The words ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ are too simple. The words imply that it is knowable by ordinary folk that something is either R or W.
‘Inappropriate’ implies that there is a priesthood – a class of people which oversees the ordinary folk who are unable through lack of education or position to know what is morally good and bad. The decisions that differentiate the R from the W are complex, and the preserve of this caste of superior beings.
To remove the simple vocabulary from people is to disempower them in the most fundamental way.
This is where David Cameron must focus, if his localism and social justice programmes are to power up and become convincing to people. He must base his apporach on simple straightforward morality.
For example, with the EPP, is it right that Roger Helmer is silenced for speaking up about corruption? Or is it wrong? That’s nice and simple and anyone can understand it.
If on the other hand the procedure he used was considered ‘inappropriate’ by the EPP hierarchy, and Cameron feels obliged to tiptoe his morality around the complexity of Party Politics, then he is not remaining loyal to his own reference points.
At local level, things are right or they’re wrong. Simple. This is where Cameron should be…not lost with William Hague in the complexities of ‘inappropriateness’, or Israel’s ‘disproportionality’.