A sceptic's guide to politics

Indeed, if there is anything positive to be rescued from the Iraq fiasco, it is the reaffirmation of the intelligence of common citizens who disbelieved their leaders' statements and showed more common sense than their governments.

Second, being sceptical means avoiding what George Orwell called the memory hole. Simply put: don't forget what actually happened. For example; George W.Bush claimed at a news conference in March last year that Saddam Hussein had denied weapons inspectors access and thus made war inevitable. Do you recollect that happening? Or do you remember that the inspectors were driven out not by Saddam but by the Americans warning in 2003 that their safety could no longer be guaranteed?

Memory can be a powerful weapon: Remind yourself of what happened, even if leaders suggest that you had better move on and look to the future, as Mr Howard recently implored us to do in connection with rising interest rates.

Third, being sceptical means to consider the track record of politicians and specific media outlets. If their record turns out to be patchy, should you continue to trust them? For example; then British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Howard thoroughly and rather glibly dismissed the famous 2006 Lancet study which estimated that more than 600,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the invasion.

Yet we now know that Blair's own scientific advisers had informed him that the Lancet methodology was scientifically sound and the best technique available. Howard received similar advice from prominent Australian physicians. Does this indicate a good track record?

Likewise, concerning media outlets, it makes for a very interesting afternoon to go to a public library and re-read the articles in your favourite newspaper from the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

Ask yourself how much of that information ultimately turned out to reflect reality and how much was the stuff of fairy tales. If the fairy tale quotient comes out high, might it be advisable to apply some scepticism to the same newspaper's current reporting?

Fourth, being sceptical means that you need to focus on the information. We know from much laboratory research that it takes time and effort to process negation; hence, if a report says that weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq, chances are you will mistakenly remember this in the affirmative if you are distracted while processing the information. Do not let the dog and the kids get between you and the news if you really want to know and remember what is happening.

The importance of clear, honest, and coherent public information is as important as ever, especially during an election campaign. But equally crucial is our ability to process that information.

Perhaps the most important ingredient to achieve this is by approaching information with healthy scepticism, using the four techniques outlined.