Use of evidence

Its a long time ago but there used to be a course in Law at Oxford called "use of evidence" (at least I think there was...). And in our adversarial system of law that means cleverness in selecting facts to support a predetermined thesis (usually - it wasn't me, gov...). But at least there there is a judge and jury to try to adjudicate between two competing half-truths.

But it's interesting how that approach to evidence has morphed into the public arena - again a product of adversarial government - between parties but also between competing government agencies who feel a need to "campaign" at other bits of government - or the public. I was reminded of this at the weekend by reviews of a book on the Aids epidemic ("The Wisdom of Whores" by Elisabeth Pisani) - where describing the competition for Aids funding UNAids had to beef up data to suggest that there was likely to be mass spread of Aids into the general population in the developed West in order to attract funding and political attention. Horrific numbers of deaths among marginalised communities and across marginalised continents were not enough.

There is a tendency to do the same now where evidence is selected to back a thesis - rather than allow the thesis to emerge from the evidence - a point put very nicely (as it were) by the head of Public Health at NICE in a seminar we had recently at Defra. Their comparative advantage - he claimed - was that they reviewed all the evidence - rather that find the evidence that worked. And the good news there is that - even with a very limited evidence base - most public health interventions they have looked at are incredibly cost-effective.

But if the temptations within government are to pick the evidence to back a thesis, the temptation in NGOs is near irresistible. NGOs see themselves as advocates - they are there to make a case. Bjorn Lomborg (squeals of anguish...not least at the fact that he dared to question these paragons of public virtue) has done much to expose some of the half-truths of some of the environmental movement - but my favourite example came from the case of the Canadian Cancer Society where employees were banned form mentioning the number of cancer deaths in Canada - because the top of the organisation realised that in a war to the death with the Heart Foundation they would lose if people realised that coronary disease was still the top killer. Not much chance of a rational debate on health priorities there...

If everyone treated NGO evidence with a hearty pinch of salt, none of this would matter. But people don't. Evidence suggests that most of the pubic regard NGOs as more trustworthy than government and certainly than politicians. They may be nicer people (though not sure there is any evidence of that), but it is naive not to recognise that they are less held to account even than government and have more incentives to abuse evidence to support their one-sided view of the world - and to panic the rest of us into financial support for them.

One of the interesting political developments over the past thirty years is how NGOs have changed form being regarded as "pressure groups" - the language of the 1970s where they were seen as a peculiarly US phenomenon to be studied with a degree of haughty distaste as nasty self-interested people trying to influence legislation for their own ends into being "stakeholders" - nice, fluffy people who deserve an inside track in forming government policy. Of course there is a world of difference between the tax lobbyists trying to reduce their clients tax bills - and the public interest lobbyists trying to put up other people's. But there still needs to be a sceptical approach. The latter's motives may not be selfish - but they do still have a high degree of organisational self-interest - and simply claiming you are acting in the public interest does not mean you necessarily have an - unelected - right to determine what that is.

So we need more intelligent consuming of NGOs by government and the media; better recognition of their pluses and minuses; more holding to account of them and tier trustees for what they say - and for government to make clear it has a very high standard of evidence - and that others need to meet it if they are to be taken seriously.

The first casualty

So the fallout continues apace from last week's elections -- and the first casualty looks like being the environment.

First, the pathetic performance of the Greens in the London mayoral result (even with the ideal opportunity for a gesture vote on the first round) showed a measly 3.15% support. Not exactly a sign of the power of the Green movement to make more traditional parties quake in their electoral boots.

Second, the fact that Ken seemed to get no political kudos from his ambitious climate change targets in a London debate that focused on crime, corruption and bendy buses. Not a single question at the debate I went to on Monday.

Third, the promised Boris review of the congestion charge. As the drivers of gas guzzlers sleep more easily that they will be able to terrorise the rest of us off the streets, the review could be good news... skip the misguided view that some cars are OK in central London; review the absurd westward extension which has given the residents of W8 and SW3 a licence to drive at a discount into the centre while penalising all the residents of poorer neighbouring boroughs... but the risk is that this is all seen about easing the burden on motorists. And Boris seems to regard cycling as something to be confined to eccentric old Etonians and tourists -- not as something to be mainstreamed through London.

And finally, already briefings coming out that the listening and learning puts questionmarks over waste charging; the fuel duty rise (decision not needed until September... so why decide now?) and a suggestion that the PM should give up his passion for Africa and climate change. Not clear that Thursday's election results suggested that Africa was any nearer stability and prosperity, nor that climate change is any less of a threat.

We are clearly back into the stage of the political cycle where everything has to be calibrated against the backdrop of minute short-term political calculation - or at least everything except anti-terrorist measures. So the environment goes into cold storage to wait for happier times to return. Or is there anyone - outside the marginalised green movement - up for arguing that the environment is important, even when we aren't all feeling rich and bouncy?

Victory!!!!

No - not an early glimpse of the London mayoral result -- we seem to have another three hours to wait as of now - but the verdict from my visit to the consultant on Wednesday. Not sure I would normally rejoice in spending £ 300 for a couple of photos that you can't exactly stick in an album and a brief chat about the merits of Setanta Sports (recommended by the way - not just for IPL but NHL as well -- doctor is a bit of a hockey head) - but worth paying for the verdict that everything going very well; implant now cemented in place and all I need now is to get muscles in shape.... and then the world is proverbial oyster (or mussel as I don't like oysters much).

So beginning to emerge from three months in which - well not much has changed: Democrats still don't know who their Presidential candidate is going to be; economy not looking very perky; we still don't know who will win the Premiership; we still don't have a President of Zimbabwe; polls still suggest general election two years away; we don't know who will be Sir Alan's apprentice or "Nancy". The only things that have changed are that Evan has worked out how not to "crash the pips" on the Today programme; people have started worrying about prices again - both those going up - food, petrol and those going down - houses; and some time later tonight a lot of cabbies may be celebrating the demise of Ken. One of the things that does seem to have changed is that traffic in London has got worse while I was away ... but that may be more a function of sitting watching taxi meters gobble cash instead of sailing past on the bike.

So next appointment in January.... will anything have changed by then?

The other Presidential election

One of my great regrets of having been spending months down at my mother's pleasure in Chichester is that I have been missing out on the great spectacle of Ken v Boris v Brian v Sian v a selection of other parties many of whom I have never heard of before in the contest for the only political office I would really like to have - Mayor of London. That changes tomorrow when I am going to a live Mayoral debate - I can hardly wait... and I need to remember the rather convoluted question about the westward extension of the congestion charge I said I wanted to ask. But I am sure they won't ask me.... at least I hope so as the debate is then broadcast on Sky News.

But what has come true - at least in certain London restaurants - is that this is a contest that has engaged people... whether on the level of how on earth did a city like London end up with these candidates; to the agonies of what to do with that precious second vote, knowing that what might be best for London could also have unintended national repercussions. And then there is the need to remember just how the system works -- no ones and twos but a column one X and a column two X. And no "none of the above options". And for someone who has always lived in a dull Parliamentary constituency, there is finally a contest where someone can be slightly bothered to go after my vote.

I was flicking through the manifestos as helpfully summarised by Anthony Mayer (for whom I worked on the poll tax - bet he doesn't admit that much around County Hall) who turns out to be the GLA returning officer. One side of A5 probably doesn't offer much scope for sophisticated policy offerings but there was a definite hint of headline populism about most of what was being proposed. And one policy that everyone seemed to have was to lift the curfew on the so-called Twerlies.... those people with Freedom Passes who have at the moment to wait until 9.30 to get on the tubes and buses. I only discovered the concept of the Twerly (based on eager over 60s waiting at bus stops asking "is it too early" at 9.27) at a No. 10 reunion dinner party where Rachel Lomax (Deputy Governor of the Bank of England), Sir Roderic Lyne (former Ambo to Moscow and now consultant to mega-capitalism) and Lord Turnbull (he of Macavity and Stalin and also not short of a non-executive chairmanship or three) were all waxing lyrical about their freedom passes. And indeed coming down to Victoria on Friday I saw a 9.34 Norman Lamont get on the 148 bus to his Mayfair employer -- a man who told me during the last Mayoral contest that he thought Ken had done great things for the buses when he discovered he could get a bus virtually door-to-door for nothing instead of a taxi for rather a lot.. So do we want all these people taking up our seats for nothing before 9.30? Is anyone on the side of London;s workers?

So since I can't remember my question for tomorrow, maybe I will ask which candidate will get the Twerlies under control and promise not to let them compete with honest farepayers who need to work to live rather than supplement already generous pensions.

Further update post debate... and meanwhile, more milestones... first trip on bus unaccompanied (may find it hard to break the taxi habit; first outing without any crutch!!!). Bottomline is I just keep on bouncing.

None of the above

Bad weekend on blogging front... too many distractions -- and new hyper activity regime is distracting from time available (though interesting blogger made it to scrambled word on the backpage of the Times today).

So if I had had time I was going to blog on the merits of Gwynneth Dunwoody vs Zapatero's Ministras; and on our misconceptions of Spain; on the frustration of discovering the IPL was on setanta (to subscribe or not to subscribe, that is the question) and the start of the English cricket season; on whether reality TV was racist .. but instead I went to the gym and the good news is that it is paying off...

Physio today said I was three to four weeks ahead of schedule... not sure what his base was, but this seems to be good news... so its bigger weights, join gym in London and then, sometime in May its more dynamic exercise... first time I have ever found the prospect of getting on a treadmill exciting..

