Friday, May 21, 2010

Why the Conservatives did not win the General Election

Much has already been written; even more is yet to be. But while the politicos, specialists and analysts pore over the ‘UKIP effect’, the scale of the BNP vote, the lack of a Lynton Crosby, the absence of a ‘big theme’ or ‘strategic idea’; the inadequacies of George Osborne and the effect of the televised debates, there is far more to be gleaned from the voting patterns of faith groups.

If David Cameron made one mistake during this election campaign, it was his decision to sideline the Christian majority. It is one thing to ‘love bomb’ the Liberal Democrats and to court the minority faiths, but quite another purposely to rile and alienate Christians.

The Prime Minister professes ‘a fairly classic Church of England faith that grows hotter or colder by moments’.

Thus is he the embodiment of the English national spirituality.

Yet he denigrates and misrepresents the Church of England; he proclaims that ‘it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around’; and he asserts that if Jesus were around today he would be supporting ‘gay rights’.

Such comments seemed purposely crafted to provoke and cause offence. The Church of England - traditionally the Conservative Party's spiritual wing - was not attracted by the temporal 'broad church' on offer.

Mr Cameron did not criticise the homophobic Mosques or misogynistic Gurdwaras; he did not exhort Muslims, Sikhs or Hindus to integrate with the British way of life; and he did not suggest that Mohammed, Guru Nanak or Krishna, were they around today, would support ‘gay rights’.

All genuine Christians are every bit as concerned with poverty, family breakdown, injustice and ‘Broken Britain’ as the Prime Minister. They may differ in the solutions, but they will talk to each other, debate, listen and learn. David Cameron has consistently refused to listen to Christians, even eschewing the pre-election offer of a high-profile interview with one of country’s most senior and respected religion journalists. This would have reached tens of thousands.

Considering that the Conservative Party was just 16,000 votes short of an overall majority, such a decision seems inexplicable.

The country faces the worst economic crisis it has ever experienced in peacetime. It is Labour’s fault, and they have been judged and found wanting. If we are to reform education, eradicate welfare dependency, halt inflation, stem the increase in unemployment and minimise home repossessions, we must now support the most stable option on offer, and that is the Liberal-Conservative coalition.

It may not be ideal, but it is the least worst option or lesser evil.

And we are commanded to pray for them.


Blogger OldSlaughter said...

We lost because it did not seem real.

The world changed after Cameron was elected. He fought the last war.

I think they electorate was screaming for anybody who appeared to be playing a straight bat. An antidote to the mountain of spin, falsity and broken promises.

Cameron did not provide that, he provided an impersonation of the person he considered electable.

Would have been better in 2005.

21 May 2010 at 09:54  
Blogger OldSlaughter said...


The world changed after Cameron was elected leader of the party. Not Prime Minister.

21 May 2010 at 09:55  
Blogger Botogol said...

if Jesus were around today does Your Grace think he WOULD be supporting gay rights?

21 May 2010 at 10:00  
Blogger Scrigg said...

We are commanded to love our enemies as we love ourselves, and pray fro everybody.

I would describe myself, these days, as a cultural Christian, but not the kind that Dawkins seems to belong to, and praying has long since ceased. The practical reality is, for me and my faith, that we are all screwed if everything is resting upon a wing and a prayer.

But God bless this blog. I am really getting into that little book - The Principality and Power of Europe. In my opinion it is a must read, and absolute gem of a book. I am still waiting for the post man to deliver Boris's.

21 May 2010 at 10:08  
Blogger Vishal said...

OldSlaughter - you hit the nail right on the head. Ashcroft and DC fought the last election - they realised only a bit too late that it was okay to talk about immigration now, okay to say yes, we are going to cut spending.
BUT any hint of that and the media, even now, is ready to scream blue murder. And I am afraid a sizeable minority of voters, enough to swing an election, also agree with them - that Tories luuuv to cut, they are nasty old Tories, etc.

Specific to Religion - who can blame him for appearing as the blog says -

"The Prime Minister professes ‘a fairly classic Church of England faith that grows hotter or colder by moments’.

Thus is he the embodiment of the English national spirituality. "

I don't think he lost votes because of his position on religion. He was never going to get those votes because Labour has created a large votebank of public sector workers who believe Labour would've somehow kept their jobs, even at great cost to the country as a whole.

21 May 2010 at 10:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From David Lonsdale

If Jesus was around today he would affirm that the moral law has not changed, as did the early disciples in Acts Chapter 15.

There was no doubt as to the demands of the moral law as understood by the Jewish Christian believers of the time. Neither is there any doubt that homosexuality is contrary to the moral law as clearly stated in Leviticus.

I have no objection to people doing as they choose, but I must warn them that there will be a reckoning and that the word of Cameron will not prevail when the judgement comes. I did not make the law. I am just passing on what it says.

21 May 2010 at 10:10  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

I shall comment more fully on your piece today, later.

For the moment I am too ashamed of my Party, in front of the other posters, for the way it treated Judaeo-Christians prior to and during the General Election.

The Conservative Party was just short of 16,000 for an overall majority: the Westminster Declaration now has over 62,000 signatures (

21 May 2010 at 10:14  
Anonymous Peter Shields said...

Your Grace, whilst I agree with your general tenor of your argument I fear it is far too over-simplistic - as are all such post-mortems.

This in large part due the fact the we have but one largely irrelevant vote and apparently it is meant to communicate a 1000 different messages.

With regard to the courting of the 'conservative Christian" vote, I have this observation to make: I stood as an independent candidate in my local constituency. I was bombarded with questionnaires daily from all sorts of special interest groups. By far the most persistent were the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, but I also had them from unions, secularists, fairer taxes & on & on. I DID NOT RECEIVE A SINGLE REQUEST FROM A CHRISTIAN CONSTITUENT OR CHRISTIAN LOBBY ORGANISATION.

Now I happen to think that these questionnaires (along with hustings) are a waste of time due to our current electoral system meaning that a candidates personal opinions are utterly worthless - only the party's opinions matter. However, the apathy of most Christians towards things political is damning. And the ONLY direction the protestant churches gave out was "don't vote BNP" - thus ostracising themselves from the 600,000 people who voted for them.

Oh for a John the Baptist who will denounce our leaders' wickedness in no uncertain terms. At least the church of Rome makes it's priorities clear. Still - fat load of good it does - the lemmings keep voting Labour anyway despite their utter godlessness.

21 May 2010 at 10:34  
Blogger English Viking said...

Cameron lost a whole lot more than 16,000 votes over the 'cast-iron' lying thing.

'If Jesus were around today, would he.........'

He IS around today. He's not dead, you know. I know what he thinks about homosexuality. He wrote about it in his book. He calls it an 'abomination'.

Lucky for me, I agree wholeheartedly with him.

21 May 2010 at 10:36  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I know what he thinks about homosexuality he wrote about it in his book.

Did he really - Have you got the tome or pages that everyone else is missing or what?

Back to the Longboat and take your misinformation with you EV!

21 May 2010 at 11:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By, that Mr. Singh is sharp!

21 May 2010 at 11:09  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Cameron is a clueless arrogant twit. That's why he failed to get a majority. Even now he busies himself rearranging deckchairs while the ship of state sinks beneath his feet. He seems unconcerned about what is happening in Europe and the fiscal shitstorm blowing our way as the Euro goes into meltdown.

21 May 2010 at 11:09  
Blogger English Viking said...


You screen-tag is a misnomer, your heart will fail you for fear when you kneel before your master, should you continue in such bitterness and opposition to him.

If you are unfamiliar with the litany of verses contained in The Holy Bible concerning the perversion of homosexuality, you are not really in a position to be commenting on a blog which concerns itself with Christian matters.

21 May 2010 at 11:10  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace,they didn't win a majority because they failed to tackle the great themes of the day-the economy, Europe,immigration.

And I disagree with this 'lesser of the two evils' argument. Better to review on a case by case basis.

21 May 2010 at 11:14  
Anonymous Mr Katana Sword said...

Your Grace, this is indeed a wonderful coalition. I am sure that you agree with me that the true conservatives amongst us will support Prime Minister Cameron in his duties as coalition leader. It seems that all some people do is snipe, but at least we are back in power...

21 May 2010 at 11:29  
Blogger Scrigg said...

It has occurred to me that Christians will never be happy until they are flogged, beaten, spat on and nailed to a piece of wood. Lucky for me, they do not have a monopoly on the Christian culture any more. Things have moved on since the days when the local priest could have you sent to Coventry (with minor exceptions). Christians are more scared of each other than God.

The church became an exclusive club with firm rules and a highly snobbish code. Couple this with the politicisation of the churches and what you have is a fear driven code of allegiance. Lucky that I can step out of it, and this no longer gives these sickly people the monopoly on the Christian culture and traditions of this country. Their rantings are becoming less relevant in light of modern thinking and scientific discovery.

Without worrying about what others in the church think, I am able to make choices using my own mind, being able to make up my own mind is important to me. And I think Cranmer is correct with his reasons about why the Tories did not win. It is because many of us have become more culturally linked to our Christian heritage and traditions than actually whipped into thought by the church. We are able to make up our own minds and this is what has happened.

No way can the church take any credit because the attendances are dwindling rapidly. People are being turned off traditional church worship at a steady rate.

21 May 2010 at 11:55  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 May 2010 at 12:13  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Graham Davis ... I think you fundamentally misunderstand what prayer is. Which is hardly surprising.

I also talk to my earthly parents, is that also absurd and obscene?

21 May 2010 at 12:20  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Rebel Saint

Please enlighten me

21 May 2010 at 12:21  
Blogger Scrigg said...

Graham Davis

Within the churches there is a high proportion of control freaks. These are the sickly people I refer to. Not all believers and faithful people are like this though, many go about their faith quietly with secret internal dialogue.

But what is your point? Why do you continue to post on this bog when you know it is mostly commented on by Christian believers? Don't get me wrong, I know His Grace welcomes your comments, but I find you to be evangelistic in your ways.

If people wish to believe and pray then why does this have to be especially 'breathtaking'? How can a 'believer's mindset' be absurd when it chooses to believe? Like I said, I find your comments to be evangelistic, fundamentalist and fanatical.

21 May 2010 at 12:23  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

When I hear grown up, intelligent people talk about praying I can hardly believe it!

Even if you believe in God why on Earth should he/she/it intervene to satisfy your petty demands? Of all the calamities that have befallen mankind and the billions of prayers offered to prevent them, should he/she/it answer this one? Does it have such merit so as to surpass the famine, disease and natural disasters that have ravaged innocent humanity over millennia?

Prayer even using a believer’s mindset is as absurd as it is obscene. The utter arrogance that is required to believe that you, yes you are deserving of special treatment is breathtaking.

21 May 2010 at 12:24  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Scrig said...

If people wish to believe and pray then why does this have to be especially 'breathtaking'? How can a 'believer's mindset' be absurd when it chooses to believe?

I thought I had explained that.

Rebel Saint said that he talks to his parents, so? Are they supernatural entities with the power to intervene to prevent war and pestilence? If so maybe they should get on with it!

PS my original post is out of sequence because I deleted it to correct a typo.

21 May 2010 at 12:33  
Blogger Young Mr. Brown said...

Your Grace,

Three comments.

1) Your link to "if Jesus were around today" is to the article in the Independent. It should be to Ruth Gledhill's piece in the Times, since the Independent doesn't actually mention that line.

2. David Cameron did not quite say that if Jesus were alive today he would be supporting gay rights. He said: "“Actually I could find you quite a lot of relatively religious conservatives who totally agree that we must never go back. My Parliamentary Private Secretary Des Swayne is a good example, someone of deep religious faith, but who argues very passionately with people like him that they have just got it wrong. That if our Lord Jesus was around today he would very much be backing a strong agenda on equality and equal rights, and not judging people on their sexuality. I’m being as honest as can, that all conservative parties will often find this journey a bit harder than others.”"

He said, in other words, that Des Swayne would say these things.

Cameron may well be under the same misapprehension, but he didn't quite say so - even if he implied it.

3. I think that there is something in what you say about Mr. Cameron and Christian voters. I vowed some time ago that I would never vote for the Conservative Party while David Cameron was leader. His subsequent actions and pronouncements have done nothing to change my mind. In fact, I'm about at the point where I will not vote for the Conservative Party until they expel him.

21 May 2010 at 12:36  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 May 2010 at 12:39  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Rebel Saint

I am afraid you have lost me, what is your point?

21 May 2010 at 12:42  
Blogger Scrigg said...

Graham Davis

Do not be afraid of spelling monitors. I am more interested in what you have to say than your spelling typos.

There seems to be some kind of wall between our own individual logic. I seem to be no more able to deduce yours than you do mine.

My position is that I cannot pray, I have tried and it is empty because I have no idea whom I am supposed to be praying to, so I don't. But i would have thought that people who have faith and who have decided that they know who they pray to are able to do so in the confidence that someone is listening. Like Cranmer says, 'we are commanded to pray'.

It is not arrogance or self interest as such that has them praying,, they are commanded to. As a non believer, this notion does not even come close to taking away my breath.

Rebel saint believes that he has earthly and heavenly parents and he talks to both of them. This is what I presume he/she is saying (I don't know if you are a he or a she).

21 May 2010 at 12:42  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Scrigg said...

My position is that I cannot pray, I have tried and it is empty because I have no idea whom I am supposed to be praying to, so I don't

Why as a “non believer” would you pray?

21 May 2010 at 12:49  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

(1) Graham Davis said: When I hear grown up, intelligent people talk about praying I can hardly believe it!

Whence this sudden rush of charity?

(2.) Cameron also missed an open goal - a relaxation of the smoking ban, enabling proprietors to decide for themselves (a concept wholly alien to Labour) what should be allowed on their own property. That would have been worth a good many votes.

21 May 2010 at 12:50  
Anonymous Elliot Kane said...

I'm not sure Cameron listened to anyone, in truth. His campaign was an unmitigated disaster from start to finish on so many levels it is scarcely believable. One might almost think he wanted to lose, in fact, from the mistakes he made.

Time and again, he ignored the opportunity to destroy Labour. Andrew Neather's allegations alone should have been enough to give victory, but he allowed Labour to sweep them under the carpet. Iraq & Afghanistan were virtually ignored. Europe was avoided as an issue, except to make things worse by breaking a 'Cast Iron' promise. Completely failing to drive home the astronomical size of debt & deficit...

Well, I could continue this for a while, but you get the point. 'What Dave Did Wrong' can really be summed up in one word: everything. If there was a way to win he ignored it; if there was a way to confuse people or alienate them, he found it. The entire campaign was utterly botched.

Which was why he failed to get a massive majority over the most loathed, despised and hated govt in living memory.

I honestly have more faith in the Lib Con coalition than I would in Cameron alone. Cameron may choose to ignore everyone else, but there's now one person he MUST listen to and hopefully that will help.

21 May 2010 at 12:54  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Little Black Sambo

I have no doubt that I am among educated, articulate and intelligent people so not charity but genuine incomprehension.

21 May 2010 at 12:57  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

My point is this, if you delete comments due to typos then repost them further down the thread you completely screw the flow of the comments and leave everyone wondering what-on-earth is going on as they read responses to questions that have not even been asked yet?

I would give you a theological explanation for prayer but (a) it's futile because you don't accept the very axioms it is based on ... like trying to explain an aspect of geometry with someone who doesn't accept that 1 is a natural number (b) this is a blog of religio-political discourse, not theology. There are plenty other places to discuss theology. (c) I can't be arsed ... had to many of your sort of the blog before. I come to His Grace's blog to read & engage with the subject in hand not to play tiresome games of whack-a-mole with atheists.

21 May 2010 at 12:58  
Anonymous dictionar german said...

I am really getting into that little book - The Principality and Power of Europe. Thank you so much

21 May 2010 at 13:04  
Blogger Scrigg said...

@Graham Davis

"Why as a “non believer” would you pray?"

I am not a total non believer. I am tortured by a belief that there is a God, a higher entity, or even entities, but I have no idea what it is.

I can't believe that Jesus is God. I have read the Bible and it does nothing for me by way of faith. But I love the tradition, even all the bad bits, it's the human history. I love to visit Stone Henge and such places but would not dance naked in the moonlight or perform any other daft activity.

I do have an internal dialogue but it's more like a conversation with myself than anything else. I can't help thinking that it's because of my sinful ways that bad things happen sometimes. Not sin in the biblical sense, but like what is written in our hearts, when we do wrong and we know it.

So when I say I have tried to pray this is what I mean. But there is nobody there for me to pray to. I believe that there are many things waiting to be discovered by science. I believe that telepathy can happen in small degrees, and that there is an energy that resembles a soul, and it is possible that it lingers complete for a fraction of a while before returning to the pool from whence it came. I do not think we live on in an after life though - I can't see the point. But for me I think all these things are way out of it and it is pointless to let them intrude too far upon our basic material reality.

But non of this detracts from the fact that we have a Christian cultural and traditional heritage. It is our history, what made us who and what we are. And if you remove this from the equation, then the sums don't add up and the structure begins to fall apart.

21 May 2010 at 13:08  
Blogger Phil said...

I couldn't agree more withe Cranmer. These were exactly the reasons I did not vote Tory -- which under any other sircumstances I would have done -- despite having a Christian Tory candidate in my constituency.

In discussion with that candidate I discovered that he personally agreed with my stance on these issues, but felt totally unable to address them within his own party. I could not vote for impotence!

