Martin Schulz - CC / Flickr

There has been a bit of debate on Twitter this morning between @eurosocialiste and @boriswandoren about the ongoing behaviour of politicians in the European Parliament, specifically with regard to the behaviour of the socialists who have caved in and agreed with the EPP to carve up the positions in the EP between them (see Jean Quatremer in French), an agreement that has lead to a load of measly words from Graham Watson who is withdrawing from the running to become President of the EP. This decision of the socialists is especially annoying – I would have rather seen the development of a genuine opposition in the EP, rather than some messy compromise.

But is all of this, as the Twitter debate suggests, something to do with generations of politicians?

Frankly, I think not. Blogs, Twitter and e-Communications more generally have given people like Eurosocialiste, Boris Wandoren, Kosmopolit, Julien Frisch and I the kind of public voice we would never otherwise have had. We’re young(-ish) individuals, answerable almost uniquely to ourselves, people with strong views. In times past we would have been the annoying, nagging people at party political meetings, trying to hold everyone else to account. The internet means we have a wider audience to rant air our concerns. We’re fine to argue back and forth on Twitter, because we’re the sort of people who would be arguing about how to make the world a better place over a coffee or a beer anyway; doing it online is hence really natural.

If you’re a party politician your motivations are inevitably different. The nature of party politics across all the mainstream parties and in all EU Member States means you have to play the long game, keep your views to yourself, and manage to make sure you do not offend too many people on your route to the top. You want to one day become Martin Schulz, or one of his ilk, and even if – as a younger person – you did have a burning ideology, you’re going to have to mask it in order to manage to get anywhere. Frankly it is hard to run a political party if there are too many people in it who are too intelligent, determined or opinionated, so you can get somewhere precisely because you are not any good, not a threat.

So the pickle in which party politics finds itself, especially on the left, is not in my mind a question of generations. It’s much more important and central to that. How can political parties accept risk takers, leaders, people with drive, people with ideology, and bind them into a party structure rather than making them annoyed and demoralised? For me that’s the central question, not some vague notion of generational change.

We now face the least progressive European Parliament in its history, with a far more eurosceptic and nationalist right-wing than ever before. Moreover, we also risk seeing a more assertive right-wing European Commission

But the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (PASD) is already up against it – stick to the old ways of playing the game, or stick their necks on the line?

One particular problem is neatly summarised by the Eurosocialist blog, namely the game being played between the left and right in the EP regarding the allocation of the top positions in the EP. Joesph Daul of the EPP Group is openly playing a game against the PASD, stating that the left must back Barroso as Commission President before any deal could be struck to ensure that the EPP backs a leftist candidate for the Presidency of the European Parliament for the second half of the parliamentary term.

Daul it seems is playing a good game, he’s putting the left in a corner, making it look like they lose either way – back Barroso and the Portuguese is strengthened, or not get the Presidency of the Parliament and the old two-parties-control-the-game in the EP is broken, at the expense of the left. You can just imagine Schulz scratching his belly and wondering what to make of this, even with a few extra Italian MEPs in his camp. Does the left stick to its ideology and lose out on all of the top positions, or does Schulz lose the position as EP President that he allegedly craves?

If I were in the shoes of a leftist MEP I would refuse to play the game with the EPP, and aim to develop a clear and coherent opposition to the right in the EP throughout the next 5 years. That doesn’t need a socialist as the President of the EP to be achieved, and might help the left determine what it stands for before the 2014 elections. I somehow suspect that won’t be the way many MEPs in the PASD will see it. Contrast that to Poul’s statement and the position of the left looks rather schizophrenic.