I posted this thread on Twitter this morning:
The new independent adviser on ministers' interests, Christopher (Lord) Geidt gave two rulings yesterday. Both suggest that he is unfit for office...a thread.
In the first case he suggested that Boris Johnson did not break the ministerial code when having the prime ministerial flat refurbished. He suggested that Johnson was simply ‘unwise' to allow the refurbishment without considering how it would be funded.
The project was initially paid for by Lord Brownlow, a Tory donor, and the Conservative Party. Geidt appears to have satisfied himself because Johnson, eventually, declared the arrangement.
This is astonishing. Johnson was clearly indifferent as to how a project was to funded, appears not to have asked how costs might be paid, had to use borrowed funds, and forgot to declare this for a long time and yet the code was not broken.
Instead criticism was cast on officials. They are apparently to blame for not keeping Johnson informed of the irregularity of the situation. So, officially, prime ministerial negligence as to his personal affairs (the spend was personal) is now official's fault.
I recognise a supposed trust was involved but it was recklessly irresponsible of Johnson not to make enquiry on the issue in my opinion, and that left those managing his affairs in an invidious position. Nothing should have excused that, again in my opinion.
More astonishing was the opinion on Matt Hancock. He had a significant interest in a company run by his sister that secured a VIP NHS contract and apparently this breach was ‘technical'.
Let's put this in context. As a chartered accountant I know the rules on conflicts of interest for my profession. I know that the penalties for beaching them are severe, appropriate and enforced. Hancock must know that that similar rules applied to ministers.
He breached them, in my opinion. Geidt described the breach as ‘technical'. Of course it was. All such breaches are ‘technical' because the rules are ‘technical'. That means every breach is ‘technical' and they should carry sanction. But not for Hancock, apparently.
There are real issues arising here. First, in both cases Geidt proves, in my opinion, that he is not bringing objectivity to his duties. I think that he should be ignoring facts such as party politics, which he specifically brought into his ruling on Johnson.
And on Hancock he should not have used ‘technical' as an excuse. A breach should be treated as one, with sanction following.
The consequences are serious. In effect it is now apparent that the rules that must be upheld to maintain confidence in the integrity of our government are sufficiently malleable to excuse what seem to be significant breaches.
The specifics alone are worrying. A man who cannot in any way manage his own affairs is managing the country. Another who cannot see anything wrong with profiting his family as a result of being in office is in charge of hundreds of billions of funds. This stinks.
But in my opinion so too do the exonerations. I was troubled by the appointment of someone close to the government to the role Lord Geidt has. I am more deeply troubled now by the decisions that he has made. They appear to lack necessary objectivity.
His role required him to bring the demeanour of a judge to the task he had to undertake. That is most certainly not the impression gained from these decisions, both of which are inexplicable, including the willingness to blame others.
Geidt may think he has acted appropriately on the evidence. But his job was to persuade others of that as well. I am not convinced. I am far from being alone. And that suggests he has failed.
That failure is serious. It's just another step on the way to the total breakdown of the supposed checks and balances in our system of government. Ministers will now feel that they can get away with anything. And that is deeply troubling.
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:
The ministerial code is not worth the paper it is written on. It only has meaning if people take it seriously. Particularly the one person who is the “ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards”. The Prime Minister is a chancer, a liar and a cad, so why should we expect any standards at all? The government gives lip service to the code while ignoring it. It is like the constitution of the Soviet Union – high minded words that give a window dressing of propriety but mean nothing in practice.
They are charlatans and spivs filling their and their mates boots through this war time economy which they have abused Covid with.
I am apoplectic this morning about this
‘ But rather than using the NHS Covid set-up that has tested the nation over the last year — and charging passengers accordingly — the government website offers a list of private firms, of which there are 325 operating in England alone.’
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/may/29/covid-test-travellers-quarantined-kit-results
It is simply ripping people off with government backing.
Utterly sick.
They are banking (correctly) that most people don’t care and are ignorant of politics and policies. As there is also no opposition in Parliament nor any serious press or media they are probably correct in thinking so. We are strolling toward autocracy as are other EU countries. Meeting Orban yesterday didn’t even cause a ripple and soon we will have five right wing States in Europe, England (Scotland and Ireland are leaving), France, Hungary, Italy and Poland.
What this says is that it is fine to break the rules, it is acceptable to lie and there is no problem with doing things that benefit your relatives, your mates or mates of mates or mates of relatives at the expense of others more qualified and of benefitting the country.
The rulebreaker are lauded by the lamestream media and those who try to hold them to account and say ‘this is wrong and unacceptable’ are seen as wrong and described in derogatory terms.
Craig
History is being written by the victors, the Establishment has closed ranks and the dishonesty is absolute.
The report on racism was rewritten to ignore key contributions, the report on Tory Islamophobia ignored the key issues, and the Hillsborough verdict gives full rein to lying to public inquiries.
In contrast, judges reject strikes because unions are unable to contact their entire membership (members often don’t inform their union when changing jobs or addresses), and a judge can convict Sally Bercow of libel when she’s not made an accusation.
No wonder the judges that ruled against the goverment on Brexit were deemed “enemies of the people”. They hadn’t read the script.
Absurd.
What sort of sovereign state (own Government; own money; own budgets) allows/enables a private individual to pay for a leaders re-decorations? What – on the basis that that state cannot afford it? Bollocks.
Answer: One that s profoundly ran along false rules and ideas but also one whose democratic workings must be called into question.
This is barefaced lying and indifference in the face of the facts. But at least it shows us how our country actually works.
