Imagine a Conservative government minister involved in the following exchange:
Interviewer: "When will we see the green shoots of recovery?"
Minister: "...I wouldn't want to be the one predicting it. I am seeing a few green shoots, but it's a little bit too early to say exactly how they'll grow."
Now imagine that the Opposition and press attacked this minister for the "insensitive" and "offensive" nature of her remarks, accusing her of living in a "parallel universe". What would we say?
I'll tell you what we would say. There would be a ToryDiary and perhaps a couple of CentreRight pieces noting something like the following points:
- It was the interviewer, not the minister, who introduced the term "green shoots" to the discussion; that the minister had explicitly said she wouldn't want to predict recovery; and that the minister's mention of the term "green shoots" was merely to note that it would be too early to say much.
- Further, we would note that the minister was referring to what is blatantly true, or at the very very least certainly arguable, namely that conditions in bond markets (the single most significant problem of recent months) have shown some tentative (though perhaps fragile and quickly reversible) signs of recovery in the past couple of weeks, whilst the ignorant subsequent press coverage and Opposition comment, neglecting totally the context of the remarks, discussed whether there are any signs of recovery in the wider economy - something the minister did not suggest.
- We would note that the term "green shoots" can hardly be "offensive"! Offensive to whom? Elves? Martians? Pandas? Just because someone once decided to take offence when the term "green shoots" was used in another context emphatically does not make the term "green shoots" "offensive". Journalist remarks to the contrary are simply absurd.
- As to "insensitive", what precisely is insensitive about noting developments? She might be mistaken. But even in that case is it really "insensitive" to make an incorrect economic prediction? Is the thought that, somewhere out there, there are people going bankrupt or becoming unemployed who might not want to hear that others are doing better than them? But that is always true in an economy. On that principle, no member of the government should ever comment on the economy at all! It's just a nonsense position.
- "Parallel universe"? Well, all that means is that the person stating that someone else is living in a "parallel universe" disagrees with the person they accuse of living there, indeed perhaps considers their position at clear variance with the overwhelming evidence. Fine. I do think many of the government and its economic advisors appear to be living in a parallel universe. But that just means I disagree with them and consider them to be in denial, or (more probably) that they are vainly attempting to talk up the economy when they ought to be trying to adapt their policies to fit the new reality.
So, we might concede that the Conservative minister in question was mistaken, perhaps even seriously mistaken or even misguided. But if she just reflected the government's current forecasting stance, we could hardly attack the minister for her expressing the government's line - except in the sense of saying that we vigorously disagreed.
Should we offer less courtesy, less dismissing of blatant journalistic or Opposition distortion, just because the minister in question comes from the Labour Party? Perhaps we think that distortion is okay if we do it but not if they do it? Or maybe it's the Opposition's job to spin the statements of the government against it and the government's job to defend itself? Could it be that we should "aspire to be a bit better than that" (if that phrase means anything)? Finally, do we perhaps need a balance of "bad cops" to distort and "good cops" to be "reasonable"? What do you think? Was yesterday "legitimate spin" or a "ridiculous and distorted assault"?
