I have published this video this morning. In it, I note that you would think politicians should be good at decision-making, but they aren't. Of all the options available to them, they usually choose prevarication when there are usually five other alternatives they could use. As a result, our politicians are paralysing our political processes.
The audio version of this video is here:
The transcript is:
It seems to me that most politicians have an enormous problem with decision-making, and yet that is their entire job.
If you are a politician, you want to make a decision about the future of your government, your department, your town, your village, or whatever it might be that you are responsible for. And the vast majority of politicians don't seem to have a clue about what decision-making involves.
So let me be clear, as far as I am concerned when faced with any situation where a decision is required, and we all do that every day, day in day out - and therefore, what I'm going to say now is applicable in vast numbers of situations and not just to politicians - there are six potential responses that we can offer to any situation that arises.
The first and most obvious one is we can accept the situation that we are faced with. So, for example, if we are offered a 2 percent pay rise, we can accept it. That is literally what we are able to do whenever we are faced with such a decision. We can say, that's fine.
We can also, and let's look at the polar opposite, reject it. We can say, no, that won't do, because we wanted a 4 per cent pay rise and, therefore, we'll do something about it. We might strike, we might leave, we might say, it's time to look for a different career, whatever. We can reject a decision. So, acceptance and rejection are two of the situations that we can face.
So, acceptance and rejection are two of the options that we have when faced with a decision that we have to make.
Another choice that we have is to simply ignore the event that has happened: to pretend it has not occurred. And this is quite commonplace in life. All sorts of things happen around us which could require us to make a decision, but we decide to pretend nothing is required of us, it hasn't happened, we don't want to be concerned about it, and therefore we ignore it.
And that is what most people do with the whole world of politics, of course. They pretend that whatever it is that politics is about, they don't want to know about it, and therefore they ignore it. And that's a coping mechanism that many of us have to adopt much of the time with regard to many of the decisions that we face because we simply don't have time to deal with everything on which we could have an opinion.
Is that an option available to politicians? I suspect not, if the issue of significance, but it's very commonplace. What's a recent example? Well, politicians haven't noticed the anger in communities in the UK, and therefore, we have seen it well up. Their ignoring that issue has had a high price.
There are other options available in addition to these.
We can reframe the situation. In other words, somebody can tell us that we've got to make a decision about something, and we can actually say, no, that's not really what we're looking at here.
For example, we have to make a decision about whether to actually address issues of poverty. We could say, therefore, we've got to increase wages. We could also reframe the question and say, Is the distribution of income within our society correct? And is that an alternative way of dealing with this? In other words, we look for other potential answers to the problem that we can identify. So reframing is important because it explores other options that are always available to us.
And then there is the choice, and it's a real one, to change the situation. What we can do is, in response to a situation where we've been presented with somebody else's decision, is present them with a decision in response. So changing the situation is to open a negotiation. It's not a rejection. It's not an acceptance. It's a statement that the world is not as the person who's made a decision would like it to be because you have the freedom to change things. This isn't reframing: changing involves a precise counteroffer. And that is, of course, very commonplace.
And finally, there's the sixth option, which is beloved of every politician of recent years, which is to prevaricate.
Prevarication means that we'll appoint a committee to review this situation, we'll have a Royal Commission, we'll look at all the consequences that have arisen, we will assemble the great and good to prepare a report. This is prevarication. It always delays things.
A perfect example is in the way the Labour Party dealt with disciplinary processes within it prior to the election with regard to, for example, Diane Abbott. There was an inquiry into the abuse that she supposedly undertook. They took over a year to consider the matter, and at the last moment, they decided, in a rush, to let her stand for Parliament again. They prevaricated until the last moment. And this is too often the politician's choice.
We do have all those six options, therefore.
- Accept
- Reject
- Ignore
- Reframe
- Change, and
But what worries me most of all is that of all of those, it is prevarication that appears to appeal most to UK politicians, and as a consequence, nothing happens, and that, to me, is the surest indication that we have people in charge as politicians in the UK who don't really know what they're doing, and that deeply worries me.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
May I suggest that many politicians do know what they’re doing but choose not to do anything because they have an agenda contrary to the best interests of the majority?
Thank you for such a fundamentally useful analysis!
