Alexander Chancellor's column in the Guardian Saturday magazine section has been irritating me for some time now, but
this one last weekend has pushed me over the edge.
What particularly annoys me about it? Well, I guess it's the last couple of paragraphs where he basically accuses all politicians of lying (mentioning Straw and Brown). Great sport, of course, so what's my beef with this?
First, this is not debate. Calling someone a liar when you disagree with their point of view is hardly constructive, is it? Instead of a debate about the best way to deal with Iraq (and by extension other abhorrent regimes) we're continually treated to this childish name-calling. Maybe invading Iraq was the right thing to do, maybe it wasn't, given the lack of international support, but I still have an unanswered question. How did those opposing the invasion propose we dealt with Saddam? And by extension other dictatorships? Do we leave them in place? (And by the disjointed, schizoid thinking I keep hearing, would we also refuse to take asylum-seekers from these blighted countries?). If not, then how do we get rid of those, like Saddam, who cut their countries off from the civilized world community?
Second, this assault by the media undermines the political process. Just when we need it. The more I think about the state of the world today, the more I feel a sense of impending crisis. Not only will we be forced to deal with climate change (& the exhaustion of fossil fuel reserves), we also face incredible dangers from the ongoing clash of ideologies. The danger of the next 9/11 is not so much in the event itself (as if that wouldn't be bad enough), but in the reaction. Not much of a catalyst will be required to escalate the ongoing "cold war" with Syria and Iran, with who knows what consequences. Oh, and don't forget, of course, everything is linked. The end of the "age of oil" will exacerbate the already extreme inequalities in the world today, building resentment and making conflicts more likely. I'll write more another time about where I'm coming from.
Third, Chancellor is no better than those politicians he slanders. The article is full of misleading statements, mostly perpetuating recent media myths, which he seemingly hasn't bothered to investigate (and I assume he gets paid for writing this drivel).
As I've noted before there is not "more and more... violent crime" in the UK as he asserts (which pretty much undermines the whole article). He also states that: "According to the World Health Organisation, drink and drugs explain why Scotland has the second highest murder rate in western Europe." This doesn't even make sense. In what way is the murder rate explained? (Cause & effect is always tricky, but Chancellor seems to have reached his ripe old age without realising this: 2 possibilities are (1) that high drink & drug consumption directly leads to more murders, in which case, what causes the drinking & drug-taking? Or (2) both behaviour patterns may be caused by a third factor, something about Scotland that causes both high levels of drinking & drug-taking & a high murder rate).
I decided to investigate a little bit further.
This Guardian article sheds a bit of light on the matter. It turns out, for example, that in fact the murder figures are entirely distorted by Glasgow. The statistics claim there are 2.33 murders per 100,000 people in Scotland each year. With a population of about 5 million that's about 117 murders. 70 take place in Glasgow. The population of
Glasgow is about 630,000 (though that of the surrounding urban area is much higher - I'm assuming the statistic refers to Glasgow itself, as it says it does). Those 630,000 people therefore have a much higher murder rate of over 10 per 100,000 per year(!). That only leaves, though, 38 murders amongst the remaining 4 million+ people in Scotland - less than 1 per 100,000 per year.
The Guardian goes on to note that: "Much of the violence is caused by gangs vying to control the city's drugs trade." The article goes on to briefly discuss the policing situation. So, perhaps the cause and effect here is more complicated. Perhaps the relatively high murder rate is caused by the particular culture in parts of Glasgow, not general decadent drinking and drug-taking behaviour. Just perhaps, the solution is NOT to restrict peoples' behaviour. What if, for example, the city's drugs trade was not illegal? Would gangs still vie to control it? The point of all this, of course, is that Chancellor - who clearly is not an expert on the subject - is part of the backlash against the government's proposed liberalisation of drinking laws (in England and I assume Wales).
There's one other interesting point about the data: Finland of all places has the highest murder rate in Europe, but
according to the Guardian this is (I love this!): "...attributed to its liberal penal policy, which sees offenders sent to jail only as a very last resort, [whereas] Scotland's rate is put down to the use of alcohol and drugs." Great! Not only should we stop people drinking, we should lock 'em up!! Actually,
as this Finnish newspaper article notes, although Finland has a relatively low level of alcohol consumption (by European standards) it does have a problem with "binge-drinking". The plot thickens... Personally, I would like to see 2 things: leave these issues to the experts (perhaps we should respect the study of sociology a bit more, but more about that another time), and don't tell me what to do. It's all too easy to try to solve problems by imposing restrictions on everybody, but will these really address the underlying causes? Who is this buffoon Alexander Chancellor (or David Davis or Tony Blair for that matter) to tell me or anybody else now to live their lives if it's not causing any harm to anyone else?
I've digressed a bit: back to Alexander Chancellor's hypocrisy. He notes (of course!) that Walter Wolfgang was "detained under anti-terrorist powers". Really? For 3 months? No, according to the BBC: "Police later used powers under the Terrorism Act to prevent Mr Wolfgang's re-entry, but he was not arrested." So what is this "detained under anti-terrorism powers" business that we've heard so much about, now from Chancellor? Just pure spin, isn't it? I'm sure if it was the other way round and a politician had said "detained under anti-terrorism powers" in a similar circumstance people like Chancellor would be lining up to call him a liar.
And did Walter Wolfgang even accuse Jack Straw of lying, as Chancellor writes? I'm getting a bit confused here, because I would have thought calling a speaker a liar, as opposed to making a debating point, WAS grounds for ejection from a debate (or even worse from the audience of a set speech) - it is in the House of Commons for example - though Chancellor and his cronies seem to be trying to change that. "Wolfie" seems a bit too nice to have done that, anyway. 5 minutes research (take note, Mr Chancellor) suggests that actually, no, he (probably) didn't. His
subscription only article in the Independent is (handily) reprinted
here and
here. He says he only said the one word "nonsense" (although
the Telegraph disagrees - apparently: "There came a cry from the back of the hall: 'That's a lie and you know it.' " [Is there video evidence of exactly what actually happened? Maybe Wolfie is downplaying what he did...].).
So the level of political debate Chancellor has reached in his dotage is to say what he likes, whether it is backed up by the facts or not (hey, it saves doing any work!), while calling anyone he disagrees with - sorry, as long as they are politicians, as other media outlets, corporates etc. would likely sue - liars.
Until a year or so ago, calling a politician a liar was a serious offence, likely to end up in the courts. Michael Howard, as part of his attempt to win an election by dragging politics into the gutter, has colluded with the media to change this. It's open season now. All great fun, no doubt, but the result is that it has become just that bit more difficult for the political process to solve the problems that face us.
Chancellor's column used to be (until the recent Guardian "re-launch") headed "Guide to Age", which makes me kind of worried about growing old myself. Instead of being a font of wisdom in his old age, Chancellor is spouting gibberish.
