Calls for political change can be seductive, says Simon Hoare MP, but without proper scrutiny, we can risk years of buyers remorse
As a society we are becoming increasingly impatient (my wife has literally just walked in and commented that I have always been impatient and she did not see how I could become even more so … but I shall leave that there). Hot meals and groceries to the door. Next day delivery. Click and collect. All have contributed to creating what is being called the Amazon Prime syndrome. At the click of a button we can purchase items and have them in our hands within a few hours. Don’t like what we chose? Wasn’t quite what it said on the tin? Easy. Send it back and full refund is received. We then simply click and repeat.
Our electoral cycles are not so simple: buyer’s remorse takes four or five years to get a refund.
I know it’s so
Last May, Dorset’s Liberal Democrats urged a change from Conservative Council control. The Conservative administration had not done anything wrong but my Party had been running the show for while and people wanted a change. In much the same way that people change a household appliance of hairstyle – ‘nothing wrong with it per se, I just wanted a change’. In July of last year Labour told the country it was time for a change, and that only Labour could deliver that change. The country agreed and gave both Sir Keir a thumping majority and my party a massive kicking.
We believe that washing machines live longer with Calgon because, with cheery confidence that does not encourage questioning for proof, they tell us that it does. I have never compared the time of a Kwik Fit fitter to a non-Kwik Fit fitter but I know, because they tell me, that they do indeed fit quicker.
The word change has become the political version of ‘new and improved’ or ‘whiter than white’. The electorate have defined, erroneously, that change is only capable of being a positive thing. But anyone who has sung the hymn Abide With Me will know that ‘change and decay in all around I see’ is not an ode to joy. Change can, of course, mean progressing from the status quo: but it can also mean regressing.
The negative effects of change are never entered into the voter’s calculation. They should be. Recipients of PIP do not see the Government’s changes as being positive. Farmers are not positive about the devastating changes of the Family Farm Tax, or the abrupt end of the the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI). Businesses of all types and sizes are seeing tax and National Insurances changes which are hostile to business. The national economy is undergoing a change – but in the wrong direction. Pensioners do not like the change brought about by the removal of the Winter Fuel Allowance. A growing economy changed to a shrinking one. I could go on but you will have got my drift.
Locally, I know people did not expect a change in Council leadership to lead to the spectre of night time car parking charges, Adult Day Centre closures or council tax increases. All change from the previous administration … but in the right direction? Constituents tell me not.
I tend to agree.
So, what is the key lesson we should learn? Change can be good, but it can also be bad: looking forwards but also dragging backwards.
When we politicians promise change, it is usually because we have sniffed the air and determine that there is an electoral appetite for it. We then owe it to the electorate to spell out what we want to change, why we want to change it, what we will change it to and how we will do it. If politicians don’t proactively offer up these things, then the voters need to drag it out of us. Buyer’s remorse for five years will be tedious.
As the voiceover perpetually advises: always read the label.
