Boiling a frog

I've just started a book by Scottish author Christopher Brookmyre, Boiling a Frog. It's very good so far. He has some insightful comments (and I've only reached the end of chapter 2 so far).

Labour politicians had always been acused of abandoning their principles in pursuit of power, since long before Tony Balir appeared on the scene. It was part of the Tories' time-served pincer-movement staryegy: if you took a hard line you were a dangerous lefty out to wreck the economy; if you softened your position, you were an unprincipled chancer who'd do anything for a sniff of power. The Tories knew they'd never face the same charge becasue they didn't have any principles in the first place. How do you compromise a stance built on greed, materialism and xenophobia?

Of one of the characters, Elspeth Doyle, he has this to say:

That was why, in her 'unsexy' opinion, what went on in politicians' bedrooms (or indeed lavatory cubicles) was a matter of public interest, and their sexual conduct did have ramifications for their professional character. There was no greater test of character, in fact. If a politician lacked the self-discipline to deny himself indulgencs that breached the contract that he had agreed with the person who was supposed to be his closest companion, what did this say about his likely fidelity in other agreements, or even his self-discipline?

An excellent reason why the public/ private split is ridiculous.

Powered by ScribeFire.