In a world of Party Politics and mass media and within electoral systems which are less than totally representative, reference is often made to issues which are considered ‘politically’ important.  This term is generally taken to mean that the issue itself is more related to the maintenance of political power than anything else.  This therefore means that the issue itself is less important that the way in which it is presented or perceived, in particular with regards to the direct impact that the issue has on the whole.  There are two prevalent examples of this in the UK at the moment: the lockdown situation over christmas and the Brexit negotiations on fishing rights – and both have caused unnecessary delays and negative impacts simply because of the government’s insistence on making both issues ‘political’.

The fishing situation is the easiest one to argue – although the figures vary from source to source – the BBC estimate the value of fishing to be £0.4bn – compared to that of the automotive industry which is £49bn.  Therefore, the impact of unfavourable terms for the fishing industry is empirically vastly inferior to unfavourable terms for the automotive industry; so how did it gain the importance it has?  Simple – the fishing issue has been artificially raised to a higher profile than it warrants economically because it has suited the ‘political’ purpose.  The basis for the incumbent government’s power is based almost entirely on Brexit, which in turn is based almost entirely on the dubious idea that the United Kingdom would be better served by being sovereign.  In this context it is not sure what the population understands by sovereignty, however I consider that people think that it means that the UK can make all of its own decisions without having to be told what to do by anyone.  This of course, cannot ever be the case – in a global society which requires interactions between nations, the very concept of sovereignty is a complete fallacy.

In this context then, fishing can be thrust into the public view as a major issue as it can be presented as relating to sovereignty – UK waters = UK fish; UK Independence = UK Control.

The result is a situation in which the government of the day, having created a ‘political’ issue to suit their purposes of the moment, now find themselves unable to restore reality and create a deal because they must now deal with this major political issue – even if it means destroying everything else around it.  This entire situation was created around LIES and DISINFORMATION – and purely for ideological and political gain.  Is this what politics has become? (This question is purely rhetorical.)

Can our elected representatives not see the danger in the course that they are following?  Do they not perceive the recklessness for all in their perpetuation of false narratives and misapprehensions?  Have they lost all sight of the ideal of governance – that of betterment and security?  (These too are rhetorical questions.)

The second example, that of a lockdown over the holiday period is another example of this.  The UK has a government which knows full well that any reduction in the restriction of movement will inevitably result in an increase of infection and (likely) death during a pandemic.  However rather than clearly state this, and clearly accept the responsibility for which they are employed, by asking the people of the UK to not mix over the holidays – the government does not wish to be remembered for having ‘cancelled’ christmas – the government chooses to say that you can mix, but that it is better not to…  Would the government not rather be remembered for the one that protected the nation as best it could by imposing severe rules which stand a chance of limiting the impact of a pandemic?

It would appear that in both cases the government prizes its image above all else; from which I would conclude that its only goal is that of governance.

It should never be the case that there are issues which are ‘political’.  Political issues are by definition not as important (to the whole) as the manner in which they are presented; and any system which has recourse to rely on political issues is categorically broken – because it is incapable of assigning the appropriate weight (and therefore priority) to an issue.  Any political system if it is to function with the goal of safeguarding the health and security of its people CANNOT afford to tolerate ‘political’ issues – their very existence runs counter to purpose of governance and democracy.  It follows then that any individual who employs such tactics is not suitable for governance either; it means that they are capable of putting their own priorities above the priorities of the whole.

There remains the question of perception however, and it is clear that the psychological security of the whole is also important.  However, I would argue that the psychological security of the whole is also assured by presenting the issues faced by any group of people correctly.  For decades the British government has sought to demonise Europe for its own failings, and has done little (if anything) to educate the citizens about the real nature of Europe and the European Union.  We can be little surprised then that people can latch on to poorly defined objectives such as ‘sovereignty’ and can be duped by constant reference to ‘political issues’.  This situation has created itself – the use of ‘political issues’ and what is effectively misinformation has created an environment in which its continued use is now required – since the level of understanding and education about the reality of how things work is now beyond the grasp (and interest) of the voters.  Politics has become religion – politics is no more than faith – we trust in a colour or a name to the extent that we no longer question.  This is good for politicians, but is it good for politics?  Is it good for us?  Is this what we want?

(I don’t!)