So, whether we like it or not (and I must confess that I certainly do) it is election time! What does this mean for Christians? Should we vote at all? What should we look for in a political party? Who should we vote for? These are all big questions and in answer to the latter I wrote this comment on a friend's facebook status (this was in reply to other comments so not all the important issues are discussed nor are the ones discussed here given their fair weighting - but it offers some thoughts on voting):
"When we vote Christians should be looking at how we are being loving towards others (a biblical command)- God has revealed the best way for us to live for our own benefit and so we want to vote for a party which promotes those ways because we trust God that that is what's best for the people of the country.
The Lib Dems do not only have a totally flawed moral compass which should grieve us(think of ethical issues like abortion), but their whole world view is wrong, they call themselves "progressivists" ie. they want the society to 'break the shackles of the past and strive for a "better" future' - while this sounds good, it does not work. This approach is unbiblical as it suggests that 'we know best' and not God. No party is perfect on these matters but I would suggest the Lib Dems are the worst of a pretty bad bunch.
Labour will bankrupt the country (their economic policy has been awful - huge amount of wasteful spending over the years has meant that we now have a huge national debt acting as a ball and chain on the economy preventing the growth we need out of the recession - we're in a worse state than almost every other country in the world, other than Greece & Ireland), their tax and spend policies in the next few years will only create more debt - no thanks very much!
Which leaves us with the best of a bad bunch. The Conservatives seem to have a sensible economic policy which means that we have to pay off the debts soon so the economy can be released to grow. They have the best policy on ethical issues of the three parties by a long way and have a big emphasis on the family which i think is entirely biblical and should be encouraged.
Another really important thing that I didn't really mention is the importance of the government to allow Christians to speak about and express their beliefs, the Conservatives have the best record on this, lib dems have the worst record (in my opinion!) and labour have done pretty poorly over the last 13 years too - as Christians what we say and do is more restricted than ever before. Again no party is perfect on this, but who's the best of a bad bunch?"
Two essential websites are:
The Christian Institute website and The Westminster 2010 Declaration of Christian Conscience - sign the declaration and email your candidates to ask them to support it and 'respect, uphold and protect the right of Christians to hold and express Christian beliefs and act according to Christian conscience’.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We never finished our conversation last week...
ReplyDeleteSo I've just been with my church small group and the majority are voting Green, with one voting Lib Dem (she's a party member). Leaving aside the ethos/ideology of the parties (which is arguably your main criticism of the Lib Dems), what would you say to those who think the Conservatives would create economic injustice (policies that benefit the rich more) and educational and health chaos (with increased privatisation of the NHS through foundation trusts, and the "free schools" idea leading to a greater disparity in state education), whereas the Lib Dem and Green tax/welfare policies are specifically designed to help the poorest?
(Thought I'd welcome you to the world of blogs with some meaty discussion and tough questions! And yes, I'm irritating you with the same questions until I get my head round the whole thing. Look forward to further articles :))
Welcome to the world of blogging, Olly! First off, Amen to your criticism of progressivism! Totally agree with you there.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to know more about why you say conservatives have the best policy on ethical issues though. Evidently (if we take the bible seriously), the most important ethical issue for the Christian has to be how the oppressed and outcast of the world are treated. See for instance Isaiah 10:1-2, also Isaiah 30:12 - justice is thought to be the second biggest issue mentioned in the old testament, and there are litterally hundreds of times poverty (specifically economic poverty) is mentioned in the new testament.
Conservatives, seem to be the exact opposite of this and, at least historically, have always been the ones to favour the rich and powerfull. Even today they plan tax cuts for the rich (sometimes disguised!). Labour, then, seems to be the party most in line with Christian values (considers the veiwpoint of the poor and marginalised, instituted tax credits - a major boost to poor families). Lib dems are also good - for instance on their asylum policies (asylum seekers are one of the most abused and destitute groups in england, and the Lib Dems say they'll give them the right to work).
Look forward to your reply! (there's also of course the issue of war - big in both OT & NT)
Tim
Matthew:
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment, in no particular order:
1) Health and education provision - privatisation does not necessarily lead to chaos! what i really care about is for things to be free-at-the-point-of-use(which they still would be), i care less about how that happens. indeed the private sector is widely acknowledged to be far more efficient on providing services. it is simply a matter of effective stewardship of resources.
2) Disparity in state education - i'm not quite sure i accept the premise. i think any effort to improve education quality is a fantastic thing! let's not hinder schools improvements because of concerns about disparities - instead let's improve everything by giving them freedom to improve themselves and they can learn off each other.
3)I'll take your 'economic injustice' and 'welfare policies' points together - a key part of tory policy is to attempt to create an atmosphere where people are not idle and skive off the state but instead are helped back to work as soon as possible so that they can work for themselves. (you can loosely take that principle from 1 thess). With regard to the weakest in society i am not aware of any tory policy that would make them worse off, in fact the economic policy(growth promotion, business investment, minimising national debt to get the economy going for their benefit - a growing economy creates greater growth) and welfare policies (maintanance of the most successful tax credit schemes) that they have should make their situation better.
it's late, does that stand up to scrutiny?!?
Hi Tim!
ReplyDeleteThanks for pointing that out, that is quite an omission on my part but as I say it was part of a facebook conversation. I should have spoken about the very important of issue of looking after those in poverty and in need. I agree that as Christians we should long for them to be looked after and indeed be proactive.
