Ubiquitous Political Fallacies of Policy Wonks vs Democratic Priorities

Policy wonks should conduct their debates away in a policy caves and be reminded that some politicos and journos are only fair-weather friends who climb to these policy caves on slow news days to acquire snippets of information about ubiquitous Political Fallacies that will enhance their own vacuous and doctrinaire positions.

Inevitably, the often mis-reported information is intended to highlight and prop up the individuals making the report. They frequently utilise a brew of self-promoting half truths and political mischief making. Not infrequently issues are inflated way above the actuallite and given credence and priority above many more important, high impact issues. Thus mice are made elephants and the real elephants are diminished.

And so to the political mischief published by the DT, copied from some Policy Wonk debate and discussed on this board. The tones of some of these condemnatory remarks made here, would appear to any reasoned person, to portray a sinful and profligate 5000-strong group of people whom it is essential we stigmatise immediately as they broke some as-yet un-defined rule of “How to Manage Social Housing “.

In some circles, these events would be celebrated as successes when measured against the tenets of those mandate-less adherents to Thatcherite/Cameronian Dogma. Oh what nightmares Margaret must be having given that her holy grail of universal home ownership has broken down to the extent that first-time owners are condemned to not being able get on the ladder in their twenties and may now reach their mid-to-late-30’s before their dreams can be realised. (On a side note perhaps some of these high earner homes may fall into that class because of the salaried contributions of children who cannot afford to flee the nest and buy their own homes – but I digress and I do not really know).

Some perspective, some touch of common sense should be brought to bear. Not least would be the case that Michael makes that democratic society is entitled to examine such issues. It is perfectly acceptable that if the position of high earners renting LA housing needs some better degree of control, it could be important enough that new legislation be scrutinised and enacted.

That is the British way.

What is wholly un-British, is to unfairly accuse, find guilty and punish (eg evict) individuals who have not broken any enacted law. Even in circumstances where revisions to the law are enacted, our democratic legislature has almost never attempted to make a new law apply retrospectively. It may be the case that many of us may be left with doubts about both how this situation came about and the potential effectiveness of legislative change.

Just as importantly, before we all fall in and out of the moral equivalence argument, we cannot judge or condemn the individual tenants of these high earner homes as we know nothing about them or their circumstances.

Debate is good, this is an eclectic board well defended by its members, but the attempted defamation and stigmatisation of people about whom we know nothing are what remain obscene.

There is a long list of mice type issues that are propagated in every democracy; however the sign of a strong democracy is one that recognises its elephants too and can keep a balanced perspective about what priorities will be applied. I have articulated a few such elephants earlier in this thread and will refrain from listing more.