Cameron - good life2
Conservative Party

Cameron's good life is not unambiguous, but it is the best of the goods on offer

 

Everyone strives for the good, but no one ever quite possesses it. It is a future project of hope and value. It might even belong to the past, because our striving is unavoidably locked in time. Everything seemed better yesterday, and it will certainly get better tomorrow. Such is the perpetual promise of the politicians, who always seem to be coming to terms with darkness and deliberating with evil.

All of creation strives for its own good – from the flowers in perpetual pursuit of sunlight to the victims of utopian cataclysm in pursuit of justice. Ever since mankind gained knowledge of good and evil, the hope of the good has extinguished the joy of not knowing. The truest vision is no longer that of innocence, but of the avoidance of evil in a world order inclined toward suffering, starvation, conflict and war. Evil opposes the good as lies conflict with truth: our misshapen lives are distorted further by false images and malignant encounters with the agents of corruption. The good that exists in the natural order can no longer be pursued with integrity because we are forced to strike bargains with the world: everything is about the spectrum of compatibility and the extent of compromise. If we find no social compatibility and refuse to compromise, we are excluded from the created good. And it is not good for man to be alone.

To bargain with the political powers runs the risk of losing clear knowledge of the good. But each moral deliberation about each proposed policy demands a degree of accommodation, because one man’s words and actions will not fit perfectly with those of another. If we do not adapt to the constraints of another, we cannot communicate, let alone reconcile. It is a case of finding that much-maligned middle way, which is deplored and despised by the purists and perfectionists. In theology, we might call it ‘realism’; in politics, ‘realpolitik’. We can dream of ideals, but only in our own private worlds can they ever be attained. The best way of passing time upon the earth is to witness to truth in pursuit of the good while discovering the right qualifications for our modes of thought and rules of action.

Ambiguity is perched somewhere between faithfulness and compromise. Every moral decision – especially participation in the democratic process – demands it. Some Christians think and preach that they never compromise, yet they discern situations differently from day to day, deliberating differential justices and discriminating on a case-by-case basis.  The Christian is called to be faithful, and that would be no calling at all if there were no competing forms of compromise in public life which demand it. There is not always clarity in community – in the world or the Church – and sometimes our witness must be oblique, if not discursive and indirect, because, frankly, until the Government is upon His shoulder, the best virtue is the legislative moderation which walks the middle path in terms of compromise which are consonant with social norms. At that moment, the good becomes clearer, even if it is not the greatest good which might be attained.

You may despair at the Conservative Party’s Manifesto vision for job creation, welfare reform, home ownership, house building, taxation, childcare, education, defence and healthcare, all shrouded in an economic hall of mirrors which is supposedly balancing the books by increasing the debt. You may deride David Cameron’s notion of British values, and his partial apprehension of democracy, freedom and the rule of law. The Conservatives, it may be observed, are not always conservative. But compare Conservative notions of dignity, security, hope and apprehensions of the good – the worldly good of realism and realpolitik – with the realistic alternatives for the next government of the United Kingdom, and then explain why this vision is not, at least, the best of the realistic goods on offer.

  • The Banana

    As they have just been in power this last parliament as majority partner, we can judge them on their record. I thought both Labour and the Conservatives had about as much love and affection from me as an occupying army would. Government is the monkey on my back, not my saviour, and I just want it to go away and leave me alone.

    They are better than Labour, but this is damned with faint praise indeed. Either way I’d rather shoot myself in the head than vote Tory again and legitimise this national vandalism.

    • Anton

      Quite. UKIP unveils its manifesto today and I await it with interest.

      • Dominic Stockford

        At least it is independently costed – more than any of the others.

    • Coniston

      We seem to have gone back to before the 1832 Great Reform Act, with all parties vying to bribe the electorate with more and more goodies. The only difference is that the candidates before 1832 were at least bribing the voters with their (the candidates’) own money.

  • Albert

    It’s just another hit against the traditional family, as far as I can see. Certianly, we all have to make “bargains”, but these people imposed same-sex “marriage”. Come on! This is not minor.

    • DTNorth

      Its law. Supported by all party’s except UKIP.

      • Albert

        And the previous law was also the law. You can’t make that argument without undermining the legitimacy of the change. Therefore, the question moves to – and this is key in the election, what the change right? If the best you can do is just to say “Get over it” without giving any reason to do so, I would say you are evidence the chance was wrong.

      • The Explorer

        Before 1967, homosexual acts were illegal. It was law. Did that make the illegality right?

        • Albert

          Thank you for expressing the point I was making, so much more succinctly!

        • Anton

          Was God wrong to make it illegal when He wrote ancient Israel’s constitution?

          • The Explorer

            Are you asking me, or D T North? Responding as D T North (because I don’t think he’s going to) yes, God was wrong to make it illegal. In other words, something can be law and still be wrong. In other words, I’ve just shot my argument that it must be right because it’s law in the foot.

          • Anton

            It’s a rhetorical question for Christians (because it presumes God).

          • In the context of a secular, post Christian and morally relativistic society, would you attempt to recriminalize homosexuality? And, if so, what else?

