When political ambition, internal squabbling and the pursuit of power appear to take precedence over the people politicians were elected to serve, perhaps it's time to ask some serious questions.
Growing up, I was always aware that the Government existed. It was there, part of the country's establishment, making decisions and supposedly running the affairs of the nation. Like many people, I didn't give it an enormous amount of thought. Politics was something that happened in Westminster, something politicians dealt with.
Decades later, having taken a much greater interest in politics and spent considerable time writing about it, I find myself looking at the political landscape rather differently.
What strikes me increasingly is the amount of time and energy devoted to political infighting, personal ambition, party rivalries and the endless pursuit of power.
Politicians appear to spend an extraordinary amount of time arguing amongst themselves. Colleagues become opponents, loyalty becomes conditional, and the business of governing seems to take second place to the business of surviving politically.
But whatever happened to the original purpose of entering politics?
Wasn't it supposed to be about representing people, improving communities, addressing the problems facing the country and making a positive difference to people's lives?
Of course, disagreement is part of democracy. Debate is necessary, and politicians should be challenged. But there is a considerable difference between debating how best to serve the country and becoming consumed by the struggle for political advantage.
Look at the political landscape and consider how much attention is devoted to internal disagreements, leadership speculation, party divisions and politicians attempting to undermine one another.
There is always another political argument, another accusation, another disagreement over who said what and who should take responsibility.
And while these battles play out, the public is left watching.
People aren't particularly interested in which politician has managed to out manoeuvre a colleague or which faction has gained the upper hand. They want answers to the issues affecting their everyday lives.
They want public services that work, affordable housing, a health service capable of meeting demand, economic stability and a government that understands the pressures facing ordinary households.
Yet political debate can become so absorbed in personalities and party positioning that the substance of governing gets lost.
One of the more troubling impressions is that political loyalty and collective responsibility can sometimes appear to give way to individual survival.
When difficulties arise, the public sees explanations, blame and attempts to distance individuals from decisions. When political fortunes change, allegiances can shift remarkably quickly.
There is nothing wrong with ambition. Nor should politicians be expected to abandon their principles simply to maintain party unity.
There is a difference between having political ambitions and allowing those ambitions to overshadow the responsibilities of public office.
A parliamentary seat is not a personal possession. A ministerial position is not a reward to be enjoyed at the expense of the public. Both carry responsibilities.
And those responsibilities should remain firmly in view, regardless of who is leading the party or which political faction happens to be gaining ground.
This is where the argument really matters.
Behind every election result are millions of people who have placed their trust in somebody to represent them.
They may have different political beliefs, different priorities and different expectations. But they share one fundamental interest: they want the country to be governed responsibly.
They want politicians who listen, who understand the consequences of their decisions and who are prepared to be held accountable.
They don't expect miracles. They understand that governments face difficult circumstances and that not every promise can be fulfilled.
What they should reasonably expect, however, is that those elected to represent them are concentrating on the job.
When political infighting dominates the headlines, it is worth asking whether the public interest is receiving the attention it deserves.
Perhaps this is an uncomfortable question, but it deserves consideration.
For some, entering politics may genuinely be about public service and a desire to improve society. For others, the attraction may include influence, status, career progression and the opportunity to occupy positions of power.
There is nothing inherently wrong with building a political career. But public office should never become an exercise in personal advancement detached from public responsibility.
The test of political leadership should not simply be how long somebody manages to remain in office, how many internal battles they win or how successfully they protect their position.
It should also be what they actually achieve for the people they represent.
I don't pretend that politics was ever free of rivalries, ambition or disagreements. History tells us otherwise.
But perhaps that makes the question even more important.
If political infighting has always existed, that doesn't mean we should simply accept it as an unavoidable part of public life when it distracts from the responsibilities of government.
There are serious challenges facing Britain. The public deserves attention, honesty, accountability and a willingness to work towards solutions.
Politicians will disagree. Parties will compete. Governments will make mistakes and oppositions will challenge them. That's democracy.
But somewhere amongst all the arguments, ambitions and political manoeuvering, the original purpose must not be forgotten.
People enter politics to seek public office. They should never forget that public office comes with a duty to the people.
After all, politicians are elected to serve the country. The country is not there to serve their political ambitions.
