I am going to begin with a harumph. This is the time at which the loyal foot soldiers of the Labour Party, such as myself, get called upon to distribute leaflets. There aren't any seats up for election in my area, so my services will not be called on, and I am rather glad, because the leaflet to be distributed starts like this.
- leaflet.jpg (67.32 KiB) Viewed 1456 times
What's doubly annoying is that it isn't necessary to produce such misleading stuff. If the leaflet said something along the lines of "The average family will be more than £1,000 pounds worse off under the Conservatives," it would probably be just as impactful, without being dishonest. I'd be happy to distribute that. (And if the leaflet made it clear that a substantial contribution to that sum came from a rise in National Insurance - and explained why this is a terrible way to raise money - then I'd happily set it to music and sing it through peoples' letter boxes.)
I am planning to be fairly discrete in my harumphing. It's not the sort of thing I would want to mention to any fellow party members - with the exception of Mrs. S and any comrades on this forum - because I know how arguments about statistics in politics tend to play out. Peoples' attitudes to a misleading statistic depend on how that statistic fits into their world view. Attempts to point out that the £2,620 is an exaggeration would probably just be met with accusations that this was an exercise in splitting of hairs and suppression of debate about an important topic (probably from people who, not long ago, were spitting tacks about the £350 million claim). This is an attitude that drives me up the wall. The leaflet doesn't after all suggest that the hit to local families will be about £2,600. It gives an exact figure without any qualification.
My view is that, if someone throws a number into the debate without any qualification on its accuracy, then they own it. If that number is expressed in large conspicuous font on a leaflet, or internet post, or the side of a bus, then they definitely own it. It's fine to qualify claims like this - for example to point out that some figures cannot be calculated exactly - but only if this is done upfront when the figure is introduced. Falling back on such qualifications only when the figure is queried is the mark of a hypocrite.
Anyway, that's my harumph over. I shall now, as Mrs Snooze likes to say, pack away my soap box. I am sure that the local elections will produce many other things to get annoyed about.
