19 Comments on Life and death issues hidden by the fog of indignation

Stu on Wed, 27th May 2009 4:22 pm


Matthew, do you really think these issues are hidden by the shrill debate about expenses? How come we have never been truly engaged on these issues – at least not in my adult life anyway (1997 onwards).

We have known about the looming pensions crisis for years but I have yet to see or hear a politician talk about this in any meaningful way (although, I admit, I haven’t tried particularly hard to be involved in a dialogue about this)

Rob on Wed, 27th May 2009 6:26 pm


Stu – that’s not really true. One of the unfortunate features of our politics is that all too often, important debates about matters such as pensions are being had – but because of the low esteem in which Parliament is held, such debates are never reported or debated by the citizenry at large. As an example – David Blunkett raised the issue of people working past what we consider to be the ‘normal’ retirement age (thus helping not just the economy, but reinforcing people’s mental health and strengthing our communities) in a speech last September (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7599009.stm). This was reported in banner headlines as “BLUNKETT: WORK TIL YOU DROP”.

The real lesson that lies behind the current (justified) moral outrage is that we are all part of the solution. Politicians must ensure probity; the media must report and discuss issues seriously, not trade in sensationalism; and we, the public, must inform ourselves and be prepared to put prejudices aside and listen to rational debate from whichever political direction it comes.

WP on Wed, 27th May 2009 6:43 pm


Matthew, why do you think this debate has not taken previously. Is it because of the good economic years, therefore people not needing to look outside their comfortable private lives and contemplate the more difficult decisions. Or is it simply that the modern age 24/7 media does not allow for a detailed, honest debates on policies, and instead boils issues down to simple headlines suitable for the Sun?

ad on Wed, 27th May 2009 6:49 pm


The big danger here is that by putting off hard decisions today we will make the pain tomorrow longer and deeper, and that our economic and financial problems might then turn into a social and democratic crisis.

What hard decisions has the government been forced to put off, in the face of public opposition, since this crisis began?

Because if you cannot give any examples, I do not see how you can blame the public, rather than the elected government.

(Unless you want to blame the public for voting Labour.)

carl allen on Wed, 27th May 2009 8:47 pm


There is a refusal to use prime time to have the public conversations necessary, and to share up this prime time between housing, education, finance, manufacturing, health, employment, leisure and poverty matters.

Place the profesionals, business people, politicians, academics, permanent secretaries and community activists on the podium and let them face an audience on the above matters.

Prime time conversations. Less pronouncements and much more conversation at prime time.

Prime time questioning is a different type of news that suits this era immensely.
It is the type of news that we call “The Conversation”, where incisive questions leave those with responsibilities transparent and accountable in real time.

Stu on Thu, 28th May 2009 7:59 am


@Rob – fair point, though I did admit that I haven’t searched out the policy debate on pensions. Does my point not prove, however, that these issues are not seeping through into the public domain? If I haven’t heard about them then I think it’s fair to assume that a large majority of the country haven’t either (I don’t want that to sound arrogant btw)

I would happily watch a civilised talk on these issues on TV. Unfortunately, the nearest we get to this is the yah-booing public and the straitjacketed politicians on Question Time.

paul on Thu, 28th May 2009 8:48 am


There is something depressing about the way we, in the developed world, have responded to the current recession. We saved the banks for purely instrumental reasons, to save the economic system. Without the bailout it felt like our world was on the threshold of a new Dark Age. But I remember feeling a little frustrated and sad that the money was to be spent on shoring up a system of unsustainable credit.
But is it true that there was no other option than to save the banks? Surely we always have options, the point is that we assume people only want to take (what appears to be) the easiest possible one.
Has there been any reasonable reflection about what might have happened on day zero, the day after the banks had gone bust? For a start I think we can say for a fact that the sun would still have come up. Why couldn’t we have spent the money allowing people to take a day off work to read a book? Or invested the billions in giving parents the chance to spend time with their children?
My point is that we are deluded by a purely instrumental economic view of life. People living in the ‘west’ appear to have swallowed the idea that outside of the economic world, there is nothing, just an abyss, but the fact is… it is not true.
Our society must be definable by something more than its economic growth rate. People are capable of other things than work and unsustainable consumption.

Rich on Thu, 28th May 2009 9:30 am


“Estonia…Hungary…It may be because the people of these countries had a strong memory of harsher times that they were willing to accept tough measures as the price for getting back on track. Can we imagine such resigned fortitude emerging from our own indignant, intolerant and self pitying public discourse?”

Memory of harsher times may be a part of it, but I do think an important aspect is a strong memory of a lack of autonomy, of dictatorial rule. Living a normal life in a state without democracy means accepting a lack of control over political decisions, a culture of defeatism and acceptance.

This must be considered in respect of the decisions that have been made more recently – it may be that there is more resignation than fortitude in their “resigned fortitude.” I know shockingly little about Estonian or Hungarian democracies, but I want to point out that these decisions they have made are not necessarily evidence of a well-developed political maturity.

