The knives are out. “Off with their heads” screams the Queen of Hearts. “Slash their necks” cantors Sweeney Todd. “You won’t even have a constituency home if you are not careful” says David Cameron with a wry smile.
That’s right. Julie Kirkbride M.P. has to answer to his “scrutiny panel”. It sounds as if I could make this into a sexual innuendo, but I have no idea what it would be. As it is, it conjures up a picture of the Spanish Inquisition. A confession will be scrutinised out of her - “if only you would admit your sin of embarrassing your Lord and Saviour”- and once she admits humiliating Davey, she’ll have to pay the King’s Ransom. Or death; political death. It will be- as my Pythonesque imagination envisions- a foregone conclusion and a show trial. No real consideration for the case on its individual merits, but a chance for a public hanging of a former favourite.
Now I don’t know the law but it seems she, like most M.P.’s didn’t break any- unlike the few that committed outright fraud. Nor do I know what the “spirit” of expenses are meant to be. For my job, I have a small amount of personal expenses, but I can’t possibly think what I need to use them for. And on what basis do I judge if I have used them in the right spirit? From a glance her excuses don’t seem so bad. She is ‘accused’ of letting her brother stay rent-free in her second home. Julie’s response: he looks after my son so I can do my constituency work. Fair enough.
But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it’s not “fair enough”. Maybe this was an abuse of this ineffable spirit. However, the point is that all the town cryer (read: Daily Telegraph) has to do is to spread a rumour of witchcraft and the poor witch is automatically condemned. Not only that, but the Grand Inquisitor is the very Bishop that gave her ordination. Yes, David Cameron has to be seen to be doing the Lord’s work or otherwise it will be he that is condemned as witch-man. Not only that but the whole Church would tumble down besides him.
David Cameron has learned from the mistakes of Charles I. Unlike his father (James VI) who would make any concession to save his popularity and to oil the wheels of parliament, Charles was too principled. He was too well intentioned and we all now where that ended! He was literally beheaded for his sins against the G-dly.
Charles would not do, for example, what kings of England had done since the days of Edward III and the ‘Good Parliament’ of 1376 and jettisoned a royal favourite for the sake of an improved working relationship between Crown and parliament. Cynicism and disloyalty shocked him deeply. Instead, Charles insisted on looking at the individual merits of the case. This was a terrible mistake. You will not find any chapters in constitutional histories devoted to the rituals of therapeutic disgrace, but creative scapegoating had, none the less, long been an integral element of English politics. Concentrating odium for unpopular policies on the head of a politician… preserved the fiction that the ‘king could do no wrong’.
Charles refused to scapegoat one of his advisors and so consequently, the blame had nowhere to go but to him. If the King stood by the minister, then he was saying that he was personally responsible for unpopular policy. His honesty led to his unpopularity!
So David Cameron has learnt well. Find some scapegoats for the unpopular policy and…. Slash Slash Slash. Maybe this is a necessary move. Charles’ refusal to act led to civil war and revolution; and maybe Cameron’s policies will help prevent too much of a revolution in our democracy. However, despite its political pragmatism, it doesn’t feel right!
No comments:
Post a Comment