Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
Jon is sort of correct. His either/or analysis is bang on.
Whether or not he is unfit to lead the country is the big debate. He has certainly shown leadership on three great issues. I don't think that breaking the Covid rules merits that he walks the plank even if he made the rules that he broke.
But he's not spoken the truth to Parliament and although it was on a minor transgression, he laid himself open to the savaging he is receiving because he broke his own rules.
So, ultimately he has to go because otherwise the electorate will do that job. It's just that now is not the right time and the Opposition need to reach an accommodation with the Government.
|
A person can be an effective decision maker whilst being of dubious moral character, most of the time at least. The problem arises where a the need of an effective decision intersects with the need for sound ethical decision making. Arguably of course there’s always an ethical component to good governance but it comes to the fore in some places more than others. Leading a government that thinks it’s a good idea to transport asylum applicants to Rwanda, for example. Or trying to ensure that truly insane levels of bureaucracy don’t stand in the way of Ukrainians coming to the UK. That’s why Archbishop Justin Welby was absolutely right to use his Easter address to put the ethical boot in and why it is so troubling that some politicians got so shrill at the very idea of being criticised by someone whose job it is to reflect the teachings of someone who had plenty to say about the moral qualifications of leaders.
Beyond that, whether someone is of good character simply matters. The rest of the world sees us through our leaders, especially when those leaders have democratic legitimacy. Keeping him on will eventually start to reflect badly on all of us.