Monday
"As for politicians' personal conduct, I doubt it is much worse, relative to other professions, than it has always been, and it is not — or should not be — the main cause for concern. Personally, I would much rather MPs had numerous extramarital affairs, their hands in the till, or lucrative second jobs exploiting inside knowledge, than that they cavalierly abolish yet another civil liberty that took hundreds of years to establish. As far as I am concerned, politicians are welcome to be not only greedy, but also dull, unapproachable, ugly, pompous, clubby, elitist or socially inept, just as long as they do not consider it their job to reform society by making up a few more laws and rushing them through parliament as quickly as possible. Sadly, the people who agree with me appear to be a very small minority."
Fabian Tassano. His blog is required reading, in my view.
I love medieval history when 'done right'. For me, it's the technologies as much as the people, so I value finds of tools even more than the finding of manuscripts. Tools, like actions, seldom lie.
Posted by Dr. Ellen at August 3, 2009 12:57 PM
The new regulations will not make the conduct of politicians any better - and will most likely be used as an excuse to pay MPs even MORE money.
However, I do not agree that personal conduct does not matter much. If a politician will betray his own wife who will he not betray?
And if a politician has his hand in the till - will he really care if lots of other people also take money from the taxpayers?
Such things should be kept in mind by the VOTERS - for it is they (not regulations and the Executive) who should decide whether people remain in the House of Commons.
Posted by Paul Marks at August 3, 2009 01:53 PM
Dr Ellen, I think you meant to comment on Brian's posting below this one.
Posted by Johnathan Pearce at August 3, 2009 02:11 PM
Amen to that. Yes, Fabian is an island of sublime delights amidst the seething ocean of the blogosphere.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at August 3, 2009 02:39 PM
I wonder, though, if those who try "to reform society by making up a few more laws" would be as successful at it if their less coercive but more venal colleagues didn't go along because more laws mean more graft.
Posted by PersonFromPorlock at August 3, 2009 02:57 PM
I do think a politician's private life is important, but I am willing to overlook flaws in many cases, and I would prefer a politician who is a philanderer but ideologically agreeable over a faithful but ideologically disagreeable politician. For example, I like Silvio Berlusconi a lot more than Gordon Brown or Barack Obama.
Posted by M at August 3, 2009 03:33 PM
I do think a politician's private life is important
I agree. To be a successful politician is to be a thief and a liar, so clearly people who are thieves and liars in their private lives are the best cut out for the job.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at August 3, 2009 05:10 PM
I entirely agree with the quote. The wrong turn our polity took seems to have occurred when this silly idea that politics should be full of bright sparks implementing "social reforms" took off in the mid nineteenth century. As I've said before, I blame the Great Reform Act 1832. Disastrous piece of legislation. Started people trusting the government.
Awful.
Posted by Ian B at August 3, 2009 11:15 PM
The wrong turn our polity took was giving the vote to non-property owners.
Posted by Laird at August 4, 2009 12:34 AM
M, you like the cryptoneofascist Berlusconi? Please elaborate...
Posted by lukas at August 4, 2009 02:56 AM
Do you include the president's mom in that "right to know" clause? Pamela Geller has some interesting photos of B.Hussien Obama's nude mom at her site... You can't make this kind of story up folks...
Posted by marc in calgary at August 4, 2009 05:36 AM
M, you like the cryptoneofascist Berlusconi? Please elaborate...
Oh please. The only people who really believe Berlusconi is a 'cryptoneofascist' are Communists and British newspapers.
Posted by M at August 4, 2009 06:37 PM
Berlusconi is a big pusher for the merger of Big Business, Big Government and Big Labor, which is one of the hallmarks of fascism all' italiana.
Posted by lukas at August 4, 2009 08:17 PM
Off on a tangent, but I've never before seen the word "cryptoneofascist". I had to break it into its parts to figure it out. Great word; I must remember to try it out. If you called someone a cryptoneofascist, (a) they'd probably have no idea what you were saying (thus affording an opportunity for smugness), and (b) even if they did, they couldn't effectively refute you because of the "crypto" part (you'd just say they were continuing the deception and thereby proving your allegation). Sort of a "have you stopped beating your wife?" concept in a single word. Brilliant!
Posted by Laird at August 6, 2009 06:07 AM
'Cryptofascist' is a smear term used by cultural Marxists to demonise opponents.
Posted by M at August 7, 2009 06:07 PM
I probably should have called him neofascist and leave it at that. It's not like he is all that secretive about it.
Posted by lukas at August 7, 2009 08:16 PM
What does the prefix "neo" add to the word? Why not just call him a "fascist" and be done with it?
On the other hand, "cryptofascist" does convey an important distinction.
Posted by Laird at August 7, 2009 08:20 PM
