David Cameron on Morality
"We as a society have been far too sensitive. In order to avoid injury to people's feelings, in order to avoid appearing judgemental, we have failed to say what needs to be said. We have seen a decades-long erosion of responsibility, of social virtue, of self-discipline, respect for others, deferring gratification instead of instant gratification.
"Instead we prefer moral neutrality, a refusal to make judgments about what is good and bad behaviour, right and wrong behaviour. Bad. Good. Right. Wrong. These are words that our political system and our public sector scarcely dare use any more.
"Of course as soon as a politician says this there is a clamour - "but what about all of you?" And let me say now, yes, we are human, flawed and frequently screw up.
"Our relationships crack up, our marriages break down, we fail as parents and as citizens just like everyone else. But if the result of this is a stultifying silence about things that really matter, we re-double the failure. Refusing to use these words - right and wrong - means a denial of personal responsibility and the concept of a moral choice.
"We talk about people being "at risk of obesity" instead of talking about people who eat too much and take too little exercise. We talk about people being at risk of poverty, or social exclusion: it's as if these things - obesity, alcohol abuse, drug addiction - are purely external events like a plague or bad weather.
"Of course, circumstances - where you are born, your neighbourhood, your school, and the choices your parents make - have a huge impact. But social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make.
"There is a danger of becoming quite literally a de-moralised society, where nobody will tell the truth anymore about what is good and bad, right and wrong. That is why children are growing up without boundaries, thinking they can do as they please, and why no adult will intervene to stop them - including, often, their parents. If we are going to get any where near solving some of these problems, that has to stop.
"And why would a different government be any different? Not least because we understand that the causes of our broken society lie not just in government policies but in our national culture.
"Changing our culture is not easy or quick. You cannot pull a lever. You cannot do it top-down. But you can give a lead. You can give a nudge. You can make a difference if you are clear where you stand.
"Imagine if there was a Government that understood, really understood, that encouraging personal and social responsibility must be the cornerstone of everything that it did and that every move it took re-inforced that view.
"Saying to parents, your responsibility and your commitment matters, so we will give a tax break for marriage and end the couple penalty. Saying to head teachers you are responsible and if you want enforceable home school contracts and the freedom to exclude you can have it and we will judge you on your results. Saying to police officers you are responsible and the targets and bureaucracy are going but you must account to an elected individual who will want answers if you fail. Saying to business, if you take responsibility you can help change culture and we will help you with deregulation and tax cuts … but in the long run they depend on the steps you take to help tackle the costs of social failure that have driven your costs up and up.
"It is the responsibility agenda and it will be the defining thread of any government I lead.”
Cranmer can hardly wait. The whole speech is worth reading. The problem, of course, is that politicians are as fallen as all human beings, and any political agenda which attempts to get 'back to basics' (remember that?) on issues of morality risks falling at the first hurdle when one politician fails to live up to the standards set, the media exposure is relentless, and the Party is overwhelmed with accusaions of hypocrisy.
Do all Conservative politicians even agree on what is good or bad and right or wrong? And if they do not, how can they be expected to cohere around policies predicated upon religio-philosophical concepts mired in the zeitgeist of relativism?
As laudable as this is, Mr Cameron will need a party of Cliff Richards if it is to have any hope of success and any credibility with the electorate. If he wants to 'be the change', the Parliamentary Party will have to subscribe to these moral standards. Mr Cameron needs to sit down with a a few tomes of Rawls, or at least surround himself with those steeped in these politico-religio-philosophical complexities.