With all the political goings on, the actions of our gvt, the shenanigans of the Labour leadership quest and historical cases of varying kinds I have been musing upon the title Right Honorable and what it signifies to a simple soul like myself. I have discovered that I don’t think it can be a completely blameless person, as to be blameless one would have to be inert, of course pedants might be able to asign a blame of sorts to inaction (note to self: inaction may be one of the most perverse qualities I’d attribute to an MP).
I have discovered that it signifies to me a person who is able to accept when they are found to be or have committed an error, willing to accept responsibility for that error and then to try and address the issues caused by this error to the best of their ability whilst making sincere apologies. If it was not possible to address the issues, they would step down from their position as an act of contrition. Historically this was a hallmark or accepted standard to aspire to for most folk whether from the gentle classes or of more lowly origins, it was generally called integrity, or good character. Have we become so accepting of the spin and excuses of individuals that we no longer expect this standard to be enacted? What does it say about the houses of parliament that this behaviour is almost extinct, it seems. What does it say about us as a society when we accept the inaction of an individual without consequences that would be applied in other walks of life?
To my mind the passivity of the public in swallowing this has contributed slowly over the years into organisations and our own personal lives. It feels as if it is far more common for a person to try and hide their errors, shift blame for them to someone else or even make excuses as to why this behaviour was deemed necessary. I’m no angel by any means yet I would like to see more integrity around especially in those who by definition of the title Right Honorable are the leaders whom we *trust* (cough cough, that was difficult to write!) to make decisions for our communities and our nation. Change is needed on all levels, I’d better start with myself!
Namasté Jules
Thoughts of a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing 
This topic raises two points for me. The first relevant (I think) The second for me going off at a tangent. Sorry Jules.
Firstly, What we “baby boomers” see as ordinary everyday values, we see as slowly being eroded as new and more egoistic values take over. We are being desensitized by lowering standards in the press and media and so called boundary breaking behaviour.
It’s not only our “Right Honourables” but also we the populace. How many times haven’t we made appointments with friends and family only to break them because something else cropped up? Or footballers (banal I know) sign 2-3 year contracts only to break them because another team offered them more. Or we buy something and return it because we have found something cheaper or better later on or whatever. It seems that we accept this behaviour in ourselves. Should we therefore expect more of our “leaders”? If so why, when we are prepared to accept this behaviour of ourselves and our neighbours?
And now my “Tangent” think. “The Right Horrible”. Why do we put up with these stupid antiquated titles designed to divide and rule the plebiat? Right honourable, His Worship, His Lordship, Your honour, His reverence etc etc etc. Most countries left those behind aeons ago. You can still respect a persons job without them having a silly wig or costume or title!…..That is to say if they behave honourable!
I would concur with the first point at the erosion of personal and professional values of service throughout all strata of our society. It just seemed incongruent to me to use the term right honourable which is, as you mention archaic and a reminder of a system designed to keep people in their designated place in society. I was musing along those lines and decided to blog it, probably saying the same as you but formed in my own way. We are each responsible for attending to our own behaviours, although if one has purposefully striven for a place as an MP AND still use the outmoded form of address in my view it highlights how far away from the title’s implied behaviours the real behaviours are. As you quite rightly say and I intimated the behaviour is an ideal that would mark a person out as *trustworthy* or *honourable* regardless of how they are addressed by others ☺
Oh Jules, you do pose some difficult and interesting conundrums. Conundrums that need copious glasses of wine around a big dinner table with trusted friends to discuss.
I did understand what you were getting at so my rant was mostly a philosophical question for myself. And that is “should we expect more of these Rt. Hons than we do of ourselves”?
After all, which employee hasn’t fiddled expenses? Which employee hasn’t lied to get what they want? What about adulterers, how many of those are there in civilian life? Cocaine sniffers? Users of prostitutes?
You know I have little or no time or respect for politicians, so my question to myself is; should I/we expect more from a person with Rt. Hon in front of their name than just plain Mr/Ms? After all they come from a bent society and go into a bent fraternity.
That was the starting point of my musing! Should we expect more? No, we should start with ourselves first always! Should we tollerate less? Exactly my point: what is the definition of Right Honourable in our society, I only show my thought train: Question everything and don’t passively accept convention. Active thinking surely will eventually culminate in action. Or am I just a hopeful dreamer? 😉
“Yes: I am a dreamer. For a dreamer is one who can only find his way by moonlight, and his punishment is that he sees the dawn before the rest of the world.” Oscar Wilde.