Might ever popular Prevarication be helpfully differentiated into subtypes which might include the following:
1) Over promotion prevarication
2) Avoidance of loss of status/power prevarication
3) Ideological blind spots prevarication
4) Inappropriate personality traits for post prevarication
I like that
Prevaricate means “to avoid stating the truth … to quibble”. (Chambers). Perhaps you mean “procrastinate” or “delay”.
Of course, politicians do often prevaricate.
I prefer prevaricate
Or /and there’s strategic prevarication: awaiting a good moment to get of the fence, hoping something would come along to give a more favourable outcome or make it too late for good responses. I suspect the Diane Abbott example may have been that.
Perhaps they prevaricate because often, they are looking over their shoulder wondering how the Uk media will “frame” the problem/its resolution. (if indeed there is a resolution/solution).
If this is the case, then it suggests a bunch of politicos incapable of forming or driving their own narratives (& to do that they would need knowledge – based on a combo of epistemology & ontology). At this point it becoms evident that the Uk political elite are basically “weather cocks” pointing whichever way the meeja wind is blowing, not reaching any decision (heaven forbid) and hoping that things will blow over (& thus no decision/action needed).
Short term this can work, long term it leads to……..for example – the prices rises in elec bills (partly driven by gas settling at what seems to be a £30 – 25/MWh price). A failure to reform the elec “market” coupled to the tories ban on on-shore wind (remind me how much elec ground mount PV produces……..in winter) results in elec prices that do not reflect costs of production. (repeating: ……& to do that they would need knowledge – based on a combo of epistemology & ontology…………which they don’t have. Miliband is & always has been an ignoramous – as the event at the Stockholm COP in 2008 showed an imbicile then and an imbecile now).
A thoughtful post……………….
It is the lack of motivation to sort things out that puzzles me, and all I see therefore in politics is the ‘taking of sides’ – joining an established position – such as Neo-liberalism or support for Zionism where there is either an easier life offered or the feeling of joining an established group where there is safety in numbers. Or – and it has to be said – where there is filthy lucre.
Politics has become about established internal political stability with some bad ideas for company, rather than expressing itself through more stability in our homes, work, communities and the nation. Which we do not have.
Much of this I feel has to do with funding regimes that produce leverage over the funded but as discussed here, it is also about people who are good at campaigning or getting the job, but are under-qualified to actually do it. And it is also about information – which has to be paid for – and needs funding.
Politics has ceased to function in my view – but only it seems to me in regard to most of the population. Since we have an element of aristocracy in our system (‘the rule of the best’) are we being naive in expecting anything better where money and aristocracy seem to mingle and reinforce each other? Even though the beauty contest of ‘the rule of the best’ is decided by more lowly individuals (voters).
Therefore Democracy – which really is the meat and potatoes of the politician’s job since we voted them in on the basis that they ‘represent us’ and are supposed to be the best of us – has ceased to function too.
All I would say then is that party funding should be nationalised, and new rigorous rules created for that; I agree that those seeking power need to come from wider backgrounds and not be the empty vessels to be handled by shady advisors who seem to me to be unaccountable. It needs to be a a ‘you voted for/we did’ sort of deal. Maybe we should create a new constitution based on that and then select who governs by sortition?? We should also ban fascism and hone in on its science and outlaw the singling out of any group in public, thus robbing incompetent or ideologically unsound people of a way out of covering up a lack of change, talent or an external influence?
One thing strikes me though. The state (an idea I uphold) is an institution of force managed by people today many of whom too many are at best ill-schooled and at worse corrupt and in hock to money. Or, these people have been chosen by key members of their party?
When something fails, it needs to be replaced? But how? Why do we have to wait for a ‘fixed term’? How many times over the last 14 years did we see the Tories run into a cul-de-sac that bled the energy out of everything that needed to be done? The Tories had effectively come to a standstill and they needed to go but they obdurately stood their ground on a number of occasions whilst the country went to the dogs?
What I am proposing is that there needs to be more power awarded to the electorate in some way to solve that problem – a mid-term poll or something that tells the state something is wrong. Otherwise the electorate has no choice but to disengage (like me) or use their force. Neither is best for politics or the country.
The whole system is crap. Rip it up and start again. That would be a worthy and courageous political project. But it would go to the heart of what is politics for? What is democracy for? What is the goal here?
Well, I propose a simple starting point that I’m sure we are all familiar with: that politics and democracy has to serve everyone. It is not the role of a government that is ran along democratic means to make the life of any law abiding citizen in its care harder. How is that as starting principle? And the joining up principle is one where the State, the rich and rest work together in act of joint self-preservation. Self preservation – something relevant to us all – is not exclusive to individuals although it is felt like that for them – it is something that can be collectivised or needs to be by the state and its political democracy. If not, then we will only have the same politic as we have now that just reinforces winners and losers and nothing else.
But it is a hell of a task as it cuts across everything.
State party funding could make a big change
If you haven’t listened to it already I highly recommend the Rest is Politics Leading episode featuring a discussion with Peter Malinauskas, Premier of South Australia, who has a lot to say on the issue of state funding of politics, and is also actually doing something about it in SA.
Sorry – I missed the last line to top and tail my post:
If the state and its politicians need to take sides, then they must be on side of ALL its citizens. That is the only way justice and more equality can be delivered.
Agreed
Of course politicians belonging to the Neoliberal Single Transferable Party give themselves immense and unaccountable power over decision making by terrorising voters with the supposed disastrous discovery of “financial blackholes” suddenly appearing! Suddenly any accountability in regard to the manifesto they were elected on is jettisoned! The outcome is pressure to not bother supporting democracy when it’s so easily swept away!
Perhaps this article “ Labour and the Lobbyists” in The London Review highlights my point? https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n16/peter-geoghegan/labour-and-the-lobbyists
@ Richard Atkins. Indeed it does. Democracy in the UK is in the dustbin. Now we have the Two-Faced Single Transferable Party but not many voters aware that we do.
Guardian journalist Catherine Bennett in an article on Robert Jenrick, had a link to this.
It suggests that individualism is more of a motive than in the past (!?) but that we don’t train people for the task of political leadership. Food for thought
https://engelsbergideas.com/essays/how-the-british-elite-lost-its-way/
Sadly ….. Nice!
We often reward those who prevaricate. There are practised methods of appearing to consider all options …. Seemingly inclusive but sloppy! Of course there is an opportunity cost (but often we don’t expose/reveal/discuss those).
I once had a boss who deferred decisions long enough that they were not required to be made (events!) …. But it took time and burned billions …. He was NEVER DEMONSTRABLY ON THE WRONG SIDE.
Of course he was wrong ….. Where non-delivery has little consequence, sitting on the fence is a low risk strategy….. Just keep ticking over, no investment, no decisions … until all the slack/goodwill is used up. Classic British management style!!
“is the surest indication that we have people in charge as politicians in the UK who don’t really know what they’re doing, and that deeply worries me.”
Unless you have been living in a remote cave for the last 40 years, you would know unequivocally, that UK politicians do not have a clue what they are doing. They have already demonstrated, and continue to demonstrate, their absolute incompetence. The whole party system is built on the stupidity and greed of UK politicians and their media/NGO friends.
You, Richard, have shown repeatedly, how incompetent Rachel Reeves is. Sure she can direct wealth to the already rich, but given a free reign, she would be unable to solve any of the economic issues the country faces today. It is beyond her, as it was her predecessors.
It is always important to remember that to be an MP requires no skills or qualifications, excepting an ability to deceive and kiss arse
“Free reign” should of course be “free rein”. It’s a horse riding metaphor; nothing to do with kings an queens.
I keep saying that there should be an entrance exam for parliamentary candidacy. It should include economics (mmt as part of it) and constitution …
Rather than prevaricating, Labour seem to be doubling down on a self destruction strategy – signallng taxes up and spending down – – a continuation of 14 years austerity which they themselves say has left the country wrecked.
The signals from Labour are all pointing in the wrong direction – Starmer this morning ‘things are going to get worse’ and yet again @BBC colluding in this morning’s interview with McFadden – ‘ we have to balance the books’ – couldnt even ask if the books couldnt have been balanced by taking from the rich or corporations super profits rather than pensioners.
They are already embroiled in cronyisim issues – utterly predictable given that they sold themselves before the election – for some £14m.
Looks as though they will crash even sooner than most on here predicted.
Why no interrogator doesn’t say ” precisely what books are you talking about, why must they balance?” and then follow up be pointing out their omissions and errors, I don’t know. Collusion in ignorance.
You’re making the huge mistake of assuming that politicians are there to run the country, rather than to protect their own careers. On the contrary, every politician knows that any decision they make will be subject to massive criticism, to the inevitable detriment of both themselves and their party, so the rational approach is to make as few decisions as possible.
I blame the media for this. Whilst they are quick to criticise every firm decision, there is almost never any criticism of delay. If MSM published a weekly rogues gallery of ministers delaying decisions, perhaps the political landscape would look very different.
You raise an excellent point.
The need for media reform in the UK is one that cries out loud.
Firstly, as in the US, no foreign ownership, as in “If you do not pay personal taxation in the UK, then no ownership of UK media. That immediately deals with the Times, Telegraph, Mail, and Sun.
Secondly, a clear obligation to clarify the difference between news and opinions.
Thirdly, the move on to Leverson 2 and a cleaning up of any remaining corruption and unethical practices.
I don’t think I’m asking too much in the name of a functional, untainted democracy, which we definitely need.
Starmer has ditched Leveson. The motive can only be corrupt since he wants to curry favour with the rich who own the majority of the mainstream media. The greedy rich don’t want to be taxed equitably and want as many government favours as they can get. The Labour Party isn’t far away from becoming a branch of the Mafia! Have no truck with it!
The media are mere gophers; biddable nodding donkeys. The only way to make a start breaking the elective dictatorship in which we live in intellectual, economic and moral squalor, in our corrupted electoral system and in our predicament, is to begin with the concerted campaign to end FPTP. The current Single Transferable Party cannot survive it. Then, at least – you have a chance.
I think there is, too, an inclination for, not just politicians, but so-called decision makers across the board, to decide to do things just to be seen to be doing something whether or not it is the right thing to do or is even actually required .
Some have argued that Caligiula’s horse[1] would have made a fine Roman senator because it would have made no decisions, and thus no mistakes.
An inspiration for the current generation, perhaps?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitatus
There is no better example of this than the decisions, or lack of them taken by the politicians involved in the Horizon scandal. Summarised perfectly in this post on Nick Wallis’s blog regarding Rt. Hon.Greg Clark’s prevarication, when by 2019 the evidence was abundantly clear:
“Clark’s evidence established that, even though the Government knew by early 2019 that widespread injustice had been perpetrated by the Post Office and that the safety of multiple criminal convictions were in doubt, the Government persisted in deferring to the decisions of its fiercely dictatorial Board. BEIS’s reluctance to police the Post Office’s behaviour thereafter has prolonged the victims’ exposure to a regime of unprecedented hostility.”
https://www.postofficescandal.uk/post/guest-post-eleanor-shaikh-on-the-rt-hon-greg-clark/
“Another choice that we have is to simply ignore the event that has happened: to pretend it has not occurred. And that is what most people do with the whole world of politics, of course.”
This is a summary of the success of neoliberalism. It has turned politics into the non-political, and a simple matter of managerialism, to be left to business and bankers; a matter solely of the ‘professionals’, who know best (They know very little, and are deeply confused). Meanwhile, neoliberalism has spun a story of politics that evades the substance of politics and focuses Party politics on the desire to eliminate the politics of politics from legitimate discussion. That is how you create a Single Transferable Party, almost without anyone noticing
The lack of positive political action more seems to reflect the purely technocratic approach, where there is a lack of underlying ethical commitment.
The ethical underpinning of any system is what provides its motive force.
Day to day problems cannot avoid reactive actions, but the deep seated beliefs that motivate and demand pro-active engagement are curiously missing.
Perhaps the neoliberal consensus and ‘end of history’ have sapped the energy of reforming politicians, perhaps the corporate capitalist hegemony is just too entrenched.
As Mouffe puts it:-
“Technocrats do not argue for radicalism.
The aim of broadly homogeneous centrist parties then becomes to secure power for its own sake, rather than to deliver a set of policies based on a well expressed set of values and fundamental beliefs.”
Wasn’t this the reason why we had an educated – even sometimes technocratic – First Division of the Civil Service?
Arrrgh!
It’s difficult for us non politicians to imagine the mind of an actual politician but I think we have all experienced and observed similar where it is quite clear that the person responsible for making a decision is prevaricating and pondering what the effect and outcome of their decision will be…… on themselves