The growing irrelevance of the Union
Posted by Matt Clifford on March 19th, 2007
There has been an interesting discussion on several blogs recently about The Economist magazine and its reputation. The posts are well worth reading, but one line in particular caught my eye:
The other ugly English trait promoting The Economist’s success in America is the Oxford Union argumentative style. At its epitome, it involves a stance so cocksure of its rightness and superiority that it would be a shame to freight it with mere fact. American debate contests involve grinding, yearlong concentration on one doughy issue, like arms control. The forte of Oxford-style debate is to be able to sound certain and convincing about a topic pulled out of the air a few minutes before, such as “Resolved: That women are not the fairer sex.â€
One of Clare Politics’ guests said something similar over dinner earlier this term - that we would be better off if fewer of our politicians received their training at the Oxford and Cambridge Unions and if more received theirs in the worlds of business, the public services or science. Union-style debating might still rule supreme in the Commons chamber, he said, but increasingly it is more important to be able to stand up to interrogation in the TV studio and to make policy in ad hoc committees. The Union is hardly the ideal training ground for either activity. So what is?
We need a forum in which budding politicos have to lay out cogent political positions, take on criticism, adapt and restate their ideas. We need a way to hone our future leaders’ powers of persuasion and to subject their considered ideas to as wide a range of objections as possible. Ideally, we want to bring them into contact with people from every background and walk of life, not just fellow wannabe MPs. I humbly submit that there is no more appropriate test for the twenty-first century politician than that of blogging. Time to leave the Union chamber and enter the blogosphere . . .
Filed under: blogging, ukpolitics on March 19th, 2007
Hear, hear! And add to the Union-style of debating the ‘barrister style’ of essay writing: choose your extreme stance arbitrarily and defend it to the death with whatever evidence you have - this is what I have been informally told will get you good marks in exams. My civil servant sister is horrified that these are the people who think they are going to lead the country. What about weighing up the evidence and reaching a nuanced conclusion which allows room for compromise (which, after all, is what politics is all about: who was it who said that politics is about deciding between the unthinkable and the unpalatable, or something along those lines?)
There is no harm in encouraging the ability to be decisive and forthright in debating and leadership. The last thing a country needs is to be weighed down in a sea of perceived “objectivity” in which balancing up pros and cons means that nobody comes to any definitive conclusions and the system becomes sclerotic through indecisivness. I have friends working in the civil service who come across this problem on a daily basis. The current political trend of encouraging “blue sky” thinking and “objective” council meetings in which experts on issues are DENIED ACCESS TO THE DEBATES IN QUESTION due to fear that they are too immersed in their topics and therfore might bring a subjective opinion to the table, is a case in point. By all means encourage a more feminine politics of compromise over confrontation, but don’t loose the art of leadership and debating.
I’m not sure, Will. Would any of us really argue that the problems this country faces are the result of a lack of decisiveness on the part of our leaders? I don’t recognise in our government an excess of deliberation or balancing of pros and cons. And, in any case, surely the real problem Union-style debating is that it promotes the idea that it is more important to win the argument than to be right. The ability to defend glibly any position, however absurd, is impressive, but it doesn’t make for good government.
Billy, could you elaborate on why the politics of compromise is ‘feminine’?
I 100% agree – I joined the Union in a fit of excitement at arriving in Cambridge and being seduced by its reputation. But now I wholeheartedly regret having forked out £80 for life membership. And the problem with it is, as Matt says, that half the time I feel as if all the debaters care about is winning the argument. I always refused to do debating at school because I didn’t want to have to argue the side I didn’t believe in. I understand that debate is still important in politics, because it airs two sides of the issue at hand. That’s important. But debating as a sport shouldn’t be where politicians have to learn these skills.
I second Matt, more decisive and cock-sure leaders are certainly not what this country needs. One need only look at Iraq to see how nuance and EVIDENCE were utterly abandoned in one of recent history’s greatest miscalculations (and simplifications).
It also seems detrimentally to the publics engagement with politics. Increasingly politicians are talking about the need for a new style of politics, a new discourse, some way of restoring public trust in what they have to say. Partly this relates to spin. But I believe a large part of it also relates to this abrasive communication of policies, the ‘cocksure’ certainty with which they are presented and above all the ‘fight to the end’ attitude when they turn out to be misplaced. I always remember working in my gap year and engaging a co-worker in a debate on the Iraq war. In terms of stance our opinions were the same, but I argued my points in a forceful, aggressive (union style) way as I would with my friends - it just wasn’t a medium she was accustomed to, she took offense, and lost interest.
I’m not arguing for some PC, watered down, ‘accessible’ style of intercourse; that would benefit no-one and ultimately just be condescending. Debate will always be aggressive, politicians will always feel strongly about their views (excusing Mr Duncan-Smith). But if the centrality of ‘winning’ a point was changed… As Matt said a little more nuance, some greater concern for evidence and context, a diminution of the aggressive certainty of ‘I know best’ debate and, most importantly, a little scope for admitting fault. This might be the starting point for restoring trust in political debate and in politicians, as well avoiding future policy mistakes.
