I listened to a speech by a politician recently that was genuinely disappointing. It would be unfair and inappropriate to name him, and pointless because my observations are more about the general principles than the detail in this case. He was talking about a subject that I know well and have been closely involved in for some time so I know for certain that at least three of the statistics and statements presented and quoted were totally incorrect but they served to underline the failings of a current policy.
So why did the content of this speech lack credibility. Was it because researchers weren’t thorough enough, was it because the speech wasn’t adequately proof-read, or was it – more cynically – because the inaccurate data better supported the case being made? I may be naive, but I think it rare for politicians to deliberately set out to mislead. However, I also believe that expediency often leads to the use of selective and convenient use of data to ensure a particular point is made or argument justified.
Two thoughts. First, I really wish politicians could learn to resist the urge to spend their time looking for negatives that will allow them to score political points. I want to hear positive constructive messages that will benefit business and the economy. Second, I want to be able to trust what I hear and believe it to be credible. I’d rather be convinced by an objective argument considering the pros and cons of a proposal than feel I am being manoeuvred into a position that is unconvincing, where only one side of the debate is aired and where the underlying intention seems to be to undermine existing or previous policy rather than present serious alternatives.
I’ve missed attending the party conferences this year but I certainly haven’t missed the less savoury elements of point scoring, sound-byte grabbing, and economy with the truth!
No comments:
Post a Comment