The prickly topic of MPs' pay is in the news again. And when I say 'in the news', I also mean that self-righteous social media warriors are shouting through a dense smog of knee-jerk outrage and sharing poorly-researched, inaccurate 'infographics' which look like a nine-year-old created them in Microsoft Paint.
Leaving aside the sheer ignorance of many of these campaigners – I have lost count of how many Tweets I have seen blaming David Cameron for this, when in fact MPs' pay is set by an independent body precisely to stop it becoming such a contentious political issue (and how did that work out for you?!) – it occurs to me there are some very nasty political implications in this vilification of MPs.
One thing which comes up time and time again is the idea that MPs can, or should, 'reject' their pay rise. According to IPSA (the independent body responsible for MPs' pay), actually, they can't – but more to the point, I fail to see why they should. Taking a rise of £7000 would be 'out-of-touch', we are told. (The most pointless, nonsensical, unmeaning insult in politics strikes again!)
But surely what would be really 'out-of-touch' would be not taking a £7000 pay rise! After all, we're always being told that we want politicians who are 'ordinary' people – people who are just like us, with the same priorities and the same experiences as us. How many ordinary people do you know who would turn down an extra £7000 a year?
No, what's really 'out-of-touch' is already being rich enough that you can afford to haughtily wave away the offer of an extra £7000 because you think doing so will make you look good. Because that's all turning down the pay rise would be: a PR stunt. MPs with enough independent wealth that £7000 is neither here nor there to them will make a big show of what good guys they are by ostentatiously not accepting their pay rise, or giving it away to charity – thus putting pressure on MPs from more modest backgrounds, who are not already vastly wealthy, to behave likewise or else be seen to be venal, greedy and self-serving.
I think MPs' pay needs to be enough to attract talented people to do what is actually a very tough and under appreciated job – and I mean talented people from all backgrounds. But so, too, do attitudes towards this sensitive issue.
For bright, capable people who might be considering going into politics, especially people from lower income backgrounds, too low a salary might put them off and they will go into other areas instead. So might the enormous personal costs of even becoming a candidate in the first place (not much is spoken about the fact that MPs have had to invest a lot of their own money and time in being selected as a candidate and winning their seat before they get the rewards of their higher-and-average salary). But from my point-of-view, what would put people off going into politics the most is this furious, incensed obloquy from the public and the press.
I'm not sure I could handle the constant contradictions of having to be an 'ordinary' person to whom the voting public can 'relate', and yet also being expected to behave in ways no 'ordinary' person would, turning down a bit of extra cash when you are offered it. But the fact is that however you conduct yourself in matters like these, people will scream that you are avaricious, lazy, and only looking out for yourself – even thought they often won't have any of the actual facts to hand.
Politicians need to be scrutinised, and they need to be held to account by each other, by the press, and ultimately by the public. But they need to be scrutinised in an informed and rational way. To my mind, one of the biggest barriers to entry is just how uninformed so many of the people who pretend to care about politics are; how quickly outright lies and deceit can spread when they paint the negative image of politicians people are clamouring to see; and how quick and eager people are to believe the very worst about politicians, even when what they're being told is patently not true.
It is a backwards-looking process (as I have already written about in regards to conspiracy theories), working back from a pre-determined conclusion borne of entrenched prejudices rather than a careful consideration of the evidence available. Anti-government campaigners already know that they want to portray politicians in a bad light before they have written a word; they have their conclusion mapped out before they have the facts, so they either twist the facts, or cherry-pick convenient ones to suit the case they are trying to build – or they simply disregard facts entirely.
How many of the 'activists' who are angry about IPSA recommending a pay rise for MPs have actually bothered to look into how parliament works, and what an MP's job really entails? Do they watch the BBC Parliament channel? Do they read Hansard? Do they meet their local MPs and get to know them before meting out aggressive and judgemental online content about what awful, nasty, evil people they are? Do they know how IPSA came to the conclusions they did on the topic of MPs' pay, and the reasoning behind their recommendation that it should be increased?
Or do they – as I suspect – catch a whiff of a controversial issue which can be used to whip up an angry rabble and instantly reach for the Photoshop and the bold, all-caps font without bothering to look into the details any further and find out what it's actually all about? My concern is: should we really be letting such people set the agenda in issues like these?
Showing posts with label out of touch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label out of touch. Show all posts
Wednesday, 3 June 2015
Sunday, 26 April 2015
Aston Ham? West Villa?
Who cares?!
Obviously, fans of both Aston Villa and West Ham will care. But does it really matter which team David Cameron supports – if any?
No, of course it doesn't. But the news of the Prime Minister, who says he supports Aston Villa, mistakenly claiming to be a West Ham fan in a moment he describes as 'brain fade' has gripped the nation. Labour supporters have seized upon this with glee – Cameron doesn't even know which football team he supports! Apparently, this makes the Tory leader 'a fraud' or a 'con man'.
What utter rubbish!
The trouble is, when it comes to things like football, politicians in the UK are in a no-win situation. We (the electorate) supposedly insist that our politicians be 'normal' and 'everyday' enough to be football fans. Can you imagine the reaction if a Conservative party leader simply came out and said he wasn't a big football fan, and it just wasn't really his thing? Opponents would jump on this confession as evidence that he doesn't understand ordinary people; that he's out-of-touch; that he's 'posh'; that he can't be possibly be fit to be Prime Minister.
So, politicians who aren't that bothered by football have to pretend to be into it. And that is then held up as evidence that they are posh, out-of-touch, and don't understand ordinary people. And it also backfires on politicians who genuinely do like football (or Game Of Thrones, or Nandos, or any other aspect of modern popular culture) because people assume that they're being insincere charlatans who are only saying they like those things to appear 'normal' and win more votes.
Either David Cameron is not a football fan, but feels compelled to say his is because the fetishisation of 'normal' in politics won't let him be himself – or is actually is a football fan, but people still sneer at him for it because they assume he's putting it on to seem like a 'man of the people'. He can't win.
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter which football team the Prime Minister does – or does not – support. This whole episode simply serves to distract from what the real focus of an election campaign should be: policies. But it also demonstrates how our obsession with politicians being 'normal' is so much of what is wrong with politics in the UK.
Obviously, fans of both Aston Villa and West Ham will care. But does it really matter which team David Cameron supports – if any?
No, of course it doesn't. But the news of the Prime Minister, who says he supports Aston Villa, mistakenly claiming to be a West Ham fan in a moment he describes as 'brain fade' has gripped the nation. Labour supporters have seized upon this with glee – Cameron doesn't even know which football team he supports! Apparently, this makes the Tory leader 'a fraud' or a 'con man'.
What utter rubbish!
The trouble is, when it comes to things like football, politicians in the UK are in a no-win situation. We (the electorate) supposedly insist that our politicians be 'normal' and 'everyday' enough to be football fans. Can you imagine the reaction if a Conservative party leader simply came out and said he wasn't a big football fan, and it just wasn't really his thing? Opponents would jump on this confession as evidence that he doesn't understand ordinary people; that he's out-of-touch; that he's 'posh'; that he can't be possibly be fit to be Prime Minister.
So, politicians who aren't that bothered by football have to pretend to be into it. And that is then held up as evidence that they are posh, out-of-touch, and don't understand ordinary people. And it also backfires on politicians who genuinely do like football (or Game Of Thrones, or Nandos, or any other aspect of modern popular culture) because people assume that they're being insincere charlatans who are only saying they like those things to appear 'normal' and win more votes.
Either David Cameron is not a football fan, but feels compelled to say his is because the fetishisation of 'normal' in politics won't let him be himself – or is actually is a football fan, but people still sneer at him for it because they assume he's putting it on to seem like a 'man of the people'. He can't win.
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter which football team the Prime Minister does – or does not – support. This whole episode simply serves to distract from what the real focus of an election campaign should be: policies. But it also demonstrates how our obsession with politicians being 'normal' is so much of what is wrong with politics in the UK.
Monday, 20 April 2015
On Nick Clegg and Evan Davis
No, I couldn't think of a 'funny' title for this, and I was running out of time…
Nick Clegg must have become fairly accustomed to being given a hard time in the media over the past five years (not always deservedly), but even so I was surprised to hear that Newsnight's Evan Davis had interviewed Clegg recently and brought up the Liberal Democrat leader's European heritage (his mother is Dutch) and multilingualism as evidence that he might be 'out-of-touch' with the 'British working class'. Of course, 'out-of-touch' is a spectacularly vapid and meaningless accusation to level at any politician – but these comments by a presenter on one of the BBC's flagship political programmes strike me as particularly stupid.
What, exactly, does Mr Davis feel is bad about Clegg being able to speak more than one language? The idea that if a politician has at least some level of intelligence and decent communication skills, that should somehow count against them is one I find completely baffling. In matters of trade, of diplomacy, or of foreign policy, multilingual Clegg – who speaks five languages fluently – is surely an asset to the British government when it comes to communicating with foreign diplomats and politicians, and forging relationships with other nations?
