Mailwatch(ed) Forum

In 1982 Lord Carrington, Conservative Foreign Secretary, resigned (immediately and under no pressure) because he had not foreseen the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands Islands, and for this failure he felt he had to accept responsibility and go. His Prime Minister agreed with his decision and accepted his resignation.

In 2001 Dominic Raab, Conservative Foreign Secretary refused to resign over the well-foreseen Taliban takeover of Afghanistan and the utter chaos and human misery that is ensuing. He delegated contacts with the then Afghan government to a junior minister and went on holiday. He didn't stay in the House for the whole debate on the subject. His Prime Minister has said he has no reason to resign.

O tempora! O mores!
From Latin, literally meaning "Oh, the times! Oh, the customs!" Used to express frustration or exasperation at some aspect of modern times (in comparison with times of old). Taken from an oration by the Roman consul Cicero (106–43 BC) as he lamented the corruption into which Rome had fallen.

Didn't know anything about Cicero when Bozo started name-checking him. Had a gut feeling he didn't know much more, either.

Has he killed anyone personally, deliberately, with no remorse, with eyewitness, circumstantial and forensic evidence against him? Has he done it before? Then there's no reason to resign is there?

That is an example of their excuses, not a reason for their irresponsibility.

What is it in their mores that allows them to make those excuses?

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 3:08 pm That is an example of their excuses, not a reason for their irresponsibility.

What is it in their mores that allows them to make those excuses?

I believe it is a mindset thing. They believe that it is "their turn", so they will do whatever they like for their tribe, unlike the other lot who would just piss away perfectly good resources on blacks, queers, and cripples.

Of course they don't want to let go of the tiller, any time soon.

And do you think they see themselves as inherently superior? That their mindset automatically places people into a hierarchy of worthiness? With them at the top?

The rich man in his castle,
the poor man at his gate.
God made them high and lowly,
each in his estate.

As we learned to sing in assemblies at school...

They come from a background that has never seen actual danger or hardship. In their youth, if they did anything that might endanger them, they knew that a quick phone call or word in the right ears would sort any problem out. They're from an elite within an elite, answerable to nobody, which would simply assume control over whatever organisation it set its eyes on, and then leave the actual work to others.

And after a lifetime of privilege, surrounded by toadies, yes-men and SpAds trying to keep their attention as they make their own climb up the greasy pole, they have never been told "no". It's just not part of their mindset. It must have been someone else screwing up.

In my mind, it’s not a case of resigning, he should be sacked

The system hinges on those people at the very top being, for want of a better word, honourable.

Even in the past when we've had bad PMs and ministers, they at least understood the concept of duty that the role involved. Not right now. They're the equivalent of Littlejohn phoning in his column, saying "who cares if it's inaccurate or offensive; the readers will lap any old shit up".

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 3:53 pm They come from a background that has never seen actual danger or hardship.

So do you think that they believe that shows some sort of superiority? What I'm trying to do is drill down into the bedrock causes for their mores - their beliefs about themselves and the world.

It's a bit simple to say that their wealth and privilege seems to them to be a signifier of some sort of genetic or other, more mystical, superiority, but is that at the base?

Does this then inexorably lead to viewing society as hierarchical, with themselves and their ilk at the top of a pyramid, with lesser beings of variable usefulness ranged below? Does that absolve them from retribution or indeed, responsibility?


By the 'more mystical' I am referring to blood, bloodlines, races and orientations.

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 4:44 pm The system hinges on those people at the very top being, for want of a better word, honourable.

Or should do!

What do you think broke the link between privilege and duty?

Thatcherism and the destruction of the Old Tories*? The influx of the property developers and assorted city piranhas?

*Not a matter of age, of course. Heseltine was an Old Tory, whereas his contemporary Norman Tebbit was definitely of the New tendency.

I'm not sure. It's been noted how the crowd around Johnson, Gove etc have often flirted with eugenics. And it's easy to just say "entitlement", or to say that in the case of Patel she's determined to make an impact and figures that as a woman of colour, she can only succeed in the Tory party by being more vicious than anyone else. To allay any suspicions about her.

I'm reminded of a quote from a book on the Victorian era, which said "Lord Algy may have looked a twit in his monocle and straw boater, but he was likely an excellent rider, a crack shot, and knew very well that he was born to run things". I think that the last bit is crucial - the idea that being of the gilded elite, of being funded through Eton or wherever, of being coached through their Oxford entrance exams - that they emerged convinced that they had actually achieved that, rather than being given it. And if you look at Toby Young's comments on state school kids at Oxford actually putting in the hours, he despised them. Because they had to try. They had no family wealth or business to wait for, no cosy editorial role to wander into. You're dealing with people who never had to try. So they assume that stuff falls into their laps because they deserve it.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 4:53 pm Or should do!

What do you think broke the link between privilege and duty?

Thatcherism and the destruction of the Old Tories*? The influx of the property developers and assorted city piranhas?

*Not a matter of age, of course. Heseltine was an Old Tory, whereas his contemporary Norman Tebbit was definitely of the New tendency.

But whilst Heseltine may have been an 'old' Tory (I'm assuming you mean in the style you'd associate with Heath and Macmillan) within the Tory ranks of that time, he was despised by those further above him socially - wasn't it Alan Clark who described him as "the sort of man who buys his furniture"?

If ever there was someone who epitomised the "born to rule" element, it was Clark.

Andy McDandy wrote:The system hinges on those people at the very top being, for want of a better word, honourable.

Even in the past when we've had bad PMs and ministers, they at least understood the concept of duty that the role involved. Not right now. They're the equivalent of Littlejohn phoning in his column, saying "who cares if it's inaccurate or offensive; the readers will lap any old shit up".

I could argue that a Labour Minister getting into a fight with a member of the public twenty years ago would, even twenty years prior to that, have seen not only a resignation of post but also an expected immediate retirement from public life.

It didn't though, did it? Why wasn't Prescott carpeted and told to consider his position? Blair shrugged it off with "John is John" and for many, it actually stood Prescott in good stead - the decline of expectations writ large. What did his CLP think of the matter? I know some will view the above as me Blair-bashing but it's not intended to be: however it's probably one of the more serious examples of a consequence-free decline in standards in public life.

It seems - to this jaded and depressed soul anyway - that the ideas of personal honour and duty both within and without politics has greatly diminished, if not disappeared: somehow it seems old-fashioned, even something to be contemptible of. Do our politicians merely reflect the larger society we now have, rather than guide it? And, dare I say it - what role has the Fourth Estate played in this?

That said, I do get the impression that Starmer is genuinely worthy of the description of "honourable" - far more than his opposite number, of a magnitude equivalent to dividing 1 by 0 on a calculator. Maybe it's because Starmer wasn't born to privilege and has earned his position along every step of the way to where he is now - even though there are twerps who'll begrudge him his 'K' on both sides of the divide (more a chasm these days).

Watchman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 4:26 pm In my mind, it’s not a case of resigning, he should be sacked

To be fair to him, there is a precedent.

https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/bor ... 30659.html

And the reason they behave like this is the same as everything that has been central to the Tory psyche since 1979. Do what you want, take what you want, be what you want; the little people can't stop you.

What I am driving at is why, and from where, do these mores exist.

Undeniably a good question and one that definitely merits considered thought; but also, what to do about it.

Andy McDandy wrote:
The system hinges on those people at the very top being, for want of a better word, honourable.

Perhaps the ruling classes in Italy and France had the same patrician culture. They now have investigating magistrates whose powers aren’t reliant on executive patronage. You’ll have seen them name checked often in the Tory press as some hideous Continental innovation that ‘politicises the judiciary’ or ‘judicial activism.’ Horse shit.

That's an outcome of the Code Napoleon. The system is inquisitorial, rather than adversarial. It's been around a while.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examining_magistrate

I'm not sure that it's immune to social privilege or political favouritism.

Wiki wrote:Today, examining magistrates (juges d'instruction) are one of four types of French magistrates, the others being trial judges (magistrats de siège), public prosecutors (magistrats debout), and policymaking and administrative magistrates at the Ministry of Justice. Each juge d'instruction is appointed by the president of France upon the recommendation of the Ministry of Justice and serves renewable three-year terms. Magistrates "can move between these four categories, and their career prospects may be subject to the political interests of the government (although promotions must be approved by a high council of the magistrature chaired in the past by the President of the Republic and now by the president of the cour de cassation)." This arrangement has prompted criticism on the ground that the judiciary is not fully independent of the government.

And the Italian judiciary is even more dysfunctional in terms patronage but they still moved in on leaders with their fingers in the till (Craxi, Andreotti and Berlusconi). And Sarkozy in France. It could be argued they were triggered by political opponents point scoring but those leaders still faced the music. The worse ‘a right honourable gentleman’ faces here is an enquiry. Unless its some embarrassing backbencher crashing the car while pissed than ‘no one is above the law.’