UK General Election 2024

 

It is sometimes said that democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

Maybe there is some truth in that because there are many people who have been had for lunch in the 14 years, 2 months and 8 days since the Tories have been in power.

There are now 26 days to the general election. In a recent TV debate, Rishi Sunak (who, I believe to be a nice man in a nasty party (and also, desperately out of touch with people’s day-to-day lives)) said: “I would ask everyone to judge me by my actions.”

I don’t want to go into the specifics of the actions (and inactions) of the Government these past 14 years, but, safe to say, it has been the poor and vulnerable who have suffered the most. My brother constantly talked to me about the trouble he had with the Government in their treatment of him as a disabled person (he had rheumatoid arthritis from childhood). I cannot forget him telling me about how he had walked past a Conservative Club and a group of its members laughed across the street at him because of the way he walked. Multiply that small scene to many, many applications for help from a Government which has simply treated those with disabilities as ‘lunch’.

The existing problems have not gone anywhere. We simply have new ones too. If you struggle with mental health problems, if you are disabled, or if you need help from the Government in any way, when you apply for it, you will be treated with little dignity. And there is such a level of suspicion that even if you manage to jump through their hoops and get any kind of help, it is a minor miracle. It has been the case, these last 14 years that most of the genuine help has come through charities – they have been the ones who have kept the country from disintegrating. Parkinsons UK, The Brain Tumour Charity – you name your charity – these are the ones who continue to help those in need. Not this Government.

And in a country where there is so much homelessness and a change from a few thousand people using foodbanks to a few million now, you might be excused for thinking that the ‘Big Society’ idea is more up and running than ever.

‘Judge us by our actions.’

Seems reasonable. I’m old enough to remember the 1997 general election and how overjoyed I was to see Labour get in back then. I had even joined the party. But it wasn’t that long before I became disillusioned by Blair and the UK getting involved in the war in Iraq. I left the party and have never joined another since. While we wait for the Labour manifesto this time round, it seems to me, to be a case of voting for the least-worst option.

‘It doesn’t matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.’

And maybe that’s why the system needs changing. Maybe even more radically than having proportional representation (although that would be a start)?

I know some friendly Conservatives – but the Tory Government have long abandoned any pretence of conserving anything but their own power. Now, they're appealing to our basest instincts with promises of tax cuts and security, all the while blaming minorities like Muslims and immigrants for their own failures. And I think Reform are also largely appealing to our prejudices.

My hope is that if and when Labour get in, they don’t behave like wolves again too.

An Easter parable for David Cameron

The palace of the king

Once upon a time there was a powerful king who ruled a land filled with all kinds of people. Some of the people were concerned about the land and they had asked the previous king if things would get better for them all. They had also asked this old king what he had thought about God (because it was an important question for many of the people).

"We don't do God," said the old king, but he assured the people that he was one of 'them'.

Some of the other people then began to blame 'them' when the old king went off to march to war (or at least sent his people off to war (because his legs ached when he marched)). Some of 'them' were horrified that he had said he was one of 'them' and had then gone to war (because 'them there people' didn't like war on the whole).

The new king was only a little different (as kings often are). The new king presided over a court who believed that the people in his land would be a lot happier if they learned to stand on their own two feet and stop complaining about their lot. He believed that these people needed to quit complaining and get on with his Big Plan. Some of the people in the country were unhappy because they didn't have their basic needs, but the king was adamant that they had made the decision to be unhappy themselves and they needed to learn to take responsibility (because responsibility never belongs to kings) and to pull themselves up by their bootstrings and count their blessings (because he liked to point out people who were worse off. 'Let me take you by the hand and lead you through the streets of London...' he may have said (except he liked to keep himself to himself and not mix with the hoi polloi)). If only the people would support him and carry out his Big Plan then things could go on as usual and he could stay king, he thought.

When some of the people asked this new king what he thought about God, the king said, "We do do God and I am one of 'them' too." He went on to talk about how God was on his side in his Big Plan and that he was just carrying out God's own plan from way, way back, many centuries ago.

Again, some of the people were horrified that this new king had told all the people that he was one of 'them' because the other people always took this as a bad sign (that was partly because of the previous king and because it was simply not cool to be 'one of them'). Cool was always as cool looked, not as cool did. Kings were not cool and 'they' were not cool.

So the king waited for a huge festival that 'they' liked (just a little while before the people would decide if he could remain king). And then he said that the poor people in the land would have to work ever so much harder because they were not carrying out the Big Plan. And besides that, he said, God was with him so anyone who disagreed was really disagreeing against God. Well, he left that conclusion to their imaginations. He said that he hadn't said these words so that the people would keep him as their king... no, not at all, nosiree (after all there are those who say all kings are the same).

So the people, all kinds of people, waited and looked for some kind of hope for the future. But they feared that all kings really were the same. And when kings said they were one of 'them', it was the 'them' who got the blame (even though 'they' were not the enemy).

So all that could be hoped was that things would get better and the kings would have a change of heart. And if they really did do God and really did have a Big Plan for a 'broken land' (which may or may not have been misdiagnosed (but who can argue with God?)), then one day things would change for the better and they would not march off to war or make things worse in the land again.

But kings are kings.

David Cameron - Christian?

There isn't much which is more damaging to believers than a Prime Minister claiming to be a Christian. It simply reinforces people's perception that Christianity is about defending the status quo (or the rich). It also reinforces the false view that Christians are privileged in society.

Yesterday some brave soul asked Cameron: "What would your response to Jesus be on his instruction to us to sell all our possessions and give the proceeds to the poor?"

Reports suggest that the PM was thrown by the question and had a momentary mental block: "I have never had that question before." he muttered.

Then his political spiel kicked in and he said: "I’m a Christian and I’m an active member of the Church of England, and like all Christians I think I sometimes struggle with some of the sayings and some of the instructions.

But what I think is so good about Jesus’s teachings is there are lots of things that he said that you can still apply very directly to daily life and to bringing up your children.

Simple things like do to others as you would be done by; love your neighbour as yourself, the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount.

To me they’re still pretty fresh and good instructions... but the particular one that you mention, I find a little bit more difficult."

You couldn't come out with an answer like that unless you had the devil whispering dark advice in your ear. 

Once again we have the old Government lie: 'God is with us' (and the implication of that: 'He approves of all that we do'). Because that is the subtext of the exchange.

And if David Cameron actually does have some kind of relationship with Christ (which I think is debatable) - then he is behaving like a sycophant to Christ.

It is the subtext of the exchange which is the danger. Once again the Government needs the legitimacy that is provided from faith groups. And once again, through both word and action they claim that God is with them and that God is in all that they do, every law that they make, every oppressive statement against the poor. When there are hospital cut backs - God is with them. When minorities are marginalized - God is with them. When things get worse in the country and not better - God is with them and these measures are necessary for future freedom. When arms are traded God is with them. When the poor are oppressed - God is with them. And even if they choose to deny this is the truth - God is with them in that too.

Take a message from another struggling Christian who finds it hard to sell all his possessions Mr Cameron (and I hope that is where the similarities cease):

God is not with the Government. God is with the people.

What the country needs is a Christian revival, not a nominal Christian Prime Minister who is making things worse for both the Christian community and for the poor.

Prayer and politics

(Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament)

With the recent controversy over prayers being said in council meetings and in parliament I thought it would be interesting to blog about the subject. What does seem to be clear is that very few people actually knew that councillors and politicians pray as part of their formal meetings.

Whether this is right or wrong is another debate, as is whether or not all faiths should be represented - one thing is clear though - politicians are among the most prayed for people in the UK. With all this prayer and good intention swirling around the ether you may be wondering what on earth is going on in the UK Christian community. Why are we so damned compliant?

There are some semi-formal Christian groups among politicians themselves. There have been for a while. And Christians (on the whole) will pray for politicians. You can view this as perpetuating the status quo, but the reason it is done is because part of the new testament specifically calls on Christians to pray for national leaders. Specifically prayers are said that leaders will act with wisdom. But it can get out of hand and I've heard Christians pray for politicians to be protected, for their possessions to be protected, for them to be protected from the intrusive media, for them to be blessed in everything they do, Amen and Amen etc. There are a number of Christian groups with websites dedicated to praying for those in power.

I refuse to pray for them out of principle, but I've had it made clear to me in the past that I'm not toeing the Christian line on this issue.

There is even more prayer among politicians themselves at each sitting when both the Lords and the Commons begin the day with a formal prayer. In the commons, attendance is voluntary and MPs have to stand facing the wall behind them (a tradition thought to be based on the difficulty of praying while kneeling and carrying a sword).

The actual prayer read out by the speaker’s chaplain is: ‘Lord, the God of righteousness and truth, grant to our Queen and her government, to members of parliament and all in positions of responsibility, the guidance of your Spirit. May they never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals, but laying aside all private interests and prejudices keep in mind their responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind; so may your kingdom come and your name be hallowed, Amen.’

So Christians will often pray for politicians, that the decisions they make will benefit the people of this country. The only problem is (as I'm sure you may have noticed), sometimes, prayers are unanswered. 

Afterlife Vote (AV) Party political broadcast from the 'yes' campaign

Under the new voting system a 'Yes to AV' (Afterlife Vote) will mean that we will all get a say in our afterlife.

Obviously the old FPTP (First Pray, Then Paradise) system has a number of flaws.

For a start it is simply unfair. Even if a person votes for 'Heaven' they may not get what they want. If they do not vote hard enough or they are unable to vote (or they are simply unhappy with the choices available) then often they will not get their first choice. Voter apathy is also a factor - with so many people dis-engaged from the process, how can we hope to get the kind of afterlife we would all like?

A 'Yes to AV' vote will make for a much fairer system.

To illustrate the new AV system please consider the following example. You could choose -
'Nirvana'
as your first choice and
'Paradise'
as your second choice,
your third choice could then be 'Heaven'.

It will no longer simply be a vote for 'Heaven' and a default state being experienced if no vote is made.

Under the current system, the choice has usually been either 'Heaven' or 'Hades', with many people unsure of what they are voting for (or if they even have a choice). This is clearly unfair.
Then, of course, there have been the vote rigging scandals (the less said about them the better). The system has been open to corruption.

The much fairer AV system will allow an individual to put a cross next to either 'Oblivion', or even a more obscure choice (such as 'Purgatory').

Many people fear that under the new system 'Hell' will get in as a default position. But this is not so, under the new Afterlife Vote.

Let us be very clear - The new system will allow you to make a series of positive choices. And let's face it, 'Hell' has been in power far too often in the past. To avoid this in the future the 'Hell' 'choice' will be dropped. It was always unfair.

Although this sounds complicated, it really isn't and is much fairer than the old system. There will be far fewer scandals too. And furthermore the end of the world will also take place through a smooth transition of power (there will be a referendum on the details of the tribulation).

During times of recession you may wonder what the cost of this new system will be.

That is the genius of the new Afterlife Vote system. It will be paid for simply by cutting red-tape and transferring money destined for Defence. The irony being that the money destined for Defence will then be used to defend each individual's destiny.

Vote 'Yes' to AV.

You know you want to.

2010 Election

Today I wrote off to change my address for the electoral register. There are pros and cons to doing this. I had a month or so when the Government didn't know where I lived and I took a perverse, twisted pleasure in this fact. I had to face the truth that it was probably going to be the last time that this was ever going to be the case. But, it was good while it lasted...

Over the next few months MP's will crank into action once again, doing what they love to do. There will be arguments on whether Britain is broken or not broken (even if 'broken' is a misdiagnosis and the country is merely sick).

It doesn't matter, because this year we will have the treat of seeing our political leaders in TV debates. It is vaguely exciting - all those college lectures on US presidents winning and losing elections simply because they sweated a little or hadn't shaved properly will be more meaningful to me.

Sadly, 16-18 year olds will still not be able to vote. But don't worry young people, I'm sure that the Conservatives will be keen to tell you that you not being able to vote is your responsibility.

It isn't even as if Labour have been that nanny-esque that they have not been placing all the responsibility on individuals as it is. Didn't they make up the word 'meritocracy'? Haven't they pressed and pressed for single mothers and the mentally ill to find work whether they like it or not? But politicians set the agenda too often and now it is all about personal responsibility vs nanny state or broken society vs non-broken society or Gordon Brown stammering a little too much in a TV debate.

But as someone who remembers what it used to be like under a Tory Government there is no way I will be voting for them either. I would rather die (which, I'm sure they would say is my responsibility).