This is by Matthew Parris in The Times this morning:
(Via Tom Sutcliffe on Twitter)
Parris did not mince his words. This is another quote (via Sarah Murphy, no relation):
And this is what he has to say on the existence of cost-benefit analyses, previously denied:
Yes, it is.
I am writing this sitting a few hundred yards from Oliver Cromwell's house. What did he say when dismissing the corrupt Rump Parliament? It was this:
It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place,
which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.
Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.
Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?
Parris said much the same thing, in a different way:
Cromwell concluded:
In the name of God, go!
Let me be clear, I am not calling for a Protectorate. But the sentiment is right: in the name of whatever you might believe in it is time for this rotten government to go.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Parris seems to think that believing in what you are doing is a virtue -that’s doubtful and no doubt made him an ardent Thatcher supporter. He’s not right about the Government in general-it clearly believes in its rentier ideology. When May said the ‘Government was the customer of Carillion’ she was showing exactly what the ideology she believed in was.
Nor does Parris explain WHY the voters were put impossible position or what that impossible decision was. Johnson is like Trump-he’ll espouse anything for self-furtherance, that is transparent and not in doubt. Parris is stating the obvious but he doesn’t draw the dots and link it with his own unflinching support of the 40 rentier project whose rapine is becoming more manifest by the day -perhaps he should reflect on that.
I well remember Parris taking part in an early example of reality T.V where he tried to live of unemployment benefit for a week ( in the 80’s?)-he couldn’t do it but drew NO conclusions about the system he continued to avidly support.
I am not saying I agree with Parris on all issues
But Simon, you do have to see that their can be points of agreement even with those you often disagree with, surely?
And you must allow for the fact that a person can change their mind. I thought only neoliberals denied that?
Richard-you might , one day, help turn me into a balanced human being!
Do any of us ever truly manage tio be that?
It’s worth trying
I promise, I know I fail, often
Simon Cohen says:
February 3 2018 at 11:12 am
“Parris seems to think that believing in what you are doing is a virtue….” Oh, I think you have to admit that, Simon. For a person to deserve any respect at all they must surely have to believe in what they are proposing – even if you think they are seriously misguided.
“Nor does Parris explain WHY the voters were put [in an] impossible position or what that impossible decision was…..” I agree with Parris that this goes without saying – the electorate was asked to make a decision based on too little information and much of the information offered was no better than bullshit. From both sides of the fence.
“I well remember Parris taking part in an early example of reality T.V where he tried to live of unemployment benefit for a week ( in the 80’s?)-he couldn’t do it but drew NO conclusions about the system he continued to avidly support.”
Speaks volumes. Anybody could live on unemployment benefit for one week. That’s a cheap stunt. The fact that he admitted he couldn’t even do that merely tells you he wasn’t trying (because he didn’t need to) and I agree wholeheartedly that to continue to support a government that considered that benefit provision as being adequate is despicable.
Simon,
“When May said the ‘Government was the customer of Carillion’ she was showing exactly what the ideology she believed in was.”
Not really ideological. That was a childishly amateur attempt at passing the buck when there was no basis for doing so. The public didn’t vote for Carillion nor did they have the option of doing so. The moral there is well known in business and politics: you can outsource the work but you can’t outsource the responsibility.
That point is further reinforced in government by the Westminster principle of individual ministerial responsibility. She should have known better and fully deserved the barrage of derision she received for making that comment.
Marco/Andy fair points – my response was not well thought out and a rather malicious dig at Parris.
Richard, thanks for sharing as The Times is not something I read, as anything Murdoch owns is anathema to me. Nevertheless, worth seeing what a reformed (is he?) Thatcherite has to say on our steady – but it would appear – unstopable decent into self-inflicted harm and madness.
Talking of zealots, no doubt you may have caught a short clip of one of the zealots in chief on C4 News the other evening: Patrick Minford if I’m not mistaken. And what words of wisdom from such a mighty figure in economics? That it was impossible for the UK to be worse off after Brexit because we would be trading with the World. Yes, the WORLD (by implication, not just the EU).
I can see it now, through Minford’s eyes that is: thousands upon thousand of Samoans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, etc, etc, queing up to buy Range Rovers, or Bentleys, Duchy jam and scones, or Scotch Whisky, or Toyotas made in Derby, Nissans made in Sunderland, or Minis and Hondas, and so on.
In the latter cases of course, all of these markets are already supplied by Toyota and co from factories closer to those markets. But that’s of no worry to Minford and the Brexit maniacs. Ignore reality – THE WORLD will be our oyster.
Leaving aside the madness and deceit in all this, what makes me both sad and angry is that many of those pushing this insane path to hard Brexit (and especially those wealthy individuals working behind the scenes, such as the owners of the Mail, Telegraph, Sun, etc) will suffer very little from the outcome. They know that, of course, but they continue to wish ill on their fellow man – which just about captures the contempt in which they should be held.
