It seems a strange question but to what extent should governments be bound by fact and scientific evidence when making political decisions?
This issue has come to the fore after the UK government effectively sacked their chief drugs advisor, Professor David Nutt after he criticised their decision to reclassify cannabis from a class C drug to class B.
The scenario in fact perfectly reflects an episode of the West Wing when the US government's Surgeon General claims marijuana is not harmful. It looks for a while as though she will be fired but ultimately the President relents.
This action was designed to show him as a man of conviction and one that could be trusted to make the correct judgement regardless of what (at least sections of) the public would have him do. But is this an option truly open to non-fictional politicians?
It partly depends on what you believe that the purpose of scientific advice is. The classification of any drug - regardless of its seriousness - is ultimately a political choice. The government could after all choose to make every drug imaginable (including alcohol, for instance) completely legal or illegal.
That ministers receive scientific advice is important but only part of the story. In a wider sense ministers don't (in theory at least) represent their own view but that of the country-at-large. Ideally this would be genuine public opinion although more often than not may be the views of tabloid editorial writers across the country.
However leaving the newspaper criticism aside it is worth asking what the public's view of drugs actually is. There are of course numerous examples of opinion polls which (usually depending who commissioned them) show the public wanting a crackdown on drugs or liberalisation of current laws.
In this regard then you could argue that the main barometer is who the public votes for. Labour and the Tories both take a fairly hard line on drugs whilst the Liberal Democrats tend to be most, well, liberal. As they are also third in opinion polls this is perhaps evidence of what the public want, or at least those that vote anyway.
As such this is perhaps evidence that what the public want is a crackdown on drugs. And up to a point this is probably true and right. Drugs such as cocaine and (particularly) heroin have genuinely destroyed lives; the legacy of heroin abuse in 1980s Scotland is one that still exists in many communities to this day and is often played out in the public when it comes to human tragedies such as Brandon Muir.
Cannabis is a slightly different issue. For one it is clearly not as harmful a drug as others (just as David Nutt opines) and is also much more widespread, particularly amongst many young people. The logic often runs that the government should thus legalise it, although quite how legalising a smoked drug would play at a time where all governments and health authorities are working to discourage smoking generally is not clear.
In fact it could be argued that had the government not acted then they would have been guilty of the very thing David Nutt has accused them of, namely sending mixed signals. If they had allowed their chief drugs advisor to downplay the seriousness of cannabis (regardless of the science) this does muddy the waters on how the government (and as such society) chooses to deal with it.
The government's actions do raise some concerns about the independence of scientific advisers and how the government is to use and listen to them. This really boils down to a maturity debate: are the public and more pointedly the media prepared to tolerate debate within public life (especially when it does against their own views) without describing it as bickering or infighting at a government level? Equally can the government tolerate publicly dissenting views.
The people we choose to run our country are not advisers, instead this job obviously falls to the government. Thus only they can choose our laws, although it's right they receive advice and all available views. Ultimately your view of this situation may in fact boil down the laws you want to see in place: those against drugs will back the government, those in favour of liberalisation will be outraged.
An old saying goes that we get the government we deserve and this is generally a view to which I subscribe. The same can be said of drugs policy. At the moment the bulk of voters (elections would suggest) are opposed to drug use, and as such vote for parties reflecting this.
In this regard the science is irrelevant. If people wanted every drug legalised then this could happen whatever the science said, with the same obviously being true in reverse. Governments make decisions, not scientists. That's the difference.
31 Oct 2009
14 Oct 2009
Politics without detail or understanding
Sometimes it's good to simplify. With the best will in the world no-one is an expert on everything and so to involve as many people as possible in debate or discussion it can be necessary to examine complicated matters in a more basic manner.
Still that is not justification for then reducing all public information and debate to meaningless soundbites, as was evident when listening to Radio 5 Live yesterday and a debate on the future of UK energy supplies.
The presenter (who in this regard is merely symbolic of a wider problem) appeared determined to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator. The premise of the show's introduction was that in the very near future the UK will suffer from South Africa-style blackouts.
There were a range of people represented on the show but the first was an independent energy expert whose opening gambit was that comparisons with developing countries and suggestions of random blackouts were both misleading and unhelpful.
When pressed by the show's host to then explain what the likelihood of this actually was he (the expert) went on to say that he could not possibly describe the probability in percentage terms because it was a very complex matter that depended on numerous variable factors.
To give the BBC its due by having an independent person to open up the debate this did at least allow the accusing tone which often accompanies interviews to be dispensed with. However had the first person been from an energy company it's unlikely they would have so easily been able to bat the headline quote away so easily.
And it's this point which goes to the heart of what's wrong with the way that much of the UK media chooses to report on politics and controversies and debates within this.
It's undeniably a good thing to have a free and open media that can choose what it will report on and how it does so. Media control may at times appear to be a desirable option in the face of excessive and sensational stories but can be the thin end of the wedge when it comes to long-term freedoms.
It's equally positive that the mainstream media chooses to report on important issues such as energy supplies, without this coverage being reduced to incredibly technical details found in journals and periodicals which only qualified scientists can access.
However the manner in which it often takes place - whether in print, online or being broadcast - is where its genuine utility can be called into question. If every story has to shock and sensationalise then how are people to tell which issues genuinely are of sufficient importance that they should take a closer interest?
If every time you turn on your radio you hear someone describe an apocalyptic future for (delete as appropriate) children, health, pensioners, education, house prices or any other media staple discussion point then is it not more likely we will assume a) nothing can be done or b) that it can't be as bad as is made out? Either way the net result is that we will ignore it.
Such an approach also makes explanation even harder to do. Of course it's right that politicians or anyone else with a material interest in a particular story should be forced to justify the position they hold. However approaching such discussions with the set belief that they must be lying and that any attempt to explain is really obfuscation is just as negative.
It does pose the question of whose fault this actually is. The media, for promoting such an approach? Or ours for, firstly listening to it and, secondly, not taking enough of an interest in political matters that the media and others feel the need the attract our attention by sensationalism?
As ever it's unlikely that one group is solely to blame. You can also argue that in this media-saturated age - including online comment - that anyone wishing to find out facts does not have the limit themselves the outlets which once would have been their only source of information.
But in spite of this the fact is that most people do not do this, whether or not this is a good thing. Most people will still garner their facts, figures and so opinions from the newspaper they read, the TV show they watch during their evening meal or the radio on the way to or from work. And so it is important how this is portrayed.
Media outlets which either sensationalise or instead simply try to fit in with people's pre-conceived opinions and prejudices do nothing to actually stimulate debate or understanding. Indeed they do the exact opposite.
This may not seem like something to worry about or that anything can be done about. However when public debate is reduced to soundbites and empty rhetoric the long-term result is that we live in a diminished society where the decisions made aren't necessarily the most appropriate but instead the ones it's easiest to simplify or explain.
For anyone who thinks that's no bad thing, hands up who's also happy with the society we inhabit or the way we make decisions?
Still that is not justification for then reducing all public information and debate to meaningless soundbites, as was evident when listening to Radio 5 Live yesterday and a debate on the future of UK energy supplies.
The presenter (who in this regard is merely symbolic of a wider problem) appeared determined to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator. The premise of the show's introduction was that in the very near future the UK will suffer from South Africa-style blackouts.
There were a range of people represented on the show but the first was an independent energy expert whose opening gambit was that comparisons with developing countries and suggestions of random blackouts were both misleading and unhelpful.
When pressed by the show's host to then explain what the likelihood of this actually was he (the expert) went on to say that he could not possibly describe the probability in percentage terms because it was a very complex matter that depended on numerous variable factors.
To give the BBC its due by having an independent person to open up the debate this did at least allow the accusing tone which often accompanies interviews to be dispensed with. However had the first person been from an energy company it's unlikely they would have so easily been able to bat the headline quote away so easily.
And it's this point which goes to the heart of what's wrong with the way that much of the UK media chooses to report on politics and controversies and debates within this.
It's undeniably a good thing to have a free and open media that can choose what it will report on and how it does so. Media control may at times appear to be a desirable option in the face of excessive and sensational stories but can be the thin end of the wedge when it comes to long-term freedoms.
It's equally positive that the mainstream media chooses to report on important issues such as energy supplies, without this coverage being reduced to incredibly technical details found in journals and periodicals which only qualified scientists can access.
However the manner in which it often takes place - whether in print, online or being broadcast - is where its genuine utility can be called into question. If every story has to shock and sensationalise then how are people to tell which issues genuinely are of sufficient importance that they should take a closer interest?
If every time you turn on your radio you hear someone describe an apocalyptic future for (delete as appropriate) children, health, pensioners, education, house prices or any other media staple discussion point then is it not more likely we will assume a) nothing can be done or b) that it can't be as bad as is made out? Either way the net result is that we will ignore it.
Such an approach also makes explanation even harder to do. Of course it's right that politicians or anyone else with a material interest in a particular story should be forced to justify the position they hold. However approaching such discussions with the set belief that they must be lying and that any attempt to explain is really obfuscation is just as negative.
It does pose the question of whose fault this actually is. The media, for promoting such an approach? Or ours for, firstly listening to it and, secondly, not taking enough of an interest in political matters that the media and others feel the need the attract our attention by sensationalism?
As ever it's unlikely that one group is solely to blame. You can also argue that in this media-saturated age - including online comment - that anyone wishing to find out facts does not have the limit themselves the outlets which once would have been their only source of information.
But in spite of this the fact is that most people do not do this, whether or not this is a good thing. Most people will still garner their facts, figures and so opinions from the newspaper they read, the TV show they watch during their evening meal or the radio on the way to or from work. And so it is important how this is portrayed.
Media outlets which either sensationalise or instead simply try to fit in with people's pre-conceived opinions and prejudices do nothing to actually stimulate debate or understanding. Indeed they do the exact opposite.
This may not seem like something to worry about or that anything can be done about. However when public debate is reduced to soundbites and empty rhetoric the long-term result is that we live in a diminished society where the decisions made aren't necessarily the most appropriate but instead the ones it's easiest to simplify or explain.
For anyone who thinks that's no bad thing, hands up who's also happy with the society we inhabit or the way we make decisions?
6 Oct 2009
Spending money where it matters
The tragedy of two young girls dying and a government vow on finance skills would appear to be unrelated, but there is something which sadly links the two.
The story of two teenagers who lived in care that apparently died together was juxtaposed on BBC Online with a report saying young people's financial skills could be better. On the latter point the government promised action to change this including special lessons.
To take the last point first: in a tight financial era what is going to be stopped to pay for this or provide the time for such lessons to take place?
Too often the first reaction of politicians from any party is to promise action when a complaint is made - sometimes they might even seemingly take action - without actually knowing how it can be paid for or if it is possible.
The net result is that we plenty of press releases and initiatives and action plans, but often precious little genuine action. Will this move on financial education be any different; or if the government honestly cares about it will it provide hard cash to deliver such changes?
And here's the part which infuriates me and brings in the sad link with the two girls. The exact circumstances which led to the deaths are obviously unknown as yet but attention will surely focus on the fact that these two girls lived in care homes, what their lives were like and so on.
We will surely hear pronouncement of 'never again' and 'something must be done' and the usual meaningless platitudes which are trotted out in these scenarios. And then like tragedies such as Baby P or Brandon Muir we'll forget about it and do nothing to actually change the lives that some young people have to endure.
Or we might get some photo calls or (likely unfunded) policy pronouncements from ministers. And by next week some other interest group or report will be calling for extra investment in something else and the government will have moved on and be promising swift action there.
And what will any of this achieve? Nothing, would be the most obvious response. This is absolutely not a political point. Had another party been in power (or if this report had been published in England) it's likely the government response would have been identical.
At some point all political parties have to be prepared to say publicly that we can't have everything. If we want something enough we'll pay for it; if we don't let's not pretend it's our top priority.
Improving the lives of young people - especially the most vulnerable and marginalised in society - does not come cheap. But every time we read of a tragedy in the newspapers everyone agrees how terrible it is and demands change.
Well where is this action then? Where is the genuine investment required to turn this around, even if that means ending other pet projects which do nothing to help society's most vulnerable? Or are we instead simply to face more empty promises?
It's not easy to change budgets and the way councils and governments run, so this is not meant to be an equally meaningless demand for action. However it would appear to me that what the government can do is start with the basics.
If we think there are certain fundamental rights that people in our society don't have - and young people that have gone through the care system are surely an example of such a group - then surely we start putting any spare money we have into changing this before we think about anything else?
We shouldn't instead spend what little available money we have on policy baubles that will never substantially change lives. Scrapping bridge tolls, free school meals, free prescriptions or free eye tests for millionaires anyone? (Incidentally policies introduced by both major parties in Scotland.)
And at the same time as we have cuts in education funding across the country and current educational commitments not being met (not just those featuring in the newspapers) we certainly shouldn't make meaningless promises about educational skills which may ultimately be desirable but will almost certainly not have cash to back them up.
The government report claims young people don't understand finances enough. Perhaps that criticism should be levelled at politicians and the general public too. If the lives of the most vulnerable in our society actually mean a thing it's about time we learned this and thought about what we really want and what it'll cost.
Or spare us the crocodile tears and endless policy initiatives otherwise.
The story of two teenagers who lived in care that apparently died together was juxtaposed on BBC Online with a report saying young people's financial skills could be better. On the latter point the government promised action to change this including special lessons.
To take the last point first: in a tight financial era what is going to be stopped to pay for this or provide the time for such lessons to take place?
Too often the first reaction of politicians from any party is to promise action when a complaint is made - sometimes they might even seemingly take action - without actually knowing how it can be paid for or if it is possible.
The net result is that we plenty of press releases and initiatives and action plans, but often precious little genuine action. Will this move on financial education be any different; or if the government honestly cares about it will it provide hard cash to deliver such changes?
And here's the part which infuriates me and brings in the sad link with the two girls. The exact circumstances which led to the deaths are obviously unknown as yet but attention will surely focus on the fact that these two girls lived in care homes, what their lives were like and so on.
We will surely hear pronouncement of 'never again' and 'something must be done' and the usual meaningless platitudes which are trotted out in these scenarios. And then like tragedies such as Baby P or Brandon Muir we'll forget about it and do nothing to actually change the lives that some young people have to endure.
Or we might get some photo calls or (likely unfunded) policy pronouncements from ministers. And by next week some other interest group or report will be calling for extra investment in something else and the government will have moved on and be promising swift action there.
And what will any of this achieve? Nothing, would be the most obvious response. This is absolutely not a political point. Had another party been in power (or if this report had been published in England) it's likely the government response would have been identical.
At some point all political parties have to be prepared to say publicly that we can't have everything. If we want something enough we'll pay for it; if we don't let's not pretend it's our top priority.
Improving the lives of young people - especially the most vulnerable and marginalised in society - does not come cheap. But every time we read of a tragedy in the newspapers everyone agrees how terrible it is and demands change.
Well where is this action then? Where is the genuine investment required to turn this around, even if that means ending other pet projects which do nothing to help society's most vulnerable? Or are we instead simply to face more empty promises?
It's not easy to change budgets and the way councils and governments run, so this is not meant to be an equally meaningless demand for action. However it would appear to me that what the government can do is start with the basics.
If we think there are certain fundamental rights that people in our society don't have - and young people that have gone through the care system are surely an example of such a group - then surely we start putting any spare money we have into changing this before we think about anything else?
We shouldn't instead spend what little available money we have on policy baubles that will never substantially change lives. Scrapping bridge tolls, free school meals, free prescriptions or free eye tests for millionaires anyone? (Incidentally policies introduced by both major parties in Scotland.)
And at the same time as we have cuts in education funding across the country and current educational commitments not being met (not just those featuring in the newspapers) we certainly shouldn't make meaningless promises about educational skills which may ultimately be desirable but will almost certainly not have cash to back them up.
The government report claims young people don't understand finances enough. Perhaps that criticism should be levelled at politicians and the general public too. If the lives of the most vulnerable in our society actually mean a thing it's about time we learned this and thought about what we really want and what it'll cost.
Or spare us the crocodile tears and endless policy initiatives otherwise.
4 Oct 2009
Debating debates
What are the chances of Alex Salmond becoming Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?
Now there's a question which is not often posed in UK political debate, yet technically it's one which is likely to be at the forefront of political discourse in the coming days, if not longer.
The crux of the issue is that Prime Minister Gordon Brown appears likely to agree to TV debates with David Cameron (Tory leader) and Nick Clegg (Lib Dem leader). However these are the only three party leaders planned to be included in such events.
This has immediately provoked a reaction from the SNP (and surely other parties too) that such an event cannot be allowed to occur without their involvement. The argument being that if they are excluded this reduces voters' choices.
Here's where the problem occurs. In a UK sense it goes without saying that the SNP are at the margins of influence; even if they secured every single vote available in Scotland they would still only secure less than 10% of seats required to win an election.
Given that the SNP are committed to a referendum to decide on independence this would not even change Scotland's constitutional position (although might make their case for such a plebiscite stronger).
In a purely numbers sense it actually makes more sense for the Greens (that at least stand across the UK) to object to this, and perhaps they will. The SNP's argument is then that even if such a debate takes place it cannot be shown in Scotland, for the reasons mentioned above.
At this point the question about what elections are for and how this squares with election law comes to the fore. In America many people stand for election, including President. However no-one believes that anyone outwith the Republican or Democratic candidate will be elected, so only they feature in national televised debates.
Now you can make a case that perhaps if everyone eligible participated in these debates then maybe it would be fairer and others would stand a chance of winning. Or instead you can argue that given that most people know they'll vote for one of two people it makes sense for them to see a head-to-head to help them choose.
It's no great secret that one of two men will be Prime Minister after May next year: David Cameron or Gordon Brown. With the best will in the world that's a fact, although you might argue that a hung parliament could influence things. Unlike most political TV coverage a Brown v Cameron debate would surely actually attract a large audience, potentially helping to encourage people to vote.
The last point's actually the biggest part of the debate not talked about. Only Brown or Cameron can be Prime Minister next year, but what if other parties end up holding the balance of power?
That's where the fairest outcome (for the public, not individual parties) is surely a series of debates. Brown v Cameron in one; party leaders/representatives (from parties with a certain number of current MPs) in another; regional TV debates (in which the SNP would obviously feature) and perhaps some others based on particular issues.
This of course is not a perfect system, but then in this regard it's impossible to ever achieve such an outcome. If you take the argument of fairness to its logical extent (and consider that we only really vote for individual MPs, not the Prime Minister) then every single candidate in an election could object to being excluded from any TV event or coverage.
You can also question how useful such debates are. The American experience shows that some people are better suited than others to effective TV appearances. And whilst this might sometimes be a useful barometer of how they would do as Prime Minister it might also just show who the best actor/performer is.
However in terms of the immediate debate the proof of what the public want would surely be in viewing figures. Of the scenarios mentioned three paragraphs above which do you think would easily attract most viewers?
Now there's a question which is not often posed in UK political debate, yet technically it's one which is likely to be at the forefront of political discourse in the coming days, if not longer.
The crux of the issue is that Prime Minister Gordon Brown appears likely to agree to TV debates with David Cameron (Tory leader) and Nick Clegg (Lib Dem leader). However these are the only three party leaders planned to be included in such events.
This has immediately provoked a reaction from the SNP (and surely other parties too) that such an event cannot be allowed to occur without their involvement. The argument being that if they are excluded this reduces voters' choices.
Here's where the problem occurs. In a UK sense it goes without saying that the SNP are at the margins of influence; even if they secured every single vote available in Scotland they would still only secure less than 10% of seats required to win an election.
Given that the SNP are committed to a referendum to decide on independence this would not even change Scotland's constitutional position (although might make their case for such a plebiscite stronger).
In a purely numbers sense it actually makes more sense for the Greens (that at least stand across the UK) to object to this, and perhaps they will. The SNP's argument is then that even if such a debate takes place it cannot be shown in Scotland, for the reasons mentioned above.
At this point the question about what elections are for and how this squares with election law comes to the fore. In America many people stand for election, including President. However no-one believes that anyone outwith the Republican or Democratic candidate will be elected, so only they feature in national televised debates.
Now you can make a case that perhaps if everyone eligible participated in these debates then maybe it would be fairer and others would stand a chance of winning. Or instead you can argue that given that most people know they'll vote for one of two people it makes sense for them to see a head-to-head to help them choose.
It's no great secret that one of two men will be Prime Minister after May next year: David Cameron or Gordon Brown. With the best will in the world that's a fact, although you might argue that a hung parliament could influence things. Unlike most political TV coverage a Brown v Cameron debate would surely actually attract a large audience, potentially helping to encourage people to vote.
The last point's actually the biggest part of the debate not talked about. Only Brown or Cameron can be Prime Minister next year, but what if other parties end up holding the balance of power?
That's where the fairest outcome (for the public, not individual parties) is surely a series of debates. Brown v Cameron in one; party leaders/representatives (from parties with a certain number of current MPs) in another; regional TV debates (in which the SNP would obviously feature) and perhaps some others based on particular issues.
This of course is not a perfect system, but then in this regard it's impossible to ever achieve such an outcome. If you take the argument of fairness to its logical extent (and consider that we only really vote for individual MPs, not the Prime Minister) then every single candidate in an election could object to being excluded from any TV event or coverage.
You can also question how useful such debates are. The American experience shows that some people are better suited than others to effective TV appearances. And whilst this might sometimes be a useful barometer of how they would do as Prime Minister it might also just show who the best actor/performer is.
However in terms of the immediate debate the proof of what the public want would surely be in viewing figures. Of the scenarios mentioned three paragraphs above which do you think would easily attract most viewers?
