Pete Broadbent - Corbyn 1
Church of England

Clerics for Corbyn: Bishop of Willesden comes out for 'Alice in Wonderland' politics

 

Pete Broadbent, Bishop of Willesden, has joined the Rev’d Giles Fraser and finally come out for Jeremy Corbyn. This is that same Jeremy Corbyn of whom Tony Blair says is transporting us to a fantasy programme of “Alice in Wonderland” politics. But that’s of no concern to Bishop Pete, for whom Mad-Hatter (or Cheshire Cat?) Blair pursued and still advocates a political programme more redolent (or prescient) of ‘Alice: Madness Returns‘, in which “Tory-lite” trauma and DWP death squads are conjoined and inseparable from the evil forces of New Labour.

“We offered nothing to anyone at the last election. In England or Scotland. Wearing Tory lite clothes is no longer credible,” says Bishop Pete.

Note the “We”. Can you imagine a bishop ever using “We” of Margaret Thatcher or the Conservative Party?

“People fed up with Labour complacent acquiesence in status quo & corrupt capitalism,” Bishop Pete adds. “Westminster has to change. No more Hon Member rubbish. Proper debate. Applause, even. End PMQ farce. Opposition has to oppose.”

It is a curious elision from the weighty matters of political complacency and the corruption of capitalism to the utterly trivial matter of how MPs address one another. Is it “rubbish” to address the Archbishop of Canterbury as ‘Your Grace’, or the Queen (setting aside for a moment his visceral antipathy) as ‘Your Majesty’?

But then comes the (predictable) anti-Tory “Nasty Party” swipe: “We didn’t even oppose George Workhouse Osborne on benefits.”

The Chancellor’s middle name is actually George: his first name Gideon. But Pete Boorish Broadbent knows that. It isn’t the first time, of course. Presumably, the Chancellor wouldn’t be welcome to worship in Willesden (or Edmonton or Spring Harvest). At least he isn’t made to feel so. In fact, no-one at all on the political right is made to feel welcome by Bishop Pete. We are obviously the most infected of the new lepers.

The mystical musings of the Bishop of Willesden (and Edmonton and Spiring Harvest) led Black Dog in the Mail on Sunday to conjecture on Jeremy Corbyn’s ecclesial appointments:

Pete Broadbent - Corbyn Mail

Archbishop Pete in Canterbury and Archbishop Giles in York? God forbid. (Actually, equality sensitivities will henceforth forbid: Harriet Harman would never entertain both Cantuar and Ebor simultaneously being held by white, heterosexual men). But Black Dog appears not to be aware that it is no longer the purview of the Prime Minister to nominate bishops: Gordon Brown devolved that responsibility to the Crown Nominations Commission (which, pace Archbishop Justin, isn’t doing a very good job of filling episcopal vacancies). It is now the task of the CNC to submit the name of a preferred candidate (and a second appointable candidate) to the Prime Minster who is constitutionally responsible for tendering that advice directly to the Queen. This is no longer the Prime Minister’s advice, but that of the CNC: the Prime Minister’s role has been reduced to that of a postbox.

That aside, it is good, right and proper that, just as politicians “do God”, so bishops should “do politics”. But there are ways of doing so which sustain missiological latitude; and ways which alienate and insult half the country (not to mention Her Majesty’s democratically-elected Government).

As previously observed, Jeremy Corbyn is not one for progressive socialist theory:

..he is a devout traditionalist, believing that the old paths were righteous and the new progressive piety is a modernist betrayal of Labour’s heritage and a corruption of its liberation theology. “A lot of people are supporting us, particularly young people who want to see a Labour Party that is very different to the Labour Party they have had in the past,” he said. Doubtless a lot of Church of England clergy are praying for him, too: so much left-wing political philosophy derives from lefty-wing applied theology, and there is virtue in philosophical purity even if it means you never get into power.

In an age of interminable seeming spin and pious third-way platitudes, his core moral authenticity and political conviction are attractive: he says what he means and means what he says. People are hurting, and he promises lots of kisses and compassion wrapped up in cotton wool and bandages. Any flaws in his economic policy or his lack of small-business appeal is immaterial (literally) against the emotional yearning of the Christian Socialist Movement for the restoration of a theology of community; of fraternity, solidarity and co-operation.

The Bishop of Willesden is Old Labour: authentic, moral and un-spun. His anger is righteous; his irritation not unwarranted. In the genuine pursuit of social equality and welfare, he wants a pugnacious Labour leader who will ensure public ownership, full employment, fair wages and the redistribution of wealth for the alleviation of want and hardship. He wants to fight back against the system: “We” are sick of shallow spin and third-way compromise with its dog-eat-dog materialism, elite cronyism, banking bailouts and corrupt capitalism.

You might find his social vision terribly 1940s and William Temple-ish, but his exasperation with political elites and corrupt capitalism is wholly justified. He just can’t quite grasp that many Tories share his exasperation. It is natural and laudable to want to see families housed, children educated and everyone fed by virtue of gainful employment. But it is ecclesial amateurishness to think that Conservatives do not also “do community”: statist central control is not the only means of securing a just society based on decency and tolerance. For Margaret Thatcher, her oft-misquoted assertion that “there is no such thing as society” was followed by a precise understanding of how that society may be apprehended:

“There is a living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.”

But bishops like Pete don’t read this, and when they do, they call it a “Tory lie”.

When Tony Blair warns of “falling rocks, mudslides, dangerous hairpin bends and then a sheer drop”, he speaks from the experience of having fought three elections and winning them. From a psephological perspective, he was Labour’s most successful leader. If, as he says, Jeremy Corbyn’s revolutionary political programme belongs in an “Alice in Wonderland world”, then Bishop Pete’s left-wing conviction is one which will lead to electoral oblivion. Clerics for Corbyn and Bishops in Wonderland might inspire the socialist converted, but it won’t convert the lost. And without the missiological strategy to reach those who are being lost, there will be no power for social transformation, and so no national salvation.

  • len

    I think this Country is getting exactly what it deserves and perhaps “Alice in Wonderland” politics is just part of that.
    God is not mocked but perhaps we are being ?.

    • David

      Yes, in a democracy we all have imposed upon us whatever the majority vote for; unfortunately all three establishment parties serve up three different brands of Socialism-lite, Stonewall plus Multiculti. The decline exactly mirrors the abandonment of the Christian faith as the basis for our laws and public life.

  • Inspector General

    Arise Bishop Baron Lord Broadbent?

    Not a chance. If you are going to be a full time Red and serve Bolshevism, they’ll want you to dispense with your former life. They just won’t wear it. The very idea of a priest amongst those eager reforming atheists would be anathema to them. It would really put their tolerance to the test, and tolerance is of course a scarce commodity when you are leading the down trodden people to the Socialist paradise that Marx promised. One wonders if Broadbent is aware of this, and more to the point, whether he harbours any political ambition, or is he just a light weight sniping thing…

  • Anton

    “he says what he means and means what he says. People are hurting, and he promises lots of kisses and compassion”

    Who are people hurting? Does Your Grace mean that people are in pain?

    • Inspector General

      Why are people hurting should be the question asked, and can getting a job alleviate the pain…

  • Tom Cook

    I don’t know why we bother worrying. Labour are finished anyway. If you can’t quite see that yet, then consider:

    The SNP isn’t going anywhere in Scotland.

    England will never give Labour a majority.

    The SNP will support a Labour government, but the price will be, among other things, a second referendum on independence.

    Therefore the slogan for the Tories at the next election will be, “A vote for Labour is a vote for Scottish independence.” And, unlike most election slogans, it will be all too true. Labour won’t support independence, but the referendum will be the price of power, and they won’t be able to resist it.

    England will not vote for Scottish independence. So, unless the SNP does something stupid and hands Scotland back to Labour on a plate, or the Tories manage to completely dismantle the economy so far that no-one cares what the Scots do, we are in for at least a decade of Tory government.

    • Inspector General

      But sir, we know all that. We merely come here to gloat…

    • Anton

      Except that the Tories are not conservative any more. And I wouldn’t be too sure that England won’t vote for Scottish independence if the Scots push their concessions too hard. Moreover if the best way for the Conservative And Unionist Party (to give it its full name) to rule forever is to ditch Scotland then it might just do so…

      • David

        Correct !
        The Conservatives still wear the clothes of conservatives, to ensure the vote harvest is always adequate, but meanwhile behind the marketing facade, Edmund Burke has been forgotten and the new “teachers” are Stonewall plus Multiculti Diversity.
        Ukip is the only patriotic, traditionalist party.

        • Anton

          How can you say that I am correct and also say that Tom Cook is correct when my comment was posted to point out my disagreement with him?

          Yours confusedly,
          Anton

          • Tom Cook

            But you didn’t disagree. I didn’t have anything to say about whether the Conservatives are a good thing, only that Labour is finished.

          • Anton

            I disagreed that England would not vote for Scottish independence!

      • Uncle Brian

        If I were now a registered voter still living in my old London constituency, and if the English electorate were given the chance to vote for cutting Scotland loose, it’s something I would spend at least a few minutes thinking about. “It’s in my power,” I would say to myself, “to have Alex Salmond turned into a foreigner.”

        Is Bishop Broadbent Scottish as well, by any chance?

    • David

      A correct analysis I’d say.

    • IanCad

      Your certitude makes me nervous.

  • preacher

    One wonders where the “Bishops in Blunderland” will be if Corbyn became Labour leader & won an election. If he’s as far left as reported & has some Extremist friends, the future for the ecclesiastical equivalent of ‘Butch & Sundance’ looks decidedly grim.
    For Centuries, mankind have tried to solve all the Worlds problems, by political reforms, religious rites, wars, austerity, printing more money, Communism, Socialism, Capitalism – ans so on, ad infinitum.
    We do the best we can, but are doomed to fail in the end. Simply put, we haven’t the tools to do the job.
    Since the devil dragged humanity down into sin we’ve stumbled from crisis to ISIS, we have survived – just ! The Clerics in question would be better employed calling for a national day of prayer than committing vocational suicide. It worked at Dunkirk, who knows ? – Oh yes, God Knows !.

    • David

      You are awarded copious quantities of Brownie Points for citing the effect of prayer and “The Miracle of Dunkirk”. Yes it was literally a miracle. To be reminded of that when we are surrounded by the present spiritual desert of our nation, with just the occasional oasis still showing, is most heartening. So thank you. I can feel a Remembrance Service sermon stirring deep within what I have to use as a brain.

      • preacher

        Thank you David. You are most welcome. P.

  • What a wonderful vision is was that Margaret Thatcher expressed and how right she was too. This country has reached the point of development where the economic wealth and social infrastructure is in place to realise this vision. The state now needs rolling back, not expanding, and the transition needs careful management.

    • Anton

      You mean St Margaret of Finchley of blessed memory?

      • She wasn’t perfect and made some rash and insensitive decisions and didn’t stand against abortion but for all that Jack holds her in high regard. Her problem was she was surrounded by buffoons.

        • Anton

          Agreed – although she surrounded herself with those buffoons.

          • This is true but then one doesn’t have an entirely free hand in appointing one’s cabinet.

          • Anton

            She was less good than some other great PMs at not taking dissent personally.

          • She was a touch highly strung …..

          • Anton

            Yes, some witty Christian socialist might do an update of Julius Exclusus e Coelis…

    • Hi happy Jack

      *Gasp *I always though you were a socially conservative Labour party supporting social democrat?

      • Not at all, Hannah. If anything, Jack is a Distributist in inclination.

        • Hi Happy Jack

          So you are socialist ?

          • Lol …. not re-distributist. It’s neither left nor right.

          • Anton

            Decent principles, but how to get there from here?

          • God alone knows, Anton. The real question is: will anybody listen to Him or pay attention?

          • Hi happy Jack

            Oh, o.k.. I remember my bro shlomo saying he voted for
            ” bucket head” rather than Mrs T before he moved to Israel.

          • carl jacobs

            So [Jack is] socialist ?

            Let’s just say it’s not a coincidence that Jack wanted to name all his kids ‘Rose.’ Or that he hums the Internationale in shower when he thinks no one is listening. Or that his favorite Soccer club is called the ‘Reds.’

            Jack has never been what you would call a true Blue Citizen.

          • Hi Carl

            Oh I see. The red flag , another socialist hymn, is quite quickly a depressing song.

    • David

      Hear, hear !

  • Gladiatrix

    Bishops should be politically neutral and keep their political views to themselves. The Archbishop of Canterbury should have the backbone to make this clear to the Bishops, and to underline that disciplinary proceedings will follow if anything like this comment from Willesden happens again.

    • Bishops should represent Christian values in the public square – not court popularity with the masses.

      • David

        Spot on Happy Jack !

        • If Bishops fail to stand up for Christian truth in the political arena they are failing in their duty to evangelise and to warn of the consequences of abandoning God.

          When did the Church stop teaching about sin that leads to damnation; about Satan and Hell; about duty, fidelity and loyalty to oaths to God and to one another; about the need to value life from conception to natural death as belonging to our Creator; about complementary sexual relationships within marriage directed at acts of selflessness and giving; about making the best of our talents, being diligent and hardworking; about charitable work and giving of self and resources to those in need to show Christ’s love for our neighbour? All we hear about today is mercy, love and forgiveness without any appreciation of how this was won for mankind and the part we have to play in ordering our lives according to God’s will. Toleration of sin has become acceptance and normalisation of evil.

          Jack learned all these values in his family and in his schooling. Not by rote or out of books, but by example and by discussion and teaching. It just all seemed so right and all so natural and part of the fabric of life. Common sense, one could say and it was manifest in Church on Sunday, at school through the week and at home. He was taught to love God, to love his neighbour and to love himself as a child of God.

          When do we hear these things talked about today? When are the implications of this preserving this world view translated into clear advice to the nation and to its politicians? Who speaks against the modern sins? Bishops like Pete and Alan and the celebrity priests like Giles and the priestesses like Rosie, make Jack sick to the very pit of his stomach. And they exist in Jack’s Church too at the very top. They are leading people into perdition and the nation into chaos.

          Still, one thing brightens Jack day and keeps him happy. As his dear departed mum would say: “It’s all in God’s hands,” and his dad would add: “The Book of Life was written before any of us were born.”

          • David

            My thoughts are on exactly those same lines Jack.
            You’re a good Christian man. We are few. God bless you.

            I am a Lay Minister. My sermons always speak of our sin, redeemed only through Jesus’ work on the Cross, offering the only route to God’s acceptance of us, through faith.

            We trust in God. Julian of Norwich, the mystic said, “all things will be right, all manner of things”. Like your parents she trusted God.

          • God Bless you and your work, David. Those foreknown to God will be reached through men such as yourself. Others will come to know God through different routes. (Ideally, of course, it would be the Catholic Church :o) … but needs must)

            Increasingly addressing the themes of good and evil, and the meaning of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is leading to accusations of ‘fundamentalism’, ‘judgementalism’ and ‘bigotry’. Still, as Carl reminded Jack, and as his parents knew, it’s important to keep plugging away and trusting in the Holy Spirit.

          • David

            Thank you Jack.

          • chiaramonti

            “in spite of this universal world which we see, there is another world, quite as far spreading, quite as close to us, and more wonderful…The world of the spirit then, though unseen, is present, not future, not distant. It is not above the sky, it is not beyond the grave; it is now and here; the kingdom of God is among us.” – John Cardinal Newman.

            When did you last hear a bishop preach like that?

    • magnolia

      Yes, that used to be assumed as the best way. I think it still is. I have yet to read any cogent argument suggesting Bishops better serve the people by being notably politically partisan! This way they immediately alienate all those of differing persuasions. These days there are so many basic tenets of Christian faith and moral belief under heavy fire that just sticking up for one or two of the 10 commandments in the public square should be more than sufficiently exhausting!

    • Phil R

      Backbone?

      In male Anglican leadership. …..

      My wife’s comment tells it as it is

      “What do you expect they wear a dress”.

  • David

    New Labour was a disaster for this country.
    Corbyn would be a bigger disaster for this country.
    The Labour Party is in its death throes.
    The Conservative Party is a hollowed out shell of party.
    The LibDems have all but vanished.
    All three establishment parties offer an end to the UK, intending us to remain trapped in the ever more insane EU, with its Open Doors, now to the entire world it seems.

    Ukip – the patriots party, is suffering a road block due to our outdated First Past the Post system. Unless there is a breakthrough soon the nation will slide downwards ever faster.

    The forthcoming Referendum is crucial. I am not holding my breath because the corruption of the mainstream media, where most of the busy population take their “news”(now little more than thought control) promotes a passive, naively trusting electorate easily manipulated by the Socialist Corporatist legions of the three establishment parties.

    Hope springs eternal, especially from a Christian’s breast, but the signs of political hope and delivery are not exactly ubiquitous presently. We continue in hope.

    • IanCad

      Well David, I’m still a Conservative. My hope is that after the blunders in Syria and Libya those who got us into this mess would have the decency to resign.
      I’m not holding my breath.

      • David

        There are still conservatives in the Conservative Party, but only a few, and not near the levers of power. For some years now the Conservatives have, in truth, conserved nothing it seems to me, quite the reverse in fact.

        As you know, I took my conservatism to Ukip, a totally patriotic party.

        • chiefofsinners

          To paraphrase Tony Benn: The Conservative part isn’t Conservative, but it’s got Conservatives in it. A bit like Christians in the Church of England.
          I cling to the hope that the referendum will have the same outcome as the Scottish one did. Although it was lost, it so galvanised support for the cause that come the general election wee Jimmy Krankie swept all before her. UKIP might lose the battle but win the war. 45% support is not enough to win a referendum, but it’s plenty to win an election.

          • David

            My thoughts too – patriots never surrender !

  • John Rollins

    I’ve heard Broadbent speak at Spring Harvest a couple of times. He was rather good, but I vote UKIP.

    • magnolia

      I agree with you that Spring Harvest probably attracts a wide range of political affiliations, but probably more of the right than the left.

  • Albert

    Gordon Brown devolved that responsibility to the Crown Nominations Commission (which, pace Archbishop Justin, isn’t doing a very good job of filling episcopal vacancies).

    You can always ask Rome to resolve these issues.

    • Old Nick

      Not often I disagree with Albert, but “The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction within this Realm of England”.

      • Albert

        So says (by derivation, at least) King Henry VIII who was of course an entirely uninterested observer of these matters – so uninterested that his Scribes came up with the bizarre and entirely false idea that England was an Empire, so that this false point could falsely be maintained!

        Anyone who is not an Erastian will say: The Monarch of England hath no jurisdiction over the Body of Christ. For “Monarch” of course, allow as well “Atheist/Nazi/Pagan/Communist/Islamist” and “Dictator/Emperor/Caliph” etc.

        Small wonder even most Anglican clergy don’t believe their own Articles – they don’t even have to!

        • Anton

          Probably about the same proportion of married Catholics who don’t believe in papal infallibility and discreetly use contraception.

          • Albert

            I don’t think the teaching on contraception is infallible.

          • Anton

            Neither do I !

          • Albert

            Let me clearer: I don’t think Humanae Vitae is an infallible pronouncement. Obviously, I think it’s true. If you can unnaturally separate sex and procreation, you might as well be a liberal Protestant.

          • Anton

            God already did that. It is why the human female remains sexually receptive even when infertile – once pregnant, or lactating, or past menopause, or during part of the female cycle. No mammalian female is like that. God explained in Genesis 2 that it is for pair bonding which in humans means marriage.

          • Albert

            You think that God unnaturally separated sex and procreation?

          • Anton

            Procreation involves sex but, uniquely in humans, not always vice-versa as I explained: the human female remains sexually receptive when infertile. So there is a partial separation, and it is a “natural” one.

          • Albert

            Exactly: it is not an unnatural separation. That’s supposed to be my point!

        • Old Nick

          I have no trouble believing the 39 articles (though I find no. 17 more than a little opaque) – Tract XC showed that they are fully consonant with Catholic Christianity. Their very breadth shows the intention of Elizabeth I and the Convocations of her reign (parties neither uninterested nor disinterested, I would agree) to make the Church of England truly catholic, that is to say to have it embrace all English Christians (except those who deliberately exclude themselves).
          And there are many middle ways between Erastianism and acceptance of the Pope. During the Exclusion Crisis there was a most interesting debate among Anglicans as to whether or not early Christians had owed any allegiance to Julian the Apostate – given the grim prospect of James II on the throne (and look how well that turned out for the Fellows of Magdalen and Univ., and for the 7 Bishops in the Tower). The most cogent of the Julian controversialists was George Hickes, later Dean of Worcester and a father of Anglo-Saxon studies and he was firmly on the side of accepting (in the name of Non-Resistance and Passive Obedience) the authority of even an apostate monarch. And he was consistent; he opposed the vicious policies of James II, but after 1689 he became a Non-Juror and lost his preferment. IMHO we need less mud chucked at Henry VIII and more at James II.

          • Albert

            I would simply point out that Cranmer at his trial admitted Nero was the Head of the Church, not Peter. Full marks for consistency! Then again, the CofE (or some within it) arranged for the legitimate monarch, James II to be removed because he was a Catholic. That’s not really consistent. If the monarch is the Head (or Supreme Governor) of the Church then he is regardless of his faith. After all, if faith is a test, then clearly someone can only hold the monarch is the Head if and only if, they accept his doctrine, which rather undermines the entire structure. An Anglican who holds that in the 16/17th Centuries can hardly have anything to complain about to a Papist who resists the CofE. So either he has to admit that Nero was the Head or he must admit that the monarch is only the Head for those who otherwise accept his teaching. Either way, the Anglican settlement collapses in its own incoherence.

            I’m not convinced that Tract XC really does the work you say it does. Nor of course was Newman really. He only held that given the latitude that was allowed to other groups in their interpretation of the Articles, that a Catholic interpretation was permissible. But that of course, rests on the assumption that that latitude was legitimate.

          • Anton

            Newman used casuistic arguments in Tract 90 to re-interpret the 39 Articles of the Church of England in a Catholic way that their authors obviously never intended, such that Anglican priests with Catholic sympathies were supposedly free to say one thing yet mean another. Roman Catholics and evangelical Anglicans both regard that as dishonest today.

            The early Christians owed as much allegiance to Julian as did the Jews in Jesus’ day to Caesar, and Jesus gave an answer.

            After the Restoration more power lay with parliament than with the crown. Charles I had lost his head to parliament and Charles II was invited to return, implying that those inviting held the power of choice. They exercised it, moreover, when James II unexpectedly produced a male heir and protestant England faced the prospect of a Catholic line indefinitely. He was so Catholic that not even the Scots wanted a Stuart monarch.

          • Old Nick

            Authorial intention is irrelevant in such matters; we are considering a text not a series of personalities. In any case it is clear that the most important intention of the framers of the 39 Articles was genuinely catholic, that is to say they framed the language in such a way as to embrace as broad a spectrum as possible of ‘those who profess and call themselves Christians’, while sustaining the Vincentian Canon and Catholic Order. I am sorry if you think my interpretation dishonest. And it is interesting to hear that casuistry is somehow reprehensible; I thought it was essential to the application of theology to particular cases
            As for the Stuarts, I think you will find that Charles II ruled without Parliament after the Dissolution of the Oxford Parliament of 1681 (an event which occurred in what is now the Greek reading room of the Lower Reading Room of the Old Bodleian) and at other times. So did James II. The essential fact about James II is surely that he voluntarily abandoned his kingdom (throwing the Great Seal of England into the Thames on the way). He could easily have tried to resist Dutch William had he wished to do so. He then of course suffered buyer’s remorse, but it was too late.

          • Anton

            It is Newman, not you, whom I regard as being intellectually dishonest in Tract 90. You didn’t write it! The 39 Articles are obviously written to be as inclusive as possible but some clear lines were drawn and I consider that Tract 90 muddied those lines in a way that their authors obviously never intended. I don’t agree that authorial intention is irrelevant. I reckon you could use the same techniques to reduce some of Jesus’ teaching to nonsense, which it isn’t; hence the techniques would stand condemned.

