After the story in the Sun yesterday, showing him taking drugs with prostitutes, Lord Sewel has resigned from being the chairman of the Conduct Committee of the House of Lords and is also being called upon to resign as a Peer. This reinforces two unfortunate features of modern government.
The first is that politicians — male politicians particularly — will always be liable to become sexual extremophiles (and, sometimes, cocainophiles also, as in this case). Because they have higher social status than the norm then they will have more sexual hormones than normal flowing in their boodstreams and will thus be more sexually active than the norm. In fact, within any given situation or organisation, the testosterone level of a male rises or falls step by step with power status.
Thus the sexual needs of a young politician will rise according to his level of promotion within the government or the opposition. Despite their advancing age, the sexual activities of many prime ministers in the past have usually been considerable and their affairs are well known to those close to him even if not to the wider public — though in these days of extreme women’s liberationism it would be fatal to the career of a prime minister if he did not keep his affairs under even closer wraps.
Although members of the House of Lords are not anywhere near as powerful as government ministers based in the House of Commons they still have considerable social status vis-a-vis the general public. Lord Sewel, even at 69 years of age, and married, obviously had great sexual needs. As far as the House of Commons is concerned, it has well been called the sexual hotspot of this country. Edwina Currie, having had an affair herself with John Major, the Prime Minister, for four years between 1984 and 1988, revealed much about this in her Diaries. She also aroused great controversy when she told a woman’s Institute gathering that wives of businessmen should never let their husbands go abroad on business trips without taking them with them.
In the course of the last century particularly, the procedures of the House of Commons have developed so that MPs, supposedly elected to look after the needs of their constituents, spend most of their time there on entirely different activites. They are either engaged in instinctual group activities — fights for promotion within their groups or warfare between them — or instinctual individual ones — sexual affairs or personal financial enhancement in one way or another.
The other unfortunate feature of modern government is that, because society and economcs is becoming increasingly complex, the traditional division of the rich and the less rich in the House of Commons has become blurred. The main policies of the Tory Party and the Labour Party are indistinguishable. Yes, MPs still oppose one another as two groups and engage in policy warfare on relatively minor matters because that is inevitable in any organisation containing more than eight or nine adults males, but they are also united when confronting threats from abroad or complaints from the electorate. They will also cover up each others’ sexual misdemeanours
For example, both Parties have ignored complaints from the public about excessive immigration, particularly of people of vastly different cultures, over the past 20 to 30 years. Both have steadfastly maintained taken no notice, both knowing that they wanted to see more workers and taxpayers, both for reasons of helping employers wanting cheaper labour and as governments wanting more money to spend. The result is that the public become frustrated up to the point that, as in recent years, extreme political parties have to arise — as indeed in the rest of Western Europe with, usually extreme right-wing parties in the northern countries to whcih immigrants like to go expescially.
Thus, as with the Sun yesterday, it is only the media that will expose the sexual antics of politicians. These days, the media are the only effective way that the public can express their views about government, whethether it’s sexual behaviour, immigration or economic policies.
Changes will come to the present system of over-centralised govenments — laughingly called ‘democratic’ — either temperately and revolutionary in the years to come, but it’s impossible to say how at present. Or, of course, nation-states could divide into city-state and provincial governments and much alleviate the problems but that remains to be seen in each country’s case. Meanwhile, while high governmental centralism remains, Parliaments will remain sexual hotspots.