I can always miss Minford: the many has a very limited relationship with any known reality
I missed much of the world this week due to teaching and other obligations
I wonder if this article is what I saw Parris writing on the train the other night as he caught the same train as me to get home? He was sitting two rows in front of me typing away on some device or other on what looked like a document, deep in thought.
I have no particular affection for Parris (many a time I’ve wanted to stop him and tell him what I think about his party) but it looks as even this ardent Thatcherite has realised that something is wrong – very wrong – with Government now and the Tory party itself.
But honestly – where did he think all of this was going to end? Thatcher’s rebate was the first of many fingers up to Europe over the years.
And Parris has allowed himself to be propelled along by some unsavoury thinking in the past. He is pointing the finger at others but could also be pointing the finger at himself as he was amongst those who planted these ideas in our society.
What goes around comes around Matthew.
There is one thing that is different this time though. At least Thatcher took the foot off the monetarist accelerator when she realised that the policy was causing problems but only because places like Toxteth and Brixton sent a clear message that the Tories then seemed to heed. She even denied being a monetarist (she was a liar too Matthew).
This lot – these contemporary Tories with their destructive austerity and inherited wealth – well ,they just do not seem able to stop at all. They are unable to moderate. They are extremists. And this Matthew is what you get in this post Thatcherite world.
That’s right Matthew – the post-Thatcherite world. A world that YOU were part of creating.
Hypocrite.
If he gave up his belief in Conservatism I would be more sympathetic with him
Right now his use is in tearing them apart
You are entitled to your view Richard – very balanced as it is.
Parris is just someone I do not respect at all. As for the rest of the Tories, I thought that I could have worked with Heseltine or Ken Clarke or even Anna Soubry but when you hear them lying about Labour’s economic record and how Labour apparently always end up leaving a mess when it is a matter economic record that the Tories always leave the country in more debt – well ….there you go.
Avulse them I say, Avulse the Tories from our politics.
But what will happen if the Tories rip themselves apart? We have a stupid FPTP system and a way of ruling that divides the nation – not uniting it. We should be careful of what we wish for.
I see no contrition from the Parris at all – but he is a Tory and will not see himself as responsible for anything or anyone.
I first bumped into him at St Pancras station when I was living in London in the mid/late 1990s. Now I see him a lot more. I always saw him as a tall person but he is actually quite small and slight – in fact he has shrank as he has got older. And his head is very small. Is that an explanation for his narrow POV?
I’d like to find out how he voted when the Tories introduced anti LGBT Section 28 in the 1980’s. I could be wrong – he may have been brave and forthright. But he just seemed to go along with a lot of things if I remember.
Portillo made an interesting comment on ‘this week’ along this lacking in self awareness line. About 15 minutes into the programme, they were talking about how democracy seems under threat with John Simpson, the post ‘take of the week’ discussion slot. Portillo said that whilst there were communist countries it was “easy to believe that capitalism and democracy were more or less the same thing … but it is now rather clearer that they are almost opposites.” He goes on to say “democracy is all about equality and capitalism is all about inequality,” that being how it works. He then says that at an inequality differential of 1:20 between a nurse and a merchant banker it works when the differential is 1:2000 it “perhaps doesn’t work quite as well.” It amazes me that these ardent thatcherites can make such observations but not see that their ideology has brought us to this point.
Agreed
Nor do they make clear which side they are on
Excellent reading as always, including the comments. You clearly attract a particularly intelligent and thoughful readership – until now you may think. as you read on: regarding the EU referendum, has anyone considered the unthinkable? That the ruling elite who want to be free of the compassionate shackles of the EU have at their disposal a powerful organisation specifically designed to protect them from such undesirable influences. This is the intelligence/security service. Elections/referenda put the ruling elite at risk, whether it’s losing sovereignty, losing Scotland or putting an anti-establishment Corbyn in power. The solution is to have ‘planned election outcomes’ (sic) and the intelligence/security service has the capacity to do this. It would neatly explain the strange, poll-defying election results in 1950, 1992 and most recently in 2015, in all of which potentially elite-threatening left-wing parties were defeated. Nonsense of course. Rigged elections only happen in Russia don’t they? Sorry to risk bringing your blog into disrepute.
I am entirely open to the idea of political manipulation
But rigging? No: I’m sorry, I don’t buy it
There are ‘dark forces’ in life. I do not pretend otherwise. But I have got close enough to power in my career to simply not believe most of this type of conspiracy theory: there is not a hint of evidence to support it.
It’s ‘events’ that worry me. And they can be stage managed. That may have been what the Clinton email crisis was about (and I was no Clinton fan). But what you’re suggesting? I’m sorry, but just not possible. It would require too many people to be in on it. They’re not.