Night off

Apologies for blog drought -- but busy(ish) week at work and return of social life. So Tuesday was dinner with bonus private view thrown in, Wednesday hobnobbing at the tennis club (but not playing - am officially "non-playing" now) and discussing London elections with bunches of Boristas, and Thursday the theatre.

First theatre trip this year and the light relief was a play about a life spent aiming to be Prime Minister, which ends with a government in chaos and departure from Downing Street in failure. But it was Jeremy Irons, not Rory Bremner, and the PM in question was Harold Macmillan. Some very big psychological flaws on display - pushy mother worried son would never quite make it; frustrated flirtation with catholicism; near death experience in the Somme... resulting in lifelong haunting by alter ego of non-dead Captain Macmillan. Quite an interesting romp through 20th century -- though a bit of history for dummies. And some really clunky dialogue - and some rather obvious anachronisms -- did Selwyn Lloyd really agonise about what the plan was for post-war reconstruction of Egypt after the Suez planned regime change? But the audience liked it.

But interesting nonetheless... not least to see how government was in meltdown the week I was born (Suez + Hungarian uprising) and what the special relationship felt like then, albeit with the UK as gung-ho aggressor. But the real star were the sets and the recreation of the Somme, the Algerian desert (HM not only survived the Somme, he survived a plane crash in North Africa -- and as far as this shows a vast amount of champagne and cigarettes). Politicians in those days had a rather more lively past than being a Spad and then a brief period after getting a seat and before being elected as a communications consultant.

But although the author tried to make the parallels with today in a rather heavy-handed way, what it really looked like by the end was the Major government. A Chancellor becomes PM; lasting legacy is popularising gambling - Premium bonds vs the lottery; initially popular but then is derailed by European humiliation (though De Gaulle rather than Bill Cash and IDS) and sex scandals -- though Profumo was rather more stylish than David Mellor in a Chelsea strip. Not sure a Major nostalgia evening was quite what Howard Brenton had in mind....

Storm re a teacake

Most people have an enduring affection for the UK's VAT zero rates - the main exceptions are the hapless individuals who have spent time answering correspondence from the mothers of oversize children who can't understand why supersized Jeremy has to pay VAT on his school blazer while anorexic forty year olds can buy the latest size zeros in Topshop VAT free.

But while the children's clothing zero rate usually generates the biggest postbag, it is the food borderline that verges in the surreal -- something I had forgotten until the issue reared its ugly head again with the decision vs HMRC in re M and S teacake this week (it looked more like a chocolate marshmallow to me - but as they could say in Spain - yo que se?). The borderline was not at issue here -- that had been decided N years ago - but it still looks pretty odd. For those of you not up with VAT intricacies, the key and much disputed issue re teacakes, jaffa cakes etc etc, is what is a cake (VAT rate zero) and what is a biscuit (VAT rate 17.5%). The alleged test is whether aforesaid object softens on ageing (= biscuit) or hardens (= cake). But what nobody seems to question (and what probably only Alex Allan as a C and E neophyte in the 70s knows) was why cakes are deemed worthy of a zero rate and the evil biscuit attracts the full whack....

The tax purist would argue that the right answer (and how many times did we dream of this in the Chancellor's Private Office) would be a single uniform VAT rate across the whole economy. But the advent of the EU minimum standard rate of 15% in 1992 probably put paid to that (the fiscally neutral equivalent used to be about 12%).

But now that food policy is back on the agenda -- alongside increasing concerns about the expanding national waistline - there might be a case for looking again at some of the oddities of the VAT treatment of food. So given that a uniform move to 17.5% looks a courageous Chancellorial move too far, it might be a start to move cakes to the other side of the borderline - a healthy cake is pretty much of an oxymoron.

Having started there, and notwithstanding Delia's latest attempts in "How to cheat" to convince us that processed is best - or at least OK - how about 17.5% on all processed food - and keep the zero rate just for that nice fresh stuff - whether from Kent or Kenya. Or 17.5% on anything that has red or amber on a food label - which owed probably amount to much the same thing. Come on Jamie -- your next campaign?

Of course I realise that there will be scope for more arguments. Is UHT milk processed or not? what about those innocent smoothies (fruit juices and blended fruit drinks like smoothies are now at 17.5% alongside Coke and Sunny Delight -- HMRC believes food - however rich in e numbers - is an essential of life but beverages aren't)? what about the frozen peas so beloved of Gordon Ramsay and our top chefs? Anyone for Birds Eye v HMRC?

Still, a serious look at the way we tax food seems about 36 years overdue - and that is before we start thinking up new ideas like the famed but stillborn PMSU fat tax. But once we have started out making more sense of VAT we can start looking at what 21st century sins we want to target with excise duties.