Three reports in The Guardian are telling this morning. The first refers to the cuts in the UK's overseas aid budget, on which more detail was issued yesterday:
The UK has released the first details of how it intends to impose as much as £4bn worth of cuts to international aid, prompting campaigners to accuse the government of having “lost its moral compass”.
The second refers to a report by Transparency International on concern about corruption in UK government Covid contracting:
One in five government Covid contracts awarded between February and November 2020 contained one or more red flags for possible corruption and require urgent further investigation, a respected campaign group has warned.
Transparency International UK said a “seriously flawed” arrangement, whereby companies bidding for contracts were prioritised if they were referred into a “VIP lane” by their political connections, had “damaged trust in the integrity of the pandemic response”.
Around £2 billion of favoured contracts are thought to be involved.
The third refers to Johnie Mercer MP, who was sacked before he could resign as a minister yesterday:
The former veterans' minister Johnny Mercer has launched an extraordinary attack on Boris Johnson's government, describing it as a “cesspit” and “the most distrustful, awful environment I've ever worked in”.
I would not wish to overvalue Mercer's opinion, or experience. And yet the three articles share a common theme. And that is that there is a moral crisis at the heart of this government. Or rather, there is an absence of morality anywhere near this government. And it is that absence that permits the corruption that is now seen as its major defining trait.
How did we get to this?
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:
As you have often described the Conservative Government as corrupt Richard, it seem he is merely confirming your opinion.
I keep asking my wife the same question. She doesn’t know either.
There was a time, more than 40 years ago, when Tory politicians weren’t that much worse than any other, with a few standout exceptions. After the war they accepted the Attlee social revolution and moved on. When Thatcher came in it all changed, they became a party that turned the idea of social justice on its head, and argued that people’s misfortunes were there own fault, but I don’t think there was the level of corruption we see now.
It starts at the top – with a man who has no moral compass, little sense of right and wrong, what is truth and what is lie and no understanding of Smith’s distinction between actions which are praiseworthy and those undertaken solely to gain praise. And there are other members of his government of a similar ilk.
And a lot of fellow travellers in the Party too frightened or simply disinclined to raise their heads above the parapet. Too many have lost their moral compass as well.
Agreed
Mr Hewitt,
“There was a time, more than 40 years ago, when Tory politicians weren’t that much worse than any other, with a few standout exceptions. After the war they accepted the Attlee social revolution and moved on.”
I notice that you are choosing your timescale carefully to pick your way, stepping-stone, by stepping-stone, through more dubious territory. May I suggest that you inspect the Conservative Party through the 1930s a little more closely (particularly the cosy relationship between the Party’s first Director of Research, Sir Jospeph Ball with Neville Chamberlain); or perhaps a wider sweep, as in James Barr’s forensic review of unsavoury British and French policy in the Middle East, ‘A Line in the Sand’ (2011); although not exclusively an insight into the Conservative application of ruthless realpolitik, the British approach inevitably becomes predominantly a Conservative Government story after WWI.
Thanks for that. I suppose the closer you look the more “unsavoury” the policies of governments of different colours appear. In more recent times, Blair (who some/many regard as a Tory) took us into the Iraq war and also Afghanistan. There are still many unanswered questions about possible torture, murder, rendition and war crimes that won’t be fully acknowledged for many years to come.
On the other hand, Harold Wilson is said to have kept the UK out of America’s Vietnam war, whether on pragmatic or principled grounds I’m not sure, but “praiseworthy” nonetheless.
I’m with Mr Warren on this one.
Let’s put it this way: Harold Wilson in his time didn’t say the Tories were ‘bastards’ for nothing.
In Nicholas Timmin’s ‘The 5 Giants: A Biography of the Welfare State’ (1996) he points out that no sooner had it been created than the institution that created it (Parliament) started to undermine the Welfare State from day one. So I’m not sure where any agreement was by the Tories: it was a simply a tactical withdrawal.
And let’s not forget those interesting boundary changes that have been said to have robbed Attlee of his second term.
As for Labour, never mind embracing populism and the Red Whore (sic) voters – for goodness sake find you inner-Attlee or be consigned to history.
The Tories to an extent are reflecting a mindset of their electorate. An underbelly of colonial racism will support the aid policy and to a certain extent the others. Why did they vote against their interests? Because they believe in being ruled by so called superiors, hence the Monarchy. Its not the whole electorate thankfully but enough to win power.
