Just accept that they\’re all lying, theiving, bastards

Graduates admit politics is \’too complicated\’ for them
More than a third of people with degrees in Britain admit that they cannot follow politics because it goes over their head, an official study into public attitudes to government shows.

Among people educated to GCSE or O Level standard, almost two thirds admit that politics and government were \”too complicated\” to follow.

It\’s true that not all of them are indeed lying thieving bastards. Some of them are simply too stupid to know how to dissimulate or get their snouts in the trough. But as a general rule we\’re close enough: those who demand your money at gunpoint in order to satisfy their own desires are indeed lying thieving bastards. Or, as we colloquially call them, politicians.

There, no degree nor O level needed to understand the system.

20 comments on “Just accept that they\’re all lying, theiving, bastards

  1. I don’t think they are all lying thieving bastards. I don’t think Enoch Powell lied or thieved in his long career much at all.

    As you can see, being a non- lying thieving bastard is very much a mixed blessing.

    I tend to think that being a lying thieving bastard in politics is a good thing. Some of our best politicians have been lying thieving bastards. It is the straight-as-a-die upright men of principle that have brought Britain low. It was pirates and thieves that made Britain great. It was prattling Methodists that brought her down.

  2. Well, my MP is the Egregious Joyce …

    Powell was an Int Corps Officer – I suspect he lied like a complete bastard much of that career (it being his job so to do. Pace the definition of ‘diplomat’.) Whether he lied or not once he was an MP, I have no idea. His career really was before my time.

  3. Surreptitious Evil – “Powell was an Int Corps Officer – I suspect he lied like a complete bastard much of that career (it being his job so to do. Pace the definition of ‘diplomat’.)”

    Why would he lie doing Intel work? Especially the sort of intel work he was doing – planning campaigns and listening to German radio.

    “Whether he lied or not once he was an MP, I have no idea. His career really was before my time.”

    You were too young in 1987?

    3Surreptitious Evil – “Don’t forget the Presbyterians!”

    How could I forget those Scots b@stards.

    But Lloyd George was a lying thieving bastard. Perhaps a murderer too. Certainly a cheat in many ways. And a little too sympathetic to the Nazis. On the other hand, would Britain have won WW1 without him?

  4. I spent five and a half years in the TA Int Corps, working on field security, combat intelligence, debriefing (ie interrogation) and I had a little bit of training in Psy Ops. At no stage did I encounter any injunction to lie, although there was certainly scope for it in debriefing work. OTOH, I never saw active service, so what do I know?

  5. One other thing, I have some small sympathy for the ignorant to whom Tim refers: pols assiduously cultivate the notion that what they do is both indispensable and given only to certain elevated souls to achieve. Sometimes, as when they draft in ‘experts’ or put matters out to consultation, they implicitly accept that they’ve got no idea what they’re doing either.

  6. You were too young in 1987?

    Too young to vote …

    At no stage did I encounter any injunction to lie, although there was certainly scope for it in debriefing work.

    Well, I’ve spent years in coalition ops, where the other coalition members are somewhere between ‘vaguely trusted as long as they’re not pointing weapons in your direction’ (Yanks), ‘probably actually the enemy’ (most of them) and ‘we know they are out to get us’ (the French with the honourable exception of la Legion). Lying by omission is the norm.

  7. Anyway, what’s so intellectually difficult about 2 (and 2 thirds) herds of pigs fighting to be first at the trough. Just vote for the pig you’d be least embarrassed snogging.

    Or, in the words of the sage “don’t vote, it just encourages them.”

  8. Some of our best politicians have been lying thieving bastards. It is the straight-as-a-die upright men of principle that have brought Britain low.

    To paraphrase Simon Raven’s Lord Canteloupe (only paraphrasing cos I can’t find the better original): “You’re always better off doing business with a complete bastard than a man of principle. At least you know a complete bastard will always act like a bastard. It’s the others who will happily go along with you and then suddenly drop in the shit without warning and then go round whining that it was their moral duty.”

    My own take; it’s always preferable to be ruled by the venal rather than the santimonious. Because the venal aren’t averse to you getting what you want, as long as they get what they want first and the two don’t conflict. But the santimonious are actively opposed to you getting what you want because they think it’s bad for you.

  9. I read something interesting about Anthony Eden the other day. Back in the 1950s, at the time of BP’s (first) nationalisation by the Iranians, Eden found himself thrust into a government position whereby he would be drafting a policy towards Iran. This meant he had a considerable conflict of interest with his ownership of many BP shares, which at the time were understandably trading at a serious loss. After much deliberation, he sold them at rock-bottom price such that they would not influence his policy-making. He incurred such a financial loss that he had to sell his house.

    Now, can you imagine any MP from the modern era doing this? Quite the contrary. This lot would deliberately craft the policy such that their own investment was maximised!

  10. Now, can you imagine any MP from the modern era doing this?

    I’m not an expert, but isn’t that the whole point of blind trusts?

  11. Politicians have managed to convince masses of electors, that what they do is difficult. Yet when voting there are two simple rules that even a 5 year old could understand.

    1) Vote for the party you find least bad
    2) If in doubt vote against the current lot

  12. The trouble is it’s not all that simple.

    Take the Police Commissioner elections, in which I get to vote shortly. Here are my choices:

    Tory. Local gravy-trainer, with no visible,policy platform apart from generally keeping people happy.

    UIKP. I would be tempted (I tend to vote that way), however their man spent most of his offical talking spot on the election website informing me how much he wants to come down on imigration, which struck me as both wrong (I belive in allowing free movement of labour, although not in benefit tourism), and completely irrelevant to the job (given round here is a rural area which is racially 99.9% white European, with the only substantal migrant population being a few Poles).

    Independent – sounded rather to the left of Trotsky.

    There were also Labour and Lib-dem candidates, but I didn’t even bother to read their bios as I’d not vote for either on principle.

    I have up to two votes. 1st and 2nd choice.
    Do I hold my nose, and vote either Tory or Ukip (or both in either order) despite not liking either candidate, do I vote for the Trot as a protest vote on the grounds he is very unlikely to win. Do I just scrawl “none of the above” on the ballot paper? I could try and vote tactically, but it’s not clear who this contest is between (my mp’s seat is a light Con/Lab marginal, currently with a good Tory MP – I will probably vote Tory at the next GE to try and keep him).

    I know all this because I’m interested in politics, and have taken time to think about it, as well as having had to look a pile of stuff up. How joe average is meant to come to a decision as to which pig to let at the trough I’ve no idea…

  13. Sam:13

    Absolutely. The aristos had no problem with the plebs having a pint and a fag, the current ruling class foams up at the very idea.

  14. Pingback: Politics ‘too complicated’ « Homepaddock

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.