This has been a heartbreaking, gut-wrenching and deeply sorrowful week.
The horror and tragedy of Grenfell Tower has unleashed a torrent of raw emotions.
Incredulity as we watched the inferno engulf the tower.
Anguish for the residents woken from their sleep to the unfolding nightmare.
Admiration for the emergency services who were there within minutes, risking life and limb to save others.
Anger that it could happen at all.
Few of us could even begin to imagine the pain and trauma being suffered by the residents of Grenfell Tower.
But we all understand their need for answers. We share it. Why did it happen? How could it happen? Whose fault was it? So much despair and so many questions.
And from the anger comes the need to apportion blame. To find fault.
There will have been fault. Perhaps many faults and many at fault. Which is why a full public inquiry is needed – one which can establish the facts and which can investigate without fear or favour. One which uncovers the truth.
That is what the residents of Grenfell need and deserve.
What they do not need is that their pain and suffering should be hijacked for political gain.
Yes, those in charge at local, city and national level must be held to account.
The management company must provide answers and the contractors need to give explanations. Experts have to be consulted. But what we do not need is an army of instant internet experts stoking fears, pushing conspiracy theories, unrest and civil disruption.
For I fear that there are some who see any human tragedy as fair game to further their own political agenda – who take to the streets to lash out at the establishment in the name of their pet cause or ideology; who abuse the suffering of ordinary people by stoking more anger, by marching on the streets of London with their Socialist worker and anarchy placards and demanding that heads must roll; who are fuelling insurrection by jumping to conclusions for their own ends; who would love there to be a summer of discontent; who try to turn justifiable anger into a march of rage.
They must not get their vicious way.
Out of the tragedy of Grenfell Tower, it is time for cool heads, not hot heads. For answers, not anarchy. For reason rather than rebellion. For compassion, not conflict.
Now is the time for change
And so, today, Brexit talks begin.
It is just 10 days since the results of the general election were announced. It seems like a lifetime ago given the unrelenting pace of politics.
Has the focus of our exit from the European Union changed as a result?
It should – but not just because of the votes a week past Thursday, but because we have been getting it wrong all along.
Too much of the debate has centred on process instead of objectives. Too much hot air on institutional conundrums rather than outcomes. Too much arguing about the road to follow instead of agreeing on the destination.
So things need to change, and now is time for that change.
First, we need a change of tone and attitude. From one of confrontation to one of cooperation. No more “hard” versus “soft”, but one which is open and inclusive. No more seeking division, but forging agreement.
Secondly, a change of priority to focus relentlessly on one overriding priority. Our economy. So a new, free, and open trade relationship with the EU is a must. Where our goods and services can flow freely. All else must follow that simple, single and persistent focus.
Our immigration policy must serve the same economic master. We should not be hung up on numbers, but on the skills and talents we need for the benefit of our economy. It should be based on an irrational fear of foreigners.
Whisper it, but there is a chance that the Government and the Opposition could come together on these simple but straightforward goals.
Troubled on two fronts
Amongst the turmoil and tragedy of the past 10 days, you might have missed the resignation of Tim Farron as leader of the Liberal Democrats.
He stepped down because he couldn’t reconcile his religious beliefs with being at the helm of his political party.
In his own words he said, “remaining faithful to Christ” was incompatible with leading the Lib Dems.
At the root of his conundrum is his attitude to homosexuality and whether it as a sin. He decided it was impossible to lead a progressive, liberal party in 2017 and live as a committed Christian and hold faithful to the Bible’s teaching.
I hold no truck with Tim Farron’s views on sexuality and equal marriage.
But I am troubled on two fronts.
Firstly, that such a conflict exists in 21st century Britain.
And secondly, that he became the Lib Dem supremo at all if he is in such an ethical bind. Imagine if his party now held the balance of power at Westminster. Would he still have stood down? Or would his principles have been quietly ditched for the lure of Government?
