A brave civil servant telling it like it is - maybe something that more of our politicans could aspire to

 

Obviously the right will see the clip above as a woke anti brexit liberal elite blob attack on their tremendously successful delivery record since Brexit.

Whereas I see it as a remarkable brave civil servant telling it like it is. 

As a reminder to all politicians, that is what public service is about. Speaking truth to power.

Some of the politicians still seem to get that.  But some of them behave as though public service is pimarily a route to increasing their own wealth.

Speaking truth to power is what public service is about.  Even if it means you don't get that promotion, or that honour, or that seat in the Lords, or that Executive Director/Consultant post in the private sector. 

And the right and the left don't really want to talk about Brexit because - you know - its water under the bridge and so what. 

For the right - they don't want to admit their lack of delivering the "take back control" opportunities. 

For the left - they don't want to talk about Brexit because - with a 48% to 52% ish split on the Brexit vote, they can't get beyond their fear of the electoral maths to be able to say the whole Brexit thing was a con. 

And on immigration neither the left or the right seem able to engage in a sensible debate.

.  

Some politicians tell us to fear immigrants as the cause for most of our unhappiness.

Yet the stranger, the immigant, has always being part of what made our economy and democracy and country strong - for centuries and centuries. 

Given that we have an ageing population, the sensible debate on immigration is - given our care services and other resourcing needs -  how much immigration do we need to fill the gaps - and can our communities live with the consequencies of that level of immigration?

Neither do any of the parties want to talk about the reality that - if you choose to not believe in ridiculous UK economy growth forecasts, or the same moronic forecasts on how we'll get the tax dodgers - then the reality is we're all in for a for a bit of a financial shock when the election is over.

On the no more taxes front - to get you ready for the fiscal reality that will eventually play out after the election  ...

- either we can't afford to have everything we want - so according to our individual economic wealth we'll be able to ride that storm out (look at the increasingly no. of people who can afford it, having operations in the private health sector) OR for the 1 in 6 of us who have effectively no or little savings - we'll be stuffed ...

- and/or somebody will have to get taxed more (according to the right and the left thats not income tax, national insurance or pensioners paying tax) so that leaves only a few options (apart from not increasing tax thresholds so inflation moves more and more of us ionto higher tax brackets)

- I've concluded that the current 2024 election topics of debate between the parties appear to be pitched at such a basic pureile level that the only thing they indicate is how low the talent level in our politicians has sunk, or how low their ambition to have an honest and thoughtful public debate has fallen.

doing right or wrong - what principles govern how UK PM Boris Johnson behaves?

Whilst listening to the UK news this morning I was struck by how at the heart of Boris' statement on attending a party last year was this burning question "What moral principles  govern his behaviour?"

In the televised PM Questions yesterday Boris apologised - possibly.  He also provided the excuse that he thought the party last year that he admitted attending, (with bring your own booze), was actually a "work event", and so within the rules. Boris said that with hindsight he realised the rules had not been followed.  

In his statement he used language like "I regret" and "I apologise", but he also used language like "We didn't get it right".  Watching a re-run of his statement I thought he looked like a schoolboy who had been caught breaking the rules, and who had been forced to apologise when he didn't want to apologise really.  

Given the public's view that his familiarity with the truth is distant, many commentators thought his apology was a non-apology.  And that his "work event" excuse was an insult to those members of the public who had followed the rules.

One definition of ethics is that it is the moral principles that govern a person's behaviour.

So what are the moral principles that govern his behaviour?  From the statement yesterday, and events before that, I'd suggest the following as a started for ten:

1) Assume rules don't apply to yourself or your friends.

2) Work on the assumption that you'll get away with breaking the rules.

3) If people query your rule breaking then follow these steps:

        a) deny you have broken the rules;

        b) if a) doesn't work try to get the rules changed so your behaviour didn't break them;

        c) if b) doesn't work get somebody to rule that you did, in fact, follow the rules;

        d) if c) doesn't work appoint somebody who works for you to review what went on;

        e) refuse to discuss any alleged rule breaking till d)'s review has concluded;

        f) if in the meantime you are pressured to apologise try not to;

        g) if e) & f) don't work and you have to make an apology do so but:

                i) use "we" more than "I" in your apology;

               ii) claim at the time it wasn't clear you were breaking rules;

               iii) get friends to cite your rule breaking as a minor sideshow to your achievements.  

2min 13sec @theRSAorg animated clip - Jonathan #Haidt on Why We’re Convinced We’re Right (and everyone else is wrong!)

Are you trapped in an online echo chamber? Society is becoming ever more divided as we seek out information that reinforces our views – but how do we avoid ending up dogmatic and entrenched? Renowned social psychologist Jonathan Haidt shares a shocking personal example of confirmation bias on social media, and shows just how vital it is for us to open up and absorb ideas from across the political spectrum.