Should politicians shut up?

Despite the disproportionately high salary, subdued fame and power, being a full-time politician serves as a backhanded karmic punishment for narcissism.

Nonetheless, we live in something resembling a democracy and some sucker has to do it.

If there's one thing you can say about most politicians, it's that they're in love with the sound of their own voices, winning Olympic gold for the 400m verbal diarrhoea sprint, but often finishing last when it comes to listening. One unwritten rule in the Senedd for example is, "Why make your point in under two minutes, when you can use the full five?"

Talking a lot is part of the job, coming with a balancing act of representing party policy versus the views of constituents and others.

"Representing" is the key word because there's a big difference between personal opinion and public opinion. I get annoyed when politicians put party policies in the mouths of constituents or others. They all do it to be seen to be "on the side of the majority" or "speaking up for constituents" regardless of what they say or what's thrust under our noses in a neatly edited press release.

Returning to the title question, there've been a number of spats over the last few weeks that go to the heart of what a representative democracy is supposed to be.

Firstly, the Article 50 court case was – at it's most simple level – about whether MPs should open their gobs or not on the EU withdrawal process. The Supreme Court and High Court decided the answer was "yes".

Secondly, although he hasn't helped himself by disclosing privileged information in a draft committee report, Neil McEvoy AM (Plaid, South Wales Central) has been accused of wearing a proverbial tin foil hat. That's due to his unequivocal tying of major policy failures to a shadowy Labour state, as opposed to taking the more collegial approach the Assembly's used to.

I don't necessarily like how he's presenting his arguments, but that doesn't matter. What matters is most of the things he's focused on deserve further investigation and comment, regardless of the embarrassment that might cause.

Thirdly, Plaid Cymru (in the main) were accused by union officials of "political interference" in the ballot of members on Tata's tabled 10-year deal for their UK steel-making business – which is at least partially dependent on hitting stringent profit targets and major changes to the steelworkers' pension scheme.

Plaid have been consistent. They want some sort of state involvement in the steel industry having expressed support for a management-led buy out, also opposing significant changes to the pension scheme. There are clear arguments to be made there, though it would mean rejecting Tata's deal or forcing them back to the table with a better one (which happened for older workers).

It's a huge choice facing employees. AMs don't have a vote and won't be directly impacted by the decision in their day-to-day lives. At the same time, they represent the people being balloted and will want to make their own opinions known as their elected representatives.

Saying there's no alternative (as the First Minister has on record) is/was in itself interference – and it's no less valid than saying workers should reject the deal. There is no alternative plan on the table at present, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't discuss what rejecting the deal would mean and the possible alternatives now the industry is profitable again.

As long as opinions are informed and not based on rumours, anecdotal evidence and hearsay, why shouldn't politicians say something? It may turn heads and make the vote harder to pass, but the Brexit vote proved that if you're facing a choice of that magnitude you need the facts. The real question there is: Are politicians trusted to deliver those facts? In the current climate I'd say no.

Lastly, the recent row between Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg and the Assembly's Culture Committee. Cymdeithas were scheduled to give oral evidence for an inquiry but were going to refuse to answer questions from UKIP committee members (or at the very least make some sort of protest statement) because they oppose their reactionary far-right populism.

The Committee collectively decided this was an attempt to gag UKIP and withdrew the invitation. It sets a precedent that witnesses will be compelled to answer questions from AMs. This is despite the absence of any such rule the Assembly's Standing Orders and the fact witnesses can't be held "in contempt" of the Assembly if they refuse to co-operate (unlike Westminster).

There'll be arguments and counter arguments about: whether the Committee misinterpreted Cymdeithas' stance, the respective value of written evidence and oral evidence in committee inquiries (from my experience of committee reports, oral evidence is taken more seriously), how this affects free speech and the right to protest during Assembly proceedings, as well as the "normalisation" of UKIP in Cardiff Bay. All worthy of discussion, but over-analysing.

Committee Chair, Bethan Jenkins AM (Plaid, South Wales West), undoubtedly made the right call. Chairs are supposed to uphold the impartiality of the committee as an evidence-gathering forum. The political opinions of witnesses don't matter. What matters is them giving good answers to inform whatever it is a committee are working on. If witnesses can't do that, they shouldn't be there, so had Cymdeithas acted up during the session itself, the Committee would've been within their rights to ask them to leave.

Politicians can sometimes be as droning as bagpipes and give a sense of having misplaced priorities - yes, occasionally it's right for them to keep their noses out too. Trying to gag them, however - regardless of what we might think of their political views (yes, I include the far-right and far-left in that) or their own judgement of their level of expertise - takes us down some very dark paths.

To answer the question: "Should politicians shut up?" No. We elect them to represent our views and speak up because it's too time-consuming for the rest of us to do it and our voices don't carry any weight. If we don't like that, we should say so and/or vote them out.

That still means politicians have to think before speaking or writing (or getting someone else to write for them). As much as communicating effectively can boost a politician, it can also tighten the existential rope that's around all their necks - particularly if they think they've got more slack than they actually do, or their head has become too big to pull back through the noose.