British MP George Galloway, most famous in the USA for his forthright and combative appeareance before a US Congressional committee over his allaged ties to Iraq, is now appearing in the British reality TV show "Celebrity Big Brother".

If you aren't familiar with the format, it's the grand-daddy of reality TV, where a group of people (sometimes celebs, sometimes not) are cooped up in a house all day with one another, watched 24/7 by cameras, and voted in or out by watching viewers. It's basically "Survivor" or "I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here" without the creepy-crawlies.

As the news story indicates, he hopes that the platform being on TV constantly for up to three weeks, in a show watched predominantly by segments of society that engages less with traditional politics (under-35s, young women), will give his ideas and policies more prominence.

However, he is also an elected politician (representing his own party, Respect, primarily a hardline socialist party formed out of opposition to the Iraq War) and is spending time in the Big Brother house while Parliament is in session.

As the only MP for a minority party, he can only exert political influence through his rhetorical skills and through his media profile (which is higher than most other individual MPs tht hold no office, to be fair to him). But in chasing the TV cameras as he does, he doesn't really represent the views of his constiuents or help to solve their problems.

Galloway isn't the only such "media tart" in Parliament - Charles Kennedy (who has just resigned as Liberal Democrat leader over alcohol problems, as covered in another thread) appeared on many chatshows and panel games, as does the prominent Tory Boris Johnson, both to some popular acclaim.

How should individual political representatives use the media to advance their views and those of their constituents?

Is is valid or sensible for politicians to do or say most anything to raise their profile?

If not, where should the line be drawn between sensible publicity and selfish buffoonery?

Very interesting questions. In an attempt to answer all three at once, let me say that a politican "should" do anything that is not actually illegal or unethical (such as knowingly making statements that are not true) in an effort to get her message across. If she chooses to take the risk of looking like a fool, that's her decision, and the voters can decide whether to support her or not. As much as we might want our elected officials to conduct themselves with gravitas, the plain fact is that politics is, to a great extent, show business.

What Victoria said...

I can see that for a non-representative politician - for example, because of the US electoral college system, the President doesn't really personally represent his constituents, only the members of the electoral colleges vote for him or her. For all I know, this might also apply to various senators too, depending on the 50 different state constitutions. So, George W Bush wouldn't be reneging on any electoral bargain by going into the Big Brother house - and I for one would find it fascintating if he did.

However, an MP is more like a member of the house or Representatives - there is a direct personal link with the people who voted to put them in the job.

Depending on your point of view, this either means they are duty bound to listen to the views of their constituents and represent them in the legislature, or to put forward their own views in the legislature on the understanding that the constituents voted for the candidate whose expressed views they liked best, or somewhere between the two.

It's also a long standing and essential part of the role of British MPs to make themselves as accessible as possible to constituents, to the point where I can theoretically go to Westminster and demand to see my MP if I want to and they (theoretically) have to come.

Now clearly, this theoretical extreme doesn't apply universally in practice - elected representatives get to go on vacation, sleep, go to the lavatory, and generally have time off from the day job, just like anyone else. However, under all those circumstances, while it's perhaps more complex when abroad or locked in a toilet cubicle, they can still be contacted (by phone, fax, etc.).

The whole point of the Big Brother house, on the other hand, is to isolate contestants completely from the outside world. The decision whether to let someone from the outside talk to the contestant's is entirely with the producers of the show, nobody else.

And in a further development, the producers have specifically told Galloway that he is not allowed to hold forth on polticial matters, especially on Iraq - his political raison d'etre. So it isn't even gogin to be a political platform to spread his ideas, because he'll be chucked out if he tries to do so.

So to answer my own questions, particularly the last one, is that polticians go too far when they choose a platform that deliberately cuts them off from their electors. Geroge Galloway has gone too far, and the voters of his Bow constituency should eject him at the first opportunity.

How should individual political representatives use the media to advance their views and those of their constituents?

Is is valid or sensible for politicians to do or say most anything to raise their profile?

If not, where should the line be drawn between sensible publicity and selfish buffoonery?

George Galloway is a blow hard and is full of himself. The perfect politician.

I don't think this helps him. For one, he is already elected, there is no need to grab votes. Second, this harms his already fractured credibility with other politicians. At least I would think so if politicians in Britain are anything like those in the US. That harms his constituency because he has now weakened his power in the Parliament.

There is a saying that "Any press is good press". I beg to differ.