Standing up for Short-termism
“Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time…”
This Churchill quote came to me last week at a housing round table discussion. The old chestnut came up that housing policy was too important to be fettered by politics and the political cycle. I am sure this is said about many other policy areas from health to education, from care to the economy. It is often mentioned in relation to planning. Everything would be much better if we left it to the experts and kept these pesky politicians away from it.
In prompting those present to extract their tiny violins as I offered to speak up for politicians. A couple of people said “that’s because you are one,” however I had to remind them that I was a member of politicians anonymous and that I attended regular meetings with other recovering addicts declaring how many days I had gone without a moving a resolution or a suspension of standing orders.
I understand why people want the security of ten year (or longer) plans which can not be changed at the whim of a minister. Politicians do not destroy their lives, relationships and their social standing, spending interminable hours in tedious meetings, ingratiating people they don’t like, or burn through massive amounts of shoe leather delivering leaflets to be eaten by dogs or immediately relocated to the recycling bin for fun. They want to be able to make decisions and influence events. An administration which, say, has been elected after a generation of being in opposition will not want to be told that they cannot change or make policy because their hated predecessors signed up to a ten year plan which has eight years to run.
Of course, we could do away with these perfidious politicians and leave the policy making to benevolent sector experts. This works beautifully, until the benign dictators start doing things with which you do not agree. Then you find that your view of their benevolence and expertise starts to dissipate.
This is not just true of politics. Those that say they want a fixed plan, beyond the electoral cycle, would not accept the same strictures within their own roles. How many new Chief Executives would not change policies and plans of their predecessors just because they have been set for years into the future, if they thought they were wrong or that the operating environment meant that they were no longer valid.
Given this why would anyone think that politicians should be bound by the decisions of their predecessors, especially if they have fought an election to remove them. This is true of both local and national politics. It should also be remembered that in reality there is very little that politicians can influence. Apparently economic and fiscal policy is as much controlled by the ‘Bond Markets’ (who controls them? Who even are they?) as it is by the Treasury. Councils are caught between their growing legal responsibilities and the exponential cost of social care and the reducing real terms income available to them.
Those who think that democracy is a good idea (although our current system might be likened to Ghandi’s view of Western Civilisation) must understand that it requires politicians to be able to change policies. It may be uncomfortable not to have the security of plans which outlive the electoral cycle but that is what the electoral cycle is for.