            I am also saying that no monarch could govern for long without the consent of parliament after the Restoration, and that no Catholic monarch would have been tolerated for long (although we cannot know details of how it would have panned out). I am not discussing the rights and wrongs of those assertions.

  • bluedog

    ‘It is now the task of the CNC to submit the name of a preferred candidate (and a second appointable candidate) ‘.

    In an extraordinary scoop, Your Grace, the CV of ‘the second appointable candidate’ has fallen into your communicant’s paws.

    The Revd. Justine Wellness, aged 60. Justine trained as a primary school teacher before deciding to set up her own business as an aromatherapist. Looking for fresh challenges, Justine qualified as a Mediator with a High Distinction in Dispute Resolution, becoming a Civil Celebrant shortly afterwards. While not brought up in a practicing Christian household, Justine has always understood the importance of forgiveness and sisterly love. On hearing the Rt Rev Pete Broadbent, Bishop of Willesden, speaking on Radio Four Justine decided to investigate the Church of England approach to Christianity. Accepting the challenge of becoming a deacon, Justine progressed easily into ordination. Supported by Bishop Pete, Justine now feels qualified to put her name forward as the first female occupant of the Primacy.
    Justine feels that if she had not been born a woman she would have reached the age of sixty much more quickly. Justine is married to Karen and they both have a grown-up child through previous relationships.

    • Tsk … you forgot the Reiki healing sessions she offers during Sunday Gatherings.

    • grutchyngfysch

      I don’t even know if this is satire.

  • Old Nick

    Despite all their talk of loving the poor, I fear that all that this proves to me is that these Leftists are actually fuelled by hatred of those in a position to create wealth. But maybe I am naîve.

  • Sybaseguru

    Perhaps +Pete would like to explore the Greek history of financial problems because that it what he is proposing – spend lots, get little in from taxes as everyone avoids them and blame the lenders who have financed the fiasco, whilst moaning about sky high interest rates.

  • magnolia

    I agree with this but would like to add that if any Bishop wishes to do some flag-waving support for a Corbyn they do it for his older brother Piers, brilliant meteorologist and astrophysicist, who has called MMGW “scare-mongering nonsense”. He actually believes we are entering a period of cooling, based on his study of solar activity. George Galloway calls him a “climate change denier”. You couldn’t make that kind of dim up, could you? So, George, cooling would not be change, would it? What Orwellian speak!

  • I am tempted to make a modest bet on Corbyn being next elected PM if I can get good odds-I wouldn’t mind losing £50 if I lost.

    Don’t laugh-there will be at least 10 million immigrants voting at the next election. A deal with the SNP over Trident, promises to annul student debt, double pensions, abolish fitness for work tests, we are looking at a pretty big benefit claiming constituency that will go for socialist offers of free money extracted from the evil Tory ‘1%’, and borrows ‘for investment’.

    i don’t think Labour lost the election in May because they were too left wing, but because Ed Miliband was a plonker of the first order plus the SNP swing. Corbyn is very clever and VERY ambitious, and the electorate very, very stupid.

    PS since Blair knows that his intervention against Corby is boosting the unreconstructed commie’s prospects….what is REALLY going on?

    • Phil R

      I think he might be PM. He has ideas and maybe principles. They may not be the right ideas but I think the voters might well respond to a person outside of the normal consensus.

      I think the Bishop is right. Cronyism and corruption are issues that few are challenging

  • Wonder Woman

    I would love to see old Bentie and the rest disestablished and abolished by ‘Great Leader’ Corbyn. I doubt he is doing cart wheels at the through of any cleric supporting him, as they represent to him and his ilk many of the causes for much of the evil in the world he speaks about… The laugh is Broadbent and Fraser both came from privileged backgrounds – well hidden and never discussed. Broadbent had, without doubt, a privileged up bringing and education. Fraser’s brother is an evil banker who props up Fraser with the odd bung of cash an opera tickets most couldn’t afford. Typical…