on david laws and marbury's law

Chris Dillow has a superb post on Laws and laws, which must be read in full. But for now, here's one sentence:

The message here is that it is better to be a prissy, priggish follower of rules than a man of any other virtues - which is a perfect recipe for mediocrity.

Agreed.

But many of you will disagree. Reading the excellent discussion below has caused me to reflect on why I see this so differently from several of my readers and many commentators. In what way are my priorities different, when it comes to choosing politicians?

Here's the thing I think I care about relatively more than most (NB the "relatively" is crucial here):

- How able the person is, how competent - how well they can do the job. The main reason I'm pro-Laws is that - and here, nearly nobody disagrees - this was the most remarkable case of man meeting moment. Everything about his education, professional background, talents, disposition and political positioning made him the right man, at the right time, for this job. Osbourne was correct when, displaying a hitherto unsuspected eloquence, he said it was as if Laws had been put on earth for this role. Nobody thinks Alexander is of the same calibre, but neither is there a better alternative. Given how absolutely vital this role will be over the next year, it would take an awful lot to persuade me that the guy most qualified to do it shouldn't be doing it.

Things I care about relatively less than most:

- Moral probity. To put it flatly, I couldn't give a toss whether a politician is a "hypocrite" or not. As far as I'm concerned, we're all hypocrites in one way or another. I don't think politicians, including ones who fiddle their expenses, are any worse - in fact, let's coin Marbury's Law: people always under-estimate their own hypocrisy and over-estimate the hypocrisy of others. I think Laws's offence was piddling (and if it had been a mum claiming benefits I'd have called it piddling too). Politicians have to reach Berlusconi-levels of moral corruption before I worry about that more than whether they're competent. If the bloke with the moat had been a world-class expert on global affairs and a superb statesman, I'd have had him at the Foreign Office, moat and all.

- Empathy. Again, I couldn't give a flying cellphone whether or not a politician "understands me". If they're at the Treasury I'd rather they understood fractional-reserve banking; if at Education, the data on what makes a good teacher.

Comments

[ashcash]

---
He explained: "When I grew up, being gay was not accepted by most people including by many of my friends. So I have kept this secret from everyone I know for every day of my life. I was so determined to keep my private life secret that James and I behaved as if we were good friends."
---
.
.
.
Mr Laws is living in the past. Meditation and/or prayer will help him move forward.

[gerdbrunzema]

"Seek for integrity, intelligence and passion. If he lacks the first, the others will screw you up" by Warren Buffet, sort of.

Dont underestimate moral standards or we'll end up in an Goldman&Sachs overkill.

[TR]

I agree - Chris's piece is a good one.

I'd quote his second point also:
"Clever people can be stupid"

I agree that the expenses scandal got way out out hand, but by now no MP could be in any doubt of the consequences of breaking the rules, and it seems pretty clear that he did break the rules, no matter what your view on his motives.

It's a shame that talented people lose their jobs over idiot moves like this, and that they lack the common sense to figure out which rules they can break and which they can't.

I feel sympathy for Laws, but frankly, also I'm annoyed with him for removing himself from the government like this.

[Marbury]

Yes...gerd I may have been exaggerating a little. You're right but my point is we're blowing this moral lapse - if that's what it is - way out of proportion. I'd rather have a well-run economy managed by morally flawed ministers than a bloody mess run by saints. TR I agree with you - I'm annoyed with him too. But I'm more annoyed with a political environment that makes this sort of thing a huge issue, at the expense of more important things like competence. The more we make mountains out of molehills and lose talented politicians as a result, the more we all suffer. It's the self-destructiveness of this that gets me.

[ejoch]

Agree entirely Ian. Also I think there's a problem around this business of wanting politicans to be like 'regular' people. I don't want them to be anything of the sort, not if they're in a senior position. A person who has to decide on say, sending troops into battle or imposing sanctions has to be unlike a regular person- they have to think beyond everyday rubbish and think strategically. And take decisions an average person might balk at.
and if they can do that, I couldn't care less if they fiddle expenses/have a moat/employ their friends.

[gerdbrunzema]

@Marbury: Yes. Right. I think all the moral judgements here have tactical second thoughts and are therefore not a bit better than the lapse discussed there. Since all human beings are human beings and fail sometimes the point to me seems to have a kind of fair and pragmatic way of dealing with issues like this. And there you need integrity (not bigotry) which is connected with intelligence ultimately something like wisdom... : )

[daveJones]

@Marbury: This remindes me of a point made by David Runciman (he talks about it in interview here http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/14577, also a book called political hipocrisy (2008)).

His point (or my crude understanding of it) is that hypocrisy is unavoidable in politics, but that there are broadly 2 types of hypocrite.

A: not living up to the whiter-than-white expectations of the public.

B: living up to them, at the expense of doing the job that you are elected to do.