Those three little words... So easy yet so difficult to say...
Friday, 8. August 2008, 13:33:04
"I don't know."
What is it with politicians? No one knows everything, not even them. Especially them when executive deniability is taken into account. If you don't have an answer say so.
In fact it's not so much that they don't say so, it's just the way that they say it. A couple of days ago on an early morning news programme the Chancelor of the Exchequer was asked if he was going to remove stamp duty in an effort to kick start the house buying business again. The question may have come as something of a surprise to the Chancelor since he had never actually broached the subject thusfar, but the question was asked and it need an answer. What he meant to say was "I don't know." Instead he launched into politician-speak. He started to explain that he had a number of options... This is not a good start to an answer to a simple question. It absolutely guarantees that the interviewer will butt in and repeat the question, thereby giving the impression that the politician is hiding something. When he then takes a deep breath and repeats the exact same thing he's just said he also confirms that he is giving out a carefully rehearsed answer, which in turn indicates that he was expecting the question.
But then if he knew he was going to get the question why in the name of Hades and all the Margaret Thatchers that reside there didn't he come up with a convincing answer? Because he didn't know of course. If politicking was as easy as some of us seem to think then at some point someone would get it right, the fact that they never seem to do so with any kind of consistency suggests to me that they're every bit as out of their depths as we would be if we tried to run things.
Present company excepted.
Yesterday on a later news programme an underling was questioned about the stamp duty thing. Ever since the question had been asked the news media had been full of 'will he - won't he?' and demands that we should be told. People bombarded chat shows with questions about whether they should hold off buying a house in case they could get it for a few thousand less in a couple of days time, and if they didn't buy right now what would they do if someone else slipped in an bought the property they had their eyes on? (The answer to that one would be 'You lose it'. Anyone who couldn't work that one out for themselves really shouldn't be involving themselves in the business of buying and selling houses).
So what did the underling do when asked the question? She had an entirely different tack, she looked exasperated and told the interviewer that that was a really silly question. The interviewer was naturally a little miffed at this statement and asked for clarification. He didn't exactly get clarification, he got more politician-speak instead, by the end of which the actual question still hadn't been answered, but by this time the interviewer seemed to have forgotten the question and even if he hadn't their time was up, he had more news to read. Phew.
One could be forgiven for thinking that there's something we're not being told, but I can't really see what would be gained by not telling us, it's obvious that they just don't know. They're at a loss. Devoid of ideas. Running on empty. Thrashing about in the wilds of Idontknow City's downtown housing estates.
Why don't they just come right out and say so?
Don't ask me.
I don't know.
What is it with politicians? No one knows everything, not even them. Especially them when executive deniability is taken into account. If you don't have an answer say so.
In fact it's not so much that they don't say so, it's just the way that they say it. A couple of days ago on an early morning news programme the Chancelor of the Exchequer was asked if he was going to remove stamp duty in an effort to kick start the house buying business again. The question may have come as something of a surprise to the Chancelor since he had never actually broached the subject thusfar, but the question was asked and it need an answer. What he meant to say was "I don't know." Instead he launched into politician-speak. He started to explain that he had a number of options... This is not a good start to an answer to a simple question. It absolutely guarantees that the interviewer will butt in and repeat the question, thereby giving the impression that the politician is hiding something. When he then takes a deep breath and repeats the exact same thing he's just said he also confirms that he is giving out a carefully rehearsed answer, which in turn indicates that he was expecting the question.
But then if he knew he was going to get the question why in the name of Hades and all the Margaret Thatchers that reside there didn't he come up with a convincing answer? Because he didn't know of course. If politicking was as easy as some of us seem to think then at some point someone would get it right, the fact that they never seem to do so with any kind of consistency suggests to me that they're every bit as out of their depths as we would be if we tried to run things.
Present company excepted.
Yesterday on a later news programme an underling was questioned about the stamp duty thing. Ever since the question had been asked the news media had been full of 'will he - won't he?' and demands that we should be told. People bombarded chat shows with questions about whether they should hold off buying a house in case they could get it for a few thousand less in a couple of days time, and if they didn't buy right now what would they do if someone else slipped in an bought the property they had their eyes on? (The answer to that one would be 'You lose it'. Anyone who couldn't work that one out for themselves really shouldn't be involving themselves in the business of buying and selling houses).
So what did the underling do when asked the question? She had an entirely different tack, she looked exasperated and told the interviewer that that was a really silly question. The interviewer was naturally a little miffed at this statement and asked for clarification. He didn't exactly get clarification, he got more politician-speak instead, by the end of which the actual question still hadn't been answered, but by this time the interviewer seemed to have forgotten the question and even if he hadn't their time was up, he had more news to read. Phew.
One could be forgiven for thinking that there's something we're not being told, but I can't really see what would be gained by not telling us, it's obvious that they just don't know. They're at a loss. Devoid of ideas. Running on empty. Thrashing about in the wilds of Idontknow City's downtown housing estates.
Why don't they just come right out and say so?
Don't ask me.
I don't know.
WIDGETIZE