I agree also that perhaps traditionally the Conservatives have been poor on this issue. However I do think that there has been a change here. There are two things that I would mention:
1) I think there has been a shift in the Conservatives, to use the horrible jargon "compassionate conservativesm!" The tories do not disagree with tax credits for those who really need it, they have constantly maintained that they will keep them. they are against the waste of giving them to those who don't(eg. people who could be working). Being strict on this is simply good stewardship. [I should also say that I'm not quite sure that tax credits are the best method of helping people out perhaps a change in the tax system so that money doesn't go round in circles ie-pay taxes then get money back, why not just have lower tax for those who need that help.]
2) More importantly, I think that both Labour and Conservatives are committed to helping out the impoverished in society but disagree in how this should happen. While Labour feel that it is the role of the state not just to encourage but to actually give the support itself to those who need it, the Conservatives would rather a smaller state that empowers society to do it instead - hence their idea of the "Big Society". I think this is a more healthy way of giving the support we should absolutely be giving them.
The two main problems I have with the state acting too much (as opposed to those in society) are firstly that it is often inefficient in terms of costs (an inherent problem of the public sector) and secondly that it fosters an attitude that the support for the poor can just be left for the government to do and individuals don't need to do anything. I think this makes for an unhealthy, unloving, selfish and ungodly society. I would rather the government played a different role where they empower the individuals and voluntary organisations of society to look out for those on the margins of society and get involved only when this doesn't take place.
Have I made any sense at all??
Hey Ollie,
ReplyDelete1.1) - that is, in answer to your first comment, first point: An public service that is free at the point of use but still creates profit for those running it is anathema to large swathes of the population. Maybe it shouldn't be, but I think this is the case, and so a better argument might be needed on these things if you're going to convince those whose instinct is for state-run services. I mentioned this to friends, for example, and as soon as there was any hint of privatisation that ruled out the idea in their book. I can see their point: with a private company, what is the guarantee that at some stage, they won't want to start charging for things that should be free?
1.2) Sounds good. Again, convincing people might be hard work: if the local school isn't as good as the next door area's, then despite the fact it may well be better than five years ago, you're still going to be frustrated, saying "why can't schools all be run in the same way, so ours is as good as theirs?" It may be that if they weren't free to be run differently, neither would be as good, but people don't know that and might continue to complain. The case needs to be made better, I think.
1.3 + 2.1) Tax credits seem ridiculous to me: just tax them less in the first place! Efficiency savings and fewer forms for the taxpayer. Happier people all round.
2.2) Definitely healthier to get people to work, rather than just throwing money at them. A safety net for those really in need, then.
You've made lots of sense, thank you.
Matthew, thanks for your reply (and for your email today).
ReplyDeleteLooking at the points in turn:
1) You're right privatisition does have a bad name in some ways. Private companies that are allowed to make a profit are the most effective way of guaranteeing cost effectiveness in the delivery of a service. Whenever private companies are used to deliver public services they are subject to rules and regulations - they are not able to act as they please and so it would be very easy indeed to ensure that users are not charged. I should also point out that as far as I'm aware the Conservative party does NOT have a policy for any privatisation of either the NHS or schools (although with education i think that they would allow private organisations[including groups of parents] to create schools if they would like but it would be subject to the same rules as all the others).
2) I'm not sure I understand your point I'm afraid. I'll have a go but forgive me if I've misunderstood. Some statements of fact: We want the best schools we can possibly have (I assume) - all schools are different - by encouraging freedom for schools to improve they are likely to get better - schools can learn from one another to improve - schools will get better - that's good! Does that clarify at all?
Sorry, I worded my comment really badly! I wasn't disagreeing, but saying that any situation where some schools are better than others will be criticised by those at the worse-off schools (for obvious reasons). Therefore any system that looks like it's creating disparity in education (some schools running streets ahead of others) will be criticised. This'll criticism sometimes come from people saying "one size fits all", and sometimes from people saying "better uniformly average than some getting an unfair advantage". It's hard to be consistent with this view (after all, which parent isn't going to take advantage of a better school if they have the option?), but my comment was to suggest that the Tory policy in this area needs to be better articulated to reassure people who fit into the above categories (just as even a hint of privatisation, such as allowing groups (businesses?) to run the school rather than the state, automatically makes people fearful and needs to be portrayed well).
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply Oly,
ReplyDelete> Have I made any sense at all??
Indeed you have! I see that the conservatives and poverty is all tied up with their 'big society' idea, which I don't really understand. I read somewhere it was (indirectly) related to distributivism, which I suppose I do aggree with. A couple of points though: 1) whether its the government or society that helps people out, neither combats systematic injustice - laws and patterns that 'unbenefit' people. 2) If the government is neglecting to help a people group already, there's no reason they'll fund a charity who is - who gets helped is still in controll of the government. Esentially, I can see that 'big society' might work, but I don't see any reason or guarantee that it will work better than what we have now, so it doesn't score them any points with me.
However, the Lib dems have a few policies that right away stand out to me as being just: (none of which I see mentioned in the tory manifesto)
1) Giving assylum seekers the right to work: assylum seekers are given a terrible time from when they arrive in the uk, and this'll at least give them something meaningfull to do, and a little less poverty (also see http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11981)
2) They'll take steps to stop britain trading in arms with oppressive governments. Currently britain is cooperating with these oppressive regimes
3) I know you may disagree with me on this: trident. I know the state can't enact the non-violence commanded by the bible, but we ought at least to act against any excess - nuclear weapons are intended to kill masses of civillians, without discrimination. I can't even see how a more liberal interpretation of the bible, such as just war theory, can justify this.
Does that make sense?
I guess my question would be: what specific policies do the conservatives have for making Britain more just? Can you point me to any ways in which they are more in line with biblical ethics than the Lib Dems? (asside from the 'progressivist' thing)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete