A tale of two shities

I'm not going to give a running commentary on the Conservative party leadership, because even a light jog would be exhausting. I will say something about a couple of recent developments though.


Here we Gove

Let's do the less interesting one first : Michael Gove's admission of trying cocaine. The only noteworthy thing here is the revelation that Michael Gove is interesting enough to have tried cocaine. I don't care all that much that be broke the law or even about the crime itself, except insofar as cocaine production supports drug cartels and whanot. That aside, a crime that affects only the individual is easily forgivable. It's not like he admitted driving over hedgehogs for fun or enjoys deflowering nuns (or vice-versa) or anything.

I don't even care all that much about the hypocrisy. Of course I do care a bit, because hypocrisy is bad and should be avoided. But everyone slips from their own standards from time to time, and it's not as if he was a full-on junkie. I can forgive that. And when he says, "The thing to do is not necessarily then to say that the standards should be lowered. It should be to reflect on the lapse and to seek to do better in the future", I think he is quite right.

But therein lies what I do have a problem with. If standards aren't to be lowered, if follows that he should be punished along with everyone else found guilty of the same crime. When he says that he didn't declare drug use before becoming a minister because he wasn't asked, I think that demonstrates contempt of the law. When he says that he was fortunate to avoid prison for a profound mistake, I think that demonstrates contempt of the public. Other people have to suffer greatly for their crime - he gets to become a prominent politician. Why is it "lucky" that he avoids punishment ? Isn't punishment supposed to be about deterrence and rehabilitation ? Yes, yes, I know it doesn't do that terribly well in practise, but the point is that a politician thinking it's "lucky" to evade justice is an abhorrent thing. Which nicely sums up what I think of Michael Gove as a human being.

This probably won't win me any followers, but it's the same with Julian Assange : "no, I don't need to participate in the judicial system, because it won't treat me fairly". When we start having such selective confidence in the law, we're in trouble.


Behold the BoJo

On to the second case : Boris "The Muppet" Johnson. Now Boris also may have tried cocaine, but he was never (so far as I know) a campaigner against drugs, so isn't tainted with hypocrisy on that score. He is, however, manifestly hypocritical on Europe. More importantly, he told a great big lie on the side of a great big bus, but though a prosecution was launched, the case won't go to trial.

It's important to be clear about the nature of the lie. Politicians tell falsehoods all the time, and break promises even more often. But this particular lie had some rather unusual characteristics. It concerned not (just) a promise for the future, which are always uncertain, nor did it rely on difficult estimates or predictions grounded in complex theories, nor did it even contain an opinion. Falsehoods in such things are forgivable, and often unavoidable.

For example, I can freely say, "Boris Johnson is a colossal shithead" or, "Boris Johnson is as bad as someone who eats live babies" or even, "Boris Johnson is magnificently handsome and has the best hair in the world" because those are all, implicitly but very clearly, opinions. They are all unavoidably about what I think, not about the way the world actually is. No-one can say I don't think Boris Johnson is a jerk, because I do. Prefixing some statements with "in my opinion" can be profoundly important.

Had I said, though, that Boris Johnson actually does eat live babies, that would be another matter. That would be contradictory to the observable facts. Prefixing it with "in my opinion" doesn't help, because we can test the assertion of cannibalism. Metaphors I suppose are a bit of a grey area, but it would be trivial for me to declare an article to be parody or satire - or even just laden with rhetorical hyperbole - and so license myself to say things like, "Boris Johnson is a cyborg who's neural circuitry is long past its warranty".

The Brexit bus did none of those things. It claimed as fact something which was at demonstrable odds with reality. It wasn't an estimate, or a prediction, or need any clever financial modelling to produce. It didn't rely on classified intelligence. It wasn't claimed as rhetoric or metaphor or satire. It was a statement about observable reality, not something we'd be doing in the future but something we actually are doing right now, that was refuted constantly by just about anyone who mattered. It was a lie of the most direct variety possible.

So why has the prosecution been thrown out ? We have to wait a bit to find out - and then change whatever law needs changing. Politicians do need to be able to tell falsehoods, as we all do; they should not have to go around worrying that every single statement they make must be verified in court. But if they are able to get away scot-free with such clear-cut cases as this, then they have a license to say whatever they please. Boris may be derided in the press as a moron, but Boris courts mockery rather than avoiding it. For such a man, the ill words of his peers and the press have no force.

As with all laws, we don't necessarily have to decide on the boundary conditions right away - cases which do involve predictions or statistical modelling are another matter. We just need to agree that statements as willfully contradictory to the proven current facts count as lies. The rest can wait. And again as with all laws, some people may be found innocent or be unable to be brought to trial that we disagree with. But at least having that possibility of being found guilty acts as a deterrent : Boris could potentially be found guilty in the future, whereas knowing that this case won't proceed may embolden him.

Which is why it's so important to know the judge's reasoning. Is there precedent ? Is it not considered possible to try politicians for telling lies ? Are there particular extenuating circumstances for rejecting this one, and can such things happen again ? I can imagine some very good reasons for rejecting the case, but then again I can imagine some very bad ones too. We'll see.

Gove: I was lucky to avoid jail over cocaine

Michael Gove has admitted he was "fortunate" to avoid prison after using cocaine several times 20 years ago. The Tory leadership hopeful previously said he took the class A drug while working as a journalist.