As is obvious from much of what I write, I believe that governments can be both benign and profoundly beneficial to the population of a jurisdiction.
I am not, however, naive. Long experience has made me aware that the processes of government can be corrupted, and all too often are.
I stress that I am not suggesting that government is itself corrupt.
Nor am I suggesting that those who work for a government are any more likely to be corrupt than those who work in the private sector. In fact, by inclination I think the opposite is likely to be the case.
However, corrupt, self-serving, negligent, self-centred, egotistical or even straightforwardly cowardly people can and do undermine the processes of government in ways that make it likely to fail. That this is a very real possibility is something of which anyone engaged in the political process should be aware.
The report from the infected blood inquiry makes this uncomfortably clear. Being published at the same time that the Post Office inquiry is continuing, with the former Post Office CEO being subject to cross examination on her role in that very obvious failure of a government institution this week, this report makes it very clear that the possibility of failure is most definitely present in the UK system of government.
As far as I can see, very little can excuse the actions of those ministers and officials who ignored the warnings with regard to potentially contaminated blood-based products that existed from the 1970s, about which they have no excuse for not being aware from the very early 1980s onwards.
Even if those officials never personally profited from having ignored the warnings they were given, the processes of the government failed, and they obviously contributed to that.
With regard to the minister involved in the infected blood scandal, I think the burden of responsibility is greater because if it can be shown (as I understand it has been) that they knew about this problem and chose to ignore it for reasons of supposed cost, then they did so to advance the interests of the governments of which they were member, and so their own well-being, which appears to me to be actions requiring much greater attention. Ken Clarke's belligerence on this issue is very unbecoming, without presuming that implies guilt. Norman Fowler also has obvious questions to answer on his role.
The Post Office inquiry has not, of course, concluded it hearings. I will, therefore, draw no conclusions relating to the conduct of anyone, but it is still very apparent that something that can only be described as collective wrongdoing went on in that organisation, with there being a tacit cover-up put in place to disguise the fact.
The infected blood inquiry proves failure by governments, from the level of political leadership onwards, and these failures are inexcusable. I will not seek to apologise for them, or offer explanation, because they are simply unacceptable.
That said, what is very obvious from my perspective as a former auditor is that both these episodes indicate failings within the overall control environment of these organisations.
Risk was not properly appraised.
Governance procedures, including appropriate checks and balances, clearly did not exist.
In the case of the Post Office, there were glaringly obvious failures in accounting systems. It is almost impossible to explain how the double-entry for the Horizon entries could not have caused considerable alarm to its accountants and auditors, and yet it apparently did not.
And in both cases it is apparent that a collective culture of denial was promoted.
We know how to prevent these things. There have to be whistleblower protections. There has to be the opportunity to challenge decisions. There has to be accountability. Government must be undertaken in a spirit of openness, however occasionally uncomfortable that might be.
I believe that is possible.
I do not believe it is within a culture of neoliberalism that always seeks to protect the powerful. And it is that culture that I blame for these failings.
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:
Anyone who, like Ken Clarke, has sat on the board of tobacco company BAT cannot be regarded as having the most accurate of moral compasses.
Thank you and well said, Kim.
Richard has kindly put me in touch with Mike Parr.
Advertising who owns politicians and even civil servants should form part of campaigns by independents. That can include photoshopping the person’s head on a racing driver’s suit with all of the donors and / or their logos displayed.
Donations are not always declared. If suspicion exists, one can ask the person in public.
The question is, of course, how to we manage to get a change of culture implemented? Who will bring in whistleblower protections, for instance? Starmer? Absolutely no chance.
The only politician in recent years who would be likely to have brought forward such changes, Corbyn, was destroyed by endless attacks by the media and establishment – including those to the right of his own party. That’s not to claim he was without fault, but these took place regardless of his own weaknesses and failings.
I suppose that may perhaps be a little harsh on Ed Miliband who might have attempted to implement such changes in power but again, of course, he was ‘monstered’ by the right-wing media when trying to win in 2015. And, mentioning Miliband, we can also remember that Clarke backed the legislation which unsuccessfully tried to force through the implementation of Leveson 2. That was admirable from Clarke, but it marked a distinct contrast to his behaviour as a minister regarding the blood scandal. Even those doing good in one area fail terribly in others. I don’t think this is unique to Tories, incidentally, though it is certainly more likely from them if experience over the past 14 years is anything to go by!
It just so happens that I watched The Big Short again last night. A very entertaining film, but it always makes my blood boil that the blatant and outright criminality (allied to stupidity and incompetence) of many thousands of bankers which crashed the world economy went almost totally unpunished. If the establishment will let them get away with that, what will it take for there to be meaningful change? Politicians and bankers swinging from lamp posts?
I fear that the ‘LINO’ takeover of the Labour Party leadership means that we’ve got at least one more lost generation before anything changes. The only hope is that they get twitchy when the polls change after they continue to fail and implement PR so we can get some better people into parliament, of the type that the gatekeepers would reject as candidates.
I am not optimistic about the future at present, that’s for sure!
The PM said this: “So I make two solemn promises. First, we will pay comprehensive compensation to those infected and those affected by this scandal”.
The estimated cost of compensation will be £10Bn (BBC), or £12.7Bn (Reuters). They can always find the money they tell us we don’t have, when politically; they really need to do so. Covid. Fight a war. Blood Scandal. The PO scandal, when they stop dragging it out.
I will surmise there was a third promise, written in invisible ink. Nobody will be prosecuted.
“I stress that I am not suggesting that government is itself corrupt”. I cannot do justice to a Report of this length, therefore I cannot form a decisive opinion, but I have some reservations about you comment. Here is what the Longstaff Report says, Volume 1, Summary:
“The Government plainly formed the view, at an early stage, that nothing had been done
wrong, and that no financial assistance would be provided to people with bleeding disorders
who had been infected with HIV. It did so without any proper investigation either into what had
caused the infections or into the appalling plight of those infected. Had it done so this would
have revealed systemic failures that contributed to what had occurred. Government fear of
setting a precedent outweighed considerations of moral responsibility or compassion. It was
largely public and political pressure which led to the change of position in November 1987”.
Or here: “There is, further, a strong sense that departmental officials were keen throughout to advise
their ministers of the risks, rather than the justice, of what ministers had asked them to explore”.
Or here: “These events reveal a deep institutional reluctance within government to, and the lack of an
open mind to, the provision of financial support to those infected with Hepatitis C through
blood and blood products. A line was adopted, and adhered to for over a decade, for reasons
that do not, on analysis, stand up to scrutiny. Those ministers who, from time to time, voiced
the wish to make some (albeit limited) provision were firmly steered away from that course
by civil servants in the Department of Health”.
On the Treasury, in 1990 in a court case the judge wrote to the parties seeking a compromise: “Whilst the CMO supported the judge’s recommendation, senior civil servants took a different view and recommended that the route mapped out by the judge should not be followed. That too was the view of Kenneth Clarke and of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury”.
I will not go on. There is something deeply wrong with the general conduct of government. I assure you this has resonance throughout history. It seems to me that slavery created a quite similar institutionalised problem. There is a pattern here we seem uncomfortable examining.
Thanks
All noted
Is this the nearest we are going come to a national consensus on the need for a root and branch reform of the UK constitution?
This should include how to improve the legitimacy of parliament, the accountability of individual parliamentarians, ministers, civil servants , govt departments, NHS, and other public bodies
How to get rid of the corrupt influence of private money on parliament and parties, the honours system, reducing the size of second chamber, a proportional voting system, the duty of candour – the responsiblity of professionals, officials, politicians, not to the organisation but to the patients, the people etc etc etc etc
Would it be possible for all those groups who have campaigned for decades about blood, nuclear, post office, Hillsbrough, Grenfell, Steven Lawrence etc – to get behind such a ‘Never Again’ campaign to reform the British State?
That would be good….
Thank you and well said, both.
At City events, Starmer and his Treasury, Business and Health teams have said they plan to enhance the independence of the Bank of England and OBR, have City professionals seconded to all areas and levels of government, and have City investors partner with all areas and levels of government to deliver net zero and public services, develop infrastructure, oversee regulation and competitiveness, sit on planning boards, and deliver education and training.
It made me wonder what would the government do and investors not do and what would government look like after a term of New New Labour. It’s not said, but implied that the government’s share of GDP should fall and be maintained below 30% of GDP.
Very deeply worrying…..
