History thunders

 

It was like asking questions of history. A trinity of Cabinet Secretaries faced the Public Administration Committee this morning. I confess to being slightly awe-struck.

Their very names are a thunderous roll-call of power, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB, CVO, Lord Wilson of Dinton, GCB and Lord Turnbull of Enfield, KCB, CVO. These were the men who were at the elbow of all British Prime Ministers for the past 40 years. These three cabinet secretaries shaped much of recent history.

What do they think of the plans of the new Government to, in Cameron’s words, ‘stand Government on its head.’  They purred civility, courtesy and restraint.Their answers were Delphic in their obscurity. They did not get where they have been by answering simple questions, simply.

There is new manual of Government starting with the role of the Sovereign. It’s a rare treat to discuss the monarchy because parliament has many trip wires that obstruct free comment. Today it was on our agenda. Did the three eminences agree that succession from a monarch who has never expressed an opinion on a political subject to her son who suffers from an incontinence of babbling on political subjects was a problem? Are we in danger of a repeat of the royal crisis of the thirties with a king who expressed political views? The trinity believe that Charles will stay schtum when he wears the crown.

Another intriguing tale is from the historian and former Tory MP Robert Rhodes James who told the story of Thatcher’s demise. The Tories had a moment of terror. What if Thatcher called a General Election in 1990? Neither the cabinet, parliament, nor the Conservative party could have stopped her even though they were desperate for her to go. Only the Queen can stop a PM acting in his or her own interest.

Is this the only worthwhile role of a Head of State to take control if a PM goes as Lord Wilson said ‘off his head’? Should this not be spelt out in a new statement of our unwritten constitution? Their eminences rumbled and cogitated.They are not worried.

History has spoken.

 

Unanswered questions

I strived to get an oral question in every day. It’s reassuring to get e-mail messages from day time parliament viewers who do not miss a thing.  Yesterday I had a typical non-answer from Liam Fox on this.

Trident

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): How can the Government, who plan to save money by closing our libraries and selling off our forests, justify wasting tens of millions of pounds on a useless virility symbol when they cannot give any plausible future situation in which Britain might use a nuclear weapon independently

 

Minister Alistair Burt's answer to this today was bleakly inadequate.

Afghanistan (Corruption)

7. Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): What recent steps his Department has taken to support measures to reduce the incidence of corruption in Afghanistan. [37146]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt): We are encouraging the Government of Afghanistan to live up to the commitments they made on anti-corruption at the conferences in Kabul and London last year. In addition, I met yesterday with General McMaster, the head of the international security assistance force’s anti-corruption task force, to discuss how the coalition could assist Afghanistan in bringing those involved in corrupt practices to justice.

Paul Flynn: Has it been worth the sacrifice of 350 of our valiant British soldiers to protect the election-rigging President of Afghanistan who refuses to arrest his corrupt brother, the vice president who was caught smuggling $51 million to his bolthole in Dubai, or the Government cronies who have stolen 7% of the country’s GDP from the national bank? Is not the truth that it is not the system that is corrupt in Afghanistan, but that corruption is the system?

Alistair Burt: There are, of course, wider issues involving national security that contribute to the presence of our forces in Afghanistan, in company with those of 47 other nations. It is not appropriate to discuss individuals, but I should say that the British Government are entirely clear: no one is above the law, no one is above inquiry, and the people of Afghanistan deserve a system of justice that ensures justice for all and that those involved in corruption are brought to book".

 "No-one above the law" except the Prseident, his brother, his vice-President and all the members of his government."

Simon Hoggart' in awe

It was a great occasion. Three of the most magnificent magnificos in British public life were gathered together to speak to a committee of MPs. There are no more powerful panjandrums in existence. All were former cabinet secretaries and heads of the civil service: Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB, CVO, Lord Wilson of Dinton, GCB, and Lord Turnbull of Enfield KCB, CVO, leading immediately to a mystery: what did Lord Wilson do so wrong that he didn't get a CVO, or Commander of the Victorian Order? Why doesn't he have that bauble on his tree?

These were the people who made Sir Humphrey look like an office boy. And they had that skill possessed by all the greatest and the goodest of saying almost nothing, in a very prolix fashion. The chairman, Bernard Jenkin, kept begging them to keep their answers short. But they could no more do that than paint their backsides blue and dance naked on the table.

Take the discussion on the powers of the monarch. Paul Flynn, Labour, the thinking man's Dennis Skinner, pointed out that whereas the Queen never expresses political views, her heir does little else. And some Tory MPs had been fearful in 1990 that the Queen might call a general election, following the defenestration of Margaret Thatcher. Shouldn't we define what the sovereign can and cannot do?

Here is Lord Wilson's reply: "The fact is that by not defining it over the centuries, we have allowed the role of the sovereign to evolve in a very British way without creating crises. We are very lucky to have a sovereign who has such experience of political life, and who has met the prime minister of the day weekly to discuss affairs of state. But if you tried to put it into law, you would have trouble pinning down the essence of it. Better to move incrementally …"

In other words, let's do nothing at all! But let's do it at interminable length!

The MPs fretted about a document called the cabinet manual. This is, apparently, a sort of IKEA assembly-style guide to what you can and cannot do in government. The mandarins were anxious to claim it was no such thing, without actually saying so. Lord Turnbull said it was essentially descriptive and not prescriptive. Why, Lord Armstrong pointed out that "the words 'should', 'ought' and 'must' hardly appear at all!" So don't bother your little MPs' heads about that, was the message.

Lord Armstrong had been in charge when the Brighton bomb went off in 1984. "I did a lot of thinking about what one would do if the prime minister was removed from the scene," he said gravely. The result of all that thinking? We would need a new prime minister! Worth a CVO in anyone's money, I'd say.

And there was a fine moment when Lord Turnbull was asked whether the civil service had held back radical change. "Radicalism, I have no problem with. Initiativitis is a different matter." And, having invented this ugly new word, he gave a meaningful shudder.

Comments

[Ad]

'Paul Flynn: Has it been worth the sacrifice of 350 of our valiant British soldiers to protect the election-rigging President of Afghanistan who refuses to arrest his corrupt brother, the vice president who was caught smuggling $51 million to his bolthole in Dubai, or the Government cronies who have stolen 7% of the country’s GDP from the national bank? Is not the truth that it is not the system that is corrupt in Afghanistan, but that corruption is the system?'

Indeed. There is no incentive for the Afghan government to deliver on its stated commitment to reduce corruption or to make use of any 'assistance' to achieve this:

'American investigators say many of Mr Karzai's closest advisers, some with regulatory responsibilities over the Afghan financial system, are implicated in the scandal.

Some are viewed by Western donors as the most accomplished members of Mr Karzai's cabinet, like Farouk Wardak, the Education Minister, or Haneef Atmar, the former interior minister.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghan-elite-plundered-900m-from-leading-bank-2200176.html

Afghanistan is treated as some sort of naughty child. Going back through the involvement in the 1980s and the 'Great Game' of the 19th century this province on the edge of the empire is seen as a source of potential disturbance. Again we will learn the lesson that it would be better for all if Afghanistan were left alone to determine its own future according to its own traditions.

Instead we have the global powers interfering and leaving destruction in their wake. "This regime is too islamic/ left wing/ under the influence of Russia etc. for our taste."

Real reconstruction is what is needed for Afghanistan's future. There are a number of obstacles in the way of this. Firstly, the corruption which leads to substandard, useless work being done.

Secondly, the futile war which is only going to end in defeat for NATO. This coming at a time when America's influence and standing is decaying. Their military dominance is a crutch which a demoralising defeat will take away. As a backlash they will elect a complete imbecile for President such as Sarah Palin.

[HuwOS]

Someone please tell me that this is intended to be a parody.

[Junican]

Your efforts are very commendable. These questions need to be asked. But the horror is, what would you have done about the terrorists in Afghanistan?. If you had to decide, what would you have done? Would you have done nothing? There is no reason to suppose that the option of doing nothing is unreasonable. But, had you done nothing, suppose that the UK had been subjected to a sustained series of suicide bomb attacks on sports stadiums, airports, etc by people who arrived in the country claiming asylum?

It seems to me to be true that the Gov (and Parliament in general) is trying like mad to avoid the real issue - which is that the ideas of asylum and human rights need to be re-thought. Put simply, we have been led to believe that there is some sort of 'celestial', eternal understanding of human rights. A sort of 'spiritual' thing. But that idea falls apart when reality intervenes. For example, it was suggested that, when Saddam Hussein was deposed, his widow and children could claim asylum in the UK 'because their human rights might be at risk in Iraq'. (And, they most certainly were!) It was also thought that many of Saddam's torturers might claim asylum here for the same reasons.

And so we come to the conclusion that the human rights of any individual depend upon the behaviour of that individual, and not upon some sort of 'celestial' idea of human rights. Had Hitler been captured, would he, the murder of millions of Jews, have been allowed to claim 'human rights' to enjoy family life, etc?

I'm sorry to go on so, but, as I see it, intellect must take precedence over emotion.