BEING an inveterate cynic and long-time hack, it takes quite a lot to shock your columnist when it comes to the conduct of our elected representatives.

As has previously been noted, it is firmly of the opinion that you can tell when a politician is lying because their lips are moving.

But even by their standards this week has been spectacular in terms of the disingenuous, deceitful and downright duplicitous utterances spewing forth from Westminster.

When you have peers and government ministers claiming that Britain should refuse to rescue drowning asylum-seekers as it was liable to mean others would risk their lives in a desperate bid to escape slaughter, climate destruction and US foreign policy — while simultaneously claiming that areas of Britain were being “swamped” by foreigners — is beyond crass.

Yes, it has emerged that Britain is refusing to support the new, severely scaled-down EU “border protection” operation, which will take over from the highly successful Italian search-and-rescue operation, Mare Nostrum, this weekend.

Now the keen-eyed among you may have spotted a significant distinction between the new “border protection” operation and the previous policy of “search and rescue.”

Namely there’s no longer any mention of rescuing anybody, more a case of telling them to sod off back where they came from.

What are the uniforms going to be? White sheets and pointy hats? Maybe some helpful burning crosses on the beach to make sure boats don’t, ahem, “accidentally” run aground…

Why stop there? Why not give the life guards biometric passport scanners so they can ensure they’re not inadvertently rescuing freeloading foreigners.

Tory peer and newly appointed Foreign Office Minister Lady Anelay (pictured) — aptly named for someone who appears to spend most of their time enunciating via their colon — set this particular cat among the pigeons.

In a written answer to the House of Lords she stated, and I quote: “We do not support planned search-and-rescue operations in the Mediterranean,” adding that the government believed there was “an unintended ‘pull factor,’ encouraging more migrants to attempt the dangerous sea crossing and thereby leading to more tragic and unnecessary deaths.”

So basically the potential deaths of thousands of asylum-seekers from drowning due to the Tories’ callousness is in reality merely a case of a benevolent form of “pour encourager les autres.”

Tellingly Voltaire, to whom the above quote is attributed, also said: “It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”

Sounds like Western policy in a nutshell.

The government’s refusal to support search-and-rescue operations was described as “shameful” and a “new low,” in the Commons on Thursday.

With their track record, that’s saying something.

Only days previously the Secretary of State for Offence —  er, I mean Defence — Michael Fallon, continuing with the “drowning” motif, claimed that some towns in England were being “swamped” by foreigners.

Not just that but they were effectively “under siege” and if you’ve ever attempted to fire a trebuchet in a quagmire you know how awkward that can be.

Fallon, showing yet again what a man of principle he is, recoiled from the backlash and claimed he may have spoken “carelessly.”

Time to brush off that copy of Bigotry for Beginners, Mikey Boy. Rule number one, never conflate your reactionary knee-jerk sound bites.

As if that wasn’t bad enough he then received the backing of that old fascist David “Torquemada” Blunkett.

The former Labour home secretary praised Fallon for his remarks, but then that’s hardly surprising because he got into hot water for saying basically exactly the same thing in 2002.

 “For all (the) condemnation, I believe that both Michael Fallon and I were right to speak out on this issue and to voice the concerns of ordinary voters,” Blunkett wrote in a Daily Mail article.

“Just because immigration is deeply controversial, that cannot mean that we should avoid talking about it.”

In the pages of the Daily Heil, presumably. Always guaranteed to generate well-informed debate and discussion.

Turning his attention to Nigel Farage and his motley crew Blunkett wrote, with no apparent sense of irony, that: “Ukip’s entire political stance is inflammatory, since it is based on stoking up divisions. They are the masters of scaremongering and scapegoating.”

Now this is of course true, although it gives the right-wing nut jobs far too much credit.

When it comes to scaremongering and scapegoating they could learn a thing or two from the Tories and new Labour.

All they’re really doing is throwing the odd incendiary device into the mix and sitting back and laughing as all the main parties scurry to follow their xenophobic lead.

Which they are doing in predictably Pavlovian fashion.

To give Blunkett his due, however, it must be said that he’s been a bigot for far longer than Ukip has been around.

All of which rank hypocrisy brings us to the case of Equalities Minister Nicky Morgan.

Morgan, who voted against the introduction of same-sex marriages, claiming such unions should be “between a man and a woman,” has now apparently changed her mind.

She said if the vote was held again she would “probably” vote in favour and that her decision to vote No had been influenced by her constituents.

“I wish people had come forward earlier to say that ‘actually we’d like you to support it’,” she cravenly stated.

Translation: “It’s all their fault.”

So, to sum up, according to Morgan, she voted No because she didn’t want to lose her seat. And now…

So much for conviction politics.