- War of Jennifer's Ear
The War of Jennifer's Ear is the name given to a 1992 controversy in
United Kingdom politics, between the opposition Labour Party and the governing Conservative Party. The name is an allusion to theWar of Jenkins' Ear , an actual armed conflict of the 18th century.In the midst of the 1992
general election campaign, on Tuesday 24th March, Labour ran aParty Election Broadcast about a five year old girl withglue ear who waited a year for the simple operation to insert svent s. This case was contrasted with the ability of those able to afford private treatment - which had been granted tax breaks by the Conservatives - to get treatment quickly. The party hoped to highlight what it saw as the mismanagement and underfunding of theNational Health Service (NHS) under the Conservative government. Labour leaderNeil Kinnock employed the slogan "If you want to vote Conservative, don't fall ill". Under British election regulations, such broadcasts are rationed by formula among main parties, and terrestrial broadcasters are obliged to run them on set days, in peaktime schedules. Each broadcast therefore has more impact on political debate than in unregulated systems.The story of the broadcast was described by one press officer - Julie Hall, Neil Kinnock's press secretary, as based on an actual case. In fact while a particular case had been the starting point of the creative team that had produced the broadcast - working from a letter by the girl's parent to
Robin Cook , the shadow health secretary, they denied it was meant to be a recounting of her case.Unfortunately for the Labour Party, the girl in question was the granddaughter of a Conservative Party member, who gave the Conservatives advance warning of the claims to be made in the broadcast. Conflicting accounts of the details of the case quickly surfaced. The mass circulation tabloid, The Sun, ran the story: "If Kinnock will tell lies about a sick little girl, will he ever tell the truth about anything?".Fact|date=May 2007
In the national media Labour's political point was immediately sunk in a storm of editorializing and outrage over the ethics of involving a young girl in national politics, and over which side made her identity public (Her first name, Jennifer, was leaked by Labour press secretary Julie Hall on the 26th March). The view inside the Labour Party was, however, that the huge volume of coverage the story generated in the UK's local and regional media did the party tremendous good. However, as told by
Philip Gould the controversy made the party back off the issue of health at a national level.The Conservative Party went on to win the 1992 election by a narrow majority of 21 seats. Labour leader
Neil Kinnock resigned three days afterwards. Jennifer's father, John Bennett, went on to become a critic of the health provision achieved byTony Blair 's Labour government.Other 'Health War' Controversies
The War of Jennifer's Ear now serves as the
type specimen in British political discussions, for politicalrhetoric that leans on specific cases, as opposed to broad statistics, particularly in the context of debates over healthcare. Such foundations are acknowledged to be hazardous for politicians to employ in any decisive argument. The tactic has nonetheless been repeated on several occasions, at each of which headline writers attempt to formulate a new version of the 'war of' label:
* Mavis Skeet2000 - A cancer patient died inLeeds after four times having surgery postponed by a lack of available intensive care beds. The scandal was raised by a newspaper, and resulted in significant government reviews [http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=962152] .
* Rose Addis2002 - Conservative leaderIain Duncan Smith criticised the government's record by illustrating the case of a 94-year old woman who he claimed had been neglected in a hospital. The Labour Party's story - that Addis had refused care from staff because they were black - was not widely believed when it emerged that several of her regular carers were black.
* Anonymous2004 - Conservative leaderMichael Howard complained that aFolkestone constituent of his was told to wait 20 months for vital radiotherapy. The issue cooled off after he discovered that a clerical error had occurred - the wait was in fact scheduled to be 20 weeks.
* Margaret Dixon2005 - Conservative leaderMichael Howard attempted to show, in the run-up to theUnited Kingdom general election, 2005 , that the incumbent Labour Party was failing the NHS. Mrs Dixon ofWarrington was cited to illustrate the increase in cancelled operations, a statistic Labour quickly dismissed as the consequence of increases in overall operations performed.
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.