There is an old adage
in journalism that ‘man bites dog’ is more newsworthy than ‘dog bites man’. The
point, of course, is that it’s the unusual which is of interest, not that which
happens daily. But defining what is usual or what is expected is not always an
easy matter; it depends on our frame of reference and our expectations based on
our own priors and prejudices.
The Guardian today
headlines one story
as ‘Up to 50 Labour MPs could rebel over cut to winter fuel allowance’. The
framing presents that as being unusual and unexpected. But the converse is that
other Labour MPs are going to go along with the government proposal in the
vote this week. There was a time when, based on the man bites dog analogy, the
headline would have been ‘350 Labour MPs to vote for reducing pensioner
incomes’. It would have been news – unusual, out of the ordinary, surprising
even.
Starmer chooses to
hide behind the formulation that he can guarantee that the annual increase in
the state pension “will outstrip any reduction in the winter fuel payment”
and Labour MPs are being encouraged to repeat the same line. Well, yes, that’s
true – but it’s mathematically flawed. An increase of £400 less a cut of £300
is, indeed, still an increase – but the net increase is less than the rate of
inflation. The bottom line is still that a Labour government is deliberately
planning to reduce the living standards of most pensioners, and no fudging of
the figures can disguise that intent. It says a lot about what the Labour Party has become that
voting to reduce pensioner incomes is regarded as normal, and the unusual, the ‘news’,
is that a handful of Labour MPs might decide to sit on their hands.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment