I was shocked and stunned and, perhaps, even a little amazed to read about Labour MP Anne Begg refusing to deal properly with a constituency case, deciding instead to seek headlines from what is little other than administrative errors on the part of council officers.
A phone call from the MP's office with a confirmatory letter would be the way to handle such cases - it would be sorted out quietly and without any fuss. Surely this Labour MP isn't more concerned with making headlines than with working for her constituents? Is she just concerned that there's an election approaching?
Another thing - why is the BBC running this guff as if it's news? What happened to professional pride?
I love your tongue in cheek partisanship, Calum.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm never sure where the humour ends and the serious points start - by saying that Anne Begg failed to deal with the case properly that sounds like an allegation of neglect rather than her perhaps using the case to score political points?
And I know that my 86-year-old mother would be mortified - indeed terrified - if she received such a threat, administrative error or otherwise, so if the council receive adverse publicity over the cases then that's fine by me, and perhaps it might prevent similar errors being made in future.
I once received a letter from Dundee CC threatening me with a warrant sale over an unpaid debt of a pound or so. A couple of years later I raised this in a letter to the Dundee press (as an aside, effectively - it wasn't the main point of the letter), but if you consider such an issue as 'guff' then too bad!!
Tongue in cheek? I'm always deadly serious ...
ReplyDeleteWhy should there be a dividing line between humour and serious points? Serious points can be made just as well, and oftentimes better, with a smile rather than a frown (although I'm partial to a wee frown at times as well).
Cases shouldn't be dealt with in the full glare of publicity unless the constituent will receive a benefit having had their case thus publicised that they wouldn't have otherwise - and that simply is not the case here. Most politicians go about casework like this with no fuss, getting the work done, getting the improvements made for their constituents and not seeking to turn it into headlines - simply because that does nothing to help the constituents, doesn't improve the working relationship between the politician and 'officialdom' (if you will), and means that publicity generated by hte politician has less impact when it's actually needed.
Council officers are human beings doing a job, they're not monsters and they do not target vulnerable people.
If you want to make a value judgement about whether the MP is serving her constituents or chasing headlines, probe a little. Why did she not ask the council how many such cases had been reported to it? An indication of the frequency of such cases would help frame the arguments and would indicate whether it was widespread or limited. Of course there will be cases where costs are disputed and where mistakes have been made, but the only 'benefit' from this tale is Anne Begg getting herself some publicity for her re-election campaign.
Constituents who seek the help of politicians - especially constituents who might be described as vulnerable - have the right to expect that the politician will work to resolve the problem rather than be used as a tool for publicity.
Right across the country politicians of all parties work like that every day but there are a few whose lust for publicity is just too strong and they carry the danger of creating worry and concern that may lead some people, especially people who are in those vulnerable groups, to shy away from the help that can be offered to them.
Politicians like Anne Begg do all of us a disservice. So do those who would style themselves as journalists but fail to ask the basic questions like "so, have you asked how often this happens?"
This is such a simple principle and such a clear breach that I can only assume that you are being disingenuous.
ReplyDeleteThe MP breached the confidentiality of the politician's surgery. None of the other examples you have given do anything of the sort.
I resent your implication that I would condone wrong-doing if the circumstances favoured my political persuasion. Such an ill-considered and groundless accusation demeans yourself far more than any slight you can leave me with.
In practice as well as in theory almost all council officers carry out their duties in a professional and impartial manner and their political affiliations do not impinge upon that. There are, in all walks of life, those who will act in a manner which breaches their professional protocols, of course, but they are no more to be found amongst council officers than in any other occupation.