Skip to main content

Up to ankles in water does PM no good.

It appears from the opinion polls that the prime minister has misjudged the handling of the floods. All that donning of Wellington boots wading around and looking serious has done little to assuage the mood that too little has been done too late.

I usually find it silly that politicians have to be 'seen to be doing something'. This is why they end up paddling in water and 'coming to see' for themselves the enormity of it all when in truth it provides little they couldn't already understand. Being 'seen' in a crisis is all important. Being 'seen' to be indifferent to people's suffering is highly damaging.

Curiously Miliband's paddling and being 'seen' has been more effective than Cameron's. Voter's minds tend to be made rather early and Cameron was fighting a losing battle with public perception. He just looked like a man out of his depth.

All this is probably distinctly unfair. But it is the nature of politics. I  am sure the Prime Minister handles things with skill when he chairs Cobra meetings.

Chairing cobra meetings has also become a feature of being 'seen' to do something. Taking charge. Politicians have to be  'seen to take charge' or as it is so often said 'get a grip'. It is a euphemism that is most often used when politicians have little 'grip' to grip with. Events take more control than any politician could do.

Politicians are slaves to events, and the biggest 'event' is environmental change and certainly the weather. I would put my money on the weather winning. Politicians cannot control the rain and wind - at least not yet. Maybe some bright spark in a Cobra meeting is suggesting this be done.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba...

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...