which kind of hypocrisy do we want?

Following on from the Laws stuff, a reader draws my attention to this excellent discussion between Will Wilkinson and David Runciman, author of a book on political hypocrisy. I've extracted a short clip below. In brief, Runciman argues that all politicians are hypocritical, by necessity. But there are two types of hypocrisy; one is personal (contradictions between a politician's private convictions and public actions) and other is public (misleading people on the issues). He argues that we get way too hung up on the former and neglect the latter, and that this is entirely counter-productive. I agree.

The debate over on Iraq was an example - much too focused on Blair's personal integrity and not enough on the actual policy. Anyway, worth a look:

Comments

[DaveW]

Ian, you (and others) appear to be assuming that we have been robbed of the services of someone who had the best approach to our current economic crisis. It's worth noting that the US is warning (as Labour did before the election) that cutting public expenditure now puts the recovery at risk.

Also it's worth reading what Polly Toynbee had to say about Laws. "On resigning, David Laws said: "How much I regret having to leave such vital work, which I feel all my life has prepared me for." How odd that his relished life goal was to cast people out of work"

For the full article see http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/31/david-laws-cuts-agenda

[TR]

I agree with you Ian, but hypocrasy isnt the central issue.

It is no more than ironic that politicians are so hard on benefit cheats, whilst simultaneously defrauding their benefits claims.
A politician going easy on benefit fraud because he knew some of his own expenses were suspect would be all the weaker than one who disregarded his own failings.

However both parties should expect to be disciplined for their actions.