And think about those photographs you see in the press sometimes – more frequently than ever, now, as we approach a general election – of politicians desperately trying to look at ease as they meet people in a mosque or a gurdwara, but clearly not feeling comfortable… It might be fun to make amusing posts about it on Tumblr, but integration is a real issue which politicians often don't do enough to address. Maybe the sons and daughters of immigrants in government – who have an innate understanding of other cultures – would be able to reach out to other communities (both in Britain and abroad) with more success, and help to improve relationships between them?
To dismiss Nick Clegg as 'out-of-touch' or 'élitist' is foolish – to do so because he possesses skills which are actively useful and beneficial in the day-to-day work of government is just staggering.
Nick Clegg must have become fairly accustomed to being given a hard time in the media over the past five years (not always deservedly), but even so I was surprised to hear that Newsnight's Evan Davis had interviewed Clegg recently and brought up the Liberal Democrat leader's European heritage (his mother is Dutch) and multilingualism as evidence that he might be 'out-of-touch' with the 'British working class'. Of course, 'out-of-touch' is a spectacularly vapid and meaningless accusation to level at any politician – but these comments by a presenter on one of the BBC's flagship political programmes strike me as particularly stupid.
What, exactly, does Mr Davis feel is bad about Clegg being able to speak more than one language? The idea that if a politician has at least some level of intelligence and decent communication skills, that should somehow count against them is one I find completely baffling. In matters of trade, of diplomacy, or of foreign policy, multilingual Clegg – who speaks five languages fluently – is surely an asset to the British government when it comes to communicating with foreign diplomats and politicians, and forging relationships with other nations?
And think about those photographs you see in the press sometimes – more frequently than ever, now, as we approach a general election – of politicians desperately trying to look at ease as they meet people in a mosque or a gurdwara, but clearly not feeling comfortable… It might be fun to make amusing posts about it on Tumblr, but integration is a real issue which politicians often don't do enough to address. Maybe the sons and daughters of immigrants in government – who have an innate understanding of other cultures – would be able to reach out to other communities (both in Britain and abroad) with more success, and help to improve relationships between them?
To dismiss Nick Clegg as 'out-of-touch' or 'élitist' is foolish – to do so because he possesses skills which are actively useful and beneficial in the day-to-day work of government is just staggering.
Friday, 6 February 2015
Nun shall pass
Labour's Shadow Education Secretary Tristram Hunt found himself in a spot of bother over some comments he made on last night's Question Time, in relation to fellow panellist Cristina Odone's Catholic Schooling.
The remarks have been interpreted as disparaging nuns, or Catholic schools in general – which has, in turn, resulted in the tediously inevitable calls for Hunt to resign. Times columnist Hugo Rifkind presents a good case for construing Hunt's remarks as actually being deferential to nuns, not critical – but this is not the point.
I think it is a bit rich to complain (as so many people often do) that politicians are 'all the same', and 'out-of-touch', when every time a politician says anything which isn't strictly prescribed orthodoxy we are clamouring for him or her to be sacked.
And as politics becomes less about the frank exchange of ideas, and more about watching what you say, ever fearful that somebody may take offence – or that somebody may take offence on someone else's behalf – we open the door ever wider for parties like UKIP (whose education policy is actually shocking sensible, by the way – but of course that's not enough to make up for the rest of their poisonous, divisive nuttiness), who thrive on distinguishing themselves from a perception of mainstream 'professional politicians' who daren't speak their mind and can't 'connect' with 'ordinary people'.
It is small wonder that people are increasingly turned off the 'traditional' mainstream political parties when they seem to care more about maintaining a squeaky-clean image than about actual policies – and when they are so quick to expunge anyone who actually expresses an opinion, and apologise 'for any offence caused'. But we have created that culture for ourselves, by demanding the head of any politician who says something we don't agree with. When we complain that political parties are 'all the same', maybe we should consider what we have done to make them that way.
* Qualified Teacher Status
The remarks have been interpreted as disparaging nuns, or Catholic schools in general – which has, in turn, resulted in the tediously inevitable calls for Hunt to resign. Times columnist Hugo Rifkind presents a good case for construing Hunt's remarks as actually being deferential to nuns, not critical – but this is not the point.
@timothy_stanley No no. Watch it again. She says, "blah blah unqualified teachers", he says, "but NUNS". As in far BETTER than most. Really.
— Hugo Rifkind (@hugorifkind) February 6, 2015
I'm no fan of the Shadow Education Secretary. He seems to think 'unqualified teachers' is synonymous with 'bad teachers', and he managed to conflate QTS* and safeguarding protocol quite alarmingly during yesterday's programme. However, I don't think he should be forced to resign over this.I think it is a bit rich to complain (as so many people often do) that politicians are 'all the same', and 'out-of-touch', when every time a politician says anything which isn't strictly prescribed orthodoxy we are clamouring for him or her to be sacked.
And as politics becomes less about the frank exchange of ideas, and more about watching what you say, ever fearful that somebody may take offence – or that somebody may take offence on someone else's behalf – we open the door ever wider for parties like UKIP (whose education policy is actually shocking sensible, by the way – but of course that's not enough to make up for the rest of their poisonous, divisive nuttiness), who thrive on distinguishing themselves from a perception of mainstream 'professional politicians' who daren't speak their mind and can't 'connect' with 'ordinary people'.
It is small wonder that people are increasingly turned off the 'traditional' mainstream political parties when they seem to care more about maintaining a squeaky-clean image than about actual policies – and when they are so quick to expunge anyone who actually expresses an opinion, and apologise 'for any offence caused'. But we have created that culture for ourselves, by demanding the head of any politician who says something we don't agree with. When we complain that political parties are 'all the same', maybe we should consider what we have done to make them that way.
* Qualified Teacher Status
Tuesday, 3 February 2015
I'm out of touch, you're out of time…
As well as being the title of an immortal Hall & Oates song, 'out of touch' remains one of the most frustrating, facile and ultimately meaningless insults in political discourse.
I mean, why bother to argue against the points your political opponents put forward, and the policies they espouse, when you can just discredit them as people in the eyes of the electorate by describing them as 'out of touch' – proud members of an èlite professional political class* so cosseted and so far removed from 'ordinary life' that they have no idea what 'normal' people go through?
Of course, the whole thing is predicated on the idea that everyone wants their politicians to be ordinary and just like them – personally, I can't think of anything worse – but more to the point, it is complete nonsense.
The Daily Mail highlights how 'professional politicians'* like Labour leader Ed Miliband have come under fire for never having had a 'real job' (whatever that means). 'How can a politician hope to run the country properly if he's never even had a real job like real people? He doesn't know what things are like for us! No one fully understands life until they've worked in a shop!' goes the argument. Unfortunately, by that logic, those of us who've never worked in politics have no idea what life is like for politicians, and therefore have no authority to comment on the things they say or do either.
It's time we stopped pretending that 'politics' and 'the real world' exist on two totally separate planes, completely removed from each other. Politics doesn't exist in a bubble; it is a vital part of a functioning society. The decisions of politicians directly affect the rest of us – and what happens in business, in the charitable sector, in the church, etc. also has an impact on politics. Everybody's experiences differ, but we all live in 'the real world' – and plenty of politicians work as hard at their jobs as you do at yours. Now can we please talk about policies, instead of who's worked as a milkman or a ferret-trainer?
* As I have remarked before, there is an ongoing crusade against so-called 'professional politicians' – who are considered axiomatically bad, for some reason – but what's the alternative? Amateur politicians? Yeah, they sound competent…
I mean, why bother to argue against the points your political opponents put forward, and the policies they espouse, when you can just discredit them as people in the eyes of the electorate by describing them as 'out of touch' – proud members of an èlite professional political class* so cosseted and so far removed from 'ordinary life' that they have no idea what 'normal' people go through?
Of course, the whole thing is predicated on the idea that everyone wants their politicians to be ordinary and just like them – personally, I can't think of anything worse – but more to the point, it is complete nonsense.
The Daily Mail highlights how 'professional politicians'* like Labour leader Ed Miliband have come under fire for never having had a 'real job' (whatever that means). 'How can a politician hope to run the country properly if he's never even had a real job like real people? He doesn't know what things are like for us! No one fully understands life until they've worked in a shop!' goes the argument. Unfortunately, by that logic, those of us who've never worked in politics have no idea what life is like for politicians, and therefore have no authority to comment on the things they say or do either.
It's time we stopped pretending that 'politics' and 'the real world' exist on two totally separate planes, completely removed from each other. Politics doesn't exist in a bubble; it is a vital part of a functioning society. The decisions of politicians directly affect the rest of us – and what happens in business, in the charitable sector, in the church, etc. also has an impact on politics. Everybody's experiences differ, but we all live in 'the real world' – and plenty of politicians work as hard at their jobs as you do at yours. Now can we please talk about policies, instead of who's worked as a milkman or a ferret-trainer?
* As I have remarked before, there is an ongoing crusade against so-called 'professional politicians' – who are considered axiomatically bad, for some reason – but what's the alternative? Amateur politicians? Yeah, they sound competent…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)