In praise of rules
I am a chartered accountant. Perhaps it is unsurprising that I like rules. On the basis of the simple rules of double entry (assets, costs and losses are debits and income, liabilities, capital and profits are credits) I, and millions of others, can communicate complex financial information. Break the rules and the system fails. That's one way of looking at life.
I stress though, it's only one way. Double entry works at an elemental level because of its neutrality. The system is independent of the messenger, the subject of the message and the message communicated. Most rules are not like that. They are actually heuristics intended to simplify complex situations so that mere mortals can manage them without having to expend too much time processing them.
We all drive on the same side of the road.
We have a single legal tender.
We have official languages.
Such rules make living a lot easier to negotiate.
At a slightly more complex level, we comply with security requirements, whether of our workplace or the places we are, recognising the mutual need to do so.
We abide by the law as best we are able.
And when all is said and done, and when there might be no other rule to guide us, we rely upon ethics to inform our judgement. The instruction that we love our neighbour as we do ourselves works pretty well most of the time, and is almost universal in faith and wisdom traditions.
On the basis of all this we, firstly, integrate into our society. Second, we respect others. Thirdly, we lay the groundwork for mutual survival, and hopefully more. Fourth, we protect ourselves and others from harm.
Good rules are not in that case burdens. They are the conditions for life to work. We reject them at our peril.
And that is why the Tories and their approach to rules is so wrong.
Truss broke security rules. So has Braverman. Both did so persistently. They well have prejudiced others as a result.
Braverman has also shown contempt for rules relating to migrants. And when ethics demanded that she intervene, she did not. The primary duty of the elected minister, to protect those for whom she is responsible, was a task she appears to have consciously refused to fulfil.
These are not minor breaches of rules. They are catastrophic failures to comply with the rules on which good government are built. Nor were the breaches accidental. Most especially in Braverman's case it is apparent that they were deliberate. There would seem to have been deliberate intention to breach security based on currently available evidence. And there would seem to have been callous indifference to human suffering at Manston, suggesting Braverman thought that those there were not worthy of treatment as her neighbour, which they undoubtedly are.
What does this contempt suggest? First, there is an assumption of superiority.
Second, that sense of superiority is used to justify rule breaking because it is assumed that rules do not apply to them.
Third, there is in that action contempt for the risk implicit in their conduct for others, about whose fate they are indifferent.
Fourth, there is an absence of both ethics and empathy, which are the basic building blocks for a decent human being.
Truss has gone. Braverman is unlikely to survive this, and that would be appropriate. But the culture remains. This is the culture of the far-right, which assumes society is hierarchical and those who are the true believers are the most worthy of all, and for them the rules do not apply.
This is a profoundly sick culture, antithetical to the prospect of us all living well in society.
This is the Tory culture.
It is why ethics, and not party politics, demands that we be rid of it. We cannot thrive in a society led by Tories. It is not possible. They must 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:
Yes yes yes
It’s a long time since I’ve seen these standards espoused in print
How do so many people fall for the hatred that oozes from the the Tory party
It doesn’t so much ooze as ‘spray out in a wide arc’…
While Braverman’s email security breach has been getting a lot of press – and far too much of Laura Kuenssberg’s interview with Michael Gove yesterday – the basic issue is that she is entirely the wrong person to be in charge of the Home Office. This is just onef symptom.
If Sunak wanted to appoint her because he is governing for the good of the Conservative Party rather than the good of the country, he could at least have given her a position with less potential for serious damage.
I suspect Sunak traded support for his leadership for a promise of appointing Braverman as Home Secretary.
The 1922 Committee would have done a deal with Sunak – have the 1922 approved people in cabinet or let the membership decide who will be PM. I stupidly thought Sunak might be more moderate but that would not fit with the prevailing ethos of the Tories. Perhaps part of the problem is that those in the “top jobs” whether in business or politics often have personalities that are nearer to the sociopathic than the empathetic end of the continuum and are sometimes preferred because they have “the killer instinct” and ruthless ambition to achieve their aims no matter the cost to others. We desperately need to have administrations that put a higher value on the qualities Richard describes – the need for change is urgent – or we are heading for a very dark place. What can we the people, who are on the receiving end of these policies do to create change? Write letters, petition, march?
Write now
Sign petitions
Be prepared for more
Your post concentrates on political figures breaching ‘The Rules’, but I suggest the reach of the post should be far wider.
