• A roll-call of shame

Over the last ten years or so, there have been several. Some are very local (though one is now revealed to be more widespread): others are national. There’s also one that happened over eight hundred years ago. These are the ones I’ll be thinking of for the next few minutes, if you want to stay with me…

• The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) scandal in West Berkshire (now resolved).
• The CIL scandal in other areas, mainly Waverley in Surrey.
• The Readibus fiasco in West Berkshire (now largely resolved).
• The Faraday Road/Monks Lane fiasco in West Berkshire (jury still out).
• The Post Office Scandal.
• The infected blood scandal.
• The Afghan data leak.
• HS2.
• The Fourth Crusade.

There are others, but that’s enough to be going on with. The last might seem like an odd addition (and hardly only ten years old) but bear with me.

• Causes

All of these cock-ups had their own underlying causes and pre-conditions, their trigger moment, their principal actor. If we went into all of these for all of the above we’d be here all day. What seems more useful (as well as a lot shorter) is having a look at the stages that all these tend to go through.

These might be labelled miscalculation, distaste, defensiveness and denial.

• Conspiracy?

This is, for many, the first conclusion. Something bad has happened and therefore some shadowy group of people has conspired to make it come about.

This explanation is also eye-catching, unprovable and limited only by the imagination of its propagators. JFK’s assassination, 9/11, Princess Diana’s death, Covid – how fun it is to blame any of these on a cabal involving, say, Freemasons, the CIA, the Duke of Edinburgh, a disaffected Chinese scientist and Bill Gates. The more faces you can cram into the picture, the more compelling it becomes: the social-media equivalent of the cover of Sgt Pepper.

There are several powerful arguments against the conspiracy explanation. Here are three.

• Generally the supposed members have no common interests or affinity for each other. Any such alliances that might briefly exist will quickly collapse under the weight of their internal contradictions.
• The number of permutations as to how a series of events can pan out is, if not infinite, then often as close to it as makes no difference. This makes it hard enough for one person to follow a pre-determined path. When you have half a dozen horses pulling the cart the chances of success are almost zero.
• Anyone looking round at the strange assortment convened to bring about the desired result would quickly conclude that there simply has to be a better way to accomplish it.

The real culprits are generally Conspiracy’s far less interesting younger siblings, Greed, Incompetence and Stupidity.

• Miscalculation

Medieval people believed that all materials were comprised of various combinations of fire, air, earth and water. Most fiascos these days, and indeed then, are caused by greed, incompetence and stupidity to varying extents.

If I were being charitable, I could add Bad Luck. However, surely one definition of incompetence or stupidity is to assume that nothing unexpected will happen to frustrate the plans and that it’s not necessary to provide an alternative route if that happens.

Take a look at the list of screw-ups above and assign your own mixture of greed, incompetence and stupidity to them. I think you’ll agree that these three base elements account for pretty much all the fuel that was necessary to get the blaze started.

Overall, a miscalculation has happened – the fire has been built in the wrong place, or started at the wrong time, or is likely to spread to somewhere else. Too late for that now – it’s been lit.

• Distaste

This might seem like an odd one, but it happens time and time again.

As soon as it’s become clear that something has gone wrong, people (often the victims of the fiasco) will start complaining. The best thing the instigators can do is to convince themselves, and others, that they’re the problem.

These whingers are not victims but people opposing a noble and self-evidently good thing. They’re self-interested, over-protective, reactionary and unaware of the great benefits that the change will bring. They are, in short, greedy, incompetent and stupid.

These accusations are often not expressed externally but are encouraged and spread by subtle means within the organisation. This then becomes the prevailing orthodoxy: which, in turn, makes all the measures against them seem reasonable. This is exactly what happened in the late 1930s in Germany. In order to defeat your enemy, you first have to dehumanise them.

It’s a strange quirk of human nature that we’re most keen to accuse other people of the very faults that we ourselves possess. The more incompetence that the PO management showed, the more the idea was spread that the Postmasters were incompetent and thus worthy of prosecution.

Many of the councils which have weaponised CIL against their residents have accused the victims of being greedy (in the sense of evading “fair” charges), whereas it was the authorities themselves that were guilty of this.

• Defensiveness

So, now the fire is burning but shooting sparks in unexpected directions. Despite the demonisation of the enemies and the assurances that all is as it should be, it’s becoming clear even to the most cloth-brained of the perpetrators that all is not well.

The stated aims may not be being realised. More fuel needs to be thrown on, which has to be paid for. The drawbacks are starting to outweigh the benefits. What do you do then?

This is where the full benefit of being part of a big organisation like a council, a state monopoly, a government or a crusading army really kicks in – you move into corporate defensiveness mode.

This unedifying business involves circling the wagons, searching through your constitution or similar for justifications and handing over day-to-day control of the issue to lawyers and PR experts.

West Berkshire Council exhibited this reaction to a high degree with regard to three of its fiascos, though the results were in each case very different. These could be summarised as – and you’ll have seen that we’re painting with very broad brush-strokes here – disproportionately zealous (the CIL scandal), headless chicken (Faraday Road) and embarrassingly incompetent (Readibus).

Indeed, these three reactions could form another list of essential elements which, in various combinations, typify all attempts at this defence.

• Denial

It’s now clear that the fire is completely out of control. Nearby buildings are starting to burn but the thing it was intended to destroy is largely untouched. Complaints and public accusations are rising, as are the costs. Then something awkward like an election or a public inquiry looms. What’s your option now?

Deny it. Deny everything. Delete emails, shred documents, bully staff. Delay or obfuscate every attempt at investigation. Issue or fabricate complaints against those who’ve broken ranks. Send out irate press releases supporting your position. Threaten those who disagree with legal action.

Then, like a spy who’s being interrogated, retreat as slowly as possible through a series of defences, all the while trying to distract the attention from the real treasure. Above all, hope that you can wear your inquisitors down.

Theta’s where the Post Office got to when it was hauled up before Wyn Williams, Jason Beer at the rest at the Inquiry. These people were not, however, worn down. The result was, and surely officially will be, a public catalogue of incompetence, stupidity and greed.

One might also add another sibling, Entitlement. We’ve risen to this position, the logic would run, and therefore we should enjoy the fruits that it offers. You might have others. If so, please let me know.

• The Fourth Crusade

You thought I’d forgotten about this, didn’t you?

Of all the events I studied during a history degree, this was the one that most gripped my imagination. The army never left Europe, sacked and conquored two Christian cities including Constantinople and was excommunicated. By any standards this made it an interesting event.

Greed, incompetence and stupidity could be applied to this. So, I believe, could blind chance, though to an extent that the leaders of such an event in the early thirteenth century could reasonably have been excused from anticipating. You can read further thoughts on this event by clicking here.

The lessons of the Fourth Crusade are with us all the time. The best-laid plans can veer off course. Good intentions can become perverted. Unexpected opportunities can justify deviation from a stated goal. Religion, or some other authority, can be twisted to support a change of plan.

Above all, history is written by the winners (which the crusaders and, in particular, the Venetians, were). If you can get over the line then the spoils and the reputation are yours. But if you can’t…

• In conclusion…

The fact is that most of us are not nearly bright enough, ethical enough or capable enough to confront the problems we’re forced to deal with. We’re promoted or elected to roles that are beyond our abilities and are forced to muddle through.

The world is insanely complex and most of us, myself included, can barely identify even one step ahead with any clarity. Even the wise cannot see all ends. Is it therefore surprising that we have screw-ups like this?

Should heads roll as a result? Yes. To execute an Admiral from time time might, as Voltaire said in Candide, serve to encourage the others. To do so is, however, to admit that the system of selecting decision-makers and holding them to account is flawed, which casts the whole process into doubt.

Success must, the logic of the rulers runs, be rewarded but failure should not be punished. Thus the status quo, on which we all depend, will be restored. Don’t rock the boat.

Beyond a certain point of seniority, you’re therefore impervious to the consequences of any but the most extreme disasters. It’s sadly unlikely that any prosecutions will result as a result of any of the infractions described at the top of this section.

We’re better off now than when Orwell wrote Animal Farm, to which I referred last week. But only slightly. Greed, incompetence and stupidity still stalk our public life. However, as these are among the most commonly found attributes of humans – this human included, if I’m being honest – perhaps that isn’t a massive surprise.

And finally…

• I don’t know what made Environment Secretary Steve Reed say that it would cost £100bn to nationalise the water companies but it couldn’t have been any understanding of their worth. As one of the many commentators on the debate between SR and rivers’ campaigner Feargal Sharkey in a LinkedIn post observed, “the idea that nationalising water companies would cost £100 billion is, as Feargal Sharkey points out, incorrect. As he implies, the water companies are environmentally insolvent. They cannot afford the investment needed to prevent pollution of our waterways, and consequently, they should be declared financially insolvent.”

• Private Eye’s Rotten Boroughs column has a regular look at how the various Reform councillors are doing: and why not? Issue 1654 (see p15 of the print edition) reports on a seeming warehouse hypocrisy in Northamptonshire and £50,000 wasted by the cost of replacing councillors who’ve had second thoughts in Nottinghamshire and Durham.

• Jeremy Corbyn and Kara Sultana have finally, and it seems for the first time, officially announced that they’ll be launching a new party. Previously, she’s mentioned it but he hasn’t (or may it was the other way round). So far, it doesn’t have a name but is provisionally called “Your Party”: “His Party”, “Her Party”, “Their Party’ and “Our Party” presumably having been rejected due to their not being able to agree who the leader was. As the BBC reports, its first test might come soon: “the party now seems likely to be up and running in time for the local elections in May 2026, which include council elections in London and other cities which are likely to prove the most fertile territory for this party of anywhere.”

• In Surrey, Waverley District Council continues to tie itself into knots over its handling of the CIL scandal which it has allowed to develop. We take a look at the latest developments, including a rather inconclusive Q&A session at a Council meeting, in this separtate article.

• A deal was struck between the UK and France recently about the vexed question of the small boats. Commentators, as quoted in The Week were divided in their opinions, some calling it groundbreaking and others worthless. The reality is that the UK is regarded as a pretty attractive destination, something Starmer could change by making us less so and so perhaps a nastier place into the bargain. Beyond that is the idea that, however nasty we make ourselves, the UK is still a good place to live and a lot of people wish to do so. To some extent, this is a delayed payback of an imperial legacy.

• England’s opponents in the final of the Women’s European Championship on Sunday will be Spain: the European against the World champions and a repeat of the World Cup final in which Spain beat England in 2023. I hope this will be settled without the need for penalties, the stress of which I can’t cope with. Whoever wins, let’s also hope that there’s not any imappropriate kissing this time…

Across the area