Thomas
I profoundly disagree.
The Tories have always manufactured and upheld these negative values to divide and conquer and there will be a portion of any population who will find these views attractive – especially as their own lives have been made harder. As a result, they are ripe for being manipulated by tactics like ‘blame culture’ and what not.
It is always the Government that sets the tone of the country’s business in my view – believe it or not.
There was another recent article in the G’ with respect to people being unwilling/ashamed to claim gov’ support – said people qualifying for it but not claiming it – except in extremis – this being the end point of the Thatcher disaster mentioned above by Mr Hewitt. This points to a collapse in empathy amongst the Toryscum party (no apologies – I side with Bevan regarding the tories) both for UK citizens (clearly now regarded as serfs and peasants by the toryscum gov’) and for people in other much much poorer countries – hence the collapse in overseas aid.
“How did we get to this?” – driven by a combo of the desire by toryscum for power at any and all cost (Richard you have made this point before) – which by extension will mean the jettisoning of anything that stands in the way of getting power (and retaining it). Factor into the above a media which has become progressively supine (and London/SE orientated) and you arrive at where the Uk is. I have always wanted to see the Uk do well. However, I have reached the point where I want to see it broken up and hopefully, this leads to the extirpation of the tory party. It has to go, it is evil and the people in it are utterly corrupted by the pursuit of power at any and all costs. They are destroying the country.
The problem is that Johnson is an entertainer, not a serious politician, but many people seem to like him because he “brightens up” what has been a grim period, and they give him the benefit of the doubt on his behaviour on the basis of “well he is a bit of a laugh” and actually admire him for his rule breaking and ability to get away scot free with lying, but they think at least he is not a boring turnoff like more serious politicians who talk earnestly about economics and the need to solve difficult problems – that unfortunately most people don’t want to think about
Funnily enough, Mr Mercer has said previously he wouldn’t necessarily vote for the Tories if he wasn’t in their club.
It’s almost as if he is aware they are shills and charlatans but while he had a horse in the race (his controversial ‘absolution of responsibility for war crimes’ bill) he was happy to keep his mouth shut and pledge fealty.
Now he has performed the equivalent of climbing out of the cesspit in which he and his colleagues are swimming, and pointing down to claim all the others apart from him are covered in s**t.
Not at all edifying and he remains a pungent strain of useful idiot.
I remember Mercer on Have I Got News For You a couple of years ago making the same complaints about backstabbing, mendaciousness etc. My impression then was that he was unlikely to seek re-election. Having done so, and gone into government, he can hardly claim surprise. The “principle” he was standing up for (a manifesto commitment) was that military personnel should not be prosecuted no matter what they have done, so in this case, I am actually pleased this won’t become law.
You have to ask why people voted for them and why the drop in support for Labour was so catastrophic (not in raw numbers, perhaps, but in constituencies). Brexit is one answer; the demonisation of Corbyn another. Surely these are only partial explanations.
Another part of the explanation is the undemocratic voting system of FPTP which suits the 2 major parties. Getting it changed is a conundrum. The only party likely to introduce PR is Labour, but they will only get into power under FPTP and once having done so there is no imperative for them to change a system which brought them to power.
The Electoral Reform Society looked at how the parties might have performed in the 2019 election under the Additional Member System (d’Hondt), although the ERS prefers STV: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-the-2019-election-results-could-have-looked-with-proportional-representation/
“The only party likely to introduce PR is Labour, but they will only get into power under FPTP and once having done so there is no imperative for them to change a system which brought them to power.”
But with Scotland on the brink of secession and having drastically turned its back on the party, the loss of former solidly Labour seats means there is practically no chance of a Labour majority at Westminster under the current FPTP system. And boundary changes/consolidation of constituencies to come serves little more than to gerrymander for permanent ascendancy.
It would require a leader to accept this reality, band together with smaller parties (whose mutual interest is also served by PR), and deliver a manifesto committing to reform.
It’s amazing how we are so close to Westminster becoming a one party system and no one in Labour is even acknowledging it. It’s an absolute ‘frogs in slowly boiling water’ moment and historians will look back in astonishment at this period.
The prospect looks bleak.