Tales from the front line: public-sector workers speak out

In this week’s New Statesman, six key workers speak out about their fears for 2011.

This is the year that the full force of the coalition's austerity budget will be felt. In a major feature in this week's issue of the New Statesman, a teacher, GP, lawyer, social worker, postman and policeman reveal their concerns about the seismic change that 2011 will bring.

You can read their testmonials in the magazine, which hits news-stands tomorrow. In the meantime, here is a taster of what they have to say.

 

The Teacher

Gove's English Baccalaureate has the potential to send Britain's education system back 50 years.

The teacher is Peter Hyman, No 10 strategist (for Tony Blair) turned deputy head teacher.

 

The Postman

The Royal Mail is being slashed back, and it breaks this old postie's heart.

The postman works in the south-east of England and writes under the pseudonym Roy Mayall. He is the author of Dear Granny Smith (Short Books, £4.99).

 

The Doctor

The way to stop GPs using resources, it seems, is to bombard them with so much admin, they give up.

The writer works in a GP consortium in the south-west of England.

 

The Supported Housing Officer

Instead of cutting front-line staff, why not cut the bloated bureaucracy?

The blog by the social worker Winston Smith won last year's Orwell Prize. His book Generation F will be published by Monday Books later this year.

 

The Policeman

Already, in big towns, there can be just half a dozen uniformed cops on duty at any one time.

The writer is the blogger Inspector Gadget, author of Perverting the Course of Justice, published by Monday Books (£7.99).

 

The Legal Aid Worker

They say our work could be done by volunteers – but filing cabinets of complex cases tell me otherwise.

Nick Dilworth is a legal aid casework supervisor in Devon. To find out more about the Justice for All campaign, visit: justice-for-all.org.uk.

 

Are you affected by the cuts? We will be collecting testimonials from the front line over the course of the next year, so tell us your stories.

You can do this by writing in the comment box below, by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk, or sending a letter to:

New Statesman
7th Floor
John Carpenter House
7 Carmelite Street
Blackfriars
London EC4Y 0BS

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

How the Brexit referendum has infantilised British politics

Politicians like Boris are not characters in a fantasy show. If they aspire to high office then they must be held to high standards. 

Ancient Greece is the cradle of modern Europe.  From its primordial soup emerged so much of our culture, our language and our politics. Of the three, it seems to be the politics that has made the least progress over the centuries. In fact, if you dropped an Athenian into the middle of politics in the UK today, they would find themselves right at home. This is not because of the direct democracy, the demagogues or the xenophobia, though all are worryingly familiar, but because of the style of the debate itself.

To understand politics in ancient Greece you have to grasp that they had no concept of ‘the truth’. This is not to say that they were liars, simply that the framework by which we judge credibility was not one they would have recognised. The myths and legends that dominated their discourse were neither thought of as being ‘true’ or ‘made-up’, they simply were, and the fact of their being known allowed them to be used as reference points for debate and argument.

Modern politics seems to be sliding back towards this infant state, and nothing embodies this more than the childish slanging match that passes for an EU referendum debate. In the past six years the UK has had three great exercises of direct democracy and it is safe to say none of the campaigns have added a great deal to sum of human enlightenment. Who remembers the claims that babies would die as a result of the special voting machines needed to conduct AV elections? But the EU referendum has taken this to new extremes. The In campaign are executing what is a fairly predictable strategy, the kind of thing that is normal fare in politics these days. Dossiers of doomsday scenarios. Experts wheeled out. Statistics embellished to dazzle the public. One can question the exact accuracy, but at least you feel they operate within certain parameters of veracity.

What is happening on the Out side, in contrast, is the collective nervous breakdown of a large section of the political establishment. Just this week we have had Penny Mordaunt, a government minister, flat-out denying the UK’s right to veto new accessions to the EU. We have seen the fiercely independent Institute for Fiscal Studies denounced as a propaganda arm for Brussels. Most bizarrely, Boris Johnson even tried to claim that the EU had banned bananas from being sold in bunches larger than three, something that nobody who has actually visited a shop in the UK could possibly believe. These kind of claims stretch our political discourse way beyond the crudely drawn boundaries of factual accuracy that normally constrain what politicians can do and say. Surely the people peddling these myths can never be taken seriously again?

But they will. You just watch as Johnson, Mordaunt and the rest slide effortlessly back into public life. Instead of being ridiculed for their unhinged statements, they will be rewarded with plush offices and ministerial cars. Journalists will continue to hang on every word they say. Their views will be published in newspapers, their faces will flit ceaselessly across our TV screens. Johnson is even touted as a plausible future leader of our country, possibly before the year is out. A man who over his meandering career seems to have held every possible opinion on any topic you care to name. Or rather, perhaps it is more accurate to say that the character we call Boris has no opinions at all, simply interests. The public, who have scant regard for a political class they believe to be untrustworthy, seem to have taken a shine to a man who is perhaps the most fundamentally dishonest of Westminster’s denizens.

What does all this say about the state of our politics? If it is true that we are seeing the advent of ‘post-truth’ politics, as some have argued, then it has grown out of the corrosive relationship between politicians and the public. It is both a great irony and a great tragedy that the very fact that people distrust all politicians is what has permitted the most opportunistic to peddle more and more outlandish claims. Political discourse has ceased to be a rational debate with agreed parameters and, like the ancient Greeks, more resembles a series of competing myths. Claims are assessed not by their accuracy but by their place in the grand narrative which is politics.

But the truth matters. For the ancients it was the historian Thucydides who shifted the dial decisively in favour of fact over fiction. In writing his Histories he decided that he wanted to know what actually happened, not just what made a good story. In a similar vein British politics needs to take a step back towards the real world. Broadcasters launching fact-checkers are a good start, but we need to up the level of scrutiny on political claims and those who make them. At times it feels like the press operate as a kind of counterweight to Game of Thrones author George RR Martin, going easy on much-loved characters for fear of upsetting the viewers.

But politicians like Boris are not characters in a fantasy show. If they aspire to high office then they must be held to high standards. If politics is the art of the possible, then political discourse is the art of saying what you can get away with. Until there are consequences for the worst offenders, the age of post-truth politics will continue suck the life from our public debate.