Such a prescient, beautiful sentiment.

Saturday, 12 September 2009

A Moral Dilemma.

What If.......

You are aware that someone is not fit to hold office and speak for others but are concerned with your duty to loyalty and your cause? Is turning a blind eye ever justified? Should personal sacrifice be preferred to supporting bad behaviour? I suppose to expect honour and decency in this day and age is naive. Oh well, there's always blogging!


  1. It's an insoluble problem. You need to be a member of one of the big two parties if you hope to be in government. Being such a member means that your loyalty must lie with the party, even at the expense of your constituents, or even the good of the country.

    The fact that there has been very little challenge, and what there has been was easily defused, demonstrates quite clearly that the concept of honour has become a relative one in the minds of politicians.

    The insolubility of the problem lies in a paradox. What are needed are people whose loyalty lies solely with the good of the people. If such people exist, they exist outside the main parties and, thus, will never be in government. What we need, we can not have; and what we have, we do not need.

  2. I agree with Edgar. Politicians explain their tolerance of unacceptable leaders to themselves in terms of proecting the party and maintaining the order of the party system. This, in turn, they tell themselves is more important for democracy and social order than acknowledging that someone high up in the leadership is barmy. Add to that personal ambition and the public have nobody on their side in Parliament or in the Civil Service.

  3. Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

    -John Adams

  4. Well, good stuff but I'm still not sure where I should go. If I really went on the offensive and gained a scalp for the people, hope would indeed spring eternal. I am developing several strategies and one may well pay off. Certainly not a case of eggs and Bo Peep containers!
    Anon, a terrific quote and I thank you for that. My health is also an issue but I am getting stronger so maybe one last flush!!!!

  5. The UK PM is no longer just a party leader, with all the developments of the Blair years he has become the keystone of a huge clienta dependent on him and his immediate circle. If the PM goes, a great many know that they will go with him. Including many at the BBC.

  6. Would that not be a good thing, Demetrius?

  7. I've worked for the BBC. It is a deeply corrupt body, it is corrupt because it has been allowed to regulate itself and it should now be largely dismantled.
    My MP rigged his 'open to all' expenses meeting and David Cameron is aware of that. But he cannot discipline Bill Wiggin because Peter Hitchens discovered that David Cameron did the same thing in the same week. That is not loyalty - that is calculated expediency.
    Without a huge, principled clearout of Parliament and the BBC I fear that in the long term we will hand our country to dangerous extremists.