William Reesmogg

Practising to deceive

issue 30 April 2005

There are two views about the morality of political lying. The first is the classical British view that politicians should always tell the truth, as people should in private life. This view is usually qualified, as William Waldegrave qualified it before the Treasury and Civil Services Committee of the House of Commons: ‘In exceptional circumstances it is necessary to say something that is untrue to the House of Commons. The House of Commons understands that and accepts that.’ Such lies are only justified to protect a major public interest, where a refusal to answer would be taken as a confirmation of the fact, as in devaluation of the currency.

The alternative view is that politics is a business, like that of secret intelligence, which necessarily involves continuous deception. People, and particularly democratic voters, do not know what is good for them, and can only be persuaded by deceipt. To lead a horse out of a burning stable, it is necessary to put a bag on its head.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in