One of the fundamental principles that underpins standards of behaviour and honesty in political life is that of the rule of law. I am a lawyer, and it is from that vantage point that I approach this important topic. I am not a faith leader, nor do I really consider myself a politician. We do not, and cannot reasonably, expect from our politicians the standards of behaviour we would expect from, for example, our faith leaders. However, I note that, in the terms of the Motion, we are talking about political life and not public life. It is a pleasure to follow someone who has worked so hard to maintain those standards in public life.
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for introducing this debate about standards of behaviour and honesty in political life. Link to this speech In context Individually.A good start would be a truly independent regulation of conduct at the top of government, a sweeping change in communications strategy and a firm rejection of the smug attitude that says, “Do what I say, not what I do”, without expecting to be challenged for it. Since distrust has a long half-life, we need a programme that is pursued over the long term but to start by setting very high standards of behaviour and delivering them. We need that credibility to be rebuilt, if we are to face a future crisis with the strength of national unity and not slide towards the deeply divided state we observe in the US, which relies on post- truth and very deep divisions of opinion. So we cannot rely on Professor Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance or even Professor Van-Tam to inject, if your Lordships will pardon me, credibility into the Government’s leadership. We are likely to face future national emergencies where we need to come together and they may well not be of the public health kind, but rather the threat of war or economic crisis, which both look possible at the moment. That may be explained by contrasting styles of communication: the evidence-led scientists admitted to uncertainties, shared risks and assumed that the public were capable of drawing sensible conclusions from evidence the politicians had a communication style reflecting the legacy of being on message, using news management designed for the political battlefield rather than for informing and involving the listener. Both groups came into the pandemic highly trusted and largely maintained that trust, while trust in politicians fell. However, the pandemic was a public health crisis and much of the communication and detail came from scientists and doctors. During the pandemic, trust in politicians started low and fell sharply lower as it continued. They represent a serious threat to our democracy. Levels of trust in politicians have been at a low level for more than a decade, roughly since the time when the Iraq war inquiry report was published. This is reflected in the very low current approval and trust ratings for the Government and the Prime Minister. This is why, when we heard that 126 fixed penalty police notices had been issued to 83 individuals, including the Prime Minister, for holding parties in Downing Street it feels, notwithstanding the successes of the vaccine programme, more than a simple misdemeanour. People were losing loved ones, to whom they were not able to say goodbye, while still obeying the rules and remaining a cohesive community. The country showed that it could come together, help protect the NHS and accept-and largely comply with-tough and long-enduring restrictions. Do noble Lords remember that we were applauding the NHS on our doorsteps every Thursday night? Out there, I was making use of a saucepan to amplify my praise. Health professionals were not well protected and a lot of them were getting sick also they showed great courage in sticking to providing care for those who were suffering. A lot of people were getting sick and dying. I begin by looking back to the early phase of the pandemic. I am very much indebted to them for doing so. My Lords, first, I thank the Cross-Bench Peers who voted for this Motion.
0 kommentar(er)
