Living Wittily

Vince Cable redefines the discourse of trust, trust me on this!

Written by

admin

in

,

Cable
When is a pledge a promise? When is a promise binding? What is a promise worth if it can be unilaterally broken? Is a public pledge merely a statement of intent, or does it have moral force? The questions are important because on the trust of our promises, and the dependability of our words, depends the social fabric of a liberal democracy. Note, a member of which could be called a liberal democrat, which is a somewhat different creature from the members of the political party "Liberal Democrat".

Which raises intriguing and disturbing dilemmas. Because there is no doubt that the Liberal Democrat Party signed a pledge committing them to oppose a rise in student fees. And now Vince Cable, mouthpiece of the coalition on such matters, not only wants to renege on the pledge, promise and commitment, but wants to redefine the discourse of trust. You can read the whole sorry episode of linguistic gymnastics and ethical obfuscation here.  

What is particularly troubling is that Mr Cable seems to genuinely believe, or disingenuously say he believes, that breaking a promise does not reflect badly on the Party's trustworthiness. That can easily be tested. Ask how many students will now trust the Lib Dems. Are our politicians so inept at ethics that they do not recognise trustworthiness is the characteristic of those who have shown themselves worthy of trust? Are they so out of touch with their ethical side they don't understand that trust is a judgement conferred not a virtue claimed? So entirely otherworldly (intersting word for the culture of realpolitik and discourse revision) that they missed the rather critical point that a pledge, or a promise, or a commitment – he uses all three words synonymously – is only as trustworthy as the person who makes it proves to be?

There are problems for all of us when public discourse is so malleable to political justification that reshaping of truth to Party expediency can be carried out with such sincere conviction and palpable evasiveness. If to "honour" the commitments made within the coalition require the breaking of promises in order to maintain the coalition, then either uphold the promise at the price of coalition partnership, or admit that you broke the promise and can't be trusted in your election pledges. It really doesn't work any other way. The only thing worse than breaking a promise is to insist you did nothing wrong, would do it again, refuse to apologise and insist that you are trustworthy and are working hard to honour commitments.

I realise it may be simplistic, and is near culpable proof-texting – but Jesus did say "Let your yes be yes, and your no be no". Mind you, he was no great politician either – and he had little use for coalitions of self-interest.

Comments

8 responses to “Vince Cable redefines the discourse of trust, trust me on this!”

  1. Mike Coumans avatar
    Mike Coumans

    Hi Jim,
    I can follow your logic and it doesn’t look good, but not sure if I agree with you on this.
    Leave aside the topic (student fees) and leave aside political affiliations. If someone states somethin in a manifesto, a promise they will carry out if and when they win the election, then surely you cannot hold them to that promise if they don’t win the election? (N.B. I make a clear distinction here between being in power and winning an election.)
    In order to gain power as part of a coalition both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have had to concede some point on their election manifesto. This is the stuff of coalition governments, and the type of policies that will be implemented will not be Blue or Yellow but a mix of (murky?) Green.
    For the record I think it is a great pity that tuition fees are going up rather than down (or even being scrapped).
    Mike.

    Reply
  2. Mike Coumans avatar
    Mike Coumans

    Hi Jim,
    I can follow your logic and it doesn’t look good, but not sure if I agree with you on this.
    Leave aside the topic (student fees) and leave aside political affiliations. If someone states somethin in a manifesto, a promise they will carry out if and when they win the election, then surely you cannot hold them to that promise if they don’t win the election? (N.B. I make a clear distinction here between being in power and winning an election.)
    In order to gain power as part of a coalition both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have had to concede some point on their election manifesto. This is the stuff of coalition governments, and the type of policies that will be implemented will not be Blue or Yellow but a mix of (murky?) Green.
    For the record I think it is a great pity that tuition fees are going up rather than down (or even being scrapped).
    Mike.