Richard, you state “But rigging? No: I’m sorry, I don’t buy it.” I’m not keen on conspiracy theories either, but we should all be aware of Judge Mawrey’s views on the weaknesses in the UK’s Postal Voting system. The Daily Mail (of all papers!) published this in 2014:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2578776/Scrap-postal-votes-elections-fixed-says-judge-warns-ballot-rigging-probability-parts-Britain.html
His investigations revealed 14 different serious flaws, any of which could lead to manipulation of the vote with the potential to affect an election outcome. For obvious reasons the details haven’t been made public, but I’m also not aware of any subsequent changes to the Postal Vote regulations. Obviously a postal voting system is a boon to people in rural areas, people who are incapacitated etc, but the state has a responsibility to ensure that its security is robust. If we have an insecure system (and Lord Mawrey clearly thinks we do) it’s safe to say it will be exploited and, if the Establishment feels threatened, why wouldn’t it get its “dark arts” agencies to protect its position?
Following the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum there were plenty of rumours of GCHQ interference in the Postal Vote. Nothing substantive emerged and the SNP distanced itself from the issue. However, if/when another Scottish Independence Referendum comes round, the Scottish Government would be well advised to seek discussions with the Electoral Commission about improvements to the Postal Voting system and not simply rely on the existing UK system.
The Voters’ Rolls are controlled by local authorities across the UK and it doesn’t require a fevered imagination to see that these are as susceptible to hacking as any system. If the IT departments of all local authorities have reliable logging of incidents, it might be possible (through FOI request) to get information about unauthorised accesses of the relevant databases, but this has to be done across the whole country, whether Scotland or UK, and can only be done after the event. Much better to bolt the stable door first.
I think that’s a fair point
But that’s not the issue of concern, overall
Hanlon’s Razor comes to mind.
“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity”.
Sleep easy, mate. There isn’t a shady cabal at work here. Just a coop of headless chickens.
You’re probably right. Though of course, since it’s a secret service there wouldn’t be any evidence, would there?
The nagging question that won’t go away: is it conceivable that the risk would be taken of allowing the United Kingdom to be broken up on the whim of Scottish voters, not known for their loyalty to English parliaments, as surely as if a hostile country had done it, a result that would also destroy our international prestige, place a potentially belligerent country on our border, and encourage claims for independence elsewhere?
Perhaps someone could make that nagging question go away!
That risk has been taken
But if it happens it will be because the Scots want it
I would if I was one of them
Andrew, Anthony Barnett in “The Lure of Greatness”, his analysis of Brexit & Trump, discusses the “English” question in considerable depth and concludes that an independent England (once Scotland goes) would force the English to re-examine their position in the world, with probably beneficial results.
Regarding Parris, it’s amazing how so many are quite happy to see others screwed for all they’re worth, but when it starts to affect themselves or what they consider to be their position in the world, they suddenly see the light. It’s the counterpart to those who start off as revolutionary firebrands and end up wearing the ermine in the world’s second largest unelected legislative chamber. May the pox be with them all.
Andrew pleads “Perhaps someone could make that nagging question go away!” about the danger of Scotland breaking up the UK “on a whim”.
Two points here: there’s no whimsy involved in Scotland wishing to dissociate itself from the incompetent, devious and incoherent UK governance, and, it might happen very soon, given the Tories’ machinations to take all devolved powers back to Westminster without any cast-iron guarantees about the nature and extent of any redevolution back to the devolved assemblies. The statements they have made refer loosely to “Scotland”, never to the Scottish Parliament, which raises the distinct possibility that they might devolve some or all of these powers instead to the Secretary of State for Scotland, an incompetent, devious and incoherent individual himself, who has consistently altered his opinions and voted for the Tory party line even when the outcome is manifestly against the interests of Scotland.
She (the UK Prime Minister) is doing what people (the majority) voted for.
And any amount of abusive quotes you put on this site doesn’t change that,
however much it makes you and your (all male) sycophants feel good.
Not all those who appear male on this site are actually so
Some protect themselves from abuse by adopting identities that disguise their gender
I am happy to go along with that.
Linda
I don’t think that the people of this country voted for themselves to be worse off – either from austerity, underfunding of the NHS or from BREXIT. But that is what this woman and her party will deliver. May is staying true to the Bullingdon boys by choice.
The voter has been misled concerning BREXIT.
As for your other rather sexist comment – given that we live now in a post Weinstein world and where the Conservative BBC (yes Linda – the Conservative BBC) still thinks it is right to pay women less I can forgive the backlash and most women over reacting to what they see as male domination or ‘lads man ship’.
I can forgive you as well by the way.
Well said Matthew Parris. All those Conservatives who know the harm leaving the EU will cause, especially with such a clueless government in charge, are betraying this country by going along with this wretched farce called Brexit.
They need to oppose the fanatics, liars and fantasists behind it. If that means bringing the government down through a vote of no confidence in Parliament, then so be it. This hopeless government has to go, as Richard says.
Not that I have a great deal of confidence in Labour’s position on Brexit, but at least there seem to be some leading Labour politicians who pocess some degree of competence re Brexit; and a clear majority of Labour MPs oppose it, in contrast to the hopelessly divided Tories.