          • Anton

            I believe that the parts of Mosaic Law relating to interpersonal relations (‘moral’ law) are what God desires to see enacted in gentile nations. Mosaic Law is divine precedent and although the animal sacrifices are obsolete since Christ, and the religious elements should not be enacted because gentile nations have no national covenant with God, the definition of sin and human nature did not change at the Crucifixion.

            I live, however, in a democracy, so this is a matter for lobbying within the democratic format. Christians are not to overthrow the authorities.

          • You’re equivocating, Anton. Jack asked a straight question: would you seek to recriminalize homosexuality? You state the history of Christianity is an impediment to conversions. Jack suspects Christian morality is more of a barrier. Should Christians maintain a campaign in the public square for society to live according to objective moral truths as revealed in scripture and through the law written on man’s heart and discernable by reason?

            Are you dividing the world into Jewish and Gentile nations? This division no longer applies under the New Covenant, or are you suggesting the Mosaic Law still applies to Jews?

          • Anton

            Your question is less unambiguous than you think. If you are asking “would I seek to criminalise homosexual acts in our land using the lobbying mechanisms available in our democracy” the answer is Yes. If you are asking “would I seek to criminalise homosexual acts in our land using fair means or foul” the answer is No, because I respect the democratic process, as Christians should. If you are asking “would I criminalise homosexual acts if I became dictator” the answer would also be No, because too many of the population disagree and God himself required the ancient Israelites to vote by acclamation on whether or not they would accept Mosaic Law. I would, however, reinstitute Section 28 promptly.

            I would unilaterally impose only capital punishment for murder, because that is a command to all mankind in the covenant with Noah (Genesis 9) which, unlike the Mosaic one, is still in force.

            By speaking only of the gentiles above, all I was doing was restricting my answer to gentile nations. I was not considering the situation of modern Israel and you should not draw any inference from what I wrote about my views on what the law should be there (but obviously not the sacrifices).

            I trust that is clear, but if not then do enquire further.

          • The idea was to decriminalise homosexuality so that it would be quietly tolerated between consenting people over 21 years of age and conducted discreetly in private by those seen as afflicted with it.

            What history has shown is that once evil gains a foothold it spreads and corrupts. It’s the same sorry story with contraception, divorce and abortion, IVF, womb ‘renting’, and now DNA from more than two people. And it’s about to happen in Britain with euthanasia.

            What’s truly shocking in all this is the collusion of Christian Churches with the steady advance of these evils. Maybe God knew what he was doing when He made it a serious crime in Israel.

          • The Explorer

            There’s something talismanic about law when it works to the advantage of the Left. “It’s the law” is the end of the discussion. It’s the law = it’s right.

            So why didn’t that apply to Clause 28? It’s the law. Therefore, it’s right. Therefore, end of discussion. Not a bit of it. Homosexuals simply said it was a bad law, and fought to get it changed.

            Personally, I see an inconsistency of attitude.

      • Dominic Stockford

        No. The Christian Party “Proclaiming Christ’s Lordship”, and the Christian People’s Alliance, with over 30 candidates between them, and both registered as parties with the Electoral Commission – along with the DUP and the UUP, all also oppose so-called ‘same-sex marriage’. It isn’t written indelibly – laws can be changed. harm can be undone.

        • DTNorth

          Just try annulling thousands of gay marriages and civil partnerships and see just how much more your religions are hated.

          It would be a VERY wrong move.

          And do you really think for one second that the Christian party has any hope of forming a government.

          • Owl

            oh dear.
            DT, “civil partnerships” is not the point of debate.
            Dave’s redefinition of “marriage” is (and will remain so).
            What you chappies do in your spare time is no business of mine but Dave has put his foot in it on this one.
            We just wonder what this pinky advocate has in store in other areas. Green disaster perhaps.

          • Albert

            It’s about doing what is right, not winning a popularity contest.

          • CliveM

            That’s a very refreshing view on politics but would come as a shock to most of our politicians!! :0)

          • Albert

            I don’t think I’m about to elected!

          • Dominic Stockford

            Absolutely. I have no illusions that my being elected would be anything other than a direct intervention of God (miracle). But I stand for what is right – and I think people should vote for what is right – not merely the least worst who might possibly win…

            Oh, and pray for the Christians who are standing as Christians – we need it.

          • Albert

            Are you standing? Where? For whom?

          • Dominic Stockford

            The Christian Party, Twickenham.

          • Albert

            Pity you are not standing here – you’d have my vote.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Dear Albert, you are very kind. And should you fancy it, you could move house into the constituency within the next few days and register to vote, and the you can! I think there is about a week to get it all done……..

          • Albert

            Going to be a shade difficult now. I think I will have to assure you of my prayers instead, which hopefully will be more effective than my vote!

          • Dominic Stockford

            Thanks. Far more helpful….

          • Albert

            I really admire that fact that you are doing it at all. The idea of submitting oneself to the electorate it quite a thing!

