Skip to main content

Boris is a broad-sweep politician

We often hear the expression 'on top of the detail'.  The forensic analysis of instant media more often will find politicians wanting when it comes to specifics.  An interviewer comes to the studio well briefed with a specific set of details, the politician comes having to anticipate what they might be asked.

 It is a game of cat and mouse, chasing around the issues.

Andrew Neil on the BBC uses the technique of catching politicians on detail, or on what they might have done or said at some time in the past, long or short.  "I put it to you that....", "No, no, this is what you said in 100 AD."

Does it get us anywhere?

We could say that politicians should know the detail.  But is that really sensible?  Good decisions may be influenced by details, or by what is called 'fact'.  Yet, decisions are often made on a balance of probabilities and not on 'facts'.

Boris is a broad-sweep politician

Boris Johnson is a broad sweep politician.  I suspect he doesn't like interviews, especially with Andrew Neil, because he is rarely in command of the details of a case.  He blusters through with generalities, and when challenged on detail he is not averse to simply making it up as he goes along.  This is not necessarily a weakness.

We shouldn't underestimate the strength of such a broad sweep approach.  In the end, decisions have to be made, and often the details get in the way rather than help.

The value put on any given detail depends on outlook and objectives.  It depends on your view of the world and, often, gut instinct.  

This is Boris Johnson's strength.  Leaders have to have a broad-brush approach and not get obsessed with the details of issues.

Voters also prefer a broad-brush approach.  Voters adopt positions, just as politicians do. The centre of gravity of those positions can shift, and when that happens so also does the political outcome.  Listening to voters doesn't mean listening to the details. It means understanding their mood.


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

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,