OPINION, REPRESENTION AND CODES OF CONDUCT

This was meant to be posted yesterday:

Facts, truth, belief, opinion, support, division. These are matters with which one constantly puzzles over. The stronger one holds on to a particular belief, the more entrenched one’s position becomes, the more reasonable or unreasonable one appears; reasonable to those who share your view and unreasonable to those who do not. The more forcefully one projects that view, the more support or division is engendered.   

I raise the conundrum in the light of upcoming elections and the difficulties of democracy being so bound up with party politics, in particular when there appears to be a two party monopoly on electoral success.  Although candidacy is open to all citizens who wish to serve and participate in the governance of the state, political parties have emerged on either side of a political spectrum moving from left to right. There are many directions to define the various spaces between the outer limits:  centre, left of centre, right of centre etc. Each of the parties position themselves by publishing a manifesto outlining their corps beliefs and opinions along with a program of activities they believe will best benefit the citizens of the state, and best meet the needs of the citizens of the state. That manifesto is produced to persuade and gain the support of the citizen, even though it will also cause division and opposition in some other citizens.

The electoral system of some countries seems to favour the two party monopoly whilst other nations have a more proportional system of elections allowing for more varied representation of opinion in their legislative assemblies. The European Parliament, Danish Folketing and French Assemble National are instances in point.

Be that as it may, and despite the clear evidence that the needs of, and benefits for, the citizens of a democratic state are essentially similar; there is serious division as to how to provide those particulars. What has been brought into focus by this pandemic however, is the necessity for the state to take control, in a far more dramatic way, than it had ever anticipated. As a consequence, those representatives on the right have had to approve actions which would normally be part of a leftist manifesto, and those on the left have had to approve actions which would be part of a right-wing manifesto. The provision of massive economic public support of workers’ salaries in the private sector, and the implementation of restrictive measures and limitations on human freedoms to impose order, have turned the spectrum upside down. Ironically, rather than a coming together of representatives, it appears to have caused greater confusion, division and entrenching of opinion.

One sees this in the United States where Republicans and Democrats seem unable to grasp the imperative need for a bipartisan approach to national recovery and conciliation. They talk of it, but neither side appears to actually put in into action. President Biden is trying, but they are so caught up in personality politics and its arch propagator ex-President Trump, that all and any attempt to change the perception of his supporters is thwarted by the left and right opinions pouring over its airways. CNN, Fox News and others appear to be wilfully tearing the country apart. White supremacist, religious fundamentalist and any number of fringe groups will do anything to prevent any variance from their agendas, whatever they are. Middle America doesn’t seem to stand a chance.

Oddly enough, it is the same in the United Kingdom. The opinions and support of representative in government, is obstinately entrenched, lacking in maturity and variable in character. The questionable integrity of its leadership has created even more division, and the name calling and diversionary tactics to deflect criticism is beyond control. Enquiries are demanded, implemented and ultimately ignored.  Tit for tat is where it’s at. This is the current method of approach to argument.

The BBC’s Newsnight program displays endless instances of entrenched point of view as well as perfect examples of the bullying deflecting tactics of supporters of the current leadership. The thuggish demeanour of Andrew Bridgen MP in a pitiful charade in support of Just Boris and the Outlaws, was symptomatic of the state of the parties. Bluster, counter attack, deflection and veiled accusation of the questioner was all he had to offer. Reasoned argument, considered reflection of thought, and straight forward answers were nowhere to be seen and heard. What on earth can the electors of North West Leicestershire see in this man to have elected him on four separate occasions. The citizens of Ashby-de-la-Zouch should seriously think again.

I realize my comments above smack of entrenched opinion, but, honestly, what a lout. I almost felt sorry for Emily Maitlis. This is a BBC journalist with an entrenched view that she is at all times the personification of impartiality. She loves the gripped pen and papers in hand approach, and sometimes actually appears to take notes while people are speaking. 

What is of greater concern, to my entrenched view, is that the requirement of controlling and dealing with the pandemic, will reinforce the concept of ‘social order’ as an appropriate modus vivendi. That the control of public association, assembly and freedom of movement, temporally imposed for reasons of health and safety, should become the norm, is very worrying indeed. That there is already a move to the right in politics round the world is scary enough. That it be supplemented out of some perceived continuing necessity, is a danger to democratic free thinking people everywhere. All the more reason for elected leadership to be held to account whenever they depart from established democratic codes of conduct. Upholding the integrity and reliability of civil servants and elected representatives, who have so much access to public funds, information about individual citizen’s and influence on their lives, is a rather crucial aspect of a democratic society. These things matter, and no attempt to divert attention by changing the subject and presenting alternate imagery should prevent public scrutiny of transgressions by public servants, no matter how slight they seem.

BAD BEHAVIOUR IS BAD NEWS

My friends in America may wish to catch up with the shenanigans going on in the UK at present in respect of sleaze and misuse of office.

 

On listening to the Today Program on BBC Radio 4 this morning, 28^th April 2021, I was left with a bad taste. Try as they might, the final few minutes were anything but humorous and larky. To make light of bad behaviour in government may be very British, but it’s also bad news.

 

To leave the last word to Sarah Vine (a.k.a. Mrs. Gove) of the Daily Mail about the Prime Minister’s lodgings, and Philip Collins of the New Statesman about respect for politicians and previous holders of the Prime Ministerial Office is, in my view, quite absurd. It leaves the impression that the BBC is perfectly in accord with such sentiments, which it should not be.

 

Ms Vine

Ms Vine is of the view that the Prime Minister should have lodgings, paid for and maintained by the State, and that they should be of a quality appropriate to the high office; and if she/he wants different coloured curtains or sofa, then she/he should have what they want. Whilst I have no objection to the Prime Minister having lodgings over the shop, paid for and maintained by the state, one must remember that the residence is not the Prime Minister’s permanent residence. It is there for as long as the person holds the office. So, providing an upmarket flat, with all mod cons, is all that the office holder can or should expect. If they want to include their families in the picture, then that expense is entirely their own. 

A good decorator can deal with the décor, with neutral, relaxing and tasteful colours to suit any individual, just as upmarket hotels do for their temporary guests; for that is what the office holder is, a temporary guest, and not there for life. Maintaining the accommodation then is easily dealt with, and does not require in excess of £50,000 each time a new person is elected to office, or indeed a change of furniture. A good sofa is perfectly adequate. Catering for the taste and whims of a temporary occupant is way beyond what the public purse should be required to cover. It does not have to be cheap, nor does it have to be changed with every election. If the flat is not adequate for a family, then the family can live elsewhere in their own home where they can indulge in their own sense of décor. Again, the Prime Minister’s residence is not a permanent home. It goes back to the expenses scandal. Politicians are allowed to claim some expenses for having to live away from home in order to do their job, but cost is definitely to be scrutinised and made public and transparent. Calls on the public purse are not to be taken lightly, given the amounts of money required to actually provide the services the public have a right to expect.

 

Mr Collins

As to Mr. Collins and his request that retired Prime Minister should have more respect, given their service to the country, politicians deserve no more respect that any other citizen. Indeed, our personal duty of care, towards each other, is that we should respect everyone. If the behaviour of an individual calls into question their deserving of respect, then our behaviour towards them may vary from outright condemnation to a mere tsk tsk. Everyone deserves to be treated equally, so I am led to believe. Indeed, that is what politicians are forever telling us is the case. It is one of the principles of our democracy. So, any special case for retired politicians holds no water.

 

At present, the collection of the current politicians in government are hardly deserving of any great respect. The fact that they can support ‘Just Boris’ the way they have and allow him to once again claim ‘The public is not interested, it’s old news, let’s move on, I’m dealing with a pandemic which is more important…”  is completely missing the point of responsible government. Behaviour and integrity matters. It makes no difference what you are dealing with. Deception and misrepresentation, no matter what is being discussed or dealt with, is not acceptable, and certainly not deserving of respect.

 

The pandemic and current economic fallout as a result of its effects, as well as the effects of Brexit, are far too serious to allow a bunch of charlatans and photo opportunists to carry on in this ludicrous manner. If ever the public should have the right to have an election recall, the time is now. The quicker they go, and more responsible adults are elected to office, the better. Why should the public have to wait, and why do those who have clearly failed in their duty, as well as neglecting all codes of conduct going, not just resign, save face and thus redeem themselves and perhaps salvage whatever respect they have left.

THE INTERESTS OF THE BRITISH PUBLIC

Following on as to what constitutes the public interest, one must make a distinction between what the general public are interested in and what is actually in the interest of the general public. Living in a democracy we have elections to put in place representatives to lead and manage the country where we live. Various institutions have evolved where politically active citizens have been elected to serve in the governance of the country in the interests of the public who elected them to office. Within those institutions there is a hierarchy wherein the various aspects of government are separated into departments to enable that governance to function with greater efficiency. The elected representatives appoint or hire a group of people to run and manage the day to day functions of each department. That group are servants of the government which serves the public. Each department is overseen by an elected representative who manages the product of the department with the assistance of that permanent hired professional civil staff. The entire structure and functions of the government are financed by the general public through taxation imposed by the elected representatives in the interests of the public.

 

The elected representatives determine not only how revenue is raised, but how much is raised and how it is to be spent. They claim to do do these things entirely in the public interest.  As the funds are entirely public funds, it is only natural that a high degree of care is taken with its management, to ensure that the funds are gathered and dispensed 100% in the public interest.   

 

To ensure that the proper and appropriate degree of care is taken, various codes of conduct have been put in place, in writing. As well as the written codes of conduct, there are certain implied or inherent terms and conditions which governs the conduct of all people serving the government, whether they be elected representative or permanent public servants working within the civil service.   All have a duty of care to behave in accordance with total commitment to promoting and safeguarding the interests of the public.

 

The necessity for codes of conduct is because of the very size of the public purse, not only because of the amount raised, but more significantly how it is spent. So who spends it, what on and to whom, is of pretty great import. 

 

 

What we are seeing at the moment is a government run and managed by people who seem to have no regard for any codes of conduct, other than what they make up and improvise as they go along.  The claim to be acting in the public interest is mouthed without any concern for the truth, as if all that mattered is merely making the claim. There is no need any more for substance. Things are being said and done almost entirely out of self and political interest. This reality is unfortunately being masked by the current pandemic. Certain members of the Government have assumed that the cloud cover of dealing with the effects of Covid 19 will allow them to behave in any way they can to promote their own self interest and that of their supporters. They continue to do so with an arrogance and cupidity that has no boundaries. They shrug their shoulders, grimace in disgust at being challenged and call out the mantra “It’s all done in the public interest, let’s move on”.

 

That the public cannot see through ‘Just Boris” is a very sad situation for the United Kingdom. What is most disturbing, according to statistics, is that the very people he cares least about, the social grades C2, D and E, are the ones who seem to give him a high approval rating. Those who disapprove of him the most are the 18 - 24 year olds, which is the only saving grace. I do hope that they will make an impact at the next election to get rid of this unprincipled gang of Just Boris and his Outlaws.

THE PUBLIC INTEREST

It would appear that I may have been mistaken in my comments about the media frenzy in respect of the Duke of Edinburgh’s death. I stated that the amount of coverage said more about the British than it did about the Prince Consort; however, in the light of the numbers of complaints to the BBC about the extended coverage and the slashing of its viewer ratings as a result, I must revise my opinion of the British. The BBC controller of programming should do the same, as should those at ITV. Channel 4 on the other hand, even at 2 hrs of coverage, was very brief indeed.

In any event, the state of mind of the media was completely at odds with the public interest. By that I mean what the public is actually interested in. Having clearly been preparing for the Duke’s demise, the programmers must have been inundated with so much material from producers and presenters seeking to get their pennyworth in, that they missed the actual mood of the public. As a result, a decision was made to just put out the whole lot. Big mistake. The public had grown up with Prince Philip. He was now a ninety-nine-year-old man who had retired from public life. They would been be happy to celebrate and toast his hundredth, but if he didn’t make it, given his various visits to hospital, it would be sad for the family but not an unexpected loss. Well done him would have said enough, but hang on, why do we have to miss out on East Enders, Masterchef (the final? – of all episodes to scratch) or whatever favourite program we have chosen for Friday night during this lockdown to keep us sane. Therein lies the true interest of the public.

So, I apologies for my wholesale comment about the British. I should have been more specific about which “British” I was profiling. I will now do some more outrageous stereotyping. The programmers I refer to are still very much part of (whether they choose to admit it or not) a very British class system.  They have probably been educated at a grammar school, public school or something equivalent.  They went on to University and did degrees in Journalism, History or P.P.E., preferably at Oxford or Cambridge but in any event a “Good University” They might even have been part of a University Challenge team. They too, are in the habit or making stereotypical British assumptions about what the great British Public are interested in. In doing so they make class distinctions and have a mistaken belief that all things related to the Royal Family are of paramount importance. In this they are seriously in error and consequently ignorant of just where the public interest lies, as was I.

The reality is that the only people who showed the kind of interest the programmers assumed was public, were the very people who were being trotted out for interviews about their personal interaction with the Duke. All those little anecdotes that made them all smile benignly in reminiscence of their contact with the great man.  The general public however were far more interested in who won MasterChef and the latest plot point in their favourite programs. They very quickly let the BBC have their views, by switching off and sending in complaints.  Nevertheless, the BBC continued its outdated coverage into the following day.

In my view this is all further evidence that this is still a very class conscious society, reenforced by the unchanging attitudes of certain television and other media executives. Jingoism is still very much the preferred course to follow in the minds of “these people”. I know that to them I am one of “those people”.  Vive la difference, as Jacques Derrida might say. It would be wonderful to have his deconstructive take on these events.

What we effectively had was a catalogue of The Duke of Edinburgh dispensing largesse to the public and keeping them in their place. His visits to factories and other work places, were classic patronage, where he invariably meets a greeter who would introduce him to a line of people, and he would crack a joke and put them at their ease. This would then be the subject of the anecdote. “He was so nice, not at all stuck up, so funny, put us all at ease” etc.  We had this scenario time and again. No wonder the viewing public were sick of it. People do not like to be patronised, let alone be reminded of how long it has been going on by watching it demonstrated through the night, ramming it home. At the other end we had his cousins and various relatives describing how they patronised him, the Greek refugee, who didn’t really know where he belonged. He had some very good teachers on just how to fit in, and fit in he did with flying colours.

But still the people will go on being patronised, they will continue buying The Sun, the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror.  They will pick up the Metro and Evening Standard on the tube or bus, going to work and coming home, although circulation is dropping. As to the i, The Guardian and the Financial Times, they are in an even swifter decline. As an aside, barely 3.5 million people buy newspapers today whereas over 15 million did in 1947.  As a percentage of the population, that indicates an astonishing decline in readership. I cannot say what the web views of these publications are like.

But I digress. What is good to note is that the British public is very willing to complain about what they see on their televisions and other digital devices. So far as the media is concerned they have a lot to learn about the public interest.

HE WAS SOME KIND OF A MAN

Somewhere, in one of my previous blogs, I mentioned the expected emotive reaction to the death of the Duke of Edinburgh, as a possible relief from the continuing developments of the pandemic. I had expected some degree of coverage on the news followed by a day of mourning and a state funeral with cortege, lines of military personnel, various dignitaries from around the commonwealth, and other heads of state, all being described  in sonorous tones by a Dimbleby, with Nicholas Witchell, attempting to be sonorous, providing additional Royal colour. What I did not expect was what has transpired. 

 

Clearly the Dukes death has been expected for some time. The last sight of him leaving hospital to return home, was as good an indication of what was soon to occur, as anything could have been. As a result, the various news agencies and television networks have been preparing their various obituaries and comments on the life of the Prince Consort for some considerable time. Consequently, from the moment his death was announced, all the media instantly scrapped their current programming and ploughed in with wall to wall coverage, through the night and into the morning, trotting out numerous pundits and anyone who so much as stood within handshaking distance of the prince, ready and willing to relate the slightest bon mot or anecdote, already clothed and made up in funereal dress, with nodding and appreciative presenters smiling benignly. 

 

The reality was soon  apparent. After about 45 minutes it became a sequence of repetitions, the same photographs and film clips shown over and over again on all the networks. The same shots of ancestors, schools, ships, weddings, coronations, picnics, and visits to factories and places round the world. Endlessly being told of his work and awards scheme inspired by his old headmaster Kurt Hahn. Along the way, there was  also frequent mention of some flaws, although fleetingly. 

 

I am not trying to belittle his life or achievements, but the amount of television hours on all the networks through the night and into the day does not say so much about the Prince than it does about the British. Indeed, this outpouring of seemingly infinite adulation is something, so we were endlessly informed, the Prince himself would have abhorred. If that were the case, then why was his wish not honoured? “He’d hate it, but we’re doing it anyway. Isn’t that good of us?” Would that he could, in some way, object. 

 

I can and do object. One carefully edited hour would have done the job quite deftly with dignity and sufficient respect. I cannot help but think of Marlene Dietrich's final lines in Touch of Evil which would have summed it all up, and done a far better, and more memorable job: