I’ve always wondered why admitting a mistake is seen as a weakness; why a u-turn (in the light of new evidence or a different approach) is so terrible. In the ‘real’ world it is seen as a strength, of maturity. Why not politics?
I meant “paltering” above. I also wanted to say the key problem with paltering as with basic lying is that it becomes a bidding war to the bottom. See the mess politicians have got into over immigration, health, state of the economy etc etc
Oh splendid. I now know that when I ask a question of the characteristics of a cheese or wine or whatever and the reply is “ its very popular.” Not what I asked and as a result I get irritated. I will know tell the vendor to stop paltering.
Ah yes, paltering, thank you, a new word to explain the preferred dialect of our political class. Not quite lying, not quite telling the truth, but something far more corrosive: the calculated drip of semantic cyanide into public discourse, administered by those who imagine themselves virtuous for using a teaspoon rather than a syringe.
What your examples lay bare is that modern politicians no longer even have the courage to sin properly. They crave the appearance of rectitude while indulging in the darkest arts of obfuscation a sort of cowardly Jesuitism without the intellectual rigour. When Wilson assured the nation in 1967 that the pound in your pocket had not been devalued, it wasn’t just a mistruth, it was a confession that the people could no longer be trusted with the truth and must be managed like livestock with slogans and sedatives.
Paltering is not accidental. It is the instinctive language of those who believe that governance is not about service or stewardship, but about the management of perception. It is the last refuge of mandarins who lack both the spine to rule honestly and the talent to deceive convincingly.
The irony, of course, is that in trying so hard to appear trustworthy, they render themselves unbelievable. Voters don’t despise politicians because they lie they despise them because they lie and believe themselves honourable for doing it gently. The insult is not the deception; it is the sanctimony with which it is served.
And yes, you’re right to cite Churchill. Whatever else he was and there was much he understood the moral weight of language. When he said “blood, toil, tears and sweat,” he did not insult the intelligence of the public with metrics or inflation-adjusted cowardice. He spoke like a man who believed in things, not like a press officer hoping for a favourable bounce in a snap poll.
Today, the average Cabinet minister couldn’t tell the truth if you waterboarded them with Hansard. They are trained in paltering as a priest is trained in liturgy — not to inform, but to conceal. And in doing so, they create the very conditions in which populists thrive. After all, if everyone lies, why not roll the dice on the most entertaining liar?
Until we rediscover the moral courage to say what we mean plainly, unapologetically, and without hiding behind Treasury modelling or behavioural nudges we will remain a country governed not by conviction, but by contortionists.
So yes ..paltering is a problem. But worse is the kind of civilisational fatigue that produces a
public willing to tolerate it. Fix that, and you won’t need new words you’ll have real politics again.
I’ve always wondered why admitting a mistake is seen as a weakness; why a u-turn (in the light of new evidence or a different approach) is so terrible. In the ‘real’ world it is seen as a strength, of maturity. Why not politics?
I meant “paltering” above. I also wanted to say the key problem with paltering as with basic lying is that it becomes a bidding war to the bottom. See the mess politicians have got into over immigration, health, state of the economy etc etc
Oh splendid. I now know that when I ask a question of the characteristics of a cheese or wine or whatever and the reply is “ its very popular.” Not what I asked and as a result I get irritated. I will know tell the vendor to stop paltering.
In many ways this is K Badenoch’s best way to draw a clear blue line. Her honesty would expose the altering and incompetence of both Labour and Reform
Ah yes, paltering, thank you, a new word to explain the preferred dialect of our political class. Not quite lying, not quite telling the truth, but something far more corrosive: the calculated drip of semantic cyanide into public discourse, administered by those who imagine themselves virtuous for using a teaspoon rather than a syringe.
What your examples lay bare is that modern politicians no longer even have the courage to sin properly. They crave the appearance of rectitude while indulging in the darkest arts of obfuscation a sort of cowardly Jesuitism without the intellectual rigour. When Wilson assured the nation in 1967 that the pound in your pocket had not been devalued, it wasn’t just a mistruth, it was a confession that the people could no longer be trusted with the truth and must be managed like livestock with slogans and sedatives.
Paltering is not accidental. It is the instinctive language of those who believe that governance is not about service or stewardship, but about the management of perception. It is the last refuge of mandarins who lack both the spine to rule honestly and the talent to deceive convincingly.
The irony, of course, is that in trying so hard to appear trustworthy, they render themselves unbelievable. Voters don’t despise politicians because they lie they despise them because they lie and believe themselves honourable for doing it gently. The insult is not the deception; it is the sanctimony with which it is served.
And yes, you’re right to cite Churchill. Whatever else he was and there was much he understood the moral weight of language. When he said “blood, toil, tears and sweat,” he did not insult the intelligence of the public with metrics or inflation-adjusted cowardice. He spoke like a man who believed in things, not like a press officer hoping for a favourable bounce in a snap poll.
Today, the average Cabinet minister couldn’t tell the truth if you waterboarded them with Hansard. They are trained in paltering as a priest is trained in liturgy — not to inform, but to conceal. And in doing so, they create the very conditions in which populists thrive. After all, if everyone lies, why not roll the dice on the most entertaining liar?
Until we rediscover the moral courage to say what we mean plainly, unapologetically, and without hiding behind Treasury modelling or behavioural nudges we will remain a country governed not by conviction, but by contortionists.
So yes ..paltering is a problem. But worse is the kind of civilisational fatigue that produces a
public willing to tolerate it. Fix that, and you won’t need new words you’ll have real politics again.