Result: I voted for none of them!

21 May 2010 at 13:34  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

YG You said:
"The Prime Minister professes ‘a fairly classic Church of England faith that grows hotter or colder by moments’.
Thus is he the embodiment of the English national spirituality."

I have never read such a bizarre and unreal definition such as a "Church of England" faith.
A charitable view is that the C of E can only be described as a sort of semitheological Irish Stew.
Anybody in it can believe anything they like.
In that sense DC may well represent that unfortunate element of the C of E in so far as he can be identified with it.
However he and Clegg are thorough
moderns, secular, and disdainful of real Christianity as defined by Scripture.
I had not noticed anything particularly "spiritual" about his policies of lies and deception politically, or any objective Christian standard in his social policy of embracing a homosexual ideology.
YG. I suggest most Christians of all traditions will fail to recognise your description.

21 May 2010 at 14:01  
Anonymous not a machine said...

If mysterys and dilemmas are closely linked then we have arrived at its political outcome.

Events seem to shaping goverment at the moment , events which as you point out could have been avoided by any goverment intent on sound finances .

There is nothing particulary clever in carping when a crisis is upon us in that respect advocating the lesser evil is perhaps correct .I see much in the coalition to try and settle tempestous seas , however I am not certain that sea will be soothed so easily with soft power .

We will all no doubt be doing our own reviews in the comming weeks I am all for giving it some chance to work ,but not at any price or cost !

21 May 2010 at 14:28  
Blogger Young Mr. Brown said...

Mr Wood,

I think that "a sort of semitheological Irish Stew" which is "disdainful of real Christianity as defined by Scripture" is an excellent description of "the English national spirituality."

For all I know, it might well be a pretty good description of 'a fairly classic Church of England faith.'

21 May 2010 at 14:28  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

English Viking - It will take more than a closet Nazi like you to convince me.

21 May 2010 at 14:50  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

All right.

I’ve followed the links and re-read your previous posts. It is exceptionally clear that Cameron has ignored the Judaeo-Christian vote in favour of the secular vote.

Has God ignored Cameron?

The ‘majority’ of the secular vote did not vote for him. They voted Lib-Dem and Labour.

We have just ejected an unelected prime minister (Brown) who has now been replaced by a prime minister who lost the General Election.

Is God ‘avin’ a ‘larf’?

What is also clear is that he has encouraged the Church of England to go through the same modernisation process as the effeminate leadership of the current Conservative Party.

It is clear that the Church of England has ‘modernised’. It reveals this ‘modernisation’ by membership decline (only the lively evangelical churches are flourishing – and they teach orthodoxy).

It is clear that the Conservative Party has modernised: its core vote has walked away.

What does this new prime minister, who lost the election, do?

He targets the very section of his party, the 1922 Committee, that last brought down a Conservative-Liberal coalition and alienates them.

We are commanded to pray for them.

21 May 2010 at 15:11  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

There is one more issue.

Why would Cameron ignore a reasonably significant section of the voters (Christians)? It doesn’t make any sense.

Unless, of course, someone advised him of the truth: EU Directives in support of homosexual ‘equality’ trump Judaeo-Christian rights.

So long as we remain in the EU – we cannot win the legal battle.

In other words, Cameron has decided that he is not going to win the battle favouring the Christian side – so he might as well switch to the winners corner.

As you wrote I your article of the 5 February 2010:

‘Yet if ‘full equality’ is ‘the bottom line’, if it is ‘full essential’, we are in for a far more interesting religio-political time under the next Conservative government than Cranmer could ever have dreamed.’

So, our persecution continues under Cameron; and, we cannot be Turkeys voting for Christmas at the next general election.

21 May 2010 at 15:21  
Anonymous robert said...

Over 7 million unborn children have been killed in this country since the introduction of the abortion act.
The Coalition in spite of the Liberals need to address this issue and reduce the numbers.
David Cameron was in favour of reducing the pregnancy time from 26 to 20 weeks for an abortion.
Christians on this issue have been ignored.

21 May 2010 at 15:31  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

D Singh said...

Cameron has ignored the Judaeo-Christian vote in favour of the secular vote.

I think that you betray a total misunderstanding of the electorate. In contrast to most who post here and a small number of evangelicals, the majority of people don’t define themselves as either Christian or secular. Even those who say that they are Christian to a survey question are simply cultural Christians, even Dawkins says that. They may be christened, marry and die under the Christian banner but most will not have given faith a moment’s thought.

So to capture their votes by larding the political message with Christianity is frankly a waste of time. There is a Christian/conservative cohort most of whom are elderly and whose influence is diminishing as one by one they die off. The new generation of 40 something politicians is not looking to them for guidance or even as voting fodder. They have finally ousted the baby boomers (of which I am one) and see the future through pragmatic rather than ideological eyes and I for one am delighted.

There is no secular agenda, it is simply that (immigrants apart) faith is not relevant to most peoples lives and they see the damage that religion can do (Islam and Catholicism) whilst seeing no benefits for themselves or their families.

Rebel Saint said...

My point is this, if you delete comments due to typos then repost them further down the thread you completely screw the flow of the comments and leave everyone wondering what-on-earth is going on as they read responses to questions that have not even been asked yet?

You are right of course.

21 May 2010 at 15:59  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I do not know what "Christian" means in the Western context. It seems to be a social and cultural affinity which has little to do with Jesus of Nazareth nor even with Martin Luther.

It seems to be very much "lifestyle" and full of sentimentalism and liberal attitudes as if God and Jesus are merely there to affirm lifestyle choices rather like a personal mascot or indulgent godparent.

It seems to have little to do with asceticism, denial of wants, or self-discipline. Nothing to do with Scripture, and everything to do with secular Causes, fundraising, institutional Churchism, and a self-righteous obsession with 'holier than thou' feelings of self-worth.

I do not recognise Christ in Western Churchism. I do not recognise it in Cameron or those who profess Church of England as their destination of choice on Sundays. It is the curse of the Anglican Church that a Christian Believer can enter on a Sunday and feel his Faith ebb away during a Service conducted by an Unbeliever in Vestments.

So much of this is pure Theatre. There is Good Works but no Faith. These politicians do not really Believe, they simply profess Faith to sell their wares.

I am very wary of so-called 'Christians' in Western society who seem to have an amalgam of half-baked, semi-pagan beliefs which would revolt the Risen Christ and are reminiscent of the lapses into Neo-Paganism throughout the centuries. I do not think Christian Faith is an affirmation of existing behaviour nor is it kind, generous, sweet or consensual - it is a very rocky road to Redemption as John Bunyan wrote.

21 May 2010 at 17:11  
Anonymous robert said...

I used to explain to my children that Jesus taught only good things.
As Christians we all really know right from wrong.

21 May 2010 at 17:27  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Remember this man who was busy getting photo-shoots in Africa, why his own consituents suffered floods.

Why would his attitude to the Nation as a whole be any different.

Culturally we are christian, whether in full blown belief or not and its our culture under attack, even non-christians have the nous to realize that.

But our indo-european ancestral roots must rediscover a tally with eternal dharma, before this whole mess can be sorted out.

21 May 2010 at 18:12  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

'...there is far more to be gleaned from the voting patterns of faith groups...'

No there isn't. Those patterns may be one item in the mix, but you well know that people like Ekklesia would not have supported Cameron under any circumstances. Many Anglicans are left-leaning. (Mind you, so is Cameron.) Many Evangelicals have been strongly influenced by the Jim Wallis, leftish approach.

Personally, I can see no difference between any of the mainstream political parties vis-a-vis Christianity. They are all cutural liberals. They all promote political correctness.

The issues that affected my vote were political, especially the governance of this country as it is affected by the EU.

What's more, I certainly would not vote for a party that said it would favour Christianity. I have no wish to be propped up, supported, or protected (in anything but the most basic way that applies to all citizens/subjects) by the state. It is not the job of the state to promote or protect Christians and churches, but, as the effects of Christendom continue their slow and inevitable withdrawal, many Christians see it as the end. I don't.

As for being commanded to pray for them, sure thing. You're right there. Just as Paul commanded his readers to pray for the Roman Emperor (Nero, I think it was at the time), and as we should have prayed for Brown's Labour government, and should do so still if they had continued their rule.

21 May 2010 at 18:16  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Scrigg - on prayer....
Once, when I was young and agnostic and verging on atheist, a horse I was riding ran away with me. While clinging on for dear life, a prayer came out of me: "O God, help me; please help me." Well He did. In the stubborn way of doubters, I wasn't exactly converted to religion - but for years I wondered at that prayer, because I knew it stemmed from a faith that had by-passed all my mental gymnastics.

If a church near you doesn't provide services or sermons that you need (I know they sometimes don't, and you describe unpleasant establishments)-- the old set prayers are a start. The Pater Noster/Our Father is, after all, how Christ Himself taught us to pray.

In 2008 I encountered a better idea of developing prayer in a personal way! That was through a Church course on the Psalms: song-prayers. The prescribed outline underpinned individual analyses of the Psalms, which we then brought back to small group discussions. These involved some comparison of the Psalms with NT books like Romans and Hebrews; some comparison of the different translations, including the Old English ones and the Hebrew Bible; and it also led to group composition of prayers, which helped us get the gist of synthesis. Quite a revelation, it was; and the material itself addresses the sublimity of our insignificance.

So should you ever seek to work it out... you wouldn't be the first.

21 May 2010 at 18:40  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Sorry ... 'an idea of how to develop.'

21 May 2010 at 18:44  
Blogger Theresa said...

I think the Conservative party are being unfair to Cameron. Nobody seems to please them; William Hague, who was small and baldy and therefore unworthy; Iain Duncan Smith, who was lacking at the ballot box and had a nervous cough; Michael Howard, who had baggage from being in Thatcher's government; Kenneth Clarke, the leader -who-never-was, who was liked by the rank and file and was a heavyweight in every sense of the word, but who was pro Europe. Cameron has just managed to get the Conservatives into government for the first time in thirteen years. Yes, it's not an overall majority, but considering the blood letting that has been going on for the past thirteen years, the Conservatives are lucky to be in power at all and should be grateful to him instead of whingeing about not getting an outright win. I think the reason he didn't is very simple; there is barely a fag's paper width between Labour and Conservatives and it's really companies like Microsoft and United Health that run Britain, not Westminster.

21 May 2010 at 18:47  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Forgive me, Your Grace; the strand...

Actually, I have no idea what 'everybody' thinks because I mostly see opinions similar to my own. And those are about the removal of sovereignty via the euSSR and immigration. I tend to suppose that if we sorted those two, we'd have a chance of settling the rest into place.

As for Mr. C --- I have a problem in that I can't warm to his face; and I assume that's because of whatever's going on behind it. The issue, then, is trust.

I can quite see why we have to pray for people who obtain the temporal power to do terrible things to their own Godly people. But as others have suggested - when rulers do those things, the prayer doesn't come easily.

Maybe I should take my own advice and seek a model in the Psalms...

21 May 2010 at 19:05  
Blogger Scrigg said...

@ no nonny

Thanks. I appreciate what you say. Unfortunately I cannot for the life of me connect with the old desert God. But as I keep pointing out, The Christian bit in my heritage is an important part of the equation. Did you see that Lars Vilks video on my blog, where this lecture goes pear-shaped because of Muslims? Well this is what will fill the gap if we drain the Christian bit from the structure. We will end up being swamped by the next forceful thing which is the pig dog god.

God forbid that that should happen to this country - anything but that. I would rather prance around in white sheets in the summer at Stone Henge.

21 May 2010 at 19:35  
Blogger English Viking said...


Invoking Godwin's law will do nothing to convince me that you do not fear that you are wrong.

21 May 2010 at 19:55  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Largely nonsense, Theresa, I'm afraid.

You say that nobody seems to please the Conservative Party. Well, actually, it is that nobody pleases the Tories who can't win an election . That was why Hague and the others were give the bum's rush. Unfortunate, really, because the Tories were so tainted and the Blair creature so elevated in the public mind that if Winston Churchill had been reincarnated to lead them, the Conservatives would still have been given the old elbow.

The reasons you give are risible, and not even caricatures of the truth. Hague is 6ft 2 inches. It is true that IDS was less than powerful at the despatch box (I take it that's what you mean, rather than the ballot box), but I know nothing of his alleged nervous cough. But he was booted out because it was judged that he couldn't win a general election.

Howard was all along preparing the way for Cameron, and was a fake right winger.

Your analysis of Cameron's failure (so much blood-letting for so long) is also wide of the mark. Cameron failed partly because the electoral arithmetic was stacked against the Tories, partly because of the idiocy of the televised 'debates', partly because the Tory brand is still contaminated, partly because of a general lack of enthusiasm amongst voters, and partly because of the 'UKIP effect'.

Your supposed unfairness by the Tories towards Cameron is in fact based entirely on matters of principle: he has shown himself to be a liberal in reality, and he couldn't even manage to win an election against the most incompetent and hated government in modern history. But also he has invited the hatred by following the stupid, ignorant and unprincipled ideas of Francis Maude and Lord Ashcroft (actually I reckon there might also be a negative 'Ashcroft effect').

And he is hated because he showed himself to be an untrustworthy chancer (Lisbon referendum) -- a trimmer for all to see.

Cameron is all image and no substance.

As for your comment about Microsoft et al running Britain, well, they'd have to come a distant second to our real government in Brussels.

But you are right about the fag paper. That's why real conservatives are not keen on him. You have answered your own enquiry.

21 May 2010 at 20:01  
Blogger Scrigg said...

@ no nonny

Sorry to go off on a tangent here. But I can connect with lots of what the Old Desert God stands for, and at times it can seem rational and acceptable, but there is too much that puts me off.

I think if there is a God then the purpose for us would be to be drawn into the divine - and maybe this is the plan; to be slowly drawn into the divine, but what of people who die along the way? I mean what is the point of drawing the end product into the divine plan at the expense of everything that went before. Yes, we have the bible now and we are able to make choices now, but the information is scattered and vague, and we are only human at the end of the day, with all of our human doubts and failings.

If there is no God then I would go as far as saying that we are screwed and everything is just superficial and pointless. My hope is that God does have a plan and that we will grow out of the superstitious phase where we all kill each other over semantics.

I like this video from the Word on Fire bog: Faith Seeks Understanding: Why Did God Create the World?

This is how religion should develop away from the old superstitious and medieval misquotes and fairy tales of the old testament. We should stop being fundamental about things like Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark, come on guys - get real now.

21 May 2010 at 20:04  
Anonymous Philip said...

I totally agree with HG that this is one reason DC didn't get a majority. He neglected, even rejected, the many core values conservative voters, including Christians (not to mention the large numbers of Afro-Caribbeans who are church-going and hold traditional values), by instead seeking the votes of homosexual activists and metropolitan liberals (most of whom probably didn't vote Conservative anyway). Hence Mr Cameron advocated that teaching homosexual behaviour is as normal as heterosexual marriage be "embedded" in schools, has tried to bully the CofE to accept full equality for homosexuals "bottom line" (never mind the Church's centuries-old teaching on sexual ethics), and he sided with Labour's move against the RC adoption agencies. Now Mrs May advocates homosexual adoption. A record not likely to attract Christians.

But there are further reasons the Conservatives didn’t win:
1) The imbalance in the size of Constituencies that favours Labour, meaning the Tories need a huge lead just to get a single-figure majority of seats;
2) DC's weak policy on the EU, which has led to votes for ukip.
3) DC agreeing to the TV debates including Nick Clegg, which of course strengthened the Lib Dems (they may have done even worse than the 23% of the national vote had it not been for the debates)

Regarding 2) and 3), I know of at least one high-quality popular Tory candidate who would have been a tremendous asset to a Conservative Government who failed to get elected due to the BNP and ukip. The total votes of these 2 minor parties were more than the amount this candidate lost by.

DC is responsible by not being sufficiently conservative, and by agreeing to the TV debates. (I can't help being tempted to think he got the result he wanted - enabling him to reduce the power of the traditionalists in his party).

I agree too with HG that we must support and pray for this coalition. For one thing, think of the nightmare we were spared.

21 May 2010 at 20:47  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

As usual I have to agree with the thrust of Anabaptist's view.

Also, to Mr Katana Sword, I have found this on you tube and thought of you :

21 May 2010 at 21:18  
Anonymous Oswin said...

It increasingly appears that Cameron WON way beyond his wildest dreams. He has been given, unwittingly, (?) both the means and excuse, to 'shaft' the right of the Tory party. He is now actively engaged with Clegg, in creating a new, centre-ground party that should defeat both labour and true Tories for years to come. Providing, that is, that the precarious edifice holds together; and it looks as if it might. This is NO short-term convenience; this is not coalition for just for Christmas, it's for life!

We live in interesting times...

21 May 2010 at 22:01  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Katana Sword (bloody silly name) - it would appear that you and Cameron have, for the moment, won.

Whilst admitting such, I do feel it necessary to rebuke you for imagining that this coalition is in any way good for the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party seems no longer to exist ..... the greatest 'sleight of hand' ever performed!

It is impossible to second-guess what is yet to come; but I'll wager the Con-Dem hierarchy are catching-on a damn sight quicker than the rest of us poor fools!

21 May 2010 at 22:17  
Anonymous len said...

The God of the old testament is the God of the new testament.
God does not change.
The old testament is the unfolding and the revealing of Gods plan for redeeming the human race.
The new testament is the plan put into affect,the two cannot be separated.
Gods plan= to put all things into Christ,
Hebrews 2:6-9 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Ephesians 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

21 May 2010 at 23:38  
Blogger English Viking said...


If things carry on as they are, do not be surprised if you about 30% of the Cons join UKIP.

That really would make things interesting.

21 May 2010 at 23:41  
Blogger Theresa said...

I love you too Anabaptist..

Ok, couple of points. If the Tories thought that Hague and IDS couldn't win an election, why did they pick them? Where's all the Tories of principle that you think are superior to them and Cameron? Why didn't they step up to the plate when they were needed? Who's going to replace Cameron just now do you think, if you tire of him?

I agree with you on Michael Howard up to a point; he had no illusions that he was going to win an election. He went in to bat at a time when nooone wanted to and in that sense he has more loyalty to his party than many.

'Blair's government was the most hated and incompetent in history.'

Prove it. And if it was, then why didn't the others before win against them?

As to Microsoft and United Health; I assure you that they do more to steer government policy than the party faithful. That is why there is barely a fag's paper worth between the three main parties.

21 May 2010 at 23:42  
Blogger English Viking said...

The word 'see' is missing. Sorry.

21 May 2010 at 23:43  
Anonymous len said...

Conservatives failed to have a convincing majority at the general election because they failed to convince Labour supporters that they had their interests at heart.
David Cameron with the best of intentions comes across as representing the 'upper class'.
The man in the street is at a loss to know who would represent him (or her)that accounts for many votes going to minority parties.

22 May 2010 at 00:55  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Scrigg, I have no time for trivialization of theology, Scripture, Christianity, and God. Still, despite your superciliousness, you seem slightly open-minded; so.....

This is how religion should develop away from the old superstitious and medieval misquotes and fairy tales of the old testament. We should stop being fundamental about things like Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark, come on guys - get real now. I find this ignorant and puerile. In any case, speak for yourself. You have clearly ignored the theology presented here by others. You now reveal your ignorance of medieval theology, language, history, linguistics, manuscript studies, archaeology, literature, et al. And yet you insult 20 centuries of scholarship on and about them all. You even insult folklore, mythology, and children's stories - while revealing incomprehension of everything about them. Hints: Could raise your level, and do some respectable research (not internet guff that you don't know how to evaluate)? Could you explore applications of symbolism?

(1)I think if there is a God then the purpose for us would be to be drawn into the divine - and maybe this is the plan; to be slowly drawn into the divine, You may be approaching conventional theology about man's willful Fall from God (Good, Light, etc.) to Evil and destruction! The Fall coordinates with the other concept that material existence gives us the opportunity to participate in our own Redemption. (2)but what of people who die along the way In light of the foregoing, have you heard the commonplace, "only the good die young"? I know people who think life in earth is Hell. What you call death would then be "a consummation devoutly to be wished;" and in the midst of what you call life, we would be in death. Your worldliness would then be 'up-so-down.'

Why Did God Create the World? Do you consider yourself equipped to understand the answer? I don't know anybody else who is, or who can provide it.

"where we all kill each other over semantics" - Do you really think that's what people kill for?

I don't understand the rest of your post, but can do no better than point you to His Grace's quotation from Dr. Fisher:
"The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning." If
you sincerely wish for personal and detailed knowledge, I suggest recourse to a qualified COE theologian/spiritual advisor; and/or formal education in the discipline.

Best regards.

22 May 2010 at 02:41  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Scrigg: Why Did God Create the World?
I see Len cites one of my favourite chapters to explain this. It does, of course, provide the answer to your question in terms of God's relationship and love of Mankind, but not quite in terms of the rest of Creation. I don't see how our limited perceptions could appreciate God's full purpose, is what I was getting at.

22 May 2010 at 03:14  
Blogger Scrigg said...

@No nonny

That all just sounded hysterical to me. Maybe God is in there somewhere - good luck anyway.

22 May 2010 at 10:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't Cameron entitled to his religious opinion, though? Don't really see how he's 'sidelining' Christians by professing a belief that Jesus would've supported gay rights. Many Christians agree, and many disagree. Had he said Jesus would have hated homosexuals/homosexuality, he'd have had the support of a lot of Christians but would have sidelined many, too. It's a complex issue and perhaps we ought not to insist on assertion of one Christian point of view.

22 May 2010 at 14:14  
Anonymous Philip said...

Anon, If DC had said Jesus hated homosexuals, Christians would disagree as Jesus loves sinners (i.e. all of us) whatever sins they commit. But as God hates sin, Christians do not naturally support the promotion of homosexuality.

22 May 2010 at 17:14  
Blogger Preacher said...

Your Grace.
Why didn't David Cameron win the election? Because he was vague about most things, Scotch mist on others & untrustworthy on cast iron promises.
We now have a government that is more like a sit com, maybe we are seeing the new series of 'Last of the summer wine'....... well at least we still have Clegg & Foggy.

22 May 2010 at 17:54  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Preacher - tee hee ... but it begs the question: who is Nora Batty?

22 May 2010 at 18:29  
Blogger Preacher said...

Wait & see, All will be revealed, any thoughts from other communicants on the identity of the rumpled stockinged one or even compo?.

22 May 2010 at 19:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Thank you for your response. In order to be accurate you might wish to add the word "some", to precede Christians. I have met many more Christians who are not against same-sex love than who are. I have no doubt that our experiences differ but by virtue of the fact that there are many Christians who do support it, it is fallacious to claim that Christians as a whole are against the promotion of it.

My argument in this context is not that Christians ought to be for or against homosexuality, but that one cannot ignore the difference of opinions. One cannot claim Christians are against it any more than they can claim that they are for it. It's a hermeneutical matter and a matter of perspective, in my humble opinion.

22 May 2010 at 19:41  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Annonymous at have those opinions I reckon you must predominately hang around with homosexuals. I don't, and my experience vis-a-vis Christians, is otherwise.

22 May 2010 at 20:10  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Preacher....surely Compo is too full and rounded a character, for the likes of this shower? Although there's bound to be one who keeps something nasty in a matchbox!

22 May 2010 at 20:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Thanks for your reply. Your assumption is fallacious, I'm afraid. I hang around with mostly heterosexuals. And the vast majority of the Christians I know who are in support of gay rights are heterosexual.

I think it's more that the Christians I hang around with are to some extent liberal, and don't believe that Pentateuchal sexual ethics which objectify women, discriminate against gays and force raped women to marry their rapists, are applicable today.

22 May 2010 at 20:40  
Blogger Preacher said...

Yes I agree, far too wild & colourful for the grey corridors of power. But could you imagine him with said matchbox on the frontbenches giving Cleggy a nasty shock, particularly if he lost his 'pet' at PM'S question time?.

22 May 2010 at 21:18  
Anonymous len said...

For a Christian to be genuine is to be born again;


"In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." " ...I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, "You must be born again." John 3:3-7 NIV
We know what God says about homosexuality, so how can you be born of the Spirit of God and condone homosexuality?

22 May 2010 at 22:07  
Anonymous len said...

I think Christians who condone sin are living a lie.Jesus died to free sinners from their sin not to condone people in their sin.
If Christians do not tell people(sinners) the truth who will?

22 May 2010 at 22:13  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Why Conservatives did not win the General Election

God: did not permit them to do so.

22 May 2010 at 22:18  
Anonymous PJ said...

Mr Singh at 22.18, then why did God let Nulab win in 1997?

22 May 2010 at 22:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...


The Church had become intellectually lazy.

Francis A. Schaeffer had warned that this was coming.

22 May 2010 at 22:45  
Blogger D. Singh said...

22 May 2010 at 23:03  
Anonymous PJ said...

Interesting stuff which puts Mr Davis' Weltanschauung to shame. The sad thing is things have only got worse since this video was made and I can't see things changing any time soon. One can only pray

22 May 2010 at 23:21  
Blogger D. Singh said...


The first thing that you as members of the younger generation can do, is this: study Schaeffer.

Trust me.

It is your generation that God is going to permit to win.

I repeat. You are going to win.

22 May 2010 at 23:29  
Anonymous PJ said...

What gave away age Mr Singh?

I do intend to look into Schaeffer

I appreciate your optimism, however im not sure how true that will be... Only time will tell

22 May 2010 at 23:36  
Anonymous PJ said...

That should read "my age"

22 May 2010 at 23:38  
Blogger D. Singh said...

It's the way you use words kid.

It is the way Oswin uses grammar and syntax - that I knew she was from my homeland.

And the same with Dreadnaught - I can tell she is female.

There is a poster who understands this far better than me.

Her name is 'no nonny.'

22 May 2010 at 23:43  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

I know you are in great pain.

Remember this: you are first a foremost a soldier.

Once you accept that the pain is easier to bear.

Neither of us will have peace: until the day we go home.

Oh aye! On the journey He does provide us with oases: with dates, honey, bread, figs, the water of life and yoghurt.

That is just the way it is for our outfit.

This life or eternity?

The rich have this life alone.


23 May 2010 at 00:10  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Suicide is not the end of the matter.

Do you think God suspends His 'II Law of Thermodynamics' for the suicide?


Those who enter Hell become creatures they were never meant to be. They continue as degraded creatures. they continue to degrade over time: time and time again.

23 May 2010 at 00:24  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Thank you for the video Mr. Singh -and for introducing me to Schaeffer - who is now on my reading list. I'm about to check out his take on the mediaeval!

For some reason this all put me in mind of black swans... as things that people claim cannot exist, but which do exist.

23 May 2010 at 01:16  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Schaeffer spells out very eloquently the reason we are sinking in a moral quagmire.
Man has fallen for the oldest lie in the world" you shall be as gods" Owen Dudley writes:

“Men are in danger of staking their all upon what would prove to be the greatest delusion ever foisted on humanity, were it generally accepted. Men are being told that there is a certain road to human happiness in this world; that those who tread this road will find an Utopia of earthly bliss; that they will become ‘men like Gods.’ It is not the first time men have been so told. ‘You shall be as Gods,’ urged Satan in the Garden of Eden. But he lied. And the man and woman were fooled. So also will it be with the men and women who allow themselves to be caught in the snares of those who are repeating that invitation today.” be as gods"

23 May 2010 at 09:50  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Annonymous at 20.40 - better fallacious than salacious, I suppose. Anyhows, your somewhat borderline-hysterical, mini-diatribe still fails to convince...all a tad too 'twee' for me. Admittedly, I know very few 'happy clappers'.

23 May 2010 at 17:46  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Mr.D.Singh at much as I derive pleasure from our joint Angli influences, I would be obliged if you would desist from calling me ''she'' ... my daughter reads Cramner; the young are confused enough as it is!

Neither am I the 'cat's mother'!

(secretly suspects Mr. Singh to be Great Aunt Ishbelle from Cullercoats...she of the seed-cake and 'Mansion Guardshine'...?)

23 May 2010 at 18:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I'm sorry that my response seemed borderline hysterical. The fact that it appears that way is testament to the fact that this is a complex issue and attempting to summarise one's opinion on it in a few sentences clearly gives the wrong impression.

And what you interpret as salacious is the product of months and years of careful study into the matter, rather than just a casual disregard of Biblical principles.

24 May 2010 at 12:02  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Anonymous at 12.02 - thank you for your answer. I feel it is as you say, a trap into which we all fall on occasion.

My respect to you Sir. Oswin.

25 May 2010 at 01:13  
Anonymous Oswin said...

no nonny at 22nd, May, at 02.41

I'm beginning to think that you are moderately wonderful!

25 May 2010 at 01:30  
Anonymous Money saving Tips said...

The world changed after Cameron was elected leader of the party. Not Prime Minister.

28 May 2010 at 07:43  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older