Politics and lying

This week I finished reading The Rise of Political Lying, by Peter Osborne. It has been a timely read, considering that the penultimate week of electioneering has also focused on issues of truth and lying. Reading by night and following the slinging match by day, I have felt better equipped, in a general sense, to separate the chaff from the wheat.

However, it is the specifics, rather than the generalities about the devices used by politicians to evade the truth, that I find alarming. Meticulously researched and well sourced, it describes how lying has become routine. Whether it is complete falsehood, deceit or the deliberate omission of crucial information, real examples are given of each type of turpitude that now afflicts politics. I would recommend this accessible book to anyone interested in getting an insight into contemporary British politics.

In 2001, 59% of the electorate came out to vote. An even lower turnout is being predicted for this year’s election. There are no doubt complex reasons for this, but surely the rise of the culture of ‘spin’, a word that encapsulates the ills described in Peter Osborne’s book, must contribute to the fact that the public has become turned off from politics. Lies are disempowering. If we know that we are constantly being bombarded with lies, we just lose interest (and faith). Yet politics matters.

So what can be done?

Though the book is capable of making us lose faith completely in politics, it also contains a redemptive idea- the creation of something similar to Fact Check as found in the US. This is a group that monitors the factual accuracy of political statements. Such an idea is not totally unknown here. The Institute for Fiscal Studies already provides independent scrutiny of government and opposition tax policies. An organisation that is independent of political parties but commands their respect would be an important step in restoring faith in politics.

Ignorance is bliss- (for Labour)

To Labour’s advantage, most people are not interested in politics to the extent of actively digging out information. If they were, Labour would comprehensively lose this election. Anyone who bothers to study in detail events surrounding the Iraq war cannot but be struck by the battery of lies and deceit employed to strengthen the case for war. Throughout 2002, Blair made statements with conviction and certainty that Iraq had WMD. It is now clear that those statements were not based on the prevailing intelligence at the time- which was cautious and stressed the lack of authoritative information emerging from Iraq. It is now clear that Blair was the auteur of the whole episode. The whole machinery of government was used, and abused, to ensure the PM got his way.

Defection of Old Labour man to the Lib Dems

The only thing slightly surprising about the defection of Labour MP Brian Sedgemore to the Liberal Democrats is the timing. There is now such a chasm between the principled left wingers of the old-type and the spin obsessed, managerial-types of New Labour that it is a wonder that they all belong to the same party. Sedgemore’s claim that more retired MPs are planning on leaving Labour after the election may or may not come to pass. It is safe to assume, though, that there must be quite a few of them having seditious thoughts.

Another curiosity is whether the Liberal Democrats are the natural home for left wing deserters. Historically, the Liberals have been about light, though compassionate, government, with an emphasis on individual freedoms. As Labour has moved away from its founding ideals, the Liberal Democrats have increasingly moved leftwards to occupy the space. Their position on issues such as tuition fees, care for the elderly, foundation hospitals, the Iraq war, civil liberties and taxation, is something Labour leftwingers can instantly make common cause with.

If Sedgmore’s defection emboldens others in the next few days, then the election may not be the foregone conclusion many pundits have proclaimed it to be.

A question of trust

Finally the election campaign is focused on the issue why this election is not plain sailing for Blair- the Iraq war. It is this conflict, and the falsehoods and lies that preceded the gathering clouds of war, that finally dragged Blair out of the prelapsarian phase. As a result, trust is an important issue in this election. Before that, there had been near misses. (Remember the Ecclestone affair and Blair’s “I am a pretty straight sort of guy” rejoinder?)

There is no point in rehearsing the arguments. The dodgy dossiers, embellished claims about attacks within 45 minutes and fickle legal advice speak for themselves.

What matters from the point of view of the election is the total erosion of trust. Even if your attitude is one of good riddance to Saddam, the way in which the case for war was presented and argued should make your squirm. Democracy, which became an ex post facto justification for the war, was totally bypassed in the quest for war. Parliament was given false information and the case for war was never fully scrutinised in cabinet. The decision was taken in Washington and obsequiously followed by Blair.

Conservative obsession with immigration

The Conservatives, seeking to exploit their advantage on the issue of asylum and immigration, may have shot themselves in the foot by over-egging the issue. People may be concerned about immigration, but they also have other concerns. In any case, the core vote the Conservatives are seeking to bring out may drive many more waverers into the bosom of other parties.

On closer inspection, it becomes obvious that the issue they are ranting against is in fact a logical conclusion of their own policies. If you believe in the supremacy of the market and in the unhindered movement of goods and services across borders, if you believe that taxation and protectionism are odious, then there is no rational reason why you should object to the free movement of labour. The ‘natural hand’ of the market will direct workers to where there is demand for their labour. On the basis of the economic theory espoused by the Conservatives, immigration should be considered as undesirable an impediment to economic activity as taxation and over-regulation.

The Conservatives appreciate the comparative advantage offered by immigrants- low wages. That is why they have employed them to deliver their election campaign literature. It is also the main reason why the CBI has opposed the Conservative plans. Talk of a skills shortage, which could be made worse by the Conservative proposals, is just a subterfuge. There is no significant skills shortage. There is a shortage of unskilled workers who are prepared to do low paid jobs.

Seen in this context, it also becomes clear that the Labour party has not been pusillanimous on the issue of immigration. It too accepts the supremacy of the market. The shortage of workers, particularly for jobs no one else is prepared to do, has been the chief driver of immigration under Labour.

'Respect' party out campaigning

George Galloway’s anti-war ‘Respect’ party was out campaigning today on the Stratford Road (Sparkbrook, Birmingham constituency). They had set up stall outside Mushtaq’s Asian Sweet Centre, handing out leaflets to shoppers and debating with passers by who had time. I noticed them from a distance and, despite my normal reticence, mustered enough courage to talk to one of them.

My argument was simple: I agreed with most of their sentiments, especially about the war, but thought they were a divisive influence in a Muslim majority constituency such as Sparkbrook. They would win a significant chunk of votes, sure, but not the seat. Other anti-war votes would go to the Liberal Democrats. The anti-war vote thus divided, Labour would sneak comfortably back in. I pointed out that this is what had happened before. If Respect had not stood in the Hodge Hill bye-election last year, Labour would have been massively defeated. By standing in Sparkbrook, Respect was ensuring a Labour victory. Only the Liberal Democrats offered a realistic route to defeating Labour here.

The campaigners were casually dismissive of such reasoning. For them, the Liberal Democrats are just as pro-war as Labour. What difference did it make which party of war won? I did not debate the point further, but felt unconvinced by their visceral rebuttal. The fact is that this was Blair’s war, made easy by oscitant Labour MPs. There is genuine anger against the war. If ever there was need for tactical voting, it is in this election.

As we were debating, a bearded gentleman came out of Mushtaq’s, clutching a box of mithai. He was in a hurry, but managed to offer some dialectic reasoning before hastily departing. “Do you know what Respect is?”, he asked rhetorically. His reply can be summed up like this. “Respect” is left wing, which is about being a socialist, which is related to anti-religious communism, which was an ideology diametrically opposed to Islam.

Photo opportunity

In the last parliamentary duel before campaigning began in earnest, Howard teasingly asked Labour MPs to raise their hands if they were planning to use photographs of Blair in their campaign material. It was a fine performance by Howard. Most Labour MPs did not raise their hands. They could, as a show of unity, have done so, but you could bet that journalists would have pursued the issue and expose the liars.

In my constituency- Birmingham, Sparkbrook- the opposition parties fully understand the power of photographs. Recently some campaign material, masquerading as ‘South Central Birmingham News’, came through the letterbox. It was actually from the Liberal Democrats. On the front page was a large picture of the affable local candidate. What struck me, however, was the other, slightly smaller picture. It was of Blair and Bush, together. There was Blair with his smirk and Bush with his somewhat perplexed looks. The photo was clever electioneering- it pressed the right anger buttons. And in my constituency, with a large Muslim population who have an antipathy towards Blair and Bush, it was meant to press a lot of anger buttons.

Labour candidates may want to decline the opportunity of Blair’s photo on their leaflets, but for some opposition candidates images of Blair and Bush are useful vote winners.

An important election issue

If there were any doubts that cynicism and opportunism are the way of politicians, the on the hoof development of local finance policy should banish them. The Tories made a significant volte-face by withdrawing support for property revaluation. Labour, rattled, responded by saying the revaluation would be ‘revenue neutral’ and no new high end council tax bands would be created. Only the Liberal Democrats emerge unblemished on this issue, though plans for a local income tax are misguided.

At least we should be glad that an important issue has been highlighted. Local taxation has always been a hot issue. Over the years, central government has undermined the power of local government to raise revenue. This has been achieved by rate capping and direct delivery of services through unelected Quangos. Council tax now accounts for only 25% of local revenue. The dilemma for governments is obvious: people don’t like paying taxes. When council taxes rise, popular ire is directed mainly at the central government. Unlike many other countries, we do not have genuine local democracy. It is central government that calls the shots and carries the can.

