Skip to main content

Morality and Humbug

I am not sure whether or not the UK can blame a general moral collapse for the riots that convulsed the country in early August, although that is what Prime Minister Cameron appears to believe.

I am, however, pretty sure that any comments about morality from Tony Blair should be treated with disdain, if not actual contempt.

As Peter Mandelson helps himself to the point where he can now afford an £8 million house, and Mr. Blair himself continues to collect ever larger cheques from various international investment banks, it seems pretty clear to me that at least two of the new Labour triumvirate have parleyed their public service into private profit.

Mandelson, of course, was a notably indifferent minister, being forced to resign on two separate occasions for reasons directly concerned with a rather careless attitude to money. It remains to be seen how history will judge Mr. Blair, but given the aftermath of his policies in Iraq and the economic catastrophe that hit the UK shortly after Mr. Blair departed from office, it is hard to see how that judgement will be particularly positive.

What I find most revolting is the nakedness of the greed of these erstwhile public servants. They are filling their boots by working for institutions that themselves have a pretty questionable view of morality. As it is revealed that students are being put off entering the City because of the stigma banking is now getting, I also note that John Le Carre has highlighted this issue in his latest novel, "Our Kind of Traitor".

Perhaps more interestingly there are barely disguised references to the Mandelson /Osborne /Deripaska affair. Those controversial meetings that took place then, must- we hope- have had a less sinister intent than the fictional meetings on a similar yacht.

Whatever happened in the riots, the idea that morality prevails unsullied in British politics is not one that John Le Carre shares, and -as I have noted before- Russian money in Britain is indeed being used for purposes that undermine our own freedom.

Any politician who promoted such business would certainly be involved in activity that, if not actually illegal, would most certainly be immoral.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
The problem is less that Mandelson was 'a notoriously indifferent minister' - the problem was, and remains for Labour, that in spite of everything he was still ten times the politician and minister of the rest of Gordon Brown's cabinet put together.
10:41 am
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...
Post a Comment
Read more

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...
20 comments
Read more

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...
14 comments
Read more