Political Photography: Hiding in Plain Sight, Why Politicians Must Not Escape Public Scrutiny

I was challenged over the content of my earlier blog on missing ministers, why is this important? For me the issue goes to the very heart of how a healthy democracy should function. Politicians — from all parties — must be visible, accessible, and subject to scrutiny. Visibility is not merely about publicity; it is about accountability. When those in power know they are being observed — by journalists, photographers, and the public — it naturally moderates their behaviour and fosters responsibility.

This is especially important for government ministers, who wield significant power and influence. They make decisions that affect millions, and they do so while drawing substantial salaries and enjoying considerable taxpayer-funded benefits. It is entirely reasonable that the public, who ultimately pay their wages and live with the consequences of their decisions, should have the opportunity to see them as they go about their work — not just as carefully curated images in stage-managed media appearances, but as real people moving through public life.

If politicians are allowed to completely control the media narrative, they can avoid difficult questions and shut down debate. Sadly, this is increasingly the case. Many operate inside what is often referred to as the “Westminster village,” a self-contained bubble where they travel in ministerial cars (often with police protection), eat in heavily subsidised restaurants, and drink in subsidised bars. Increasingly, MPs are withdrawing from traditional constituency surgeries, which means that interactions with the public are limited and tightly controlled.

Being cynical, politicians have started to believe their own version of reality, rather than facing up to the real struggles of the downtrodden masses. Isolated from ordinary citizens and shielded by controlled messaging, they risk becoming detached from the very people they are elected to serve.

The current government, in particular, appears increasingly uncomfortable with having its carefully crafted narrative challenged. Whether the issue is net zero policies, grooming gangs, immigration, or the complexities of integration, dissenting voices are often dismissed. Real and legitimate public concerns are frequently minimised, reframed, or ignored altogether in favour of simplified political messaging.

"Inconvenient truths" — those facts or perspectives that do not align neatly with policy objectives — are treated not as vital contributions to democratic debate, but as obstacles to be sidestepped or silenced. Honest questions become unwelcome distractions.

Worse still, those who dare to challenge official narratives risk being labelled troublemakers, conspiracy theorists, or reactionaries. In some cases, particularly when sensitive issues are raised, the consequences can be more severe. We have entered an era where voicing unpopular or uncomfortable views can lead to serious repercussions — socially, professionally, and in rare cases, legally.

The spectre of “thought crime”, once the stuff of dystopian fiction, feels closer to reality than many would like to admit.

Was Orwell a prophet for our times? Perhaps not in the literal sense. But the creeping normalisation of controlled narratives, the vilification of dissent, and the policing of speech and thought suggest that his warnings were not merely abstract. They resonate — disturbingly so — in the political and media landscape of today.

It is important to remember that we live in what is known as a pluralistic democracy. In such a system, a range of different interest groups — including organisations like the CBI, trade unions, campaign organisations, and critically, the media — exist to act as counterbalances to government power. Their role is to challenge, question, and scrutinise the policies of the day. This diversity of voices ensures that no single group, particularly those in government, can claim to possess the "one truth."

However, when plurality is eroded — when access is restricted, the media controlled, and public scrutiny diminished — democracy itself becomes vulnerable. Without a chorus of competing views and critical questions, governments may begin to believe their own propaganda and operate within a self-reinforcing bubble. This is deeply dangerous. History shows that when leaders stop being challenged and begin to see their version of reality as absolute, democracy withers and authoritarianism creeps in.

Meanwhile, the public is often shown only what politicians want them to see: carefully choreographed photo opportunities, rehearsed soundbites, and polished narratives. Independent media and photography have long played a crucial role in breaking through this facade. Many scandals — from expenses abuse to misconduct — have come to light only because journalists and photographers were able to observe and report without restriction.

Without such scrutiny, what else might remain hidden? I will be careful here, but it is widely known in Westminster circles that a senior government minister is protected by a super injunction related to aspects of their private life. Without independent reporting, this — and much more — would likely never surface.

I should acknowledge that part of my concern is personal and professional. Political photography accounts for the majority of my photographic income, so I do have skin in the game. However, that does not make the issue any less important. In fact, it reinforces the point — limiting independent photography harms not only livelihoods but the public’s right to see and judge their elected representatives in unscripted, authentic moments.

Ultimately, we should all ask: what are politicians trying to hide when they resist open access? Why do they seek only to present narratives they control? This resistance is part of a broader trend of insulating themselves from accountability and public scrutiny.

As others have pointed out, much of the public sadly do not think much about this — and care even less. That apathy is dangerous. Once democratic norms are eroded, they can be very difficult, or even impossible, to restore. Media manipulation is not confined to one party; it is endemic. It is widely alleged, for example, that the current Leader of the Opposition goes out of her way to avoid unscripted media encounters. This is not about Left or Right — it is about power and how closely we allow it to be held to account.

Democracy does not disappear overnight. It is chipped away — often quietly, often unnoticed — until the day people realise it has gone. By then, it may be too late.

As Tony Benn famously warned:

"The way to judge anyone in power is to ask five questions:

What power have you got?

Where did you get it from?

In whose interests do you exercise it?

To whom are you accountable?And how can we get rid of you?"

Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system."

One of my political photographs in a national paper. See https://www.alamy.com/portfolio/iandavidsonphotography