Left in the Shadows: The Growing Disdain of the Modern Voter

Another day, another politician who believes they are above the rules meant to keep them in check. This time, it's Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, who decided to unveil major fiscal policy changes directly to the world’s media, bypassing Parliament altogether. For those of us who still value the principles of democratic process, it’s a deeply frustrating, if not entirely surprising, move. Reeves is not alone in this cavalier attitude; it’s part of a disturbing trend where politicians, once elected, treat parliamentary protocol as optional.

The House of Commons, the very institution meant to hold our leaders accountable, has again been reduced to an afterthought. The Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, rightly lambasted Reeves, reminding her that Parliament, not the media, is the appropriate place for such announcements. Only recently, Labour criticised the Conservatives for similar sidesteps, championing the need for transparency - until, of course, the tables turned, and now it’s Labour in the spotlight. This hypocritical cycle of “rules for thee but not for me” continues to expose just how shallow political commitment to accountability can be.

The irony here is hard to miss: politicians love to remind us of the “privilege of democracy,” yet their actions suggest otherwise. Parliament should be the place where major policy changes are presented first, allowing elected officials to scrutinise and debate them. Instead, we’re fed pre-packaged soundbites and PR-crafted announcements, with political showmanship overshadowing genuine accountability. Reeves’ media-first approach is just the latest reminder that public representation often takes a back seat to political theatrics.

In a time of deep public distrust, this disregard for protocol only reinforces why people feel let down by their leaders. Politicians seem intent on bending the very rules they once championed when convenient, making hypocrisy the norm rather than the exception. Reeves’ decision wasn’t just a misstep, it’s emblematic of a deeper problem. Until our leaders commit to the standards they claim to uphold, public trust will continue to erode, and democratic values will remain at risk.

Rachel Reeves’ choice isn’t merely disappointing; it’s a reminder that those in power feel unbound by the very principles they profess to protect. We deserve leaders who value accountability and respect Parliament’s role as the cornerstone of British democracy. Without this commitment, all we can expect is more showmanship and less substance, feeding an already cynical public sentiment that politicians are in it for themselves.

The public deserves better than this endless cycle of hypocrisy. So, where does this leave us? Is it time for a stricter protocol to keep government accountable, or are we left hoping for a new political culture that values transparency over theatrics? The answer isn’t clear, but it’s time we start asking the tough questions. What changes would actually rebuild the public’s faith in government—and can politicians be counted on to make them?