This morning as we listened to broadcasters and read our newspapers, we are in day 4 of Flowersgate. My usual source of news in the morning is Radio4 and true to form they have covered the decision by David Cameron to conduct some reviews (not just one) on the way in which Paul Flowers ended up in charge of the Co-op, when it got into a mess. I have some reflections on the news of the last 4 days:

The problems that the Co-op Bank got into, did not happen just because there was a corrupt man who Chaired the Board. He was not in sole charge, and whilst he would have had a huge amount of influence, he could not have created these problems without a great deal of help. Indeed I have not yet heard much to suggest how or if he did contribute to the problems that the the Coop bank, along with all other banks did get into. However I have heard a great deal to suggest he would not have been capable of doing what a board member, much less a Chair should have done. Even if the help he received from other board members was simply to ignore responsibilities and look the other way, he was not a single handed controller of the organisation. This form of help is the worst form of help, even if Paul Flowers was in part an architect of the disaster that the Coop Bank became, the failure of others to correct this, or at least to identify the problems and blow the whistle is as much of an issue.

It is vital that the blood letting which our Politicians are currently undertaking, does not displace the need for analysis that tells us that Paul Flowers was as much a politician as he was a banker, indeed it seems he was a great deal more of a politician than a banker. The failure by banking regulators to allow him to take up his post reflects a similar failure by what passes for our political regulators. Although his form of politics were of the Left, we know without recounting the names out loud, that the same failures have occurred within the parties of the right, and continue to do so. Just as the board of the Co-op did not detect or did not own up to the issues that Paul Flowers introduced into their group, neither did the Labour party. By the same token most other political parties appear to have allowed people within their organisations to go unchallenged when they are acting inappropriately.

The third part of Paul Flowers life where accountability should have been provided is in the Methodist Church, and more widely the voluntary organisations which he helped to lead. There are sadly too many other examples of churches failing to detect or deal appropriately with people in their organisations holding leadership positions whose behaviour falls short of the standards they should uphold. Equally there are others within the voluntary sector who take advantage of opportunities that they feel are presented to them. The Paul Flowers case must act as yet another wake up call to all Churches and Charities, and I know that the Methodist Church in particular will review its structures and processes as well as the actions of Paul Flowers whilst on their watch and acting on their behalf.

In all three settings Paul Flowers has damaged reputations of organisations and the sectors in which he operated. Banking, Politics and the Church as part of the Charitable Sector are all damaged by the current revelations of one man who acted innapropriately and did not appear to have been held to account by any of the structures that should have done so.

We now know that there will be several reviews conducted into this affair. Most of these will be carried out to review his actions of a politician and someone with power in the banking world. It is encouraging that the Government has agreed to carry these out so swiftly. I suspect that many people in our nation who have called for reviews into other matters, perhaps ones that they might consider to be even more serious than what Paul Flowers got up to will be disturbed at the capacity of the Government to announce these reviews so quickly when they have been so resistant on other matters. This prioritising of matters of concern also needs its own scrutiny!

On this mornings Today programme, Conservative MP Jesse Norman was challenged to say if he felt that the willingness of the PM to attribute a party political dimension to the Paul Flowers affair was reasonable and appropriate. His answer said it all, “Well that’s Politics”. There will sadly be other Paul Flowers in Banking or the Church/Charities or Politics. Let us hope there are not many that escape the scrutiny of all three ever again. It is clear that the Banking Sector and the Churches will endeavour to correct their own failings. What is perhaps most disturbing of all is that people like Jesse Norman seem determined to continue to justify the political machinations of Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition, perhaps even local authority representatives as “That’s Politics”.