Blair was a despicable liar who (particularly over Iraq and WMDs) lowered expectations for truth from politicians. But he lied as cleverly as he could and (presumably) attempted to maintain the image of honesty.Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:34 pmBoris wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped him on the arse. Blair was more polished but hardly more honest with his army of spin doctors setting the standard.
Johnson is on a different level - a man whose very persona (constructed though it may be) seems to float on a continuous stream of self-aggrandising bullshit - a man whose first instinct on opening his mouth is to lie. His lying is much more insidious than Blair's as his strategy was to create total uncertainty by never appearing to be serious. Nothing could be taken for the truth because everything he said came with a nod and a wink. Was it a joke, was it a half-truth, was it pure bullshit? And to add to this he expected his subordinates to lie in the same way (and rewarded them accordingly). Lessons learned in the Brexit campaign showed that repeating a ridiculous lie was pretty effective. It didn't even matter if the lies or the liar were plausible (see Matt Handcock): in the face of a continuously maintained lie even the best journalists had to move on to the next question eventually. So Johnson moved us into a post-truth age of politics where no statement could really be relied on. One of the most illustrative moments of this culture was the first post-election cabinet meeting where Johnson had his ministers repeat the campaign lies about the number of new hospitals they would build and the number of new nurses to be hired etc - it was a display not of the promises they intended to keep but of pure bravado at the success of their shamelessness.
None of this is to say that Johnson is on balance better or worse than Blair. They're both monsters, just different breeds.