Outbreaks are occurring across the country, from Liverpool and Birmingham to Glasgow and London.
The condition began in the opinion columns of The Herald and has spread to the letters pages. And there is more of it about since the general election. Have you come down with a bad case of buyer’s remorse yet?
The main cause is voting for Keir Starmer, but the feeling can strike at any time for a variety of reasons. I succumbed last Saturday while watching the silver anniversary celebrations at the Scottish Parliament.
There were clips from the early days at Holyrood, all the old faces present and correct, and speeches celebrating this achievement and that. “Well, would you look at that,” cooed my internal monologue, “the Scottish Parliament really was something in the early days, wasn’t it? And the men and women elected there, didn’t they do us proud? If only we could say the same of the current lot …”
Read more
- Starmer "absolutely furious" over interview question
- Look who wants to question Kuenssberg over pay?
And just like that a wave of nostalgia hit, followed by buyer’s remorse. Why did we invest so much time, hope and money in the Scottish Parliament only for it to become the disappointment it so often is today? And given this change of heart, is there any chance of a refund or exchange?
The same is being asked about Keir Starmer, with some surprising (to me, anyway) victims of alleged mis-selling coming forward. The unions were bound to be disappointed, even with their pay claims settled, but Max Hastings? The renowned historian and former editor of the Telegraph coughed last week to voting Labour in the hope of something better. The declaration was to be found way down the column, but it was there.
Hastings wrote: “I voted Labour in July, but it is dispiriting to have made glancing acquaintance on radio and TV shows with two or three members of the new cabinet which incline me to fear that they may not prove to be immensely cleverer than were their predecessors.”
Buyer’s remorse, see?
It is not just new ministers proving to be a let-down. Former ones, some now aspiring to be the leader of their party, are turning out to be far from as advertised. Take Kemi Badenoch, long tipped for the top by Michael Gove.
Whatever one thinks of Gove, he has been around long enough for his opinion to count for something. As Boris Johnson writes in his new memoir, Unleashed (a better title would have been Unhinged): “Incurably fond as I am of Michael Gove, I think I speak for several Tory ex-PMs if I say it is always a good idea to watch him in the wing mirror.”
business. When criticised, she doubled down by attacking the press and comparing herself to Mrs Thatcher, saying it was just like the time the former PM’s argument was reduced to a “no such thing as society” soundbite that she never actually said.
But left to her own devices, Badenoch let fly her opinions on maternity pay and how it was an “excessive” burden onBefore you could say “stop digging, Kemi”, Badenoch was being compared to Liz Truss in the loose cannon stakes. Cue more punters with buyer’s remorse, seeking a refund. Mrs T, indeed. If only the leadership contenders had half her talent, you could hear disgruntled members thinking.
Why are we so quick to compare the past to the present and find it wanting? It happens with everything, from the state of the economy to our place in the world order. But for the most part the dissatisfaction settles on the heads of politicians. If only they were better, things in general would improve. But how do we improve the standard of politicians?
Hastings, reflecting on the freebies row, said pay them more.
Rosie Duffield, the Labour MP who resigned the whip last Saturday, also citing the taking of freebies and poor decision-making, questioned Starmer’s credentials as leader. Though she did not vote for him, she made it sound like those who did were victims of mis-selling.
“As someone elevated immediately to a shadow cabinet position without following the usual path of honing your political skills on the backbenches, you had very little previous political footprint,” she wrote. “It was therefore unclear what your political passions, drive or direction might be as the leader of the Labour Party, a large movement of people united by a desire for social justice and support for those most in need.”
Another observer mourned the fact that Starmer once said he didn’t have a favourite poem or book. “Either he doesn't have a hinterland or he's keeping very quiet about it,” wrote Joan Smith.
Read more
So we pay politicians more, insist on a hinterland, make them undergo an apprenticeship of sorts. Anything else we should list as a requirement of the job? Must have the oratory skills of Obama, the wit of Charles Kennedy, the experience of Biden, the organisational skills of an Attlee, the tenacity of Barbara Castle, the drive of Thatcher, the list could go on. Wonder how many candidates would make it through the initial sift. Zero probably.
It is a dangerous business this looking back while wearing rose-tinted specs. In reality, the fledgling Scottish Parliament, the one that looked so impressive at 25 years’ remove, had no end of muck heaped on its head for everything from the quality of debate to the commissioning of a new building. And the leading figures, the elder statesmen and stateswomen of today, took just as many pelters from voters.
It is impossible to legislate for the perfect politician. There is no such person. Some might turn out to be useless, but one or two could be great, and the rest may yet surprise us. The important thing is to open the door as wide as possible.
It is understandable to experience buyer’s remorse after an election, particularly one in which tactical voting featured so prominently. In time we will have the chance to shop around again. Until then, feel free to complain as much as you like. That’s the beauty of democracy. Thank you for your patience, your continued custom becomes more important by the day.
Alison Rowat is a senior politics and features writer on The Herald. Contact alison.rowat@heraldandtimes.co.uk
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel