I’d like us to call off the increasing weaponisation of the Nolan Principles. Let me tell you what I mean and why…
[THREAD]
1/

We know the Seven (Nolan) Principles of Public Life: Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and Leadership. These are virtues, designed to guide the actions of public office holders. 2/

Too often, however, we are using the language of Nolan as a stick with which to beat others, sometimes without evidence or detailed explanation. Some figure of blame is simply Nolan ‘non-compliant’. 3/

This is weaponisation. By casting the glaring light of virtues on people in order to create the shadow of vice, we lose the subtlety and richness of what it is we’re trying to uphold and protect. We reduce Nolan Principles to simple dichotomies. 4/

Take Kate Bingham, former chair of the UK’s vaccine taskforce; an inexperienced crony who sold sensitive info to her venture capitalist mates – selfish, unaccountable, dishonest. Except none of that is true. 5/

Even if it were, many of those calling her out straight away did not do so “fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias” (objectivity). I should know – to my shame, I was one of them. 6/

(Please do see @BarbaraRich_law’s masterful deconstruction of the highest-profile criticisms of Kate Bingham: https://twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1358066571332227074 7/)

Implicitly, invoking the Nolan Principles confers an invulnerability on the accuser: it doesn’t matter that they were wrong or that they didn’t substantiate their criticism; they did it to uphold decency in public life. And that’s what matters. 8/

I was asked recently whether acting in the public interest (selflessness) meant the general public at large, even at the expense of the narrower public served by a trust. A good question, for which the word ‘selflessness’ doesn’t provide a full answer. 9/

Who judges what level of scrutiny is necessary to ensure accountability? This is a question that boards, regulators, sector bodies and parliaments spend years debating. How do we judge someone by it in a few minutes? 10/

Much is made of the call to action that we must “be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs” (leadership). Surely this makes it our right and duty to point the finger? But willingness finds other expressions… 11/

Challenge does not always mean public censure, and a judgment of poor behaviour must surely be tempered by objectivity. 12/

This is why we have long codes of ethics, professional standards, staff handbooks and policies. Dare I say even standing orders! Behaviours cannot be regulated by a list of seven words alone, however keenly guarded by custodians of what is proper. 13/

I suggest that the Nolan Principles have been taken by a growing number beyond their ordinary and practicable meaning. Search for the term on Twitter and you’ll see that it is used mostly to take people down and only occasionally to celebrate virtue. 14/

You’re not so vain and this song wasn’t about you. If, however, you care about upholding and advancing the Nolan Principles, I hope it revealed a potential pitfall. Or you think I’m entirely wrong but you can prove it with best evidence! /End