While I agree with everything you say Andrew, I feel for any reform of the present system to take place, it has to start at the perceived top. The House of Windsor.
Oooh! Good idea – where do I sign up?
Thank you, Richard.
Not unrelated, this time for whom the economy is run: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-20/private-equity-s-massive-british-debt-spree-sparks-warnings-of-danger.
A few weeks ago, I attended a Bank of England event, https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/speech/2024/april/rebecca-jackson-speech-uk-finance-on-private-equity-focused-thematic-review. Firms were warned. My employer is not listening, but is increasing its exposure to such risk. £2bn expected this year.
Unfortunately, politicians*, regulators, “dumb money” and the MSM are impressed by the vultures. *The vultures are advising Labour directly and by way of working groups organised by Blair’s team.
Private equity has always scared the living daylights out of me
Massve leveraged gains are the goal, from exploitation
The City feesl so at home with it
Thank you, Richard.
I agree with you and think the concept should be banned.
You would be surprised how many City types favour simpler, but easier to police, rules and banning certain products and activities.
I has long struck me that private equity is essentially speculative, betting that one of the ‘horses’ will come home and make them a lot of money. There is no interest in building businesses that are scaleable in the longer term. Most seemingly sold off to larger players in the field. Part of the ‘kill in the crib’ strategy seen in the tech sector.
Meanwhile venture/vulture capital is based on acquiring firms, loading them with debt, extracting as much wealth as possible by stripping them back to a weakened carcass that invariably fails, whilst the VC walks away.
Both PE and VC need to be hit with changes to tax laws and regulation to make them much less lucrative.
In the book “After the Great Complacence” (Engelen et al) there is a chapter which should make everybody smile:
“Alternative Investment” or Nomadic War Machine?
which discusses Private Equity. The chapter forensically demolishes PE (comparing them to Vikings) “its not fixed strategies that generate reward, but rewards which drive various tactics of value extraction and impose costs externally” ……………..speaking of the latter “I say Daphne look at the size of the turd floating down the river etc”.
So true
Though it is trivial by comparison with the blood scandal, the river that runs through our and neighbouring villages has been heavily polluted for the last 2-3 weeks. Tests have shown high levels of e-coli and swimmers have been ill. Normally green clumps of weed are covered in slime. (It’s the upper reaches of the Wey, normally clear with trout fishing).
The local reaction is despondency- no-one will be held to account, as we have seen with the water industry more widely. The Tories are keen to blame the blood scandal as being all about state failure, diverting from endless failings in the private sector. The narrow Treasury mindset and weak co-opted regulatory oversight, are what link failings in both state and private sectors. They enables rotten cultures to flourish.
Agreed
I can understand the despondency. The vast majority of the country have been educated into submission, socialised into passivity by the MSM, gaslit by politicians and their hirelings (including the BBC), deserted by the Opposition (LINO and LibDem), reduced to securing their basics of existence, and when roused – arrested by the state.
It is almost impossible, even at local level, to do anything that isn’t ignored or diverted into harmless channels.
Jeremy Hunt is the local MP and Dead Ringers have nailed him as a creepy gas lighter
Because I’m old, grey, weary and cynical I take a more gloomy view of things than you do and would point out that “out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made”.
Large organisations tend by their nature to be sociopathic, which means that their interests (however defined) are paramount and no-one gets in the way. Lying, gaslighting, evading, and hiding the truth (and truth is generally inconvenient) are built-in, as is stomping on whistle-blowers. This has always been true, and it is true of government bureaucracies as well – “the coldest of cold monsters” I read somewhere.
This does not mean you are wrong – as usual you have said much that I agree with – but it does mean that the effort to overcome these natural tendencies will be very great. Often the rewards system does not reward openness.
Quite what the solutions are is not easy to fathom. It will require a major cultural shift and the vested interests who hold sway over the government at the moment will be difficult to shift. The usual suggestions of proper democracy and a proper constitution are clearly part of this.
Obviously, just because it’s difficult does not mean we should give up on the idea. It means that progress will be slow, there will be resistance, and those leading the fight can expect to be attacked by the established power-base with the aim of undermining them as individuals, not addressing the issues. Determination, energy and reforming zeal on the part of a group of politicians somewhere will be required (maybe even cross-party). The problem is that I don’t see anyone among our political leaders who seems to be made of the ‘right stuff’ to pick this up. Surely, though, there would be votes to be gained by campaigning on this as part of a manifesto!
The base failing is most people don’t understand the circularity embedded in processes so don’t for example understand the climate system of the planet requires a balancing of warming and cooling within certain prescribed limits and the use of money which enhances the security of promises being kept relies on sufficient redemption (return) of taxes. In the case of the latter there’s no recognition that money can’t be created unless a government has the power to tax to ensure the value of any money creation has stability in value. Further there’s little recognition that just as the government power to tax arises from nothing so does the power to “magic” into existence the transaction medium itself.
Once you start looking for circularity in processes then you find they are deeply embedded in the universe.
Slightly off topic, but I think relevant, is a radio 4 programme, “Broken Politicians, Broken Politics,” that I listened to yesterday, featuring an MP who tried to take his own life.
It detailed the alarming decline in the mental health of MPs and the many reasons for this. Not least the dysfunctional and archaic nature of our parliamentary system.
So many issues:
the adversarial layout
the whipping system
the bullying
the lack of an HR department
the impossibilty of achieving any reform for most MPs and subsequent sense of failure
social media
One MP described the commons as “a mauseleum of disappointment”
I won’t repeat everything as the programme has all the details and is well worth a listen. For those short of time Jennifer Nadel, co-director of Compassion in Politics, who made the programme, has an article in the Guardian on the same subject.
I think these are probably essential listening/reading for those supporting indedependent candidates here…..so much change needed in every way!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/20/mps-mental-health-shock-politicians-silence-brexit
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001zdf4
Thank you
I have never regretted not standing
Middle Son was bellyaching on Sunday.
I was asked many years ago if I was interested in being considered for a peerage. I didnt follow it up as I didnt think I was up to it.
He was complaining though as he wanted to be able to use the title ‘Honourable’ at school
🙂
Definitely a good reason for not being a peer
That very much reflects what Ian Dunt writes about in his book How Westminster Works and Why It Doesn’t.
Thank you, I’ll be listening to that.
I’ve become tired listening to people telling me that politicians are all the same. I fully understand why they feel that way but I’m not convinced it’s entirely true. I’m hoping BBC radio, just for once, will provide a different perspective.
The Institute for Government and the Bennett Institute are doing a review of the constitution. It would be worth asking them how they plan to make it more than a review – how to liink it to the blood/ post office/ Grenfell etc scandals and actually get consitutional reform onto the country’s political agenda – and to put it into action.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/framework-reviewing-uk-constitution.pdf
(also https://consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/the-uk-constitution/)
It would have to include how to ensure the population is properly informed – BBC, social media, so-called MSM – the ownership of all these, and how to avoid corporate and moneyed interests embedding themselves inside the body politic.
Dont we need a sort of separation of powers – so that the science, and especially ‘official’ science does not become corrupted by politicians and big corporate interests – through research funding, awarding of honours etc etc. as the Sars 2 covid science has been , and continues to be.
Richard and his bloggers could have an important input to this.
Does anyone want to help create a draft submission we might discuss here?
At this moment I am inundated
I will try to draft something
Thanks
I had an interesting discussion today with somebody that built a community broadband system – all fibre-optic, mostly rural areas, 100% community owned, mostly built by communites and …….14,000 subscribers who get uncontended 100MBps. The system (BT) remains against citizens that want to do stuff & works hard to stop them doing it. Interestingly, the people that drove it forward were retired people – with expertise in a range of fields. The reason why we were speaking? – community broadband fits well with community energy, communtiy pubs, community etc. I mention this in the spirit of “Hope” emerging from the bottom of Pandora’s box.
Calling all retired people – it is time we took the toys off the political boys (they are mostly boys) – we should have done it a two decades ago – but family, career etc & let’s be honest – would anybody that is sane and has some self respect and an OK ego want to be a politico? A puppet who toes the party line? Lives a lie?
I digress, the woman I spoke to gave me some very very useful structures/ideas to implement “community-anything”. A very clever & resourceful woman. Given the looming next election – those who would like to join us in making sure that citizens have choice – please contact Richard he has my details.
Happy to pass on….
Mike Parr,
I asked recently and now ask again – could you post something on here about what you’re doing and planning? Thanks.