Christian manifesto1a
Political Parties

The Epistle of St Nigel: Ukip's crass 'Christian Manifesto'

 

Ukip have issued a ‘Christian Manifesto‘. They haven’t issued a Muslim one, or a Hindu one, or a Sikh one, or a Buddhist one. Nor have they issued a Jewish one, which is odd when you consider the preponderance of ‘Judæo-Christian’ concerns they profess to address (though they never use the ligature). But there is a Christian one, presumably aimed at garnering the Christian vote, and it’s set against a blessed backdrop of Hymns Ancient and Modern (New Standard), with the Epistle of St Nigel exhorting visions and dreams of a “muscular defence of our Christian heritage and our Christian Constitution”:

..ours is fundamentally a Christian nation and so we believe Christianity should be recognised by Government at all levels. Sadly, I think UKIP is the only major political party left in Britain that still cherishes our Judaeo-Christian heritage. I believe other parties have deliberately marginalised our nation’s faith, whereas we take Christian values and traditions into consideration when making policy. Take the family, for instance. Traditional Christian views of marriage and family..

And on he goes – about the family, marriage, euthanasia, abortion, health, education, poverty, homelessness, welfare, foodbanks, overseas aid, immigration and church repairs. These are the tender policies of maternity and pastoral care. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course: Christians are called to minister, and Christian theology is pastoral. But don’t Christians care about defence? Or policing? Or roads, trains, planes and taxation? Is Trident too beefy an issue for Christians? Is HS2 immaterial, or crime and justice somehow inapplicable? And what about war and peace?

It is a travesty of the Faith, not to say a parody of Christian concerns and a contortion of what it means to be Christian to limit ‘Christian issues’ to housing the homeless and feeding the starving. Yes, there’s a nod to a host of life’s other contingencies, but the verbiage is mostly aimless waffle and there’s nothing particularly (or even exclusively) ‘Christian’ about any of it.

Freedom of Worship: “We will uphold robustly the rights of Christians, as well as those of other faiths, to worship as they wish and to espouse their beliefs openly, within the limits of the common law.” How does this differ from Conservative policy, precisely? Or the policies of Labour and the Liberal Democrats? Does anyone at Ukip Towers understand the difference between freedom of worship and freedom of belief? What of the expression of belief which transgresses “the limits of the common law”? What happens when Christians seek to walk in spirit and in truth and “the common law” inhibits or prohibits?

Family: “We recognise the valuable role played by the traditional family unit in society and will never discriminate against traditional marriage.” How does this differ from Conservative policy, precisely? Discrimination on the grounds of marital status is already illegal.

Same-sex marriage: “We will not repeal the legislation.. but we will not require churches to marry same-sex couples.” How does this differ from Conservative policy, precisely? Churches already may not be required to conduct such services: the ‘quadruple lock’ ensures that no religious organisation or individual minister can be compelled to officiate; that religious organisations must opt in rather than be presumed to be statutory obligated; that no claims on the grounds of discrimination may be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple; and that primary legislation is required to permit the Church of England to carry out such services.

Euthanasia and Abortion: “UKIP has no plans to change existing legislation on euthanasia or the ‘right to die.’” How does this differ from Conservative policy, precisely?

Human Trafficking: “Our Christian forefathers fought hard to abolish slavery and now we must fight to end it in modern-day Britain.” How does this differ from Conservative policy, precisely? Is Ukip aware that Theresa May has introduced – with the help and guidance of of Christians – the most comprehensive legislation to end this scourge?

Economic Growth: “UKIP would rather spend your money on the NHS, education, supporting older people and the disabled, defending our nation, honouring the military covenant, helping get the jobless into work, maintaining vital public services, and cutting the debts we are leaving to our children and grandchildren.” How does this differ from Conservative policy, precisely? Surely everyone would rather spend money on hospitals than paying off debt interest, but until the deficit is eradicated debt cannot begin to fall.

The NHS: “UKIP will keep the NHS free at the point of delivery for all British citizens, funded by general taxation.” How does this differ from Conservative policy, precisely?

Education: “UKIP backs faith schools provided they are open to the whole community, uphold British values, do not discriminate against any section of society and meet required educational standards. We believe Religious Education must be taught in all schools and should reflect the religious make-up of the country as a whole.” How does this differ from Conservative policy, precisely? Is Ukip aware of the existence of school admissions codes? Are they not aware that Religious Education has been statutory in the curriculum since 1944? Are they not aware that since 1988 the requirement has been to reflect the religious make-up of the country as a whole? And as for establishing a grammar school in every town, why is there an assumption that Christians oppose comprehensive education?

Poverty and Welfare: “UKIP is fully committed to keeping and strengthening the welfare system.. However, we believe a life on benefits for those who can work should never act as a disincentive to employment..” How does this differ from Conservative policy, precisely? Have Ukip not heard of Iain Duncan Smith?

Homelessness: “No one should be living on Britain’s streets and we want to end homelessness.” That’s nice. So do the Conservatives (and Labour and the LibDems and Greens and the SNP, Plaid and DUP). “UKIP will create a National Homeless Register. This will enable those of no fixed abode to claim their welfare entitlements, seek care and support services if they are at risk of physical, psychological and sexual abuse, and get full access to GP, dental and other NHS medical services.” A national register? You don’t need state bureaucracy to minister to the vulnerable: this is already happening – organically – with the multi-agency safeguarding collaboration of Local Authorities, Social Services, the Citizens Advice Bureau, charities and churches. It isn’t perfect, but a national register will solve nothing and add nothing.

Foodbanks: “UKIP will train up and put 800 advisors into 800 foodbanks to help those in most need get timely help, in a single venue.” Foodbanks are run by established charities, often in collaboration with local churches, and staff are perfectly well equipped to advise any visitors on where they may find help, even if that advice is to direct them to the local Citizens Advice Bureau. There is nothing to be gained by replicating a workload or imposing training on volunteers when there are fully-trained professionals down the road. Will Ukip put advisors into Muslim foodbanks, or do they think Christians would object?

Overseas Aid: “..we will divert much of our overseas aid budget to help the desperate here in Britain, while continuing to fund vital programmes run by reputable organisations..” If the UK were already following Ukip’s policy of spending 0.2 per cent of GNI on Overseas Aid, this would mean in 2014 that we would have spent £3.37bn. They say they will continue to fund “vital programmes”, but by what criteria are these to be judged? What programmes would Ukip cut? What about education the world’s poorest children? Or job and economic growth-creating initiatives, designed to end aid dependency forever? Would they cut efforts to tackle corruption, promote property rights and support women and girls’ rights, including an end to practices like female genital mutilation and forced marriage? Charity doesn’t begin at home if your neighbour is in crisis.

Asylum and Immigration? “We welcome controlled immigration, which we will manage through an Australian-style points-based system.” Fine. Good. But what is specifically ‘Christian’ about this? May not the mission-minded rather favour the polity by which the lost may wander across the border to seek salvation?

Church repairs? “14,500 churches in Britain are listed buildings. Church repairs used to be free from VAT, but in 2012 the Chancellor applied the standard rate of VAT, forcing up bills for parishes and communities nationwide. UKIP will cut VAT back to just 5% to help maintain our churches as both heritage buildings and vibrant, thriving places of worship.” O dear. Pitching for the Christian vote with an appeal to church repairs is desperate stuff, especially when Ukip omits to explain that as recently as March George Osborne awarded a £30 million funding package for listed buildings, of which the Church is receiving around £19 million, with a second round of £25 million to open for 2015-16. ChurchCare, the buildings division of the Church of England, welcomed the grants for 372 parish churches and said that this would make an “immeasurable” difference to local communities. This more than offsets any imposition of VAT.

All in all, Ukip’s ‘Christian Manifesto’ is a narrow attempt to define the directions in which the Christian faith must express itself, based on a partial understanding of life and a flawed apprehension of the empirical situation. Christian judgment must be acute in the realm of political realism, and spiritual insights must be incarnational if society is to be transformed. It may be helpful (and necessary) to draw attention to some dire situations and moral concerns, but it is clear from this manifesto that Ukip lacks an understanding of ‘doing God’ in a context which requires a renewal of theological integrity and missiology to offer profound insights and radical solutions.

Further, there are (or ought to be) no ‘Christian issues’ which are not common to the whole of human identity. Shared human personal need should be the catalyst for a creative response, and that response may come from or be expressed by believers of all faiths and none. In a context of religious pluralism, increasing secularity and social fragmentation, you solve nothing by banging on about Judæo-Christian values when, in the last analysis, the term is foolishness to the Greeks.

  • Anton

    Your Grace does not by any chance have an affiliation with the Conservative party?

    The Tories under Cameron have proved themselves untrustworthy on many of the issues over which Your Grace claims that UKIP is similar. Give the choice between a proven liar and someone else I’d vote for someone else; who wouldn’t?

    Farage has bothered to mention the family, whereas Tory policy has done nothing to support it and it is that wolf in sheep’s clothing Ken Clarke who abolished the married persons tax allowance. Cameron has not reinstated it.

    As for criticising UKIP’s silence in the document over certain other issues, if these were included in the document then secular people would probably grumble that they felt excluded. The point is that this document is additional to UKIP’s manifesto, not a replacement for it.

    “Same-sex marriage: “We will not repeal the legislation.. but we will not require churches to marry same-sex couples.” How does this differ from Conservative policy, precisely? Churches already may not be required to conduct such services: the ‘quadruple lock’ ensures that no religious organisation or individual minister can be compelled to officiate”

    It differs in that the quadruple lock is worthless in the European Court of Human Rights, in which gay activists are planning a challenge. UKIP would cease to recognise that institution as having authority in the UK.

    • Linus

      After the election the ECHR will still have jurisdiction over the UK because Ukip isn’t going to form your next government. With the likes of you voting against the Conservatives, it’s more than likely that Labour supported by the SNP will.

      Will Labour defend the “quadruple lock”? Or will it simply circumvent the legal challenge by withdrawing the right of the clergy to register marriages? In order to be legally married, you’ll then have to go to a register office. You’ll still be able to have your superstitious church ceremony if you want one, but as it won’t have any legal effect, churches will not be obliged to offer it to same-sex couples. Problem solved.

      As this is the way things are done in most of the rest of Europe, it’s only a matter of time before the UK aligns itself with best practice. Clergymen should never be agents of the State in a secular society.

      • Anton

        You know what? I agree with you.

        • The Explorer

          Me too.

          • Jack doesn’t.

          • The Explorer

            Shh. If Linus thinks I agree with him, he’ll feel sure he must be wrong.

          • Malcolm Smith

            I don’t either. I consider that we should work to make the church the default marriage provider. And rather than clergymen being agents of the secular society, society should cease to be secular.

          • cacheton

            ‘I consider that we should work to make the church the default marriage provider.’

            Why? That would make it highly likely that in the not too distant future marriage would cease to exist because fewer and fewer people would get married!

          • The Explorer

            I’m with C S Lewis.

            “My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced on her by her own members.” That was back in 1942.

            The ongoing fight will be within the Church. I saw a discussion programme in which a lesbian vicar said she would be seeking to marry her partner in church. LInus’ solution doesn’t actually solve the problem. It kicks it one stage further down the road.

          • sarky

            Never gonna happen!

          • The Explorer

            Agreed. Not this side of the Second Coming. After that there will be a society of those who have responded to Christ. Those who still want a secular society will have their wish and be elsewhere.

          • cacheton

            Ah this elusive Second Coming. Which nobody can tell us anything about, except that certain people think they will ‘just know’ when it happens. Does it not worry you that in the First Coming hardly anybody recognised it, and those few who did were powerless to do anything about that Coming being (apparently) put to an end?
            Are you open to the possibility that the so-called Second Coming may take a form radically different to the First?

          • Anton

            Does it not worry you that globalisation and the return of the Jews to the Holy Land were prophesied 2000 years ago as imminent pointers to the Second Coming?

          • cacheton

            Why should anyone be worried about unconditional love? Shame there’s not much of that in the so-called Holy Land.

          • The Explorer

            Well, ‘Revelation’ 22:15 suggests that “sorcerers and fornicators, murderers and idolaters, and all who love and practise deceit” will have something to worry about. They will be outside. Unconditional love returns with conditions. Hey, that’s not my opinion; it’s what the Book says. Take it up with God. Hire a good human rights lawyer.

          • cacheton

            ‘Unconditional love returns with conditions. Hey, that’s not my opinion; it’s what the Book says.’

            Does not the most basic logic therefore tell you that your book cannot be entirely right, or at least has not explained this in a very appropriate or unambiguous way?

          • The Explorer

            Okay, let’s go back a bit.
            1. What is unconditional love?
            2. Where does it say that Christ will return with it?

          • cacheton

            1. God, divinity in its purest form, etc
            2. Christ was God incarnate, therefore how could he possibly not return with it, he IS it.

          • The Explorer

            Unconditional love means, “I’ll still love you whatever you are and whatever you’ve done.” That’s not at all the impression one gets from ‘Matthew’ or ‘Revelation’. Wheat is separated from weeds, sheep from goats. After the Second Coming there’s the Last Judgement, and the irrevocable division of humanity. There’s absolutely no sense of, “Hey, I love you all anyway. Let’s all go to Summerland.”

          • cacheton

            And might you be open to the fact that it is your impression that is wrong, and not the unconditional love? That this is in fact not to be taken literally, but as a guide for inner contemplation, that wheat, weeds, sheep, goats, second coming, last judgment and even humanity are all references to inner realities and not outer ones?

          • The Explorer

            No. Not because of my impression, but because of what Christ said.

          • The Explorer

            ‘Zechariah’ 14:4, ‘Matthew’ 24:30, ‘Acts’ 1:11, ‘1 Corinthians’ 15:50-54, ‘1 Thessalonians 4: 13-18’, ‘Titus’ 2: 13, ‘Revelation’ 19: 1-16. Some see The Rapture and The Second Coming a two different events. I don’t myself, but, either way, there’s plenty to be going on with.

            In the First Coming, Christ came as Man. With the Second Coming, Christ will come as God. The dramatist steps onto the stage. The play is over.

          • cacheton

            And if the God of the Second Coming does not take a physical form, how will anybody recognise it?

          • The Explorer

            “Every eye shall see him, including those that pierced him.”

          • sarky

            Woooh threats of hell again?

          • The Explorer

            What threats? Those who want a secular society (one without the presence of God) can have it. No pleasing some people.