Three things –
1) It’s not just politicians… having strict, authoritarian rules in place for Gen Pop without any responsibility to live by those rules themselves has been the goal of rich and powerful groups since the dawn of time. “Do as I say, not as I do” is the over-riding mantra for the 0.01%. Laws are for them to make and little people to live by. Whether it’s politicians acting above the law (because, as the legislature, they really believe they ARE the law), or it’s multi-billionaire “business-people”, or media moguls, or The Aristocracy… the goal for these groups of people is complete and utter freedom from accountability for their actions, no matter how antisocial or extreme. I would love to see a world where we could combat this kind of privilege, but only a really effective wealth tax would do that, and I don’t think these turkeys would vote for that kind of Christmas. Unfortunately the Great British Public seem to regularly fall in step behind them. We are, after all, so very good at “knowing our place” and “not making a fuss”.
2) We need to make sure we are keeping things in proportion. People make mistakes and break rules by accident. Other rules are so difficult to adhere to that it is very difficult not to break them. I think a degree of pragmatism and common sense should be applied to avoid the effect of punishment being far more detrimental to society than the original transgression. What I mean by this is, I hope, pretty clear. Suella Braverman sent a draft policy briefing doc (as I understand it) from a personal device to the wrong recipient on her contacts list. This apparently wasn’t the crime of the century (LBC interviewed a Colonel Ingram (a cyber security specialist) who warned against over-reacting to relatively minor transgressions, especially this one, which may actually not have been a huge breaking of the rules once you drill down into the details of when it is permissable to use a personal device on government business.
3) We wouldn’t want to lose a really, really talented and effective Home Secretary on the basis of such a relatively minor mis-step. Also, it glides over the fact that a minor misuse of technology isn’t what Braverman should be held to account for… she’s a nasty, sociopathic xenophobe with an actual fervour for deporting vulnerable people in need of help to a part of the world previously only known for genocide. Perhaps we should be focussing on that… I don’t want Braverman out of power so she can convince herself she was hard-done by the political opposition. There might be some cache in that for her. No, I want her out of power because I truly believe she’s the kind of evil malefactor that says and does what Priti Patel and Sarah Palin were too afraid to.
Thanks
There are models or paradigms of how society actually functions. They should be modified with changing conditions. Often they are not and become ideologies which, instead of responding to changing data, try to adjust reality to fit the model. The best example, IMO, was the Marxist-Leninist ideology which ruled the Soviet Union where almost every aspect of life was to be understood in the framework of the Dialectic and their view of history. It failed when enough people stopped believing in it.
One of the basic mistakes in my view, is that modern examples such as finance or neo-liberal capitalism are just descriptions of how an economy functions and THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE.
But the idea that is just a neutral description , like the carbon cycle in science, is not sustainable. Some do use it to justify a set of values such as we saw with the attempt by Truss to lower the taxes on the better off as being for the general good. It was an arrogant assertion of the ideology which is often dressed up to disguise its true nature.
I don’t think there is a value free model of how wealth is created and distributed and there should not be. The ends are paramount and the means should be adapted. Man does not live by bread alone says the Gospel (bread and honey be slang for money too) and that is a fundamental truth. We live by our shared values and should not elevate the means into an end in itself.
Hear hear Richard! Couldn’t agree more.
The primary take home point about the argument presented here is that in order to work as intended it needs to be generically applicable across every area of human relationships and endeavors rather than being limited to specific areas which happen to be convenient for the purpose of pushing particular narratives.
A test which Braverman, among others, singularly failed for the reasons set out.
The ‘rules’ are based on values and both stated rules and laws along with the professed underlying values need to be applied consistently by everyone – observer, commentator and actor alike – across all areas regardless of whether its behavior, policy or actions relating to politics, economics, science, medicine, culture, domestic, foreign or whatever.
Reason being, as the writer and author Micheal Crichton clearly signals in his concept of the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect, the efficacy of any well constructed argument in one field is undermined by any inconsistency in applying the same rigorous standards relating to rules and values in other fields.
I am not sure how it works as a ‘rule’ but what about Governments duty to ‘manage’ and ensure that services provided by Government are run efficiently and well?
The ballot box governs that
Agree with all of this but let’s just take stock a minute.
I mean, I loathe the Tories I really do – they’ve been the bane of my life since 2010 and they are a mortal enemy to me. I’d swing for any of them if they came near me.
But the only reason they are where they are is because of who is financing them – nothing more. It is too easy to think that the Tories are representative of people in the country and of Britain and to some extent that is true but it is much smaller truth than we realise. Let’s not judge Britain by it alone.
The truth of the matter however is that they have been enabled by either the domestic mega rich and/or powerful overseas interests. There is nothing natural about them being in power in my view.
And look at how they have lied since being in power – from Cameron’s lies about NHS funding to Johnson’s lies about BREXIT, Covid etc. Once in power its easy to lie, and easy to set up the FTPA and stuff like the OBR and dig in like they have.
It’s important to remember that there is nothing natural about any of this – no natural justice or democracy has taken place for them to be where they are.
But the big lesson for me is this: why do people have enough money to give to this pile of shit of a party? To these morons?
Because we’ve not been taxing them enough, that’s why? What we’ve got is some sort of perverse tax-spillover affect where uncollected taxes find their way into the Tory party bank account thus enabling some of the worst people in our society to get into power.
It’s this side of the Tory party that needs tackling because it is the enabling of the callousness, the extremism, the arrogance etc., that is as big a problem as the woebegone Tory party itself.
This is a platform for debate not hate.
Yung
Yes, you are right.
I’m as a much a victim of petite fascism as any BREXITeer or member of the BNP or any number of groups in society that are outlets for people’s anger.
My only saving grace is that I am not one of those who hates the people I’m told to hate – the disabled, immigrants, Muslims, Jews , people who are considered ‘woke’ or pro Europe – just some examples yeah? The sort of people who could be your neighbours?
Instead, I choose to turn my ordure on those whose policies and proclamations scream hate – the Tories for example.
Also, I’ve always seen a loathing of something as learnt and adopted over a period of time – emergent and drawn if you will from experience of something and I’ve 12 years of Tory rule as I describe above to learn to loathe them.
‘Hate’ on the other hand has always come across as more ‘ready-made’ more atavistic, more ingrained and instant. That has never been me I must say. I have to be pushed hard to get so angry believe you me.
I loath to loath believe it or not. But I’ve had it drilled into me for 12, nearly 13 years.
Austerity
BREXIT
Covid
Parliament reduced to a theatre.
Democracy & justice stymied.
Economic and other crimes unanswered.
Death.
Fear.
And I know who is responsible even if you don’t.
Maybe every political movement – even those purporting to be liberal, progressive and reasonable – needs to have their own thugs and maladaptive motivations for wanting change.
Or in old money ‘What goes around, comes around’.
I ain’t apologising.
Savvy?
I agree with PSR. The person who exhibits the most hatred is the one who says immigrants are invading our shores, even though she is the daughter of immigrants herself, the person who thinks it’s okay to herd people like cattle into camps, breaking all ministerial codes. I hate the people who allow her to do that, the tory voters, tory MPs and the MSM. I hope she’s gone from all positions of authority by the end of the day, whatever she was promised by Sunak. I also hate what’s happening to the labour party.
Hi PSR, we know that the Tufton St mob have ensconced themselves at the heart of Govt at the behest of the criminals who run big business. They have two years to extract the most they can from what’s left of the British economy.
I can’t see a Starmer led Govt tackling this matter. Too busy defending their indefensible economic lunacy.
Richard,
What the country is now experiencing at the hands of our sociopathic government is a perversion of what would call the Tory “Left hook, right hook”.
The left hook is the Tory “argument from nature”. This runs as follows: Tory ideology, and Right Wing politics in general, claim their ideology is based on human nature, and so is “natural”, not needing any further justification than being based on “things as they are”.
The right hook corollary, deriving from this, is that all non-Tory/non Right Wing politics is deviant. As such, it lacks not only validity, not even the right to be tolerated.
This produces the Tory/Right Wing “double double standard”, which runs: “Our politics is natural, normal, whereas your is abnormal, indeed deviant. So, we are allowed double standards, because we’re natural, whereas you’re not alliwed double standards, because you’re deviant.”
You only have to consider the difference between reactions to Diane Abbott drinking a mojito on the tube, and Jenrick wasn’t it? who signed off some housing deal in very dubious circumstances: apoplectic headlines over the mojito versus a whisper in the MSM over the housing deal.
You have only to be an elected politician, a Councillor on the London Borough of Barnet, as I was, to experience the difference.
If you’re a Tory Councillor and take time off work, that’s perfectly normal; indeed, so normal, it doesn’t count as politics. If, as I was, you’re a Labour Councillor, then taking time off for your Council duties is highly political.
A further corollary is that an expression of non-Tory political ideas is “bringing politics into things”.
However, I call the present situation a perversion of the above, first, because the balance between the “argument from nature” and the “double double standard” has dramatically shifted.
Most post-WW2 Tory politics relied mainly on the former, with only occasional resort to the double standards bit, with only an almost paternal pat on the head for Non-Tory politics, with the idea of deviancy only implied, or at most uttered sotto voce.
Today’s Tories, however, have simply internalised the argument from nature so much, that it’s no longer a conscious belief but an operant mechanism that is no longer questioned.
