Dear Friends,
On the 4th July 1948 – the eve the creation of the National Health Service – addressing a public meeting in Manchester, the then Secretary of State for Health, Aneurin Bevan said of his political opponents, specifically those who had opposed the creation of the NHS. ‘…That is why no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned, they are lower than vermin…’This last week has seen the murder of Sir David Amess, Member of Parliament for Southend West. Whilst it is not yet clear as to the motivation of his attacker, there has been widespread condemnation – quite properly so – of the fact that somebody in his position, doing what they were elected to do, should find themselves exposed to such violence. But the reason I quoted Bevan’s speech from back in 1948 is that alongside the immediate reaction to the particularly shocking events of last Friday we find MPs of every party once again, and dare I say it wearily so, wringing their hands in ‘mock’ despair concerning the language used when engaging in political debate. No doubt we will have a ‘truce’ for a while, when they will ‘be nice’ to each other, before sooner or later reverting to type…But what about this, from John the Baptist, ‘…But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?…’ (Matthew, 3, 7)…The language of a reckless firebrand, perhaps, and excusable as such? But then, consider these words of Jesus, ‘…You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of…’ (Matthew 12, 34)…It appears that ‘Brood of Vipers’ must have been a commonly held opinion, commonly used description of the religious establishment in Jerusalem in the 1st Century. It is all too easy to emasculate debate by denying the use of an ‘appropriate’ rhetorical flourish as a device to make a point. Each of the above examples is capable of being ‘depersonalised’ to the extent that the ‘point’ being made is well understood, even if not agreed with. It is only when we are tempted to ‘weaponize’ language by deliberately intending to wound another person or group by what we say or write, that we should ‘weigh our words’ carefully…’…The tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell…’ (James 3, 5 – 6)…And so, I for one look forward to this ‘phoney peace’ when all our MPs are being nice to each other is soon over, because only then will it be possible for politics to be what politics is: the articulation of ideas, enveloped with a passion, that demands to be heard…