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

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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