Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom is today set to announce a policy to “re-institute Common Sense” in decision-making within public institutions within the United Kingdom – through the scrapping of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). Although I fundamentally disagree with her position (which I will discuss later) I would first like to take issue with the phrase ‘common sense’. Phrases such as ‘common sense’ and indeed, ‘family values’ are often trotted out by politicians, most notably when they are aligning themselves with a policy (be it new or old); and yet the terms themselves are never (and I would argue can never be) fully detailed.
According to the Collins dictionary, ‘common sense‘ is “…your natural ability to make good judgments and to behave in a practical and sensible way.” Given the inclusion of the term ‘good judgment’ in the definition, and since judgment is by its very nature subjective; it is perhaps legitimate to consider therefore that the attribution of ‘common sense’ to any situation will generally depend upon the person. Considering then that the population is comprised of multiple individuals, all of whom have been educated and brought-up differently, and each of whom has subsequently chosen their own path through life – it is reasonable to consider that each person has (at least the potential to hold) a different judgment that any other person for any given subject. It can be concluded from this argument, that ‘common sense’ only in fact exists within the mind of each person, and that for each person the definition changes. (I suspect that this is why politicians use such phrases, as they appeal to each person without actually being defined in any formal way.)
Ironically then, there is nothing ‘common’ about ‘common sense’ at all, the very name is misleading since it suggests that there is a judgment or approach which (even if not supported by every single person) is held commonly – yet it is unfeasible to test this premise. One can only wonder then, why such a term is used by politicians, and why such a term is comforting to the listener… Clearly terms such as ‘common sense’ have the power to appeal to people individually; each of whom (one presumes) automatically assumes that the speaker holds the same ‘common sense’ values as they do, and yet this becomes statistically ever-more unlikely the as the audience gets larger.
If we can conclude therefore, that ‘common sense’ cannot effectively be defined as a criterion for decision-making, what Kemi Badenoch is in fact asking for, is the removal of any decision-making guidelines, and to let people do precisely as they please. In which case, surely it would be more honest to simply say this?
The lack of a concrete definition of ‘common sense’ does not however preclude the concept of a ‘majority sense’ – this is to say a value judgment held by the majority of a defined population. The UK does not allow the purchase of alcohol before the age of 18, a law which has been in place for a sufficiently long time, that perhaps this can now be considered to be ‘common sense’ for the majority of the population (certainly, there is little public discussion about changing it). Assuming therefore that the majority of the UK population do believe that this is ‘common sense’, is it legitimate to apply the term to this scenario? Perhaps, however even if this argument is accepted as a legitimate defence for the existence of a ‘common sense’, I would argue that such a defence cannot be applied to the policy being espoused by Kemi Badenoch – since she is referring to decison-making criteria across a range of public sectors and roles and all with different objectives.
It seems consistent to me therefore that even if one does accept that a ‘majority sense’ can be ‘common’, then surely the only way to achieve such ‘commonality’ of judgment across a large and diverse society is through legislation or formal guidance – just as the UK has done for the purchase of alcohol. By trying to remove a formal guideline which applies across all public sector workers, Ms Badenoch is therefore actively working against the creation of a ‘common sense’ approach – by leaving it down to individuals.
It may also be worth pointing out, that the PSED itself is only a guideline and is not a legislative set of criteria to which public sector workers must adhere. The PSED in of itself “does not dictate a particular outcome”, it is intended only to ensure that “The level of “due regard” considered sufficient in any particular context depends on the facts.” It emphasises this by stating that “The duty should always be applied in a proportionate way depending on the circumstances of the case and the seriousness of the potential equality impacts on those with protected characteristics.” In my research for this article I read over the PSED, and found no explicit, concrete criteria for decision-making; it is in fact, what it sets out to be – a guideline for good practice.
The first example of the ‘duty’ states: “A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:
- eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;
- advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;
- foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.”
This act actually requires the use of ‘common sense’!! …and there is sufficient wiggle-room to allow any decision-maker to do as they please by simply indicating that they applied ‘due regard’ given the context!
What then is the point of Ms Badenoch’s policy… perhaps she wants to leave room for discrimination without stating this as a policy.
Needless to say, that isn’t my idea of ‘common sense’.