Black Triangle

In a Telegraph report about the chief scientist’s views on cannabis, a likely cause of the sacking of Prof David Nutt is revealed. The cause is Gordon Brown:

Mr Brown publicly backed Mr Johnson’s decision to sack Prof Nutt and warned that the latter’s comments gave the impression the Government was sending “mixed messages” about drugs.

This is not a surprise. Brown does not like “mixed messages”, disagreement, dissent, or consultation. Back in May 2007, prior to Brown becoming Prime Minister, Peter Oborne noted the problem senior figures within Labour had with Brown:

I’ve been a political journalist for fifteen years and have closely followed the career of Gordon Brown. I have written pieces that both criticize and praise the Chancellor but one thing is unarguable – he is a massive politician of exceptional gifts, the kind of figure that comes along once in a generation – and in a few weeks time he’ll be Prime Minister. And yet some very senior figures on his own side are certain he is unfit for office – one has called him a ‘control freak’, another ‘psychologically flawed’ and one serving cabinet minister has said he’d be a ‘f***ing disaster’

In December 2007 two government reports noted the Brown effect. After concern from Blair that Whitehall was not delivering quickly, Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, organised two reviews. The reviews were led by teams of civil servants, public sector chiefs and external advisers who carried out in-depth interviews with staff and managers. The strongest criticism fell on areas Brown was involved in.

The most scathing criticism involves the Treasury’s failure to work with other Whitehall departments. During his ten years as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Brown surrounded himself with a small coterie of advisers who dictated policy from the Treasury. Other departments were largely expected to fall in line with little negotiation or consultation.

If you look at Brown’s latest comments about the Professor David Nutt debacle, the mixed message argument is clear.

Mr Brown said he had attempted to give a clear lead to youngsters through tougher drugs policies, including deporting foreign dealers, making welfare claimants go into rehab or risk losing benefits, and giving police powers to close crack houses.

“We have got a very tough line on drugs and you cannot send mixed messages,” he added.

He rejected the argument that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes.

“We’ve seen brands of cannabis that are distorted by other products and ingredients. That’s one of the reasons why it’s important to send a message that drug abuse is not acceptable and a criminal offence.”

1. He is clearly rejecting the scientific advice. That is qualitatively different from accepting the advice, and then going on to suggest that broader socio-political considerations meant the advice can’t be acted on (perfectly acceptable). If Brown’s view is totally fixed, as his comments above make clear, then why have advisory committees?

2. Brown sees disagreements with scientific advisors as evidence the government is sending out a mixed messages. If that is the case, then Brown has painted himself in a corner of his own making. On any number of issues the government is likely at times to receive scientific advice that they may choose not to follow. In some cases that may be because the advice may be politically unacceptable to the population, or other considerations about government policy are impacted on adversely. If such differences of view are always seen as unacceptable mixed messages, then we can expect further sackings. Brown should credit the electorate with enough intelligence to balance the competing arguments – not look to create a phony consensus in government by sacking those with evidence that contradicts government policy.

No adolescents teetering on the edge of using cannabis were vaguely interested in any differences between Brown and the advisory committee before the sacking of Professor Nutt. The attempt to manufacture a united front by sacking the advisory group has spectacularly backfired, but then that’s no surprise. This is a Brown government.