          • CliveM

            Me neither.

          • David

            Me too.

      • Sigfridiii

        The State should not intervene in marriage, which is the province of religion. Quite frankly it should cease registering marriages altogether, and if people want some kind of legal recognition for their relationship, they could have a civil partnership.

        • Linus

          Marriage belongs to the State. It is no more than a legal recognition of a long term partnership between two individuals who wish to cohabit and form a household.

          Marriage does not belong to religion and has not done since the beginning of the modern era. In France the Church has had nothing to do with marriage for more than 200 years. Even in the UK it’s been several generations since the Church’s role in marriage was limited to acting as a registrar on behalf of the State.

          Have whatever tribal fertility ceremony you want in your temple, church or fane. It has no legal effect anyway. The only thing that actually marries you is your signature on the relevant State document.

          • Sigfridiii

            The state only took an interest in marriage in order to protect property rights, in Lord Hardwick’s Marriage Act of 1753. Successive Parliaments have interfered more and more to turn marriage into a state-sponsored legal partnership. It would be better if this was formally recognised by the State, and the arrangements provided at register offices were designated as what they are – Civil Partnerships – now also conferring passports as the chief prize for many.
            .
            Meanwhile the Church, which administered marriage for many centuries before Parliament came into being, will continue to solemnise and bless genuine marriage, as described in the Bible.

  • Dreadnaught

    Further, there are (or ought to be) no ‘Christian issues’ which are not common to the whole of human identity

    I like that.

    • magnolia

      What people need, and what they recognise that they need however are two entirely different things. Hence we see a nation in danger of being dragged into a needless third world war by the US where astonishingly the topic barely registers in the list of most discussed issues in a general election.

      Christian recognition of needs does differ in many cases, and whereas most people are unaware that VAT on repairs on churches is another hefty issue for those who take the responsibility for the whole community to keep those buildings up, for the community (or most of them), this is genuinely a major issue for those keeping up -often Grade 1 and 2 listed buildings- for the next generation.

      Of course if people were serious about environmental issues VAT on car repairs, washing machines, and fridges, for a start, need looking at, as to buy new rather than make do and mend becomes too quickly the cheapest option, which is bad on many levels.

      • Dreadnaught

        Are you sure the essential message of today’s topic doesn’t float just a little higher than ‘society’s’ simple material’needs and applications? At least I read it that way.

        • magnolia

          Yes, I am saying all people need Christ. Because of trauma, lack of education, or brainwashing, or other things, not all people realise that. Therefore the argument that all “Christian issues” are common to humanity is true in one sense, but in another is flawed, insofar as people do not care about things that they do not recognise. A compelling illustration of this is that although we might all be in danger of being vapourised within the next year if Victoria Nuland and her allies get their way and have a US and NATO war v Russia and allies, this has not passed into the awareness of the British people, who would at this rate be arguing about something minor like who should be evicted from the Big B(r)other house, or a penny on a pint of beer the night before vapourisation occurred.

          Not entirely dissimilar to the VAT on church repairs, which being regarded as the responsibility of the few bypasses most until the outraged demonstrations to save the local village church which happen far too late in the day. Not seen as a major issue by most in the country but seen as a major issue by PCCs & such, therefore valid in this angled one sheet of communication.

          • Dreadnaught

            I don’t ‘do’ God; but accept that I have a culturally English Christian core. Although I am concerned, I’m not too worried about a nuclear holocaust. If it happens, it happens. I hope is that I and my family get a direct hit. However the nuclear weapon deterrent factor has kept us safe so far and the military is not prepared to give that up.

          • magnolia

            I understand about the “direct hit” desire. But I am hoping there will be no hit, not on me, nor you, your family, nor even on the misanthropic French guy who posts here! I am afraid the neocons and Victoria Nuland and Obama are not totally sane and I don’t trust any of the Lib Lab Con lot not to poodle along wagging their tails ingratiatingly.

            I don’t understand how anyone can do inhumane and cheerfully will the death of thousands or millions and see it as collateral damage. Frankly I think few who post here would. Unfortunately these people do exist, and some in high office.

            Many in the present US administration apparently think they could win a limited war with Russia. Madness it is, and let us hope it never transpires, but just a few days ago a US General was calling for such a thing. Furthermore they still have Michael Aquino, who sane atheists would regard as bonkers and dangerous, and Christians as downright evil. There is a large intersect of agreement either way, and this guy is in strategy/intelligence circles!!

            I think UKIP has identified that war is of equal interest and not specific to Christians. Thus not covered in this piece of A4, but they are the only party who talks much about it.

      • cacheton

        ‘What people need, and what they recognise that they need however are two entirely different things.’

        Life is a Journey, you have to address/explore what you think/recognise you need – maybe to discover that in fact it is not what you need – first.

        Telling people that you know what they need better than they do is usually counter productive. Especially if you cannot coherently explain to them why they need it.

        • magnolia

          I agree 98%. And have no wish to force-feed anyone! Occasionally people need coercion, with the young, the unruly, the demented, the hallucinating and a few others, but that is exceptional. By and large people need only to be helped by others to see for themselves, and that is something we all need from each other.

          The distinction was actually made between what they need and what they recognise that they need because a manifesto, or a sheet of A4, which more properly this is, will always address the latter rather than the former, on a pragmatic level!

          Sorry, I do sometimes miss out connections, and dotting the “i” s and so on and sometimes that doesn’t communicate well.

    • cacheton

      So do I.

      I would appreciate a list of those ‘Christian values’ which Christians feel we should consider and which aren’t already embedded in society – therefore not at risk of being reversed by any party.

  • Orwell Ian

    Well Archbishop, from my perspective there is only one party defending Christian values, one that says it does but doesn’t and the rest are hell bent on marginalising them to extinction.
    There is only one party defending the nation from eventual subjugation by Brussels.
    There is only one party prepared to control our borders.
    There is only one party worth voting for.

    • Linus

      Great, another vote lost for the Conservatives! Labour’s chances of forming the next British government just took another small step forward. Hopefully there are enough of you to sap the Conservative vote just enough to put Red Ed in Number 10.

      Not that I really care who becomes prime minister of the UK. But a Labour victory will weaken your country considerably and could possibly even break it apart. That has to be good for French influence in Europe. Divide and rule…

      • bluedog

        French influence has been swamped by German influence. The EU doesn’t defer to Hollande but to Merkel. When we leave the EU the weakness of the French position will become apparent even to you, Linus. One can imagine a distraught and dishevelled Marianne pouring out her heart on the phone to Britannia, explaining that if the Boche don’t mend their ways yesterday she will leave home, taking the children too. But nowhere to stay…

        • The Explorer

          The name Hollande says something.

          • bluedog

            You mean Dutch-Deutsch spot the difference?

          • The Explorer

            Non-Gallic, either way.

        • Linus

          The German economy relies on exports and its biggest single export market in Europe is France. Germany also imports a huge amount from us. Our countries live in a symbiotic relationship where each nation uses its unique talents and capacities to support the other.

          If the UK leaves the EU it will be sad, because despite all your annoying characteristics and general boorishness, you’re still Europeans and even the unpopular kids on the block are still part of the community. But quite honestly, there are moments when you’re so unpleasant to deal with that the prospect of you leaving seems quite appealing.

          • CliveM

            Actually the UK overtook France in 2013.

          • Linus

            The UK and France constantly play leapfrig with each other when it comes to the economy. He UK’s ahead now but that could change quite soon. Next week in fact. Will there even be a UK this time next year? And what will Labour/SNP policies do to its currently relatively healthy economy?

            Don’t crow just yet. If the entire financial market collapses once more when Ms Sturgeon introduces her Sassenach Tax (a pound on every penny of City profits payable directly into the Scottish NHS’s bank account), you’ll be crowing in pain rather than joy.

          • CliveM

            I’m not crowing merely clarifying. Interestingly the UK is the euro zones second biggest market after the USA.

            Yes a fair bit of leapfrogging goes on.

          • bluedog

            Yes, export business accounts for 50% of German GDP, a considerable vulnerability. While the UK market represents just 6.2% of Germany’s exports, you are correct to say that France is the largest market, absorbing 8.8% of German exports. Allez Les Bleus, and congratulations on your selfless contribution to German prosperity.

          • Linus

            And Germany takes 15% of our exports, so it seems like a fair trade to me. Danke schön Deutschland for contributing so selflessly to the French economy.

            Britain only takes about half the value of exports from us that Germany does. There’s no choice really…

          • bluedog

            The result: UK unemployment 5.6%, France unemployment 10.6%.

          • Linus

            The result?

            Effective unemployment in the UK every bit as high as in France, but masked by the legalized form of indentured servitude you call the “zero hours contract”.

            The problem with the British is their propensity to believe their own propaganda. I suppose it’s unsurprising that it should be so easy to pull the wool over the eyes of citizens of a country that made its fortune from sheep farming. Clodhopping peasants have never been hard to fool…

          • bluedog

            It’s not going well, is it M.Linus? Instead of producing some data enabling you to refute my point about unemployment, you introduce a general point about a system of flexible employment in the UK without any attempt at substantiating its impact. If you feel that zero hours contracts are a cloak for unemployment you need to quantify the extent of these contracts within the UK labour market, with specific emphasis on those contracts that really did amount to zero hours work during the previous year. But you have not done this, and neither have you disputed the figures I quote. As French unemployment is 89% higher than UK unemployment, your failure to quantify the effect of zero hours contracts on UK unemployment figures negates your argument.

            As for the rest of your post, we are seeing just another exercise in windy rhetoric with bonus insults. And yet the French write songs about sheep!

            La mer
            Au ciel d’été confond
            Ses blancs moutons
            Avec les anges si
            purs
            La mer bergère d’azur
            Infinie

      • Dreadnaught

        Labour’s chances of forming the next British government just took another small step forward.

        Really? not so sure meself. Millerband snuggling up to Millionaire man o’ the proleteriat, Rusell ‘don’t vote’ Brand should be gold to the Conservative spin machine

        • Linus

          Look at the latest polls. Conservatives and Labour neck and neck and the SNP extending its already overwhelming lead in Scotland. Ukip languishing on a shade over 10% (which isn’t surprising given that in any group of ten people, there’s always one extreme right-wing nut job, therefore Ukip has reached the natural limits of its electorate) and Farage in real danger of not winning a seat.

          Unless the polls are completely wrong, which would be surprising considering that the margins of error are quite wide and even in the worst case scenario for the SNP, it still ends up holding the balance of power at Westminster, then come the election you’ll have critically unstable parliament with a minority government being propped up by greedy and self-interested nationalists.

          I wonder, might this not be a good time for our government to start thinking about liberating the Channel Islands…?

  • David

    Do I detect a slightly defensive approach with this article, towards the Conservative Party, as currently led by the oh so Christian David Cameron ?

    The crucial point with UKIP is that they are serious about ending political domination from the Humanist EU. This is the source of so many of the laws that are used to beat those Christians who are loyal, determined to reflect the faith in their daily lives. So for example the notorious trial of the N.I bakers, who declined to make the pro-gay cake, unfolds now even as we blog, all delivered courtesy of Mr Cameron’s “Conservatives”. This is but one, currently running, deliberate undermining of Christians today, as a direct result of the activities of the three establishment parties. Even Blair never went as far as Cameron’s Conservatives in redefining marriage !

    Ukip try to be different to that, defending freedom of conscience. Their attempts may be inadequate, even crass, as His Grace maintains, but they are the only party that cares a hoot about the freedom of Christians to live their lives, as Christians. Previously as an independent country our laws were not rammed down our throats from the Humanists of Brussels, as an attempt was made to reflect the Constitution, which includes the role of the Monarch, who was sworn to upheld the Protestant faith, and therefore, clearly The Bible, and its traditional interpretation.

    By all means Your Grace encourage people to vote for more laws based on Humanism if that is your wish, but the reality is, that UKIP is the only party in this election now, that will stand firmly for freedom for Christians to act upon their Christian consciences.

    • Linus

      Ukip! Ukip! Ukip!

      Come on all you Cranmerists, get out there and vote Ukip!

      So, when Labour gets in and Scotland decides to secede from the Union, who do you think will get all the overseas embassy properties? Perhaps like marital assets, they’ll have to be sold and the proceeds split between the divorcing couple.

      The British embassy in Paris is beautifully situated and would make fabulous condos. I have a friend who’s a property developer, so maybe I should tip him the wink so he can start working on a bid.

      • Cameron, Clegg, Milliband and Sturgeon – there is no difference to us any more. It will not stop the rot. Flip Flopping between Tory and Labour hasn’t worked for decades.

    • Dreadnaught

      People would have more time for Cameron if he wasn’t such a central office sock-puppet or is it an Aston Villa or West Ham non-fan? When he said that it was something of a Freudian slip, I think in his mind he was confusing Aston Villa with Aston Martin.

      • David

        “central office sock-puppet” – hilarious !
        But you’ve located part of his problem.
        What is it with his party ?
        They reject good, sound potential leaders, like David Davies (sp?) and pick twits, insincere twits at that, like Cameron !

  • Sybaseguru

    In High Peak we have an excellent Tory MP Andrew Bingham, who made a stand against Gay Marriage. Although I had intended to vote UKIP (thanks to Mr Cameron), I will vote tactically and support Andrew, at least that way we get a referendum on Europe.

    • Owl

      Do you believe that Dave will offer a Referendum without screwing it to get the result he has been told to get?

  • Andrew Hill

    Surely the Christian manifesto is meant to be read alongside the main manifesto, not instead of it? Which seems to deal with a central thrust of your argument. I have given up completely on the Conservatives and see UKIP as the last political refuge for anyone who supports the values that their manifesto documents are promoting. The Conservatives have had many opportunities in office to prove where they really stand from the time of the Heath(!!!) government onwards. However, apart from recovery under Thatcher, they have become almost perfect poodles for the implementation of the EU agenda which is making such disastrous inroads into the core values of this country. At least UKIP is acknowledging the existence of the Judaeo / Christian heritage!

  • David

    Electing as many UKIP MPs as possible may be the only way to prevent a coalition between those two socialist, anti-Christian parties Labour and the Vichy Conservatives. Even if they do form a coalition then UKIP’s MPs will be vital in providing the only effective opposition. Either way UKIP will have a key role in Westminster.

    If Scotland goes independent, which seems increasingly likely, again there’s a huge, growing role for UKIP to pull the H of C towards the independence for rUK position.

    What is happening in Scotland, covering the map with SNP, could well be catalyst that gives England, Wales and N.I. a push towards centre right politics with UKIP playing a major role.

    Vote UKIP ! No one else will fight for an independent UK or defend the Christian Constitution.

  • Philip___

    This must be about the stupidest post I’ve seen on this site. At last a major party unashamedly identifying with our JudaeoChristian heritage and Christianity in specific areas where it is being opposed.

    Christian values are for all and benefit all, not just Christians. And traditional marriage being the most basic institution on which society is built, is about the best example of how Christian values benefit all.

    There is a huge difference between Mr Cameron’s “Conservatives” and Nigel Farage’s sentiments. Cp and contrast:

    – UKIP would offer greater conscience protections to avoid workers with traditional beliefs being forced to act and endorse causes they profoundly disagree with. While Mr Cameron in a PMQ answer to a DUP MP, said the Ashers Bakery must “obey the law” i.e. prejudging the case as to what the law says, and by implication supporting the concept that Christians must be required to use their creative skills to promote beliefs and causes which are profoundly against their beliefs. And I recall Mr Cameron refused strengthened protections when the same-sex ‘marriage’ law was being rammed through Parliament

    – UKIP would indeed ensure churches are not forced to conduct same-sex ‘marriages’, while Mr Cameron has not promised to do anything to prevent the ECtHR overturning the churches ‘opt-outs’

    – Mr Cameron supported the law that has led to Christian B&Bs being targeted.

    – Mr Cameron, through his anti-Christian education secretary Nicky Morgan is conducting a campaign against Christian schools – even closed one. I understand none of the “Trojan Horse” schools have been closed.

    – Wherever there is a choice standing for Christian values and Christians and the demands of the homosexual lobby, we know which side Mr Cameron (and the other metropolitan ‘liberal’ establishment parties) stand.

    While I disagree that the same-sex ‘marriage’ law cannot be repealed – there should be no problem changing the law to be in line with what marriage actually is! – and while I’m not supporting UKIP this time (as my Tory MP is sufficiently conservative to warrant my support), it is refreshing to to see a major party standing for our Christian heritage and against the marginalisation of Christians, instead of siding with those who oppose it, as do the ruling metropolitan lib-left elite establishment parties’.

    So supporting our Christian heritage is another area where UKIP is different from the establishment parties. No wonder UKIP are so opposed by the establishment!

    And cp and contrast Mr Farage, who doesn’t claim to be religious but is taking a stand against the marginalisation of Christians and the erosion of our Christian heritage, and so-called “Christian” “Conservative” MPs who voted for SSM!

    • DanJ0

      “Christian values are for all and benefit all, not just Christians.”

      Benefit all? Hardly.

      • You will have to be a little more specific if we are to take your comment seriously.

        • DanJ0

          How will I cope if the plural you doesn’t take my comment seriously? 🙁

  • Saint Sean

    Why should I trust the Tories after the stunt they pulled during their last term in office? SSM came out of nowhere and was forced through against the will of he people. Now, here’s a party who actually seem to respect our beliefs as Christians, even going to the effort to produce this manifesto. I’d be happy to see a so-called Blukip coalition if it helps stem the tide of anti-christian bigotry running amok in Westminster.

    • DanJ0

      “SSM came out of nowhere and was forced through against the will of the people.”

      Except it wasn’t, according to many polls at the time.

      • Saint Sean

        But that’s not how democracy is supposed to work is it. If it had been in their manifesto then fair enough but it wasn’t. Opinion polls are neither here nor there, the point is that the British public had absolutely no say in the matter. It was imposed on us. And it’s not as if we’re talking about some minor issue here – this is about the wholesale redefinition of an institution ordained by God that is crucial for a healthy society. We mess with marriage at our own peril.

        • DanJ0

          Clearly it isn’t against the will of the people, given that almost all opinion polls showed support for it. You know that the government is a coalition, right? We don’t have the government the people as a whole voted for. Actually, that’s true in all recent elections as the majority of the people didn’t vote for the ultimate winner, which calls into question whether any recent government has a mandate to implement its manifesto. Also, the government isn’t bound to legislate only within the scope of their manifesto, or in this case multiple manifestos. As for an institution ordained by your god, that’s a religious faith statement which many people reject by virtue of their lack of belief.

    • Watchman

      It did not come out of nowhere – it came from the Prime Minister’s wife on behalf of her brother, Rob Sheffield who is homosexual.

      • Saint Sean

        As I said, it came out of nowhere. That tells me all I need to know about the self-serving, people-pleasing chameleon that is David Cameron.

        • Watchman

          I don’t have a problem with that!

  • doctordeb

    Perhaps the reason the UKIP Christian manifesto does not have a version re other religions is because those (except perhaps for Judaism) are not under threat by our current government and the liberal humanist mainstream media. Whereas Christians and Christian values are. The Christian manifesto does not address all it could and include all the issues that Christians would want to consider re their general election vote but there is plenty in the UKIP manifesto that does– or in more detail, eg the UKIP policy on sex education in primary schools. Neither does the Christian manifesto give examples of how the other parties are or aren’t doing to protecting our Judaeo-Christian heritage; it states what UKIP believes and what UKIP will do.
    I agree with other correspondents; Your Grace is being defensive and his quibbles miss the point. We need unequivocal statements from the Church and politicians re their attitude to the upholding of the Christian faith but too often we get vagueness and ambivalence, or antipathy. UKIP has been bold enough to state clearly its position and for that is to be commended.
    I’ve been a UKIP member for nearly nine years and am very glad to see how the party has matured and grown and how it is challenging the other parties. And now not just over political matters; UKIP has highlighted the contrast between its leadership and that of the other parties when it comes to matters that concern Christians. ABCranmer wants to stick up for the Conservatives.Well, I used to stick up for them too, as a party that was at least ‘Christi-oid’. But David Cameron’s leadership has left me feeling very disillusioned.
    from the Church and politicians

    • cacheton

      Please could I have an example of where/in what way Christians and Christian values are under threat from our government?

      • alternative_perspective

        What about the various individuals standing up for liberties who have been actively pursued by the government, all the way to the EU courts; only for the judges to throw the government’s pursuits out.

        http://www.christianconcern.com/cases

      • dannybhoy

        Same sex marriage would be one.
        Another would be the (deliberate) attacks on Christian businesses.
        Even though I agree that as businesses they have no right to conscience under the law, if our politicians really did value our Christian heritage they would have insisted on such a clause..

        Then there was the banning of crosses in workplaces (notice that no tv presenter now wears a cross) the banning (for a time at least) of Christmas cards and Christian festivals “so as not to cause offence.”
        Then the last thread about the CofE proclaiming Muhammed a prophet, followed by a prayer in Turkish.
        Just that act devalues and insults the King of Kings who said “No man cometh unto the Father but by me” and who is the Son of God..
        So even our own Church leadership is betraying the King they profess to serve…

        1 Corinthians 14:8 (KJV)
        ” For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?”

        • cacheton

          ‘Even though I agree that as businesses they have no right to conscience under the law, if our politicians really did value our Christian heritage they would have insisted on such a clause..’

          So you are effectively saying that they should have a right to discriminate because they are a certain type of Christian. A Christian who loves his neighbour as himself would not need that clause. One could therefore argue that the law in this case is actually encouraging these people to be better Christians. The state is doing the Church’s work for it!!

          • dannybhoy

            Whatever.
            I don’t do ‘pink and fluffy touchy feely’ Christianity.
            I see no real difference between them and humanists and ‘really really nice’ people..
            I grew up in an era when shops were shut on a Sunday and we had Christian acts of worship even in infants school.
            I don’t remember any church leaders interpreting love your neighbour as accepting anything anybody feels like doing.
            That’s not Christianity.

          • cacheton

            Apart from the obvious ‘What is Christianity then’ question, if you set up a business making cakes for anyone who wants one and will pay for it, you think the business should have the right to pass judgment on the reason why the client wants the cake.
            Otherwise it is not a business serving everyone is it, and that would not be Christian.

          • The Explorer

            It would be un-Christian to produce a cake for a Satanist.

          • dannybhoy

            Do satanists eat cake? I know they like eggs..

          • The Explorer

            Haven’t you heard of devil’s food cake?
            A Christian would have two problems with a Satanist cake’
            1. Some of the ingredients.
            2. The occasion on which it would be eaten.

          • cacheton

            It would be unChristian for a Christian not to love his Satanist neighbour as himself.
            Blimey guys do you really not see the division here – me good he bad. My occasions good his occasions bad. What do you think Jesus came to earth to teach us?

          • CliveM

            If I asked for a cake saying ‘N”£&&#s out” would refusing to sell that be saying me good, you bad? Would that be failing to love your neighbour?

          • cacheton

            Yes, to the first question. And the law would be in your favour, for obvious reasons I hope.

          • CliveM

            So in short it is permissible to judge behaviour. Let’s change the question a bit now. Let the cake say: “repatriate illegal immigrants now” perfectly legal sentiment. No threat of violence. Should the baker be allowed to reject and ‘judge’ in these circumstances?

            You see I think you are as judgemental as others, you just have a different list.

            For what it’s worth if I was the baker I’d refuse.

          • cacheton

            But why would you refuse?

            Maybe all bakers should put up signs in their windows saying ‘We reserve the right to refuse to make certain decorations due to our own personal convictions’, or ‘no political, religious or sexual statements allowed’. At least it would be clear. But probably not good for business.

          • CliveM

            Except where it is discriminatory a business is allowed to refuse to trade with whoever they want.

            I find it interesting, considering your concern for ethical business, that you are so laissez faire about this.

          • magnolia

            Loving your Satanist neighbour would not include endorsing his worst self-destructive behaviour, now would it? Just like loving your alcoholic neighbour would not be giving him several crates of whiskey as a Christmas present? Now a basket of exotic fruits, or the offer of a lift to Alcoholics Anonymous a different matter.

            One guy who claims to have been a Satanist claims his life was turned around from the time he got a cheque he had written to the Church of Satan which a Christian bank employee had written “I will be praying for you” on. Now that is an appropriate gift!

          • cacheton

            We are talking about a business here, not gifts, or claims to be helping correct self-destructive behaviour.
            Some people see adhering to a religion with a restrictive belief system as self-destructive/restrictive.

          • magnolia

            And I would agree that some religions are restrictive. However people who say that about Christianity have usually imbibed too much Kinsey report, and show a marked reluctance to show self-restraint in predominantly the sexual area, or to give up being noticeably selfish in their relations towards others.

            You raised the interesting point that this rarely pertains to their monetary activities, and I would agree that that is a bit nonsensical. Also it rarely applies to rather a lot of the ten commandments, which is again a cultural oddity.

            As to it just being business, Christianity does not perceive morality as stopping at the door of the business, though some Christians do. In fact some people who may or may not be Christians refuse to serve customers who are self-destroying. Pubs who refuse to serve alcoholics are a case in point. So are old people’s homes who refuse to serve cake to diabetics. In fact there are probably many instances as in some cases it is common sense, even if Government would probably consider some complex wrongly-principled law to stop them or make them fill in forms in triplicate at cost to allow them!

          • The Explorer

            If you love your Satanist neighbour, you won’t bake his cake if it is to celebrate an anti-God occasion. Teaching wasn’t Christ’s primary reason for coming to Earth. Christ rejected Satan three times. Wasn’t it very un-Christian of Christ to reject his neighbour’s offers?

          • cacheton

            I am sure your biblical knowledge is far greater than mine, but are you referring to the temptations? How are those ‘offers’?
            Christ being unChristian – I like that. How about Christians being unChrist-like, which I see as being the more appropriate way round to put it.

          • The Explorer

            “All these I will give you.” Sounds like an offer to me.

          • cacheton

            And how do you know he was referring to outer and not inner things?

          • The Explorer

            ‘…and showed him the all the kingdoms of the world in their glory. “All these I will give you…”‘ If you manage to get inner things out of those I’d say you’re misreading the plain sense of the text. (I’m not a postmodernist, by the way; so I believe that misreadings are possible.)

          • cacheton

            I absolutely do get inner things out of that, yes. And the All these I will give you is a statement of fact – you do not have to do anything or believe anything to get these things – it is not an offer it is the end result of the inner path towards christhood.

            But I don’t think the church is interested in christhood – it has to teach that christ and god are somewhere outside of you and that you have to do certain things and believe certain things to find favour with them, otherwise it fears you may not need it any more.

          • The Explorer

            According to traditional interpretations, there are two points about this episode.
            1. How come Satan is in a position to offer Christ the kingdoms of the world? Supports Christ’s view of Satan as “the prince of this world” through usurpation.
            2. Christ did have to do something. The basis for getting the kingdoms was to fall down and worship Satan. Christ, of course, refused. The kingdoms continue under Satan’s nominal control until such time as Christ returns as ‘King of Kings and Lord of Lords’ and brings Satan’s rule to a final end.

          • cacheton

            I thought All these i will give you was Christ talking, not Satan. As I said, you biblical knowledge is far greater than mine. And I know that Christ does say that in some passages.

            1. He isn’t. That’s the point isn’t it – why would you listen to him and believe anything he says?
            2. Well of course Christ refused – wouldn’t you? He is being the example of not listening to Satan or believing anything he says, even if Satan promises the Kingdoms of the World. Of course you have to recognise him first.

            Bit like investing in companies whose activities you know are destroying the planet and exploiting the poor – you make money, but at what cost? You aren’t voting UKIP or Tory are you Explorer?

          • The Explorer

            Put it this way. I’m not voting Green.

          • dannybhoy

            We are talking specifically about militant homosexuals targetting Christian businesses here and overseas and asking (quite lawfully) for something that as Christians they may not support.
            They should have the right to refuse to do that in my view.

          • Shadrach Fire

            A business denying a service in order not to deny their faith has nothing to do with loving your brother. The proprietor is just being obedient to their faith not to promote another religion or denying their own. Then again, it is to do with loving their brother in that they don’t want to see their brother stumble by supporting their belief.

          • cacheton

            Imagine if everybody thought like that. Everybody would have to go to shops whose owners and workers think like they do in order to buy anything. We would have thought police on the door of every supermarket ‘No you can’t come in here if you believe in god x instead of god y’. That would promote division and war. Is that what you want?

    • David

      Well said, fellow ex-Conservative and now Kipper.

  • cacheton

    Could someone give me an example of a Judæo-Christian value that is not already embedded in the law of this country, but should be, and the reason why? Please.

    In the bible doesn’t it caution against borrowing money, lending money, charging for loans that have been conjured out of thin air, which is what banks do? Why is this not what one thinks of first when ‘Christian values’ are mentioned? All too busy worrying about who is having sex with whom, when etc.?

    Only the Greens have committed to changing the way money is created.

    • carl jacobs

      Only the Greens have committed to changing the way money is created.

      That might have something to do with the fact that the Greens are economically illiterate.

      • cacheton

        And your objection to having money created by the government instead of private banks is …?

        • carl jacobs

          You’re kidding, right?

          Hey, if you want to blow up the Fractional Reserve Banking System and turn yourselves into the economic equivalent of North Korea, be my guest. I’m sure there is a great future in subsistence agriculture food communes.

          • cacheton

            No, not kidding.
            I wonder what Christianity would look like if it took the same disregard for biblical teaching on homosexuality as it does on money. Please enlighten me as to how it decides what to follow and what not to follow!

          • carl jacobs

            The supply of our national currency must be fully restored to democratic and public control so that it can be issued free of debt and directed to environmentally and socially beneficial areas such as renewable energy, social housing, or support for community businesses.

            This from the Green Party Motion on Massively Contracting the Economy Banking Reform. Just what we need. A bunch of bureaucrats attempting to “direct” the activities of the market into “socially beneficial areas.” There is a word for that idea in the English language, I think.

            So where is the parallel Green Party Motion on “Preventing Capital Transfer and Emigration by Coersion and Force”? Because that piece will be necessary to impose this little idea. Have you started planning the formation of the Secret Police and the Border Patrol yet?

          • cacheton

            I see you must be one of those who agrees that the unregulated and irresponsible activities of the market should direct the bunch of bureaucrats.

            That’s a Christian value is it?

          • carl jacobs

            This isn’t about money or banking reform. It’s about control. The banks have a lot of money, and they focus it in areas that the Green Party doesn’t like. The banks pay attention to the Market, after all, and to the Green Party that is the problem. Socialists don’t trust the market. The purpose of this “reform” is to remove the banks from financing so that only the Socialist Gov’t can act as financier. Good plan. What could go wrong?

            Besides famine, I mean?

          • cacheton

            Well actually my original point was about money creation, not financing. What could go wrong if the government created all the money, instead of 97% being created by banks?

            I think most people see paying attention only to the Market as a problem, because most people recognise that it encourages exploitation of the poor, destruction of the planet, climate change, greater inequality etc – all those anti Christian values!

            The banks would be able to do what they want with money they actually already have, they just wouldn’t be able to create more of it out of thin air and charge you and me for loans of this magic money, using this charge to finance all those unChristian things.

            Why aren’t Christians voting Green?

          • CliveM

            Because what they propose to do will create unemployment and poverty. Creating the worst economic mess outside of North Korea, is also not a Christian value.

          • cacheton

            I disagree that it will create those things. I think that it what is called ‘irrational fear’. You would be best advised to vote for a party whose policies are based on that.

          • CliveM

            In what way irrational. Simple starter they will shut down the UK defence industry. That will impact on a significant element of UK manufacturing.

            They will restrict credit. Credit is the lifeline by which Companies and Businesses operate.

            They will raise Corporation tax. That will dissuade overseas companies from locating here. This will also impact existing businesses.

            The Green economic policy is a fantasy.

          • The Explorer

            Clive, be warned. Discussion with Cacheton is like a wrestling match with a jellyfish.

          • CliveM

            Explorer

            I’m bowing out now. I know where this is going to go. Repeated appeals with regards the supposed ‘morality’ of the Greens Policies (all you need is lurv, lurv, lurv is all you need etc), with no attempt to give a rational underpinning as to why this time, in this country, this hotch, potch of economic fantasies will work.

            But then frankly, that wouldn’t be possible.

            Did you see his Graces order of service with regards yesterday’s topic?

          • The Explorer

            That’s where it’ll go by a circuitous route. No I didn’t see it. Where is it?

          • CliveM

            Not far down the blog. It answers the question as to who said the prayer. I have also posted that info to you.

          • The Explorer

            Thank you.

          • cacheton

            It sounds as if you think this will all happen tomorrow. All at once.

            And that nothing will be created in its’ place.

            And that the result will not also have positive results, more in line with Christian values of preservation and equality.

            It’s called change.

          • carl jacobs

            Why aren’t Christians voting Green?

            Because the Greens are a party of granola-eating Socialists who think the NHS can be sustained by a national economy of goat farming?

          • cacheton

            This started from a conversation about Christian values. It seems to have turned into an election bash.

            Seriously, which party’s policies best reflect the core Christian values of loving one’s neighbour as oneself and taking care of God’s creation?

            Reading this thread, where the comments are made mainly by Christians, you would think that they do not actually believe this is possible!

          • carl jacobs

            You are the one who introduced the concept of demolishing the banking system to the thread. You are the one who asked why Christians weren’t voting Green. You drove this conversation. I just answered your questions.

          • cacheton

            How did you get from ‘money creation’ to ‘demolishing the banking system’? Just because they would no longer have the ability to create money does not mean they would no longer be needed. Money needs managing. Are you a banker or something?

          • carl jacobs

            Cacheton

            No, I am an Engineer. That means I have a natural aversion to budgets and accounting and all things monetary. But I understand that banks are not going to play in this new environment you would create. They won’t be able to make money and they won’t suffer the opportunity cost. That means they will either go out of business or move. They will NOT adapt to the new environment.

            Capital is extremely mobile and you cannot conceive how fast it will react. The new Gov’t will lose control before it even takes power. Businesses will lose access to credit. Loans will get called. The stock market will instantly crash. Inflow of investment will stop. It will get very bad very fast. And so the Gov’t will impose controls that will make things worse. You’ll end up with a non-convertible currency, no access to world markets, wide-scale business failure, wide-scale devaluation, unemployment, and economic depression.

          • CliveM

            And that the best case scenario.

          • cacheton

            You have still not got it. This is about CREATING money from nothing, not increasing the amount of money which already exists and which you already have, which of course banks or anyone else could still do.

          • carl jacobs

            And so to solve this “problem”, you would shoot the economy in the head so that in three days it may rise again. Except the economy wouldn’t rise again. It would remain in the tomb and rot.

          • cacheton

            What problem?
            How does changing the way money is created destroy the economy? I am still not convinced you have understood the difference between creating money and investing/saving/spending/growing money that already exists.

          • carl jacobs

            To be precise:

            1. I don’t think there is a problem.
            2. I don’t think that this proposal has anything to do with “money creation.” As I said earlier, I think it has it has to do with control.

            You need to get out of the world of academic papers and focus on what would happen if you tried to implement this plan. You would never be able to manage the transition. You would quickly have to do what every new Socialist nation always does – make it a crime to take capital out of the country. And then you would have to make it illegal for people to leave the country lest everyone with the ability follows their capital out the door. The East Germans didn’t put up the Berlin Wall to keep people out. The border guards weren’t shooting infiltrators trying to get into East Germany. They were keeping the Socialist serfs on the land.

            That’s what you will end up with, and in very short order. A nation of desperately poor serfs, and the secret police who rule them.

          • cacheton

            You don’t think there is a problem? Do we have a Tory voter here? I live in what must be one of the safest Tory seats in the country, in the well off south, in a large village of 6-7000 people, where a couple of years ago we had to start a food bank which is still active. My MP does reply to emails, but evades giving coherent answers, giving the impression he does not really understand any issues at all.

            I really do not see how all you mention has anything to do with the way money is created. Capital has to exist before it can be moved anywhere! Google the Positive Money website – maybe one of their videos will explain properly. A couple of them are made by children, who understand this better than my MP does!

          • The Explorer

            cacheton should have called himself Will-o’- the-Wisp: leading you away from the safe path into the swamp.

          • Phil R

            It is incredible but we seem to be witnessing an American Christian who is “evolving” to understand both humour and irony.

            I always thought that both concepts were completely absent in American Christians until today.

            Keep going…I even found the above funny. Not Inspector funny, but getting there.

          • carl jacobs

            You realize what you have done, don’t you? Jack is going to take credit for this.

          • magnolia

            I agree in part with you on this one. Central banks have been greatly at fault, and the whole private central bank money printing cartel has much to answer for. As for all this QE and not letting the banks fail, and propping up misapplied capital, that is all rotten. But equally it is not the market.

            I am not in favour of unregulated markets, but largely free ones need to happen. I would favour regulation to slow down the markets, as they are too much like a casino at present, and to severely curb shorting, and severely tax spread-betting, at present untaxed. It is iniquitous for people trying to get companies started to have to spend time trying to outwit “short and distort” and talk down and spreadbet against them outfits, as otherwise beneficial companies could be taken down in this way, which does not serve the public’s interest.

            But it is entirely reasonable for governments to take back the issuance of money, which issuance needs to be restricted. At present those near the money tap benefit, and we need industries that add value, and risk-takers that back them, not gamblers who just redistribute value. It is the second half of the green party’s sentence where it all goes a bit wrong-headed!

          • cacheton

            What would be unChristian about directing money to environmentally and socially beneficial areas such as renewable energy, social housing, or support for community businesses.

            What is Christian about directing money to exploitation of the poor, destruction of the planet, to the pockets of people who already have millions and out of the pockets of people who have next to nothing?

          • magnolia

            Nothing would be per se unChristian about these things, but I know that we define them differently, so I know what they are meaning, but disagree either with their unrealistic expectations of the technology (renewable energy- not sufficiently productive, kills birds, not enough silver in the world, and the greens are anti-mining anyway, solar panels’ life span, wind turbines ruin landscapes), or their view of what is “environmentally ..beneficial”. I am all for saving wildflowers and as many native species as possible, excluding vile ones like slugs snails and kinky ugly things that live in the sea that no one cares about except David Attenborough, but manmade global warming is a well proveable scam that big time scamsters, like your rogue bankers have been behind from day one. Maurice Strong, in communication with the Risen Masters of the Universe, (I kid you not) and the Rothschild sponsorship, in big from the start.

            What else do we know? Let’s see. People jetting off round the world to warn people of the dangers of jetting off round the world. The hockey stick that wasn’t. The medieval warm period under dispute, and buried assiduously. Still there in some textbooks, still there in the eyewitness accounts, still there in the tree rings, but on google you would probably need to go down several pages. Then there was climategate. Then there is Prince Charles with his carbon neutral lifestyle. And the fact that the graphs show cause and effect happening ..um…the wrong way around. The small matter of the amount of Co2 given off by the sea and volcanoes…The worldwide flooding that was supposed to happen but never did. And…and…and…

            And we Christians are sometimes called gullible.

            Be duped if you wish. I don’t wish.

          • CliveM

            Never underestimate a politicians ability to piss money up against a wall for no nett benefit.

          • The Explorer

            It would look like liberal theology. The tradition on homosexuality that started with Sherwin Bailey in 1955.

      • Dreadnaught

        They would also crap their pants if they became the Government. And so would I.

        • CliveM

          Well one way of explaining their one in, all in immigration policy is that they would need to make up for everyone who was desperately leaving. Not sure we would be replacing the fleeing Doctors, Teachers, Engineers and Scientists with like however.

          • Dreadnaught

            I think it quite immoral that we denude other less well-off countries of their talent when they are the real answer to their own nations’ poverty or inefficiency. The fact that we have a health service for instance, that is asked to deliver far, far more than was ever envisaged by the 1948 Act does not mean in my opinion that we should not provide for it with home grown medics, nurses and ancillaries and cut back the like of vanity surgery and free abortions. Oops – I’ve said the ‘A’ word

          • dannybhoy

            Absolutely.
            We steal and entice other country’s trained staff in order to keep our NHS afloat. That is immoral.

          • Dreadnaught

            Enough of this Bromance my man – people are beginning to talk! Lets get back to normal hostilities asap.

          • dannybhoy

            Oh sh** yer b** g** why doncher..?
            ” *” ” ^”” ” ” !!¬!!!!!! ?????????
            “for good measure)

          • cacheton

            I agree. But nobody is saying anything about why we do not have the trained staff here in Britain, yet there are plenty of unemployed people. Elephant in room.

          • sarky

            Cuts, cuts and more cuts. Then if the tories get back in cuts, cuts and more cuts.

          • CliveM

            I agree. I have to say my personal experience of some of these overseas nurses is not entirely positive.

    • Anton

      Agreed. Too bad about their tax-and-spend policies though.

  • carl jacobs

    This looks like a targeted campaign missive to me. UKIP asks some consultant “What do they care about?” And the consultant says “Focus on the tender policies of maternity and pastoral care. [Great phrasing btw.] They are mostly women.” So UKIP writes a letter targeted at the expected concerns of your average Christian voter. Except they punted on the two most important issues.

    This is a condescending and insulting letter. It actually indicates a lack of engagement with the subjects of the letter. It is pure manipulation.

    • dannybhoy

      Except that most people are not practicing Christians. This charter is aimed at your average indigenous Brit who whilst he/she may no longer believe or go to church, nevertheless recognises and values our Christian heritage, and all that comes with it. Further, they have no wish to see a non Christian faith with its places of worship and strange customs springing up all over our country.
      So as a Christian and a UKIP member I see it totally differently.
      No one else is sticking up for our culture and our heritage, even though we remain 80% native white British.
      And I say ‘white’ British because that’s the colour we and all Europeans happen to be. Nothing to be ashamed of there unless your conscience is so overheated that you feel you should apologise for simply everything!

      • Dreadnaught

        Ah dannyboy – you’ve been reading my post again.

        • dannybhoy

          Sorry,
          have you already said that?

          • Dreadnaught

            not in the same words – the same sentiments.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    I’m glad to see one of the main parties finally speaking up for Christians in this country. None of the other parties have done so. They won’t even utter the word “Christian” much of the time”. I don’t think even Justin Welby has come out in support of religious freedom for British Christians the way Nigel Farage has. Whether one likes his style or not, Farage is saying the things other politicians are too afraid to say. I’m sure that if Cameron had written that manifesto then the tone of this article would have been very different.

  • Maalaistollo

    When a Christian seeks to serve a particular manifestation of secular power, notwithstanding its evident antipathy towards what is conventionally understood to be Christian morality, it is interesting to consider the (almost) final words of another Tudor Archbishop, reflecting on what such support had eventually brought him: ‘If I had served God as diligently as I have done the King, he would not have given me over in my grey hairs.’ Supporting any anti-Christian party (and UKIP appears to be the only one that is not) will undoubtedly yield its own reward.

  • IanCad

    I do hope some Conservatives, tempted to retreat to the populist UKIP, will change their course upon reading this.
    True, the leadership of the Tories is hopeless but it is what we have at present.
    There has to be reform.
    Mature men of experience are needed.
    David Davis fits the bill.

    • dannybhoy

      I agree on David Davis Ian, but what we really need to do is break the cosy twosome club at Westminster and bring in more credible alternatives and democracy.

      • David

        Exactly ! The cosy cartel has worked against our interests.

    • Shadrach Fire

      Cameron has to be punished for what he has done to mankind.

    • CliveM

      I think people need to remember this is about a country not an individual.

      • Dreadnaught

        The Con Lab election programme is decidedly and increasingly presidential in character and hammed up to the nines by the political equivalent of the Chuckle Brothers but without the canned laughter. I don’t think anyone of a certain age will find this at all appealing or British – too American by far. This is why Farage and Sturgeon stand out spectacularly against the stage managed dross of the PPBs I’ve seen thus far.

        • CliveM

          Well I’m not going to defend or praise any of the campaign. In my ever so ‘umble opinion, this election has hit a new low.

          • Little Black Censored

            ‘Umble perhaps, but not so humble.

    • David

      Mature men of experience are needed, that’s undoubtedly necessary, but not sufficient. Some sense of principle, of “conservatism” and with an understanding of our history are also very necessary qualities, and few in the contemporary Conservative Party have that.

    • They turned down David Davis. Choose the heir to Blair instead. That speaks volumes to the public.

  • David

    Are committed Christians, who don’t support the most pro-Christian party (UKIP) but continue supporting one of the clearly anti-Christian establishment parties (or Greens, or Plaid, or SNP ) and therefore bring us, the anti-Christian Humanism based laws originating from the EU, more in love with a political affiliation, and therefore their self-image and world view, than their Saviour ?
    Pause for breath and bugger off, to visit the sick…. as it happens !

    • Shadrach Fire

      I have had digital conversations with ‘Christians’ in the greens, Lib Dems, Labour and conservative. They all ignore the anti-christian aspects of their parties policies only to support their other ‘good’ issues. I have never understood it.

      • David

        Exactly ! I don’t expect all Christians to vote for the same party, migrating from one party to another like a shoal of fishes, but it’s their blindness to the clearly anti-Christian aspects of these parties that amazes me. But then just look at the tribal (?) loyalty exhibited in His Grace’s article here today !
        My theory is that voters generally, Christians included, just zero in on certain policies, or even associations, that attract them and make no effort to try to judge the overall effect that their party of choice would have on the country as a totality. In other words the psychological process of selecting a party to support, is both shallow and partial. As someone with a strong dose of strategy in me, I find that very disappointing, as they are being essentially, well used for furthering an overall philosophy that is often severely anti-Christian. At least with the Greens their anti-Christian agenda is so strong it is very apparent.

    • dannybhoy

      I have no great problem with other Christians who support other political parties. If they can offer credible reasons why they do then that’s between them and the Lord.
      My/our vicar is very much a socialist, and we have some quite lively discussions about politics.
      I certainly wouldn’t support UKIP if I thought its ‘real agenda’ was a racist and divisive one.
      But that it encourages people to believe in Britain, regain national sovereignty and stand up for our heritage, I find strangely refreshing..

    • CliveM

      I have heard my whole life from one side and now the other that voting Conservative is in-Christian. I didn’t listen when Labour supporters said it, I’m not going to listen when UKIP supporters say it.

      I find the self righteousness of people who strike these positions as frankly Pharasistical.

      • Little Black Censored

        Call me old-fashioned – I just happen to like good things.

  • Shadrach Fire

    How does this differ from Conservative policy, precisely?

    Philip wrote an excellent post earlier and this line, being the predominant phrase of the post shows Cranmer’s undying support for the Conservative party (no matter what they do).

    I supported them too, right up to the last election from around 1988. They had a core belief that I believed was the right way to govern the country. If I had seen, like so many other voters, what Cameron was going to do, no way would I have voted for them. Their inconsistency was unbelievable. Here in the UK they were saying they will support Christians in their belief and in their work place. At the very same time, British officials were at the Court of Human Rights opposing Christian applicants in their attempt to seek redress.

    It is very clear that what one person believes is the way that a Christian should live and legislate for our country, can be very different from another persons view. So what causes some good Christians to deny their faith and follow party policy?

    Basically there are no longer sufficient numbers of Christians to enter politics and make a difference. (There are no longer sufficient Christians in the land!). So what comes first, the chicken or the egg when it comes to restoring a society that that is accommodating to the way a Christian should be.

    Others have written here that legislation should fit with all faiths and none. This has been a ‘Christian’ nation since the 8th or 9th century and our sovereign rules over her subjects as a Christian Monarch and her Government should follow in her tenets.

    I understand Cranmer’s position but how is the Conservative Party different from all the others? Considering their record with Cameron in charge, there is not a lot to chose between them.

    However one last point. If a person was guilty of murder, would you let them continue in their position just because they were seen to be good at it?

    • David

      Well said !
      You’ve followed a similar path to me.

  • Well, we know UKIP isn’t a Christian party and, in some respects, is using faith as a hook for preserving English identity. The question for Christians, it seems to Jack, is: does it matter? Will they help hold back the tide of secularism, multiculturalism and the marginalisation of Christianity? Even if they are elected in only a few seats, might national support for them cause the Conservative Party to remove David Cameron return to its true supporters?

    • dannybhoy

      That’s right, it’s not a Christian party, but it is a party which believes in self determination, creating a strong economy, training our own people to become doctors, nurses, engineers and scientists instead of enticing them away from their own country.
      UKIP believes in a strong military and a unified system of health and social care. If our country no longer matters, and its defence no longer matters because Brussels has taken over anyway, why don’t the other parties just admit it?
      Because they daren’t.

      • Dominic Stockford

        Unfortunately UKIP don’t really do God, they just talk about Him more than anyone else.

        • dannybhoy

          It was you I was thinking of Dommy!

        • Anton

          Cameron TALKS about him more, but he certainly doesn’t DO him.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Jack, as someone else said in this discussion, the other parties will do nothing to preserve freedom of conscience for Christians, in fact they seem to be doing all they can to marginalise them. UKIP has at least started saying the things the other parties are too afraid to say, because they are frightened to be seen to be “doing God”. If nothing else, UKIP has put some spotlight on the issue. Who knows, maybe even the Archbishop of Canterbury will start speaking up for Christians in the UK?

  • Would His Grace be so kind as to critique the SNP, Labour and Conservative
    manifestos in the same manner in which he’s dismantled the UKIP one?

    He knows how to deflate the sails and shred the hopes of UKIP members
    and supporters, pity he hasn’t done the same for the other three.

    Based on track records, Labour and Conservative are more likely to erode
    Christian values and lifestyle even further, whereas UKIP with no
    track record only vision are more likely to uphold and defend what we
    have left. Why!, if they get into office they are more likely to base
    their policies on these values than the others.

    Whilst the article highlights the similarities, the Conservatives are
    nothing but a bunch of lying spivs you know, busy bribing the
    taxpayers with our own money!

    • To His Grace’s (best) knowledge, none of the parties you identify have issued what purports to be a ‘Christian Manifesto’. Ukip’s General Election Manifesto has much to commend it. This one is just crass.

      • Well some might think it crass, but if as you say UKIP are the only party to have dared issue an idea of how they see Christian values fitting in to their vision in this current challenging climate, no need to give them a kicking for it.

      • Inspector General

        Crass defined as ‘grossly stupid’. Just can’t see it applies here. A re-assuring attempt, if you can find one word to describe that, would be more applicable…

  • The Explorer

    Where’s that Linus gone? Silence is ominous; he’s hatching mischief.

    • dannybhoy

      He’s probably preparing for his big day..
      “Don’t do it Linus!!”

      • The Explorer

        Linus believes in SSM. The main opposition, as he sees it, is from Christians. Two ways of dealing with that.
        1. Vote in anti-Christian parties to ensure Christians have no say in public decision making.
        2. Attack Christianity on blogs such as this in an effort to undermine the faith of individual believers and reduce the number of Christians in the world.
        The other driving force is hatred of all things English, especially the food. Sometimes I’m not clear without my nationality or my religion irritates Linus more.

        • dannybhoy

          Darn it Explorer, I was just about to question a particular word and I see you’ve already changed it!
          (How are you today anyway?)

          Imho Linus has had a very bad experience(s) with church people. I think he is very angry and uses his undoubted intelligence to attack us Christians.
          I think underneath the anger is a very nice chap and I quite like reading his comments.
          I don’t think he’s 100% French so there’s still hope, and anyway there are many things that the French do well -especially in family life and the use of alcohol that we would do well to emulate.

          (that’s 50 euros you owe me Linus)

          • The Explorer

            How am I? Ask me tomorrow: I’m seeing the specialist. He’s trying to ramp up my medication, as the body adjusts to increased dosages.
            Agreed that Linus is a nice chap really. It just wouldn’t do to tell him so.

          • dannybhoy

            I have the same thing with the COPD. I don’t think there is very much more that can be done medically, so my doctor allows me to ‘mess about’ with my medication. I change it from time to time to try and avoid the old bod getting too used to one particular inhaler or tablet; even though I know that I might going back to a medication that was not quite as effective as is the current one..

            Daft eh?

            I found this on youtube. A lady who was miraculously healed of cereal palsy. Most uplifting. I wonder what you will make of it?

          • The Explorer

            Hi Danny,
            Just been at hospital having blood tests etc for tomorrow.
            Thanks for the video link. Is her case genuine? I would say yes.
            There are to views about miracles of healing. a. They are ongoing. b. They may happen very occasionally, but by and large they ended with the end of the Apostolic Era. I’m with View b, but two thoughts about it.
            1. Where healing doesn’t happen it’s not for lack of faith. St Paul, after all, was not healed. The only promise is in relation to our resurrection bodies, not our mortal ones.
            2. I can see Christ setting the pattern for healing, carried on thereafter by medical training and research. There is no suggestion that Luke should give up being a doctor. Lazarus may have been brought back to life, but that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t sicken, age and die a second time. My problem, therefore, is not why everybody isn’t healed by faith healing; my question is why anybody is.

          • CliveM

            Same here. Also with regards the raising back to life of Lazarus and others.

          • dannybhoy

            It’s a whole minefield, isn’t it! Significant though that the lady heard from God that she should contact a church..
            I think that’s kind of key in her case. I found the vid so uplifting, because wherever we are theologically on healing our hearts are lifted when God moves..
            The thging that got me started (again ) on this though was watching a dvd called ‘Father of Light’ which the wife and I are buying so that we can share it with our home group..

            It involves this chap Todd White, ex druggie, thrown out of the marines etc.
            You can watch his testimony here

            (it’s pretty American!) but when you see how the Lord uses him in ministry, it really gets you thinking about your own position..
            I hope you get the time to watch it, I’s be interested to hear what you think.

          • The Explorer

            I’d say it’s pretty clear with me that such help as I get with my condition will be from the medical world. But that may be the medium through which God works. When Christians prayed for help, God sent Paul. And on one occasion, Paul was thwarted by Satan.

            Took a very quick look at the Todd video, but it’s nearly half an hour, and I don’t have the time, at the moment, to do it justice. I was reminded, at a glance, of Nicki Cruz from ‘The Cross and the Switchblade’.

            I think we all have different roles to play within the Body of Christ. I’d say you are more pastorally skilled than I am. I’d say my primary role is to defend the integrity of the Bible, and to challenge eccentric interpretations from those inside the Church and outside it.

            Regards. Hope your changes of medication help.

          • dannybhoy

            Thanks Explorer.
            Yes I think their experiences are very like Nicky Cruz and others of that generation.
            What we do know is that God honours those who step out for Him like for example General Booth and the Wesleys in winning souls to Christ.
            These chaps seem to have another dimension which includes healing as a part of that ministry, and perhaps that is how God works through them.
            As you say God obviously doesn’t heal everyone; Paul and of courseTimothy, so as I say it truly is baffling! Especially for those of us who have long term and debilitating conditions.
            Like you, I reflect a lot on these things, but the lady healed from Cerebal Palsy is truly amazing. I’ve worked with some people with that condition…

    • CliveM

      Don’t provoke the Hornets nest.

    • Pubcrawler

      Trying to find a Christian bakery that’ll refuse to make him a wedding cake.

      • The Explorer

        Either that; or he’s trying to find an original sin.

        • Pubcrawler

          Whereas Happy Jack (9/4 fav) was hobbling along at the back in the 8.00 at Lingfield.

  • His Grace wrote, “We welcome controlled immigration, which we will manage through an Australian-style points-based system.” Fine. Good. But what is specifically ‘Christian’ about this? May not the mission-minded rather favour the polity by which the lost may wander across the border to seek salvation?”

    In courteous response, the churches over the last 50 years have deemed support for large-scale society-transforming immigration to be a Christian imperative. In this I believe them to have wrongly conformed to secular political correctness rather than to Scripture. Verses such as Galatians 3:28 have been misused by the churches to claim that there is no problem at all with major migrant influxes (but this text is about who is in the covenant of grace, not about the make-up of nations).

    I would argue that it is indeed a specifically Christian concept for a nation to control its borders, because nations are a vital aspect of God’s appointed order for the world ever since the time of the Tower of Babel.

    In Deuteronomy 32:8 Moses tells us that, just as the Lord separated the nation of Israel, so He also ordained the independent existence of all the other nations. He declares, “The most High divided to the nations their inheritance … he set the bounds of the people”. So here is God’s own stamp upon the legitimacy of nationhood and controlled borders.

    Nor does the New Testament reverse the ordinance of nationhood, as Acts 17:26 make clear.

    Of course, we all agree on the urgency of preaching the Gospel to as many people as possible, but with regard to mass immigration creating evangelistic opportunities, we must respond that our Lord’s injunction is, “Go ye into all the world” (Mark 16:15). It is not, “Get all the world to come to you”.

    There is simply no New Testament teaching which demands the eradication of nationhood and national identity in order to facilitate evangelism.

    Yours in friendly discussion, Pastor Peter Simpson.

    • David

      Well said Peter !

  • Dominic Stockford

    Vote for the Christian Party, or the Christian People’s Alliance, if you really want a Christian view on things to be heard in Parliament. And if you live in Twickenham constituency I know the CP candidate to be a very reasonable chap.

    • Shadrach Fire

      We need MP’s of the caliber of Wilberforce. People with grit in their teeth and compassion in their soul. Believing Lawyers, respected Doctors, intellectual all-sorts and any manner of mankind that can add to the debate and can be regarded by all as eminently capable of maintaining the country in a manner that regards the word of God as important in all things.

    • Anton

      Was Jesus a “very reasonable chap” Dominic?

      • Dominic Stockford

        He was always utterly honest and fair. He never judges unjustly, condemns unreasonably, or fails to help anyone who asks him, sincerely, for his help. The very epitome of reasonableness.

        • Anton

          I’m implicitly condemning the word “reasonable”, not our Lord Jesus Christ, Dominic!

    • bmudmai

      The CPA are a bit bonkers though. Well intentioned I’m sure, but nonetheless the policies are badly thought out and make them unvoteable.

      Plus they always remind me of Monty Python and the Judean people’s front! The only people we hate more than the Romans are the **** Judean People’s Front…

      We just need a People’s alliance of Christianity and the Christian People’s Popular Alliance…

      • Dominic Stockford

        1. That’s why I’m in the Christian Party.
        2. The CP and the CPA are entering discussions about joining together after the election.

  • Cranmer, you are typically clever, erudite & insightful. However, around elections you become a Conservative party political ass of the highest order.

    You write a blog, day-in & day-out which draws out religio-political ideas. Yet because UKIP have dared to address some of these issues in a “manifesto” you condemn them in some highfalutin mumbo-jumbo that’s worthy of the old Archdruid of Canterbury.

    I for one applaud UKIP’s willingness to even speak about these topics; to address my concerns. And the fact that it’s not couched in the obfuscating double-speak of the typical political BS just makes it even more appealing.

  • preacher

    The big Three, sorry two now the Lib Dems have evaporated have consistently been more interested in placating minorities & supporting pet projects that are P.C than being in any way interested in what the Christian voters or indeed the Bishops or other interested parties feel.
    For decades now we’ve been subjected to political parties who lie through their teeth, promise the Earth then fail, albeit with wonderful excuses to deliver after they’ve been elected.
    Many people I have spoken with have noticed the mud slinging & propaganda that has been thrown at UKIP by the other parties, but many have remarked that UKIP have abstained from responding in like manner.
    Maybe they are still rough around the edges, but they will not be on their own in the House of Commons so there will be limits that will be set on their power.
    They present themselves as a breath of fresh air in a musty Old Boys Club & that is IMO worth a vote to give them a chance to keep the pressure on the Old School.

  • Inspector General

    Blimey, Cranmer! Wasn’t expecting this from you. But you are still a loyal party man, are you not? One of the old guard, but have you seen and heard lately the ‘young imposter’ you seek to guard?

    Farage’s epistle to the Christians may fall way short of a PhD thesis, but he’s only got one side of A3 to play with. But that single sheet gives hope to Christians in the workplace who, at present, could be ‘denounced’ at any time by intolerant colleagues. And we do live in an age of increasing intolerance, in this age of personal freedom to condemn on a whim.

    When Cameron offered, and still offers, to the militant homosexual community the quashing, for want of a better word, of 49,000 lawful convictions, there was not a squeak from you. Why was that? Did you find it more to your taste not to hear the beloved leader on that occasion?

    Were you really that dazzled by Cameron’s “Ich bin ein Christian” doings the other month, or did you stifle your laughter as the Inspector did…

    These are all rhetorical questions, by the way. But by all means do answer them, when you are alone, if the inner you is asking the same…

    And finally sir, some credit to you. You used your impressive intellect to tear apart the entire document, it seems. You missed nothing. But in doing so, you so clearly illustrated the common ground UKIP has with the Conservatives on the vital issue of bedrock values. You have convinced, though you will be annoyed with yourself for doing so, that a vote for UKIP is not such the strangest thing for a small c conservative. No, not at all!

  • Inspector General

    IMPORTANT UPDATE ON CAMERON

    From PN. “The Prime Minister has pledged to PinkNews that a future Conservative government would act to end so called “gay cure” therapy, which attempts to change the sexuality of a person, labelling the practice as “dangerous” and “profoundly wrong”.

    This is new. In his slave like devotion to militant homosexuality, he now wants to BAN something the militants have wanted banned for years. They’ve always taken umbrage that some types don’t want to end up like them, you see. Whether you can ‘cure’ homosexuality is a debatable point, but one thing is for sure, many need the therapy to learn how to cope with (and avoid) unwanted feelings for members of the same sex. In other words, they want NOTHING TO DO with being gay, and go to places that offer this treatment voluntarily, and in sound mind.

    The blighter really is something else. HE has decided it be “dangerous” and “profoundly wrong” and no one is going to stop him from banning it. It’s the actions of a dictator, no less!

    Cranmer, you want us Christians to vote for that man. Why? In God’s name man, why?

    • Anton

      If the Conservatives get a leader who is actually conservative then I’ll consider voting for them.

      Does Cameron believe this nonsense or does someone have something on him from Eton?

      • Inspector General

        Like all social revolutionaries, he’s his own man it seems. His Wiki entry is telling. That he made it to leader says volumes about the state of the party as at then and indeed now. When he goes, it may well be the same again…

        • Anton

          What arguments do Pink News give for outlawing voluntary reorientation?

          • Inspector General

            Hold your nose and go and see Anton. Think they mention ‘bigotry’ once or twice, and, oh yes, people need them to save them from it. They like doing that, telling people what to do, think, say…

          • DanJ0

            I dunno about Pink News but I would base an argument on the notion of snake oil and its salespeople, or perhaps boiler room sticks and shares scams.

          • Inspector General

            You’re similarly upset with gypsy fortune tellers then…

          • DanJ0

            Clairvoyants who prey on the bereaved, maybe. It’s the potential damage done that bothers me for the most part, rather than the fact that charlatans like that operate.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            As a promulgator of snake oil I’d have thought you were all for the salespeople.

          • DanJ0

            Oh lordy, the religious nutter is back. :O

          • CliveM

            What’s happened to your avatar?

            I saw it on the front of a birthday card the other day!

          • CliveM

            Ignore question problem my end!

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            Indeed you are.

          • DanJ0

            So much for the Holy Spirit onboard. 😉

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            So when have you ever demonstrated “underlying reality in your religious beliefs, or rather, the lack of reality”?

            The fact is that your religion is based on you, you are your own little god who can do nothing. Your religion leads you into an unhealthy lifestyle dominated by your own desires. A lifestyle that not only damages your body but will also result in an eternity of sorrow and regret.

            But don’t let me stop you on your lemming like venture of self-destruction, just carry on.

          • DanJ0

            Martin, you undermine your own claims of religious belief whenever you interact with me. The Holy Spirit, if the thing exists, clearly has nothing to do with you. There’s something profoundly wrong about you. It’s like you’ve been born hundreds of years out of time, instead of back when religion was a much more vicious thing. If you’d been born in the Middle East, you’d probably be a member of Daesh now.

          • CliveM

            “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.”

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            I’d love to hear how you work that out. It would give me a good laugh.

          • DanJ0

            You demonstrate it again. You’re clearly as ‘spiritually dead’ as I am but you don’t have the basic decency that I have. No wonder you’re prime cult-fodder, just like those Western morons joining Daesh.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            Ever wondered why you don’t understand the Bible, or why you don’t understand where Christians get their beliefs? That’s because you are spiritually dead.

          • DanJ0

            I understand both, Mr Clanging Cymbal. I was christened in the CofE and I had a Christian upbringing. I recognise your cultish beliefs as being religiously off-piste, and I can see by your constant behaviour that you don’t manifest a core aspect of Christianity. The Holy Spirit clearly does not know you, if such a thing exists. You fall short of love and decency even by humanist standards, let alone the standards of mainstream Christianity. Basically, you make a piss-poor Christian.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            Being christened doesn’t make you a Christian, nor does a Christian upbringing, even in the best of Christian homes, give you a true understanding of Christian doctrine. And it is clear from your comments above that you really do not understand Christian doctrine for mine are mainstream, biblical beliefs. I’ll not worry over your opinion of me.

          • DanJ0

            I’m an a-theist, not a Christian. Christianity is not hard to understand. It’s hardly rocket science, strange though it is. Of course you’ll not worry about my criticism of your behaviour and attitudes, or my head-shaking at your ignorant beliefs. That’s the consequence of being caught up in what appears to be a cultish variant, I expect, where your weird beliefs always trump observable reality. It’s ironic that I use the values and standards of Christianity to judge your behaviour and attitude and you fail miserably. By observation, you appear to be ‘spiritually dead’ and merely a clanging cymbal at the end of the day.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            I’m fully aware of what you call yourself, you’ve told us often enough. As far as God is concerned you are a rebel sinner, nothing more.

            I’m nor sure why you should think that I should be concerned at your opinion of me, after all you are the one pretending God does not exist. You don’t even understand the values and standards of Christianity, probably because you don’t know what Christianity is.

    • not a machine

      I think gay rights got re defining marriage wrong and school education wrong , I do not know what to think of gayness as a spiritual blame thing .looking back if the likes of Tatchell hadn’t attacked the church things could have turned out much more favourable for homosexuality in perhaps acceptance or bullying.In a way in getting his wish he has helped align society into amoral force that may not care much about anything and may not be ambivalent .

      • Inspector General

        The militants consider religion a disease. Ironic really…

        It’s the militants that are the driving force. The Socialist Workers with a limp wrist held high and a defiant other hand on hip. And they are above criticism. No one dares, and they know it…

        • not a machine

          If your explaining to me that the militant left have sought to destroy the church/faith then I do have a problem with that

          • Inspector General

            Militant homosexuals, than man. The questioning public run scared of them. One uses the analogy of Socialist Workers as they are exactly that in malignant nature. And yes, they do intend to destroy the church, and from where they can achieve it, from the inside…

    • Martin

      IG

      Funny that, he doesn’t want the sick cured. I doubt to that the LDs want mental health reform to include the LGBT sick either.

      Who is it that Cranmer wants us to vote for?

      • Inspector General

        Martin. You have to forgive Cranmer. He’s an old school Tory, and this oblique call to arms would have worked pre Cameron. It used to be (almost said ‘our’) the Conservatives great strength. All sins forgiven, even on Europe, to come together to keep the socialist out. Looks like its gone never to return. Oh the simplicity and expectations of those who run the party…

        • Martin

          IG

          Must confess, for a long time I’ve voted in terms of the least bad.

          • Inspector General

            Martin. The Inspector is an old political animal. He understands where you stand…

        • Merchantman

          Inspector the Sage of St George.
          Out fighting the Dragon that is Pink News is a noble calling indeed especially when it turns up this intended betrayal by Dave. There I was thinking it might be safe to go into the water again as they have made the Conservatives sound so conservative.
          Just remembered they are frauds, so I’ll stay dry. Yet his grace cant see it. A spare pair of specs for him anyone?
          Or maybe he is just being Conservative and irreparably alienating his base. Hope not.

          • Inspector General

            Yes, Merchantman, the ghastly truth about Cameron will out, and be assured the Inspector will do his bit to that aim. You might also wish to know that Cameron has signed up for gay propaganda in schools, under the cover of ‘relationship’ education or some such. Yet another Militant desire. Our poor young blighters might not know how to read or write properly, but they’ll soon know what a gay sauna is for…

          • DanJ0

            What is a gay sauna for?

          • Inspector General

            A gay sauna? Well, they do say it’s a public toilet with heat, if you will…

    • Andre´Kristian

      This is where I bid You fare well, sir! Please bring forward my cordial regards to Happy Jack. We shall speak no more.

      • Inspector General

        God bless you Andre, if you would permit such a blessing. That we, as natural adversaries can conduct ourselves like gentlemen at a club suggests there may not be too much difference between us, but of course, just enough to matter.

        Salutations, Sir!

        …and farewell (in the literal sense as well as the metaphoric)

  • not a machine

    I think what I was trying to say , that UKIPs sort of out reach to the Christian is that it may well be the last time any such party , does so .But yes there are one or two things I like about their other policies , but as some politicians are finding out ,some people arnt that sure if they will do as they say they will .I mean its fairly obvious to me we should not borrow more ,yet conservatives seem to not to be able to get round vague opponent spin.I listened to labour this morning and it was just shifting sand and to hinest that’s all I have heard from them for 7yrs.To say coalition program is heading towards flatlining doesn’t begin to explain how bad it was to start out with which they created .Same rubbish to me turning people off although few days to go yet so even though its fight with a rice pudding it still has to be won …

  • Inspector General

    Prayer for bedtime, sponsored by the venerable Inspector General…’whatever the weather’…’for all your needs’…

    “Lord, we give thanks and praise that the war on drugs has taken a significant step towards victory with the execution of 8 heroin traffickers. Verily, not only will this deter future smugglers who use Indonesia, but none of the 8 will be committing similar in the future. Help us, Lord, to make the governments that be change focus from valuing the lives of the wicked who make vast fortunes from dealing in pain, despair, and indeed, sudden death, to instead saving the vulnerable, young and stupid from the highly dangerous activity of getting off their heads. Amen”

    {Single bell tolls, eight times}

    “May they all sleep tight, down in hell tonight, or wherever they may be…”

    • dannybhoy

      Harsh but true Inspector.

      • Inspector General

        Secretly gutted, Danny, but don’t tell anybody : – >

  • Albert

    You can mock it all you like, but it makes little sense to mock it if you are a Tory. By their fruits you shall know them…

    • Inspector General

      Splendid retort Albert. As for UKIP supporters composition, the Inspector guesses at one third former Conservative, one third former Labour, and one third others including those who up till now, have given up on voting.

      • Albert

        You may be right there, Inspector. It would be nice to think UKIP not only gathers the disaffected, but also those who just have never bothered in the first place.

        • Inspector General

          Do we have your vote sir? By the way, they say Grimsby is headed for UKIP representation. A once thriving port ruined by EU fisheries nonsense….

          • not a machine

            Great Grimsby…

          • Albert

            I was put off UKIP because of their policy on halal and kosher. I object to it on the grounds of religious freedom, but I also find it extraordinary that a party that says to be about the UK is prepared to make Jewish tradition illegal. Jews, Jewish tradition, Jewish scriptures etc. are hardly johnny come latelies to this country. And as for Muslims, yes, they don’t have the same kind of tradition in this country as Jews, but how many of them loyally fought with us in WWII as part our Indian Army? Enough for them to be extended a little more respect, I think.

          • Inspector General

            Think of that as UKIP musing. Remember, it’s in formation. Feedback must have reached them on the points you raised so one suggests such ‘confusion’ will not arise again.

            Muslims need not fear UKIP. The loyal ones, that is…

          • Dreadnaught

            Bring forward and expand the offense of Treason.

          • Shadrach Fire

            A lot of Sikhs as well, if not more I believe.

          • Sikhs and Hindus mostly.

          • Albert

            I think 400 000 Muslims.

          • IanCad

            Perfectly put Albert. Couldn’t agree more.

          • Dreadnaught

            We have animal welfare laws that should be upheld; it’s our culture too. Nothing to stop Jews and Muslims importing their meat from elsewhere.

          • Albert

            Are you saying Muslims and Jews are breaking the law?

          • Dreadnaught

            Only when they butcher live animals in their back yards. I never said anything to indicate to indicate what you mention. The law makes provision for religious cruelty. The spirit of the law, ie animal welfare, has been compromised from the start and pushed further back by the proliferation of muslim operated slaughterhouses in line with the proliferation of muslims.
            The law needs revision.

          • Albert

            I never said anything to indicate to indicate what you mention

            Well, you said this:

            We have animal welfare laws that should be upheld

            If you meant to type “we have animal welfare law that are being upheld” then my question would have been out of place, but you didn’t. Obviously, I want the law to be upheld. If people are pushing against that then that needs to be addressed. But should it be addressed by making kosher illegal?

            Equally, one could say that you are pushing against the spirit of the law, for the spirit of the law is to uphold religious freedom, something you want to compromise in the name of animal welfare.

            That raises a further question. How committed to animal welfare are you? My guess is that the people who use this argument are often quite happy to eat factory farmed meats etc. The reason for picking on halal and kosher is to this extent, variously, racist or just anti-religion.

          • Dreadnaught

            I make no attempt to hide my opposition to Islam.
            If You want to call me a racist – why not come straight out with it. Be prepared to explain why a religion is a race.

          • Albert

            I didn’t call you a racist because I do not know whether you are. I was giving you the chance to explain your opposition to halal and kosher. You claim it is because of animal welfare. That’s a good reason. But is it your reason? That’s why I asked how committed you are to animal welfare. I note that you haven’t answered that. Instead you have placed your concerns in the category of opposing Islam. Why oppose Islam on this point, unless you are committed to animal welfare? But the issue here is that you can’t oppose Islam without also undermining Jewish freedoms. Is that right? Is it so important to oppose Islam that Jews must take a hit too? So no, I’m not accusing you of anything, but I would have to say that the number moves you can make before such an accusation becomes obvious are few.

          • Dreadnaught

            Yes I am deeply concerned about animal welfare destined for human consumption.
            I have never subscribed to religious slaughter as humane.
            You questioning is assuming the proportions of the Inquisition and you are no Torquemada.
            Religiously slaughtered meat can be imported and the law amended to exclude such activity in the UK.

          • Albert

            That’s fine. So just to clarify, are you a vegetarian, or do you avoid eating certain foods because of how the animals are kept? You say animal welfare destined for human consumption. What about other questions of animal welfare?

            You questioning is assuming the proportions of the Inquisition.

            I think that’s a little fantastic. But let’s just keep in mind the issue here: should freedoms currently protected by law be removed? Unless you have very little regard for freedom, you will welcome careful questioning on your opposition to this freedom.

          • Dreadnaught

            Unless you have very little regard for freedom, you will welcome careful questioning on your opposition to this freedom.
            You pompous clown. You have become quite asinine and I have no intention of engaging with you any further because you cant find anything worthwhile on TV.

            But consider that you made no attempt to answer my question on religion and race.

          • Albert

            You didn’t ask a question on religion and race. I have engaged with posts you have left. As for pomposity, here’s what you’ve done: you’ve stated a position against someone else’s freedom and then complained at the questioning that position has aroused. You don’t think that’s just a little pompous?

            As for the TV, there’s snooker on now.

          • Little Black Censored

            Albert, I used to think you were sensible. Perhaps you are just having an off day.

          • Albert

            A little difficult to defend myself there with so little info LBC.

  • Martin

    YG

    Pathetic. Who would you have us vote for, the Tories who forced fake marriage on us? Let’s not forget the relative silence of the CoE on that one either.

  • JJP

    I do not like UKIP, but your selective quoting has undermined my confidence in this blog.e.g. on SSM you miss out UKIP saying they will extend the concept of “reasonable accommodation” for those who disagree with it, then ask “Precisely how do they differ from the Conservatives?” On abortion you miss out UKIP saying that they will seek compliance with the 1967 Act and make gender abortions illegal, then ask “Precisely how do they differ from the Conservatives?”
    I also am sceptical about this UKIP document and its motives. But I am now highly sceptical of your selective reporting of it.

  • carl jacobs

    Seems to me that unless you want to risk the SNP running your Gov’t, you might should re-think this idea of voting for UKIP.

    • Inspector General

      Let men vote as their hearts dictate, what!

    • Shadrach Fire

      How else can we get rid of that monster DC. Tactical voting produces nothing but more of the same.

      • carl jacobs

        That’s fine. Voting for UKIP is not going to produce any positive changes from your perspective. If you want to punish Cameron, then understand that by doing so you are rewarding not UKIP or its agenda. You are rewarding the SNP and amplifying its power. So long as you recognize that is what you are doing, then vote your conscience.

        But don’t complain about the result.

      • dannybhoy

        I agree.
        One I’m not intelligent enough to comprehend tactical voting, and two if we’re going to use deceit and subterfuge to secure a win, what does that say about our policies?

    • Pubcrawler

      Depends. If, like me, you live in a constituency that’s a LibDem/Labour two-horse race, boosting the UKIP vote vs Cons and Greens at least sends a message, albeit to deaf ears. But my conscience remains unsullied.

      • carl jacobs

        I grant your point, Pubcrawler.

    • sarky

      You should always vote with your heart not tactically. Otherwise what’s the point of democracy.

      • Martin

        Sarky

        Get real. There is no point to democracy when all parties are interested in is pleasing as many people as possible.

        • sarky

          If you believe that – don’t vote!

          • Martin

            Sarky

            So you cannot actually argue against my statement?

            Personally, I try to vote for the local candidate who is honest and cares about local issues. Voting for a party is destructive of democracy.

          • sarky

            But even voting for an individual you are effectively voting for a party. That individual will also hold the values of the party they stand for. So your statement makes no sense.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            Only in your crazy mixed up world is voting for a person the same as voting for a party. Indeed, such a view is destructive of democracy.

      • CliveM

        Think you vote with your head.

        • dannybhoy

          Me too. I used always to vote Conservative because regardless of my own circumstances I believed and still do believe in their core values.

          • Shadrach Fire

            But not in Camerons values.

          • dannybhoy

            No.
            No Precious, no.
            Not Cameron, no.
            He has lost himself in the Mountains of Mordor….

      • Dominic Stockford

        I think I understand what you mean – vote for what you believe, and for whom you want to vote for – a positive vote for; rather than voting as some form of compromise and in order to stop something – a negative vote against. And yes, any principled person really ought to start from there, if you believe something then you believe it.

        • sarky

          Absolutely!!!!

      • carl jacobs

        You aren’t a Conservative Voter, sarky. You have made that clear. So what party do you support? If you are a Labor supporter, then your advise is somewhat tainted by self-interest.

        • sarky

          You know what Carl, for the first time in 25years I really don’t know who to vote for. Reckon I’ll make up my mind in the polling booth.
          But I will make that vote for the right reasons.

    • Phil R

      Lets be clear here.

      The SNP are going to run the Government.

      They are likely to be the a sizable block of seats outside of LAB/CON and either party if they wish to form a Government will need their support , if not explicitly, then with some sort of “deal” behind closed doors, that we will only learn about in 50 or 100 years time.

      Why should the UKIP voter trust “call me Dave”? His role model is Blair and when in charge his Government seems to follow the Blair model also, with it seems, his ministers tearing up the Con manifesto, as soon as the door swings open to the No10.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Carl, the choice for many of us is not between UKIP and Conservative, it’s between UKIP and not voting at all. I would find it very difficult to vote for Cameron, who has betrayed both conservatism and Christian values. A vote for UKIP will in some cases help to permit a Lab / SNP grouping. Let that be so. The fate of this nation is in Gods hands ultimately. Milliband will be in a very precarious position doing deals with the SNP because his support base will be almost entirely English while the puppeteer will be a fervently anti-English (some say racist) Scottish party. We are probably in for a long period of governmental upheaval and paralysis that could end up with Scotland going it alone. I am beginning to think that may not be a bad idea.. I’m not going to worry though. Personally I would rather vote with a clean conscience.

      • carl jacobs

        As I said. As long as you understand what you are doing. Different people will come to different conclusions. There aren’t right or wrong answers.

        But remember this. Ross Perot achieved nothing in 1992 except the election of Bill Clinton. That was the only significant accomplishment of his campaign.

    • Dreadnaught

      Much truth in what you say – bit like tactical; tactical voting. Ukip has at least brought attention to what the politicians fear most – patriotism!

  • len

    The problem with politicians in the UK and worldwide is a break down in integrity and trust .In short we are all paying the price for the secular philosophy of ‘no moral absolutes’. No one can trust anyone any more its ‘all relative.’ Politicians will do and say anything to get into power and the seem to think that`s OK if it gets them what they want and they will deal with the fallout afterwards.

    This lack of morals and integrity is being exposed right across the board from Politicians , Bankers, Leaders of Industry and the Media right down to those who see no wrong in manipulating the welfare system.

    How can society function without some sort of moral foundation?. I believe we are finding it cannot.

    • Merchantman

      Corrupting the Truth is a dangerous game that usually leads to conflict of one sort or the other does it not? Maybe not if the media are as unquestioning as they appear and in fact have led the charge, and they are able to tranquilize the populous.

    • David

      You’ve hit the nail on its head !

  • preacher

    It seems that there’s a massive support for UKIP here, if the same is true for the majority of the rest of the U.K apart from the dyed in the wool “I’ve always voted for ….. party because my father did & so did my Grandfather”.
    Or those who swallow the obvious propaganda of a frightened Government & Opposition who have obviously targeted the party they fear more than all the rest, then Mr Farage & Co could be in for a pleasant surprise.
    Forget the lapdogs that are ready to form a pack with the pooch with the nicest bark.
    UKIP could hold the balance of power & be the King(dom) makers for the next five years!.

    • CliveM

      This isn’t said to be rude, but at this GE, UKIP have been a side show very few people are interested in. The party they fear is the SNP. If UKIP keep the two seats they have, on the current ratings they will have done well.

      I’m not really sure to much can be extrapolated from this site, voter intention wise!!

      • preacher

        I feel that they have been targeted by the two main parties, with the intention of marginalising them. Not so long ago Cameron set the stall out by calling them & their followers “Swivelled Eyed Loons” in an attempt to isolate them, the same tactics as the ‘Wasted Vote’ ploy.
        I feel that this shows that they are the party that Millie & Dave want out of the way. Politicians are strange animals, shy but cunning, as We’ve seen over the last five years by the nocturnal rare Clegg, with his unmistakeable call of – ‘Let me in Dave, Pleeease, I won’t rock the boat’.
        Joking aside though Clive, I feel that we Christians have suffered, & are Suffering worse persecution than being looked upon by those that feel they are our superiors, rather than our equals & it’s time to stand up & be counted. A time to be positive, if we lose, then so what? In five years we’ll get another chance. Remember the Spartans! brother.

  • Hi,

    Well, I live in a marginal Conservative/Labour seat , so ironically my vote counts for something in deciding the composition of the next government.

    I’m still soooo undecided!!

    If I were in Derby I wouldn’t be voting Tory as one of their candidates disgracefully said “never ever will I drop that low and support the al yahud” [Arabic for ‘the Jew’] . As for UKIP, they went against kosher slaughter, so I’m not voting for them.

    • CliveM

      I thought it was for the council and she had been kicked out?

      • Hi Clive

        She was still a candidate for an election . If she’s been kicked out , then good !

        • CliveM

          Yes at this stage she can’t be removed from the ballot paper, but she has been dumped.

          You do wonder at the stupidity of some people! And as you say, good.

    • dannybhoy

      Hannahle,
      UKIP changed their minds on shechita and halal slaughter and opted for clear labelling..
      Anyone who would seriously consider voting for Ed Miliband and the “new/old/whatever will get me into Downing Street” Labour party has to be a masochist…
      After all we’ve been through, voting Conservative would be the next best choice after UKIP…
      😉

      • Hi Danny
        “voting Conservative would be the next best choice after UKIP…”

        Well I will be glad when it’s all over as I’m getting umpteen e-mails from the conservatives. This one I received today ,was sent on behalf of Boris Johnson:

        “With just 7 days to go, our task is simple: win 23 more seats to get the Conservative majority Britain needs.That’s right – just 23 more seats and we can stop Ed Miliband, propped up by the SNP, getting into power and wrecking our country.Just 23 more seats and we can keep building a stronger economy and a brighter, more secure future.So come on Hannah – let’s give it everything we’ve got in this final week to win 23 more seats.Knock on all your neighbours’ doors, talk to your colleagues at work, tell everyone you know on Facebook and Twitter that their vote could be the difference at this crucial election”

        • CliveM

          Hmm everyone I know, but me, seems to be getting e mails from the Conservatives. What have I done!!

          • Hi Clive

            My bro is getting UKIP stuff and my sis Labour e-mails. We’re all fed up of this and just wish they’d get on and do their horse trading for the next coalition.

          • CliveM

            What do none of the parties want me!!!

            Je suis desolé

          • Hi Clive

            Linus will be correcting your French doubtless…..

          • CliveM

            I’m relying on it!

          • Hi Clive

            My response would be to say I’m using Quebecois French, which like American English , is more informal that European French (and more influenced by English and old French).

          • CliveM

            Oh Lord no! Do you have any understanding of the length of reply I would have to wade through?

            Peasant language, blah, blah, bad food, blah, blah, dumpy Queen, blah, blah, second rate education, blah, blah, UK to split assunder blah, blah.

            There, I’ve saved him the effort!

          • Hi Clive

            LOL!

            I have no idea if you’ve been there, but when we went to Canada, me and my sister somehow decided to go on a tour bus around Quebec (the English-speaking Canadians could tell we were “from England” as they were all coronation street fans and we sounded just like the characters off that show!) .

            The Quebecois can be even more chippy than “our” French . We learned all about the “French & Indian/ 7 years war” , Montcalm and Wolf & the battle of Abraham , “the English occupation”, got a glimpse of some guy called Trudeau(who?) or at least the house he lived in ,with a bust of Churchill randomly plonked in the city of Quebec, lots of American tourists ( I thought brits stuck out abroad).

            Happy Jack would like the place as it’s VERY Catholic, with the parish churches like cathedrals, although Montreal has a big Jewish centre , their bagels are better than New York.

          • CliveM

            Sadly never been to Canada. Would probably not bother with Quebec even if I did.

            Never heard of Trudeau! Now I feel old.

          • Pubcrawler

            Nova Scotia’s nice. Big on Scottish heritage, only without the chippiness.

          • CliveM

            There is a famous train route that I’ve fancied doing. Can’t remember what it’s called. When I was young I wanted to emigrate to Canada but my Father wouldn’t have it.

            One of several decisions he got wrong!!

          • Pubcrawler

            The Trans Canada. Yeah, it’s on my ‘bucket list’ as well.

          • Hi Clive

            Oh it’s a lovely place really and Canadians are fab and VERY friendly as a people and much less abrasive than their American neighbours (i like New Zealanders for the same reasons). Incidentally it was the Scots wot won Candada for Britain at the battle of Abraham plains ,when the Highlanders were set loose on the French with their bagpipes and claymores!

            I spent a month touring this vast country, even Ottawa. Went to their war museum and learned about how the Canadians with Britain,along with the other “Dominions” , fought thorough the mud of the western front and the fight against the fascists. I’d rather have a free trade zone with Canadians and the Aussies, Kiwis etc than the Europeans, because unlike them, they stood shoulder to shoulder with us in the fire. But that’s just me.

            Oh and I never did get who Trudeau was !

          • CliveM

            Hannah

            I agree.

            The Canadian units were the best in WW1. The Germans really respected them.

            Ask Avi, I’m sure he will have an interesting perspective on the man.

          • Pubcrawler

            Magnifique! 😀

          • Dude

            At least you haven’t been called an Alexis Tsipras and ed Miliband lookalike!

          • CliveM

            Ed Milliband lookalike?

            Might be a career there if he wins. Opening Super Markets, attending fetes, that sort of thing. Do you sound like him as well?!

          • CliveM

            I have never known a more depressing GE.

            To be honest though it makes little difference to me. I do vote ‘ideologically’. So in many ways it wouldn’t matter how good a campaign Milliband (say) had, it wouldn’t change the way I vote. His economic model and desire to interfere are fundamentally flawed IMO.

            I can’t vote UKIP. I see no sense in voting for a party a large chunk of its own supporters admit couldn’t form a rational government!

            I am also not rabidly anti EU. Whilst not a supporter and agnostic as to how I would vote in any referendum (I find the apocalyptic claims of both sets of supporters irrational), I do see some rational that in a world increasingly dominated by large economic blocks, that being part of something larger has some arguments going for it.

            Whilst a campaign can’t make me vote for a party, in can put me off and at the moment the Conservatives are threatening to do that!

          • Hi Clive

            I don’t lack convictions, political or religious, it is just that I don’t feel that any of them really reflect my views :

            The conservatives are scaremongering about the SNP ( btw,i saw the sun says it’s backing SNP in Scotland and conservative in England : how cynical is that ??). Where is the conservative ideology or positives?

            Labour think we’ve all got short memories as they’re to blame for these alleged evil Tory cuts . Where is the Labour ideology or positives?

            The liberals just want to be the pawn brokers,just to get office again.Where is the liberal ideology or positives?

            UKIP have plenty of ideology, passion and positives, but farage has made gaffe after gaffe and lost the debates and are not doing enough effort to communicate their message or go beyond their “core vote”.

            The nationalist only cares about Scotland or Wales ….

            So you see my problems.

            Also, I just did a “what politics are you” and apparently I’m in the libertarian centre of the political spectrum : whatever that means !

          • CliveM

            Hi Hannah,

            There isn’t much you’ve said above I would disagree with.

            I have to be honest, I have taken to leaving the room when the news comes on.

            There is an interesting article about politics and democracy by Nick Bryant on today’s BBC News web site. You should read it. I think it highlights some of the truths behind this GE. To much spin, to many professional politicians.

            You know in 1979 only 3.4% MP’s came through an exclusively political route, now it’s 30%!!!!

          • Hi Clive

            Interesting. We left the room when cleggy came on stage last night…

          • CliveM

            Ps hope you don’t think I believe you lack conviction?

          • Not at all….

        • dannybhoy

          It has to be the issues and the policies Hannahle, and you have to believe they have the integrity and commitment to those policies rather than saying whatever it takes to get your vote. That’s why I could never vote for Ed Miliband. I think he’s desperate to get into power because (perhaps because his conscience tells him) that’s the only thing that might justify his stabbing his brother in the back..

          • Hi Danny

            One minute you say it’s about issues and policy, the next you say you wouldn’t vote for Miliband because of hmmm , “stabbing his bro in the back”,which sounds decidedly personal to me….(?)

          • dannybhoy

            Well to me it is, and always has been about the issues and policies. I accept that in life there are times of prosperity and times when things are hard, and you have to make sacrifices so that better times may come again.
            What I meant about Ed Miliband is that he comes across as a man who is desperate to prove to his critics inside and outside the party, that he has what it takes to be PM. So he keeps coming up with ‘special offers’ and ‘one week only promos.’
            He doesn’t sound like a man of strong convictions but a man with only one conviction:
            “I wanna be Prime Minister!”

          • CliveM

            As I said to Hannah below, I’m too ideological to care what he says or how he performs. His model for the country is fundamentally flawed.

          • dannybhoy

            Agreed.
            In recent years politicians have concentrated too much on the Welfare State to the detriment of building a strong economy.
            We simply can’t afford it, because one thing we know about benefits is that the more and better they are, the more people will want to claim them.
            Here’s my mini manifesto:
            Provide for the elderly 🙂 and the incapacitated. Those who are fit but out of work, go on a community improvement work programme. Not just tidying up the environment, but helping out in public services as auxiliary workers and incidentally learning new skills.
            Have basic education classes for those who need them, but all must work.
            Bring back schemes like Remploy for those with learning difficulties and older people who would like to work even a few hours a day.

            Lastly, build a gulag for all the handwringers, “I feel your pain” merchants, human rights experts and members of the Howard League for Penal Reform and Socialist Worker oiks..
            I WANT YOUR VOTE!

          • CliveM

            You forgot the Greens!

          • dannybhoy

            Thanks, and the Greens too!

          • Hi Danny

            I guess the last successful conviction politician was Mrs Thatcher: you could be describing David Cameron in the above. Although he comes across now as a man who simply doesn’t care about winning either way. I don’t think Miliband is prime minister material, Labour lost its own conviction in the Blair years.

          • Also and this is worth addressing , quite a few people have said on this blog that you should vote on beliefs rather than tactical reasons.The problem is that I don’t really have a diehard mentality which means I’m not fixed to any particular party . Besides , none of them really reflect everything I agree with and they aren’t reflecting any beliefs anyways (all the Tories have done is go on about SNP for example), but also it doesn’t matter what they are saying because like last time the manifesto will go in the bin once there is a coalition. I don’t really believe any of spending proposals. I am in short weary of politicians and their apparent ideologies, which to me they’re all in it for power and self advantage.

  • Philip___

    To reiterate and add to what I said previously on this. UKIP are at last a major party unashamedly identifying with our JudaeoChristian heritage even where it is being opposed, and wants to end the marginalisation of Christians. This is another area where UKIP is different from the establishment parties. No wonder they’re so opposed by the establishment!

    While UKIP won’t repeal same-sex ‘marriage’, at least they stand for freedom for those who keep to the traditional view of marriage. This contrasts hugely with Mr Cameron’s anti-Christian “Conservatives”. Wherever there is a choice standing for Christian values and with Christians, and the demands of the homosexual lobby, we know which side Mr Cameron (and the other metropolitan ‘liberal’ establishment parties) chooses. Evidence:

    – UKIP wants proper conscience protections to avoid workers with traditional beliefs being forced to act and endorse causes they profoundly disagree with. Compare and contrast with Mr Cameron in a PMQ answer to a DUP MP, said the Ashers Bakery must “obey the law” i.e. prejudging the case as to what the law says, and by implication supporting the concept that Christians must be required to use their creative skills to promote beliefs and causes which are profoundly against their beliefs.

    – Boris supported aggressive and offensive Stonewall adverts on buses, while refusing Christian ones promoting an alternative view. I didn’t much like either advert, but the fact Boris allowed the Stonewall one and not the Christian one is further evidence of the anti-Christian nature of Mr Cameron’s “Conservative” party.

    Christian values are for all and benefit all, not just Christians. And traditional marriage being the most basic institution on which society is built, is about the best example of how Christian values benefit all, so the issue of marriage is a touchstone one.

    So while I disagree with UKIP about not repealing the same-sex ‘marriage’ law – there should be no problem changing the law to be in line with what marriage actually is! – and while I’m not supporting UKIP this time as my Tory MP is sufficiently conservative to warrant my support, it is refreshing to see a major party standing for the place of Christianity in our nation.

  • Sigfridiii

    Cranmer, you sound far too much like a bishop.

  • wisestreligion

    Well, at least UKIP are trying. Check Dave Cameron’s interview with Pink News and it appears his programme of progressing the gay agenda at the expense of Christians has even further to go.

    The issue of marriage is as profound to Christians as it is trivial to liberals. I don’t know from whom DC takes counsel on theological matters but it is hard to fathom how he could not have understood that he was alienating what should be his core support at the deepest level. So now 15% of the population, of conservative instinct, are expected to vote UKIP.

    I have come round to agreeing with Councillor David Silvester, who was pilloried last year for seeing a connection between our corruption of marriage and the flooding in the West of England, though I am not sure I would see it in terms of punishment. The scenes of flooded fields were an apt illustration of our national decision to take the path of incontinence instead of faithfulness. Does God still act in our world? Is there any other issue on which our country has turned its back on God in such a fundamental way? The 1967 Abortion Act came to mind, and I looked through the press to see if that was accompanied by any possible sign from the Lord. The month that David Steel’s Act received royal assent, October 1967, saw the start of the worst foot and mouth outbreak in the 20th Century. The images in the press were of piles of carcasses. Coincidence? Maybe, but in faith I will say no, that occasionally our heavenly Father graciously alerts us to how we
    are straying from Him – giving a prodigal nation the chance to come to its
    senses and turn back to Him. His warning signs show He still cares for us, even if our politicians have decided, on our behalf, that we do not care for Him.

    Over 500 years or more our country has been blessed and protected by God. From the Armada to Dunkirk we have seen His protection in some of our darkest moments. Can God not withdraw His protection, at our insistence, and is this not what we saw in the flooded fields of early 2014?

    At a time when the media and political elite have dismissed God as irrelevant the election next week gives us the people a chance to say whether we want our nation to continue as a Christian country. Thank you for giving us the choice, UKIP.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Indeed, It feels like something of a breakthrough that one party is openly standing up for Christ and Christians. Even if it isn’t the most erudite manifesto, it is still something that none of the other parties are doing and is to be welcomed

    • cacheton

      Blimey. Your God does not sound like an unconditionally loving god to me. Why do you worship him?

      • Merchantman

        Its that He sometimes allows us to go off the deep end rather than him doing stuff to us. He sent his son Jesus to save us but most either don’t understand or willfully ignore the rescue attempt.

  • Your Grace,
    The reason that I shall not vote Conservative despite all your best efforts is that Cameron is a lying toad, and so is my Conservative M.P. As I have said before, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
    I am by no means certain that the same is not true of Farage, but I’m prepared to take a chance on it since the alternative is to spoil my paper.
    .
    I first voted Conservative as an 18 year-old in the election of 1970. That should have put me off for life, but I continued to do so faithfully until 2010. Never again while Cameron is leader. If that means that Miliband gets in (not likely in East Devon!), so be it. I’d as soon have a fool in power as a knave.

  • cacheton

    Big News – Church has finally started divesting from fossil fuels

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/30/church-of-england-ends-investments-in-heavily-polluting-fossil-fuels?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2#comment-51337233

    so is realising that Christian values DO extend to what one does with one’s money.

    Come now all you Kippers and Tories – are you really going to vote for exploitation of the poor, greater inequality, rape of nature, and willful ignorance of what your pensions and investments are actually doing to the world…

  • UKIP are clear that they value our Judeo-Christian heritage unlike most other parties and politicians which treat religion like a plague.
    I won’t support the Tories because the brought in Gay Marriage which was not a manifesto commitment, and neither was there any overriding imperative to bring in such legislation before the election.
    My Tory MP, who regularly attend our parish church claimed to be against it, but conveniently absented himself abroad when the vote took place.
    UKIP are prepared to discus religion unlike the other parties. If I had my way candidates would be forced to declare their religion on the ballot paper!

  • Anton

    I’ve been thinking about the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, under which a Prime Minister cannot call a snap election but whose government must see out the term unless it is defeated in a vote of no confidence.

    A snap election could nevertheless be called by the PM if he gets some of his party to vote for such a motion… in response to which the opposition might vote for the government… and we are in the realm of Game Theory in the lobby!

  • steroflex

    If just ONE CofE representative was a millionth as charismatic as Nigel Farage, our local churches would not be permanently locked up.

  • len

    Nigel Farage seems to be the only politician who is not in the pocket of the establishment and as such seems to be the only person to give a voice for a large section of society on matters which other Politicians will only say what their EU masters approve of.

  • It is not a seperate Christian Manifesto per se – simply parts of the full manifesto that are particularly relevant. There is also a women`s manifesto and an agrigulture policy manifesto etc