Earlier today PoliticsHome's new Westminster insiders panel was asked to say whether certain aspects of a politician's personal life influence a voter's view of them.
The results are summarised in the graphic on the right.
The MPs, journalists, think tank leaders and career politicians on the panel believe that a problem with alcohol is most likely to influence voters and violation of traffic laws least. It also appears that big expense claims and a large carbon footprint are more politically tricky than adultery or student use of cocaine. How times change!
Andrew Rawnsley, Editor-in-chief of PoliticsHome, writes this in conclusion:
"The PHI100's guide to political sins goes like this. Don't worry too much about dumping the wife or admitting to some youthful drug use. But watch the demon drink: it can destroy your reputation as well as your liver. And careful with those expenses: the voters really don't like spendalots."
Related link: Should a politician's private life matter? Yes, says Tim Montgomerie
My husband knows that I would judge adultery a little more harshly than him taking too many business flights!!!
Posted by: Jennifer Wells | April 08, 2008 at 17:26
To me, a politician with the obvious means to afford it (which, despite the expenses, is not all of them) who educates their children privately is a PLUS - it influences me in their favour that they are not sacrificing educational common sense for political correctness, and nor are they denying places in good State schools for those who can't afford it. So, sure, it influences me, but positively.
I am also suspicious of politicians who do not drink - I think it shows they must have a problem (maybe that's what's meant?). On the other hand, the bottom two things are illegal.
I can only conclude that this is a list of things that influence people positively (in descending order).
Posted by: Londoner | April 08, 2008 at 17:59
There are aspects of this survey I fail to understand.
Surely, being able to educate your children privately is something people should aspire to and something to be encouraged? Same as having a personal pension, owning your own home, or having private healthcare so not having to fall back on the NHS safety-net.
Recreational use of pharmaceuticals? It's not an issue for me. THe only problem I have with politicians' use of alcohol is when they don't buy their round. As to air-travel, sure - if politicians are the type who go on endlessly about 'carbon footprints' it's a big turnoff for me - I want to be able to fly without being harrassed by Greenies or taxed by governments.
Posted by: Tanuki | April 08, 2008 at 19:44
Change the record, Tanuki. Your posts are all the bleeding same!
Posted by: elvis costello | April 08, 2008 at 20:14
"He left his wife for another woman"
I believe that there are also some female politicians. You may have heard of a few. Thanks for the unreconstructed sexism.
Posted by: passing leftie | April 08, 2008 at 20:24
thank you passing leftie. What a ridiculous thing to ask the "insiders" anyway. As if they are well placed to judge! Regarding adultery, is Andrew Marr on the panel?
Posted by: graeme archer | April 08, 2008 at 21:10
Winston Churchill wouldn't have gone down well then.
Posted by: will.b | April 08, 2008 at 22:30
I talk about green issues and (as an MEP) I fly a great deal more than average. But when I talk about green issues, I do so to challenge climate hysteria. Energy security matters: global warming doesn't -- there hasn't been any global warming for ten years. I'm sorry to see that "telling lies" doesn't feature in the list. Maybe our cynical voters take that for granted.
Posted by: Roger Helmer | April 09, 2008 at 06:58
Aren't all those examples of behaviour a little out of context?
Surely MPs have different travel requirements? Surely MP's leaving their wife totally depends on the circumstances and how the media portrays it? Violating traffic laws must depend on the offence as well?
Sorry but this poll doesn't tell us anything useful.
Posted by: Letters From A Tory | April 09, 2008 at 09:52
Poll for Poll sakes. I dont think there is a problem with any "sin" unless they are campaigning against it.
A lot of our laws are unneccesary intrusions into the private field and I would want them rescinded anyway. Excessive drug (include alchohol, chcocolate, burgers, sugar, salt in this) taking is a social problem and should be dealt with as such without punishing the majority that either do not indulge or indulge moderately.
Posted by: bexie | April 09, 2008 at 10:22
"Sends their children to private school" a sin??? On a par with drunkenness, hypocrisy, adultery, and illegality? This says a great deal about the author's (Andrew Rawnsley?) attitude to aspiration.
My hope is that we will enact Michael Gove's reforms and that many many more people will be able to send their children to private and voluntary sector schools, with the state as the funder.
Posted by: Simon Chapman | April 09, 2008 at 12:57
The point to make about private schools is that people should not feel a need to send there children to private schools because state schools should be just as good.
We need to end the division of private and state education and make sure all schools give children education of the highest order.
Posted by: Jack Stone | April 09, 2008 at 18:11
Re 'This says a great deal about the author's (Andrew Rawnsley?) attitude to aspiration'.
I am sure that he wouldn't deny others the aspiration to a private education, as he himself benefited from a private education as he went to Rugby School in the mid to late '70s.
Posted by: Robert | April 10, 2008 at 14:09