ALTERNATIVE FACTS HAVE ARRIVED

John Boydell - Friday, 17 November 2023

As always, I’m not on anybody’s “side” politically, just trying to champion common sense.

The Alternative Cabinet Room regularly urges the use of “facts, reality and common sense” in policy-making. It also refers to certain trends arriving, across the pond, from America. Sean Spicer, the White House Press Secretary had defied reality when he announced that the numbers attending Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration were the biggest in history, when a simple look at comparative photographs with both of Barack Obama’s inaugurations showed that to be demonstrably wrong, as did official statistics. Trump’s then advisor, Kellyanne Conway, defended the Press Secretary’s remarks in the face of questioning by NBC’s “Meet the Press” moderator, Chuck Todd, about the false claim with “Our press secretary, Sean Spicer, gave alternative facts to that….”. Todd, not unreasonably, made the observation "Wait a minute. Alternative facts? ... Alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods." Quite. Well folks, this unwelcome trend has beaten chlorinated chicken (which will be part of any trade deal with the US, if it ever happens, despite denials) in its journey across the Atlantic.

Our politicians of the right laud our independent judiciary and its work as an example to the world of Britain leading, unless it frustrates political expediency, when judges are often then said to be “meddling” in politics, rather than simply applying the laws Parliament has made. So this week, we have the Supreme Court giving it’s long-awaited judgment on the export-refugees-to-Rwanda saga. It methodically went through the evidence, of which there was plenty, and concluded unanimously, as a matter of fact, that Rwanda was not safe. It further pointed out that those facts not only meant that the Government’s flagship policy was illegal under international law but also under UK-wide law, too. This latter point will have spiked the guns of a number of would-be “enemies of the people” media outlets. As for the Government, it “didn’t agree” with the Court but “accepted” the ruling. That acceptance was for a few hours, mind you, before announcing that it would introduce “emergency” legislation to override the judgment. That would comprise two elements: a) having a treaty, instead of a memorandum of understanding with the government of Rwanda; and b) deeming Rwanda to be safe, in any event. The treaty part would include a provision that Rwanda could not send refugees back to their original countries (as had happened, as a matter of fact), where they might be persecuted. The second part was that there would be a new, alternative fact that despite the facts on the ground being that Rwanda was not safe, it was now safe. This bizarre, Trumpian declaration might as well be that ‘the sun doesn’t rise in the morning, it rises in the evening’ or from now on ‘blue is not actually blue, it’s green’. This is a British government! Regrettably, Trump falsehoods are so regular and so often repeated that they have become normalised in the minds of many – but a British government asserting a ‘new’ fact is true, just because it declares it so is utterly barmy. So wedded has the Government become to the policy and so much has it trumpeted it as the solution it decides to dig deeper the hole that it’s made for itself. What is a fact is that “alternative facts” are falsehoods.

So much for facts, what about reality and common sense? The underlying rationale for the policy, explained by the Government, is that it will be a strong deterrent leading refugees to conclude that they should no longer attempt to come to Britain. The vast majority of those asked if it would deter them have replied that it would not. Common sense would tell that it would not. If you are fleeing the truly awful (and remember a large majority of asylum claims are held to be correct, once processed) and are prepared to take on the real risk of death through drowning, the (very) outside risk that you might be sent to Rwanda is unlikely to deter you. The likelihood of you winning the lottery is infinitesimally small and should be a deterrent to wasting your money, but people still buy lottery tickets. In addition, we’re talking of a few hundred people, at vast expense to the taxpayer, when the problem runs into tens of thousands and growing. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the whole policy was always daft from a practical point of view but produced “tough” headlines and played well to a certain section of voters. Reality and common sense would have directed the Government (and any government) to look at: a) what creates the demand (fleeing awful/dangerous lives coupled with the withdrawal, for most, of any safe and legal routes); and b) who fulfils the demand (criminal gangs). Anti-foreigner sentiment plays well to many voters and is a convenient (and ancient) scapegoat. The Rwanda policy plays into that but is and always was going to be effectively useless as an actual solution. Then there is the PM’s aside that no foreign influence (i.e. the European Court of Human Rights) will be allowed to interfere. How does that work? If UK courts are required to accept falsehoods, appellants will take those falsehoods to the ECHR, which is likely to find them false and the deportations illegal. Are we really going to trash further our reputation as a rule-of-law country or is it just more Little Britain, anti-foreigner rhetoric to a certain base of voters?

The UK, along with the US, used to be exemplars of democracy in action, governing on broadly sensible lines with a view to the welfare of all and in the hope a good record of achievement would attract the votes for re-election. Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell took news management to another level (phase 1) but it is nothing to what we have arrived at now, where tribal, divisive messaging is perceived as not only legitimate but necessary to keep base voters happy (phase 2). Phase 3, ladies and gentlemen, looks like going further down the scary “alternative facts” route. When the truth no longer matters and facts have alternatives, the ship of democracy is holed below the waterline and so in peril; the question is, can it be saved? It can be, of course, but it will require a government of integrity to do that. “Integrity”, Prime Minister, you know the bedrock principle that was going to underpin all your government’s decisions. Remember that one?