In which we spot a logical error in the Telegraph

If we are to trust politicians, they must trust us

But we should not trust politicians, the lickspittle spivs that they are.

6 thoughts on “In which we spot a logical error in the Telegraph”

  1. It’s not the logic you’re disagreeing with, it’s the premise that we are to trust politicians.

    It would be reasonable also to quarrel with the other (implicit) premise, that trust has to be reciprocal. There are many commercial relationships in which one party posts security and the other relies on its reputation.

    However, the article itself is hopelessly illogical. The author asserts that in order to create general trust in politicians they should change the things she wishes to see changed and leave alone the things she wishes to conserve.

    What would actually generate trust would be if politicians took to telling the truth. That would require the electorate to stop rewarding lies. I’m not holding my breath.

  2. We used to trust politicians; they raped us.

    Trust has to be earned and they now have a lot of work to do to even think about asking for our trust. And then as Tim says, weft ell them to eff off

  3. “We used to trust politicians”

    Really? “We” who? When was that?

    The entire Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution is a statement of deep distrust not only toward politicians, but toward the whole of political process. Is there a better statement anywhere?

  4. John F – if Americans chose back then to not trust politicians thats up to them.
    I’ve known some great politicians in the UK over the years, some of whom have become good friends. As trustworthy as any other good friends.
    Political process in both US and UK is not divorced from those who want to get involved in it.

  5. Martin: At a local level I agree, but national level politicians (particularly US Senators) are far too divorced from their constituents to be trustworthy. This is in effect another restatement of what Tim calls Bjorn’s Rule or something – how can you trust someone with your money if you can’t punch him in the nose on a Friday evening? (I paraphrase).

  6. Matthew – all politics is local. Some more local than others. Have known our MP for over a decade, we disagree on certain issues and agree on others. Probably meet him out shopping as much as I meet him at events. No desire to punch someone without provocation, never come across someone giving that level of provocation.

    If US senators are so divorced from their constituents surely it would be incredibly easy for someone to generate some support and beat them. Whats the phrase used? ‘Get out the vote’?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *