Congratulations to Peter Bottomley, MP, who has just been knighted. Sir Peter has had a distinguished career in politics and is also the source of one of my favorite policy stories (context here), which I reprint here as a small tribute:
When he was in the Thatcher government, he was at one point given responsibility for Roads and Traffic. As he expected (correctly) that he would move on to another post in 2 or 3 years, he assembled his senior staff and asked what he could do as Minister to make a major difference in that short window of time. He raised the issue of responding to drink driving fatalities, and was told by the knowledgeable people around him that he was on a hiding to nothing: Government policy was not going to reduce such a massive problem so quickly. He therefore launched no policy initiatives in that area. Yet drink driving fatalities declined dramatically under his watch. He said that what happened was that the culture changed. People started disapproving of drink driving, designated drivers became more the fashion, party hosts were more careful about serving “one for the road” and so forth. New government interventions, as Peter saw it anyway, were not necessary because the culture had the power to self-correct on its own.
*p.s. Congratulations as well to Sir Rory and Sir Robin, well done chaps.
California’s smoking rate would, by contrast, seem to reflect a reasonably successful act of social engineering.
I wouldn’t say that it is policy free - I think England’s managed decline from globe-spanning hereditary dictatorship to reasonable place to live should be (but probably won’t) a lesson to the US. Becoming a charming award ceremony for good folks is a good way to do that.
But I’m probably sounding a bit petty, and I don’t mean to. Good for Peter.
The original drink drive legislation was passed in the 1960s and he would have been in office in the 80s. It took a good 15 years of advertising and prosecutions (i.e. planned government policy) to bring about the culture change that changed this behaviour. If he knew that the change was already underway/about to take place good for him; if, as his advisers warned, he did not then I don’t see how his inaction was a wise choice to make. The lesson seems to derive from Homer’s approach to difficulties: give up!
Tom: You forgot the Gin Act if 1751 which was the driving force (on the theory that all changes in society are caused by the government, you just have to look back far enough) in changing the culture to the point that the 1960s drink driving legislation could cause a change 20 years later in British attitudes about driving.
Bottomley became a junior transport minister in 1986. In 1983 the Thatcher government did introduce a significant tightening in drink driving laws - evidential breathalysers. (Labour stalwart Barbara Castle had brought in roadside breathalysers in 1967, but the results weren’t proof in court.) Evidential breathalysers are the sort of technical detail that can make a lot of difference in practice, as they must have lowered the cost, paperwork and uncertainty barriers to prosecution.
Part of the cultural change that occurred was probably in policing - over which Bottomley’s ministry had and has no control.
Doesn’t every single culture in the world, ultimately, have the “power to self-correct on its own” whatever their issues are? From drunk driving to a tyrannical despot to rape culture to gang violence to people who insist on talking on a cell phone in a movie theater, ALL of these things could be improved by a “culture change” and/or societal “disapproval” of the problem, followed by correcting action/behavior. But is this really some enlightened decision, an example of policy to laud Bottomley for? He shrugged doing *anything* about the problem off because the bigger picture would be too hard to deal with within a short time frame, and anyway it was the public’s job to change their attitude, hey what a smart guy? Really?
I’m not even saying he was wrong, in truth - it IS incumbent upon a society to decide to change the destructive aspects of their lives - but under that standard any and every single politician or civil servant could shrug off doing just about anything to affect positive change. At which point, why do we even need a government? I’m sure the libertarians feel exactly this, but personally I vote for people because I at the very least want them in there, *trying*, *doing* things that will, in time, help my society to change our culture for the better. To help *enable* people to make those changes by giving them tools (laws, civil rights, policies, enforcement) to support that needed change.
Not to denigrate Bottomley, I’m sure the entirety of his career must have had many accomplishments, but applauding a politician for doing exactly nothing about what everyone at the time described as “a massive problem” (your words) strikes me as fairly ridiculous. I get the reasoning behind his decision (although I believe it was a fairly lazy one) but not your reasoning for using this example as a tribute. He did absolutely nothing about a huge societal problem - what a guy!
Tere: I am afraid, with respect, that you miss the point of the story. Peter *wanted* to do something and was told by all the experts that the government couldn’t help, so he worked on other problems where he believed he could make a difference. But afterwards he did something less than 1% of the politicians I have met would do: He took no credit for the change that came about, but acknowledged that the people and not the government and its vaunted expert advisors were the ones who made the world better. To remark upon his honesty and his humility is the highest tribute.
All right, fair enough. You are correct, I did miss that you were pointing out his humility - and upon re-reading your post, I still don’t get that as the bottom line, the point you were making. But I respect that that’s where you were trying to go.
I still have issue with the final line in your post, however, as it feels an awful lot like a blank check of permission for a politician to take no concrete actions about anything, and I’ve had about enough of the politicians in my country doing exactly that. But I’ll accept that is not what either you or Bottomley meant. Thank you for a thought-provoking post.
I hear you Tere, thanks. I have spent much of my career doing public policy, so I share your faith in the good wisely-targeted policy can do, while retaining humility about how often it comes up short or doesn’t end up being the reason why society improves.
Sounds a bit like “Yes, Minister“.
I chuckled at Jamies comment, since England is often a prime exhibit of some reactionaries I read in how a wonderful country turned into a “chav-ridden shithole” thanks to democracy.
[...] on emigration weren’t applied to the Soviet Union until 1990. Chalk up another one for irrelevance of policy. LikeBe the first to like this [...]