As far as Britain is concerned, I think that the public displays of indignitation should be celebrated as much as bemoaned… Because they are motivated by high expectations, by a strong sense of fairness of justice. Britain has one of the longest histories of liberalism, we have a strong memory of personal freedom, of freedom from authoritian disempowerment. (Incidentally, I think this culture is part of the reason why ID cards in the UK would be an over-extension of government power, despite being workable in many other European countries.)

The state has no natural right to exist, its legitmacy and authority must be sustained and continually nurtured in the minds of the public… even as the expectations of the public change. And as you have highlighted before, there is now a “legitimacy gap” in this “post deferential” age of increased transparency. The gap needs to be plugged – we are already suffering the damage of lost opportunities, and ultimately it could lead to social and political crisis.

But we must recognise that the problem is not simply the attitude of the British public, it is the relation between that expectation and the politicians, civil servants, the media, think tanks, etc. who make up the political system. I am sure you recognise this (as you have written about it before).

My point is that the energy behind the public’s indignation comes from a good place. As you rightly point out, the conversation between the people and their representatives is the issue. The problem is that the people and their representatives are so far apart, shouting is all there is left. Indignation, protests, political activism all increase when people feel that the mainstream political system does not meet their expectations for self-empowerment, self-expression. Politicians are doubly removed from the electorate, out of touch with local party groups who are out of touch with the general public. The media does not provide a satisfying analysis of the issues. Choice at the ballot box has dried up. No-one has yet knocked on my door about the European elections.

Sorry, I am rambling on, and I am in no position to criticise your blogging, which is always insightful and thought-provoking. But, while your indignation about public indignation may provide a refreshing corrective, I hope you will agree that it is but the first step to a solution.

If we are to be mature enough to understand the system that allowed passionate, public service-minded MPs to make unreasonable expenses claims, let us also be mature enough to understand the system that brings about unreasonable public indignation. The public is not faultless. Neither are politicians, or the media. They are all part of the system, and there are vicious cycles throughout. So where are the opportunities for intervention, to initiate virtuous spirals?
By means of developing that conversation, my own (not especially original) view is that… (i) new media technologies can provide a incredible tool for engagement, if they are used appropriately, sincerely, central to policy development (not tacked on) and so forth… and (ii) localism is key, because of our evolved social brains, natural legitimacy comes from natural groups (probably smaller than 150), “people only emancipate themselves on the basis of natural groups,” decisions should be taken no “higher” than they need to be, or legitmacy is necessarily comprimised… and for good measure (iii) the house of lords should move to become a body of experts, elected on a rolling short-term basis around particular areas of policy (health, policing etc), a technocracy to balance the democracy of the house of commons.

matthewtaylor on Thu, 28th May 2009 2:57 pm


Actually, Stu, on pensions Adair Turner did move the debate on a long way. When he started his review the newspaper were alarming people with ‘work till you die’ headlines but by the end there was a consensus about the need to raise the pension entitlement age. However, looking at the state of public finances and the continuing rise in life expectancy I think we will have to go further and faster that the Government’s current plans.

Thanks for the comment

matthewtaylor on Thu, 28th May 2009 2:58 pm


Thanks Rob – right on the button

matthewtaylor on Thu, 28th May 2009 3:01 pm


Hi Will. A bit of both. It is some combination of the decline in deference, the rise of the mass society, the growing complexity of the world, the pace of change and the decline of the media. The answer involves new forms of participative self government.

matthewtaylor on Thu, 28th May 2009 3:08 pm


OK here is an example of hard decision being ducked. Andrew Lansley in an interesting speech here today basically dodged the question of how the NHS would cope with reduced resources. None of the parties are yet willing to spell out how on earth they are gong to make savings of a level unprecedented in recent times. But as society we need to be having this debate now and recognising the role we have in helping create more effective and efficient public services (for a trivial example, missed appointment cost the NHS millions every year).

In relation to expenses, the whole thing could have been avoided if party leaders had been willing to increase MPs’ salaries years ago and face down the media and public backlash. They weren’t so the expenses system sprang up to deal with gap between politicians’ and the public view of an MPs worth.

Or here’s another: imagine if politicians dds had said 2 years ago that they should outlaw 110% mortgages as being too risky. The housing and financial series sector would have gone mad and talked about capping people;s freedom and their aspirations. Our whole debt laden culture is in part a reflection of the inability/unwillingness of politicians to say ‘no’

matthewtaylor on Thu, 28th May 2009 3:09 pm


Thanks Carl Not sure I get this. You may have to explain more what you mean by Prime Time?

Stu on Thu, 28th May 2009 3:10 pm


Turner might’ve moved the debate on a long way and yet half of UK adults between the ages of 20 and 60 are not putting any money aside for a pension. This suggests to me one of three things:

1) People were aware of the debate and decided to swerve saving for a pension;
2) People were unaware of the debate and decided to swerve saving for a pension;
3) People were unaware of the debate and have not made a conscious decision to not save for a pension, they just don’t have enough money/are hedonistic and don’t care/are putting it off

Either way, I still don’t think that the policy discussions really filtered their way through to the population at large. Not being dogmatic here…I just guess I’m approaching it from the man on the street angle.

matthewtaylor on Thu, 28th May 2009 3:14 pm


Hi Paul. I half agree. I think panic has its own momentum – something that Robert Shiller talked about here last week. So I understand why leaders felt they had to stop the panic before they could assess the damage and start to think about what comes next. Having said which, I share your concern that the aim of too much policy seems simply to return us to the unsustainable world we were in before.

matthewtaylor on Thu, 28th May 2009 3:20 pm


Hi Richard. I am so grateful for this comment – it is thoughtful and wise.

A problem with blogging (every day) is that arguments get compressed. I do try to question public outrage and disengagement but my longer argument ( I made it in my pro-social speech back in 2007) is that the way we do politics and policy making engenders this passive aggressive stance in the public. By too often implying they can solve all our problems politicians are responsible for creating a culture of disillusionment and ‘us versuus them’.

Thank you so much for taking the time to make such an interesting set of points

daniel snell on Thu, 28th May 2009 3:34 pm


Great debate, totally necessary, and very brave.

Isn’t it interesting that there seems to be a time, when people can suddenly hear or see a thing that was blind to them before, when to others, it appeared to be obvious. A flaw in ‘being’ a human-being I fear.

Will people downgrade their expectations?

I think some of that will happen. Some won’t, some will – read this post on reflections to a passing, overheard conversation – http://arrivalworldwide.blogspot.com/2009/03/what-i-heard-and-what-i-thought-i-heard.html

The post reflects on our expecations (hidden to us or otherwise). We all have expecations, whether invented or real – and none of us want those expecations to be undermined.

I believe we, (Matthew has already started the discussion) and the politicians should go out to meet this terrifying debate. The party is over folks. The good times are done, however, in reality, these may be the ‘new’ good times, where materialism isn’t actually the central focus of our lives anymore – more specifcially, having more material goods than our neighbour.

I was thinking about BT (might of easily been a dozen different companies) and whether it would survive this current market ( then I thought why should it, and then i thought i was attached to it as the way it is. And then i realised i’m attached to load of things the way they are.

We all are attached, and none of us like change. The trouble is, change is all there is.

Keep it going Robespierre. Fantastic! And …scary

carl allen on Sat, 30th May 2009 10:09 am


Prime time as in television or radio prime time.

The topics of the conversations your article refers to are more than able to compete, economically, for prime time in terms of drawing and holding mass public attention.

An obvious but unstated truth about the mechanics of transparency and accountability.

Interestingly, from my experiences with the 13-18 age groups, many of the topics would draw their attention as part of the curriculum in the sense of theory versus practice for learning purposes.

carl allen on Wed, 3rd Jun 2009 9:05 am


Conversations about the well being of a nation are more than capable of drawing large audiences on a consistent basis, depending on the marketing offer, and we do a disservice to the nation by limiting it to politicians when we should include the Third Sector and the private sector.

The topics for the conversations already exist … housing, health, finance, education, employment, leisure … and there are always topical matters in these topics drawing the interest of large segments of the population.

But several assumptions seem to be at play as to why we do not have such conversations

1) Such conversations cannot compete on prime television time with the soaps for audience size
2) Figures in authority will be mostly unwilling to appear before an audience to be grilled or questioned
3) The public will find it boring after a time

All these assumptions are likely wrong of course because they rest on untested conventional wisdoms such as

A) The topic is not entertaining … but so many things go wrong that there is always fun to be had grilling the good, bad and the ugly or valuable information such as “do not buy that house now”
B) Figures will not appear … when a concern is topical, private companies can be spotlighted and analysed publicly without them being present i.e. you can refuse the invitation to appear but you cannot doge the bad publicity that affects your sales when your actions are being nationally discussed. And of course your shareholders will be pissed off.
C) The viewing population is too inconsistent … but segmentation shows the opposite e.g. large amounts of 14-19 year olds will follow live national conversations on all these topics as they relate to the school curriculum/ older people want to know what the future holds. Audience segments want information on topics that are live and important to them and want to be the audience that does the grilling and questioning.

And here is an instance of a good conversation marketing offer: the public television conversations (or grilling as some might term it) between ministers and a public audience which appear to draw a reasonable size audience despite the night time it is on.

To sum up, if we are to renew the interest in having sound national conversations, we need to place it in prime television time when it can compete on its own merit with commercial soaps and expand it beyond conversations with politicians only.

Have some faith that the public does want to engage as versus listening to pronouncements from above.

And in that regard, I find it disturbing that the BBC does not do its part in such conversations.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!