John Major urges misconduct crackdown, warning of falling political standards
Sir John led the Conservative government between 1990 and 1997, which was mired in accusations of 'sleaze' following a series of parliamentary scandals.
In response, he set out the Nolan Principles, a code of conduct which all politicians and officials must abide by, and the Committee on Standards in Public Life to advise the prime minister on ethical standards.
A majority of those in public life still follow the principles, he said, but the minority who do not should face consequences.
'Too often, there are none,' Sir John said.
Pointing to the Partygate scandal which rocked Boris Johnson's government, as well as scandals facing the police, the Church of England, and public services such as the Post Office, Sir John warned of slipping public standards, and insisted 'a re-set is essential'.
He added: 'Today, scepticism does not fairly describe the public mood: a more accurate description would be a mixture of cynicism and disillusion that stretches across most of our public institutions ‒ the Church, Parliament, police, public service and press among them. That is not healthy in our public life.
'The Committee on Standards in Public Life has reported that social and political trends have coarsened standards. That is true, but put too gently.
'Standards have been undermined by being ignored, by being broken, by public figures who put personal or political interest before public virtue.'
Many of the watchdogs put in place to prevent abuses of power are unable enforce their edicts, Sir John suggested.
'It has been our past practice to offer guidance on good conduct – and trust it will be delivered. That was the Nolan approach.
'But experience has taught us that no rules can deal with individuals prepared to ignore them and, sometimes, sanctions are required,' he said.
He welcomed moves to bolster oversight of ministers with an independent adviser on ministerial standards, and the parliamentary commissioner for standards to oversee MPs.
But Sir John said the Advisory Committee on Public Appointments (Acoba) stood in 'stark contrast'.
The watchdog, which gives politicians, their advisers and chief civil servants advice on whether or not jobs they take up after leaving public life are appropriate, should be 'put on a statutory basis, and given deterrent powers', he said.
He also called for a thinning of the number of special advisers who act on behalf of ministers, and warned that House of Lords appointments in recent years had not passed the 'smell test'.
'There should be no free pass to becoming a legislator,' Sir John said, saying the upper chamber should not contain legislators unable or unwilling to take part in scrutinising law changes.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and party treasurer Nick Candy during their meeting with Elon Musk in December (Stuart Mitchell/Reform UK/PA)
The former prime minister also suggested reports American businessman Elon Musk had planned to give a multimillion-pound donation to Nigel Farage's Reform UK political party would have left it a 'wholly-owned subsidiary of foreign money', as he criticised the dangers of political donations.
'We need to refresh protections, and close off this pipeline before it becomes a serious political problem,' he added.
Sir John closed his speech by warning that Britain's 'widely envied reputation for being free of corruption and bad practice' was at risk.
He added: 'I regret the slow erosion of that reputation – which we would once have thought indestructible. It is time for us to reverse this trend before the damage becomes beyond salvage.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
42 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Abergavenny library mosque proposal decision date named
A decision to grant a 30-year lease on the former Abergavenny library was approved in May before being put on hold pending review by a council scrutiny committee, which met last week, and said the decision had to go back to the cabinet within 10 working days. Just days before the scrutiny committee took place the words 'No Masjid' and crosses were spray painted on to the grade II listed building with police investigating the criminal damage as a hate crime. Masjid is Arabic for place of worship or mosque. Monmouthshire council's Labour-led cabinet will now consider the arguments made at the place scrutiny committee when it meets for its regular meeting on Wednesday, June 25 and must decide whether to stand by its original decision or reconsider it. The scrutiny committee heard from Abergavenny mayor Philip Bowyer and town council colleague Gareth Wild, a Baptist minister, who both spoke in favour of the cabinet's decision to grant the lease to the Monmouthshire Muslim Community Association. READ MORE: Banner of support draped over Abergavenny mosque graffiti Four public speakers, including Sarah Chicken the warden of the alms houses next door to the former library, a resident, and Andrew Powell landlord of the nearby Groefield pub objected to the decision, citing reasons such as parking and potential for noise as to why a mosque and community centre would be unsuitable. Cabinet member Ben Callard, who lives near the proposed mosque and represents the area on the town council though he is the county councillor for Llanfoist and Govilon, explained no planning permission is required. Community centres and places of worship fall under the same planning use as a library. But he said the community association had promised to hold a public consultation on its plans, but that was criticised by councillors who called the decision in for review, as it was 'consultation after the decision'. The review was instigated by Conservative councillors Rachel Buckler and Louise Brown, who represent Devauden and Shirenewton, and Llanelly Hill independent Simon Howarth who questioned how the decision was made. They faced criticism as Abergavenny councillors and the town council backed the original decision. The former Abergavenny Library. The three questioned the council's process and complained there had been no scrutiny of the decision. Cllr Callard said the community association's bid was the highest scoring tender, and the £6,000 a year rent similar to one of the other bids, and rejected the idea it would be practical for the council to operate as a landlord if every lease had to go through a full scrutiny process. Cllr Callard also said if councillors disagreed with it offering the building for new uses, as it was no longer used as a pupil referral unit with the library having transferred to the town hall in 2015, the decision made last November to declare it 'surplus to requirements' should have been called in for review. The cabinet will consider the scrutiny committee's suggestions a re-tender should be run with specifications including an independent valuation, a survey of the building, consideration of the building's history and importance, a public consultation and the possibility of selling the building. It meets at County Hall in Usk at 4.30pm.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Regime change in Iran? Be careful what you wish for
Getty Images History tells us that we will all pay the price for a rush to war, especially Iranian civilians Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Ten years ago, in a very different world, the SNP was adapting to life as Westminster's third party and the resulting new responsibilities. The EU Referendum Bill was still rattling its way through Parliament, with the mayhem it unleashed yet to come. As the SNP's first member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, I was working with colleagues as then Prime Minister David Cameron mulled the expansion of air strikes against Daesh. The so-called Islamic State had unleashed a wave of horrifying violence across the region that they were publicising through social media channels. The Committee had investigated the implications of any such military action taking evidence from a range of actors and experts in the UK and region. The proposed action was one of extending UK airstrikes from Iraq, where the RAF was already in action against Daesh, across the border into Syria. That would have meant the UK joining other states, as well as countless armed groups, in becoming a participant, however limited, in the ongoing conflicts across Syria. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Comparatively this was a modest proposal. Daesh was not a state actor, the UK was already involved in military action against them and there was unanimity around wanting to see an end to Daesh's murderous reign. However, there was reluctance across Parliament to sanction intervention. Even in 2015, the implications of the toppling of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, hung heavy over MPs, mindful of the consequences of the Iraq war, pursued by a Labour Prime Minister, that had led to regional destabilisation, an undermining of the international rules-based system and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in the subsequent civil war. There were also the more recent consequences of 'regime change' in Libya where a Conservative Prime Minister had sanctioned action that led to the fall of Colonel Qaddafi's administration. Many of the mistakes that had been made on the run up to Iraq were repeated in the Franco-British led actions in Libya. The consequences of those mistakes were again felt most keenly by the innocent civilians. Given that recent history our Committee was asked to come up with a set of criteria for the House to consider ahead of the vote. Our report, written by the very talented team of clerks who assisted us, was published in November 2015. It bears re- reading today especially the short, one page section 'Enabling the House to reach a decision' that effectively provides a 'check list' for war. When teaching first years at the University of St Andrews I used to ask them to read the report, and if not the whole thing, then that one-page provided a good cheat sheet of what policy makers should look for when considering whether to sanction military intervention. It is as useful a read today as it was then. Some of the questions around international law, the role of ground troops, agreement of regional actors and the overall strategic goals meant that the Committee could not, initially, agree military action. Today as Trump considers action, and the UK is coming under pressure, I feel that the questions we posed then are relevant today and again have not been answered. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Don't get me wrong, the Iranian regime is deeply unpleasant, threatening its neighbours, murdering opponents and oppressing its citizens. The same was true for the regimes in Tripoli and Baghdad. Furthermore a nuclear armed Iran would be dangerous for the region and the rest of the world. Iran has absolutely no problem in visiting death and destruction on its citizens and neighbours including providing an arsenal for Russia and the drones that target families in their homes in Ukraine. An Iran that respects international law has huge potential as I saw for myself in 2015 when the Committee visited. Sitting around the table in the British Embassy where Churchill had celebrated his 65 th birthday with Stalin and Roosevelt during the Tehran Conference in 1943, the British chargé d'affairs and other senior diplomats updated us on the progress with the JCPOA diplomatic negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear capabilities. They were clearly making some progress until Trump brought them to an end. We were also briefed, and could see for ourselves, the economic potential of the country where ordinary Iranians were keen to rejoin the international mainstream. Iran is a complex and deeply diverse country of well over 90 million a critical part of the world. Any war and upheaval in the country would have massive implications for us all. It could also further destabilise the Middle East convulsed by the humanitarian catastrophe caused by Israeli actions in Gaza and the years of war in Syria. Over the next few days Donald Trump is considering joining Israel's military action against Iran. For now, Keir Starmer is calling for a diplomatic solution, joining President Macron, who mindful of past failures such as in Libya, warned 'the biggest mistake today would be to try to do a regime change in Iran through military means because that would lead to chaos'. The High Representative for Foreign Affairs, and no friend of Iran, Kaja Kallas also remarked that Iran must not be allowed nuclear weapons but that 'lasting security is built through diplomacy, not military action'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However, pressure could well be brought to bear on the British by the White House. The lessons of Iraq and Libya hung heavy over MPs ten years ago. As the situation in the Middle East evolves rapidly, those lessons seem as pertinent today as they did then. Like then, we shouldn't recommend war and regime change without answering the questions we posed a decade ago. History tells us that we will all pay the price for a rush to war, especially Iranian civilians.
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Where have all the anti-war Democrats gone?
To bomb or not to bomb? President Trump treats waging war with the same gravity he might deploy when deciding whether to play golf. He said this week that 'I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do'. Call it strategic ambiguity, or flagrant honesty. You get the sense that the president doesn't know himself whether he will give the order. The White House line right now is that the president will decide over the next two weeks. Cue chatter that this is a ruse to discombobulate the Iranians before an imminent American strike. Whatever he decides, Trump's attempt to save face after Netanyahu ignored his plea to leave the negotiations with Iran alone has exposed fissures between the neo-cons in his administration and the Maga isolationists. The Maga activist Laura Loomer has started a list of those who criticised the president, presumably for a future purge. What, then, are the Democrats doing to exploit this chink in the normally preternaturally cultish Maga movement which rarely turns on itself? Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, issued an milquetoast statement when Israel first struck Iran. Hakeem Jeffries, his counterpart in the House of Representatives, issued a similar statement but called for American troops not to be put 'in harm's way'. As Peter Beinart wrote in the New York Times, neither Democratic leader instructed the President that the authority to go to war resides with Congress. (Schumer later did, but took no action to that effect.) There is a tendency within the party to treat war as a non-partisan issue, as if bombing another country in the name of national security is a foregone conclusion. A rally-around-our-troops effect takes hold. This might be a missed opportunity for the Democrats to become the anti-war party, a position Trump has dominated since he won in 2016. A YouGov/Economist poll found that 60 per cent of Americans don't think Trump should get involved in the war, including over half of Republican voters, with only 16 per cent supporting action. Yet, the anti-war Democrats are confined to the party's populist left, or what you could more generously call the left who wants to be popular. Bernie Sanders has introduced a No War Against Iran bill in the Senate. Ro Khanna, the progressive Democratic representative, has emerged as the party's leading anti-war figure. Khanna opposed the Iraq war in 2003 and sees interventionism in the Middle East as yet another example – alongside globalisation and a pro-rich tax policy – of how communities in states such as Pennsylvania were shunted to the bottom of Washington's priorities. It's a message Trump has put to good use for over a decade. Democrats' pitch to voters could now include both opposition to Trump's militarism at home and abroad. Challenging Trump's potential strikes could become a chance for the Democrats to tap into that populist anger which Trump has so deftly mined for so long. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe [See also: Is Trump the last neoconservative?] Related
