In politics is honesty the best policy?

On the whole, taken in the round, by and large, weighing the pros and cons, I think so.  From that introduction you can judge the strength of my commitment.  I am provoked to this wobbling, feeble conclusion because much to my surprise I have been hoist in my own petard by young George Osborne, our aspiring Chancellor of the Exchequer.  Of course, it goes without saying that Tory Central Office reads this blog assiduously although I am frequently disappointed that they fail to act on my considered advice more often!  I have been boring on advising for some time that the Tories must climb down from the ivory tower of dreams erected for them on borrowed money by the Labour party and tell the British public what they already know in their heart of hearts, that as a nation we lack a financial pot to piss in!  Indeed, that there is a very good chance that the pot itself might be repossessed by the pot-lenders who actually own it. 

Of course, I didn't listen to young George Osborne's speech yesterday, life is too short and get shorter by the minute, but I gather from the hacks that whilst he failed to tell the whole story, he did at least give away part of the plot, enough anyway, to send shivers down a few wallets.  Most of those wallets are in the back pockets and handbags of people working for the state.  Thanks to Brown's 12-year-old, gerrymandering policy of creating hundreds of thousands of (non) jobs in the public sector - there are now in excess of 5m of them - Osborne's 'honesty' is a high-risk strategy when faced with an imminent election. 

How will the voters re-act?  I don't know.  In a democracy, we get the government we deserve, so if in fact we are a nation of 'stoopids' then we will 'enjoy' another 5 years of Gordon Brown, thus continuing the real-life example of a one-eyed man leading the blind.  However, there might just be a chance that my fellow subjects have finally awoken and smelled, not the coffee, but the ersatz crap we have been sold over the last 12 years.  Of course, Osborne did not tell the whole truth and practical politics was his reason.  He might risk raising a whinny of nervousness amongst the frightened horses but he certainly did not want to start a stampede.  Labour will be forced to cough up more bad news at the time of the budget report in a few weeks - unless, of course, realising that they are a lost cause at the election they throw decency and love of country away and promise to spend and spend even more as a ploy to make the Tories look like 'Lord Gradgrind'.  At least now, the Tories can cloak themselves with a small figleaf of honesty and say they (partly) told us the truth.  Whether it does any good, of course, depends on you . . . and you . . . and  . . .

Comments

[Bearded Socialist]

Now, this is an interesting topic. One neither you nor I monopolise.
I believe absolutely in honesty in politics, that is I believe it would be a great idea, not that it happens. For whatever reasons politics is the art of using lots of words to say something which commits the speaker to nothing. Why? Perhaps because they get away with it. Some will attack them for their insincerity, others will decline to care.
I'm yet to be convinced that a bit of tinkering around the edges with the public sector (and i disagree about your 'non-jobs' rant) will tackle the nation's finances, and staking it all on that and the claim to honesty from Cameron and Osborne is sadly laughable. I say sadly because I'd like to see politics in a better state, my lot are far from perfect, i know that

[David Duff]

As so often inpolitics the answer lies somewhere in the mush middle-ground. I always give the example of Maggie Thatcher who was often 'econimical with the actualite' - but you alwys knew because she looked and sounded uncomfortable wiht it. Only the spectacularly dim would ever have been takenby her attempts at prevarication - just like Boris on that amusing clip you showed over at your place.

Also, I think there is a deeper 'truth' and/or 'honesty' in politics. Maggie, like some Labour politicians of old (and even one or two today) was a conviction politician, her views were based on a firm philosophical foundation which guided her responses to the sudden eruptions of day-to-day politics. No-one, I think could claim that they didn't know where she was leading them. And her determination to push through reforms she thought necessary very nearly did for her - the Falklands war was a blessing for her. It is this lack of thought-through ideology which is so lacking today - and its scarcity is evident on both sides of the House. Cameron, I suspect, is all too aware that Maggie, by pursuing her ideology, might have fallen at the first election. He cannot rely on another Falklands!

[dearieme]

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
T. S. Eliot

[David Duff]

Well, he didn't seem to add very much to it. Not, he added hastily, that I am an expert but I did once try reading one of his plays and some of his 'poetry', all of which I found to be totally obscure. Mind you, apparently he made no effort to hide his intention of aiming solely at people with a good grounding in the classics, so that let me out.