The Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner has resigned following the Ethics Commissioner’s investigation into her failure to pay stamp duty (tax on a house purchase at the right level.
Have a look though at his words here.
I don’t know what you make of this but I’m struggling to reconcile the two statements. One tells us that the DPM has acted with integrity. The other tells us that she acted wrongly and the truth only came out through lots of public scrutiny. Of course what that means is media investigation.
Of course, one statement is a description of facts, the other and evaluation and assessment.
I don’t want to attempt to unpick the rights and wrongs of Rayner’s actions. It seems that there is much to be sympathetic towards her about. At the same time, her problems seem to arise out of chaotic life circumstances. We’ve been there before with politicians. Perhaps this is one of the outcomes of desiring leaders who are like us, who are relatable.
interestingly on that point, I’ve seen social media comments to the effect that, she has done the right thing by resigning, that she has been subject to treatment that male middle class politicians would not be and that it is unfortunate that she has to go. I’m not convinced by any of those points. It is not “doing the right thing” to follow the conventions in accepting the expected consequences. I think a fact check will show that male politicians have been treated the same. The reason she had to resign was that she was found to have broke the ministerial code and that she had underpaid tax.
What I want to pick up on though is the discrepancy, which I think is typical of assessment today. I remember the case of a man in the public eye accused of antisemitism. The verdict was that he didn’t seem to be antisemitic however, the things he said were antisemitic. And then there are situations, some in the public eye, some not where we are asked to give a person the benefit of the doubt because they are reputably honest, even though they have lied
The evaluation should match the observation. I can’t claim it be one type of person, whilst my life tells a different story. This is important both for how we assess others and how we live ourselves.
You see, here is the challenge, the real reason why we should be sympathetic is because of politicians are like us. It is easy to take joy in a politician’s fall. It is easy to point the finger and judge but the reality is that our own lives tell their story. There are things we want others to believe about us and to believe about ourselves. We want to believe that we are good, honest, brave, kind. Yet our own lives stories tell us what God’s word tells us, there is noone good.
The only goodness, integrity, kindness, bravery I have is Christ’s righteousness imputed to me by faith. We should not think of the DPM as worse than us. Rather, as Jesus tells us in Luke 13, the story is a warning that we too should repent.
Faithroots 