In consequence, the deviancy argument has taken over most of the extent of current Tory ideology (has, indeed made an avowedly non-ideological Party into a highly ideologicak one), such that they no longer see Non-Tories as having any right to be tolerated, so that any moves against them are justified.
Having one Home Secretary proposing to use the Royal Navy to sink rubber dinghies crossing the Channel containing fleeing refugees seeking sanctuary, while her successor expressed a desire to ship all such refugees making it to UK territory off to Rwanda, without processing their claims, and both as members of a government who seek to penalise even supporters of public protests in the last 5 years, by making them wear security tags, shows how far these sociopathic Tories have “othered” non-Tories as deviants, almost untermenschen, fit only for expulsion and/or loss of rights.
One final point: this is NOT Tory or Conservative behaviour, and would not have been recognised by post-war Tories on the Left, such as Sir Edward Boyle, or on the Right, such as Enoch Powell, as Conservativism.
I am fairly sure they would have characterised it, named it for what it is – Fascism.
Really useful analysis Andrew
Thank you
I have concluded that the only real ideological division is not Left/Right, or Authoritarian/Libertarian, or Religious/Atheist or whatever. It’s merely between “bigot” and “not bigot”.
There are people who are able to see other people as being real people. And there are people who clearly do not, but see them instead as, for instance, cost entries on a spreadsheet or as weird existential threats. And it doesn’t seem to matter what they call themselves, there are examples of both in all ‘ideologies’.
I find it very easy to figure out who I want to continue to associate with using this simple rule.
The heuristic has a value
It guides some of my judgements about the company I keep
David Byrne says:
As has been suggested, most professional bodies demand that members observe both a Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct.
Maybe Suella Braverman KC, MP should consider seriously whether or not her non-adherence to “rules” and her political outpourings are compatible with retention of the title Kings Counsel.
Those meditating on the idea of rules here have been very instructive – thanks Andrew and Geearkey. Scurra’s point about bigotry is also interesting – the question I ask here is at what point do the Tories cross the line themselves from being seen as people to ‘non-people’ because of their own society negating behaviour?
Sure – the conduct of war ensures that the enemy is dehumanised in order that we might feel better about killing them. But what happens in peace time when a group of people march themselves into a position where people doubt THEIR humanity? That’s the position I am at.
And what happens when they will not listen, and they will not relent?
Relent?! All I’ve heard this morning yet again is about ‘more tough decisions’ and tax rises for everyone as a result of Tory incompetence – the same party that only a few weeks ago was trumping tax cuts. Last night I came home from work to find that we seem to be deliberately being cruel to immigrants and asylum seekers and don’t seem to want to look after them.
I reflect on what Le Carre’s George Smiley says about his Russian opposite ‘Karla’. He calls Karla a ‘fanatic’ – ‘A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause’. This Tory administration is full of people who are – sadly – nothing but fanatics in my view, whether by some super-charged Thatcherism or Ayn Rand bent.
Also in play here is their Neo-liberal exceptionalism – that they are special, and the rules do not apply to them because they are rule makers – not takers (remember that being used during BREXIT?). These fanatics, and their irrational hatred of ‘socialism’ and society and their interest in the primacy of the individual make their own reality, regardless of all signs of any contradiction.
They’ve created that reality with the FTPA and their ability to prorogue parliament; they create that reality with their pals in the media and their financiers driving from the back seat.
So, it’s not only their behaviour and their policies that are insulting to us but also their insistence on clinging to power when really it was time to go. And they’re still here in there little self-made bubble seemingly untouchable, beyond reach and beyond the rules that have limited power previously. ‘Sovereign is he who decides the exception,’ said the Nazi philosopher, Carl Schmitt. Well, there you go!
In a word, the Tory party is totally illegitimate – and not only that, cruel and callous. The situation we are in is unacceptable given who were as a country before 2010.
The Tories I tell you have a lot to answer for. And do you know what? I think that they know it. They’ve crossed the line numerous times since 2010 and to them there is no going back – they have to win at all costs because going froward they have to control the future in order that their crimes are not revealed. And that creates fanatism on top of fanatism.
Just my view.
During the covid pandemic (then) Chancellor Sunak “borrowed” £1 billion to finance his very successful covid-furlough scheme. In effect the govt became the temporary employer-of-last-resort for many thousands of workers.
Questions:-
a) Who did the Chancellor borrow this money from ?
b) Was this £1 billion ever paid back ?
c) Which party will complain if this money is never paid back ?
He did not borrow £1 billion
He borrowed £400 billion
He borrowed it from the Bank of England
They will never complain if it is not owed back: they are part of the government