When politicians change their minds

The only people who never change their minds on anything are the sort of tedious sods it is best to avoid. Yet increasingly we seem to expect our political class to never change their minds. It is like we expect them to be right first time on every issue and if they do change their position, then it is a sign of weakness. Sometimes it is almost as if Thatcher’s “the lady’s not for turning” pronouncement is some sort of benchmark against which all politicians should be assessed, rather than an admirable sentiment at the time that later sank that particular leader when it came to stubbornness over the poll tax. .

That idea is, of course, horseshite. Everyone changes their minds on some things; indeed, keeping an open mind, engaging in debate and reviewing your opinions accordingly is a sure sign of an intelligent, engaged mind. If a politician can stand up and say they were wrong on an issue then I’d argue they’ve got far more going for them than a politician who stubbornly sticks to their original opinion in the face of contradictory facts.

Yet I don’t want to give the political class a “get out of jail free” card – if they are continually wrong on stuff, then it does rather call into question their judgment and therefore their suitability for government. So what’s the balance – how can we tell when a politician is justified in changing their mind and when they’re not?

I think the litmus test should be the reasons why they are changing their minds. If they are doing so for reasons clearly of political expediency, then we should treat their u-turn with scorn. Take Miliband Minor’s recent pronouncements on the Iraq War and civil liberties – he claims he has changed his mind* because it led to the electorate to lose trust in Labour. Now that logic simply isn’t good enough. He needs to understand why both the way and the sustained attack on civil liberties under Labour were bad; the reason isn’t simply that they were bad for Labour in electoral terms.

In contrast, the recent conversion of Ken Clarke to not wanting to lock up everybody possible has more credibility to it. Clarke didn’t say what he said for reasons of expediency – in fact, given the opinions of many in the Tory grassroots, saying the opposite would have been far more popular. But what Clarke has done is look at the mess that was Labour’s prison policy (and the prison policy of his own party when it was last in government) and drawn sensible (and, some would say, blindingly obvious) conclusions from that which may contradict his previous positions. Let him change his mind – it makes more sense than stubbornly sticking to the idiocy that went before.

So when a politician changes their mind, let’s find out why. If the reason is intuitively plausible, then they deserve the benefit of the doubt (as long as they don’t keep on doing it). However, if the reason is simply “because it benefits me politically”, then I hope you will all join me in heaping scorn on that particular craptacular politician.

*Yeah, I know some people believe that he was always against the war; however, he was a governmental aide for the party that started the war and he stood at the next election for that party after the war had started. Furthermore, I don’t doubt for one second that had he been in Parliament at the time of the vote on the Iraq War, he’d have voted for it. For career reasons, y’know…

Pragmatism and Politics

Let me state something outright – I believe pragmatism is essential to politics. If you are not pragmatic then guess what? You ain’t ever going to get anywhere in politics. Indeed, one of the reasons why I would not run for power is because I am a stubborn sod most of the time – and that is not a particularly helpful attitude in those who want to win the votes of others.

But let me state something else – pragmatism in politics is important, but it is only part of the political process. You can be too pragmatic or, to put it another slightly more graphic way, you can whore yourself out for a couple of votes and lose the reason why you got into politics in the first place. Don’t believe me? Well, you only have to look at Tony Blair for a striking example of this phenomenon.

So the practice of politics is a delicate balancing act between pragmatism and ideology. Individuals need to work out how to carry out that balancing act, and more importantly, what the line is that they will not cross between being pragmatic and being committed to core beliefs. It is particularly true of those who adopt the strategy of entryism – those Libertarians in the Tory party, for example, who are aspiring (vainly if you ask me) to make that party genuinely Libertarian. The question they need to ask themselves is “at what point do I say enough is enough? What would it take for me to decide this party is not longer tight for me and I should leave it?”* I think former Labour party members found that out in 2003, while a lot of Liberal Democrats found out what their breaking point was in May of this year.

In other words, I get that some people think it is worth being a part of a party that does not represent all of their views but might be, if they are able to get into power, able to make some of their views in actual government policy. Such a position is pragmatic; it is a compromise I can understand. But pragmatism must have its limits lest people want to end up being compromised. So I’ll put the question to those who are a member or supporter of one of the main parties again: “what would be the breaking point – the moment when you decided enough was enough and it is time to take your political allegiance elsewhere – for you?”

*Ok, yes, that was technically two questions.