News

Has there ever been a more testosterone-fuelled run-up to a general election? With the major parties tussling for the most macho position on issues such as crime, immigration and travellers' camps, all traces of rational debate have been jettisoned while politicians bellow at each other like rutting stags. This even prompted the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, to pen an open letter to the party leaders in a plea for more tolerance and rationality.

Meanwhile, social care professionals can but look on in despair as their work is undermined and their opinions ignored.

In recent weeks the Conservatives' "Are you thinking what we're thinking" campaign has embraced plans to build more prisons, limit immigration, crack down on travellers' camps and get tough on asylum seekers.

Labour is trumpeting similarly strong-arm policies. It has encouraged councils to name and shame recipients of antisocial behaviour orders, detain more failed asylum seekers and bring in a skills-based points system for all immigrants.

The Liberal Democrats have called for a more positive approach to electioneering, although this seems about as effective as shouting "leave 'em Tony, they're not worth it" at a pair of drunken brawlers.

The increasingly draconian policies and the language used to promote them have alarmed many working in the fields of law, race relations and immigration.

The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) is so concerned at the provocative tone of some pre-election pronouncements that it has called on the public to report to the police any election materials which it thinks could incite racial hatred.

"Those who try to stir up fear, prejudice and hatred should not be allowed to divide our communities," says a CRE statement.

"Where it appears that election debates in local communities may be influenced by exaggerated, false or misleading statements - such as the supposed arrival of overwhelming numbers of asylum seekers or immigrants - then public authorities should act quickly to rebut the claims and make the facts clear to the public."

Refugee support groups have become so alarmed by the negative campaigning that they have launched a pocket guide for parliamentary candidates and their party workers. Produced by Refugee Action, the Refugee Council, the Scottish Refugee Council, the Welsh Refugee Council and Star (Student Action for Refugees),

Tell It Like It Is aims to counter many of the more widespread myths about asylum. Perhaps naively, the groups hope the book will be carried by parliamentary candidates as they campaign door to door.

"We would encourage anyone involved in this campaign to carry a copy of the handbook so that they have easy access to accurate information," says Sandy Buchan, chief executive of Refugee Action.

"Asylum applications have fallen dramatically in recent years and we would like parliamentary candidates to concentrate on improving the current system and challenging the myths and misconceptions."

Of concern to many of those working with young offenders or asylum seekers is that so many of the "get tough" statements fly in the face of professional opinion.

For instance, recent guidance from the government for councils to routinely "name and shame" the recipients of antisocial behaviour orders has been widely condemned by crime reduction professionals.

"Name and shame campaigns infringe a child's right to privacy under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and do not address the issues underlying youth offending," says Chris Stanley, head of youth crime at rehabilitation agency Nacro.

"They not only reinforce an unrealistic perception and fear of crime, but irresponsibly stigmatise children, making it harder for them to eventually play a positive role in their communities and putting them in danger of possible vigilante action."

John Coughlan, chair of the Association of Directors of Social Services' children and families' committee, is concerned at the risks of naming "children who are vulnerable and out of control". Youth Justice Board chair Rod Morgan is also unimpressed. And Howard League for Penal Reform director Frances Crook has condemned the guidance as "a cheap piece of electioneering".

Front-line professionals criticise the political debate for focusing too much on punishing young offenders rather than tackling the causes of their offending.

Even the police have become bemused at some of the political parties' negative campaigning. When the Conservatives recently placed an advert in the North Wales press highlighting what they claimed to be a huge rise in violent crime under Labour, the area's chief constable, Richard Brunstom, was so incensed that he immediately released a statement condemning it. He claimed the advert was misleading because it compared figures collected both before and after the introduction of the national recording standards two years ago.

He said it "quite improperly seeks to stir up fear of rising crime when it is a well established fact that crime has been falling for years both locally and nationally. I'm disappointed in the extreme that it has appeared in the press in a marginal constituency in the run-up to a general election."

Similar adverts have appeared in marginal constituencies throughout the country, prompting the Association of Chief Police Officers to issue a statement calling on all political parties to use crime statistics more responsibly. It says: "If we want to increase the fear of crime, the selective use of statistics can help in doing that. We feel it is important that all crime statistics should be put into context and communicated in a responsible way to the public."

Crook agrees. "Of course it's perfectly legitimate for the political parties to have a discussion about law and order," she says. "But the discussion should be based on facts not fiction. It's important that the parties do not deliberately set out to deceive the electorate by distorting the debate and encouraging a lynch mob mentality."

Crook emphasises that politicians who warp statistics and ignore the views of crime reduction professionals do so at their peril. Tough stances and hard-line policies on crime may play well with the electorate before the election. But after the votes have been counted, the public will expect the new government to deliver on its promises.

"If you keep telling people that crime is getting worse and we need more prisons then that's what people will expect," she says. "But we know those policies don't work. So you end up with a system that is less effective and crime gets worse. Politicians who play that game are making a noose to hang themselves with."

Politicians and their parties would do well to take heed, and leave their testosterone free for more personal activities.