So, where has the lying stopped, and just how many ministers are implicated?

It seems as though the Secretary of State for Brexit may have been wilfully inaccurate in his statements to Parliament, to the media, and to the public. Either impact assessments have been made, as he claimed on multiple occasions, or they haven’t, as he claimed before the Brexit Select Committee yesterday morning. Both statements cannot be true, unless one stretches the definition of truth in the manner of saltwater taffy.

Fine, it should be a hanging offence, especially for a Government whose assertions of taking back control emphasise the importance of Parliamentary sovereignty. And whilst the Conservative/DUP majority can prevent a formal censure, if David Davis fails to do the honourable thing, and isn’t sacked, the level of misconduct required to end a ministerial career reaches new depths. Given that it seems almost impossible to get sacked by Theresa May, that’s going something.

But, it leads to the question, “who else is lying?”. After all, various junior ministers in DExEU have referred to these mythical sectoral analyses, claiming to have read some, or part, of them. Theresa May herself has apparently read some, or part, of them. And yet they don’t exist.

Perhaps the likes of Steve Baker, Robin Walker and, yes, Theresa May, should be called in and asked to swear, under oath, to the veracity of their earlier statements. Because, whilst lying about policy is one thing (morally and ethically unacceptable though it might be), on the grounds that you don’t necessarily know what the impact of any particular decision might be, telling people something that you know to be untrue undermines our demos to the point where the public have every right to loathe politicians even more than they purport to do currently.

The referendum was won on the basis of a series of big lies - £350 million per week for the NHS, Turkish accession to the European Union, remaining in the Single Market, to name but three - and it seems as though there are elements of the Government who have lied their way through the negotiations.

Yes, they may win the war in terms of Brexit, but if you were a potential trading partner, or a regional bloc, could you really negotiate a trade deal with a country whose senior politicians demonstrate such disregard for the truth? You might, with the right safeguards, but you’d be very cautious.

This Government has, in two years, trashed our reputation in the wider world. Increasingly, our friends think that we’ve lost our collective marbles, and our enemies relish our discomfort. We will pay a price for that over time, although I suspect our poor and vulnerable will bear much of the cost. But, as I’ve often said in the past, credibility is hard won and easily lost, and you wouldn’t fancy Boris and David to help that much.

So, we’ll see if the truth comes out, and what the punishment will be, if any. For the Conservatives have to understand that, if you allow your people to show such disregard for the truth, you can hardly be surprised when your enemies do the same thing. And complaining is unlikely to meet with much sympathy…

Why journalists are not exactly the best people to report news...

Pog the pig - was her behaviour
a touch rash(er)?

Here in Suffolk, we do like our pork. The pig industry is a key part of our agricultural sector, especially in the sandy heathlands both to the east of the county near the coast, and in the west of the county, in the Brecks. And, because pigs are kind of cute, we've had a Suffolk version of the Cow Parade, called "Pigs Gone Wild", thirty-nine decorated pigs dotted around Ipswich, throughout the summer.

They've been popular too, with children taking a particular interest in such pigs as "The Great Piggish Bake Off" (a pig painted to look like a Victoria Sandwich), and "Sir Bradley Piggins", in cycling gear with sideburns. Even Abellio Greater Anglia, our local Train Operating Company, has sponsored "Hamlet".

And so, when a pet pig called Pog escaped from her home in the town this week, it was a great hook for a story. The Sun's headline was;

ROAD HOG! Giant 300kg pig goes on the rampage through housing estate after escaping from nearby farm

Scary, eh? That's forty-seven stones worth of bacon prowling the mean streets of Ipswich, attacking small children, damaging vehicles, causing traffic accidents. For, after all, rampage is defined as;

violent or excited behavior that is reckless, uncontrolled, or destructive.

The Daily Mail was slightly less apocalyptic;

Pig weighing 47 STONE causes havoc when she escapes from her home and runs wild around village

which does go to show that Daily Mail reporters don't get out much - Ipswich is a 'village' of over 130,000 people. But the havoc thing is pretty scary, you'd certainly want to keep your kids off of the street, wouldn't you?

The Daily Telegraph clearly doesn't want to alarm the retired colonels who make up its readership, leading with;

Police called after massive pig goes on the run in Suffolk

which just about covered the level of local concern. You do need a police officer to keep an eye on things just in case.

Luckily, we can rely on the Ipswich Star's coverage, which got it just about right;

Surprise over actual pig gone wild in Newbury Road, Ipswich

The actual story was that Pog had escaped from her owner's home (not a farm, for the benefit of The Sun) and gone for a gentle stroll. Her owner had come out to make sure that nothing stupid happened and, as an observer noted, “She was very happy, she wasn't going home any time soon. But she was under control, the owner was very very good.”. And then she went home.

Now, I accept that, in the generality of news reporting in this country, a humorous little 'local interest' story isn't terribly important. But we rely on journalists to bring us information, and millions of people absorb what they read and often assume that what they read in their newspapers is accurate. And this story reminds us that, increasingly, newspapers don't supply news, they supply entertainment, plus opinion, propaganda and untruths designed to promote their own agendas.

That's important, especially in the context of political reporting, which colours how we, the voters, make our choices. It certainly affected the result of the EU referendum, and it continues to shape the debate about what sort of Brexit we end up with. After all, what does motivate the collection of foreigners and tax exiles that own much of our national Press? Is it our best interests, or theirs?

And the drift towards opinion masquerading as reporting is a problem for us too. Often merely reflecting the personal prejudice of the author, there is seldom any opportunity to challenge such arguments, and little effort on the part of editors to remove egregious lies. That may be down to the cutting of editorial staff, sub-editors and fact checkers as surplus to profit-making requirements, but it again impacts on our body politic.

I'm a great believer in an informed democracy, where voters make choices based on a range of choices, armed with facts. The media have a critical role in that, but if you can't trust them, and their agenda is pursued covertly, we have a problem. Journalists risk becoming lobbyists, as opposed to reporters. 

The story of Pog the pig demonstrates another weakness of our media - an increasing lack of accuracy. How often do you hear people at the centre of stories remark that the reporting gives a wholly misleading view of an incident? Has the need to sell newspapers become more important than relaying the facts?

I am a pessimist about the British media. In truth, I'd probably be a pessimist about the media in most of the Western democracies. Of course, even our media are better than that which exists in too many countries where censorship or repression of journalists is commonplace, but in a society where freedom of expression is justly placed on a pedestal, it would be nice if the profession showed just a little bit more respect for the ethics and responsibilities of their trade...

Simon Danczuk: a knave, or just another victim of a capricious media?

In the forty-eight hours since I posted this piece, there has been a deluge of further revelations from Simon Danczuk himself, his two ex-wives, the recipient of the text messages and miscellaneous 'passers-by'. In light of these, it is hard to retain much, indeed, any sympathy for Mr Danczuk, who appears to be a pretty repellent individual. But the principle that everyone deserves a fair trial remains a valid one, and I still believe that people who suffer from mental health issues deserve the support of their employers as far as is possible - MJV, 3 January 2016

The front page news in the Sun that Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP for Rochdale, was caught sending text messages of an unwise nature to a seventeen-year-old who had applied for a job in his office is just the latest in a series of bewildering events in the life of a man easily described as controversial.

What seems so strange about the affair is that, given his clear passion for campaigning on behalf of those abused in childhood, he should not see the contradiction in behaving as he did towards a young woman.

The Labour Party has, in suspending his membership, done the only thing that it can do, given the way an unsympathetic media treat such matters. After all, to be seen to dither on what appears to be an open and shut case leads to day after day of hostile coverage, as Liberal Democrats have learned in recent times. It merely allows 'senior figures' to comment, often unhelpfully, for or against the accused and, given that most such people rarely know how their organisations' disciplinary processes work, they mostly act to make matters worse rather than better.

However, the formal suspension out of the way, what matters next is what the Party leadership do.

Mr Danczuk appears to have been in difficulty for some time. The failure of his marriage, reported through the particularly distorting prism of the tabloid media, has been a car crash, and as both sides seem to have thought that disclosing the minutiae of their personal lives is the best policy, it has merely snowballed into the sort of reality show that entertains a particular type of audience. Let's be honest, little has changed in that sense since the era of 'penny dreadfuls' and public hangings.

At some point, it might have been better had wiser advice been given and taken to deal with the matter behind closed doors, but many of us are wiser after the event, aren't we?

He has been very honest about the impact of events on his emotional health, and perhaps he feels that, by talking about it openly, he can better face things. I have to admit that I don't think that it's working for him. But he is clearly in a bad place, because either the most recent events are a reflection of his true self, in which case he isn't fit to hold public office or, hopefully more likely, they are a symptom of his problems.

I sense that he needs support, and that is where his Party should come in. MPs in neighbouring seats can chip in with his casework, the Constituency Party leadership can help with his local office, and he can be given the time and space to sort himself out. Meanwhile, the disciplinary hearing needs to be processed quickly, fairly and tactfully, protecting those involved and punishing appropriately if punishment is due.

We had a similar experience here in mid-Suffolk with David Ruffley and his well-documented mental breakdown in 2010, and the period he took to deal with his problems was dealt with quite smoothly, albeit that his story ended badly (and deservedly).

I fear that it won't end well for Mr Danczuk, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the matter. In a political environment where weakness is ruthlessly punished, even if he turns out to have been foolish rather than something more sinister, opponents both within his Party and beyond won't hesitate to use this as a stick to beat him with.

The lesson that some might usefully learn is that people are complex, and that sometimes they fail, or are flawed. And perhaps in understanding that, and dealing with politicians as the people they are rather than as your prejudices label them, we might get a better politics.

Leadership contest: "Regrets, I've had a few, but then again, (almost) too few to mention..."

And so, polls have closed, and the candidates await their fate. Whilst they do, I thought that I might reflect on the events of the past ten weeks or so.

Firstly, whilst I have voted for Tim Farron, I would have no real concerns if the membership chose Norman Lamb. He has performed well, confirmed that he is a wonderful exponent of liberal values, and has risen in my estimation (albeit that he didn't have an awful lot of scope to do so - I have always held him in high regard). Indeed, if the Party's circumstances had been different, I could easily have found myself supporting him instead of Tim.

It has, for the most part, been an interesting campaign, especially if you don't take it too seriously. Neither candidate has ventured into the wonderful county that is Suffolk, although Norman might, occasionally, have glanced out of the window on his regular commute between Norwich and London (it's very nice between Diss and Manningtree, Norman...).

Having made up my mind and cast my vote, nobody has seemed too bothered about involving me in either of the campaigns, so I have remained beyond any partisanship, which is nice.

And that brings me to my regret. You see, leadership campaigns tend to highlight, usually unintentionally, some of the less savoury sides of political campaigning. This puzzles me because, it seems, such bad behaviour is much more likely to be noticed, and exposed, during a high-profile campaign. It also implies that the values of such people are out of keeping with the underlying one of the candidate they are espousing.

This campaign has been no exception. References to 'real liberals' (as opposed to those awful ersatz ones you get on market stalls in South London), or negative campaigning when your candidate is talking a good game about positivity and optimism, do neither you, nor your candidate, any good. And, to put it bluntly, I think rather less of you as a result. Not enough to disown you or anything, but enough to be disappointed. You're probably a good person otherwise, but you've sown the seed of doubt in my mind. I may not give you the benefit of the doubt in future, which is a pity.

And, regardless of the result, we, that is, all of us, need to pull together for the cause we believe in. Yes, we may disagree on the route to be taken, or the mode of transport, but we do believe in the same thing, liberalism. So, if you are thinking about attacking another Party member in a public forum, or even just using harsh language in response to them, do think again. It isn't clever, and it isn't worth it.

If there is a consolation though, it is that we haven't had it as bad as the Labour Party is. Don't feel that you have to prove me wrong though...

Data breach allegations: Mark Gettleson communicates strategically...

It now seems to be generally accepted that Norman Lamb was not involved in the decisions that led to accusations of data protection breaches and push polling over the weekend. It did seem unlikely, knowing what I know of Norman, but one wanted to be reassured. But, whilst we wait to hear more about Gavin Grant's role in events, there is time to analyse young Mark Gettleson's statement, as published in the Guardian today.

The survey we conducted was not a ‘push poll’,” he said. “A push poll is an unethical campaign activity, where an untrue or unverified statement is pushed towards a wide audience with the sole aim of distorting their views.

I agree with Mark when he claims that a push poll is unethical - it takes a special lack of awareness to believe anything else. But his definition of what push polling is can be challenged.

Wikipedia defines a push poll as "an interactive marketing technique, most commonly employed during political campaigning, in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of voters under the guise of conducting a poll". 

Mark admits to holding very strong views about Tim Farron and his suitability for the position of Party leader, and I do find myself wondering if the Lamb campaign's early references to 'real liberalism' and 'consistent liberalism' came from him. It is noticeable that, in his statement to the Guardian, he refers to 'Tim Farron's illiberal record'.

So, Mark needs to answer some questions;

1. Were those people contacted told that they were being called on behalf of the Lamb campaign?
2. What use was intended for the results?
3. In what form was the data transferred to the third party organisation?
4. Who paid for the work to be done?

Mark Gettleson is a 'strategic communications professional'. He may want to make a more convincing case for that self-description over the coming days...

Is it really a 'moral duty' to cut taxes?

According to my copy of the Times last week, David Cameron has proposed some pretty hefty tax cuts on the basis that it is a moral duty to cut taxes. Personally, I always worry when I hear the words 'moral' and 'tax' in close proximity, as what happens next may very well not sit comfortably with my personal morals.

The problem is, cutting taxes is, in itself, not necessarily desirable. Yes, if the State is doing too much, perhaps, or if it is doing it inefficiently, there may be scope to cut taxes, but if by cutting taxes, you increase the numbers of vulnerable people, or cause the withdrawal of key services, your behaviour might be immoral, not moral.

It is far from easy to argue what the purpose of taxation is in philosophical terms. Much depends upon your view as to the size of the State, or its obligations towards individuals and communities but also whether or not the State is an effective and efficient provider of services. It is not unreasonable to assume that relatively high tax rates, combined with efficient services valued by the community are more likely to achieve sustained support than relatively low tax rates combined with hopeless services. But the 'satisfaction tipping point' will vary over time, and with local culture. In 1997, voters concluded that more spending on public services was required, and elected a government committed to doing that. And yet, by 2010, the mood had changed. Had extra spending really improved outcomes, and was that improvement sustainable?

I would argue that the moral duty of any government is to ensure the freedom of its people, to protect the vulnerable and strengthen them against threats. That might mean increasing taxes in the short term, it may not. And, given the small, and rather inconvenient, fact that the Government will be spending £53 billion on debt interest, closing the deficit might well be seen by some as being rather more of a moral imperative.

I'm a fiscal conservative, so I would be on the side of deficit reduction, so that we can build a sustainable State, capable of protecting those in need of protection, efficiently run and responsive to the wishes and needs of the population as a whole. So, when the time comes for further tax cuts, my questions will be, what are your proposals aimed at achieving, and what impact do you expect them to have?

Politics has to about a bit more than pure ideology, it has to be about the human impact of your decisions...

And to think I had thought they couldn't get worse!

Alright, the lies and the attempts to scare little old ladies were bad, and it is 'unfortunate' that Charles Clarke has released more than a thousand foreign criminals onto our streets as part of his 'tough on crime' strategy, but I never thought that Labour would stoop to personal attacks on one of our candidates.

Banging on about the fact that your candidates are local is one thing (and I'm so pleased that you mentioned it, given the home address of our own dear MP - remember, Tessa Jowell lives in Kentish Town, some considerable distance outside of Dulwich and West Norwood), but attacking one of our candidates for moving ward is quite outrageous, especially given the facts.

Richard Thomas's first ward (Abbey) was abolished in the last round of boundary changes and he moved on to fight, and win, Chaucer in 2002. Since then, he's got married to Julia and has a new daughter, Megan, born last year, so they needed a larger place, so they moved to East Dulwich. As a result, he's given up his safe seat to fight something a bit tougher and, more importantly, close to his home (if his house was on the other side of the street, he'd live in East Dulwich ward).

And so, I have only this to say... Charlie Smith, Les Alden and Helen Morrissey, you are slime, and your agent, Jeremy Frazer, should hang his head in shame (look the word up, Jeremy, there's a good chap...). You have finally debased the political process to the point where you have nothing to offer other than to cast slurs upon someone who wants to serve his community and actually believes in putting something back into it. Are you proud of yourselves? Because if you are, you have disbarred yourselves from any respect from me, now and forever. Oh, and Helen, you should spend more time in church on a Sunday reflecting on whether your campaigning reflects a Catholic ethos. To save you having to think about that though, I'll tell you, it doesn't. Hypocrite!

You have one chance to redeem yourselves in my eyes, and that is to offer a full and public apology, but I suspect that you haven't got the moral or ethical guts to do so. Normally, I make a point of not making personal attacks on my political opponents, a standard which the four of you might well aim to aspire towards. Of course, you probably can't spell ethics, so I'm undoubtedly wasting my time, aren't I?