People recently have expressed disappointment, in some kind of slightly patronising fashion, about my inability to have a civil debate about politics. This is for a given value of ‘civil’, where it seems to mean that I shouldn’t get angry or upset about people expressing opinions that have a very real effect on my life and the lives of thousands of
(
Read more... )
Through my life I've often been assumed as being from a privileged upbringing, which I've always found odd. My dad earned less than 15K a year at the height of his powers. Sometimes the concept of privilege can be relative.
I think the central problem with many conversations regarding large changes to how our society funds or is funding things are that sometimes people unconnected to that funding think they 'know better' or can come across that way. This is particularly true in Government. The amount of times I've heard people working in the public sector grumble about elected officials making decisions about things they know nothing or very little about is quite substantial. There is an attitude, prevalent in national politics that 'ministers know better'. Better than doctors, better than teachers, better than social workers, etc... More often than not, they don't. They've just looked at only the statistics that best support their argument and ignored the rest.
When these decision makers are confronted with the real lives of those who are attempting to 'live by their rules', they come unstuck, particularly when they are eloquent and the challenge is in front of the cameras.
What is a shame is when others form a view on things they are unaffected by. 'Bring back hanging' is a nice example. It takes a long time to put the ethical argument of why this is a rubbish idea. It's much easier to ally yourself with a quick ill informed catchphrase.
Reply
Leave a comment