Today’s Daily Briefing isn’t about a single story but is instead a lesson for readers on how to interpret politicians when they say something. It is important to watch not what politicians say but what they do, of course, but there is an instructive guide in what they’ll do that lies on the line between what they say and what they do not, explicitly, say.
Politicians rarely lie to the public. That would be a disaster in a democracy, and exceptions are notable for their prominence. But they also hate being caught in a “U-turn”. Even when the facts change, it is often seen as a sign of weakness for a politician to change their mind. This goes double in an era where there is a permanent record of previous statements, and some of them are on video.
And so instead, they find solace in ambiguity and the ability to retroactively fit their support to any outcome.
Take First Minister John Swinney at FMQs this week. He was questioned repeatedly (even redundantly, given the new time-limited format for each leader) by Conservative leader Russell Findlay on whether or not he supported the opening of the Rosebank oil field. Swinney is caught in a trap on this. He doesn’t want to alienate the Scottish Greens, the vast majority of his members, and every voter in Scotland who understands the climate risks of drilling for more oil, but he also has to look the other way towards the pro-fossil fuel lobby in his own party and within those who pay for stalls at party conferences.
His position is that he’d only support Rosebank if it met climate compatibility tests. And here is where the line is. He has never outright stated what he thought those compatibility tests would look like or whether or not he thought Rosebank could meet them (it can’t, but, like Jackdaw, if it is approved, it’ll probably be on some flimsy pretext around domestic production).
So where does he actually stand on this? It’s very possible that he just wants the decision to be taken away from him. If, in the next few days or weeks, PM Andy Burnham says ‘no’ to Rosebank, then Swinney will say that he always supported this environmental decision. If Burnham says ‘yes’, then Swinney will say that this was a pragmatic decision taken only after all factors were carefully weighed. Both answers could follow from his stated position and be retroactively true.
For another example, we look at the UK Government. As part of the Budget, John Healey stated that he was going to lay out regulations that would guide the development of AI data centres. As the major infrastructure bottleneck for these are grid connections that will allow them to suck up the vast amounts of energy they need priority access to to operate, Healey announced that part of the regulations will allow data centres to build their own on-site energy generators if and until grid connections are not available. The key thing not said here is that there is no stated requirement for the generators to be zero-carbon.
This means that it would be perfectly within the scope of what Healey has said to allow his government to approve data centres powered by gas or diesel generators. This means that, just as is happening in the US, the data centres will not only present a threat to local communities in terms of energy use, land use, and water use, they will also subject those communities to intense pollution.
He could have easily slipped in a couple of words on zero-carbon generation, but chose not to. The actions that follow from those words are therefore leaning quite strongly in the direction of that omission turning out to be deliberate.
We shouldn’t have to divine our politicians like they are the Fair Folk of European myth. Journalists should certainly do a better job of interrogating their words and stated positions to tease out the intended actions. But now that you see patterns like this, you can take on that job as a voter. Watch what they do. Watch what they say. But especially watch what they don’t say as well.