The credibility gap

PEOPLE want to trust a politician.

But increasingly there is a credibility gap between what an elected representative says and what is actually the case.

This is not just true in the UK, where the habit for politicians to create a truth has been growing since the days of Alistair Campbell, but has crept into the local arena too.

It is too far to go to accuse people of lying, knowingly uttering a falsehood, and in some cases there could be a public interest argument in not making information public, but every time someone is exposed as not being fully open and honest it knocks confidence in government.

So what smoke and mirrors do politicians use to cover their tracks? Being aware of some of these might just help read a situation as it develops.

Often people interpret the same circumstances in different ways, which is one opportunity to muddy the water so that the public is left with doubts in their mind.

Spreading contradictory information has been the favourite tool of the climate change sceptics, however much this is stacked up against peer-reviewed evidence.

Just look at how arguments over emissions linked to cancer spread in Guernsey as the waste plant build was debated.

One move here, if a humiliating issue has been exposed, is to go on the attack.

Now, if it has come from a leak from within the Policy Council, ministers tend to get over-obsessed with where it came from instead of addressing the issue.

A first response is not necessarily to answer questions and explain the situation.

Another would be to cast doubt about the accuracy of the report if it appears in the media.

New Labour was reportedly well versed in this one too.

If the person or body under fire can find one area that is incorrect, they will concentrate on that, instead of explaining the wider issue exposed.

It is an easy way to deflect attention, even if the inaccuracy was symptomatic of the difficulty of getting people to respond when they are put on the spot.

This has been a favourite trick of at least one department in Guernsey.

Creating or using a bigger story to lessen the impact of the initial one is another ploy that has been implemented by deputies at times here.

This is the famous 'today is a good day to release bad news trick'.

It kind of runs hand in hand with 5.35pm on a Friday is a good time in Guernsey to release bad news because it will miss all the main broadcast news bulletins and give a weekend for the impact to be lessened.

Not directly answering the question asked is an old favourite which everyone will be aware of, but made even easier now with the tendency to put a professional PR filter in the way.

This is where the live interview comes into its own – and why some deputies are so uncomfortable in this arena, despite the experience of live debate.

It can be almost painful sometimes hearing someone answer by reading a statement that has little resemblance to the question being pursued.

But if any manoeuvre is used more than any it is to shut up shop and say nothing.

The belief, and it can be effective, is that to starve a story of oxygen will kill it quicker than if you respond.

But every time a 'no comment' appears the public's confidence in the system can rightly take a knock as they ask why – that credibility gap just creeps ever wider.

It is often the case the picture only becomes clear years after the event, when there is little point or mileage in revisiting it anyway.

So can the public ever trust a politician? Well, to accuse all deputies of this type of 'management' (to use a nice word to describe it) would be unfair.

Some are straight down the middle, but that can be because of the positions they hold.

With greater power comes greater responsibility and that is where the moral question because more acute – is it OK to lie for the greater good of society?

So was it right that the public was misled over weapons of mass destruction during the invasion of Iraq because of the perceived need for regime change? Or what about the recent announcement in the UK of a secret multi-billion pound loan to help banks?

The reason for silence given was so confidence in the banking system was not knocked to protect the economy.

Let us bring this back to a local context.

Was keeping deputies and people in the dark over the fuel tankers purchase to protect the deal right? What about the wall of silence as discussions took place with the UK over the death of zero-10? Much of it comes down to judgement – the trouble is the tendency not to trust the public with information is too rife.

At least one way of boosting the waning public's trust in politicians would be a more open approach to government.

Release the minutes of those controversial Policy Council meetings and let people make up their own minds because anyone involved should be capable of justifying their decisions.

Make sure that the public has access to as much of the evidence that decisions are made on as possible – again they can judge for themselves whether the position taken was justified.

At least Guernsey has one big advantage over the UK in that getting in touch with a deputy should be as simple as ringing them at home.

Just be aware that it might not be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.