Saturday, 8 January 2011

A politician who doesn't want political advantage!

What people in general and politicians in particular believe is most important, closely followed by what they say. This has been the main point of the last two blogs and then along comes an example when Ed Miliband is interviewed by Jeremy Vine. One question was about commitment. Should Ed be committed to marriage in order to show commitment to his policies? Mariage may call for a deeper commitment than a couple who are living together but it is quite possible that non-married couples show greater commitment than married ones.

The trouble for Ed is that he wants to show support for marriage but chooses to delay his personal commitment, and by so doing supports non-married couples. He is "absolutely commited" to his partner but doesn't want to rush in to marriage for the sake of gaining political advantage. Why not? Why doesn't he want political advantage? The answer of course is that he does want political advantage. He wants the support of all whether married or not. He is saying both groups are absolutely fine and he is living proof of this. My simple answer is that he is not supporting marriage.

A private life is private but some politicians choose to blur the distinction between their public and private lives when they mention their family. The politician may be a family person with family values and they publicise this to gain political advantage, but they can hardly complain when a child makes the news because of the link that they created. Ed has not just blurred the distinction between what is private and what is public, he has done away with any distinction.

Change the world

No comments:

Post a Comment