There is an issue here more than just about local finance. It is the pressing need to reinvigorate local democracy. If we had genuine local democracy, as found in many countries around the world, a cultural change would be brought about that would enable people to think along the lines of ‘local accountability for local decisions’. At present, central government encroaches on everything that should be local: from education and health to planning. Local authorities are now directly responsible for an ever decreasing number of services. Where they retain responsibility, they are subjected to numerous targets and performance indicators. The public has seen through the façade of local democracy and blames central government when things go wrong.

On the issue of local taxation, there is little doubt that reform is needed. A local income tax has the attraction of sounding progressive. Yet on closer scrutiny it becomes clear that abandoning council tax in favour of a local income tax would be a retrogressive move. Inequalities in asset ownership are far greater than income inequalities. A large proportion of the nation’s wealth is tied up in property. In the UK, property gets off quite lightly when it comes to taxation.

Given the exponential rise in house prices, many people are now sitting on a notional fortune. Their income has obviously not arisen as fast, which means they are paying a higher proportion of it in council tax. At present, the top property band for council tax purpose is valued at £320,000. This means if your property is valued at over a million pounds, your council tax liability is the same as a property worth £320,000. Given the house price inflation, there are likely to be parts of the country where people on relatively modest incomes have seen their value of their house increase three-fold since 1990.

Council tax needs to be reformed, by the introduction of new top and bottom end bands. Labour has taken a self-interested, short term view by removing plans for new top end bands from the revaluation exercise.

A local matter

Traders on the stretch of Stratford Road (A34) that runs through Sparkhill and Sparkbrook, predominantly Asian areas, are up in arms against the proposed red route scheme. I am not sure what that means or how double red lines differ from double yellow ones. I would guess it’s an idea borrowed from the congested streets of London. For traders, it means parking problems for customers and suppliers.

The Stratford Road Business Association has put up posters urging residents to oppose the red route and to oppose ‘ethnic minority prejudice’. Given that the red route project is an extension of a scheme already put in place a few miles down the road, in a stretch of the road that runs through a middle class white area, the latter exhortation sounds bizarre. By referring to ethnicity the traders are cleverly, if misleadingly, appealing to emotion, a strategy Michael Howard is also employing in the current election campaign.

Yet I am also fearful for this vibrant shopping area. It is an area you can buy anything from fine fabrics to fish caught in the River Jhelum in Kashmir. On Saturday afternoons, when I like to traipse aimlessly along the road, I’ve come across shoppers from as far apart as Newcastle and St Albans. In the summer, there is a near carnival atmosphere on Saturdays, with South Asian music blasting from the music shops. Streets vendors, selling cheap international calling cards, DVDs and religious books, add to the bazaar-like atmosphere. The bottom line for many people, however, is that fresh fruit and vegetables are a lot cheaper than in supermarkets.
Traffic is no doubt a major issue for many high street shopping areas. The beneficiaries of ill thought through calming measures can only be the hypermarkets, who can afford their own car parks. It would be a shame if this vibrant shopping area suffers as a result.

Tax talk

The spat over tax between Labour and the Tories could be dismissed as boring were it not an issue that affects our pockets.

On this issue, the Tories are in a dilemma. Investment in public services, which inevitably means higher taxes, is popular. Yet the Tories are viscerally opposed to high taxes and a fat state. They have sought to reconcile the dilemma by making vague promises of tax cuts, retrenchment of bureaucracy and investment in ‘frontline services’.

Labour, for its part, has stealthily- and directly in the case of National Insurance- increased taxes and investment in public services. Unlike the Tories- whose instincts are against tax rises- Labour has not departed radically from its historic position as the party of tax and spend. Yet it has been reluctant to crown all this with a big idea, lest it look too much like old Labour.

Obsession with polls

Some preoccupation with polls is inevitable, and indeed healthy, in the run up to a general election. The parties need to know where they stand, as do the electorate. Polls do have shortcomings- quite massive ones as it turned out in the 1992 election- but they are still useful indicators of opinion.

And yet there also appears to be an unshakeable obsession with pre-election opinion polls. We are bombarded with them. Polls often paint a confusing pciture. Depending on your political proclivities, you can console yourself by relying on the ones that support your view the most, albeit you may have to be rudely awakened on 6 May.

Given the consistently small difference between the parties, polls matter less in this election. We know that Labour would win, thanks to demographics, even if the Conservative stake in the popular vote was slightly higher. The only interesting polls would be ones that consistently showed a massive Conservative lead. My wish for this election has been made clear in another blog- this is a statement of fact not aspiration.

This is being billed as an ‘important election’ (as if newspapers, with an eye on sales figures, would call it anything else). For Labour, we are told it is an ‘anxiety election’, the anxiety not helped by the torrent of opinion polls. Yet the level of debate is lacklustre considering that it is such an important election. There is nothing but frustration for anyone seeking penetrating analysis of the issues before us. Blair, having taken us to war on a false pretext, must be hoping it stays that way.

Rover facing collapse

Some sceptics have always considered MG Rover to be doomed. For them, the deal 4 years ago that apparently secured mass production at Longbridge was nothing more than a stay of execution. It now appears that those who harboured these suspicions were correct. Despite generous offers of government help, no car manufacturer wants to touch the ailing company with a barge pole. To do so would be to assume liabilities that far outweigh the attractions of temporary government help.

It is a very sad moment for the West Midlands, whose workshop of the world reputation has long been inexorably declining. Thousands of jobs are at stake. Many people have worked at Rover for years. We should be under no illusions that it would be easy for them to find another job, that pays as much as the car industry. The nature of the employment market has undoubtedly changed, with manufacturing jobs continuing to decline. But not all the jobs in the new economy are quality jobs. Most can be described as ‘Mcjobs’, low paid jobs in the service sector such as catering and retail. Quality jobs require greater skills and in any case are regionally concentrated in the South East. The government can start by offering incentives to the private sector to create quality jobs across England. It can also help by basing public sector jobs in the regions.

With hindsight, it might have been better for BMW to have closed Rover. At least the workers may have got a better deal. Now if it closes, the workers are unlikely to get anything more than statutory pay.

Fall in reading standards

With 20% of the adult being functionally illiterate, one could be forgiven for believing that improving literacy standards among youngsters would be a major election issue. A similar proportion of youngsters are unable to read at the age of 11. Yet it is an issue being discussed only in the periphery of politics, in Parliamentary Committees and tucked away in newspapers.

One reason for the fall in reading standards among youngsters- which probably has an impact on adult literacy- is the way reading is taught. The traditional approach, which seems to work well all over the world, is to focus on phonics or sounds of letters and combinations of letters. Research shows that learners can pick up reading skills fairly speedily using this approach. It is by no means a magic bullet, but it works. The modern, ‘whole word’ approach, places reliance on discovery and association, in an attempt to encourage self expression and creativity.

Like many things in our modern, anything goes, non committal age, I think this approach is fuzzy and ineffective. Few can doubt the desirability of cultivating creativity and self expression. Yet literacy, the ability to read and write, is important to creativity. Creativity is stifled unless we can read to acquire new ideas and enhance our vocabulary. The wider we read the stronger powers of expression we acquire.

The traditional phonic approach is not didactic and it does not stifle young people. It sets the foundation that allows creativity to flow. There should be no illusions about the phonic approach, but neither should it be rejected. If something works, it doesn’t need changing.

Election 2005 and the Muslim vote

Now that the date of the election has been confirmed, the atmosphere for the next 4 weeks will be febrile as political parties jostle for our votes. As this is the first post 9/11 and Iraq war election, the voting behaviour of the Muslim community will be important. Given the high concentration of Muslims in particular inner-city areas, the issue of the Muslim vote is more than of just academic interest- it could cause some major upsets for Labour.

Blair’s unconditional alignment with the neo-conservatives in Washington has antagonised the Muslim community. About that there is no doubt- Muslims have made their views abundantly clear through local elections. We now know that in the 2004 local elections, the strong surge towards Labour in two Muslim majority wards in Birmingham was the result of widespread fraud on the part of Labour.

The main beneficiaries of Muslim disillusionment with Labour have been the anti-war Liberal Democrats and not the Tories, the natural party of war. Given a straight fight between the 3 main parties, there is no doubt that the Liberal Democrats would unseat Labour in several seats. This, however, is unlikely to occur. ‘Respect’, staunchly anti-Labour and anti-war, is also likely to pick up a significant amount of votes that would otherwise have gone to the Liberals. Consequently the anti-Labour vote would be divided and Labour will win, albeit with a much reduced majority and with less moral authority.

Muslim anger with Labour, and dislike of Blair, cannot be doubted. But in the absence of tactical voting, this is unlikely to translate into defeat in constituencies with Muslim populations. My fear is that most people are insufficiently astute to appreciate this and will be taken by the rhetoric of ‘Respect’. It is ironic, but the anti-Labour ‘Respect’ may be the reason why Labour MPs are re-elected in constituencies with large Muslim populations. Such are the dynamics of the first-past-the-post system.

In an ideal situation, we would vote for what we believe in. The victorious party, seeing that a large percentage of the popular vote went to parties with a particular view, would modify its policies to take account of some of the concerns. When the Greens began to capture large chunks of the popular vote, the mainstream parties became more interested in the environment. Alas, in this election the Labour party is unlikely to adjust its alignment with the war mongers in Washington so long as we vote for any anti-war party. On the contrary, Labour will describe any victory helped by a divided opposition as a vindication of its policies. Tactical voting, aiming to defeat Labour MPs, is the only option. My vote, for what it’s worth, will be for the Liberal Democrats.

Electoral fraud in Birmingham

Much ink will be spilt about the merits or otherwise of postal voting, following a devastating decision in Birmingham that found widespread evidence of electoral fraud by the Labour Party. As a resident of Birmingham- and a Mirpuri/Pakistani like the defendants and claimants- this is a subject close to my heart. It is only a few hours since the decision was delivered.

This was a case unlike any seen in the UK for many decades. Democracy has strong roots in a country that is, after all, the mother of democracy and electoral foul play is rare. It therefore grieves me the more that the community that can claim the dubious honour of succeeding in doing just that is the Pakistani/ Mirpuri community. Given what we are capable of in a country where we are more or less on the periphery of politics, one can only despair about the state of democracy in Pakistan.

The system for voter registration and application for postal voting is so breathtakingly lax as to amount to an invitation to fraud. (It is yet more worrying that we Pakistanis/ Mirpuris should accept that invitation). Registration papers are sent to the household. There is no individual registration and the authorities do not have a database of signatures. The process for applying for a postal vote includes no security measures, for example a date of birth, mother’s maiden name or a password, that the postal vote can be checked against. To further help the fraudsters, the votes can be diverted to another address. This facility was amply used in Birmingham, unbeknown to voters, who only found out when they turned to vote at voting stations.

Yet even if all these loopholes were closed, postal voting on demand is open to abuse, more so in an extended family system as that found among Pakistanis. Voting is a personal act. Whose name you mark an x against should be as personal as the contents of your payslip. Yet even in a well regulated postal voting system, what is there to stop the head of the household completing all the ballots? What is there to stop ‘community leaders’ collecting ballots? Ultimately, there is nothing that can be done. The secrecy of the voting booth, where you can vote anyone without fear, cannot be rivalled.

The NHS- personal experience

Sometimes you can glean as useful apercus from experience as from hours of study. It is with this in mind that I offer my thoughts on the NHS.

My 4-year old son suffered from a serious case of tonsillitis, causing regular ill-health and visits to the GP. Around Christmas, he had a particularly high temperature. We phoned the GP, but he could not see him for a week. I decided to take him to causalty at the Children’s Hospital. According to the doctor who checked him, it was the worst case of fever- triggered by the tonsils- he had seen in days.

We were dealt with speedily. A combination of sitting in a cool a room and powerful analgesics reduced the temperature and we were able to go home. On Christmas Eve, the temperature rose again to an alarming level and we went back to causalty. Again, a combination of medication and sitting in a cool room did the job. However, this time the doctor took a closer look at the tonsils and wrote a letter to the GP, suggesting he refer my son for a detailed check up.

The doctor also made another discovery- the reason why the temperature was not clearing was because the GP had prescribed cheaper, less effective anti-biotics. So he gave us a week’s supply of more effective medication, and my boy was his bubbly self within days.

Our GP wrote to the Children’s Hospital in early January. We were invited to the Out-Patients Department in late February. The consultant agreed the tonsils were pretty big and recommended removal. He said we would be put on waiting list. At that point, I thought it would take months. Yet a week later, we received a letter saying that the routine operation could be carried out on the 21st March.

So what I have learnt about the health service from this, admittedly limited, experience?

My opinion, based on this but also wider reading, is that hospitals have improved by leaps and bounds, whereas the primary care sector, such as GPs, has lagged behind. Accident and emergency department performance has improved, with most people being seen and assessed reasonably speedily. Waiting times for being admitted to hospital have also improved tremendously, as the government claims.

The story is different in the primary care sector. Many GP surgeries are struggling under the pressure of oversubscribed patient lists and a shortage of doctors. When the doctor’s receptionist said my son could not be seen within a week, I just bypassed the primary sector and took him straight to the hospital. The impression I got from looking around the waiting room in A&E was that a large number of people had made the same decision.