Practising to deceive

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. Statecraft is the art of getting the public to do things they would not willingly do by consistent and deliberate lying.

In The Rise of Political Lying Peter Oborne alleges that the central lie of the Blair administration is that the new Labour government belongs to the first school, and is exceptionally truthful, when in fact it belongs to the second and uses deception as a standard method of state. It is a serious charge. Does Oborne prove his case?

There is no doubt that Tony Blair has always claimed to be an exceptionally honest and truthful politician. He is quoted as telling the House of Commons in February 2002 that he would dismiss any minister who lied. Yet in practice he has defended untruthful ministers who lied to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.