3

In Europe, the age at which people are starting their retirement, should go up (I don't know if you can say "increase" or "lift" in this context).
But politicians avoid this subject because it is uncomfortable, they want to get a lot of votes at the next election.

But if there is a political party who raises this and similar (uncomfortable) subjects and does not avoid to take the necessary steps, although this could have the effect, that at the next election they get fewer votes, is there a political term for this kind of attitude / behaviour / politics?

Thanks a lot in advance

1

In United States politics, issues like this are called "third rail" (e.g. Social Security).

| improve this answer | |
1

As a term of art, political parties do not have "attitude". In psychology, "attitude" is a word used to indicate beliefs, emotions, and behaviors: a political party does not have either beliefs or emotions, because it does not a brain/mind. Only it's individual members can have an attitude.

However, one term which you may be interested in is "risk acceptance" (sometimes called "risk appetite" or "risk tolerance"). Risk acceptance describes how much risk someone is willing to take. High risk acceptance means being willing to take risky actions. The politician you are describing may have a relatively high risk-appetite, because they are willing to take actions which come with a large risk to their own electoral success.

| improve this answer | |
1

An individual who does this might be called a "gadfly" (meaning that he is bothersome or annoying) or perhaps a "contrarian". Contrary to your expectations though, he may not pay a penalty for doing so. If he is an elected official then, by definition, he has won election, and may be carrying on with a strategy that will win his re-election (even if it hurts his party as a whole). Many politicians are perfectly happy to be in the minority, because they can argue their views forcefully but are never subject to having those views tested and perhaps disproven. In a parliamentary system, would it not be the case that whole parties may assume such a role?

| improve this answer | |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .