I was brought up to believe that principles were everything. "Intent" was a defining noun. Doing the right thing, even if the "rules" allowed you to go further, was important. It has led to various debates throughout my life where my, at times perhaps, overly conservative/protectionist/reputational shield has come into play. For example, I did not think it "right" that my former employer should open a representative office in Myanmar, even if the rules allowed us, but they went ahead anyway. I closed it as soon as I was in a position senior enough to do so.
The discussion has struggled on. The "rules-based" provisions in the USA did not prevent the likes of Enron and WorldCom from going bust. The introduction of Sarbanes-Oxley "rules" has had some impact, but seemed to be more like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut - or so it became, even if the original intent was much less draconian. Rules, we said, encouraged the nimble-minded to see just how close they could get to the imaginary line created by the rules - or even assess the risk of having one foot on either side of those lines.
Principles, on the other hand were altogether more, shall we say, "lofty". More sort of, well, British. People instinctively knew what was right and what was wrong, and acted accordingly without having to resort to a "rule" book. Today, sadly, one might have to say that to trust in ones fellow human beings to act "properly" is blinkered and naive in the extreme.
Britain's ruling (for the time being anyway) Labour party has been found with an excess of
moral turpitude and, to be fair, I suspect there are also a few members of the Conservative Party who have their heads very well below the parapet for fear of being branded the same way. It all started with expenses. There has been so much written in the world-wide media about how these politicians, representatives of the constituents who voted them into power, have blatantly abused the trust placed in them that I will not continue old news. "But", say these disgraced politicians, "it was allowed by the rules"! Forget the principles, people of Britain, it was in the "rule book", so it was okay.
Well, the people of Britain have had an opportunity to have their say. In the local elections held on Thursday and with results almost all in, the Labour Party has - in effect - been kicked out of Parliament, although that actual event is not going to take place until a General Election is called sometime with the next 12 months. The very people who voted for the last Government have already said "we don't want you any more. Leave."
The British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is I am sure an honourable man and must be bitterly disappointed at his inheritance from the rather clever Mr Blair, his predecessor, who maybe saw this coming before he left office mid-term. The Cabinet re-shuffle announced yesterday looks awful and surely the only way in which Mr Brown can salvage any dignity whatsoever is by resorting to his own strong principles.
He is presiding over a Government that lacks credibility and which the people of Britain would like to see changed - now! The message is clear - move on, or run the risk of more indignity. This is nothing to do with the financial crisis, this is all about Governance and Leadership.
Do not stick to the "rules" and hold an election at the last possible day; Do stick to your principles and do the right thing.
I think there are a couple of errors (maybe just of interpretation) in your post. I'm sure you won't mind me correcting them
1) I'm sure there are as many (if not more) transgressors of the expenses principles on the Tory side as the Labour side. Duck shelters and moat cleaning come to mind.
2) I think Tony Blair was forced from office, in large part by Gordon Browns desperation for power. I don't think he sneaked away as he saw the expenses or other debacles coming.
Posted by: TB | June 08, 2009 at 12:04 AM
Agree in part with your first comment - and I did write in the Blog "...to be fair, I suspect there are also a few members of the Conservative Party who have their heads very well below the parapet for fear of being branded the same way." Whether there are more than Labour, I cannot say.
I would not totally subscribe to the view that Blair was "forced" from office. From everything I have read, he had an agreement with Brown that should have seen Brown in office earlier than he arrived - and that Blair reluctantly honoured that agreement. But after Iraq I certainly think Mr Blair thought his own strategic withdrawal was appropriate. As for the rest? Speculation.
Posted by: David Eldon | June 08, 2009 at 12:22 AM
I think you meant to say that the Labour Party suffers from an excess of moral turpitude, not a lack of it. Or is that, too, a British thing?
Posted by: Noah Webster | June 08, 2009 at 07:04 AM
Thank goodness someone reads my Blog! You are correct and I have amended the wording. My first draft read "..lack of moral fortitude.." and when changing one word for the other, I lacked the good sense to proof read it. Thank you for pointing it out.
Not sure if your comment about it being a "British thing..." was to signify that most Brits anyway suffer an excess of the same moral turpitude!! :-)
Posted by: David Eldon | June 08, 2009 at 08:54 AM
Blair most certainly saw this coming,& rather than being 'forced' from office, being 'rather clever', knew when to run!
Gordon Brown,'honourable'!!!!! Mon Dieu!! He must be possibly one of the most devious, paranoid, bullying, pigheaded P.M.'s ever. All these 'qualities' melded together by extreme incompetence, disguised by bluster! 'Disappointed by his inheritance'!!!! He created it!!!
Apart from probably destroying the Labour Party, possibly not a bad thing, he must surely go down in history as the UK's worst & most incompetent PM!!
Posted by: Robert Chesney | June 09, 2009 at 09:31 PM
Of course the MPs kept to the 'rules', they wrote them so wide they could do anything and not break 'rules'. I believe the rules were written at a time when almost all MPs were honourable and could be expected to follow the spirit. This no longer applies so tighter rules are needed - this demonstrates the kind of MP we get these days. Come home Disraeli, all is forgiven. (I gather the famous duck-house is to be auctioned for charity)
Posted by: Paul Corser | June 12, 2009 at 05:27 AM