, whose welfare state is still with us, despite the damage it has done and people like Foot and Benn, whose adherence to socialist dogma may have endeared them to millions, but, if ever implimented, would have doomed this country to disaster.

Today, Frank Field stands out as one of the few "conviction politicians" left on either side of the house.

And that's a shame.

And I quite liked the PM in 'My Dad's the Prime Minister' - Ian Hislop's vaguely amusing series. but he was a buffoon too of course.

I think we will always be suspicious of those who seek to rule us, and whilst we should never blithely impugn false or malicious motives to them, they do regard themselves as people who know better and should thus be treated with caution. And while America often portrays its politicians as heroes, they crucify them when they're down. Only today, Tom Warner has decided that the heat on the top job is too great, and decided not to go for president.

Surely Americans only hail their politicians as heroes because they know nothing about what they are up to? Americans abdicated their responsibility for the actions of their country years ago with that awful phrase "we trust the president". The British are (moderately) more informed about their politicians and can tell when they're being lied to and who is just trotting out the party line (yes i'm talking to you Margaret Beckett!!)

Mrs Pritchard is just touchy-feely drivel.

Alan B'Stard must surely be the politician's politician.

She does resemble Glenys Kinnock don't you think?
On a sepatarate point it is interesting that French TV is running a series featuring a female President of the Republic which is even more of a comedy, yet with serious inroads into current reality. I wonder why.

Find me a living, still serving, British MP who deserves our respect and admiration.

I'll be damned if I can think of one?

I think that the increasingly cynical view of politicians /institutions has not been helped by the 91热爆s portrayal of them in this programme and I especially took exception to refernces to the Queen and corgis etc a bit cheap. Just one question why do newscasters refer to Tony Blair and not to the Prime Minister? Curiously a recent report talked of President Bush and Tony Blair! A little recognition of people and their responsibilities in our society need not conflict with worthy critism but just add a little respect and you know we need a that in our media and in our daily lives.

I remember a similar thing actually happening in that training ground for future prime ministers that is Oxford University. In the late 70's/early 80's and enterprising young man called Jon Bernard (I think) ran for election on an anti-politics ticket. His only policy was that he had no policies. The students, fed up with the overly self-important wannabe PM's purporting to represent the main political parties, elected Mr Bernard by a landslide. Then, once in office, Mr Bernard, found it somewhat more difficult and less fun than he had maybe thought it would be. Just goes to show that art always immitates life.

We get the political leaders we derserve as a nation - how would it be otherwise?

Few are genuinely interested in the facts of matters and are happy to be guided by their biases and predjuices. It also doesn't help that there is little in the way of serious examination of the facts by the media - who would rather go sensationalism when they can.

Similarly, the basis and priorities on which decisions are made are rarely discussed, never mind explored. Meanwhile, as a nation we slide gently into decline, morally, healthwise and economically.

Only the 91热爆 could see a blog on politics evolve/descend (delete as appropriate) into a sci-fi nerd ponit scoring competition. I like this.

Otherwise, is anyone out there able to consider the grey areas between the (false) dichotomy of good vs bad politicians?

"Spooks" generally seems to portray politicians in a positive (if slightly naive) way. Robert Glenister as the 91热爆 Secretary in episodes 1 and 2 of the current series was a good example.

How can we see politicians as heros anymore?

For one, none of them seem to be "locals" anymore. The local boy done good, heading out to stand up for the people of his home town doesn't happen any more.

Our polititians are more likely to me professional politians imposed from party headquarters.

These people have no relationship with their constituants, other than their vote grabbing agendas.

So how can you expect people to respect or even hero-worship them?

I think the problem is that it is difficult to feel that we actually live in a democracy sometimes. Don't get me wrong, its not that we don't have an array of freedoms and a good standard of life, it's just that to me, my government may as well be a board of directors.
It seems ludicrous to even think you can call 600 or so people representing 60 million people a democracy, and it's unfair to ask the politicians to even try to bring all of those divergent views to the commons.
In my view, voter apathy is mearly a nod to the fact a lot of us just don't think we can change or affect anything.
It doesn't help to have what is essentially a two party system either. What is one to do? I like what Labour has done with the NHS, but hate what it's done since 9/11, however I was born at the dawn of the Thatcher years and my memory of the Conservatives means I can't conscionably give them my vote, so who do I vote for? I think I will keep it until they decide to put "none of the above" on my ballot.

I wouldn't be so sure about the Americans hailing their politicians as heroes. Yes, the President does seem to be regarded in the same deferent manner as the British used to regard their monarch (ironic, that), but I recall a CNN survey detailing how many US citizens thought how many of their Senators and Congressmen were corrupt. The exact numbers escape me but it wasn't far off 50%!

That 'The Amazing Mrs Pritchard' continues the over-simplification of 'traditional' politics as being inherently dishonest and worthless is regrettable but understandable. Regrettable because it perpetuates something that isn't (quite) true and so further entrenches our contempt for politicians, encouraging the instinct to mistrust first and enquire later. Understandable because the majority of politicians behave in a way that makes that public contempt fully earned.

There are two reasons why I thought Mrs P was rubbish. Firstly, she clearly wasn't the 'ordinary housewife' that the show's premise requires her to be - she's far more confident and articulate than most of us. Secondly, I see no reason why a real Mrs Pricthard would not be greeted by the same cynicism and the mistrust as an conventional politician. It surely takes more than a friendly northern supermarket manager for the British public to shed the blinkers of a lifetime.

I doubt whether people would laugh, so often, at politicians being portrayed as fools if they really thought politicians were fools.
This country is better than most - anyone care to argue? I do not think that has happened because successive governments have been made up of fools elected, or otherwise allowed to get into power, by their most vocal critics, who always know best, of course.

But surely the electorate get the politicians they deserve. I keep reading the tired old mantra that 鈥渕ost politicians are useless and/or liars鈥�, but nobody seems to spare a thought for the poor politician who has to deal with an electorate that seems somewhat inconsistent. Today鈥檚 voters want better services but do not want to pay more tax, want to be safe but do not want to pass security laws, complain that they are not being "listened to" when what they really mean is that they cannot have their own way, moan about their own problems without considering what is best for the common good, believe what they read in their choice of media without considering the counter-arguments, do not want the unqualified to receive state-benefits but refuse to accept the introduction of identity cards and can always spend tax money more wisely than the government while getting themselves into massive personal debt If I was a politician I'd want to "throw out" the electorate rather than vice-versa.

If you think that we have any respect for the current crop of lying, party-whipped, self-serving scum in the House of Commons, you should be locked up for your own good. Most of the country despises them and the party politics they follow. None of the MPs give a toss for the electorate and I suspect that they neither know nor care how much damage their vicious attack on our institutions and way of life has caused. Get yourself a proper journalists job and avoid the need to have to cosy up to them for your living.

Harry Perkins, ex steelworker who became PM in 'A very British coup'. He illustrated that no left wing Labour Pm could ever challenge the 'establishment' without being under-mined. Puts Mrs.Pritchard in the shade!

I would say Harriet Jones from Doctor Who, and Hugh Grant from Love Actually were the best PM's on screen or TV.

Why?

Because they stood up to the US President - unlike our poodle of a Premiere...

Nick,

How do you differentiate between actors pretending to be ordinary folk who become politicians and career politicians whose whole act revolves around how they are regular folk.

My personal favourate as a fictional politician was Jim Hacker. The strangest thing is how real the Jim Hacker character has become in modern day politics. I see elements of his character in oh so many of todays players.

My favourate actor is definitely the lord Blair. That lip trembling method of delivery that he has perfected over the years is so moving. He is the consumate actor, just imagine how successful this man would have been as a second hand car saleman. But, as with many great actors, he is finding it difficult to leave the stage. An aging lothario seeking just one more encore and all the while the box office records ever diminishing receipts.

To answer Nick Robinson's question, perhaps the 91热爆 would like to run a poll with the following question

"Politicians are likely to put party interest before the public interest"

Agree/disagree?

That, to my mind, is the heart of the problem

i) American Representatives and Senators are required to be from the state they represent , so they are forced to keep their electorate's needs in their minds all the time and thus have no incentive to toe a party line . The electorates generally have a high regard for "their" men and women as a result .

ii) Americans have managed to establish a fairly clear division in their minds between the post of President and the holder of that office ; no doubt it helps that the President generally stands above the fray of playground name-calling party politics . He therefore stands a reasonable chance of gaining support in his own right ... if he deserves it , of course

Talking of the doctor, I thought Don Warrington's President of Great Britain came across as a confident and moral politician, before he was deleated by a Cyberman!!

When politicians squander billions of pounds,of our money.How can you respect them.IT is time we had a few more independant MPs instead of party cannon fodder

I can give you some facts Nick...

Today mankind consumed the total output of three planets to enable him to sustain himself.As we know there is only one planet so how long can we keep going or should I say the world before something gives out.

Today mankind set a new record for producing CO2 in a single day (in mankinds history) tomorrow he will once again set another new record for producing CO2.

Two facts for you Nick.