Society

The power brokers

David Harvie

In our post-deference society, there is rightly always contention about where the levers of power and influence are, quite how they are manipulated, and by whom. Mostly we accept that, somehow, everything works quite well without us constantly having to become agitated about the detail. Increasingly though, in spite of a vigilant press and media, I think society at large is becoming disconnected from important information.
     I said in spite of, but perhaps I mean because of; or is there a possibility that the mainstream press and media are less vigilant than they would like us to think they are? Needless to say, I'm thinking less of footballers' wags, errant vicars and mouthy celebs than about serious social and political issues. Specifically, I am thinking about what we are seldom told about the seemingly commonplace. Lorn Macintyre was absolutely right, in discussing broadcasting in the Scottish Review (SR 273), when he said that Scotland should 'instigate a new type of service where language and knowledge are respected, where complex and vital subjects are not compressed and misrepresented'.
     Currently, but not for the first time, the Prince of Wales is under attack for his ability secretly to influence multi-million pound planning applications. The most recent instance concerns the £3billion redevelopment of the former Chelsea barracks by a company owned by the Qatari royal family (which has been buying up vast areas of lucrative London).
     Planning in Britain, however unsatisfactory in many regards, still has a framework of openness and public consultation, but the prince will have none of it. He appears to take unto himself an unlimited ability to wield enormous, behind-the-scenes influence on the basis of personal whim, and the Chelsea barracks case, being examined recently in the High Court, revealed evidence of document shredding and witnesses lying under oath to conceal his involvement. At least in this example, solid investigative journalism has revealed just what an opaque power broker the prince has become.
     
There are other areas of unaccountable influence which have not been so critically examined or explained by the media – to the public disadvantage. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in England, and its sister body ACPOS in Scotland, both regularly speak authoritatively for 'the police' in the press and on radio and television; no issue of substance is finished until ACPO has made its view known, sometimes at length.
     No-one would sensibly think it a bad thing that senior police officers pool their experience and make representations to the Home Office or local authorities on issues of policy and practice. However, these bodies are private limited companies, responsible solely to their boards of directors. They are funded by Home Office grants, membership subscriptions, contributions from police authorities and their 'commercial activities'. They are not accountable to government, parliament, local police authorities or the public in any shape or form. Their chief constables' council, or cabinet, can agree policing doctrine and issue it for implementation to individual police forces. Whatever happened to policing by public consent; to transparency and public accountability? Maybe none of this is in any way wrong, although I think it is; but why do the BBC, the other media and the press never bother to make it clear with what pretence of public 'authority' these organisations speak?
     Take another similar example; Migration Watch UK is in street lingo 'never off the box' with its own, highly partial and often controversial views on migration issues. When I say Migration Watch, I really mean Sir Andrew Green, a retired diplomat who is the only public face of this organisation. Nevertheless, it is de rigeur for this group to have its extended say whenever there is a relevant major incident or report or government policy announcement.
     You would be forgiven for assuming that Migration Watch has a large and active membership and represents a significant constituency of opinion. If so, you would be wrong, and the press would have let you down again. It is never explained that Migration Watch has no more substance than 11 individuals; it has no constitution and no membership whose views it can legitimately claim to represent.
     Now, I don't like what I know of Migration Watch, and its views and assertions have been widely criticised by academics and others; nevertheless, some also support its stance, and we live after all in a free country. What I really object to is the fact that, time after time, the press and media that habitually provide Migration Watch with a regular platform consistently fail to give us any explanation or understanding of what kind of organisation it is, and who it represents. The auto-pilot of lazy journalism is a dangerous machine and its levers should not be manipulated by those who are liable to offer us misrepresentation.

David Harvie was a film editor in a past life and now writes in a
variety of guises