No election manifesto is complete without the section relating to education. Schools (and other institutions) play such a central role in everyone's lives that it is an issue every politician wants to be seen to take the lead on.
However those people that have been paying attention to the news this past week will have seen the downside of making grandiose promises on these matters. The Scottish Government have been pilloried for failing to deliver two major parts of their 2007 manifesto, specifically cutting class sizes to 18 in primaries 1-3 and maintaining teacher numbers.
As the past few days have shown the SNP have had to downgrade their class sizes promise to an attempt to reduce them to 25 in primary one alone. Figures out this week also showed that far from maintaining numbers at their 2007 levels teacher numbers have fallen by 2000 to their lowest level for eight years.
Of course in both of these cases the SNP say that these problems have been caused by less money being available owing to the recession. It's worth looking a bit more at these claims before going on to discuss what this means for future promises - on all issues - from all parties.
In the case of teacher numbers there is some merit to the SNP's stance, however the class sizes promise was always a nonsense (at least over four years). Achieving this would not so much be a problem of employing more teachers (although this is an issue) but rather building the extra classes to accommodate the changes, something which was never going to happen in such a relatively short period.
So what does this all mean for policy people working up their particular party's message and promises for next May? Well the obvious point is that just as the SNP have spent the past year or so claiming - and as the UK government are not tired of repeating - there is very little money available to do much of anything.
For about ten years we saw notable levels of growth in public spending which allowed parties in and out of government the freedom to make large promises with the hope of either retaining or winning public support. Thus in Scotland we have been witness to big ticket items such as scrapping tuition fees, introducing free personal care for the elderly and other similar spending sprees.
None of this is truly possible now though. A large part of all parties' manifestos next year will surely have to deal with what they would do deal with the declining levels of public finance available. This is obviously never popular stuff and so in the case of Labour and the SNP - the only two parties that can realistically emerge as the largest party in the election - it will be tempered by the promise to fight 'Con-Dem' spending cuts.
But again this does not answer what both major parties will promise to do in order to attract public attention. Ever since Labour's 1997 General Election win the use of a simple 'pledge card' style system of easy-to-explain, headline grabbing policies has been de rigueur for all parties that hope to get their message across.
If we accept that money is going to be tight, parties will surely be forced to find one or two eye-catching but relatively cheap policies (such as free prescriptions, one SNP policy pledge which actually looks like it will be implemented) that can attract attention.
However when it comes to the big policy issues of health, education and crime it's less clear what will stand out. Labour clearly seem to be gearing up to jail anyone carrying a knife, given the prominence they have given to this idea over recent months, but beyond it's hard to see what the battlegrounds in 2011 will be.
All parties in fact will be stung and limited by the criticism the SNP have had over 'broken promises'. The SNP themselves will surely find it difficult to promise much of anything without other parties turning them on as being untrustworthy (a line the media are also beginning to buy into more and more).
Labour though are also put in a difficult predicament by the 'broken promises' line. After the energy they have put into this attack since 2007 they cannot afford to get elected only to jettison high-profile policies. This then means that their own promises will have to be rather more modest than perhaps those they may have otherwise been able to offer in the past.
The Liberal Democrats and Tories are equally in a difficult position. Partners at a UK level but certainly not in Scotland they are likely to play out in public some of the fights which surely take place behind the scenes at Westminster. But in all of this they will have to keep in line with the general messages their parties are giving at a UK level, which again means no big ticket spending items.
The net result is arguably the most frugal - and so perhaps most brutal - election which has taken place since devolution. If the parties cannot win on their own exciting and dynamic election ideas then the most simple and obvious answer is to try and cut the throats of their rivals.
It is actually possible that a more modest policy discussion wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Devolution has often been an excuse to see how much money people can promise in order to split the relatively small voting differences the two major parties have; a more considered analysis of what parties can do within their current means may be no bad thing.
It's debatable this will happen though. The temptation to scream 'broken promises' one way and 'cannot be trusted' the other will surely prove too tempting to miss.
20 Sep 2010
16 Sep 2010
The two Popes and two Prime Ministers
One was a charismatic figure, handsome and able to charm many natural opponents to his side. He easily strode the world stage and happened to leave just as the real problems began. His successor was less fortunate. He never had the same natural grace and was physically less attractive. He also took office just as the difficulties began to mount.
