This is how they do it

To the initiated, it is rather doubtful that the contents of this post will shed any light as to how our governmentalist betters act behind closed doors. As we have seen repeatedly, there is really no depth to which our betters will not sink.

To the unitiated, still think it the halls of government are filled with earnest/serious types trying to tackle the burning issues of the day for the betterment of man-kind? This post is for you. This particular example just happens to be British in nature, rinse and repeat based upon your particular locale and issues:

A Labour plot to smear the new head of the Army, General Sir David Richards, because of his daughter's 'crime' of working for David Cameron was exposed last night.

The threat to target the General, who took up his new job just nine days ago, was one of the real reasons that Labour MP Eric Joyce resigned as an aide to Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth last week.

Former soldier Mr Joyce has told friends he attended a meeting at the Ministry of Defence where a discussion took place on how to target Sir David's predecessor, General Sir Richard Dannatt, for criticising the Government's failure to give enough support to British troops.

And The Mail on Sunday has established that Mr Joyce was also disturbed to hear Labour colleagues discuss Sir David’s 25-year-old daughter, Joanna Richards, who recently became Mr Cameron's diary secretary.

These particular brilliant policy experts (as their slavish toadies would no doubt describe them in terms of utmost solemnity) aren't tackling the tough policy questions: Should the UK be in Afghanistan? If not, why not? If so, why and how can we ensure the mission is supported? All fair questions.

No, these particular experts spend their time discussing how to shoot their own guy in the back because he is deemed a "loose cannon". As an aside, in governmentalist speak the term "loose cannon" is generally synonymous with "someone who tells the truth" and anyone labled as such is to be marginalised/smeared/hounded out (we can't have our carefully agenda-ised briefings continually shown-up as farce by those closest to the situation with actual facts on their side).

To our UK readers, if you wonder why the UK policy on Afghanistan seems to be a continual shambles, what do you expect upon learning how the brilliant policy experts spend their time?

To those know-it-all jaded hack-types who fall-back on the tired old, "This is how it is always done in politics....", no worries .... just one favour please, do stop pissing on our leg and tell us it is raining outside?

Update: How can one tell the British example above is actually true? Easy, those involved are denying the charges. Not sure if the denials are real-denials, non-denial-denials or Libyanesque-denials.