A number of
different versions of the saying, “There go the people. I must follow them,
for I am their leader” have appeared over the years. It’s usually attributed
to Alexandre
Auguste Ledru-Rollin, although it’s unclear whether he actually said it or
not. Its origin isn’t really important, but it does express a particular political
issue very well. Is it the job of politicians to follow, or to lead? One of the
attributes of populist politicians is that they attempt to discern what people
think, and reflect that back to them (albeit frequently in a distorted or
exaggerated form) in an attempt to gain and exercise power, which is really
their only objective. Politicians who are part of a movement seeking to change
society are more inclined to set out their beliefs and try to persuade people of their
merits. But parties don’t stay in one place, and the Labour Party is a classic
example. Founded to change the world, it has ended up meekly following whatever
it believes the latest trend in public opinion to be.
There are few things
for which I’d give Blair, Brown, or Cameron any credit, but the move to boost
overseas aid to 0.7% - set as a target by Blair/Brown, in accordance with
international targets, and achieved and legislated for by Cameron – is one of them. To their
shame, both parties have been equally complicit in reversing the decision –
Sunak took it down to 0.5%, and Sir Warmonger has further reduced it to 0.3%.
And both have diverted significant sums from the overall total to expenditure
within the UK on handling refugees and asylum-seekers. Both blamed a ‘lack of money’, and in both cases that was based on the fallacious argument that there is a finite
amount of money available, and we have to make choices about how to use it.
Today, a Labour Trade
Minister has told us,
by way of justification, that the public no longer supports the idea of foreign
aid. It’s a chicken-and-egg question, though. Have the public spontaneously
turned against the idea of providing foreign aid allowing the politicians an
excuse to cut funding, or is the change in public attitudes a result of years
of propaganda telling people that the UK ‘cannot afford’ to help others? It’s
probably best described as a vicious circle, with the original driver as
unclear as whether the chicken came before the egg. The notable thing, though,
is the lack of any effort by self-styled ‘progressive’ politicians to attempt
to break out of that circle by showing some leadership. Following public
opinion is just another excuse.
No comments:
Post a Comment