Why do we know about the cocaine?
Published: Thu, 06/13/19
You may have noticed that the Conservative party is electing a new leader. You may also have heard that Micheal Gove, MP for Surrey Heath since 2005 and Currently Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was a possible candidate for the job. Until that is, it was revealed that the Right Honourable member of parliament Mr Gove had a period in his 30s of using Cocaine on a regular basis including, apparently allowing the drug to be available at parties he was hosting. It seems that these revelations have pretty much obliterated Micheal Gove’s chances of becoming leader of the Conservative party, and our next prime minister. Mr Gove now says that he wishes he had not involved himself in such activities and hopes that his mistakes can be overlooked as youthful indiscretions.
I am not a member of the Conservative party and I doubt the sanity of anyone who actually wants the job at the present time. So, while I am making no judgement on Micheal Gove’s, or anyone else’s, suitability or otherwise for the job of prime minister, I do find myself considering the following:
Is someone who has committed a crime a fit person to be elected as a prime minister? Depends what you mean by ‘crime’? From a libertarian point of view a crime must involve one or more of three things; Harming of another person, depriving another person of their property or damaging their property or defrauding someone in a contract. If none of these things have happened then no crime has been committed. A great deal of what we call crimes are actually no more than breaking regulations, which may, or may not be intended to prevent actual crimes happening. Some regulations such as driving on the left side of the road are best obeyed by all drivers for reasons of safety. But the fact that the law in the UK mandates driving on the left does not make all European and American drivers criminals for driving on the right, it is an arbitrary regulation either way.
I am sure alcohol was drunk at Mr Gove’s now notorious social occasions. If these parties had taken place in the USA in the 1920s under prohibition then the wine, beer and spirits served and consumed would have been illegal. Which narcotics are legal or illegal at any one time is again a matter of arbitrary regulation and that applies to cocaine as much as any other intoxicant.
Perhaps the bigger problem for Michael Gove’ s credibility is the charge of being a hypocrite. When Michael Gove was justice secretary from 2015 to 2016 he apparently took a hard line against class A drugs and those who used and supplied them. If Mr Gove did become prime minister he would be presiding over an administration which would continue to prosecute people for an activity which its leader once indulged in and was lucky enough to get away with. So, what credibility could the government’s drug policy have?
On the other hand we have all done stupid things at some stage in our lives. Often it takes some experience to realise that something is not a good idea and stop doing it. As far as anyone seems to know it is 20 years since Mr Gove last used cocaine so maybe he knows better than most why class A drugs should be avoided.
To me though the really interesting question is why the revelation about Mr Gove and his 20 year old relationship with coke came out at all? The media is capable of being very selective about what it publishes and what it keeps quiet about. All of the Conservative party leadership candidates will have various skeletons in their closets. The hiding or revealing of these ‘facts’ will be carefully managed as part of the selection process of the next leader. I suspect that many Conservative party members might well have considered Micheal Gove a good choice for leader. Now, thanks to revelations of drug taking 20 years ago, electing Mr Gove to the top job will almost certainly not be an option for the party faithful. I don’t know whose agenda that actually serves but I don’t believe in coincidences either.
Is freedom and democracy just an illusion? Is our political system just a way of maintaining control while pretending that we the people make a choice of who rules us? We need to stop asking ourselves which ‘democratic’ option we should choose. Instead we need to ask why we are given particular choices in the first place. Also why some choices, such as whether or not Micheal Gove would be a good prime minister, seem to be made for us? Once we start looking for who controls the narrative and why we are fed particular stories and denied others we will be on our way to reclaiming our freedom. First we need to wake up and see what it going on, nothing is hidden, it is right there in plain sight.
regards
Graham
PS There is nothing new about democratic accountability. On the Isle of Man there is a place called Tynwald Hill where an open air meeting of the island’s parliament is held once a year as it has been for over 1000 years. Tynwald Hill is a registered Thing site which encompasses ancient Viking sites which have been found throughout Northern Europe. A Thing is a meeting of the community at which all freemen could attend and have their say and leaders could be held to account. Perhaps the big difference between a Thing and modern politics is that leaders and people actually knew each other and the behaviour and actions of leaders were known and seen by real people in real time. There was no media spinning a narrative and coming between people as there is today. Perhaps in those days it was easier to tell fact from fantasy.
One reason for holding the Rune Retreat next week is to give a few people the opportunity to engage with some reality, real countryside, real trees, real wood, tools and fire, the stances in an out of doors situation and real fellowship and company. Only a week to go now but we could still fit in one more if you have not made your mind up yet http://rr.stavcamp.org/