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 balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …