I get pretty fed up of listening to opposition to governments – of whatever hue – moanin’ about policy A, greetin’ about policy B and whinin’ about policy C, only for when the government decides to listen to the will of the public on each of the policies, for them then to claim “embarrassing climbdown” or “U-turn” at every opportunity.
For goodness sake, this is the outcome you wanted!
Look, I get there’s a political agenda, I really do. Â And I get that people hate the government, and will take any opportunity to kick them. Â But can’t we be a little bit more graceful in how we do it? Â Have we forgotten entirely the manners taught to us when we were young? Â I’m sure I remember something about being polite when asking for something, and then when it was given to me I was supposed to say “thank you”. Â Yeah, that sounds familiar. Â So why does politics exist outwith the boundaries of these well-mannered social conventions?
Well, first thought is the depth of feeling. Â You really despise party A (the governing party) so asking them for anything is a challenge in itself. Â They’ve been a rival for such a long time that you can’t really remember a time that you liked them or worked together to achieve something. Â But this is really a repeat of your childhood. Â “Mum – brother/sister won’t let me have X”… “Ask them nicely – make sure you say please”. Â Sound familiar? Â I remember fighting with my wee brother (a lot) and even when we were forced to be polite, we still didn’t like it. Â So that could be part of it. Â But doesn’t there come a point when you stop being so immature? Â You stop despising each other and learn to work together. Â At least, that’s how I remember it.
Secondly, what about the idea that politics itself is essentially a zero-sum game – if they are doing well, you are doing badly and you want them to do badly so you can do well. Â So if you ask them for something and they say yes, you want to treat it as you doing well and them doing badly, not both of you working together to improve the situation for everyone. Â That’s logical because (coalition situations excepted) only one of you can govern at any one time, and you want it to be you so you make your party look better than the party in government.
But what partisan politics oftentimes forgets is that governing is not actually a competition. Â Its about setting and collecting taxes and spending that money in a variety of ways in order to best serve the public. Â Now you may have ideas as to how better do this than the other party, and you may want the public to know how much better your ideas are than the government’s so that next time they have the opportunity to vote they will remember your ideas and vote for you instead of the government. Â But sometimes, when you have an idea that you think the government should pursue, and they do in fact pursue it, changing their own position in the process, it should be celebrated as good for the country, not good for the party.
Of course this post is inspired by the debate over plans to sell off state-owned forestry land in England. Â But it is more inspired by the media reaction which calls the government’s change of heart on the issue “an instant, screeching u-turn“. Â Because, as with most things in politics, you can’t do something without the media. Â Media shapes the debate and how particular issues are viewed depends very much how they are reported. Â So for the opposition to the government plans, while in reality this was a victory for them, they – and the media – have to spin it as a defeat for the government in order for it to be worthy of top news-billing.
So once again my naive hope that politics can be conducted in a more positive and civilised manner is likely to be thwarted because we can’t handle a situation where government and opposition can work together without one party having to outscore the other. Yawn. Â And we wonder why people are turned off politics.
#1 by Gregor on February 17, 2011 - 11:04 am
Couldn’t agree more. This announcement should be welcomed, and – as much as it sticks in the throat – the Tories should be congratulated for changing their mind on this issue.
#2 by Michael on February 17, 2011 - 11:26 am
There’s a related issue here concerning NGO campaigns. I’ve seen a few campaigns recently which have made of point of asking supporters to say thank you to politicians when the campaign is successful. Credit where credit is due seems a sensible principle for both opposition politicians and NGOs.
#3 by Richard on February 17, 2011 - 1:46 pm
Hear, hear Malc.
Was it so naive to hope that this bipartisan opposition-for-the-sake-of-opposition would be left behind when Holyrood came into being?
I agree with Gregor too, but boy does it stick in the throat.
#4 by Douglas McLellan on February 17, 2011 - 2:22 pm
The problem is not politics itself but human nature. Since we fell from the trees (and probably before) we have divided ourselves into ‘us’ and ‘them’ when considering access resources – from a safe foraging ground when still hairy apes to how to decide the level of tax and spend today – we have always been in conflict to a greater or lesser extent.
There is something primal that the feeling of political victory which has replaced the feeling when physical battles were won centuries ago.
Its not just uturns resulting in ‘defeat’ that cause political and media storms. Look at the stushie around tuition fees in England where the Lib Dems looked at the evidence available to them and made a different decision than some people wanted. The response to that has been nothing but vilification.
Humans, by their nature, really dont like it when people enact or say things that they really disagree with and respond accordingly. You Malc, for example, really didnt like it when I suggested you calm down over a closed door rugby match. My comment was not designed to elicit a negative reaction from you yet thats what happened. And that was just a discourse between two people. How can all of us, by our nature and the way we react, really expect politicians and the media (who come from the same pool that we do) to act differently.
Like you I do wish that politics was more civilised but it never will be. Well not until humanity is a single homogeneous group, working to the same aims with the same approaches and ideas.
#5 by Malc on February 17, 2011 - 2:44 pm
I think there’s an argument to be made that there are still a few “hairy apes” trying to decide the levels of tax and spend today… but I should avoid jokes like that, given that is really my criticism.
I’d make a distinction between a governing party changing its mind (and, in the case of forestry sell-offs, abandoning a manifesto commitment) over something because of opposition and public pressure against the proposal and a governing party changing its mind (and also in the case of tuition fees, abandoning a manifesto commitment) over something IN SPITE of opposition and public pressure against the proposals. Those are two clearly differing situations – I suspect you know that! Of course both cause media “storms” as you put it, but in one case its because the government has conceded to opposition and in another it has stood up to opposition (or ignored it, depending on your point of view).
I fail to see how my reaction to the rugby relates to this question though? The analogy doesn’t fit for me, I don’t think. Negative response, perhaps – but if I remember correctly you basically said “forget about it, there’s bigger things to worry about” or something to that effect, to which my response was “I choose to care about this” I think… but I’m really not sure why that’s relevant here.
#6 by Douglas McLellan on February 17, 2011 - 3:26 pm
Point One – I dont see a real difference between changing your mind due to opposition and public pressure and not changing your mind despite public pressure. Do one and its a uturn, do another and its behaving arrogantly and abandoning its principles (no matter the reasons for the change in direction). Why should each course of action be differently treated? How much opposition and public pressure should it take to convince a politician to make another choice?
Point two – What is important to you then governs your behaviour. It is relevant because it is not politics that is flawed but human nature. What is important to one set of politicians is not important to another so the discourse rapidly descends into emotional responses. It gets even worse when the two sets of politicians are totally opposed over the same topic. This is then echoed into society through the supporters of those politicians and the nature of the discourse can be far from civil.
#7 by Malc on February 17, 2011 - 3:45 pm
1) But they ARE different? The difference surely lies in public opinion, which is either supportive or not. The government exists to serve the public. My point wasn’t really that the two cases should be treated differently (though I think they probably should be) but that when a government makes a decision (in changing its mind) which reflects public opinion this is a WIN for the public – it is not a LOSS for the government. The Lib Dem/ tuition fees issue doesn’t really fall into this category, but arguably, if you want to use my zero-sum game, this is a (short-term) WIN for the Lib Dems (staying in office on back of changing their mind) and a LOSE for the public, given the level of opposition to the issue…
I see your point about how MUCH opposition is needed – but I guess we can question the value of representative democracy if the government is going to react to public opinion. Edmund Burke said that
“your representative owes you, not his industry alone, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”.
Granted, that was in 1774. But the point is simply that if the public thinks its politicians should follow their opinion instead of exercising their own judgement, then what’s the point of having representatives in the first place?
On 2) I see now. But discourse doesn’t have to descend into emotional responses. I understand why they do (particularly when there is money involved, a la student fees) but it is possible to remove emotion and argue from a simply rational perspective. Though it is difficult. But what you are saying is that the opposition have to claim that the government is making a U-turn (and that they have bowed to their pressure) because they are emotionally involved in the issue?
#8 by Douglas McLellan on February 17, 2011 - 4:42 pm
1. The problem is though that the ‘public’ are not one large single group. For every political decision made there will be winners and losers in the ‘public’. You say that the ‘public’ lost due to the tuition fees decision by the Lib Dems but there were members of the ‘public’ who felt differently.
So it then comes down to calculations about how many winners and losers there will be within the ‘public’ over a given set of policies over a given amount of time (i.e. the electoral cycle).
2. Yes, but not in the way you highlight there but in the original post. The emotion is not about the issue per se but more about the loss of power, the lack of power, the desire to make an opponent look bad that then helps you look good. Spend lots of time looking good and power may be regained. Which is good emotionally.
There will be issues that rouse the emotions (abortion say) far more than others but the perspective and approach taken on each issue will always be informed by an emotional attachment (or lack thereof). Therefore we cannot expect the politicians and media to conduct politics in a civilised manner. Or a least a manner that respects changes of opinion or policy in a considered and respectful way.
#9 by Malc on February 17, 2011 - 4:57 pm
1) Okay, of course the public are never 100% in favour or against any single issue. But what I meant about the Win/Lose on the tuition fees debate was that the Lib Dems had been against it in their manifesto, which was part of the reason a substantial number of people chose to vote for them. Thus, when they changed their mind, and provoked the public reaction they did, the PERCEPTION was that the public lost out (granted, that’s a perception and perhaps not an actual thing).
Incidentally, I know its not big or clever, and I’m Scottish so its not really fair for me to have an opinion on tuition fees in English universities… but I’m not opposed to charging fees for university tuition (and I’m a student). I just think the way the Lib Dems went about it (ie – asking people to vote for them by saying they were AGAINST fees, then when in power deciding that they were actually FOR them) was, if not wrong then certainly a bit naughty. But I’m falling foul of my own standard here… well, maybe I am.
2) I do like how you’ve gone for “emotional argument” equating to “lack of civilised manner”. I don’t know if I’d be so bold! I think you can argue emotionally and retain rationality and civility – but then I was a school-boy public debater, and learned how to do it at (a comprehensive, not private!) school. But the power-emotion argument perhaps makes sense – though it is transitory. Its emotion based on ability rather than on issues? That would be, for me, the wrong reasons to get emotional about something in politics… but that’s probably me being naive/ hopelessly hopeful again!
#10 by Douglas McLellan on February 17, 2011 - 5:19 pm
1. Certainly the Lib Dems got into a hellish mess over tuition fees, both within the party (I cant believe the number of MPs who didnt understand about the tuition fee abstention thing) and with the public. And I have no doubt that many who voted Lib Dem will feel that they ‘lost’ when the vote when through. However, the opprobrium that Nick Clegg has faced is grossly disproportionate and in no way reflective of the decisions that he has taken, unless the emotional response taken into account.
2. Was I as stark as that? I dont think I meant to be. I just feel that the emotions of the politicians and/or the emotions of the public can detract too much from effective government. I would prefer evidence based policy making to be the norm as opposed to policy based evidence making that is all to frequent just now.
#11 by Malc on February 17, 2011 - 5:37 pm
On 1, I think we’re done. On 2, I couldn’t agree more. By all means, get emotionally involved in issues you care about, but we should be letting evidence help to inform policy and decision-making. This is in line with the stuff on deliberative democracy I’ve been reading about recently.
It also feeds into the fact that I’m appalled at how badly treated academics have been by politicians in recent weeks (Two academics at Wendy Alexander’s Holyrood committee a few weeks ago and Alan Trench’s testimony yesterday that ministers told him Scottish Variable Rate “was never intended to be used” being openly discredited by Labour MPs today). That really annoyed me – they are asking these guys for their “expert” views, then needlessly trashing them when they don’t like what they say.
#12 by fitalass on February 17, 2011 - 9:07 pm
Remember when the Scottish Conservatives decided to work with the SNP on an issue by issue basis, or when Cameron supported some of Blair’s government’s reforms and didn’t just oppose for the hell of it?
Well now we have a Labour opposition jumping on every bandwagon with a noisy protest group. I saw a list of yesterday of everything they have opposed recently, staggering.
Take the Forest’s issue down South, National Trust supported the suggested move, saw it as good idea. Labour sold of 15% of English forests and didn’t consult or tell anyone, the Tories just a consultation over about 2% in these austere times, meltdown. Now they handled their PR badly, but the Labour opposition should hang their heads in shame over this particular issue and their dishonest attempts to hijack it this way.
This was a perfect issue for the Labour party to have been more co-operative on. Now I know that its absolutely vital that we have robust opposition holding our current government’s to account. And its something that the Conservative Party singularly failed to do for many years. But this constant everyday, here is another issue we are going to oppose rant from the sidelines while someone clears up their mess and makes the tough decisions we wouldn’t Labour rant from Labour is really wearing thin. And it ain’t actually productive.
#13 by Richard on February 17, 2011 - 11:15 pm
That’s not the point though, Douglas. Yes, of course we all have different views and agendas (or should it be agendae), but surely we can discuss these amicably. The point is that in opposition-for-opposition’s-sake, the critic’s aren’t even promoting their own agenda. Vis-a-vis:
Government plans to sell forests: uproar and condemnation;
Government scraps plans to sell forests: uproar and “embarrassing U-turn”.
What’s wrong with just saying “Well done, at least you had the courage to admit your mistakes”? Being able to admit when one has made a mistake is surely a good thing for the country, rather than pressing on regardless, but we’ve got to the point where it’s now seen as a weakness. It’s now become an opportunity for others to improve their position merely by gloating, rather than by producing a substantial alternative.
As for “Human Nature”, it was once in our nature to swing from trees, but the whole essence of being human (and what separates us from other animals) is our ability to rise above our base nature and improve our condition. It’s not easy, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try.
Pingback: The Daley Dozen: Thursday | Pan Heads and Dead Heads Rock On