          • Dominic Stockford

            1. What can be done can be undone if God wills it (same-sex marriages).
            2. No, we won’t win ‘power’ – we don;t have enough candidates. But I pray that Christians will at least vote for Christians who are prepared to put their heads above the parapet and stand on the Truth of Christ…

            3. 50 REAL Christians in parliament, all prepared to act as real Christians, would have an amazing effect. NB Slavery.

          • magnolia

            As none of them can be consummated because they don’t have the appropriate physical attributes between them they should be annulled anyway. Newspeak may call it marriage; biology, like the little boy that shouted “…but the Emperor has no clothes” says it is nothing of the kind.

            You may think that religions have cornered the market in hatred. Rather a lot comes off gay people, and some subsets think catty viperish comments are de rigeur. It is not unusual that the barbed comments are slung towards the opposite gender. Do be honest about this.

          • Inspector General

            No one has any intention of annulling civil partnerships nor those civil partnerships with a cherry on top, which are somewhat incorrectly described as ‘marriages’ at the moment…

          • One way or another they will be ‘annulled’, Inspector, and removed from the statute. Maybe not in our lifetime but the sexual revolution that has culminated in this perversity of natural marriage will be reversed. The principle of “last in – first out” will apply when the tide eventually turns, which it must.

      • Albert

        And that proves what, exactly?

    • It’s not the greatest offence, Albert, or the one causing most harm to the fabric of our society. Indeed, in comparison to the social ills of the contracepting and aborting mentality, accompanied by divorce and remarriage, serial cohabitation, and single parent families, it is, in many ways, insignificant by comparison. It is a great moral evil but it is also one preceded by many others that cut a path for its acceptance.

      Same sex ‘marriage’ has crowned decades of moral relativism which has resulted in the disintegration of stable family life. Jack is beginning to think that sometimes we focus too much on it and avoid its antecedents. Why might that be? Could it be that the Christian Churches, including the Catholic Church, have stayed silent?

      • Albert

        It’s not the greatest offence

        I agree, but it was the policy of the Conservatives. They must take responsibility for the things they do, not the things done by others.

        • True, and all the more shocking became it came from nowhere and was unnecessary.

  • CliveM

    One of my big gripes about this election is the total dishonesty of the main parties in addressing the major challenges of this country. That is the deficit, the ballooning debt and how we are going to pay for our services going forward.

    Frankly all the parties have made no real effort to address the issues. That pillock Milliband seems bent on repeating every mistake the Labour Party has made in the last 50 years, combined with a contempt for the electorate. Has anyone noticed how his claim that labour will cut the deficit year on year was combined with a statement saying that money spent on ‘investment’ shouldn’t be included in the deficit figures! Already warming the books for a good cooking.

    Osborne has announced another £8b on the NHS without saying how it is to be paid for. In effect the NHS will continue to suck resources out of Education, transport, defence etc to the long term detriment of this country (never mind the eventual impact on the NHS itself)!

    Nick Clegg has said nothing and has even failed to do that convincingly. The Greens seem intent in proving that they truly are as ‘nutty’ as their image and the SNP have surely proved that Scottish Education is in terminal decline. If anyone is able to listen to the unfunded fantasy that is SNP policy and say “that sound guid” then frankly they probably should lose the right to vote.

    Pah, it’s a GE with nothing credible being said.

    • It’s because they are “managing” a mess without a credible vision for getting out of it. There’s a reason for God’s Laws outside of our personal salvation – they actually work – and we abandon them at our individual and collective peril.

  • sarky

    Myself and my wife voted tory at the last election. However, we can see the actual decimation caused to public services in the guise of ‘reducing the deficit’. I fully understand that savings needed to be made, but these cuts have gone beyond what was needed and are now, I believe, ideological. We now have departments, already hit hard, that are facing further cuts that will render them pretty much ineffective.
    Also remember this is the party that brought in the bedroom tax and and other benefit cuts that didn’t hit the ‘feckless’, but the most vulnerable in our society.
    Unless you are very wealthy, I don’t believe you will have felt any benefit from this government.
    I have voted in every election for the last 25 years but this is the first time I don’t know who to vote for.

    • The Banana

      The sad truth is that, on the contrary, there have not been nearly enough cuts. We were 1 trillion in debt in 2011, we are now 1 and a half trillion. The human mind finds it hard to comprehend these numbers; suffice to say that debt has gone up immensely in the last government.

      It’s arguable that what was cut shouldn’t have been, but it’s still true that in aggregate the surface has barely been scratched, definitely not ‘beyond’ anything. In truth entire departments need to be abolished, not merely cut.

      • CliveM

        I think in a nutshell the problem is no one wants cuts. They want to pretend that the deficit will just magically disappear if you wish for it hard enough.

        Our deficit has only marginally gone down and our debt is still increasing and Sarky says the cuts have gone too far.

        We are at a critical juncture here. Another serious Global slowdown (and there are plenty of reasons out there to suppose it is a strong possibility) and this country will be in serious trouble. Massively indebted, at serious risk of default and with no ready access to the money markets.

        Really it’s time people woke up. Because if we have to go cap in hand to the EU or the IMF, we will really be screaming about the cuts going to far then.

