Political trade-offs make horse sense

Equine associations with political skulduggery are well documented, the term horse trading having been in use since the 1820s.

Indeed, there is a logic of sorts to using that and other terms associated with this ungulate as politicians and parties jockey to seize the reins of power with the supposed intention of engineering a “stable” government and then use a (legislative) whip to keep their flock in line.

However, it is an undeniable political fact that one can lead a horse to the water but can’t always make it drink, so even after money is ponied up, there is still a good chance of them getting skittish and hoofing it in the opposite direction.


Dark horses, in particular, are always a nightmare in a political derby because no matter how tempting the fodder, a winning run down the home stretch without spitting the bit cannot always be counted on. Even statements of support straight from the horse’s mouth are liable to be de-neighed later on.

With so much riding on stable governments these days, horse trading has become practically inevitable except when the winner is touted to be ahead by a mile.

Even so, others may try to stirrup trouble but conventional wisdom decrees that once someone is actually in the saddle — or harness, if you will — the odds are against unseating him or her without considerable effort.