It is at first denied that any radical new plan exists; it is then conceded that it exists but ministers swear blind that it is not even on the political agenda; it is then noted that it might well be on the agenda but is not a serious proposition; it is later conceded that it is a serious proposition but that it will never be implemented; after that it is acknowledged that it will be implemented but in such a diluted form that it will make no difference to the lives of ordinary people; at some point it is finally recognised that it has made such a difference, but it was always known that it would and voters were told so from the outset.
– Yesterday (see below) I quoted a paragraph written by James Delingpole. The above paragraph, originally written to describe the onward march of the European Union, is quoted by Delingpole, in his book Watermelons (p. 45), to help him explain how AGW went from crankery to globally imposed policy. Delingpole found it in The Great Deception (p. 605) by Booker and North. They got it from a Times editorial, published on August 28, 2002.
Spot on! “It’s the same the whole world over….”
So why do people insist on thinking of politicians and other (more serious) policy promoters and directors as being incompetent buffoons when things appear to screw up?
They are, indeed, highly competent, tough and resourceful people who are accomplishing exactly what they intend to accomplish, give or take the occasional blaps.
An interesting question, John B. What do you make of l’affaire Theresa May (last week)?
It is easier to see this in relation to Cameron almost “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory”, after riding high in public opinion as Labour was sinking to a severe low, at the last election.
Which, of course, “necessitated” the alliance with the LibDems.
The Theresa May affair I would say has something to do with the Conservatives making themselves almost unelectable again because they are perceived as such idiots or monsters as with “granny-tax” while allowing the popular perception to develop that they are reducing the tax of the super rich.
(Throw in some banker’s bonuses to stir the pot.)
And that they are depriving the common folk with “swingeing cuts” to public services that are not cuts but allowed to seem to be so, and doing stupid and ineffective things with the NHS, just enough to make them unpopular but not actually fix anything.
And now they can’t even get a serious grip on natioanal security threats.
It makes it seem to me that the players are possibly dancing to the tune of a different (euro-collectivist?) authority whilst pretending to be British.
Exactly, JohnB. It’s kayfabe.
I’ve known about this for ages; I call it “Andrew’s four stages of EU regulation”. It goes like this:
1. There are no such plans.
2. There are such plans, but we will veto them.
3. We didn’t veto the plans, but they’ve been watered down, and we got a really good deal in exchange.
4. It was all in the treaties all along, there was actually nothing anyone could do: stop banging on about it and move on. The great deal? Oh, the French decided not to honour it.
To boil that quote down. “Liars lie.”
You/he forgot the assurances that the new policy will only be used to catch and penalize the sickest scum of our society – child-molesters, terrorists, tax-evaders, bank-managers, milkmen . . . . . .
This is how prevention-of-terrorism powers end up being used to catch people breaking recycling rules. We believed the lying buggers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q2fTSo8aoY&feature=related
llater,
llamas
And then, of course, it is argued that since we already have the new plan in place, it is only a small step to implement a few minor improvements and enhancements…
Also: I have a strong feeling that this is a Sir Humphrey speech. Or very much in the spirit of one, anyway.
Well, there is an upside to expanding non-legislated bureaucracy, at least here in the US, where policy is implemented and no one is told about it until it hits the Public Record (unless of course it’s classified). It makes it much more streamlined when the citizens, and their opinions, are removed from the process right from the beginning.
Don’t forget it’s diametrically opposite twin whereby something incredibly outrageous is floated, withdrawn then reintroduced in a much diluted form once people have become somewhat acclimatized to the idea.
Brad, it will no doubt please you to learn that Obama is taking “streamlining the process” to the next level, greatly expanding the use of Executive Orders to circumvent Congressional inaction.
O brave new world,
That hath such people in ‘t!