        • Anton

          A financial crash that perforce ends the postwar social contract – a contract in which hard work subsidises sloth and the consequences of sexual immorality are actively rewarded – could be the (re)making of this country. That is the time when Christians in politics will be most vital.

          • CliveM

            Having seen what happened in Greece and the abject misery that has been inflicted on it, it is a fate I’d like to avoid. It would do long term damage to the UK and we would see a major flight of our brightest and best. I also doubt that the sexual morality of the country would significantly improve.

          • Anton

            Greece is chained to the Euro and, while it remains so, to decades of stagnation. A better comparison is Iceland, where the currency crashed and allowed cheap exports to revitalise the economy within a few years. NB If you stop subsidising something, it gets less.

          • CliveM

            They also defaulted rather then borrowed. It may work for a small economy like Iceland, it is questionable if it would work with UK economy. It would certainly have long term consequences on both our ability to borrow down the line and the interest rates we would need to pay.

            I am not advocating joining the Euro however!

            Certainly the value of the Pound would crash. However with our manufacturing in such dire straights where would the ‘export’ led recovery come from?

            All this options would be risky, I still say it would be better to try and avoid it happening in the first place.

          • Linus

            In other words, a plague on all your houses!

            Christians are such lovely people! Praying for misery and despair so their political ideas can gain traction. Who needs enemies when

          • Anton

            You expect me to pray for a continuation of the present situation in which my country (and yours!) is loading impossible debt on its young, a religion dedicated to overthrow is being treated with kid gloves, thousands of babies are being aborted, and misery and despair are going on right now in countless broken families because policy encourages family instability?

            I am interested in the best way out of this mess. Dealing with sin is always painful.

          • Owl

            oh dear, have you forgotten to take your medication, again.

          • The Banana

            I’m not a Christian I’m an atheist but, FWIW, I hope the government gets a handle on things before it all goes completely tits up. Though given the fantasy that passes for discussion of cuts and austerity in this country it doesn’t look good, does it!

    • Dominic Stockford

      Move, quickly, register quickly in new home, then vote for me… 🙂

      • sarky

        Cant do that. But will send you a few quid for your lost deposit 🙂

        • Dominic Stockford

          How kind – my address is in the public domain so I shall look forward – and if I keep the deposit I shall send it back.

  • Darach Conneely

    You get rid of the deficit though taxation as economy recovers, not by attacking the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Children are going to school hungry without proper clothing in bad weather. Science shows malnutrition affects health and intelligence generations down the line. We will be paying for generations for through the NHS and education for the effects of Tory attack on the poorest in society. Instead of lifting families out of poverty, it will keep them there through ill health and poor educational attainment.

    The suffering of the sick and disabled is being made a hundred time worse by the stress caused sanctions. 60% of the people affected by bedroom tax are disabled. People die when their benefits are cut, some starve, found dead with completely empty digestive systems, some have no electricity to keep their insulin in a fridge, others die because the strain of sanctions pushes their already compromised health too far, other already suffering psychological problems are pushed too far and end their own lives. Is this the sort of Britain you want to live in? Where the poor are punished for the greed and recklessness of the rich that cause the crash? Is this the sort of ‘compassion’ you want to vote for? It is the compassion of the school yard bully who says I’m doing this for your own good.

    Isaiah 3:15 What do you mean by crushing my people, by grinding the face of the poor?” declares the Lord GOD of hosts.

    • CliveM

      If you could identify the culprits and the tax evaders and the seriously rich non-doms and make they pay for the deficit, I would say yes.

      Unfortunately we are rich in both actual experience and academic research that shows you would not get the tax returns you would require. Tax returns would collapse and the position for the economy and the poor would actually worsen.

      • Darach Conneely

        Yes we need to target tax evaders, but I’m talking general taxation. Crashes and depressions don’t last forever, as the economy recovers and people are better off, the increase in taxation pays off the deficit. What we have had instead under ‘austerity’ is the slowest recovery from a crash. Give money to the very rich through tax cuts and they will squirrel it away until the economy recovers and they can make more money. Take money from the poor, and there is less money being spent in the economy. Besides, even with the crash the UK is the 6th richest economy in the world, attacking the very poorest, bringing back hunger that hasn’t been seen since the end of the 2nd World War is utterly immoral.

        • CliveM

          So who are the wealthy you propose to tax? Define, because whilst not being wealthy I already lose over 50% of my income in tax (Income Tax, NI, VAT, Community Charge, licence Fee, Duty etc),so frankly I don’t see why I should be taxed more.

          If your talking the non doms, well they won’t pay your tax. The businesses? Well as they are the ones creating the jobs, they will either leave or transfer profits abroad. So where are all these extra taxes going to come from?

          Reality is often unpleasant, but it is still reality.

          • Darach Conneely

            Are the 0.1% the only people who will make any more money when the economy recovers? Or will there be more people making more money and paying more tax as a result? But if you really insist we have to cut the deficit now, and don’t want to target the rich, then call for people who can still feed and clothe their children to pay a bit more rather than insisting the poorest of the poor, the disabled and the unemployed bear the brunt of your economic policy.

          • Surely it is immoral to create dependency on State welfare? If anything, the State needs to shrink and people with consciences need to step forward and volunteer their time and resources towards helping others.

            We also need to start some serious reforms of global capitalism through international bodies. At the moment wealth is centralised in the hands of the few. Small, local businesses are crushed under the bureaucracy and red tape. International companies care only about the ‘bottom line’ and not the economic condition of particular nation states. The debt driven, consumption capitalism, and the economic divisions it brings, is heading for an almighty crash – one way or another.

            What a fine mess we are in – and this is without considering the personal, family and social conditions of Western society.

          • Darach Conneely

            I agree about the problems of big business v small, but welfare creating dependency? The unemployed, the badly paid poor, the sick and disabled were around living in Dickensian slums and workhouses long before state welfare was created to provide a compassionate solution. Private charities tried to help, but their input was spotty inadequate and frequently Pharisaic only targeting the people they considered ‘deserving poor’. Social welfare was introduced to lift everyone in need out of abject grinding poverty.

          • Dependency on welfare cripples the spirit and demoralises. Take a wander around those areas where it is a way of life. The “safety net” of the welfare state for the unemployed and low paid was never intended to become institutionalised in the way it has. And definitions of the “sick” and “disabled” have become ever wider. It requires a fundamental review alongside encouraging community’s and family’s to care for another and the economy being based on smaller businesses in which employees have a role and share profits.

          • Darach Conneely

            The solution to the demoralisation of unemployment is having enough decent paying jobs for everybody, not punishing the unemployed. Governments could create full employment simply by playing around with the length of a working week and retirement age, but I suspect they prefer to give employers an edge over unions through job uncertainty. Maggie certainly felt she could live with a level of unemployment when she closed the mines and gutted the UK’s manufacturing base. If governments can’t or won’t create full employment they have a responsibility to the people they leave out of work.

            Obviously disability has changed, was a time it was shell shock, missing limbs, paralysis and Chlorine gas that was the main cause of people being being chronically disabled. Most of them were cared for in institutions, which have since been closed in favour of don’t care in the community. Names of diseases have changed, diseases like polio have disappeared and other take their place. The one big difference is people live longer with chronic conditions who would have died sooner in the past, but then again we don’t have as many world wars while nanny state health and safety laws have vastly cut down the number of industrial accidents (that and Maggie Thatcher). What hasn’t changed is the moral obligation of society to care for the unemployed and disabled.

  • Owl

    YG, it seems to me that before an election you always (usually?) recommend voting for the Conservatives as being the least worse option.
    As we are already aware that LibLabCon are headed by interchangeable puppets, I cannot follow your reasoning.
    I think the only sensible option is to vote for UKIP.
    No, not as a protest vote but because they offer a stand on various issues which I can identify with. I am also aware that they, as a political party, are not perfect and I do not agree with them on some other issues. A normal situation.
    We badly need a change and Dave, Nick and the Milliboy are well past their sell by dates. We currently have a one party system, it’s called LibLabCon. They have a “common purpose”.
    It is very bad for the UK.
    Away with the whole pack of them.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      “Dave, Nick and the Milliboy are well past their sell by dates”
      Make that “use by dates”. In other words, too toxic for human consumption

  • David

    The chief problem with this articles proposition is that Cameron’s word is worth nothing. He is devoid of principles and untrustworthy.
    Moreover Cameron’s past actions demonstrate very clearly that he is not a conservative and his party conserves nothing, not even the country’s fiscal standing.

  • Shane

    Christians who vote for parties that have implemented evil policies are sending the message that those parties can continue to implement evil policies without facing electoral consequences.

    • John Waller

      …or indeed eternal consequences Shane.

      Christians are not free to vote for practitioners of evil. If we do so, we shall answer for it at the Judgement Seat. It is far better not to vote at all than to support the direction our society is taking via the major parties.

      Unfortunately though it appears the turkeys will keep on voting for Christmas right up to the time when the decorations go up and the ominous smell of Paxo wafts in from the kitchen.

      Then it will be too late

  • Dominic Stockford

    Why this plan is wrong?
    Because it does not place Christ at the heart of all answers.
    Because the Conservative Party will allow a free vote on euthanasia, as they have done on abortion.
    Because this Conservative Party frequently shouts loudly about how proud it is to have undermined the teaching of God on marriage.

    As well as all the reasons given by posters below.

    “Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.”
    So at least vote for the Christian Party candidates, and any individuals who are standing who recognise Jesus Christ as Lord and know they are sinners. After that, vote for any of them, it makes no odds.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    YG, I have never been a tactical voter, and I don’t intend to start at this election. For me, the Conservatives have indulged in far too much betrayal of their core supporters for me to put an “X” in their box. Their manifesto, like that of most other parties is probably not worth the paper it is written on. I also dread the things they have not had the courage to put in the manifesto, like when they failed to warn us about the devaluation of marriage. The mind boggles at what further pernicious plots are being hatched in secret to redefine what is natural and good in order to appease the perverse values of the cultural Marxists.

    So, my response is No, No, No…I will not support the Conservatives. I will vote with my conscience, even if that allows a Labour government to get In. In my view, we as a nation have spent too much time prostituting our consciences. Enough is enough

  • No. No. No. No. No to the conservatives. No to Labour. No to Liberal Democrats. No the the Greens. Vote for an Independent candidate who you have at least some chance of getting to exert some influence over and getting to represent you. Failing that vote for UKIP or one of the smaller parties. The “Vote for this bunch of immoral, self-interested, charlatans or you might get something worse” scare tactic no longer works. We realise that re-arranging the deckchairs on the titanic is no longer really viable. We need to abandon ship and board the lifeboats.

    • David

      Or reclaim as much of the ship as possible ?

      • Dominic Stockford

        The ship is already ours (‘we are more than conquerors through Him…’). However, it does need a bit of a clear out!

        • David

          A very thorough clear out…. from stem to stern, and keel to crow’s nest !

      • alternative_perspective

        The ship is sinking – find a lifeboat.

  • It’s a real dilemma.
    To vote UKIP in some constituencies will result in Labour being elected because it will divide the right votes. In Scotland, to vote UKIP is a wasted vote and the choice is either Labour or SNP.

    Now Jack’s constituency is only one with a sitting Conservative Westminster MP with only 38% of the vote in 2010 – and Jack is hoping SNP and Labour divide their vote again and he is returned. It does seem to be the lesser of the two evils.

    One could of course vote UKIP, or vote for a minority Christian Party. The latter would be the ethical choice – but it would just assist in returning the SNP candidate.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Jack, you are probably right in one sense – tactical voting can keep a worse party out. It does however, encourage parties like the Conservatives to be complacent. They know they can get away with their wretched stunts because they can rely on the tactical vote when push comes to shove.

      • This is true – and this is Jack’s dilemma. Does he contribute to matters possibly getting worse under Labour-SNP by voting according to principle?

        He will not be voting UKIP.

    • CliveM

      Voting conservative where UKIP has no chance of winning is what Farage is advocating his supporters to do!

      We use to live in the same constituency.

    • Anton

      Scots won’t vote for UKIP because UKIP (rightly) wants to make the Barnett formula that favours Scotland fair.

  • Inspector General

    What is so excellent about Cranmer, other than his drive and content, is his closing paragraph. The summing up, which used to be standard for those getting a message across. It’s refreshing that our man is keeping the tradition alive. It is no longer the universal it was…

    Anyway, that aside, how on earth do we break the stranglehold the 3 main parties (or the 2 and a bit, in reality) have on Westminster. This cosy club to which the aspiring, well, aspire, to become a member of. This den of the underhanders, the mendacious, the reckless, and the just plain odd. Those who conspire to hide the truth from us. That we are living on tick, and have done for decades. That our out-of-control benefit system is slowly bleeding the life out of those unlucky enough to pay for it, that’s all of us. That we will need to build four or five new Birmingham’s in the next quarter century just to accommodate the unstoppable rate of immigration into this 50,000 square mile density off Europe. (Anyone familiar with that multicultural tragedy of a city will sympathise greatly).

    We are being destroyed by the very people who invite us, this coming May, to take a part in our own destruction, by asking us to propel a demolisher of our choice into that aforementioned house of present iniquity. Who here will meekly submit? and who here want out of what we have and dream of honesty returning to the House of Commons? The situation is not good. The people deserve to be told, not have the wool pulled over their eyes with almost casual cynicism at election time by the current setup…

    • David

      Well put Inspector !

      • Inspector General

        In reference to your post above on tactical voting, David, this man is going to walk out of the polling office proud…

        • David

          Same here Inspector.

    • Dreadnaught

      how on earth do we break the stranglehold the 3 main parties (or the 2 and a bit, in reality) have on Westminster

      You know Iggy you are quite readable when not beating the crap out of your two Hobby-Horses.

      We do not need 630 MPs and 800 ‘Peers’ and a bunch of Who knows what they’re for MEPs. The latter should brought to account for their idlings by reporting to Parliament.
      We need a smaller more representative government and root and branch reformed civil service. I’d go further and bring the whole lot out of Westminster and London and spread around the country.
      300 MPs and an elected second chamber both elected by proportional representation would be a start.

      More responsibility and accountability to the regions where CEOs are paid no more than the PM.

      The whole character of the British way of politics needs reviving into more of a calling; not a career for self aggrandisment and a fat pension for life.

      I know, I know, it won’t happen – it just needs to.

      • Inspector General

        That’s the spirit, Dredders. The present setup, which may have been fine administrating an empire where the sun never set, clearly needs reforming. It’s not as if it’s the RCC now, is it….

        An immediate move would be to boot the Lords Spiritual out. They let themselves down over SSM, and one does harbour a grudge, as you know…

    • Pubcrawler

      “(Anyone familiar with that multicultural tragedy of a city will sympathise greatly).”

      Depressingly true, and truly depressing.

      • Inspector General

        Yes, Pub. One remembers you as a Brummie. For those that are unused to that example of nomenclature, it refers to an indigenous salt of the earth white type therein and of Birmingham. Damn thin on the ground these days in that vicinity, as one has personally witnessed…

        • Pubcrawler

          Cept I ay a Brummie, arm a Yam-Yam.

          • Inspector General

            Good Lord! Did you say something then…

          • Pubcrawler

            OK, just for you:

            You are in error, sir: I hale not from Birmingham, but from that far superior region known as the Black Country.

    • Dominic Stockford

      In fact we’d have to build one Plymouth a year, along with the three hospitals, 60 odd schools and even more doctors surgeries, etcetera etcetera. And even though I lived there, and loved the place, I don’t think Britain is ready for another one every year.

  • David

    I don’t support tactical voting, no not at all.
    Even if ones vote fails to be reflected in returning an MP of your favoured colour, the total swing of votes across the entire country has an impact on the establishment, as they see where the mood is heading, overall.
    Vote for what most reflects your beliefs, and thereby, collectively, the electorate can send powerful signals to those who need to know.
    It also gives heart to fellow travellers for the next election opportunity.
    Rome was not built in a day. Growing UK1P takes time, and a considerable number of election cycles in fact.

    • Leacock

      I think the exception to that should be Scotland and Ulster. Tactical voting is eminently appropriate there simply because a large clutch of separatist MPs can wreak havoc on the Realm. Though really only a major risk in Scotland given Sinn Fein policy.

  • IanCad

    I will hold my nose and vote Conservative – there’s no other choice.
    Let’s hope it will reform from within, although I won’t hold my breath.
    The absolute madness of the new housing policy is beyond belief. Don’t even get me started on the Referendum – an exercise that will bind us to the EU for a generation.
    Maybe that’s the reason for it.

  • How can anyone seriously vote Tory, Labour or Libdem after what they’ve
    done over the last 18 years.

    UKIP is a chance for change and release. Vote from the heart regardless
    I’d say. If enough people do that instead of tactical voting then we
    might just get that longed for change in Westminster.

    I notice the lack of UKIP leaflets in my area which is Labour. Don’t
    give up the fight.

  • Royinsouthwest

    There may be aspects of Conservative policy that are better than those of the Labour Party or the Lib Dems, but that is not setting the bar very high. Does anyone actually expect David Cameron to keep his promise of an EU referendum? He has got form when it comes to not keeping promises and even if he were to deliver a referendum I expect that the wording would be carefully chosen in order to maximise the chances of a vote to remain in.

    Immigration is another area in which the Conservatives have shown that they cannot be trusted. Does anyone think that there will be fewer “British” jihadis than there are today? Will our border controls really work? How can immigration be controlled if we remain in the EU?

    Will the rundown of our armed forces be reversed if the Conservatives win?

    I could go on, but readers will understand what I’m getting at even if they disagree with me.

    • Inspector General

      Roy, one’s understanding is that Cameron, IF he offers a referendum, and IF he acknowledges the result, will merely use an ‘out’ vote to screw concessions from the EU. Happy to be put right if this be incorrect..

      • I don’t think you’re wrong there Inspector. Thing is, Angela,
        Francoise and Co. are not going to let him have any concessions as
        other countries will also want concessions, and any changes have to
        be agreed by the other 27 member states. Not gonna happen! So
        Cameron will come back to us with a load of waffle about winning some minor inconsequential concessions such as being able to have a
        greater variance of the bend in cucumbers. That should keep him
        happy whilst not disrupting their sinister goals of ever closer
        union.

        • Inspector General

          Well, he’s committed to the EU, Marie. We know that for fact.

          Do excuse the Inspector while he curses the man’s very being…

    • David

      Agreed.
      That’s why this Christian turned UK1P some years ago.

    • sarky

      Border controls only work if you have the staff to do them (look at how many staff have been lost and how many are going to be lost – frightening! !)

  • David

    There is now a considerable body of Christians praying for a UK1P advance. It is the only party that states it supports our Judaeo-Christian heritage. That is not to claim that they are a Christian party, they are not, but it’s the best offer on the market stall.
    “Onward Christian Kippers….”

  • Shadrach Fire

    I would vote Conservative again if Cameron was not at the head.

  • ……explain why this vision is not, at least, the best of the realistic goods on offer.

    Because Cameron has shown himself to be utterly untrustworthy. His only vision is how he’s going to get himself another 5 years in power. The manifesto makes no economic sense, but if it were worthy of Adam Smith I still would not vote conservative. Like others, I have no illusions that UKIP is a Christian party, but it is the only one I can bring myself to vote for. If there is a reasonable clutch of UKIP M.P.s after the election we might see a number of Euro-sceptic conservatives joining them and have a new party of the Right that would have a chance of breaking through at the following election which will almost certainly be less than 5 years away.

  • Shadrach Fire

    Our MP is Pickles and he is now the last person on earth I would vote for. I shall vote UKIP or an independent. My wife wants to vote for Pickles to stop Miliband and the Scots from getting power. Would I be justified in tying her up for the day to avoid her cancelling my vote. Wasn’t that a line from Cherie Blair’s fathers program?

    • Inspector General

      You might want to consider the postal vote, Shadrach. Mohameds find it very useful in saving their little brown woman from participating in the democratic process…….

      • Pubcrawler

        “their little brown woman”

        Just the one? You overlook cousins, sisters, daughters, generations yet unborn, all handily on the register but unaccountably unable to make it to the polling station.

        • Anton

          I thought you were making a reference to polygamy in your first sentence. I wonder how many Muslim men have undergone bigamous marriage ceremonies in British mosques without informing the authorities.

          • Pubcrawler

            I was indeed hinting at that.

          • Politically__Incorrect

            I once worked in an office where there were several muslim guys. They quite openly admitted to having more than one wife. Some had four. Polygamy may be illegal for the rest of us, but not for the disciples of allah.

          • Anton

            It is illegal here in the UK to attempt to go through a State-recognised wedding ceremony if you have a living wife from whom you have not been through a State-recognised divorce procedure. Under Islamic law, however, a man may have up to four wives. So your colleagues would simply have gone through wedding ceremonies with other women under Islamic rites (here or overseas) and not attempted to register them as wives with the British authorities. Whether such private ceremonies held on British soil are illegal is a grey area. (Do any Christian lawyers know what the situation is?) I recall that, disgracefully, the previous Labour administration was prepared to hand out social security money to families on the basis of polygamy and not publicise the fact. (Do any people working in social security offices know what the situation is today?)

            It is worth noting that polygamy was tolerated by God in the Bible, although not a good word is said about it in contrast to 1:1 enduring matrimony, and among Christians “each man is to have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (1 Cor 7:2). Presumably polygamists who come to faith in Christ should simply not take more wives unless all previous have died.

          • CliveM

            I don’t know about others on this site, but I find one wife MORE then enough, the idea of having to put up with four of the blighters, well let’s just say a Monastery of the strictest type would be infinitely more appealing.

            I think we should pity these poor men, there but for the Grace of God etc.

          • Dreadnaught

            4 wives bringing in 4 lots of 4 child x allowances etc etc, 4 right-to-buy homes ? Not pity required but anger at a very callous exploitation of the British benefits system.

          • CliveM

            I wasn’t being entirely serious.

          • Dreadnaught

            Just a teensy-weensy bit serious then Mr M? I’m almost numb to the idea now that GB will ever wake up let alone stand up for its traditions and culture. Its the future generations I feel most sad about – we sure have let them down; unlike our parents did for us.

          • CliveM

            A tiny but serious? Well yes, but don’t tell the wife, I’m not sure she would be entirely ok with what I said!!

            I wish we had the courage and honour of our Grandparents generation. They faced a real enemy and in the main they faced the enemy with courage and nobility. Our problems are petty in comparison and we are in the main petty in the way we meet these problems.

  • Leacock

    UKIP is the only party with voting for in England and Wales I would say. I spate of Labour government could be for the best, Milliband would have a hard time being worse than Cameron on the social and military fronts, while it may lead to some real cooperation on the right, like what is happening in Ulster where UUP/DUP cooperation looks like it shall elect a UUP.

    • Anton

      If Cameron loses then the Conservatives might get a genuine conservative as their leader, one who does not gratuitously insult UKIP and their supporters who are mostly disillusioned tories.

      • Linus

        You really want a Labour government in power because you’re hoping it will legalize polygamy or make practical lesbian sex instruction mandatory for 5 year olds, and the resulting Christian backlash will put Farage in Number 10 and destroy socialism forever.

        Unfortunately for you, Labour may be stupid, but they’re not that stupid. They may be incompetent, but your reasonably professional civil service will guide them as they guide all UK goverments. I’ve seen “Yes Minister”. I know how the British constitution (such as it is) works…

        5 years of mildly loopy socialist policies won’t foment a revolution. But they will add several new bricks in the wall that divides Christians from the exercise of political power. They will desensitize the public to the Christian message just that little bit more. And they will render the Church and everything it stands for even more outmoded and ridiculous in the eyes of the vast majority.

        You’ll be better off with Cameron. Not much, I grant you. But beggars can’t be choosers.

        • Anton

          Guessing wrongly what was in my mind again, Linus. It is wiser to restrict yourself to criticism of what people write.

          • Linus

            Guessing wrongly what you’re prepared to admit, perhaps. But not what’s in your mind. That comes across so clearly that nobody needs to waste any time on guessing. There isn’t a bushel in existence opaque enough to obscure the piercing glare of your conservative Christian political opinions. Viva la revolución, eh? If Castro is Jesus, I guess that makes you Che Guevara…

          • Anton

            If you are calling me a liar then there is little point in further dialogue in good faith with you, but I shall continue to point out your distortions and errors for the sake of others.

          • Linus

            Nobody’s horse is higher than the beast that belongs to a Christian confronted by his own inconsistency.

            Just the other day you were waxing lyrical about how wonderful the overthrow of Western civilization would be for Christianity. Now you’re trying to tell me that the hastening of that day by means of hardline socialist government provocation is something you don’t want?

            If you were consistent, it would be easy to dismiss you as an obsessive dogmatic. But you’re all over the place. Who can tell what you really believe? I doubt you know yourself.

        • wyclif

          “Labour may be stupid, but they’re not that stupid.”

          Translation for those unacquainted with Linus-speak: they’re that stupid.