Paul Buckingham - Blog Philosophy and life in general

Although we have looked at the question of hypocrisy before, hypocrisy is a constantly evolving presence in our public life. But to go back to the beginning. The original Greek word from which we have our word ‘hypocrisy’ meant simply to feign or play a part. But a more literal translation is that of ‘speaking from underneath’. Greek actors wore masks to represent the part they were playing and so what they said came from ‘underneath’ their mask.

At some level, though, we are all hypocrites. Life requires a certain degree of hypocrisy – play-acting - for us just to get by. Children want to be seen as adults. Adults want to be seen in the best possible light. As a young lawyer, I had to pretend to have more confidence and lawyerly wisdom than I actually had.

I suppose there are many whose innate character is suited to the life they wish to lead, but for the rest of us, there is always something of a tension between how we think of ourselves and what we portray to the outside world. So to get on in life, you sometimes have to adopt a character which is not yours naturally. And sometimes, fortunately, the adopted character starts to fit.

But words evolve and what was a description of how acting was done in ancient times has now taken on a pejorative meaning. To be labelled as a hypocrite is not a good thing. Examples abound in public life of people exposed for doing something immoral or illegal while criticising others for doing the same thing.

On Sunday, we had the unedifying spectacle of the interview with the Socialist peer and architect of New Labour, Peter Mandelson, the man sent to Washington to act as the UK ambassador to the USA and Trump whisperer.

His involvement with Epstein had been known, and he would have met Trump as one of his then friends. But he had said that he knew nothing about the excesses of Epstein’s ‘pleasure island’ and its many massage parlours (even though he stayed there) or the very young passengers on the ‘Lolita Express’.

He had ‘forgotten’ that he had sent numerous emails to Epstein after he had been imprisoned in 2008 for paedophilia, strongly encouraging him in his attempts to clear his name and saying what a wonderful friend he was. Apparently that tranche of his emails had gone missing. And so when they were rediscovered, after a rather more thorough search, Starmer had him removed him from his post, saying that new information had come to light, information not previously available...

Whilst expressing regret for what had happened and for the damage inflicted on the lives of numerous young women, Mandelson took no personal responsibility for it. This of course leaves entirely out of the picture the glamorous lifestyle he had enjoyed largely at Epstein’s expense and the advantages, personal and financial, enjoyed by moving in the upper circles of society. So no responsibility for what underpinned it.

To me it was reminiscent of the interview with the Prince formerly known as Andrew. There was no recognition of his part in a world which was intrinsically corrupt and antithetical to any Socialist values. I think that counts as hypocrisy.

We have now all heard of the latest unpleasant manifestation of Mr Musk’s AI tool, Grok. From just a few users there are now hundreds of thousands of requests for what started off as bikini images of random people, but have now turned into actual pornography.

In response, to the government’s criticism Mr Musk has turned this aspect of Grok into a premium service, confined to his paid subscribers. He says that to turn it off altogether would be ban on free speech and accuses the UK of being a fascist state. He has also created several images of Sir Keir in a bikini.

The legal experts say that our recently enacted ‘Online Safety Act’ would not make illegal a command to create an image with a bikini, but that going further would be likely to be an infringement. So where are we?

Cartoonists produce all sorts of unkind and unflattering images of people they wish to lampoon, but simply putting images of ordinary women and kids online is not part of that tradition. It is an attempt to reduce them into being objects.

The response of Mr Musk should instead be measured by looking at the American equivalent: “The Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act, or TAKE IT DOWN Act”. It deals with non-consensual intimate imagery or deepfakes posted to online sites and social media applications. So then the direct equivalent of our online safety act.

The bill was introduced by Senator Ted Cruz in June 2024, passed both houses by near unanimous votes by April 2025, and was signed into law by President Donald Trump on May 19, 2025 with the encouragement of Melania. More hypocrisy by Mr Musk.

It seems that change is happening in the Green party in the UK. Their charismatic leader (and sometime hypnotist to ladies wanting to need a larger bra size) has decided that the environmental morality of members of the party need not be quite so strict. People can still be environmentalists if they drive, fly and eat meat, the leader of the Green Party has said.

Polanski, lives in London, is vegan and does not fly or drive. He told The Times. “Someone can be an environmentalist and still not be able to make those choices. “Because you can care about the planet but still need to drive your kids to school because there’s not an alternative option that’s affordable.” Generous of him, but in complete contrast to the views of his predecessors.

Zack Polanski, elected in September has overseen a surge in party members to a total of 184,000. But in order to get those larger numbers, he evidently feels that a slackening of the more puritanical aspect of their policy is needed. “There is far too much focus on individual responsibility,” he said. “Shell and BP in the Seventies and Eighties knew what they were doing to the planet through their actions, so they created the idea of the carbon footprint to move the focus away from systemic change from governments and businesses and focus on individual responsibility.”

I’m not sure though what his argument amounts to if not that what his party represents is unrealistic. If we continue wanting to buy the oil companies’ products then, being good capitalists, they will continue supplying us. They depend on our demand. A better argument might be one of despair: that nothing that we as individuals can do will make any noticeable difference.

The latest political upheaval involves another convert from the Tories to Reform UK: Nadhim Zahawi is portrayed by Reform as one of the big beasts of the Conservative party.

His claim to fame is that he was Chancellor of the Exchequer under Johnson. This was for the two months between Rishi Sunak resignation to bring down Boris Johnson and Johnson’s actual resignation. So obviously a big-hitter.

He now says that Britain is “drinking in the last-chance saloon” and on the brink of “civil unrest”, despite a lack of any evidence.

And the Tories said that Zahawi had asked for a peerage several times, something he does not deny.

Although the name meant something to me, I couldn’t place him. Then I was reminded that he had to resign as Conservative Party chairman because he had lied about an HMRC investigation into his tax affairs while he was Chancellor, one involving a failed tax avoidance scheme and offshore trusts. It cost him about £5 million in interest, penalties and the overdue tax*.

At the press conference Zahawi made no mention of his tax affairs. He did however defend his decision to join Reform despite describing the Farage in 2015 as “offensive and racist” and claiming “I would be frightened to live in a country run by you”.

And so in the world of right wing politics a lying, tax-evading politician can be regarded as our saviour. Or perhaps as Kemi Badenoch’s spokesman said: “Another has-been politician looking for their next gravy train”?

Paul Buckingham

12 January 2026

*For the unedifying details see the web-site of the tax expert Dan Neidle and his associates:

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2023/01/19/zahawi_story/

	Hypocrisy

	Although we have looked at the question of hypocrisy before, hypocrisy is a constantly evolving presence in our public life. But to go back to the beginning. The original Greek word from which we have our word ‘hypocrisy’ meant simply to feign or play a part. But a more literal translation is that of ‘speaking from underneath’. Greek actors wore masks to represent the part they were playing and so what they said came from ‘underneath’ their mask. At some level, though, we are all hypocrites. Life requires a certain degree of hypocrisy – play-acting - for us just to get by. Children want to be seen as adults. Adults want to be seen in the best possible light. As a young lawyer, I had to pretend to have more confidence and lawyerly wisdom than I actually had. I suppose there are many whose innate character is suited to the life they wish to lead, but for the rest of us, there is always something of a tension between how we think of ourselves and what we portray to the outside world. So to get on in life, you sometimes have to adopt a character which is not yours naturally. And sometimes, fortunately, the adopted character starts to fit. But words evolve and what was a description of how acting was done in ancient times has now taken on a pejorative meaning. To be labelled as a hypocrite is not a good thing. Examples abound in public life of people exposed for doing something immoral or illegal while criticising others for doing the same thing. On Sunday, we had the unedifying spectacle of the interview with the Socialist peer and architect of New Labour, Peter Mandelson, the man sent to Washington to act as the UK ambassador to the USA and Trump whisperer. His involvement with Epstein had been known, and he would have met Trump as one of his then friends. But he had said that he knew nothing about the excesses of Epstein’s ‘pleasure island’ and its many massage parlours (even though he stayed there) or the very young passengers on the ‘Lolita Express’. He had ‘forgotten’ that he had sent numerous emails to Epstein after he had been imprisoned in 2008 for paedophilia, strongly encouraging him in his attempts to clear his name and saying what a wonderful friend he was. Apparently that tranche of his emails had gone missing. And so when they were rediscovered, after a rather more thorough search, Starmer had him removed him from his post, saying that new information had come to light, information not previously available... Whilst expressing regret for what had happened and for the damage inflicted on the lives of numerous young women, Mandelson took no personal responsibility for it. This of course leaves entirely out of the picture the glamorous lifestyle he had enjoyed largely at Epstein’s expense and the advantages, personal and financial, enjoyed by moving in the upper circles of society. So no responsibility for what underpinned it. To me it was reminiscent of the interview with the Prince formerly known as Andrew. There was no recognition of his part in a world which was intrinsically corrupt and antithetical to any Socialist values. I think that counts as hypocrisy. We have now all heard of the latest unpleasant manifestation of Mr Musk’s AI tool, Grok. From just a few users there are now hundreds of thousands of requests for what started off as bikini images of random people, but have now turned into actual pornography. In response, to the government’s criticism Mr Musk has turned this aspect of Grok into a premium service, confined to his paid subscribers. He says that to turn it off altogether would be ban on free speech and accuses the UK of being a fascist state. He has also created several images of Sir Keir in a bikini. The legal experts say that our recently enacted ‘Online Safety Act’ would not make illegal a command to create an image with a bikini, but that going further would be likely to be an infringement. So where are we? Cartoonists produce all sorts of unkind and unflattering images of people they wish to lampoon, but simply putting images of ordinary women and kids online is not part of that tradition. It is an attempt to reduce them into being objects. The response of Mr Musk should instead be measured by looking at the American equivalent: “The Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act, or TAKE IT DOWN Act”. It deals with non-consensual intimate imagery or deepfakes posted to online sites and social media applications. So then the direct equivalent of our online safety act. The bill was introduced by Senator Ted Cruz in June 2024, passed both houses by near unanimous votes by April 2025, and was signed into law by President Donald Trump on May 19, 2025 with the encouragement of Melania. More hypocrisy by Mr Musk. It seems that change is happening in the Green party in the UK. Their charismatic leader (and sometime hypnotist to ladies wanting to need a larger bra size) has decided that the environmental morality of members of the party need not be quite so strict. People can still be environmentalists if they drive, fly and eat meat, the leader of the Green Party has said. Polanski, lives in London, is vegan and does not fly or drive. He told The Times. “Someone can be an environmentalist and still not be able to make those choices. “Because you can care about the planet but still need to drive your kids to school because there’s not an alternative option that’s affordable.” Generous of him, but in complete contrast to the views of his predecessors. Zack Polanski, elected in September has overseen a surge in party members to a total of 184,000. But in order to get those larger numbers, he evidently feels that a slackening of the more puritanical aspect of their policy is needed. “There is far too much focus on individual responsibility,” he said. “Shell and BP in the Seventies and Eighties knew what they were doing to the planet through their actions, so they created the idea of the carbon footprint to move the focus away from systemic change from governments and businesses and focus on individual responsibility.” I’m not sure though what his argument amounts to if not that what his party represents is unrealistic. If we continue wanting to buy the oil companies’ products then, being good capitalists, they will continue supplying us. They depend on our demand. A better argument might be one of despair: that nothing that we as individuals can do will make any noticeable difference. The latest political upheaval involves another convert from the Tories to Reform UK: Nadhim Zahawi is portrayed by Reform as one of the big beasts of the Conservative party. His claim to fame is that he was Chancellor of the Exchequer under Johnson. This was for the two months between Rishi Sunak resignation to bring down Boris Johnson and Johnson’s actual resignation. So obviously a big-hitter. He now says that Britain is “drinking in the last-chance saloon” and on the brink of “civil unrest”, despite a lack of any evidence. And the Tories said that Zahawi had asked for a peerage several times, something he does not deny. Although the name meant something to me, I couldn’t place him. Then I was reminded that he had to resign as Conservative Party chairman because he had lied about an HMRC investigation into his tax affairs while he was Chancellor, one involving a failed tax avoidance scheme and offshore trusts. It cost him about £5 million in interest, penalties and the overdue tax. At the press conference Zahawi made no mention of his tax affairs. He did however defend his decision to join Reform despite describing the Farage in 2015 as “offensive and racist” and claiming “I would be frightened to live in a country run by you”. And so in the world of right wing politics a lying, tax-evading politician can be regarded as our saviour. Or perhaps as Kemi Badenoch’s spokesman said: “Another has-been politician looking for their next gravy train”? Paul Buckingham 12 January 2026 For the unedifying details see the web-site of the tax expert Dan Neidle and his associates: https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2023/01/19/zahawi_story/
	Home A Point of View Philosophy Who am I? Links Photos of Annecy