I am constantly astonished by the internet. On Saturday I wanted to remind myself of what Stephen Fry had said about the MPs expenses scandal. So I googled the topic and was told that there were 33,200 entries on this subject can that really be possible? I found out what I wanted from the first one but then saw that various commentators had attacked his views so I googled some more; when I got to Piers Morgan I realized I was getting dragged down into the subject and would never get round to writing this letter, so I left the google labyrinth, wondering how many people actually get trapped inside it and never see the light of day.
Stephen Fry in his usual robust style claimed that it’s really not that important a story, all journalists are even more venal than politicians, that we all exaggerate our expense claims, that we get the MPs we deserve and that we should be paying much more attention to the significant decisions politicians make like going to war! Piers Morgan made the not unreasonable point that we pay MPs expenses whereas journalists are paid by media tycoons but he also said that we are right to be outraged by the disgusting scale of sheer larceny committed by these elected officials.’ We might quote, in contrast to such hyperbole, Rowan Williams’ statement that, the continuing systematic humiliation of politicians threatens to carry a heavy price in terms of our ability to salvage some confidence in our democracy.’
We may well find ourselves agreeing with points from both sides; we may have a sense that journalists seems to be milking this story for all its worth; we may also feel angry that some MPs have definitely behaved in a dishonourable way; we may be worried about the way in which all MPs are being tarred with the same brush and what effect this is likely to have on future voting patterns elections are probably not wisely held in such a fervid and unstable set of circumstances. There does need to be a serious debate, long overdue but not easy to resolve, about how much MPs should reasonably be paid (with whose salaries should theirs be comparable?), how and where they should be expected to live when their constituencies are a long way from London, how their staff should be paid, whether they should have other jobs which give them significant expertise and experience in subjects about which they have to legislate, and how they can be drawn from all walks of life, whatever their means, provided they have the right qualifications and what are the qualifications for a good and honourable MP?
Whatever new legislation is eventually brought in, however, it will not in itself be able to make MPs more rightly honourable. Our parliamentary way of doing things, as Janet Daley (another Google find) points out, is to rely on an unwritten code of honour as the basis on which our MPs are expected to behave, comparable to our unwritten’ constitution. Our Parliament has been seen as a place for people who regard it as a privilege and honour to serve the nation, to make a difference, to make things better for their constituents, people who aren’t in it for the money, and know how to obey the unspoken rules of civilised behaviour. The House of Commons has relied heavily on what might be called aristocratic assumptions about the proper way to behave: of instinctive honour and integrity rather than precise, legalistic, accountable mechanisms for judging Members’ conduct. Of course, there are rules, but they were designed to rest on something more intangible: something which can only be called a sense of service or duty… ‘
And so we find ourselves facing, perhaps rather unexpectedly, another version of the law v grace’ argument of the New Testament. How do we instruct, govern, and develop our moral behaviour? Do we do so by having rules to obey? But what is it that makes us follow such rules, other than a fear of being found out, or being hounded by the court of public opinion, and not liking to feel shame or guilt? Is moral behaviour securely and healthily to be based on fear? Might such heavily regulated behaviour not also lead to that attitude seemingly common to some bankers and some MPs which asks, What can I get away with without technically breaking the regulations?’ Do we in fact need something more intangible,’ something which might more positively make us want to behave with integrity, and shape our conduct more instinctively?
At the root of all morality is the question, What sort of person do I want to be?’ Such a question, as Rowan Williams went on to point out in his article in The Times, leads us on to ask what kind of tasks am I glad to have done simply for the kind of act it is. Such disinterested moral activity then helps us to discover the sort of people we want to be. Grace is found through the gladness of the good, as we struggle to make the right choices and realise that when we have done the right thing something we can only call grace was at work in us all the time. On the other hand acts which are done simply because we can get away with them, always have a moral and personal cost leading us down a path to being the sort of person we regret being, or worse the sort of diminished human being who has no moral life at all – the person who is far from God.
This year’s Reith lecturer, Michael Sandel, looks as though he may help us to pursue this theme, in that he is taking as his topic, A new citizenship,’ addressing the prospect for a new politics of the common good’. In these lectures he is likely to develop one of the central themes of his work, that politics should be based on a vision of the good, rather than stopping short at the protection of rights to freedoms. At a time of political change and economic turmoil, we need new thinking about the common good. What, in an age of globalisation, are the moral limits of markets? What should be the place of moral and spiritual values in public life? How is biotechnology transforming our relation to nature and the environment?’
Some of those themes will also be covered in our forthcoming colloquium After the Credit Crunch: a Moral Future for Capitalism?’?at 8pm on Wednesday 17th June, for which Father Jim has brought together a distinguished panel of speakers. We very much hope this will be an opportunity for us to host a large audience from the wider community of Hampstead and for us to show that the church has a significant contribution to make in the shaping of a new vision for our society and our politicians.
With my love and prayers,
Father Stephen