“Every nation gets the government it deserves” (Joseph de Maistre) does not seem like much of a compliment in the current era. Is it realistic that the public’s choices can change the product of what we see on our TV screens and affecting our children’s futures?
Firstly, there can be no state orthodoxy that the population must adhere to. At least, not if we expect to remain a democracy and remove the extreme rhetoric and doom-mongering from political discourse; optimistically we remain a reasoned, reasonable and discerning country that is able to distinguish narrow partisanship from what actually constitutes the greater good. It is up to the public to set the narrative.
Secondly, we should take care to look critically at all information posed. This includes its presentation and presumption of correctness. Use of language has suffered an extreme distortion – look at use of ‘let me be clear’ on College Green outside the Palace of Westminster, which is invariably followed by either stating the obvious or, on the other hand, extreme obfuscation. We, the voters, will decide whether we think that politicians are being clear in their explanations.
Likewise, to refer to something as ‘green’ (or insert favoured trendy label) should not be accepted at face value, it should be critically examined to ascertain whether it does, in fact, satisfy the standard necessary to be truly environmentally friendly and whether such a qualification is in fact desirable based on the balance of competing interests. Electric cars and wind farms are not. This applies to ‘health’ foods, ‘skincare’ products, or any multitude of snake oil that is marketed into the public arena with negligible scrutiny.
‘Facts’ combined with language can be problematic too. Recently, our beleaguered Prime Minister has quoted national security interests delaying the full release of the notorious ‘Epstein Files’ and mentioned in Parliament that the first responsibility of a government is to protect the people. This is indeed reassuring to hear (although surprising), as when national defence is discussed, capability to that end is obfuscated in favour of a bland narrative of increasing budgets. More on that shortly.
Moreover, proper journalism in general has been missing in action for a couple of decades, lost in the cause of promoting public titillation over the public interest, including baiting politicians for a ‘gotcha’ moment of no importance or ‘outing’ a vague, perfectly legal connection to someone or something of no impact on a politician’s effective execution of their public role. This may, however, come from the public’s habit of relating to political leadership as reality TV personalities rather than as dynamic and effective leaders. Love Island is unlikely to produce a future Prime Minister any time soon, so perhaps we should not look for matey attributes or someone’s taste in craft ales as key qualities.
It is in all our interests that aesthetic appearance of politicians may be authentic to that person and reflect, within reason, their own tastes, although they should embody the presumed desire of all politicians to govern for all. Tony Blair’s ‘Bro’ look was taken as uniform by successors trying to emulate his success at general elections, however the great leaders of our country were not admired and respected for their aesthetic merit – their leadership qualities, integrity and values were predominant, not aspiring towards a reality TV catwalk.
Pseudo-fact is complicated further by the modern political agenda to be unduly influenced by the focus group; this phenomenon of changing policy on the hoof based on the whims of a tiny group of people being asked questions rarely with context or sanity check seems to be the most extraordinary of 21st century governance. Given that most of us can change our minds on an almost hourly basis on an argument presented differently, this should underline the central point that principle should prevail over perspectives and facts, like statistics, are easily manipulated when presented subjectively.
Manifestos are often treated as the word of God, brought to the masses after they were tacitly approved at the election on tablets of stone (once literally so); however, most manifestos are a list of ideal policies from the very subjective perspective of the party promoting them at the time they were written – that does not mean that they are accepted wholesale (or even the majority of them) by the voting public. This is quite different to the treatment of manifesto pledges in Parliament, where the Salisbury Convention and others give them an easy passage – the voting public need not, and ought not be bound by such considerations.
Voters should see the principle espoused in the manifesto commitments embodied in the actions of the ruling party, which should govern in the best interests of all Britons and guided by the greater good over ideology and partisanship. Most rules dreamt up two years in advance of an election and brought to relevance by winning are already at the very least out of date by the time the incumbents enact policy. We should be able to feel confident that our elected representatives are able to adapt to such changes and particularly anticipate on a new timeline to suit prevailing conditions.
Too many politicians are ruled by partisan intent rather than effect and they fail to measure government departments accordingly. The law of unintended consequences causes that however noble a goal, the person putting actions to effect such a goal must ensure that they adjust to ensure effectiveness. Examples of this is the Overseas Aid Budget or Defence Spending. If one fails to define the outcome desired, increasing the budget corresponding to its lack of effectiveness will inevitably lead to more waste. Primarily, government should be concerned with effectiveness in the public interest. Similarly, the NHS has long been lauded as ‘ours’, but it only is so if it is effective in the public interest, which it is not in too many situations, engulfed by its own inefficiency, absence of accountability and bureaucracy. A fundamental question needs to be asked – ‘what is the NHS for in the 21st Century and what can government reasonably expect to deliver’?
It is up to us to ask the fundamental questions and expect our politicians to rise to that challenge. Then we may encourage statesmen capable of posing the questions themselves, as well as finding the answers.