Whenever a senior political figure, such as David Cameron or Boris Johnson (the London mayor) writes a newspaper column on some issue or other – and Boris Johnson does this a good deal, being a good writer – you can bet that in light of recent events, at least one commenter will make some remark about the politicians’ holidays. You see, it was terrible, apparently, that our Prime Minister was sunning himself in Tuscany or that BJ was carousing in Canada, rather than working 24/7 in their offices. To delay coming back to our Sceptred Isle for a few days when the disorder broke out is inexcusable, just the sort of lazy, arrogant stuff you can expect. Etonians. Bullingdon Club. These bastards probably did PPE at Oxford! (Sarcasm warning).
As you can see, I find all this type of commentary tiresome. It suggests an inability to realise that in the age of the internet, video conferencing and the like, that things don’t collapse when a political leader is away. The Prime Minister is not my Daddy.
And from the point of view of someone who believes in minimal government, the free market and the open society, this mindset is very foolish. While I don’t want to pay for their holidays, I happen to think that the idea of politicians taking time off from their politicking is a very good idea and should be encouraged. A century or more ago, the Peels, Palmerstons, Gladstones and Disraelis holidayed a good deal, and their backbench members of Parliament holidayed even more, or ran their estates. In the USofA, Congress was deliberately located on the swamps of the Potomac in order to discourage people from meeting during the hot, malaria-filled summer months. (Arguably, the governence of the US went down the tubes when air conditioning was invented). And London stank so badly because of the lack of drainage that getting out of London was a good idea for anyone who could do so.
As I said, I don’t mind politicians taking time off so long as we, the taxpayer, don’t have to pay for it. But in principle, the idea that Civilization will come to an end unless Dave, Boris or Barack are constantly at their desks or in the assembly is barmy. There is much to be said for a bit of time out from these people. As the saying goes, we should be grateful we don’t get all the politics we pay for.
(Aside, the commentators on the Daily Telegraph site are truly awful, arguably worse than the Guardian. Take a look at the moronic stuff regarding BJ’s latest article on the riots).
You just have to look at how rapidly Blair aged whilst in office to understand the impact of 24×7 working on senior politicians. Personally, I’d prefer Cameron, BJ, et al are working and making decisions with fresh rather than exhausted minds.
You’re quite right about the poor quality of comments on the Telegraph. They make the Guardian and even BBC Have Your Say sound like a gentle senior common room debate.
Silly to read too much into these things, but it’s an interesting view perhaps into the disarray and incoherence of what’s perceived to be “conservative” in the IDave era.
Personally, I’d gladly be willing to pay for their holidays if they all made them permanent and real (by which I mean no politicking via phone, the internet or video conferencing). That would be a real bargain.
Indeed, one can make the argument for politicians taking more holidays.
During the tenure of Woodrow Wilson he was left a complete invalid by a series of strokes. The government was similarly incapacitated. The depression of the early twenties rapidly resolved itself without government interference.
Compare that with FDR and his “new deal”. He lengthened the depression of the 30s into the “Great Depression” – an era of poverty so pronounced it spawned several extremely depressing plays…..
Economically at least, the good ship of statehood sails much better when politicians keep their damn hands off the rudder.
As a regular contributor to the Telegraph blogs, I noticed a lot of unfamiliar names last week. Peter Oborne’s justification of those poor misundertood victims who were lead astray by the identical behavior of their betters(Link) seemed to have been targetted by names I’d never seen before.
Am I paranoid or could it be a message got out among Guardian readers that there was an article they could agree with at the Telegraph and they should rally round and support it?
It is inconceivable to me that during the recent crisis a senior civil servant in the Home Office, (or whatever it’s called now), couldn’t have come to the obvious decision to cancel all police leave, double the number of boots on the ground and go to type B RoE*. If it took a quick call to Dave in Tuscany, well I’m given to understand that they have all sorts of modern communication devices whereby the parties can even see each other as well as talk for hours. Even in rural Italy.
Which leads to the inescapable conclusion that during said call, Dave’s instructions were don’t cancel all police leave,don’t double the number of boots on the ground and don’t go to type B RoE until I get back and personally authorise these obvious measures and then I can look strong and decisive and show up those Labour wimps.
Nah Kevin, that’s too cynical, even for you.
*I,m assuming that the plod have graded Rules of Engagement whereby type A lets them wave the drunken thieving louts on while they harrass the middle aged motorists, smokers and other enemies of the state; type B allows them to glare meaningfully at rioters and looters and threaten them with ASBOs; and type C is “for God’s sake bring in the Army and we’ll come behind and sweep up the bodies.”
It is not just the advent of telecoms and big government that means things don’t collapse in the absence of the PM. Salisbury would go away to his holiday cottage near Dieppe for weeks at a time during most of his premiership, for some of which time he was his own foreign secretary and conducting direct personal correspondence with other heads of government.
Gordon Brown essentially didn’t take holidays, and this clearly made him a better PM.
There are lots of reasons to dislike David Cameron, but that he takes an occasional holiday is not one of them. (Why do this people all go to Tuscany rather than somewhere a bit more interesting. Apparently Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Paterson is presently holidaying in Outer Mongolia. Now there is someone I have a bit more time for.
Maybe, like Jim Hacker, they feel the need to be ‘around’ because they cannot trust the Humphrey Appleby’s that inhabit their offices to do the right thing. Much as I distrust the ‘simple serpents’, government might work better if it were NOT being poked and prodded by the elected.
In passing, I note that Texas is doing well. Maybe that is because:
“The Texas Legislature meets in Regular Session for about five months every other year. Regular Sessions begin at noon on the second Tuesday in January of odd numbered years and can last no more than 140 days, ending during the last week of May or the first week of June. Special Sessions may be called by the Governor and can last up to 30 days.”
( from http://www.house.state.tx.us/about-us/)
So the regular schedule is 140 days out of 730, plus however many special 30 days sessions the Governor decides to call.
May I have some of that in Ontario, please?
I suppose we should allow pollies to go on hols, but why do they all choose August?
Nuke: Surely this is a question to be asked of almost all Europeans, not just politicians.
Politicians do have to be around when parliament is sitting, so there are certain constraints on when they can take their holidays.
In the USofA, Congress was deliberately located on the swamps of the Potomac in order to discourage people from meeting during the hot, malaria-filled summer months.
I don’t know where you got this, but it’s not true. At the time, very little was known about the climate of the place, nor about the relation between swamps and insect borne disease. (There were several occasions in the 1790s when the government evacuated Philadelphia due to yellow fever epidemics.)
The location of the Federal District was a political compromise. Various sections of the country wanted it.
The chosen location was towards the South, away from any major city, between two slave states. It was agreed to by Hamilton and his proto-Federalist New York/New England faction. In return the Virginia faction of Jefferson and Madison agreed to support Hamilton’s plan for Federal assumption of state Revolutionary war debts.
Incidentally, while it was typical until 1933 for a Congress to meet from December to spring, the First Congress in 1789 met from March 4 to September 29. Of course that was in NYC.
The first Congress to meet in Washington DC during the summer was the Twenty-Seventh Congress (1841-1843), which held its first session from May 31 to September 13, 1841, The Twenty-Seventh Congress also met from December 6, 1841 to August 31, 1842.
Over the next 93 years there were 19 years when Congress met through summer (not counting a brief special Session in 1861).
The last time Congress did not meet through summer was 1952, when the second Session of the 83rd Congress ended on July 7, though there were later later Sessions which ended in late July or August.
Research project: collate the dates of all Sessions, and graph them against the dates of the Congresses.
Near the beginning of the film “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Michael Moore mocks George W. Bush for spending a lot of time on vacation.
This made no sense to me. Moore didn’t even believe Bush was legitimately elected in the first place. He didn’t like any of the policies Bush proposed. Why would Moore not want Bush to spend as much time as possible on vacation? It’s not like Bush would have come up with policies Moore approved of if only he spent more time in the office.