Flexibility, fallibility and humility; hardly concepts associated with politics. Is it foolish to hope that a little of each might ever penetrate Westminster’s political discourse? (Probably).
I agree that the Union style of debating can become very tedious and I confess to fall into the same camp as Liz on my regard for membership. As for compromise being the “feminine” approach to politics, you only need to read Ed’s lambasting of “cock-sure” leaders to get an idea of what would term as “masculine” politics…ultimately the terms are being used loosely and not meant to be analysed to great depth.
Matt and Ed, as for your point about the current spate of head strong leaders in British politics and the disastrous campaign in Iraq, perhaps it is due to a lack of a strong civil service, capable of reigning in government at times such as before Iraq, that we have seen the rise of the unchecked, all-powerful, in the words of Lord Turnbull, “stalinist,” decisions made in present British politics?
To clarify, that’s Stalinist, not in a communist sense but a dictatorial sense.
True, Union debates do not inspire confidence in our future leaders. And true, I like text-based debating but would be useless at spoken debating. Nonetheless, I don’t think it follows that the Union somehow trains future leaders in an arbitrary style to which humble bloggers provide a viable alternative.
A Darwinian selection process shapes politicians. If Union-style debating stays with them, that’s because our democracy really does select for people who think on their feet, people who can speak eloquently on any topic with little warning. Those skills aren’t only exercised in Union-style environments. They are needed on Question Time, on Newsnight, in interviews and in press conferences. Politicians make their names in these arenas as much as in Parliament.
Like the Union, politics is a show. As at the Union, it’s the skilled showmen (and women, sometimes) who will shine.
Plus:
It’s an ugly spectacle to see the word “Stalinist” bandied around as it has been this week. Is Britain still in denial as to the scale of that man’s atrocities? If someone had described Brown as the New Hitler, he or she would have been savaged from all sides for such insensitive stupidity.
I’m sure if the Chancelor was not from the Labour party but from the Conservatives, and had conducted himself in a similar fassion, terms such as “hitlarian” would be used without too much thought being given for the touchy-feely. After all you only have to discuss immigration as a tory politican to receive accusations of “fascist” from across the commons floor.
Will, I’m really not sure that’s true. Can you give an example of any politician from any side of the house who has been compared to Hitler without huge outcry? You perhaps have more of a point with Fascist, but even so (and I’m happy to be proved wrong), I don’t think it’s a word that mainstream politicians have used against each other.
Only on a Cambridge or Oxford university site could a post entitled “The growing irrelevance of the union” be about a debating society, rather than the future of the UK, EU or USA.
Cocksure? No, surely not…
Steve, I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. You seem considerably more irked than I can rationalise.
Surely any blog will reflect the atmosphere of the community in which it’s written? This is a politics blog based in Cambridge. The vast majority of our readers are from Cambridge. The Union is, alas, at the centre of Cambridge political life. I don’t understand how it’s ‘cocksure’ to have a post about the Union. I don’t think that this site’s content gives any indication that we think that the Cambridge Union is the only or even most important body that can be described by the word ‘Union’.
Moreover, the post isn’t introspective - it doesn’t discuss the petty politics of a debating society. It’s a way into talking about the style of British politics, which (again, alas) is to a least some degree influenced by the Union style of argument.
I apologise if the post title raised your expectations unduly.
Matt, I’m not irked, I’m just having a laugh……
….and it’s a good post, which is why I’ve linked to it.
Sorry - caught me on a defensive day. Thanks for the link . . .
From the link I thought it was about Trades Unions , but that probably reflects my working class roots.
I was taught (old fashioned grammar school) that when constructing a written argument you should follow the thesis - anithesis - synthesis structure. Posit your own argument, and then criticise it before finally restating it, sometimes in a modified form. I’ve never heard of the “barrister” structure, although it sounds ideally suited to defending a position in court.
I disagree that we need more concensus in our leaders, or in politics generally. Politics in the UK already sufferrs from too much consensus, it’s now about management of the country, with small differences in emphasis or process, rather than conflicting ideology or conviction.
Much of our legislation seems based on a heavily feminised, liberal/left socialism lite agenda designed by committes and focus groups to do little more than offend as few people as possible. It’s gay (in the sense of naff/effette) government.
When Lord Adonis spoke to Clare Politics he argued that the ‘management’ politics Matt Munro decrys is indicative of a country, and therefore an administration, that is doing very well.
Surely like all vaguely democratic systems, ours will attempt to cling to the centre ground- where most votes are to be found- and avoid offending large sections of the electorate. I believe the point of focus groups is to figure out which policies will play well with the electorate (as well as how to present them) i.e. democracy.
How has politics in the UK suffered from too much consensus?