Three discussions in which I have been involved recently have swirled around the impact of the pressures of 24/7 news, instantaneous political pronouncements and the low public esteem for politicians. A research study on Tuesday morning got me thinking about this interaction, then a group around the Lord Speaker’s table took it further and, in the afternoon, I was talking to a seminar of young civil servants and campaigners.
I wondered what would happen if a Minister, faced with the demand for an immediate comment on the Today programme, replied “I don’t know, I’ll think about that”. Would John Humphrys explode ? Suppose I am asked by a student at a college I am visiting, on behalf of the Lord Speaker, some erudite question about the sources of advice she can call on. Wouldn’t I be sensible to answer “I don’t know, but I will check with her, and come back to you?”
Sometimes Ministers do admit – in the Lords but less often in the Commons – to understandable ignorance. Such humility is appreciated here. But would the press (and the public) applaud or abuse such an outbreak of honesty amongst MPs. What do you think?
Lord Tyler,
Oddly enough, on many ‘media training’ courses you would be taught to admit that you can’t answer that question, or that you would have to refer to a colleague, rather than blurt out an estimate, guess at an answer or just bull$h!t your way through because you are stressed at having been ‘doorstepped’ without any warning.
It is more difficult for a Government minister on the Today programme because they haven’t been ‘ambushed’ on a topic they may not know the detail of, but which the TV company thinks they should have a view on.
The expectation is that the Minister on Today will have a complete mastery of their brief, even if that is somewhat un-realistic. Like it or not ‘the buck stops’ with them, and so an admission that they don’t know, whilst candid and honest, is more difficult to ‘sell’ than the businessman or woman admitting that they don’t know about the conditions in the factories where their goods are manufactured.
I was taught from a young age that ‘honesty is the best policy’, but I also learnt not long after that about ‘how the ungodly do prosper’.
It should be possible for a Minister to admit once or maybe twice that they ‘don’t know’, but much more than that and they wouldn’t really give the impression of being on top of their brief.
Left to their own deviced I think they’d applaud it, if it was a sparingly-used answer, and they did follow up on their pledge to reply. But the yellow press would relish something like that.
If politicians started to do this, tell the truth, say what they, as an individual think, rather than what their political creed demands, then in a very short time they would regain our respect, it will never, ever happen, the British media is a national disgrace, people like Humphrys are egotistical basket cases, hopeless interviewers. However, politicians have adopted a public persona based around the media’s attitude, not the response of the person on the Clapham omnibus , therein lies the problem, dynamite will be required, I feel. Just imagine, who blinks first, Labour, Lib Dems or Conservatives ?
I’ve so wanted politics to be more like science – where it is legitimate to simply say ‘I don’t know’.
I dont think its all the medias fault however; politicians take the blame themselves for not letting Ministers (or whoever) be honnest – If any did say such a thing great cries would go up ‘Resign!, Resign!’. Behaving like children, really.
I do believe however, a cunning politician could do such a thing – by saying something like ‘I don’t know; and I’m not going to insult the publics intelligence by pretending that I do’ – might just cut through public scepticism, I hope it would be worded better than mine, however.
Wouldn’t it be great if we all knew and understood proper arguement, reason and logic. 🙂
Nice editorial! Challenging, and a departure from your usual style. Perhaps Peers and MPs in chamber should have the ability to phone a friend? Especially if its a $64,000 dollar question.
Ed Balls recently admitted he didn’t know the meaning of a term in the Education and Skills Bill. He offered to write to the Labour MP who asked him about it in the debate, last week I think, and it didn’t seem to matter much.
Summary of current rates with effect from 1 April 2008:
Members’ parliamentary salary £61,820 from 1 November
Allowances
Staffing Allowance – Maximum of £93,854
Incidental Expenses Allowance (IEP) – Maximum of £22,193
IT equipment (centrally provided) – [worth circa £5,000]
Pension provision for Members’ staff – 10% of employee’s gross salary
London Supplement – £2,916
Additional Costs Allowance – Maximum of £24,006
Winding up Allowance – Maximum of £38,682
Communications Allowance – Maximum of £10,400
Car Mileage (per mile) – 40p (for first 10,000 miles), 25p (after 10,000 miles)
Bicycle allowance – (per mile) 20p
Motorcycle allowance – 24p
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/M05.pdf
For other payments see http://www.parliament.uk/faq/members_faq_page2.cfm
Why have I put these figures up? Because, in response to John, I reckon MPs, such as Ed Balls, have enough resources to get to grips with their brief and should be able to answer questions on terminology, at the very least.
What on earth made Margaret Beckett attempt to claim £600 on garden plants?
If politicians want us to believe in their integrity, start with giving their employers a reason not to sack them for nicking from the till.
Honesty? Pfft. As the HFE Bill proved, the electorate are more impressed when the whip is removed.