Where State money is held back deliberately for the many to the advantage of the few who are willing to pay your leaders homage to keep things that way.
A place where anything public is up for grabs; where jobs can be outsourced abroad all designed to keep the rich English (Russians too) wealthy.
One day people might see the simplicity in all this. And then WE might get the money we need.
And you are right: we are in big trouble as Boris and his fellow liars obviously think that they are untouchable.
Another step towards a failed state. The lesson learnt is that none of this matters. The useful idiots will continue to vote for the Johnson sect. I don’t understand it.
One look at Geddit’s history and he is establishment through and thorugh – & ergo toryscum. Why would he upset the apple cart? He may despise Mendacious Fat and Handcock but hey, they are fellow toryscum – & as they say, scum runs thicker than water.
A totally expected result, doubtless him or his family will benefit one way or another from his “finding”. Welcome to the United Chumdom.
You should be ashamed of yourself Mike.
You can make an argument with substance in it, but amending Geidt to Geddit, or Handock to Hancock, or normal bloke to tory to toryscum because he didn’t give you the outcome you wanted to overthrow the government. No mate. Progressives should be better than this.
I think Mike pushes the boundaries
But I have sense of humour
Most of Mike’s comments seem to be based on valuable experience and are almost always perceptive. I sympathise with his frustration but my reactions are similar to those of Sarah Hurd.
The other aspect is that, while it is obviously tempting to insult individuals who appear to have behaved atrociously, the sort of policies that Richard advocates need to be considered by people whose experience and knowledge has hitherto been limited. Many of these will be Tories so it is counterproductive to insult the group, however much some of their views appear to be unpalatable.
The policies needed to maintain the human habitat – for most of the planet’s population – will need political opponents to be open to the persuasion.
I entirely agree with your opinion on the complete lack of judgment on the part of lord Geidt. It is cronyism of the highest order. However, we should not be surprised at this drift towards unaccountable autocracy after the debacle of the bullying done by the Home Secretary Priti Patel (who is supposed to uphold the highest standards of law and order) causing the resignation of a senior civil servant who could not stomach such blatant abuse of authority.
The weird way in which such failures in public office cause manifestations of political action fascinates me. I read some interviews with today’s antivax protestors in London. A common theme was distrust of the government and the press.
They’re right, aren’t they? Not the loony stuff like vax being a government plot or 5g causing covid. But they are clearly right not to trust the government nor the press.
It was a major factor behind Brexit.
It’s going to have increasingly perverse outcomes. Historians will look at the first half of this century as a time where a great angry inchoate politics of “F you” was created with severe consequences.
Hmmmmm…..
They may have the government, but they seem to hate the rest of humanity as well
That’s not a good combination
Hate, yeah. I’m getting good at reading between your lines.
The national sport amongst the electorate now seems to be ‘Let’s revel in the unhappiness and as hopelessness of others’,
Timothy Snyder counts this sort of attitude (a sort of ‘Schadenfreude’ – pleasure at seeing the misfortune of others – think of which society gave birth to that concept) as symptom of a decline towards fascism.
Hence this business about ‘woke’ – the negation of empathy etc. The mindset is one of suffering and enduring and you’re not one of us if you are not doing that too. It’s the result of year’s of abuse (austerity/over-marketisation) by Governments who do not have the courage (Labour) or inclination (Neo-lib Tories) to manage the State properly.
The only person in politics at the moment who I think realises what to do about it is Joe Biden. That is, spend some bloody money into society and get these ‘Schadenfreuders’ back onside with jobs, generous benefits and law and order in the markets might follow.
Don’t forget Guy Standings ‘Precariat’ concept analogous to the above – it’s this group that are being cynically used by state hating Neo-lib Tories to destroy post war society and ‘level down’. They also know that stuff like the ministerial code doesn’t mean anything to these people (Precariat/ ‘Schadenfreuders’ ).
Think about the Tories. Think of Patel, Hancock and Raab – all people whose Mummies and Daddies became wealthy by their own means and just see those who need Government help as weak and feckless.
It’s a perfect storm of political malfunction we face at the moment (and for some time before that). This is what happens when Government/politics is inculcated with Neo-liberalism – a philosophy that is anti-statist as well as anti-society – a bunch of people who don’t believe in either. Neo-liberalism believes in the personal and individualism. How can you run a State with that frame of mind? Effectively hire politicians who technically don’t believe in it. Yet that is what we’ve been doing.
If those at the top do not abide by the rules then everyone will feel free to do the same. The failure of Government to show a proper example effects the whole of society to its ultimate detriment.
Have I got this right on the issue of Tory ministers and their friends and family making vast, unwarranted and, potentially, illegal profits from the public purse? The Government orders the Bank of England to create money which it then borrows to pay for all these (potentially) dodgy contracts, but has no need to repay because it owns the Bank. They have therefore engaged in a massive scheme (scam? fraud?) which they can rationalise by claiming that there is no real victim. Of course, they will punish the poor by doubling down on austerity measures and claiming that all this debt has to be re-paid, but we know this is an ideological measure with no logical foundation.
Your suggestion seems reasonable
We laugh at the “Banana Republics” where the dictator steals large amounts from the treasury and escapes to another compliant jurisdiction. Our leaders are no better; we are led by an ignorant buffon and the acolytes, their friends and hangers on feel free to line their pockets and squirrel the loot away in various tax havens.
Our “Free Press” does not hold them to account but feed us royal nonsense, celebrity TittleTattle and rotten Johnnie Foreigner stories rather than doing what an independent media should do. Is it any wonder that “The People” are uncaring and accept the position without complaint?