Time for a bit o' fun

Is Labour institutionally deceitful? I have put a poll on the side bar..please vote. Clearly this is not scientific, but I am interested to know what my regular readers think. (Don't worry, I shall do a similar poll on the Tories, so they are not going to get off either.)

At the bottom of New Labour is that terrible word, "Spin". It's news management, it is what they want us to interpret. It involves, if not lying, but omission of salient facts, often these facts are obfuscated. Fraser Nelson coined the word "Brownies" to denote the present PMs inability to be generous with the truth, for example, telling us that the election that never was, was called off so that he could "outline his vision", when everyone to everyone else it was obvious that he was going to lose.

What I mean by the question is, is that lies and deceit are the default option for Number Ten. When they have to announce something, they do not ask themselves "Are we being honest?". Instead they ask, "How will this play with the electorate?"  Moreover, they do not believe in allowing us to have facts which will show them in a bad light, which makes informed dissent difficult.

But the biggest example I can think of is the Orwellian "Freedom of Information" act, which seems to be designed to do the opposite, which is to restrict the freedom of information. Had we relied upon this instrument to understand the scandal of MPs expenses, few of the major misdemeanors would ever have seen the light of day, since the "official" releases were heavily "redacted" - blanked out so heavily as to make nonsense of the information. It took the Telegraph, and Guido Fawkes to bring the truth, the terrible truth that many of our MPs are crooks, to the attention of the public. Had it been left to Number Ten and Gordon Brown, you would never have known. (Remember Michael Martin, the corrupt Speaker?)

So then, over to you.

7 comments:

Richard said...

I don't think you go far enough. Truth means nothing to Labour now. If it advances the 'project', then it is legitimate, and the only concern is how to get it across convincingly. If it doesn't, then it is buried, and it never happened. And if you are caught out, lie some more.

I used to believe, rather naively, that the vast majority of politicians were in the game for worthy and genuine reasons. Now I am utterly cynical. The reason is New Labour, and specifically Blair and Campbell, who have destroyed my trust is the whole process. I think Labour have deceit in their DNA, but it wasn't always so. The movement was born from the highest motives, but the Animal Farm effect is inevitable, I guess.

(As a side issue, I am not prone to hating anyone. But I sincerely hate Blair. And, to my great surprise, I find myself hating Brown more. All the mendacity, none of the charm.)

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Actually you are right Richard - I didn't go far enough, and entirely agree - pragmatism is god.

I cannot decide whether to hate Brown or Blair the most. Probably Brown. Blair is a total shit, but a slick shit. Brown is a total shit, but a shit shit.

Richard said...

Hehe, spot on. In fact, these two deceitful Canutes are a kind of double-whammy to anyone's sense of hope or optimism. Blair came on to the electorate as 'whiter then white', and turned out to be a warmongering liar. Brown presented at the return to classic Labour integrity, with his moral compass and all, and turns out to be a duplicitous bully. We might be forgiven for assuming that any politician of any party who offers a 'new start' is just a lying shit lke the rest of them. And if there is no hope, where do we go from there? I believe that the damage these nasty egos have done to the fabric of our politics is huge. "Institutionally deceitful" doesn't really cover it.

Jim Baxter said...

Brown is the quite obviously the Id Monster from 'Forbidden Planet'. Thing is, when ablaze with power, so is Blair.

Dave said...

It's clever how they factor in the Law of Unintended Consequences. So much so that I can never be sure of the reason why certain laws are passed. There is always an ulterior motive, and the unintended consequence is too often the intended one.

Perhaps the revolution will make it illegal for anyone with a degree in politics to be involved in any political activity at all.
I suspect they use 1984, and Animal Farm as textbooks on how to do it, not, as Orwell intended, a warning to us. Another unintended consequence I fear

I agree with you on your assessment of Brown btw.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Thank you for pointing that out, Dave. The Police have recently been interpreting powers given to them under anti-terrorist legislation, far to liberally.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

I like the Fordidden Planet analogy, Jim. As you know, it is based on The Tempest.

Caliban/Id Monster:

"this demi-devil—
For he's a bastard one"