The infantile politics of good behaviour
David Miliband was in trouble last week. So much so that it made the front page of BBC News. Had he failed to deliver on one of his policy initiatives? Were the public getting fed up with him setting CO2 reduction targets for 2050 and not 2010? Nope. The furore arose from his appalling confession that he and his family used disposable nappies.
You could be forgiven for thinking that we were still in the silly season – when parliamentary recess pushes otherwise inconsequential stories to the top of the agenda – and not the beginning of a run up to an election. Yet in Britain in 2010 it is hardly unusual for attention to be lavished on stories such as this. Whether governments ‘keep their own house in order’ really does appear to have become the very substance of politics.
Take for example Cameron’s promise to cut the emissions of government departments – justified with some vague sounding rhetoric about ‘setting a good example’. Sorry but basic arithmetic instructs me not to give a shit. I would imagine government departments account for about 1% of emissions if that. As such a 20% emissions cut would reduce national co2 emissions by 0.2 per cent. But who cares about actual consequences. What matters is that our government occupies the moral high ground. Consider, meanwhile, Nick Clegg’s recent ridiculous suggestion that the queens speech – setting out what the government plans to do to/for the country – should be put off so that parliament could instead engage in a period of intense introspection after its shameful behaviour.
Meanwhile Cameron grabbed headlines over the summer by promising to cut ministers wages. Honestly if there is anything worse than the sight of politicians rolling around in liberally claimed expenses, then it is the sight of politicians parading around in a hair shirt, demanding credibility not for they plan to do with the great levers of state power, but for their stoicism, hard work and willingness to put aside their personal interests.
If all of this was pushed up the agenda by the expenses scandal, then its not where the ante began to be upped. Perhaps things began to shift in the early 1990s when a string of prominent Tory’s were brought down by personal scandals and when Blair promised a government that was ‘whiter than white’. I certainly feel a milestone was reached when Blair made his final speech in office and basically addressed the Iraq war by telling the cheering crowd ‘I did what I thought was right at the time’. In certain areas of life intentions matter more than consequences. Yet when it comes to wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people they probably don’t.
It would be commonsensical to see this personal obsession with those in power in terms of that great cliche of the modern age – ‘the cult of the celebrity’. Yet I would suggest that things often rise to prominence because other things diminish. For at least the last 8 years the New Labour government has sent out alot of signals, and legislated a hell of lot, but has changed relatively little. And if we can no longer hope for, or even concieve of, a government that really does change society, it is perhaps understandable that we seem to have been reduced to demanding a government that simply keeps its own house in order. If they can’t change the conditions in which we live, they can at least set us a good example.
Reader Comments
You say first that :”Take for example Cameron’s promise to cut the emissions of government departments – justified with some vague sounding rhetoric about ’setting a good example’. Sorry but basic arithmetic instructs me not to give a shit. I would imagine government departments account for about 1% of emissions if that. As such a 20% emissions cut would reduce national co2 emissions by 0.2 per cent. But who cares about actual consequences. What matters is that our government occupies the moral high ground. ”
Then you say “And if we can no longer hope for, or even concieve of, a government that really does change society, it is perhaps understandable that we seem to have been reduced to demanding a government that simply keeps its own house in order. If they can’t change the conditions in which we live, they can at least set us a good example.”
So is setting a good example important, or isn’t it?
NO i am saying it is not. The last statement is to illustrate the kind politics to which we have unfortunately been reduced.
” Consider, meanwhile, Nick Clegg’s recent ridiculous suggestion that the queens speech – setting out what the government plans to do to/for the country – so that parliament can enjoy a period of introspection after its shameful behaviour.”
Huh?
Cheers for pointing out. Corrected now
Very good article – I agree with it entirely. I must be ill or something…
Rofl owen, when I saw that you had commented I was totally not expecting that
Going all the way back to your first comment Reuben, I’d say setting an example is important. This is partially due to the principle of leading by example, and also as a defence against charges of hypocrisy if you’re coercing people into changing their behaviour.
As I see it the overemphasis on the importance of avoiding hypocrisy is part of the same problem Reuben’s talking about. If we need to achieve nationwide CO2 emissions cuts then we don’t magically stop needing to do that if DEFRA staff use planes a bit more than they should. Sure, people *will* complain about hypocrisy as an excuse not to do anything themselves, but that doesn’t make it right.
Indeed. It’s a question of weighting and priorities. Avoiding global warming – and taking steps that materially contribute to that aim – is more important than “avoiding the charge of hypocrisy”
Isn’t all our discourse about global warming infected with this overly ‘personal’ focus though? It’s not just the political sphere that is obsessed with meaningless gestures of ‘doing their bit,’ the whole way in which the issue is framed is as though it’s purely a matter of individual virtue on the smallest of issues (buying a canvas bag and switching lights out), which clearly makes no difference on an individual level. Clearly this serves to distract from measure which might actually make a difference (e.g. forcibly reducing Western consumption for starters). Since all the policies that would actually make a difference are essentially politically ruled out from the start, purely token gestures are even more encouraged. (I guess they’re what’s “diminished” and “risen” in my view).
That said I agree that our political culture in general is obsessed with these sorts of purely individual, personal actions: they’re the most easily digested, soundbitable etc. I think the problem spreads beyond the UK’s inability to conceive of a govt making a difference though. Look at the 2004 US election: there was a fair bit at stake in the choice between Bush and Kerry on substantive policy issues, and yet voters intentions were still driven by such facile intuitions as whether they’d ‘like to have a beer with’ the candidates.