Speaking is relatively easy. The thinking bit is harder. So always be sure the brain is in gear before putting the jaw in motion: I have never forgotten that admonition. The same is true for writing, don’t you think, Mr Editor? Well, we try. So when readers write it gets even better; right on, readers, even when, no especially when, you think we‘ve got it wrong. What was it that Alan Greenspan, the famed US economist was reputed to have said when challenged? “I guess I should warn you, if you think I’ve been particularly clear, then you have probably misunderstood what I’ve said”. Exactly.

It happens.

So I turn to one avid reader (she says) who understands me pretty well (I think) who recently drew my attention to an opinion piece in The Guardian newspaper penned by Warwick Smith headlined: “Why politicians must lie — and how selling ice creams is like an election campaign”. Hmmn.

Intrigued? I was.

You can check it out for yourself online (www.theguardian/commentisfree/2014/aug/27). I share with you my own take on what he had to say:

* Most politicians enter politics for sound, ideological reasons, with the best of intentions: to make their country a better place by whatever measures they see as important.

* However, implementing those measures means getting elected and winning the government and once elected getting re-elected.

* His conclusion: “Politicians must choose to either stand up for what they believe or maximise the vote. To put it bluntly: they either lie or they lose.” Ouch.

As if that wasn’t enough, he goes on: “Few expect politicians to tell the truth and few are particularly surprised or affected when lies are exposed. Why is this the universal experience of politics in most developed democracies? It turns out the answer is related to ice cream.”

Ice cream?! Yes, ice cream; more specifically, according to Mr Smith, the positioning of ice cream stalls, ie the best place to set up the stall, where the vendor will attract the most customers — and he uses diagrams to illustrate the point. The best spot happens to be in the centre of the political spectrum (no surprise there) and, wherever possible, right beside your opposition, exhibiting just enough difference to be distinguishable but still readily recognisable by your side of the political spectrum, ie your party’s support base.

Heck, it is not easy trying to be all things to all people — or, rather, enough people to win a majority — and this I know from experience. However, this is only half the battle. The other half is what happens once elected.

The Guardian’s Mr. Smith draws upon the 2013 federal election in his home country of Australia. He thought the coalition government there employed four winning strategies: -

* They exaggerated about the record of the government they replaced;

* They made promises they knew they would or could not keep;

* They made promises to corporate (major) donors they intended to keep; and,

* Excused themselves from any breaches of promises because of the Government debt and budget crisis (both of which, he appears to suggest) were manufactured down under for political purposes).

Now you may or may not think this of any relevance here in Bermuda. Readers can (and will) join in with their own opinions. Similarly, Australians will agree or not with Mr Smith’s analysis. But his underlying view was and is that lying is not really much of an electoral liability when all contenders do it — and do it as a matter of necessity, which is to get elected and re-elected.

But then there is also this point: voters all know and understand what’s going on — and accept it. “That’s politics, Mr B.” I hear you but I am not so sure.

There is still this quaint and honourable tradition in the House on the Hill: members are not permitted to accuse one another of lying. The very word itself is verboten and the Speaker will intervene at its mere mention. Honourable men and women do not do that sort of thing. Instead, there are mistakes or errors or misrepresentations, or even better, terminological inexactitudes. That’s one way of addressing the issue.

Here’s another: you might think there is a welcome place (and a need) in Bermuda for the sort of independent fact-checkers that have emerged in other jurisdictions, including Australia. You may be familiar with some, like the more famous www.factcheck.org which features in the United States. There are a multiplicity of websites in fact, monitoring and reporting on the validity of politicians’ claims, some of which are picked up and featured by major news outlets. The key, of course, is determining which ones really are independent and accurate.

There is no guarantee that their work will in any way inhibit or correct or modify behaviour. But there is nothing wrong with a check and a balance to try and keep politicians, parties and their partisans on the straight and narrow. It is one of the reasons why I also fervently believe in the efficacy of a more robust parliamentary committee system to keep an eye on the work of the Government as well as to provide a forum for the public to ask questions and make comment.

The late US Senator Daniel Moynihan once famously said: “You’re entitled to your own opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” Hey now, that’s my opinion too.