    Reply
  3. Simon Jones avatar
    Simon Jones

    Vince Cable said: “We didn’t break a promise. We made a commitment in our manifesto, we didn’t win the election. We then entered into a coalition agreement, and it’s the coalition agreement that is binding upon us and which I’m trying to honour”
    The problem with this – aprt from the obvious redefining of what trustworthy is, which Jim has so eloquently pointed out – is that the coalition agreement is precisely the one ‘manifesto’ or ‘list of commitments’ that no one voted for. The coalition agreement has no demoncratic credibility; it is not a mandate from anyone other than the men in suits who agreed it behind closed doors.
    There is a crisis at the heart of political discourse in our nation because all sorts of policies are being enacted that were never placed before the electorate but which will cost large numbers of electors every dear indeed.

    Reply
  4. Simon Jones avatar
    Simon Jones

    Vince Cable said: “We didn’t break a promise. We made a commitment in our manifesto, we didn’t win the election. We then entered into a coalition agreement, and it’s the coalition agreement that is binding upon us and which I’m trying to honour”
    The problem with this – aprt from the obvious redefining of what trustworthy is, which Jim has so eloquently pointed out – is that the coalition agreement is precisely the one ‘manifesto’ or ‘list of commitments’ that no one voted for. The coalition agreement has no demoncratic credibility; it is not a mandate from anyone other than the men in suits who agreed it behind closed doors.
    There is a crisis at the heart of political discourse in our nation because all sorts of policies are being enacted that were never placed before the electorate but which will cost large numbers of electors every dear indeed.

    Reply
  5. Mike Coumans avatar
    Mike Coumans

    I would have thought that a coalition government would have more democratic credibility than either a minority government or a single party government with anything other than a landslide majority.
    Rather than a crisis at the heart of political discourse due to the existence of a coalition government, British politics is facing an exiting time of democratic opportunities for the first time in many decades.

    Reply
  6. Mike Coumans avatar
    Mike Coumans

    I would have thought that a coalition government would have more democratic credibility than either a minority government or a single party government with anything other than a landslide majority.
    Rather than a crisis at the heart of political discourse due to the existence of a coalition government, British politics is facing an exiting time of democratic opportunities for the first time in many decades.

    Reply
  7. Jim Gordon avatar
    Jim Gordon

    Mike, conceding a point of your manifesto sounds like a euphemism for non fulfilment of an election pledge. The Lib Dems are on record as saying they would never support a rise in student fees. There was never a chance of Lib Dems having an overall majority so when the pledge was signed they knew, as we all did, they would at best be the minor partner of a coalition. It remains true that election pledges only have electoral purachsing power if the electorate believe the commitment is a serious conviction, not a bartering manifesto clause.
    As to whether a coalition is more or less democratic – that depends on whther the lectorate are voting for a manifesto or specific policies. I did not vote for any party that intended to put up education fees. I did not vote for the swingeing cuts across the welfare sector. I certainly did not vote for the horse trading approach to manifesto commitments that now passes for political decision making in the interests of the electorate.
    On a lighter note Simon’s typo “demoncratic” and Mike’s “exiting time of democratic opportunities” do suggest there is much to worry about in the coalition approach 🙂

    Reply
  8. Jim Gordon avatar
    Jim Gordon

    Mike, conceding a point of your manifesto sounds like a euphemism for non fulfilment of an election pledge. The Lib Dems are on record as saying they would never support a rise in student fees. There was never a chance of Lib Dems having an overall majority so when the pledge was signed they knew, as we all did, they would at best be the minor partner of a coalition. It remains true that election pledges only have electoral purachsing power if the electorate believe the commitment is a serious conviction, not a bartering manifesto clause.
    As to whether a coalition is more or less democratic – that depends on whther the lectorate are voting for a manifesto or specific policies. I did not vote for any party that intended to put up education fees. I did not vote for the swingeing cuts across the welfare sector. I certainly did not vote for the horse trading approach to manifesto commitments that now passes for political decision making in the interests of the electorate.
    On a lighter note Simon’s typo “demoncratic” and Mike’s “exiting time of democratic opportunities” do suggest there is much to worry about in the coalition approach 🙂

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Simon Jones Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts