Ed Miliband election defeat
Democracy

How could a Christian vote for visionless, regressive incompetence?

 

It has always been the case on social media that left-wing Christians make a louder noise than those to the right, usually along the lines of: ‘How could a Christian vote Conservative, or even worse, Ukip?’ But it has been quite amazing watching even more declare their political leaning in the days leading up to the General Election, and then subsequently get quite upset when the result didn’t quite go their way. The vicar of St Mary Newington in Southwark has been by far the most high-profile of these. Plenty was said about him and his curious understanding of Scripture here yesterday, but he is far from alone in throwing his toys out of the pram of indignation.

Who is to blame for the grave injustice which has prevented Labour from seizing the reins of power? Well, of course, it was Murdoch and the Daily Mail brainwashing their readers into voting for the Tories, wasn’t it? And it was the Tories themselves, with their campaign of fear, making everyone who didn’t want a Labour/SNP alliance vote for them. The SNP, too, were downright horrible for causing a near-total wipe out of Labour in Scotland. And finally, let’s not forget the majority of the population, and especially those middle class types who voted so selfishly for themselves and their own interests rather than the poor and vulnerable, who (let’s not forget) Labour care about more than everyone else.

Truly, our country must have strayed far away from Christian morality and ideals to allow the Conservatives to get into government once again. Thanks to all those irresponsible people, our society is now doomed.

Or maybe not..

Let’s have another look at this. Could it perhaps be just a teeny bit possible that the reason Labour had their worst General Election result since 1983 was that they just weren’t up to the task, and the public didn’t like what they saw? It’s all very well saying you’re going to look after everybody, but if no one believes you, what good does it do?

There are probably two main reasons why Labour lost this election. One was that voters still haven’t forgiven them for the state the country was in when they lost power in 2010. The other was the unions hijacking the subsequent leadership ballot and placing Ed Miliband at the top of the party ahead of his brother David. Ed proved that he had a great deal of conviction, but the public never truly warmed to him. It wasn’t just the slight awkwardness of his appearance and mannerisms, but his political mindset, too. His belief that the Tories were intellectually and morally bankrupt was reflected in Labour policy. There was more energy spent talking about the need to undo the work of the Coalition government than building a vision which would resonate with the electorate. We waited five years for one to materialise, but it never did.

Where there is no vision, the people perish’ (Prov 29:18). In this case it was not the people but a party. Yet even in his resignation speech, Ed Miliband revealed little understanding of where it all went wrong. Now, in the post-election light of day, we see that Labour’s campaign was built on foundations of sand. During a grilling on Radio 4’s Today programme, Labour’s temporary leader, Harriet Harman, could not conjure up any reason at all why their campaign had failed. Either she was concealing her thoughts or she truly had no idea. Perhaps her comment towards the end of the interview was most revealing: “I would rather that we had been wise before the (election), but we aren’t.”

Ms Harman may be short of theories, but now that the Labour train has come of the rails plenty of others in her party have been more than happy to offer some analysis. From Peter Mandelson: “We were sent off in 2010 on a sort of giant political experiment in which we were sent out and told to wave our fists angrily at the nasty Tories and wait for the public to realise how much they had missed us. They weren’t missing us. They didn’t miss us. Instead they ripped the stripes off our shoulders.”

Shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna observed: “(We) sometimes gave the impression that (we) weren’t with the wealth creators. You’ve got to be with the people who create wealth because they create jobs.” These sentiments have been echoed by Lord Sugar, who has now deserted the party altogether. But the most devastating comments have come from David Miliband. Speaking to the BBC he had few words of comfort for his brother. He said there was “absolutely no point in blaming the electorate” for the election result because “they didn’t want what was being offered”. He added that both Ed and Gordon Brown had “allowed themselves to be portrayed as moving backwards from the principles of aspiration and inclusion that are the absolute heart of any successful progressive political project”.

This is a Labour Party that has not been at ease with itself for some time, and the tensions and frustrations have finally boiled over. Is such a discordant and divided party, lacking any real degree of self-awareness, really in a fit state to run the country?

This is why it is so difficult to understand those Christians who have been saying – often quite forcefully – that Labour is the party which is going to be the most just and fair in government. Certainly, all Christians should desire parties in power to consider the welfare of all citizens and not just those who are able to look after themselves. But alongside this is a basic need for governments to be competent. Too many voters simply didn’t think Labour would do the best job, and judging by the research leading up the election, there is a likelihood that a higher proportion of Christians voted for the Conservatives than the population at large. Are they all traitors to their faith, or have many prayed and attempted to exercise sound judgement, bearing in mind that no political party is perfect?

Many Christians have expressed their opposition to the ‘bedroom tax’ and other punitive measures in the benefits system which were introduced after 2010. Many are likely to be nervous about where £12 billion of welfare cuts will fall, but they still decided that Labour would not deliver a better, more ‘Christian’ alternative which might guarantee more security or stability for anyone.

There is no doubt that Jesus considered the fair and compassionate treatment of the poor and needy as one of our highest callings, but that does not make him a Socialist. If anyone thinks the Labour Party in its current condition is the natural home for Christians, then, in order to justify their view, they need to do a lot more than kick up a fuss or put down others – especially Christians – who disagree with them. As things stand, with such limited vision and direction, endorsements on the grounds of faith come over as little more than just blind naivety.

  • Well he’s gone to Ibiza for a long weekend . What next , ball’s in magaluf??

    • William Lewis

      He probably took them with him to Ibiza.

      • He could have have done to Tuscany and rented a lovely west ham (in Cameron speak)..

        • William Lewis

          Apparently the West Ham v Aston Villa fixture is now called the Cameron derby.

          • Old Blowers

            Who on earth will he support? Exit Poll required!

          • William Lewis

            He’s an Aston Ham supporter. Though he quite likes West Villa too.

          • Old Blowers

            *guffaws*

  • Busy Mum

    “And it was the Tories themselves, with their campaign of fear, making everyone who didn’t want a Labour/SNP alliance vote for them.”

    This was very much our Conservative candidate’s message (re-elected, disappointingly for me). Her favourite plea was asking whether we wanted a Labour minority government with the ‘Scots calling the shots’.

    Now everyone who fell for the lie is going to have to realise that they have got a Conservative majority government with the Scots calling the shots anyway.

    It’s all part of the EU plan; Scotland devolving from the UK =good, whereas UK devolving from the EU=bad.

    Nearly 4 million of us are awake already; how many snooze alarms do we need before everybody else wakes up? Or will the battery be dead before then?

    • ZX10

      Well a good way to win over the electorate I bet isn’t to start from the premise that they are asleep or stupid don’t you think ?

      • Busy Mum

        No, so they lie instead.
        The Consevatives made hay over Tony Blair’s statement that the British public couldn’t be trusted to vote correctly with regards to the EU.
        It gave the Cons a chance to spout about how they were different, how much they did trust the public…..and the electorate fell for it.

        On one level Tony Blair was correct – the British public cannot be relied upon to vote pro-EU. The Cons know that too, but are far too wily to say so; this makes them all the more dangerous.

        • Old Blowers

          Indeed!

    • Old Blowers

      Dear lady, it was, most unfortunately, the ‘perfect storm’ scenario for the concerned electorate amongst us.

      I held my nerve whilst voting UKIP, whilst saying a little prayer in the election booth.

      My belief that Labour would lose votes from it’s own to UKIP held true!! *phew*

      Next time will be much different so the Conservative had better wake up and smell the coffee.

      “Now everyone who fell for the lie is going to have to realise that they
      have got a Conservative majority government with the Scots calling the
      shots anyway.”Nonsense, my sweet dear.

      The SNP rabble are nicely corralled in at Westminster and they have even less power having a mere 56 seats than the Lib Dems had with similar number in 2010 when a coalition was required and so no need to go, bowl in hand to Ms Crankie…..FANDABBIEDOSSIE..

      They only become a problem if the Government treats their groans and whinges with grave concern rather than with the contempt they deserve.

      It’s called a working majority that WILL work.

      I’m cookahoop from that point of view.

      ‘Rejoice’ as Mrs T would have said!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Busy Mum

        But Cameron has already indicated that he is prepared to give the SNP anything they want….

        • Old Blowers

          WE KNOW HE IS A LIBERAL TRAITOR, HENCE WHY SOME VOTED UKIP!!!

          • Busy Mum

            Exactly – but Cameron is a clever man aswell as an EU puppet and that is why it behoves us all to be even more on our guard and not rejoicing at a Conservative working majority.
            Provided the MP’s do their job correctly, and reflect the many UKIP voters within their constituencies, it should get interesting.

  • Old Blowers

    At last..BACK ON TOP FORM!!!

    About time Cranny.

    Too much Rioja recently?

    • Busy Mum

      I believe this was actually written by Gillan Scott – according to the heading…..I admit to double checking this myself whilst reading the article!

      • Old Blowers

        I covered both bases, as is my way. *guffaws and cackles*

        • Busy Mum

          🙂

    • Looks like you’re still learning how I think and my political persuasions…

      • Old Blowers

        Really, Young Gillan?

        To paraphrase one of my favourite scenes from Some Like It Hot (minus that scene’s ending for the character concerned)..

        “Blofeld: Now some people say he’s gotten a little too big
        for his spats on the blog. But I say, he’s a man who’ll go far at CCHQ.

        Some people say he’s gone too far with his wishy washy
        posting… But I say, you can’t keep a good young man down. Of course, he’s still got a lot to learn, as Cranmer will point out to the young scallywag.

        Gillan: Looks like you’re still learning how I think and my
        political persuasions…

        Blofeld (flabbergasted): You mean you there’s more to you
        and your posts than meets the eye? Some people would say then that’s real sloppy posting. But I say, to err is human, to forgive divine.”

        I’ve got my eyes on you, young Gillan (points two fingers at
        Gillan and two fingers back at self repeatedly ) *giggles*

      • A one nation conservative , perhaps?

      • Old Blowers

        Just tweeted on His Grace’s twitter account

        “Paul Gibbons @PaGib 3h3 hours ago

        “@His_Grace @seheard @gillan_scott Among the best best post-election writing I have read!”

        See Young Gillan,,Ernst knows what he’s talking about!!

        Keep up the good work. (points two fingers at
        Gillan and two fingers back at self repeatedly ) *giggles*

  • The Explorer

    Author! Author!
    Below the title, it says Gillan Scott. Next to comments, it says Arcbishop Cranmer.

    • It always says Archbishop Cranmer next to the comments. It’s the name of this site’s Disqus account. Always check the top of the post!

      • The Explorer

        Thank you. That clarifies.

  • CliveM

    I have to say, all the Leftie bitterness and bile that has re-surfaced since the General Election has made the victory seem ever sweeter!

    However more generally, if all these Labour front benchers thought Ed Milliband had got it wrong, why were they telling us to vote for him?

    • The Explorer

      Once he was in power, they could do a putsch.

      • CliveM

        There was I thinking its because they were lying, two faced hypocrits who would do anything for a Ministerial Car!!

        • The Explorer

          Just one? Remember ‘Old Two Jags’.

    • Busy Mum

      Because they want power for power’s sake, and not for ours.

      • Shadrach Fire

        Unfortunately that applies to most politicians.

  • Shadrach Fire

    Gillan said, Many are likely to be nervous about where £12 billion of welfare cuts will fall

    The voters of this country do not want a country of Benefits, they want a society that does not need benefits. This can only come from wealth creation, not something Labour knows too much about.

    • Old Blowers

      Indeed..However many Christians such as myself find it worrying when they go after the disabled, sick and elderly with a ‘one net catches all’ policy.

      Too lazy and incompetent in my opinion, to care about catching the truly feckless and feral scroungers in our midst.

      Now that I find utterly deplorable and unforgivable as a fellow chrisrtian, if IDS is indeed a believer.

      I would have nightmares of standing before the Lord and knowing I did not do all that was possible and within my power as the minister responsible, to seperate the sheeps from the goats because it would take too much trouble and complicate my life unnecessarily!!!

      • Busy Mum

        The real issue is that caring for the disabled, sick and elderly should not be the preserve of government.
        Whereas in the past individuals would be driven to action by their own consciences, knowing that the government has taken charge of ‘welfare’ gives people the excuse they need NOT to do as much as they could or would to help those less fortunate than themselves.

