I'm a mathematician by training. I respect numbers. And when I hear intelligent people confuse 'deficit' and 'debt', I shudder a little inwardly. I find myself thinking, "Perhaps that's why so many apparently well-off people struggle with their personal finances?". But when I see politicians, people who want to run the country, make the same mistake, in writing, I am even more troubled. Stumbling over the words 'debt' and deficit' when speaking happens - I get that.
This afternoon, my Twitter feed included this;
.@George_Osborne is in cloud cuckoo land. He's talking about a surplus when the deficit has increase on his watch! #clueless #cpc13
— Deborah Sacks (@deborahsacks) September 30, 2013
Deborah, or Debbie, as I called her when we were at university together, was a friend, and I follow her out of a vague sense of interest in how she's got on. She was bright, a Labour activist but not a tribal one, and was the lucky beneficiary of one of my more distracted moments as a Returning Officer - it's a long story but revolves around the fact that I calculated an STV surplus transfer incorrectly. Now, she's the Labour PPC for South Norfolk, one of neighbouring constituencies.
I politely pointed out that the debt has increased, whereas the deficit has fallen year-on-year, and studiously didn't point out that calling someone clueless whilst making such a glaring error oneself is hardly confidence inspiring. I also suggested that balancing the books had some merit, inspiring the reply;
.@honladymark Quite agree balancing the books "has merit". Just sounds a bit silly coming from a man who is failing so completely to do it!
— Deborah Sacks (@deborahsacks) September 30, 2013
I have to admit that I'm quite pleased that he hasn't succeeded yet, as the cuts introduced so far would have been a mere aperitif compared to what we've seen so far. However, being an inquisitive soul, I asked how she would balance the books - how much more tax, how many more cuts?...
@honladymark No it's about building a strong economy with more people working and paying tax. Not cutting the public sector out of ideology.
— Deborah Sacks (@deborahsacks) September 30, 2013
It's just a slogan, as opposed to some actual ideas, the sort of oppositionism for its own sake that gives politicians a bad name, and it makes me just a little more depressed about the future of this country than I might already have been.
There is a legitimate debate to be had in this country about the role of government, what sort of society we live in and how to finance those activities that would go towards building it. But if our politicians are going to regurgitate clever soundbites written by others, rather than express their own thoughts, and we, the public, are going to eschew the notion of gathering data and making an objective choice based on that data, we get the body politic we deserve.
It increasingly seems that, in the search for the illusive swing voters in the key seats, the spin doctors have forgotten why most people go into politics in the first place. It isn't to be 'on message', it is to change things for the better. Regardless of political philosophy, most people in the political sphere want to do that. The machine politics drives that individuality out of too many people, making them just another grey voice in a grey, sensible suit.
It's not for me, I'm afraid...
No comments:
Post a Comment