When politicians won't answer the question

[Elektra1]

Just heard Treasury Minister James Murray on the Today programme talking about the changes to the government's borrowing rules, and changes to taxes in the impending budget. He was asked 5 times whether landlords work for a living (I assume due to changes to CGT and SDLT) and simply repeated the same response ("we are talking about how people make their money").

Landlords clearly make at least some of their money by buying and selling properties, and renting them out. Nothing wrong with that, it's a job. So why not just answer the question? Do they seriously think that the audience is taken in by repetition of the same non-answer? It just makes me think they must be shit at their job (being a politician).

I don't understand why Labour want fewer rental properties available which will be the affect of these plans. My sin rents and rental properties are drying up. They'd be better focussing on making landlords repair broken things ( dishwashers, thermostats, ovens) within a legal timeframe after reporting rather than making renting out properties uneconomical

I always assume not answering the question is a way of answering the question, so the interviewer is right, but the interviewee won't answer - that I take as being the interviewer is right if that makes sense.

And no, landlords aren't working people, they live off investments which they have accumulated through luck.

Commercial landlords are working people. And if "normal" people earn enough money to have a buy to let, why shouldn't they earn from that investment? (I'm not a landlord).

I rented out my house when I lived abroad for a year and was still working and as a student lived in houses owned by people who were temporarily living abroad. There are many different types of landlord

Keir has announced what a working person is and it doesn't include anyone who owns assets such as shares or property. So if you work hard, own your own house you'd better be ready - they are coming after you.

Landlords are working people they buy property, do it up, maintain it and run a business renting it out and pay tax - working person.

The fact is that we have reached the stage whereby we need to ask politicians to explain exactly what they mean. NI is a good example - historically when you talk about NI you mean both employer and employee - otherwise surely you would say so. Now Labour are saying they only meant employee NI wouldn't rise so employer NI is going up.
This, IMO, is lying through the back door. Same as talking about women - do they mean actual women - you know the ones with XX or do they mean anyone who just says they are a woman?

The media are shockingly bad at getting them to answer the question. It's like they are all in it together. That said, the interviews would take so long it would get boring as well as pointless.

I’ve often thought that they must have to pass a rigorous exam in slithering around the question like an oiled snake, before they’re let loose anywhere near the media.

I know what you mean and it can definitely be annoying but they get into the situation you describe when the interviewer just tries to goad them into saying something that they believe will provide a 'gotcha' moment. It can then go round and round for as long as the interviewer keeps it up. The politician is not going to suddenly give a different answer, though sometimes they do try and explicitly address what is happening with the line of questioning.

@1apenny2apenny I agree with what you say. People have paid for investments from after tax income. My DC are trying to save for a deposit - those savings are assets, so according to Starmer they are not "working people". Does he want the whole nation dependent on benefits ?

When employer NI goes up next week, its impact will be felt in unemployment numbers as people reduce hiring, and a bit further down the road by employees as pay rises are curtailed.

So much for "growth" ......

Politicians are trained to answer with the point they want to get across rather than answer the question being asked. Obama talks about it in his book.

The fact that they stick to their pre-prepared line so doggedly shows that they are good at their jobs, not bad at them. They can’t deviate because there is a risk that any ad-lib will be seized upon, quoted in the media and used against the party. Don’t forget that they are not speaking for themselves, they are speaking on behalf of the overall party and have been put forward to state a policy. The “line to take” has been carefully prepared by advisers and speech writers and can’t be messed with. They themselves know that they are coming across as annoying and obstructive but that’s just how it is.

Agree

Murray seemed completely confused. He couldn’t even clarify what a working person looks like. Hopeless.🙄

All politicians are masters at this

This happens with US politicians as well. I have noticed recently that the hosts of some programs are cutting the interviews short 'you won't answer my question so we're stopping this right here'. I wish all of them would do this, the aim of the program is to find out information for voters, not a party political broadcast.

They themselves know that they are coming across as annoying and obstructive but that’s just how it is.
Do they really think that that is a good look!?

I heard the interview and thought that the interviewer should have changed tack after a few non-answers. He should have said "can you define a worker for us?"

It is noticeable with Starmer's Government that they use weasel words (he is a lawyer, after all). They use words like "worker" and leave the electorate to fill in the gaps with wishful thinking. Similarly, before the election, "change" was a favourite phrase but they never actually told us what change.
We need interviewers to get wise and tie them down on definitions of words.

My MP does this when I have written to him about various issues. His replies are not personalised, they read as though they're from a script. It's so rude and frustrating.

This is brilliant. We should do it, too. And fill the silence with scurrilous rumour so the politicians will have an incentive to come back and give their version of tell the truth.

No, as individuals I am sure that they don’t think it is “a good look”. But they have to do what the party asks of them.

It doesn't show they are good at the jobs at all, it shows they have been briefed and media trained to just repeat the party mantras. Doesn't matter which political party, it is all soundbites and repeat the same phrase over and over again, in order to push the agenda. Many will repeat something which has nothing to actually do with the question they are asked.

The training also tells them to use such phrases as "Let me be clear...".

There are very few politicians now who understand or use the words yes or no.

These kind of responses may fool some but not all.

It's not about who is a working person, but whether the money comes from work or is passive income. So you can be a working person as well as having some passive income from eg property or investments. The latter may be subject to more tax after the budget than it is now, the former probably won't be. This seems fair as passive income isn't taxed the same as earned-through-work income now. I say this as a retired person with small investments (and a pension big enough to be taxed through normal income tax).
But all this is speculation really until the budget. Maybe don't get worked up about it yet.

But we, the electorate, need to show politicians (whether individuals or parties) that it is off-putting. We shouldn't put up with it, it's treating us like idiots.

It's all part of the lack of conviction politics these days. Why are politicians so afraid to say what they really mean?

They really shouldn't have used the term 'working people' when talking about the budget, tax rises etc. Its got them into a real pickle because they were always going to be pushed on what that meant.

I've said on a few threads now how surprised I am at how poor Labour have been with messaging and optics.

I think it's a media problem as much as a politician one. The journalist obviously wants to be able to say 'Aha, so landlords aren't working people then?' and thereby another pointless and damaging division is drawn.

“these days”? The famous Jeremy Paxman interview when he repeated the question to Michael Howard 12 times was in 1997!

You expect too much.

I don't find this approach annoying or obstructive - I find it leaves me thinking they are ill-prepared, since they should go into interviews prepared with proper responses to the obvious questions.

It's so bad that on the rare occasions I hear a good one actually deal with the question without deviating from their message, I'm oddly impressed by them, but that is simply what any politician should be able to do.