We‘re all (or most of us are) in a rather consensual, cuddly and collaborative mood. And what a shift from the confrontation of the election – the accusations, challenges and cutting damnation of carefully constructed straw men are all set aside as we march together into the glorious, bright co-operative future!
Now don’t take this the wrong way folks as I’m all for working together to deliver betterment, but I’m a little concerned by all this consensus malarkey. Mostly because it isn’t really consensus or co-operation – it’s compromise. It’s like some kind of policy top trumps – I’ll let you have regulation of drinks pricing if you let me have a supermarket ombudsman (and yes, I’ve deliberately chosen unpleasant controlling, interventionist policy choices where the nannies have won over those who believe in freedom).
So we get compromise – no problem where the difference between the parties is small you say? Well look at the public health and anti-social behaviour agenda – schools won’t be allowed to fingerprint children but there’s nothing about stopping them bullying governors into agreeing to weigh kids. And we see again the straw man of “24 hour licensing” blamed for drink related anti-social behaviour.
Compromise risks indecisiveness and dither. Compromise leads to policy dumbing down – to the lowest common denominator rather than the right choice. And compromise undermines challenge and question – it reinforces received wisdom and further elevates the sacred cow. Above all, consensus and compromise hands to organised groups set up for the purpose of special pleading – mostly calling for more restrictions, more constraints and less freedom – the ability to play divide and rule.
I may support the “coalition” – and much in the programme is admirable – but I am not so starry-eyed as to believe that it represents some magical new dawn in our politics. Indeed, the themes of recent years persist – there’s still a shoot the messenger attitude to advertising, there’s still a planned assault on personal freedom in the guise of public health programmes and there remains a view that saving and investing is somehow a reprehensible activity.
So let’s have a realistic response – less of this bubbly, frothy, ooh-ing and ah-ing over the new government and a little more perspective. Consensus and collaboration are here because they are unavoidable not because Nick or Dave – let alone their respective armies – wanted to adopt that approach.
Here’s to the revolution!
Now don’t take this the wrong way folks as I’m all for working together to deliver betterment, but I’m a little concerned by all this consensus malarkey. Mostly because it isn’t really consensus or co-operation – it’s compromise. It’s like some kind of policy top trumps – I’ll let you have regulation of drinks pricing if you let me have a supermarket ombudsman (and yes, I’ve deliberately chosen unpleasant controlling, interventionist policy choices where the nannies have won over those who believe in freedom).
So we get compromise – no problem where the difference between the parties is small you say? Well look at the public health and anti-social behaviour agenda – schools won’t be allowed to fingerprint children but there’s nothing about stopping them bullying governors into agreeing to weigh kids. And we see again the straw man of “24 hour licensing” blamed for drink related anti-social behaviour.
Compromise risks indecisiveness and dither. Compromise leads to policy dumbing down – to the lowest common denominator rather than the right choice. And compromise undermines challenge and question – it reinforces received wisdom and further elevates the sacred cow. Above all, consensus and compromise hands to organised groups set up for the purpose of special pleading – mostly calling for more restrictions, more constraints and less freedom – the ability to play divide and rule.
I may support the “coalition” – and much in the programme is admirable – but I am not so starry-eyed as to believe that it represents some magical new dawn in our politics. Indeed, the themes of recent years persist – there’s still a shoot the messenger attitude to advertising, there’s still a planned assault on personal freedom in the guise of public health programmes and there remains a view that saving and investing is somehow a reprehensible activity.
So let’s have a realistic response – less of this bubbly, frothy, ooh-ing and ah-ing over the new government and a little more perspective. Consensus and collaboration are here because they are unavoidable not because Nick or Dave – let alone their respective armies – wanted to adopt that approach.
Here’s to the revolution!
....
No comments:
Post a Comment