        If it was left to the people, I am sure we could sort the sheep from the goats very efficiently.

        • Old Blowers

          True welfare is based along the same lines as the original concept of the NHS.

          Rather than one person paying a humungous amount in grave time of need, we all contribute to ease the burden for our fellow Brit as we will all find ourselves in dire need, usually at the most inconvenient financially time, with one of the great laws of life coming into effect at that moment without fail.. ‘The Law of Sod’ !!

          That is has grossly been abused/is abused is undeniable but to scrap it because of this would be mindless callousness. It needs sorting out to go back to it’s original purpose.

          We needed a Thatcher rather than a Cameron for this purpose..once again ‘The Law of Sod’ comes sharply into focus!!

          • Busy Mum

            I have in my possession a poem written in the mid 1800’s during a stay in a hospital. It makes it quite clear that treatment was not denied to any who were too poor to pay.

            I also have in my possession an article written about 1910 wherein the author acknowledges that many elderly acquaintances were grateful for the increase in pension but that ‘the government seems to have committed itself to something without any definite provision for its long term financial viability”.

            I will try and look these out when I have a mo!

            I recently borrowed a book from the library, memoirs of a doctor (Roland White Cooper I think it was). He records his shock at finding the WI using cotton wool to stuff their woollen creations, full of glee at it being ‘free on the NHS so they could have as much as they wanted’. He had not been able to find any for his medical purpose – the WI had taken the lot.

            He shows how the first generation of NHS ‘customers’ were the only people to use it properly in any sense, as they were the only people who fully appreciated its value.

            The negative effects of state welfare were foreseen by a few, immediate for some, lasting for us all.

          • The Explorer

            Alexis de Tocqueville saw the same negative effects back in 1835: ‘Memoir on Pauperism’. The resultant soft despotism.

          • Busy Mum

            And I am sure God will hold us all to account for delegating to the state what was our Christian duty to do as individuals.

          • Old Blowers

            and if selfishly neglecting, vice versa if found wanting, my dear!!

          • Busy Mum

            I couldn’t agree more; the problem we now face is that the state in many ways actively prevents us carrying out our duty as individuals. Duty often calls, but red tape and/or presumption of criminal intent prevent us following.

          • Busy Mum

            Just spotted you greatly added to this post AFTER I had agreed with it – little bit sneaky my dear sir, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt! I will not concede that the role of the government as ‘protector’ includes responsibility for the population’s ‘welfare and wellbeing’ unless that is clearly defined. For instance, our local council spends a lot of our council tax in ensuring the ‘wellbeing’ of their LBGTQI residents.

          • Old Blowers

            Did not such thing, my fine woman.

            http://www.specsavers.co.uk/stores/camdentown/free-eye-test

            There, don’t say the Cranmer blog does nothing for those that love it and their fellow communicants..

            Now be off with you sharpish my dear and get those peepers tested. *titters*

            Old Blowers

          • Busy Mum

            I trust my eyes as well as your integrity – we shall agree to blame a disqus timelapse; I only saw your closing sentence. Hometime for children – have to go – enjoy the rest of the day! :))

          • Grouchy Jack

            Never trust a so called ‘reformed’ baddie, Busy Mum.

          • The Explorer

            Interestingly, de Tocqueville saw the problem arising from the dissolution of the monasteries. Those who been quietly fed, clothed, given medical care and accommodated when necessary suddenly had nowhere to go.

          • Busy Mum

            Yet monasteries shouldn’t have had the monopoly on charity any more than should a government; in a similar way, people delegated to the monks what they now delegate to the government.

        • John O’Connor

          I still look in awe at this quote from the dear lady herself:

          “I think we’ve been through a period where too many
          people have been given to understand that if they
          have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope
          with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m
          homeless, the government must house me.’ They’re
          casting their problem on society. And, you know, there
          is no such thing as society. There are individual men
          and women, and there are families. And no government
          can do anything except through people, and people must
          look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after
          ourselves and then, also to look after our
          neighbour. People have got the entitlements too
          much in mind, without the obligations. There’s no such
          thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an
          obligation.”

          • Busy Mum

            Absolutely.

      • Darach Conneely

        Matt 13:28 “An enemy did this,” he replied. His servants then asked, “Do you want us to go out and pull up the weeds?” 29 “No!” he answered. “You might also pull up the wheat. 30 Leave the weeds alone until harvest time.” The odd thing is, when harvest time comes, Jesus decides who is a sheep or a goat based on how we treated the hungry and sick, not how good we were at separating sheep and goats ourselves.

        It is good to see you worry about the sick and disabled. Let me reassure you, there are already laws against benefit fraud, and more people investigating it than are investigating tax fraud.

        • Old Blowers

          “It is good to see you worry about the sick and disabled.”

          Goodness, Darach old boy, I’m a Christian! What on earth would I believe or say to that????????.

          “External heat and cold had little influence on Blofeld. No
          warmth could warm, no wintry weather chill him. No wind that blew was bitterer than he, no falling snow was more intent upon its purpose, no pelting rain less open to entreaty. Foul weather didn’t know where to have him. The heaviest rain, and snow, and hail, and sleet could boast of the advantage over him in only one respect. They often “came down” handsomely and Blofeld never did.”
          or
          “Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.””Are there no prisons?” asked Blofeld. “Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again. “And the Union workhouses or Foodbanks?” demanded Blofeld. “Are they still in operation?” “They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were
          not.”
          “The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Blofeld

          It is the left that accuses others of not being Christians. We merely wonder what Marx has in common for you with the King of Glory??

          • Darach Conneely

            “Goodness, Darach old boy, I’m a Christian! What on earth would I believe or say to .”
            Yet you vote for a party that cut benefits for the sick and disabled and promises to cut them even more harshly?

            “We merely wonder what Marx has in common for you with the King of Glory??” Hard to tell, I haven’t read any Marx. At a guess:

            A care for the poor being crushed and exploited by the rich?
            His desire to go Old Testament on their assets with a wealth redistribution Jubilee?

          • The Explorer

            I’m sure you heart’s in the right place, Darach. Less sure about where Marx’s heart was; or if he had one. I know there are those who say Marx was a Hebrew prophet, born out of time, with a biblical rage for justice. Can’t see it myself. The ‘Communist Manifesto’ just ain’t in the same spirit as Isaiah.

            Christ – love for the poor.
            Marx – hatred for the rich.

            A superficial similarity, but the paths soon diverge. Twelve people at Marx’s funeral, including the corpse. I’m amazed it was that many. No wonder two of his daughters committed suicide. Only way of escaping the old tyrant.

          • Grouchy Jack

            Marx’s teleology was based on the vision of inspiration of Isiaah. However, he dismissed God as the mover of events and instead thought change would be motivated by class warfare arising from the contradictions and injustices of the socio-economic systems preceding state socialism. The role of the revolutionary is to stir up division and class awareness amongst the proletariat and lead them to freedom.

          • The Explorer

            I’d say also a secularised ‘Revelation’ as well: the idea of Heaven on Earth. But when he said he’d revenge himself on the bourgeoisie for the boils on his bum, that wasn’t the teleology of ‘Isaiah’. It wasn’t the teleology of ‘Revelation’, either.

          • Darach Conneely

            Always hard to tell the line between anger over the terrible treatment of the poor and hating the rich. It is easy to slip over it without the grace of God. I don’t know Marx, so I am not in a position to tell. Certainly there are writers in the bible whose words are so condemning of the rich, some might mistake it for hate.

            Amos 4:1 “Hear this word, you cows of Bashan, who are on the mountain of Samaria, who oppress the poor, who crush the needy, who say to your husbands, ‘Bring, that we may drink!’
            2 The Lord GOD has sworn by his holiness that, behold, the days are coming upon you, when they shall take you away with hooks, even the last of you with fishhooks.

            James 5:1 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you.
            2 Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten.
            3 Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days.
            4 Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.
            5 You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.
            6 You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you.

          • Old Blowers

            “Yet you vote for a party that cut benefits for the sick and disabled and promises to cut them even more harshly?”

            So did Labour (except they refused to say who and where), hence SNP carping on about your lot being austerity baggers? or was that untrue?

            This Tory party will probably hash it up in many ways but Labour would have been a definite disaster from day one, in hock to the SNP Mandate!

            “A care for the poor being crushed and exploited by the rich?
            His desire to go Old Testament on their assets with a wealth redistribution Jubilee?” Nonsense..Do go and read the communist manifesto thoroughly, there’s a nice chap.

            Well, what you said as Marx’s objective, that really worked/s in Russia and China then? Or would the results be pure Utopia here because British Commies are nicer and more caring than the bolshevik type??

            A short comparison of what you state;

            Marxism takes its name from Karl Marx.

            Christianity takes its name from Jesus Christ.

            There the similarity ends!

            In Marxism there is no god; man has no soul; he is the property and the slave of a totalitarian/nanny state.

            In Christianity the one true and living God is recognized.
            Man is reconciled to that God and given eternal life… He is responsible to that God for himself, his property, his time, his all.

            To fulfill these responsibilities He must be free to serve
            his Lord as the Spirit of God directs him, according to the Word of God.

            The famous quote from Marxism that is diluted down and
            softened into numptie friend socialism, ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,’ is really rooted in the teaching of St. Paul about the solidarity that reigns in the Christian Fellowship: ‘That as a matter of equality your abundance at the present time should supply their wants, so that their abundance may supply your want, that there may be equality’ (2 Cor.
            8:14).”

            However, Paul’s statement called for a voluntary contribution on the part of people within a church and has no relation to the Marxist dictum where, under the compulsion of the state (which Labour demands), the individual is forced to produce according to the state’s appraisal of his ability and he receives according to the state’s distribution. This is a totalitarian state. The other, my dear fellow, was a free church.

            In the two systems there is no overlapping, no corresponding, and they cannot possibly be equated at all Darach..

            Christianity and Communism (or diluted to mere socialism) are totally different and cannot be identified at any point.

            Christianity teaches the one living God who has revealed Himself in the general revelation of Creation and in the special revelation called the Bible. It presents a spiritual Kingdom and assures man that God will aid in the provision of material needs when man seeks first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.

            They are diametrically opposed to each other. The use of
            Marxist phraseology and Christian concepts to maintain that Marxism and Christianity, though through different methods, seek the same social goals is a complete fraud and Christians who take God seriously at His word know this!!!

          • Darach Conneely

            Labour are too pro austerity for me, though under Miliband they would have reduced welfare budget by increasing pay to a living wage, taking working people out of benefits rather than slashing the benefits of those in most need. Without Miliband they are probably going to drift right again, away from the centre towards Blair’s neo-Thatcherism.

            You seem to forget I’m not a Marxist. I have no desire to justify oppressive communist regimes, but you asked what Marx had in common with God and I told you. All the other ideas Marx came up with and the psychopathic application of his ideas by men like Stalin take nothing away from what Marx, with his Jewish and Lutheran background, learned from the bible about social justice and compassion for the poor.

            I agree “each accord to his means…” comes from the NT and is about the voluntary contribution of individuals. It doesn’t tell us about nations legislating non voluntary contributions from the rich to the poor, but it does tell us about what is fair and our responsibility to the poor in our community.

            The New Testament also tells us we have a responsibility to pay taxes to our rulers. Doesn’t NT morality show rulers then have a responsibility to care for the poor in their community?

            In fact God gives us the example of a non voluntary nation wide system of welfare for the poor and for immigrants in the OT law. The poor were supported by the tithe (along with Levites), by strict limits on what farmers could harvest from their own land leaving first fruits and very generous gleaning laws for welfare for the poor. Every seven years not only were debts cancelled but the land had to be left fallow, with all of the harvest going to the poor.

            You dismiss the Jubilee as ‘nonsense’ without tackling the fact it was about wealth redistribution: cancelling debts again and returning land and rural houses from the rich who had accumulated over 50 years to the people who owned it after the previous Jubilee. The redistribution of land wasn’t just redistributing wealth, in a largely agricultural society, it was redistributing the source of wealth from the rich back to the common people.

            The OT welfare laws show us what the bible considers a just state run welfare system. It doesn’t have to be that system but it does show that nations have a duty of care to everyone living there and that it is right to legislate forcing the well off to contribute to the care of poorer member of society. We can also see from the condemnation of societies where the rich live in luxury and the poor go hungry, that God takes a dim view of nations that don’t find a way to take care of the poor.

            Marx isn’t diametrically opposed to the bible. Marxism denies God and our spiritual needs, but the bible cares deeply about our spiritual welfare and social justice. A Christianity that sides with the rich and support their oppression of the poor has wandered far from being sheep to the side of the goats. Both Marxists, scripture and true biblical Christianity are deeply concerned about the oppression of the poor.

          • Old Blowers

            “Both Marxists, scripture and true biblical Christianity are deeply concerned about the oppression of the poor.”..except “But he answered, “It is written, ‘One must not live on bread alone, but on every word coming out of the mouth of God.’

            “Marx isn’t diametrically opposed to the bible.” Of course he was!

            God’s desire is to Save man and Save him wholly/holy..

            Marx was to enSlave man with whatever ends justifying any means!
            .
            “Matthew 6:33 But seek ye FIRST the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and ALL these things shall be added unto you”

            God is concerned with EVERYTHING, my dear Darach whereas Marx was only concerned about a false Utopia in which God was vanquished and another sat on His Throne..How very Luciferian?.A whole world of difference!”

            He came to save sinners first and foremost and NOT a fallen world.

            You yourself would have God replaced as a benevolent God who cares for those that believe on Him and to those He needs to save, with mans version of their God..self.
            A Godless man’s kingdom that offers bread in theory to the deceived but as Russia found out, nothing in reality but an empty belly whilst sitting in a gulag and a gaping hole where a mans soul and his God should reside.

          • Darach Conneely

            How can it be diametrically opposed if his concern for the poor is biblical? Are you seriously saying any non Christian country that tries to look after it citizens is being Luciferian? Of course Marxists ignore God, they aren’t Christians. I am more disturbed by Christians who read their bibles ignoring the plight of the poor.

          • Old Blowers

            “I am more disturbed by Christians who read their bibles ignoring the plight of the poor.”

            Who has even said to ignore them..The Conservatives haven’t said it but the reality maybe different.

            What about the plight of the elderly and retired.

            Labour stole from their pension pot and entombed them in poverty which a state pension could never substitute?…and allowed mass migration of cheap labour into our country, plighting the poor working class and their children (their core vote) by giving their work to a foreigner for less and putting them firmly on the dole or spiving on Hooky Street?

            But we must forgive Labour their sins but hold another to task.

            You obviously don’t read this blog regularly or you would hear our moans and gripes about the inadequacies of the Conservative party whereas you lot keep schumpf about Labour’s woeful record and lies.

            We are NOT hypocrites here.!!!!!

          • Darach Conneely

            Wasn’t it in Labour manifesto to end the exploitation of immigrant workers earning below minimum wage? Overall immigrants boost our economy, create jobs and help pay pensions by increasing the numbers of people working to those on pensions. Osborne has been raiding the pension funds of public employees. I don’t vote Labour. Since Blair, new Labour has gone way too far right, though Miliband seemed to be bringing it back to the centre.

            But the real suffering in the UK has been widespread hunger among the poorest. In spite of confusion over statistics, you know of at least 500,000 people who need to use Tussell Trust food banks. Other food banks would have helped the same again or more. You know that the number of desperate people needing food banks has soared under Tory benefit cuts and sanctions. You probably hear how sanctions were targeting the disabled and people with mental health problems, and heard of vulnerable people who died or ended their own lives when sanctions left them with nothing to live on. Yet you vote for the Conservatives even though they promise to to keep doing this and to make it much worse.

          • alternative_perspective

            No, no, no.

            Jubilee was the nullification of debt, the return of property once belonging to the family but since lost and the letting go of indentured servants. Not some left wing fantasy about tax and redistribution.

            This I think is my issue with you and your well intentioned ilk: you seem to reinterpret everything as a problem looking for a statist solution. You seem to believe it has some moral right to the fruits of our endeavours (I mentioned that last time) beyond that which it requires to protect the people and ensure law and justice. It does not. The Bible often scorns the accumulation of power by individuals and the centralisation of power. Subsidiarity is a key Biblical theme.

            Take your point above, I have no idea how you can go from private debt relief to public tax and re-distribution. In one move you have made me, for instance, responsible for the debts incurred by others? Where is the justice there? This is not forgiveness of the individual but the collective punishment of the masses.

            May I also ask where’s the Biblical mandate to house and subsidise non-believers? Please point out where the Bible makes me responsible for the welfare of the atheist’s children? Society is the extrapolation of Christian themes of solidarity amongst the brethren to the whole of the nation. It is founded on principles of a common demos and the willing participation of all in this common adventure. But today we do not have a common demos and I resent subsidising activities I disagree with through my taxes.

            You and I pay for abortions; foreign wars for the control of oil; the destruction of embryos by the NHS; boob jobs for wannabe porn stars; sex changes for confused children; LGBT reach out officers; the imposition of secular liberal beliefs on Christian schools; the liberalisation of marriage laws etc. etc. how about we stop paying for these first and fund better provision for the genuinely disabled – THEN I will countenance paying more tax for other good causes.

            FYI, Marx’s beliefs about Christianity:

            – “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation.”

            – “The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self-contempt, abasement, submission, humility”

            – “The democratic concept of man is false, because it is Christian. The democratic concept holds that … each man is a sovereign being. This is the illusion, dream, and postulate of Christianity.”

          • Darach Conneely

            You need to do more than state a few aspects of Jubilee to contradict my point about it. Calling it a “left wing fantasy about tax and redistribution” is not an argument. Because it was a redistribution of wealth. It was poorer people who owed money to richer. Cancelling their debt is a redistribution from the rich for the benefit of the poor. And it is the rich who accumulate land and houses, the poor are the ones who had to sell because money was tight. The restoration of land and houses took from the rich who had been accumulating wealth and gave it to the poor.

            Did the poor have a right to the fruits of land owner endeavours? Yes. Was it a moral right? I presume so, unless you want to argue these laws were immoral. I have listed all of the the harvest that the OT law gave to the poor and to immigrants.

            “Take your point above, I have no idea how you can go from private debt relief to public tax and re-distribution. ”
            It wasn’t private except in the sense we each pay taxes and benefits are paid to private individuals. The OT law covered the whole nation, taking from those who were rich and distributing it to the poor. We operate a very different system designed for a society whose wealth is largely non agrarian, but the principle is the same. Those who are well off are bound by law to contribute to systems that care of the less well off.

            The OT covers political system from patriarchy, tribal leadership and centralised royalty, the obligation on the whole nation to follow the OT welfare laws remained the same however much they were ignored. You want a subsidiarist society or an anarchosyndicalist one instead? As long as the poor are taken care of, and those with wealth contribute to those without.

            “May I also ask where’s the Biblical mandate to house and subsidise non-believers? Please point out where the Bible makes me responsible for the welfare of the atheist’s children? ”

            Non Jewish immigrants being included in the OT welfare system. You live in a secular state. Unless you want to disappear off to Guyana and set up an exclusively Christian state of your own (I don’t recommend it), you have an obligation to the society you live in, and the society you live in has a moral obligation to care for its poor, regardless of their parents religion or none.

            Part of our responsibility is to contribute to common healthcare. That does not give us the right to come between a patient and doctor and impose our views of what is the right procedure. Health services may make triage style decision on priorities it can afford. Nor do we have the right not to pay tax for wars we don’t like, or any war at all, though we are free to object as loudly as we like.

            Don’t see the relevance of the Marx quotes. The question is whether his idea of social justice and care for the oppressed poor are biblical. I suggest you read some of the prophets.

          • alternative_perspective

            I’ve read all the prophets, just re-read Isaiah. 5 times…. still sinking in. There’s a lot to them.

            I completely disagree with your interpretation.
            Take debts owed by one to another. That is effectively a bilateral arrangement. How is it right and moral to require a 3rd party to effiectively subsidise both parties. God calls for the canellation of debts, not their mutualisation.

            Only if one generalises in the most vague terms can it be considered redistribution. Take a poor man who borrows to feed his family. He consumes MORE than he has earned. He has taken future earnings and at a cost brought them in to the present. On the Jubilee the remaining debt; that unpaid cost; is (never actually was it seems implemented in Jewish history) wiped out. So rather than the man having less than he was due, he took more than his earnings permitted in that period. Thus it was not the redistribution of wealth, it was (in part) the forgiveness for taking more than his means allowed.

            Why though would God systematically allow this: this brings us to another facet of the Jubillee. The re-setting of unjust economic systems.

            Most theories of wealth suggest that it is the rich person’s ability to invest spare capital in activities that return higher rates of growth, than say working in an office, such as land, investment funds, machinery etc, which drives inequality. By demanding that land was returned to those whom God originally gave it to, this capacity is limited and re-set every 49 years. As you pointed out, in an agricultural context the greatest wealth multiplier would be land. Thus all people would be given an equal opportunity to share in the wealth of the land.

            As for “gleanings” which you refer to in your second paragraph: this was a Biblical obligation. But let’s consider what that was. Land – owned by God – bore fruit for its custodian, who could gather from the main field but who was instructed to leave the edges of the field (Lev 23:22) for the poor and aliens to gather from. All parties had to work to gather in the crop. All were receiving from God’s provision. So Yes, what was gleaned from one’s fields would be in direct proportion to the fields you “owned” but there was no sense of the “rich” gathering in the food on behalf of the poor and re-distributing it. No, the poor were required to get up (see book of Ruth) work through the day and gather for themselves from the provisions God had set aside for them. This is not redistribution from rich to poor but the poor working to exploit the provision God has specifically set aside for them.

            Yes, there was certainly the expectation that the wealthy would care for the poorest in Jewish society, take for instance Lazareth and the rich man and the former’s abject failure to do just that. But additionally there was another Deuteronomical tithe for the full feeding of the most vulnerable in society but even this I understand occurred every 3 years.

            The OT does not preach a heavy tax and redistributionist agenda. It demands that people, year in year out, take responsibility for themselves, every third year the community (not the state) comes together to support the poorest and every 49 years economic systems are re-set. In my opinion this is an excellent balance and keeps heavy government out of the equation and puts the demand for caring for people in the hands OF the people, not dictat from Whitehall.

            I completely agree with your principle: “As long as the poor are taken care of, and those with wealth contribute to those without.” but in reality you don’t mean that, you mean an artificial equality of income is superimposed on society by a statist tax and spend policy. And yes FYI I do believe in government, just devolved government that empowers and expects of the people not one that substitutes for them.

            Re: sojourners, fair enough… the visitors were to be protected, fed and given raiment but they were also required to take part in the religious life of the nation except Passover. Again here it ties in with the point I made previously. That harmony and mutuality is based on the commonality of a shared demos and participation in shared values of society. Today it is very hard to argue we have such a shared set of values. So to argue we live in a secular society and then try to extrapolate OT customs on to a system of government that rejects the elevation of any one belief system over another is a tad inconsistent. You cannot argue both for a secular society AND the observance of Judeo-Christian obligations by it.

            You argue we cannot withhold our taxes, isn’t that the truth, but you are arguing for aspects of a political programme of spending from OT principles you are overly stretching to fit your paradigm. Your whole penultimate paragraph is political and cultural not necessarily Biblical. We only have those obligations because we live in this society, not because the Bible tells us we shouldn’t disagree with NHS funded abortions or boob jobs or jointly fund an NHS. The Bible… doesn’t even tell us we should have an NHS. It is perfectly Biblical to pay a private provider to care for a poor person, such as in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

            I include the comments to Marx because you mentioned him previously.

            I have read the prophets and no where does it say we should have a socialised health care system, and permit those who disagree with our values and society to suckle from it. It does tell us to care for the poor, the widow and the orphan and not to oppress the sojourner.

            I’m sorry Darach but I simply believe you are trying to force the Bible to fit your political theory. I agree with the Bible’s aims, just not your means of achieving it.

          • Darach Conneely

            The Jubilee was not a bilateral arrangement. It was established as law for the whole nation. OT welfare laws weren’t practised as you say and the bible condemns that as injustice towards the poor. Proverbs 13:23 The fallow ground of the poor would yield much food, but it is swept away through injustice. Cancelling debts, returning land and houses wasn’t just redistribution ‘in vague terms’. It was a redistribution of wealth over 7 year and 50 year cycles, from those who accumulated the wealth to the poor who had lost out. The tithe, first fruits, gleaning and fallow years were also a distribution of wealth from landowners’ harvests to the poor and immigrant. Again it was established by Moses as the law of the whole land, not a voluntary arrangement between two people. We are more organised and centralised in our welfare system but there is nothing unscriptural about that. In fact Peter established a bureaucracy to run the early church’s internal welfare system to make sure Hellenistic widows were taken care of, while the storehouses we read about in Malachi did the same with tithes.

            Rich people used their money to buy land, even if it was only for 50 years. They planted their seeds and olive groves, employed labourers to work them. But a large chunk of the fruit of their investment and labour was taken from them by law in gleanings, tithes and fallow years, and given to the poor. The whole earth is the Lords and everything in it Psalm 24:1, 1Cor 10:26. Don’t try spirtualising the OT welfare laws to escape our responsibility to use part of wealth generated in this country to help it’s poor.

            “and keeps hea vy government out of the equation and puts the demand for caring for people in the hands OF the people, not dictat from Whitehall.”
            The rules redistributing the wealth of the rich in Israel to the poor were the ‘dictat’ of the law of the whole land.

            “but in reality you don’t mean that, you mean an artificial equality of income is superimposed on society by a statist tax and spend policy.”

            No I have never argued for equality of income. People can work and earn money, they can start businesses the rich can invest and thrive. They just have to contribute part of their earnings to the welfare of the rest of the community they live in. I think a guaranteed basic income that everything you earn is on top of, is the simplest, least bureaucratic and most freeing way to do things, but there are plenty of other systems.

            “You cannot argue both for a secular society AND the observance of Judeo-Christian obligations by it.”
            No I am arguing that welfare is part of social justice. I am showing Christians that God established a system of social welfare for Israel, and expected other nations to care for their own poor. It is mainly right wing Christians and Ayn Rand’s non Christian disciples, who argue against social welfare. With non Christians my argument is that our empathy shows us what social justice is, what is fair and what isn’t.

            It was Blofeld who brought up Marx even though I never claimed to be a Marxist.

            I wasn’t trying to establish the principles of medical ethics from scripture, they didn’t have modern medicine back then. You brought up the subject of treatments you objected to. Saying that is between the patient and doctor is simply modern medical ethics.

          • Grouchy Jack

            Armed and violent revolution was Marx’s contribution to ‘scientific’ socialism and he was ‘inspired’ by the French and their murderous assault on the Church.

          • Darach Conneely

            #NotaMarxist

        • TimeForTea

          Jesus does NOT judge us by the how we treat the poor.

          The sheep and the goats are separated as those who know Him and accept Him as their saviour and those who reject the provision He made for us on the cross.

          That is THE ONLY way of spending eternity with Him. Heaven will not be simply full of labour voters and charity workers.

          Works are not the cause of salvation, they are the effect.

          We are rewarded for our actions not condemned by them. If not, there is no thief on the cross and you can add to that which Christ did on the cross. You can’t spend eternity with Him by works.

          • Darach Conneely

            I suggest you read it again. It is talking about accepting and rejecting Jesus who saves us through the cross. I would hope he is talking about non Christians who encounter Jesus as they reach out in compassion to the poor, I tremble at the thought he is talking about those who are Christians in name who have never let the grace and love of God reign in their hearts.

    • Darach Conneely

      The problem is the conservatives are on the side of the rich creating wealth for themselves while keeping wages down and leaving their workers stuck in benefits. Full time jobs have been replaced by part time work, again with workers dependant on benefits. The number of self employed has increased, but not because more people are being entrepreneurs under Cameron, http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_374941.pdf but because, with earnings 40% lower than average (leaving the self employed on benefits), the older self employed can’t afford to retire.

  • john in cheshire

    I find it hard to understand why Christians are prepared to vote for socialists, knowing that their ideology is intent on crushing Christianity into oblivion. We have a hard enough time without helping the enemy carry out their plans.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    I think this is a very good analysis of the Labour mind-set Gillan. I was quite shocked at the appalling attitude shown by Labour members blaming and criticising the electorate, as if they (Labour) have some divine right to be in power, and the (deluded) electorate are to blame for denying it to them. It is actually a bit disturbing to hear such anti-democratic rhetoric. Labour are like the SNP – the electorate need to repeatedly brow-beaten and sent back to the polls until they deliver the right result, like schoolchildren being told to redo their homework until the teacher is satisfied. I didn’t vote for the Conservatives, but I think Labour’s defeat was a blessing for this nation.

  • magnolia

    Oh for the old-style classic “distance yourself from PARTY politics” stance if an incumbent. Helps those who come for baptism, confirmation, wedding, and funerals of friends and family if they don’t feel it is taken by a political enemy!

  • Tom

    “The other was the unions hijacking the subsequent leadership ballot and
    placing Ed Miliband at the top of the party ahead of his brother David.”

    I’m sorry Gillan, but even ignoring everything else in this article, this line is palpable nonsense. It certainly wasn’t a ‘hijacking’ – it’s how Labour party democracy worked, and everyone knew about the process in advance.

    It *never* comes up on the doorstep, and is only ever mentioned in newspapers, in public or on social media by people who are already committed right-wingers.

    Your showing your true colours, I’m afraid, and they paint you ugly.

  • Kevin Lewis

    I think this is unduly harsh on Labour – not because much isn’t true, because much is; but because the Conservatives are equally visionless and incompetent, just better resourced in getting their message across. For example, in 5 years:
    Tackling the deficit: fail
    Tackling immigration: fail
    Tackling employment: fail
    Tackling low pay: fail
    Tackling tax evasion: fail
    Blaming Labour for a global US-led banking crisis: success
    And, by the way, lots of us on ‘the left’ are not de facto Labour supporters, but have no other option in voting, other than a ‘wasted’ Green vote, although the Greens won a million, for one seat, which is pretty frustrating, when the SNP get 56 on 1.4m. The trials of being English…

    • The Explorer

      Good points; although if Brown cannot be blamed for the global banking crisis he can be blamed for raising taxes on pension-fund dividends, for selling half of Britain’s gold reserves at an historically low price, for the expensive Private Finance Initiative, for the expansion of wealth-consuming rather than wealth-creating jobs in the public sector, and for ninety percent of the increase in the total number of people employed during his long reign being accounted for by foreigners. (No criticism of the foreigners: if they had the nous to take advantage of an offered opportunity, good luck to them.)

      Only a million votes need to elect one Green? What about four million to elect one UKIP? One does not need to be Green or UKIP to perceive this as unfair.

      • CliveM

        You are being to kind with regards Brown and the banking crisis. He relaxed banking regulation in the UK. He rewarded leading bankers for their reckless behaviour with knighthoods. He encouraged the city’s bonus culture. He praised the low Interest rates that stoked the lending boom. He set up the banking regulator that quite simply was unable to perform its task. He bullied Lloyds into taking over HBOS. The list of mistakes are almost endless.

        • William Lewis

          Fortunately, he had also abolished boom and bust – so everything was covered.

          • CliveM

            Yes that was clever of him!

        • sarky

          Flogged all our gold at a knock down price etc etc etc

          • CliveM

            Explorer already had that one covered!

          • sarky

            Oops, gotta stop speed reading! !!

          • CliveM

            I do that all the time!!

        • The Explorer

          Quite an achievement in its way: getting that many things wrong. When you add your list to mine, quite awesome. What I meant was you can’t blame him for the Community Reinvestment Act that began with Jimmy Carter and had been quietly bubbling away since the 1970’s and finally boiled over on George Bush’s watch.

          • CliveM

            Yes and Clintons changes, placing an obligation on banks to lend mortgages to high risk groups, didn’t help either.

        • Old Blowers

          PFI as much a financial burden to the electorate as any defict could be..Blair/Brown financial competence..NAH!!!!!

          • CliveM

            PFI was simply little more then an accounting scam to keep the debt of the books. In reality for all his moral compass, Brown was little more then a political spiv.

          • Old Blowers

            INDEED!!!

    • William Lewis

      “… but because the Conservatives are equally visionless and incompetent, just better resourced in getting their message across.”

      So, if only the electorate had comprehended the message that Labour was trying to get across then the result would have been different?

      That is typical self-pitying, left-wing hubris (even in defeat) I’m afraid.

      The electorate understood all too well what red Ed was planning for Britain and they found it wanting.

    • Old Blowers

      Seriously, my fine fellow.??

      When grilled by voters on Question Time, Miliband was asked “Did Labour OVERSPEND during it’s time in office, NOT it was responsible for the global crisis was asked.
      He denied it had, whereas EVERYBODY knew it had except those in deep deep deep denial. The result to socialist lugholes:
      You hear what you want to hear but hearing you hear NOT!!!!!!!!!!!

      • scottspeig

        Indeed – He should have said “at the time, no, but looking in hind-sight, it became overspending due to the financial crisis”

        • Old Blowers

          Thank the Lord he was an idiot that couldn’t think quickly on his feet unlike the consummate liar Blair *shudders at mere mention of name*

      • Tom

        Yup, ‘everybody’ knows. Everybody except…those pesky experts, who know far more about it than the tabloid press.

        “Now there are plenty of economists and mainstream politicians who regard both public spending of that magnitude and a deficit of that scale as sustainable and indeed sensible.”
        http://wwwnews.live.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32549892

        “However, the coalition’s narrative – emphasised by Michael Gove – that somehow the Labour government was “out of control” with its spending is inaccurate.”
        http://theconversation.com/fact-check-did-labour-overspend-and-leave-a-deficit-that-was-out-of-control-41118

    • re the vote, ukip got 13% and one seat…..

    • CliveM

      Actually you will find that the Unions had well financed Labour.

      Waste of money that. Still isn’t that the labour way?

    • You’re right Kevin. It’s not hard to criticise all of the parties, but not really possible in one post. It’s pretty bleak for those on the left at the moment unless you’re Scottish

      • William Lewis

        “It’s pretty bleak for those on the left at the moment unless you’re Scottish”

        Therein lies the solution for those who want to live in a left wing country. Answer: get someone else to pay for it.

        The French are doing something similar with the EU at the moment.

        • More fool the English for tolerating it.

          • William Lewis

            True

      • Old Blowers

        The term Bleak is similar to our term of endearment for the glorious land we live in, Blighty. But this should only ever refer to our weather and NOT our future predicaments as a nation.

      • carl jacobs

        If the Scots ever get their way, “bleak” will be remembered as the good times past.

      • Please Gillan !!!!
        Jack is left leaning in some respects and has had dealings with the SNP government up here. This was enough to turn him off all left wing politics.
        Btw, don’t you mean living in Scotland – not “Scottish”.

  • len

    The failure of the labour party is quite simply they chose the wrong Milliband and have been severely punished by the electorate for doing so…… the rise of Scottish Nationalism certainly didn`t help Labour much either.

    The tragedy also is that by choosing’ Ed’ the labour party have put themselves back five possibly ten years.If labour spend too long gazing inwardly they will probably lose further credibility. Labour need to realise that they cannot go backwards move to reclaim the middle ground(I believe Blair said this) and become an opposition party with credibility.

    • Grouchy Jack

      That was the greatest ‘mistake’ they made – pushed by the unions. Wonderful it was too.

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    If Labour has any sense, it will rebrand itself as a Muslim party.

    Get in there first, comrades, and reap the power which will accrue from representing Britain’s fastest growing electorate. Even if the Conservatives frantically rebrand themselves as a Christian party, thereby clinging to power for a few more general elections, demographics will out and you will rule in perpetuity. Rename the party the Mecca Party and you could well pick up votes from intellectually challenged infidels who’ll think they’re voting for free bingo.

    The people’s flag is deepest green…

    • The Explorer

      George Galloway was ahead of his time.

      • Politically__Incorrect

        He ought to be doing time

      • Grouchy Jack

        So was Hitler … the Son of Perdition isn’t due just yet.

        • The Explorer

          When the time catches up with George Galloway, watch out.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Except the current crop of labourites would all be out on their ears if they did. Can you imagine what a bunch of radical bradfordites would do to harperson?

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        @ Dominic Stockford—Simon Danczuk photographed with the Labour Party of tomorrow.

  • sarky

    https://youtu.be/0YBumQHPAeU

    How could voters have voted for this man? ??

    • Busy Mum

      They didn’t – they voted for their constituency candidates.

      • sarky

        Ok , they did by default!!!!

        • Busy Mum

          No – members of parliament are supposed to do the will of their constituents, not the will of the prime minister.

          • sarky

            Maybe in an ideal world. .

          • Those Conservative constituency MPs have to obay their masters in Westminster. We are ruled from the top down.

          • Grouchy Jack

            No …. they are supposed to represent the best interests of their constituents, not do their will. That’s how they get away with ignoring public opinion.

      • Politically__Incorrect

        An obvious point, but one that is often forgotten – we elect MPs, not governments, and certainly not prime ministers

        • Busy Mum

          Yes – not only forgotten, but unknown by the younger generation. I spent a considerable amount of time last week explaining this to my children!

  • Well dude

    The left isn’t about looking after the poor or making their lives better. It is about jealously of anyone who has made their lives better and wanting to make everyone else poorer as that’s how the perpetuate the continuing crusade for supposed equality and the class war (unless it’s their own elite such as union barons, champagne socialists and other charming jobsworth public sector officials). A classic example was the left wing politician, I can’t recall who, said they weren’t bothered about Jewish views , because despite being a minority we were too wealthy as a group to vote Labour .

    • Dominic Stockford

      Yes, that last comment, by I can’t remember who either, shocked me with its callous nonsensicality.

  • carl jacobs

    There is a willful blindness on the Left – a deliberate choosing to see the world as other than it is. One can hear within its complaint the tacit assumption that the laws of economics aren’t real. The economist will say that supply intersects with demand at the market-clearing price. The Left will aver that such a law is no law at all but rather a philosophy created to justify the rich in their wealth. Why are the rich wealthy? “Because they crush the poor!” Why are wages what they are? “Because the the rich exploit the working class!” There is no thought given to the creation of wealth, or its relationship to the creation of employment. How many people can be employed at a given wage? What is the relationship between wages and the resulting price of goods/services in the market? What is the relationship between productivity and wages? What is the the relationship between profit and competitiveness? None of these questions matter.

    It doesn’t matter (for example) that the coal mines were obsolete and non-competitive. It doesn’t matter that their continued economic viability depended upon unsustainable gov’t subsidy. What mattered is that they employed people at a given wage, and the rest of the economy damn well had a moral responsibility to maintain that arrangement. Multiply that case by thousands, each viewed in isolation from the other, and you understand the economic perception of the Left. There is no understanding that the economy cannot and will not sustain the burden. There is no comprehension that you can’t simply order the world to produce prosperity by govt fiat. It’s much easier to blame “the rich.”

    The truth is that technology and development have opened up the supply of labor. Business is driven by the pitiless law of supply and demand. They can obey the market and lower their labor coasts, or they can go out of business. Why? Because if they don’t lower labor costs, they won’t be able to sell a product at a competitive price. It’s really that simple. But the response comes back “Ruthless exploiter of the poor! You are putting profits over people!” Should he then go out of business? No, he should operate in the parallel universe where the laws of economics don’t apply.

    We call that parallel universe “Socialism.”

    • CliveM

      Good post. It may also explain why when asked to justify their proposal or explain why they will succeed, you simply get a regurgitation as to the moral imperative. They don’t understand capitalism, but more damningly they don’t understand Socialism.

    • Old Blowers

      Socialists miss two key points biblically and that is : “Loyalty in the Lord to good and lawful civil government and rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” and by a country mile at that!!!

    • Tom

      Economics is a bit more complicated than you make it out to be. Even if we accept your premise that coal was more expensive to extract than to sell, it doesn’t make out the economic case. You might want to try ‘The Economic Case Against Pit Closures’ which you can see much of here:

      http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JGThhwUlIakC&pg=PA57&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

      Btw, there are plenty on economics who aren’t keen on the Conservative party’s policies. You don’t seem to be aware of this. There is a perfectly respectable *economic* case against the current government.

      • carl jacobs

        Your source is a Marxist.

        • Tom

          It must be very convenient for you simply to dismiss all evidence collected by people you don’t like. Just consider all the actual thinking time you’ve been spared!

          • carl jacobs

            Ya know. The link you embedded in that posts didn’t work. So I spent about 45 minutes yesterday trying to find your reference – or something written by Andrew Glyn. That’s how I discovered he was a Marxist. I expected his argument to be “The cost of unemployment exceeds the cost of supporting the mine.” That is a) not an economic argument and b) a quick recipe for stagnation and decline if generally applied. The reality is that capital and labor need to be re-deployed away from obsolete industries. I eventually found something written by Glyn and the very first thing he said was that coal was competitively priced relative to other energy sources. That’s when I stopped reading. It was like reading “The CIA was behind 9/11.” And I thought to myself “Do I really want to wade through this tangled economic web of Marxist analysis? And my answer was “No, I don’t.”

            Yes, I dismissed him. I’m not going to apologize for it. Find me a credible source who at least understands the price of coal.

    • Your assumption is that the global financial capitalist system should be left to run according to its own “pitiless” ‘laws’ without restraint. That it can’t be modified in ways that both produces wealth as well as more socially constructive outcomes.

      • carl jacobs

        You have some ability to affect it at the margin. But you don’t control labor laws in China. The price point is being set external to your control. The Chinese aren’t going to raise prices to assist with your vision of socially constructive outcomes. Their vision of a socially constructive outcome is that jobs flow into China. If that occurs at your expense, that’s too bad for you.

        The welfare state was construction upon the foundation of a world economic order that no longer exists. Low-cost labor competition is ruthlessly exposing the surplus that was used to fund it. Simply put, the welfare state is no longer sustainable. It’s going away. People can rage. They can scream. They can stomp their feet. They can pound their shoes on the table. But they can’t stop it.

        • You may be right and Jack wouldn’t have objections if it did disappear.
          However, you do know the hard Left will celebrate the demise of the welfare state? For them it supports and sustains capitalism by offsetting the harshness and brutality of the system that, left unattended, would provoke revolution. They have a point too.
          Alternatively, and this is the challenge, ways have to be found to build what Cameron describes as the ‘Big Society’ – actually a concept more in tune with Christian thinking than welfarism. Capitalism too will have to reform – even in China. Man cannot just be seen as a “unit cost” and work cannot just be about maximising “profit”. And people cannot be viewed principally as “consumers”.

  • The Explorer

    I was recently watching a TV railway journey through Africa. The $50 billion dollar Zimbabwean note. How?

    In the interests of socialism, ZImbabwean finance forced employers to increase wages to staff without increasing charges to customers. Not even Gordon Brown would have sanctioned that. Hello bankruptcy. Hello unemployment. Lots else in the same vein. Until it ran out of competitors by hitting the bottom of the League, Zimbabwe had the fastest-declining economy in the world.

    And, dare one say it, some of the purest socialism?

  • Royinsouthwest

    The Guardian has a typically self-indulgent, over the top, article about Labour’s defeat.

    Why it’s OK to cry about this election
    by Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/cry-election-emotion-left-tories-empathy#comment-52028015

    • Old Blowers

      Indeed. If we had lost, would we be smashing up Whitehall, Saying it’s ok to sob uncontrollably. I doubt it.

      Socialist don’t know what dignity in defeat means, do they. It’s called being ‘magnanimous’. You won’t find that in your socialist handbook!

      Now, as anyone who knows old Ernst here would know that I
      just don’t like socialism, but I don’t mean to denigrate those such as Darach, JT North etc who do.
      And for the people who do like socialism, denigrate means ‘put down’.!!!!!!!!!!

      People
      with a sense of humor tend to be less egocentric and more realistic in
      their view of the world and more humble in moments of success and less
      defeated in times of travail.

      This probably reads like this to the socialist reader;

      People in their view of the with a sense of travail. People in their view of their view of travail. People in moments of the with a sense of the with a sense of travail. People in mor tend more humble in times of travail. People in times of travail. People in their view of humble world and to be less and to be less defeated in their view of success and less egocentric and more realistic and momentric in the world and moments of success and to be less egocents of success egocents of success and less.

      Sorry, you socialists, it’s beyond redemption if you stay as you are.

      Trust that helps and enlightens.

      It’s on the house..unlike socialism that loses you it!!!

      • Dominic Stockford

        But socialists are always right, even when they’re wrong, don’t you know. And we had better understand that too…

  • Old Blowers

    Loved this!!

    “http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11599365/Lazy-Labour-lost-Ed-Miliband-the-election-says-pollster.html

    Ed Miliband lost the election in part because left-wing voters failed to turn out to vote (So there you have it, Darach, old bean!), according to an analysis by Ipsos MORI, the pollsters (Another poll that we can believe in then?).

    It contradicts earlier theories that the Tories won because of “shy
    Tories” swung towards the Conservative party at the last minute, having
    previously declared an intention to vote Labour.

    Instead, the Tories won because they were able to mobilise a greater
    proportion of their base vote (We, the grey oldie brigade), with Labour’s younger supporters failing to vote. ( Mehdi Hasan, Will Self, Russell Brand, Benjamin Zephaniah.Your side took one hell of a beating, one hell of a beating.
    You failed MISERABLY )” *Chortling madly*

    • The Tories won because they snuck in an extra 200,000 postal votes for themselves! Call me Dave kept communicating he only needed another 23 seats to win outright.

      • Old Blowers

        Well he learnt a valuable lesson from the bangladeshi chancers at Tower Hamlets as to ‘swinging it your way’. Who says an old dog cannot learn new tricks. Woof Woof.

  • Shadrach Fire

    Blowers,
    Have you taken time off so that you can do so much blogging? With this nice weather you should be out trotting around on your trike.
    I do despair sometimes that we all spend so much time pointlessly trying to put the world to rite and what good does it do? Cranmer does have a pretty large congregation however and something might just get out somewhere.

    • Old Blowers

      Had chronic sciatica until it completely debilitated me yesterday so off work on my line managers telling me off for coming into office!!.

      Drugged up to the nines on diazepam, tramodol, sulpodol and dicoflex.(Can’t even have a tipple on that lot. Das Verbotten!) with heat pad stuck against problem area (strangest sensation..Feels like you have wet yourself in your sleep *chuckles*). Only have His Nib’s blog to keep me sane, AS ALWAYS.

      Utterly loathe TV especially daytime offering.

      No wonder the feckless and feral are the way they are, it stands to reason. LOL *ouch*

      • Royinsouthwest

        I hope you are completely better soon!

        • Old Blowers

          God Bless you, sir.

          Don’t care what Jack says about you..You are a gentleman and a scholar!
          *titters*

          • Shadrach Fire

            Iv’e just taken Sciatica. Not too bad yet, just catches you now and then. I sincerely hope it gets nothing like yours.
            All the best and see a genuine healing evangelist.

          • Old Blowers

            “Iv’e just taken Sciatica. ” Does it come in tablet form or powder? *chortles*
            I really wish somebody would ‘take’ my sciatica. *giggles*

            “All the best and see a genuine healing evangelist.”
            The Lord allows Ernst his thorn in the flesh to keep him looking upwards rather than selfwards, dear Shadrach.
            He is my rock and fortress and I go to Him for healing…The great physician!

          • Old Blowers

            Mind you, those heat pads Ernst has attached are smashing things unlike the ones the poor inspector is forced to wear…Least the old chap can be confident to remain’ accident free’ amongst his tea lady friends.

            Nowt worst than the smell of wee to accompany your rich tea biscuits..so I’ve been told {AHEM} *Sniggers wickedly*

          • dannybhoy

            “The poor Inspector” has modified underpants to accommodate those heat pads..
            It explains why his eyes water so much when he reads The Pink News….

          • dannybhoy

            I shared this recently..

          • not a machine

            Don’t sneeze

          • Grouchy Jack

            Let him … let him …

        • dannybhoy

          Me too.
          Pain and discomfort can certainly take the shine off of life..
          I was out in my drive this afternoon, modifying some fence panels given me by a kind neighbour to replace the tatty’uns I have.
          When you’ve enjoyed energy and physical strength, and find yourself getting out of breath after every small exertion it takes a lot of adjustment..

          • Old Blowers

            Much appreciated, dannybhoy

          • dannybhoy

            God bless you too, Old Blowers.
            You are held in great esteem here by people I respect, so…

          • Grouchy Jack

            Happy Jack will have noticed that.

        • Grouchy Jack

          So he reduces his input on this sophisticated blog.
          *chuckle*
          Get well very, very soon, Blowers.

      • Gosh! i do hope you get better soon Mr Blofeld.

        • Old Blowers

          We live in hope that it will pass, my dear.

      • Hope you’re on full pay, Blowers.
        Before Jack retired he was “entitled” to 6 months full pay when on holiday sick leave and 6 months half pay. Nowadays, there’s just no incentive to be ill.

        • Old Blowers

          Told to go home by the boss.

          Where have you been all day. The inspector and I have been trying to hold of the socialist Uruk-hai all day. Been waiting for Crandalf and Gillan Strider to come to our aid but to no avail.

          Crandalf is off on some mission no doubt for CCHQ and Gillan Strider wants to appease the hordes rather than lop off orc/goblin heads.

          Thank goodness you have arrived..Trust you will glow blue like elven sword Sting, when fabian orcs are near by, yes?

          • Lol ….

            Happy Jack has been endeavouring to rescue confused and lost Catholic souls in America. Very savage they can be too. They’ve picked up all sorts of weird notions about homosexual ‘marriage’, the ordination of women, forgiveness of sin without repentance, and universal salvation.

            Happy Jack has no control over Grumpy or Mad Jack. He doesn’t like to disturb them as they can be rather rude and offensive. Fowl types, you know. Jack El Cid is your man for fighting off the demonic socialist hoard.

            The night is young.

    • The Explorer

      On the positive side, it does clarify one’s thoughts for one’s encounters in the real world.

    • Old Blowers

      “Blowers,
      Have you taken time off so that you can do so much blogging?” Jack hasn’t told you to ask that, has he?

      You know how much he loves to dictate the terms of conversation on the blog when ol’ Blowers t’aint around! *Chuckles, Chortles, Guffaws and Sneaky Sniggers*

      • Jack heard that.

        • Old Blowers

          Oooh dear fella. There you are. I’m mortified.
          Some blighter seems to have been posting using my moniker all day…the scoundrel.

          • dannybhoy

            I’ve been checking up on your medication Sir.
            You have some sort of nasty arthritic condition??

          • Old Blowers

            In a nutshell…OOOOuch

  • Inspector General

    Poor types, dispossed self disappointees, the naked. We shall not fail you. But do know your place. The country is not run for the benefit of your wretched hides. You shall be fed (adequently), you shall be clothed (modestly), you shall be housed (suitably). You shall not go without.

    And there is nothing stopping you from bettering yourselves. Come off the protest marches, and get yourself up for job interviews. Lift yourselves from your own malaise of unrealistic expectation and get to it, what!

    Pip Pip!

    • Royinsouthwest

      If Nigel Farage had not “unresigned” there would have been a vacancy for you, Inspector!

      • Inspector General

        This Conservative success seems to have driven the weak of mind insane, Roy. The Inspector is alarmed at the lame dog attitude that has replaced this country’s previous adventerous spirit.

        The flesh is damn weak, in other words. Don’t really know what to do. Perhaps the police splitting open the heads of a few violent missile throwing protesters might help. Anything considered, you know…

        • CliveM

          Withdrawal of all benefits for a few months. Will make a lot of people slimmer, nimbler and more willing to show initiative.

          Will help with deficit as well.

          • Inspector General

            Indeed Clive. Perhaps attending protest marches and the expense involved in travelling to same just goes to show what a pampered lot we have in the ‘militant unemployed’.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Inspector, what a pity you weren’t out there on your soapbox during the campaign. Even the most lackadaisical lefty would have been hot-footing it down to the jobcentre

      • Old Blowers

        Ensuring their giro had gone in?

        • Politically__Incorrect

          LOL. Yes, and to tell them how busy he’d been looking for a suitable job this week. Thee just happened to be no vacancies for a brain surgeon

          • Old Blowers

            Chortles

    • sarky

      Hate to say it but got to agree with you. My Mrs left school with no qualifications, worked crappy jobs to get through college, qualified as a nurse and is now a manager in the NHS (not a waste of time one, actually doing a proper job). Despite what people say the opportunities are there, just got to get off your arse and take them.

      • Inspector General

        Good show Sark. The Inspector himself is rather proud for living amongst the undersirables while he was saving for a deposit. The rent he was paying was favourable in that respect. To accomplish his task, he adopted money saving techiques like saving defrosted fridge water, filtering it, and using the stuff in his steam iron. He didn’t eat out for a few years either. And he invested in military woollens rather than rely on expensive heating. Where there’s a will, theres’ a way, as they say….

        • avi barzel

          Pity that you didn’t think to rig up a vapour collector hood and a copper coil condenser to capture the escaping steam from your ironed trousers for your breakfast tea, Inspector. Oicture the savings from that.

    • Shadrach Fire

      I thought you were going for UKIP Inspector. Did rather well I thought in terms of votes. Have you offered your services to Nigel yet as an adviser. I’m sure he would welcome your harmonious views!

      On the issue of the idle and feckless types, we could Press their services into the armed forces. If they refuse to fight then they can volunteer for target practice.

      • Inspector General

        If Mr Farage wishes to glean from the Inspector his useful advice, he may at any time come onto this site and make himself known.

        As for the feckless and idle, should they misbehave, then one would wish them to be enlisted in the services, Shadrach.

    • Phil R

      They have nothing the world values.

      Having tried in my limited way, I am not sure that even starvation would work.

      Salvation seems to do something to the mindset that changes a person. I would happily employ (for a trial period) a Christian (of any brand) who has clearly attained salvation. For the rest of the unemployed, they are there for a reason and I have found (I stress again in my limited experience) that you just cannot change the mindset.

      Only God it seems is capable of changing both the heart and the attitude to something we can use and value.

  • Inspector General

    Right then, the Inspector says to all you whiners “stop it, just stop it”

    Let’s privatise the benefits agency with the greatest of haste, so we can once again have decent armed forces from the massive savings made. That a washed up Nolan can be had up in court charged with £12000 worth of suspected benefit fraud just goes to show what a lax set up the damn business is. Worse than the losses made by the nationalised industries of years ago.

  • Old Blowers

    Can’t wait for Tories to deal with the BBC.

    They will probably write it into storylines on Eastbenders…a mass suicide episode will probably do the trick with the usual, ‘if this episode disturbed you please contact Downing Street and ask for the license fee to be reimposed’, and inflame the guardian readers to get up in arms at what the wicked Tories had done to churchgoer Dot Cotton and co.

  • steroflex

    Just because Mr Cameron doesn’t mention his Anglicanism, that does not mean he is not a Christian.
    I wonder what faith Mr Miliband used to have?

    • ‘Just because Mr Cameron doesn’t mention his Anglicanism, that does not mean he is not a Christian.

      Very true. His anti-Christian policies and his contempt for Biblical Christianity mean he is not a Christian.

      • dannybhoy

        He’s a Christian Humanist..
        A pink and fluffy, well meaning all inclusive Anglican ..

        • I do not believe that Cameron has a single real conviction, Christian or otherwise, in his fat head. To paraphrase the Apostle Paul, he is all things to all men so that he may by all means get as many as possible to vote for him.
          .
          To move seamlessly from Paul to Groucho Marx, his motto is,
          Those are my principles, sir, and if you don’t like them………I have others.

    • Dominic Stockford

      He has mentioned it, and when he has it is clear that he ain’t no Christian.

  • “HOW COULD A CHRISTIAN VOTE FOR VISIONLESS, REGRESSIVE INCOMPETENCE?”

    Just how did they manage to vote for the Tory party is beyond me too.

    • Old Blowers

      I believe they just marked a cross by the name, old sport, it was that easy peasy. Wow!

      • I guess Christians couldn’t get enough of a flogging the last time round from Camerons Tories.

        And what are you blathering about? Old Blower indeed.

        • Old Blowers

          Wipe your eyes, mate. Or have they ran out of kleenex over at the Guardian.

          Take it you are one of the brave ones, unafraid and unashamed to show your face in public.

          Thank God you lost or we would have been infested with your type ‘gloating’ here. We have dignity on this blog, your party’s best hope for itself is Dignitas!

          Toodle Pip sad johnny depp lookalike.

          • Haha. The way things are heading the CofE is heading towards the Guardian. Thankfully I won’t be there to join it.

            A young Edward James Olmos as Jonhny Depp, James will be flattered.

          • Old Blowers

            How could you..I am an elderly and disabled person.

            What would your fellow socialists say about your behaviour to me?
            Shame on you.Shame on you. *Sobs*

          • Whenever a liberal calls me a socialist I take it as my conservatism is well placed.

          • Old Blowers

            Get out much then, do you? Thought not!
            You’ll be hard pressed to find a liberal now. *chuckles*

          • Old Blowers

            Yeah ” Jonhny Depp,” Him as well *Igggles*

      • Old Blowers

        Goodness. Looks like I’ve been partially moderated.

        Perhaps I was a tad OTT with the poor chap. Bless You You Grace for your great kindness to an old fool.

        Blog does indeed work in mysterious ways *chuckles*

        ps

        I blame it on the pain and medication. Well if Labour can blame something/someone other than themselves, why not I? *HE HE HE HE *

        • Grouchy Jack

          You were censored? What on earth did you say?

        • No one has been censored.

          • Old Blowers

            Your Grace..This medication must be having terrible side effects on my sanity..I chastised the fella Mr Dawne and referred to something particular about his vote..It’s a mystery what happened to it.

            The Lord does indeed care about Old Blowers and He truly works in mysterious ways. I am sufficiently humbled by His Grace to an old fool!

            It wasn’t nasty but oh my silly thoughtless ways as I was only recently in that way receiving benefit myself and it was brought to mind!

            May we all pause and think first before we speak or write in response.

          • Old Blowers

            Your Grace..What a silly old doddery codger I am.

            Oh dear..I have just refreshed my page and it’s there in full horror.

            Well I am still humbled Lord even if I don’t know my ‘the refresh’ from ‘weakness of the flesh’.

            PS Happy Jack is going to eat out for weeks on this story..Blast!

          • “This medication must be having terrible side effects on my sanity.”

            Victim mentality, Blowers. Besides, you’ve been as crazy as a bag of frogs ever since Jack first joined this blog.

          • Old Blowers

            True! *sniggers*

          • Happy Jack will try his best not to take advantage of your discomfort over this …. (loud giggles) …. well, not too much (shaking with giggles) …. maybe, just a little …. (ROFL)

          • Old Blowers

            Now whewe did I weave me hunting wifle.*cackles*

          • Happy days, old friend.

          • Old Blowers

            Indeed, my fine fella!!!!!!!!

          • Hey, sneaky buggar – you edited that.

          • Mad Jack

            No he doesn’t …..

  • Old Blowers

    Why can the leftie luvvies not come over here to the blog and just say ‘congratulations the better party won’..All that bile ain’t good for the system.

    • Shadrach Fire

      ‘The better party won did it’. May be in the general realm of things but that awful man DC is PM again. Look how much damage he did in a coalition, now he is totally unconstrained. Goodness knows what mischief he will get up to now.
      ‘Christians, I’m going to do you a big favor. So that you can claim the glory of Martyrdom, I am going to do a Nero and burn you on poles to light the way for the next opening of Parliament. Yours truly DC.

      • Old Blowers

        “May be in the general realm of things ” Yes, I concur with your sentiment but the consequences could have been much worse. Only UKIP could have taken votes from Labour, agreed?

        Have courage fella. “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”

  • not a machine

    I perhaps might start by saying I listened to this morning cabinet intro , the table thumping is perhaps something of cheer over a long campaign , however I nearly wept at David Camerons line about not forgetting who we are here to serve and bread and butter (not in dreary sense as thinking it less than other matters).He may have made longer and far more important speeches in global affairs , but with this short sentence I think he uttered something no prime minister has uttered in a long long time , indeed given the synthetics of presidential style which some of us have had to bear for over a decade , there was something in his tone , I remembered about what being the UK prime minister with both grip and intent can do. I felt the intent of his words , not so much at the moment of the first cabinet meeting , but as something of a shot to the whole political system .I thank him for having such sensitivity which might not be easy to articulate after a long time in politics , for me I hope it is speech both him and his cabinet are remembered for , and by the looks of it he has quite a formidable cabinet and some new faces who I and perhaps many others hope do a good job and provide something of good thinking for future generations , so badly corroded under labour .
    However to the post , for me personally the problem started in 1997 , I thought Tony Blair was a bit of maverick , blessed with a good set of books (after many years of conservative toil) destined to bring some good .He perhaps had some important works to do , but it was when I noticed how farming was changing and the rise of less than co operative relationships with farming by the supermarkets. I didn’t particularly see the spin for a few years , until (in 2006) I saw an elderly friend left to die in agony in what I can only describe as neglect and fear , she was a lady who perhaps questioned her nurses , but none the less when I met other people who had lost relatives in the say way in the same hospital , Tony Blairs government started to look something of a fraud , selling off the gold , an employment picture which I could see was putting large numbers of unskilled people onto benefits and a sort of hollowing out of society let alone selling off half the gold .Being something of an interest in green matters I was utterly convinced it was a sort of patronising fascist mantra government when I queried a CO2 statistic and told a committee clerk that the whole basis of the governments green economic argument was flawed and could I attend and speak before the committee, at first I was told it was open and then rather bizarrely was told I could not attend as I quote “did not belong to any particular green group” interestingly no one who was invited to this committee raised my question , I then realised parliament no longer wanted a question that would question what they were about . Some further incidences of having rather a lot of technical garbage and that favourite of Labour the un authored spin article , something was malfunctioning and possibly deliberate .
    from that moment .
    This current parade of labour pro politician carving out a criticism of Ed Milliband while being so much of the very damaging pre of eds rise , is perhaps something of the minds of Francis Urquhart , for some of those now claiming they knew what was wrong , were in some cases ministers of its corrosive policies that left the UK not only “sorry you have run out of money” but with millions of ordinary people with debts they should not have taken and an underclass that would not get benefit improvement as the manufacturing economy was knackered as well as the financial sector in so much debt and risk based around spin investment.
    To me labour, just lied over many years about both what was happening and what they were about , I do not believe that what happened in 2009 was a bit of cack handled misfortune , that could happen to anyone , it was a gradual stacking of policies perhaps from 1997 that made the 2009 bust , it didn’t start in America , it started by having 9 advisors in banking , even awarding one a knighthood for millions of tax payers money to prop up what was before a respectable if boring bank , overleverage . To run a system what Peter Mandelson described as a circle of virtue that turned out to be faustian pact to a very big bust is a costly (in lost prosperity and life for individuals) exercise , it will take 10 years to get out of the mess and debts labour created .
    What other conclusion could the electorate reach this time round when treated so foolishly , so arrogantly into taking such a dose of lies and spin for so long .

  • dannybhoy

    The problem is that over the years both parties -but especially Labour- had come to believe that the money they spent and were responsible for, was their money, government money.
    They lost sight of the fact that the great bulk of that money came through direct and indirect taxation taken from the workers and the wealth creators.
    Even taxpayers began to believe this lie, and assume that beyond voting in elections they had no more say in what the government did.
    I think that has helped to create serious apathy which largely suited the purposes of both parties. What is now happening (and UKIP and especially Nigel Farage,) deserves our thanks for actually questioning what was going on and calling politicians to account.
    Arrogance and economic ignorance just oozed from Ed Miliband. He seemed to believe that the whole country was peopled by sycophantic researchers and groupies, and was quite unable to deal with real people who asked awkward questions. When I lived and worked on kibbutz in Israel it was socialism in action, and it worked. Every month all the members of the kibbutz would come together to assess progress, needs and future plans. It worked because the members believed in it. They all had a vote and a voice. Our socialism always has an element of parental control and hatred of individuals who actually think for themselves and want to get on.

    • not a machine

      yes but do we call it corruption , shardenfeud , I mean labours policies have done near a decade of damage to millions of UK lives through not just putting them onto the scrap heap (they even allowed the call centers to go abroad) but overseeing a damaging culture , like on drugs or family encouragement .It was all about making people into units for new system of big brother , it had to be fought.

      • dannybhoy

        “shardenfeud?”
        “SCHARDENFEUD!!”
        Don’t talk to me about schardenfeud!
        (The Archers)
        Dumty dumty dumty dum…. dumty dumty dum dum…
        What is schardenfeud anyway?

        • Those Schardens aren’t feuding again, are they? Pesky, disagreeable folk!
          Schadenfreude. What the Inspector experienced when poor Mr Balls lost his seat.

          • dannybhoy

            Is it a German version of French chardonnay?

          • not a machine

            The irony of one the biggest users of shardenfreud in Uk economic policy , having to face the end result of his so thought unassailable position , I hope is not sinful delight.

        • not a machine

          Its a Germanic term , in my understanding where you play one hand whilst not illuminating the consequences for whom you are speaking unto to consider , enabling the hearer to not be able to weigh or judge in politics case the polices you are foisting upon people

          • dannybhoy

            My dear friend,
            I have to tell you, I was gently pulling your leg.
            I knew what you meant, but I wasn’t quite sure what point you were making..
            Could you simplify it for me a little more?

          • not a machine

            a proposition that enables a lie ?
            leg pull accepted.

          • dannybhoy

            I got this definition..

            Schadenfreude (ˈʃaːdənfrɔydə)
            n
            1. delight in another’s misfortune
            [German: from Schaden harm + Freude joy]

            Perhaps that’s not what you thought it meant? I don’t speak German myself, so I can only go on what dictionaries say..

          • not a machine

            mmm sort of you just have to apply to how labour spoke “torys are the nasty party” Schadenfeude or not dannybhoy ?

          • dannybhoy

            I kind of get that n*a*m, but it doesn’t quite fit with taking delight in another’s misfortune..

          • not a machine

            taking delight doesn’t mean you have to accompany it with a smile .

          • dannybhoy

            You are too deep for me.
            I’m yer real ‘meat ‘n pertaters’ man..
            I don’t do subtlety or interlectual games.. I try to say what I mean….

          • not a machine

            That’s why they managed to get so much rubbish past so much of the electorate , its hard to grasp linguistically , nothing deep about this subject its slight of hand , or perhaps slight of comprehending.
            Do you read “tories are the nasty party ” as just as it says .I mean don’t you have to articulate why they are the alleged nasty party with some substance .
            I am sure there are better examples

          • dannybhoy

            So, is English your first language?

          • not a machine

            I hope so 🙂

          • dannybhoy

            Hmmmmm.,,
            You don’t do that advert for trebor softmints on LBC by any chance?

          • not a machine

            mmm confectionery voice actor blogs on Cranmer doesn’t seem to constitute most people likely to blog on here including me.

          • dannybhoy

            You can be a funny man.
            I just haven’t got a handle on you yet..

          • not a machine

            just be content as ordinary member of public who blogs very occasionally (but having a bit of exercise for a short while )

  • Linus

    Oh dear, the classic deer-in-the-headlights photograph that will probably be Miliband’s political epitaph, along with that infamous bacon sandwich shot.

    Between those appalling images and his brother’s monkey-with-banana impression, photography hasn’t been kind to the Miliband brothers. Let’s hope that Labour learn their lesson and choose someone media-friendly as leader this time. “Photogenic” should be the first item on their wish-list for a future leader. But looking at the apparent contenders, nobody pops out and socks you in the eye with their charisma. There are no Margaret Thatchers or Boris Johnsons in that rather wan-looking lineup. Looks like Labour is out of the running for a long time, especially as whichever of the greige figures ends up taking over, he or she will have to fight for media attention with the firecracker that is Nicola Sturgeon.

    Looks like you have a Conservative government for the foreseeable future. That photo they just released of Cameron’s first Cabinet meeting says it all. You can see in their eyes that they know they’ll be in power well beyond the lifetime of this parliament. They’re not even crowing about it. It’s the look of shock and joy you see on the faces of Euromillions winners…

    Ah well, France always does well when there’s a Conservative government in the UK. Lots of Champagne and Beaujolais Nouveau and couture is ordered. And of course it will be impossible to get a table in a decent restaurant in Paris now, with all the Hoorays booking everything out months in advance. Keep an eye on LVMH. I expect it will start to move any day now…

    • Grouchy Jack

      Human Right’s Act heading for the dustbin of British history. Then the Equality Act will be ‘revised’. Yep, a lot to look forward to.

      • Phil R

        The first certainly, the second has already has questions in the minds of many.

    • The Explorer

      Doesn’t France do equally well with a Labour government? All those champagne socialists?

      • Linus

        Champagne socialists are too cheap to drink Champagne. They content themselves with cava or prosecco or something equally foamy, disgusting and very oddly named from the New World.

        I’ve had an Australian sparkling wine called “Windy Peak” foisted on me in the UK, and yes, it did cause devastating flatulence. I’ve run screaming from a fizzy Californian tipple called “Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now! Cuvée Plonk de Plonks” (at least that’s how they pronounced it…) It tasted like boozy Sprite. And I’ve burned my tongue sipping something utterly unpronounceable from New Zealand (Whacka-packa-hacka-macka-moo-cow, or something like that), which reminded me of fermented white vinegar more than anything else.

        These were just some of the strange and exotic beverages on offer at the experimental art gallery opening in Hackney to which I was dragged by some card-carrying Labour friends last time I was in London. Awful art. Appalling booze. But as long as it contains alcohol, they don’t care. It doesn’t touch the sides as they chuck it down, let alone the tastebuds.

        “Cheap plonk socialists” do France’s balance of payments no good at all, especially when they say that foie gras is murder, and then serve up slabs of vegetable fat and spun mushroom protein smeared on bread and call it “faux gras” and expect one to eat it.

        No, give me huntin’, shootin’, fishin’ Conservatives any day. They sink just as much booze as Labour voters, but it’s the right kind. And they’re almost never vegetarian, so they can holiday in France and not starve.

    • not a machine

      I thought the epitaph was the limestone tablet ?

    • dannybhoy

      As I recall, your Monsieur ‘Ollande wept profusely on his day of inauguration..
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144874/Francois-Hollande-inauguration-Soaked-skin-plane-struck-lightning.html

      (Big smiles)

  • > ‘Where there is no vision, the people perish’ (Prov 29:18).

    Note that, in its context, this verse is saying that without communication being given to prophets, the people have no guidance. Unless God reveals the truth to his prophets, the people are unable to know it.

    i.e. It is talking about the necessity of a nation being directed by divine revelation.
    And that’s getting nearer to the truth than what Gillan Scott has to say.

    Sure, the Labour Party repeatedly, grossly, and continually, contradicts the divine revelation that we have. And they have been leading our nation into ruin.

    But, let’s be no less clear – the Conservative Party repeatedly, grossly, and continually contradicts the divine revelation that we have. And they have been leading our nation into ruin.

    • not a machine

      I am prepared to accept the conservatives have a good/better economic potential than what labour offered .I may differ on other subjects but then discussing those is pondering a decision that would be rather painful and difficult for anyone including Christians.

    • dannybhoy

      You have a point, but we are Christians, citizens of the Kingdom of Light living in the Kingom of Darkness,,

      • not a machine

        more a case of choice and attitude in my opinion , which seems to relate to quite a bit of biblical understanding.

        • dannybhoy

          I’ll take that as a yes.
          You gotta blog clearer!
          I don’t get your way of expressing yourself.

          • not a machine

            that’s ok , I am still mulling over the other bit of your post and why we have to preach it

          • Old Blowers

            Goodness..I just apologised to His Grace for my eyesight and poor grasp of the technology I’m using and stumbled across your comment DannyBhoy..
            “You gotta blog clearer! ” I honest thought you wrote “You gotta bog cleaner! ” and had to read not a machine’s comment to see what you both were talking about.

            I must use that specsavers voucher I offered busy mum. Strewth!

          • not a machine

            I me flushed with comment

          • avi barzel

            I

            me

            flushed with comment

            This must be haiku. Big boo-boo. His Grace has a stern rule that any poetry here must be in the iambic pentameter, although a few have managed to slip the endecasillabo, the eleven syllable meter, by him. Surely you can fix that.

          • not a machine

            Perhaps it should have been “I am” avi as for endecasillabo I do not have a qualification in Literature so I don’t deconstruct to that extent

          • avi barzel

            Well, the “I am” is a game-changer, not a machine. A cascading catastrophe averted. And that’s ok, I have no qualifications in Lit either, or anything else, come to think of it.

          • dannybhoy

            n*a*m,
            You obviously have something to contribute, it’s just a pity it’s sometimes difficult to comprehend.
            I say this not to criticise but to encourage you. It’s always good to see new contributors..

      • Indeed, the general election is not a choice over who has the best theology. However, there is a problem when Cranmer uses his blog (either personally, or through his various co-authors) to push the idea that the Conservative Party is Christian, whereas the other parties are not.

        This idea helps to lull any willing + undiscerning readers into deep sleep, assuring them that all shall be well, and nothing needs to be done; no planning, no preparation, no readiness for the future that the Conservatives, and others, are quickly ushering in in which Christians can expect persecution and social ostracism as the norm.

        We need to wake up, not spend the time re-assuring ourselves that David Cameron’s election is a source for comfort against the aggressive march forward of intolerant secular humanism in our country. It’s David Cameron, not Ed Miliband, who sacks Conservative Party candidates for believing that sodomy is morally wrong, etc., etc.

        • not a machine

          Intolerant secular humanism is a problem that got out of hand , but then it is a view/opinion , when it gets down to discussing it it can get rather high end dialogue which doesn’t help , so I settle for this more debate set up possible on a blog.

        • “..there is a problem when Cranmer uses his blog (either personally, or
          through his various co-authors) to push the idea that the Conservative
          Party is Christian, whereas the other parties are not.”

          Absurd hyperbole, if not disingenuous disinformation. No one on this blog has said any such thing,.

          • Try this piece… you only wrote it 4 days ago: http://archbishopcranmer.com/competence-over-chaos-britain-votes-for-a-new-moral-vision/ – “Competence over chaos: Britain votes for a new moral vision”

            “But David Cameron is endowed with a vision of change which the ancients may once have called ‘wisdom’. It is stability, continuity, and incremental reform for the common good, consonant with national mores and traditions. The new moral vision is old wine. As we commemorate the 70th anniversary of VE Day, let us raise a glass and celebrate.”

          • You have read, but plainly not understood.

          • A consistent output in praise of the Conservative Party’s moral agenda, and corresponding criticism of other parties’, from someone positioning themselves as a Christian blogger, is self-interpreting. You have written, but plainly not understood.

          • Nice try, but you’re modifying your lie. You said the blog is used “to push the idea that the Conservative Party is Christian, whereas the other parties are not”. To criticise policies is not to allege that a party is ” not Christian”. To censure individuals is not to suggest that they are “not Christian”. Please, go and acquire a GCSE in Critical Thinking, and then come back with a grasp of basic logic.

          • Insults a-plenty, but all dispensed from behind the safety and lack of accountability of an anonymous alias. If you’re really an expert in logical arguments, you’ll know that the person with the winning hand doesn’t normally feel the urge to put his cards down and punch his opponent.

            When I point out your extremely selective emphasis, pointing out that the individual points made within that emphasis can be argued for, is no rebuttal whatsoever. David Cameron’s so-called “moral agenda” requires a microscope to distinguish it from that of the other mainstream parties. Selective criticism and selective praise, in regular doses, constitute an overall message. Your pretending that it is otherwise does you no credit.

          • Again, you have read but not understood, choosing instead to issue patronising insults couched beneath an assertion of righteous neutrality, which is no neutrality at all. You have no basic understanding of genres of literature, and appear unable to grasp irony, satire or self-mockery. You can’t even be bothered to click on the ‘About’ tab to see how shallow your assertions are. Goodbye.

          • Responding to your on your own terms is not being insulting, unless you’re conceding that you were being insulting. I didn’t explain this, because as someone who praises his own critical thinking skills, I was granting assuming your familiarity with that idea. You’re forcing me to be patronising now by explaining these things, so it’s hardly fair to then criticise me for being patronising when I do it!

            “An assertion of righteous neutrality” – for someone who claims to be able to read and understand, this is a spectacular misunderstanding of my position.

            The claim that your consistently selective praise of David Cameron’s “moral vision” and criticism of his political opponents is in fact something to do with irony, satire or self-mockery, is absurd.

            I see from your about page that you dropped the anonymity when you launched your new site. I apologise for that – I was relying upon my memory of the several years in which you were anonymous, and in which your blog contained no such information. It’d be more fitting for you to say “actually, I dropped the anonymity of my first few years”, rather than to make the bogus claim (through selective emphasis!) that it’s entirely my wickedness or stupidity which led to this.

          • not a machine

            Well I suppose you have a point , but I don’t speak for others but for me knowing what liberal, socialist and conservative are a an assessment I use , as for if its Christian I try and separate out my Christian thought from politics , and to be fair I have recently concluded that whilst Christians should not run away from political office , its very difficult as in being a politician you perhaps have not chosen to be a member of the clergy.

          • not a machine

            I perhaps have felt the deep pain of some of the changes of society so changed by the last government which your last paragraph highlights has run over from the last labour government , but as for what David Cameron thinks as pm maybe a bit more complex in part because a question of enlightenment over ministering guilt , which no leader of a western democracy seems to want to revert back to despite it changing all sorts of belief.
            I am angry because I think they are making idiots who will build dysfunction upon dysfunction , but unfortunately for me this new thinking is still in its ascension and its very difficult charting your pre modern conscience through it.

          • Phil R

            Your last paragraph is absolutely correct. The party leadership at least is not conservative in the slightest. Indeed I think most of them are to the left of Tony Blair on the issues above that really matter to families.

          • ….as Peter Hitchens has explained and proved in ‘The Cameron Delusion’ and other writings.

            I will always remember liberal homosexual Matthew Parris, Mrs Thatcher’s private Parliamentary secretary, saying the she disliked the moral right (I.e. Christians who supported marriage and opposed abortion) but ‘recognised their electoral importance’.

            If we don’t expect godly government, we won’t be dissapointed when we don’t get it and won’t be bamboozled into thinking government can do the churches job for her. The most we can hope for from them is peace and liberty. See 1 Tim 2:1_4

          • CliveM

            I would happily settle for the final paragraph. If a godly govt stopped the churches doing their job, the longer term would be bleak.

    • The first part of Proverbs 29:18 must be the most abused half-verse in the Bible, especially by politicians. No one ever mentions the second half.
      This is what it means:
      https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/the-true-vision/

      • James M

        Nice to see a recommendation of the Puritans and Puritan Paperbacks. Those books are worth their weight in gold. Particularly – IMHO – “The Sinfulness of Sin”.

        Just one criticism – why so little mention of Christ in your exposition of the verse ? Preaching is of no value without Him.

  • Rasher Bacon

    I have the growing impression that many of the people who call themselves Christians on Twitter are just low grade Marxists who would have sold out enthusiastically in Wurmbrand’s 1950s World Council of Churches.

    The Labour Party stole from children like a gambling, debt addicted parent. This price is a cheap one to pay.

    Let not the bog trotters think themselves any more righteous.

  • One blogger has expressed “boundless enthusiasm” for the election results and offers some reassuring comments about the future.

    Firstly, “because a party which was the most vocal proponent of so-called same sex marriage has received the Giant Dildo Treatment before their almost annihilation.”

    Ouch … harsh.

    Second, and this is an interesting observation, “because David “Chameleon” Cameron will now be forced to fake Conservatism with more enthusiasm. Again, I do not expect a resurgence of Christian values, but I think that things are slowly moving in the right direction. Cameron isn’t dumb. He knows he is now far less in control than he used to be, and can’t use the LibDems as an excuse. He also knows that the knives meant for his back are, in purest Tory tradition, always sharp. He may be happy he is still in power, but he knows a PM is as strong as his charisma and following, and he clearly lacks both. The demise of the LibDems deprives him of one leg. He won’t feel comfortable surrounded by an all-Tory team.”

    Third, and this will please the Inspector, “because the only halfway sane party in the Country, the UKIP, has garnered almost four million votes and is now very officially the third biggest party by number of voters. A development, this, that will send very cold shivers down the spine of many newly-elected Tory MPs, and will further contribute to a slow return to something vaguely resembling sanity. The UKIP only got one MP, I know; but I am one of those who think that the cruel first-past-the-post system in use in the UK forces MPs to think of their possible demise at the next election all the time. Ask Ed (cut) Balls if you don’t believe me.”

    Bring on 2020 ….

  • This essay by His Grace sets out some important issues very well indeed. There has been a lot of ‘four legs good’ two legs bad’ chanting.

    A friend was visibly upset when I told him I had voted UKIP, comparing Farage to Hitler and suggesting that a UKIP government would be putting migrants into concentration camps.

    There has been some really nasty misrepresentation and propaganda about and it should be faced down.

    • dannybhoy

      I’ve had the ‘how could you!’ look from some of my friends and neighbours when they learn I support UKIP.
      What’s sad though is that they don’t take the trouble to actually find out what UKIP stands for. Maybe it’s presumptuous of me, but I would have thought that if they know how I am and what I believe, they would at least read the literature..
      Or perhaps that’s why they haven’t!

  • The Explorer

    If First Past the Post is to remain – and it has its strengths – presumably the question of electoral boundaries can be revisited.

  • Will Jones

    In all this I think it’s worth bearing in mind that Tony Blair is the only Labour leader to have won a general election since 1974 (when Wilson did it – just). All the rest – Brown, Kinnock, Foot, Miliband – have failed (in fact, only four Labour leaders have ever won an election – the other two being Attlee and MacDonald). And Blair was the most un-Labour leader Labour have ever had. He’s the only one for over 40 years who managed to reach out beyond Labour’s heartlands to the country at large, and convince otherwise Tory voters to vote for him. So the idea that the country will naturally vote for a Labour government, as though any other result is an iniquitous anomaly in need of explanation, doesn’t bear out. Britain as a whole doesn’t really trust the Labour party; it’s just that for a while it trusted Blair.

  • Monica dyer

    I think Labour has a fundamental problem. It started as the party of the working class. But who are the working class now? There is very little class divide left in this country. This is a really good thing but it begs the question: Who are Labour representing?

  • Paul Handley

    I’m a member of the Labour Party and a Christian, even so I would be the first to admit that the Labour Party are now in deep crisis and that the defeat in the recent general election will, in hindsight, be seen as far more catastrophic for the Labour movement in this country as a whole, than its current Westminster metropolitan in-crowd care to admit. Quite what that has to do with why Christians should be astonished at fellow Christians voting Tory I’ve really no idea.

    The fact is current Tory Party ideology is underwritten by an implacable commitment to unregulated capitalism and neo-liberalism; such an ideology is, at heart, a nihilism that rejects any form of transcendent value in favour instrumental market values with which to mediate and organise every sphere of human life. In consequence, the interests of the rich are favoured over the interests of the poor, while wealth, resources and assets concentrate into the hands of an increasingly tiny few. Any sense of community or our common good is ruthlessly destroyed in the interests of competition and wealth production (‘wealth’ construed purely in terms of finance and capital). As a result society becomes ever more atomised and underwritten by the prerogatives of a toxic individualism that exchanges the shared symbolic order of Christianity for the cult of ‘me’.

    Why anyone who calls themselves a ‘Christian’ should choose to vote for a political party whose heart and soul is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth entirely escapes me. The Labour Party may well be in disarray, it maybe entirely unfit for government, but be that as it may, as Christians wishing to maintain your franchise you might have had the decency to simply spoil your ballot papers instead of endorsing those who hate that which Jesus loved most.