If asked to choose, could you tell whether the description above described the relationship between former Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown or the current Pope, Benedict XVI or previous Pope, John Paul II? As Pope Benedict arrives in Scotland, the Prime Minister/Pope juxtaposition is an interesting one on which to ruminate.
This is an important study of leadership, namely to what extent does success in this area come solely from an individual's abilities and skills or in fact perhaps a combination of luck and circumstance?
The contrast between the two Popes and two Prime Ministers is striking, as are the similarities which exist in both relationships. The introduction description, whilst deliberately ambiguous, could easily apply to both relationships mentioned above. It is also at the centre of how history will judge these men.
Taking the political scenario first, Tony Blair was obviously a gifted politician. He could easily bring together people of different views and was able to appear statesmanlike in a way no Labour politician had truly achieved before. However he was also there at the right time. Had he been born 20 years earlier it's doubtful he'd have been as successful. And if he had held on to his job for another two years his legacy may also have been viewed somewhat differently.
Brown on the other hand doubtless has his faults, and it's not clear his personality is truly suited for the main job. However he was also an extremely intelligent and capable man that oversaw significant economic success for the country as a whole. Had he taken power even two years earlier, his position - certainly in the context of a re-election - could have been very different.
And so to the Papal contrast. John Paul II, like Blair, had a common touch which allowed him to unite often unlikely groups. His Polish background at a time of the decline of communism also left him well placed to play a part in these historic events. He also took office at a time where religion - and Catholicism in particular - played a much greater role in people's lives and died before major scandals genuinely hurt the Church.
Pope Benedict on the other hand, like Brown, is different. His focus was never on the PR aspect of the job. He also did not enjoy a background which allowed him to easily fit into a popular personal narrative. Benedict followed a popular Pope just at a time that the Church's influence was declining and indeed brought into disrepute by child abuse scandals.
This cuts to the heart of the debate about whether notable public figures owe more to an accident of timing in their success or whether it is due to their innate abilities. It's worth asking if John Paul II or Blair could have enjoyed the same success had their timing had been different. It's an equally fascinating proposition about whether Benedict and Brown would have been more fruitful if their timing was different too.
This is obviously impossible to answer and so speculative. The point is this article is not even to answer it, merely to pose the question of 'what if?'. Because if we accept that much of what we attribute to success is in fact down to an accident - or fortune - of timing then it perhaps skews the way we view Pope Benedict's visit, certainly compared to the last Papal visit to these shores.
We can also find other aspects which have changed over the years which again influence the context in which all four men operated. The media for instance - so crucial to any public figure, religious or political - has changed notably over the periods that both sets of men have inhabited. In general terms - arguably reflecting a certain secularisation which may have taken place - it is much less reverential and more focused on soundbites and short term distractions.
Again the question is if this is a tide of opinion and action that would overwhelm anyone who sought to control it. Or if in fact it is down the individual abilities and skills of those that would seek and hold public office to find ways to overcome such problems. Challenges remain in whatever age one exists and so the successful will perhaps be those that can adapt. In that regard it may be that John Paul II and Blair were simply better prepared to weather these storms.
There is also a question of what we genuinely want, need and look for in our public figures. Is it someone who merely reflects what we (individually or collectively) want and aspire to? Is it someone who seeks to give us an alternative vision of the future? Is it someone who holds true to their beliefs, regardless of how they are viewed? Or is it some other, unquantifiable notion, which we tend not to think about but should actually be at the heart of our decision making processes?
The Papal visit is still a significant event, even if not perhaps on the scale as enjoyed in 1982. As Pope Benedict XVI lands it's worth using his visit as a chance to reflect. Not merely on the achievements of being part of the elite that sits at the world's top table, but of what circumstances allow people access to this exalted position in the first place. And of what we would want them to do once there.
NB: This post was originally mistakenly published and thus contained numerous mistakes such as duplicate paragraphs. As such this version may differ slightly from that which people have previously read.
If asked to choose, could you tell whether the description above described the relationship between former Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown or the current Pope, Benedict XVI or previous Pope, John Paul II? As Pope Benedict arrives in Scotland, the Prime Minister/Pope juxtaposition is an interesting one on which to ruminate.
The contrast between the two Popes and two Prime Ministers is striking, as are the similarities which exist in both relationships. The introduction description, whilst deliberately ambiguous, could easily apply to both relationships mentioned above. It is also at the centre of how history will judge these men.
Taking the political scenario first, Tony Blair was obviously a gifted politician. He could easily bring together people of different views and was able to appear statesmanlike in a way no Labour politician had truly achieved before. However he was also there at the right time. Had he been born 20 years earlier it's doubtful he'd have been as successful. And if he had held on to his job for another two years his legacy may also have been viewed somewhat differently.
And so to the Papal contrast. John Paul II, like Blair, had a common touch which allowed him to unite often unlikely groups. His Polish background at a time of the decline of communism also left him well placed to play a part in these historic events. He also took office at a time where religion - and Catholicism in particular - played a much greater role in people's lives and died before major scandals genuinely hurt the Church.
Pope Benedict on the other hand, like Brown, is different. His focus was never on the PR aspect of the job. He also did not enjoy a background which allowed him to easily fit into a popular personal narrative. Benedict followed a popular Pope just at a time that the Church's influence was declining and indeed brought into disrepute by child abuse scandals.
This cuts to the heart of the debate about whether notable public figures owe more to an accident of timing in their success or whether it is due to their innate abilities. It's worth asking if John Paul II or Blair could have enjoyed the same success had their timing had been different. It's an equally fascinating proposition about whether Benedict and Brown would have been more fruitful if their timing was different too.
This is obviously impossible to answer and so speculative. The point is this article is not even to answer it, merely to pose the question of 'what if?'. Because if we accept that much of what we attribute to success is in fact down to an accident - or fortune - of timing then it perhaps skews the way we view Pope Benedict's visit, certainly compared to the last Papal visit to these shores.
We can also find other aspects which have changed over the years which again influence the context in which all four men operated. The media for instance - so crucial to any public figure, religious or political - has changed notably over the periods that both sets of men have inhabited. In general terms - arguably reflecting a certain secularisation which may have taken place - it is much less reverential and more focused on soundbites and short term distractions.
Again the question is if this is a tide of opinion and action that would overwhelm anyone who sought to control it. Or if in fact it is down the individual abilities and skills of those that would seek and hold public office to find ways to overcome such problems. Challenges remain in whatever age one exists and so the successful will perhaps be those that can adapt. In that regard it may be that John Paul II and Blair were simply better prepared to weather these storms.
There is also a question of what we genuinely want, need and look for in our public figures. Is it someone who merely reflects what we (individually or collectively) want and aspire to? Is it someone who seeks to give us an alternative vision of the future? Is it someone who holds true to their beliefs, regardless of how they are viewed? Or is it some other, unquantifiable notion, which we tend not to think about but should actually be at the heart of our decision making processes?
The Papal visit is still a significant event, even if not perhaps on the scale as enjoyed in 1982. As Pope Benedict XVI lands it's worth using his visit as a chance to reflect. Not merely on the achievements of being part of the elite that sits at the world's top table, but of what circumstances allow people access to this exalted position in the first place. And of what we would want them to do once there.
NB: This post was originally mistakenly published and thus contained numerous mistakes such as duplicate paragraphs. As such this version may differ slightly from that which people have previously read.
15 Sep 2010
Sorry SHOULD be the hardest word
A fairly regular occurrence nowadays seems to be the following scenario: person makes some sort of statement, someone else takes umbrage, original person retracts their statement and apologises.
It is of course never polite to insult someone or perhaps something another person may not wish to hear. However has it become the law at some stage? Part of living in a democracy is meant to be that we have free speech. This should of course be used wisely - it is not a green light to mindlessly insult people - but it is also something we need to have, especially in discussions about public life.
The news that a Fire Chief has apologised for describing some workers in the public sector as "bone idle" should be of great sadness to anyone that cares about debate and discussion in public life. This is not to say that what he said is correct - if it is true it's probably a statement that can be made about many in the public, private and voluntary sectors - but merely that he clearly believes this, so why should he be forced to apologise?
Following his statements many delegates at the TUC Conference attacked him for having the audacity to express these opinions. Such an approach is surely something which can only stop us ever improving services? If people seriously disagreed with him surely the correct approach would be to either present evidence contrary to his statement, or at the very least ask him to provide examples or evidence to back it up.
Instead we have to deal with the same level of superficial debate and discussion as normal. Effectively don't say anything that someone might challenge you on, or be ready to withdraw your views if they do. The point that we do that does make it impossible to ever change or challenge anything, whether it's how services are run or some aspect of how society operates.
We may disagree more but we would have a more open (and surely thus better) society if people were prepared to say what they believe and then stand by it. Elton John once said that sorry seems to be the hardest word to say; it's a pity that it's not.
It is of course never polite to insult someone or perhaps something another person may not wish to hear. However has it become the law at some stage? Part of living in a democracy is meant to be that we have free speech. This should of course be used wisely - it is not a green light to mindlessly insult people - but it is also something we need to have, especially in discussions about public life.
The news that a Fire Chief has apologised for describing some workers in the public sector as "bone idle" should be of great sadness to anyone that cares about debate and discussion in public life. This is not to say that what he said is correct - if it is true it's probably a statement that can be made about many in the public, private and voluntary sectors - but merely that he clearly believes this, so why should he be forced to apologise?
Following his statements many delegates at the TUC Conference attacked him for having the audacity to express these opinions. Such an approach is surely something which can only stop us ever improving services? If people seriously disagreed with him surely the correct approach would be to either present evidence contrary to his statement, or at the very least ask him to provide examples or evidence to back it up.
Instead we have to deal with the same level of superficial debate and discussion as normal. Effectively don't say anything that someone might challenge you on, or be ready to withdraw your views if they do. The point that we do that does make it impossible to ever change or challenge anything, whether it's how services are run or some aspect of how society operates.
We may disagree more but we would have a more open (and surely thus better) society if people were prepared to say what they believe and then stand by it. Elton John once said that sorry seems to be the hardest word to say; it's a pity that it's not.
7 Sep 2010
Letting the people decide?
'Neverendum' is a jibe used by those opposed to a referendum on whether Scotland should be independent. It comes from Quebec where there have been numerous such referenda, presumably until people vote the way they're supposed to...
It seems however that in Scotland such an attack has been misplaced because - for now at least - the SNP government have shelved any plans to hold such a plebiscite. Or to be more accurate they are not going to put such an option in front of Holyrood for consideration.
The reasons for this are hardly surprising. Within the Scottish Parliament a strong majority of MSPs (Labour, Lib Dems, Conservatives) are opposed to such a vote taking place. Therefore even with all SNP, Green and Independent MSPs voting in favour it would still fall at the first hurdle.
However it has to be noted that none of this is a secret. Barring an extremely short period where former Labour leader Wendy Alexander challenged the SNP to 'bring it on', saying Labour would vote for a referendum if it were held immediately (May 2008) all the parties referred to above have been vocally opposed since the 2007 election, and indeed before too.
So why have the SNP waited until now to scrap these plans? The SNP argue that it's because they knew they could not win a vote in the Holyrood debating chamber and so will not waste time on this. However as noted above this is hardly a revelation. Instead they claim they will allow the people to have their say on this during the 2011 Holyrood election campaign. More on the implications of this below.
Could the SNP genuinely fear that by having a vote on the possibility of a referendum now it would be harder for them to do the same post-2011 if they again form the government? For the SNP this seems unlikely; each new government effectively starts afresh after the 'cleansing' of an election and a win next year would allow them to say they have a new mandate.
It could be that their real worry is about putting potential supporters in an awkward position. By having a vote now Labour, the Lib Dems and Conservatives would vote it down. However what if after May next year a deal between the SNP and, say, the Liberal Democrats is possible (even if highly unlikely)? If the Lib Dems have voted against such a bill only months before it does make them look extremely untrustworthy. Far better then never to have such a vote take place.
Another possibility is that the SNP's current leadership have no other idea for an election theme and so are looking for anything that they can even possibly campaign on. Most of their 2007 election promises have not been met (certainly high-profile ones such as scrapping student debt, reducing class sizes, getting rid of council tax, etc). Leaving aside the extent to which they can be blamed for all of these the current financial climate hardly leaves them room for manoeuvre.
If the SNP go into next May's election with promises of untold bounty should they be re-elected they will be shredded by the opposition and media. And given the possibility of further economic bad news between now and May they may not want to make such claims anyway. So what does that leave them, barring the chance to try and play up the notion of a democratic deficit caused by other parties blocking a referendum. At the very least this might please and enthuse their core voters.
Still the most confusing aspect of this referendum u-turn - and the one which arguably could do most damage to the SNP's long term hopes of such a plebiscite occurring - is Nicola Sturgeon's claim that by making the lack of a referendum an election issue it will "let the people decide".
In the past it used to be that the SNP believed a vote for them was a vote for independence. This was then softened - in order to attract more voters - with the promise that a vote for the SNP was only for the promise of a referendum, allowing those opposed to independence to still vote SNP in certain circumstances. All well and good for the SNP.
However Sturgeon's claim surely means the following: if the SNP fail to win 50% of the vote next year - which is surely certain to happen - then the people have, by definition, rejected any notion of wanting a referendum. This is surely the argument opponents will use even if the SNP emerge as the largest party next May, and in many ways it's hard to reject.
The truth of course lies somewhere in between these positions. The reality is this, most people in Scotland are not primarily concerned with whether a referendum takes place (whatever their view on what the outcome of such an election should be).
To counter this belief an oft quoted SNP claim is that opinion polls show a majority of people in favour of such a vote, again regardless of the outcome they would like to see. The SNP would do well to recall a West Wing episode where it's pointed out that such opinion polls - even if they genuinely reflect public opinion - tend not to provide a certain crucial piece of information e.g. how much people actually care. Someone would perhaps like a piece of cake without being overly fussed if they actually get it or not.
If the SNP are to be believed then this is an issue which remains alive and will be at the heart of the election campaign. It's hard to see this being anything other than wishful thinking. And if the SNP lose next year - or at the least don't get more than 50% of the vote - then the Opposition's post-May attacks on the SNP have surely already been written:
"You said let the people decide - and they did!"
It seems however that in Scotland such an attack has been misplaced because - for now at least - the SNP government have shelved any plans to hold such a plebiscite. Or to be more accurate they are not going to put such an option in front of Holyrood for consideration.
The reasons for this are hardly surprising. Within the Scottish Parliament a strong majority of MSPs (Labour, Lib Dems, Conservatives) are opposed to such a vote taking place. Therefore even with all SNP, Green and Independent MSPs voting in favour it would still fall at the first hurdle.
However it has to be noted that none of this is a secret. Barring an extremely short period where former Labour leader Wendy Alexander challenged the SNP to 'bring it on', saying Labour would vote for a referendum if it were held immediately (May 2008) all the parties referred to above have been vocally opposed since the 2007 election, and indeed before too.
So why have the SNP waited until now to scrap these plans? The SNP argue that it's because they knew they could not win a vote in the Holyrood debating chamber and so will not waste time on this. However as noted above this is hardly a revelation. Instead they claim they will allow the people to have their say on this during the 2011 Holyrood election campaign. More on the implications of this below.
Could the SNP genuinely fear that by having a vote on the possibility of a referendum now it would be harder for them to do the same post-2011 if they again form the government? For the SNP this seems unlikely; each new government effectively starts afresh after the 'cleansing' of an election and a win next year would allow them to say they have a new mandate.
It could be that their real worry is about putting potential supporters in an awkward position. By having a vote now Labour, the Lib Dems and Conservatives would vote it down. However what if after May next year a deal between the SNP and, say, the Liberal Democrats is possible (even if highly unlikely)? If the Lib Dems have voted against such a bill only months before it does make them look extremely untrustworthy. Far better then never to have such a vote take place.
Another possibility is that the SNP's current leadership have no other idea for an election theme and so are looking for anything that they can even possibly campaign on. Most of their 2007 election promises have not been met (certainly high-profile ones such as scrapping student debt, reducing class sizes, getting rid of council tax, etc). Leaving aside the extent to which they can be blamed for all of these the current financial climate hardly leaves them room for manoeuvre.
If the SNP go into next May's election with promises of untold bounty should they be re-elected they will be shredded by the opposition and media. And given the possibility of further economic bad news between now and May they may not want to make such claims anyway. So what does that leave them, barring the chance to try and play up the notion of a democratic deficit caused by other parties blocking a referendum. At the very least this might please and enthuse their core voters.
Still the most confusing aspect of this referendum u-turn - and the one which arguably could do most damage to the SNP's long term hopes of such a plebiscite occurring - is Nicola Sturgeon's claim that by making the lack of a referendum an election issue it will "let the people decide".
In the past it used to be that the SNP believed a vote for them was a vote for independence. This was then softened - in order to attract more voters - with the promise that a vote for the SNP was only for the promise of a referendum, allowing those opposed to independence to still vote SNP in certain circumstances. All well and good for the SNP.
However Sturgeon's claim surely means the following: if the SNP fail to win 50% of the vote next year - which is surely certain to happen - then the people have, by definition, rejected any notion of wanting a referendum. This is surely the argument opponents will use even if the SNP emerge as the largest party next May, and in many ways it's hard to reject.
The truth of course lies somewhere in between these positions. The reality is this, most people in Scotland are not primarily concerned with whether a referendum takes place (whatever their view on what the outcome of such an election should be).
To counter this belief an oft quoted SNP claim is that opinion polls show a majority of people in favour of such a vote, again regardless of the outcome they would like to see. The SNP would do well to recall a West Wing episode where it's pointed out that such opinion polls - even if they genuinely reflect public opinion - tend not to provide a certain crucial piece of information e.g. how much people actually care. Someone would perhaps like a piece of cake without being overly fussed if they actually get it or not.
If the SNP are to be believed then this is an issue which remains alive and will be at the heart of the election campaign. It's hard to see this being anything other than wishful thinking. And if the SNP lose next year - or at the least don't get more than 50% of the vote - then the Opposition's post-May attacks on the SNP have surely already been written:
"You said let the people decide - and they did!"
4 Sep 2010
No need for evidence
The recent TV adaptation of Sherlock was indeed a great success. Steven Moffat's interpretation of Conan Doyle's character portrays the famous detective as even more brilliant than in the books, able to deduce the most obscure fact from wonderfully subtle clues.
It appears however, if the past few days are anything to go by, that this investigative brilliance is not limited solely to the realms of TV fantasy, rather it is to be found across the entire British media and also parts of the political blogosphere.
The William Hague story this week has been an incredibly dark episode for both groups mentioned above. If we are now approaching the day that we can now publish and read about people's fantasies and prejudices whilst presented as fact, it hurts all of us (and perhaps the internet has created this situation).
Rumours are obviously rife within politics; whilst there may be some truth in a handful of such stories the majority of the time it surely reflects the intense and divisive nature of politics and the need for people to do down rivals, whether on the opposing side or not. Whilst these stories may change over time the old classics - two men working together must be gay - never seem to go out of fashion.
For all we claim to be a more tolerant society than in the past the use of such tactics as a slur suggests otherwise. The fact that being gay could be interpreted as such is indicative of this, however it is the case that most heterosexual men would find such a claim embarrassing, especially when it is being discussed in the national media.
The mainstream media has a simple duty: to report what they can prove. If something is printed in black-and-white we have a right to know that it is true, or else the entire system collapses under mistrust. If the media thinks they know a good story but cannot prove it then that is unfortunate. However to allow the practice of rumour and insinuation to usurp genuine research would render any public-media trust relationship obsolete.
The blogging world does need to take stock too, albeit that you cannot attack an entire genre based on the actions of a minority (or indeed one member). As time progresses and less people read newspapers, favouring online sources (albeit often still the same ones) the harder it will be for us to differentiate between fact, rumour and conjecture.
This is an inevitable consequence of the freedom the internet bestows. Effectively removed from legal threats, online writers can work with near impunity. The sheer size of the internet also means that getting things wrong will almost never be picked up, unlike in a smaller mainstream media market where big mistakes will always be seized on gleefully by rivals.
In my experience of working with young people they tend to have a less than sophisticated approach to using the internet as a research tool. Many of them believe that if it's online it must be true, explaining why a secondary pupil once showed me a report which he believed showed Tony Blair admitting to being a war criminal, taken in fact from a site by Tony Bliar.
Whilst this is only some school children it may be the case that many adults could also fall into this same trap, especially as the internet becomes the sole source of information in their lives. At that point any hope of genuinely rational discussion and political debate or understanding becomes seriously under threat.
Of course Hague himself has not helped matters by making the statement. The instant he did so he moved the issue from mere speculation and idle rumour to something that could be published, without fear of litigation following closely behind.
However whilst some may wish to comment on Hague's media management skills it does not change the fact that constant, incorrect rumours about you can be very difficult to deal with. And whilst it was a blog that pushed it front page it was the mainstream media that first started the 'nudge and a wink' which helped them do so (in the form of the Mail on Sunday printing the photo in the manner they did).
Perhaps this is just a part of public life and that people who wish to be safe from this should stay out of politics but this is hardly a recipe for the regular demands we here to attract more and diverse people into political life.
It would be foolish to imagine that we have always had a virtuous media in this country, driven by nothing more than a thirst for the truth. In reality opinion polls on the least trusted members of society often place journalists around politicians and estate agents. Journalists, like their online counterparts, are often not as rigorous with facts and research as they could be, and there is no doubt that on occasion they will just make things up.
However even taking that into account most people generally tend to believe what they read in newspapers or hear on TV, and they are broadly correct in doing so. This is not least because there is at least some degree of accountability with the threat of litigation or other complaint if the media are completely wrong.
The Hague story however moves us in a more sinister direction. If we are not even to have the appearance of facts and proof covering all stories read in the media - at least about important issues such as political life - then the obvious disenchantment and separation from politics the public feels will surely only widen. It doesn't take the brilliant Sherlock to deduce that or the problems that this will ultimately cause for us all.
It appears however, if the past few days are anything to go by, that this investigative brilliance is not limited solely to the realms of TV fantasy, rather it is to be found across the entire British media and also parts of the political blogosphere.
The William Hague story this week has been an incredibly dark episode for both groups mentioned above. If we are now approaching the day that we can now publish and read about people's fantasies and prejudices whilst presented as fact, it hurts all of us (and perhaps the internet has created this situation).
Rumours are obviously rife within politics; whilst there may be some truth in a handful of such stories the majority of the time it surely reflects the intense and divisive nature of politics and the need for people to do down rivals, whether on the opposing side or not. Whilst these stories may change over time the old classics - two men working together must be gay - never seem to go out of fashion.
For all we claim to be a more tolerant society than in the past the use of such tactics as a slur suggests otherwise. The fact that being gay could be interpreted as such is indicative of this, however it is the case that most heterosexual men would find such a claim embarrassing, especially when it is being discussed in the national media.
The mainstream media has a simple duty: to report what they can prove. If something is printed in black-and-white we have a right to know that it is true, or else the entire system collapses under mistrust. If the media thinks they know a good story but cannot prove it then that is unfortunate. However to allow the practice of rumour and insinuation to usurp genuine research would render any public-media trust relationship obsolete.
The blogging world does need to take stock too, albeit that you cannot attack an entire genre based on the actions of a minority (or indeed one member). As time progresses and less people read newspapers, favouring online sources (albeit often still the same ones) the harder it will be for us to differentiate between fact, rumour and conjecture.
This is an inevitable consequence of the freedom the internet bestows. Effectively removed from legal threats, online writers can work with near impunity. The sheer size of the internet also means that getting things wrong will almost never be picked up, unlike in a smaller mainstream media market where big mistakes will always be seized on gleefully by rivals.
In my experience of working with young people they tend to have a less than sophisticated approach to using the internet as a research tool. Many of them believe that if it's online it must be true, explaining why a secondary pupil once showed me a report which he believed showed Tony Blair admitting to being a war criminal, taken in fact from a site by Tony Bliar.
Whilst this is only some school children it may be the case that many adults could also fall into this same trap, especially as the internet becomes the sole source of information in their lives. At that point any hope of genuinely rational discussion and political debate or understanding becomes seriously under threat.
Of course Hague himself has not helped matters by making the statement. The instant he did so he moved the issue from mere speculation and idle rumour to something that could be published, without fear of litigation following closely behind.
However whilst some may wish to comment on Hague's media management skills it does not change the fact that constant, incorrect rumours about you can be very difficult to deal with. And whilst it was a blog that pushed it front page it was the mainstream media that first started the 'nudge and a wink' which helped them do so (in the form of the Mail on Sunday printing the photo in the manner they did).
Perhaps this is just a part of public life and that people who wish to be safe from this should stay out of politics but this is hardly a recipe for the regular demands we here to attract more and diverse people into political life.
It would be foolish to imagine that we have always had a virtuous media in this country, driven by nothing more than a thirst for the truth. In reality opinion polls on the least trusted members of society often place journalists around politicians and estate agents. Journalists, like their online counterparts, are often not as rigorous with facts and research as they could be, and there is no doubt that on occasion they will just make things up.
However even taking that into account most people generally tend to believe what they read in newspapers or hear on TV, and they are broadly correct in doing so. This is not least because there is at least some degree of accountability with the threat of litigation or other complaint if the media are completely wrong.
The Hague story however moves us in a more sinister direction. If we are not even to have the appearance of facts and proof covering all stories read in the media - at least about important issues such as political life - then the obvious disenchantment and separation from politics the public feels will surely only widen. It doesn't take the brilliant Sherlock to deduce that or the problems that this will ultimately cause for us all.
