Thursday, May 06, 2010

Seven reasons for Christians to vote Conservative

Cranmer is not in the habit of telling his readers or communicants the way they should cast their votes: in the Protestant tradition, it is a conscience matter; between the individual and God. And we will all give account on Judgement Day for the way we have neglected our responsibilities and used and abused our liberties.

It is widely known how His Grace thinks on matters political and religious, and he has been variously mocked, abused, derided, misrepresented and insulted for advocating his theo-political worldview.

Notwithstanding an expectation of more of the same, His Grace has decided to set out why his ashes will be voting Conservative today, not least because he believes that this General Election will turn out to be of far greater historical significance than that of 1997: indeed, it may mark a turning point in our democracy and in the course of Christianity and Conservatism in this great nation as we are increasingly subject to political correctness, buffeted by secularism, denied our liberties and absorbed by European ever-closer union.

His Grace has often been berated for encouraging his readers and communicants to vote for ‘the lesser evil’. Frankly, in a liberal representative democracy, he is not sure what else one should do. Since the government is not yet upon His shoulder, both the practice and institution are imperfect, blemished, sinful and, on occasion, downright evil. But by voting for a particular party, Christians are not endorsing every policy position. And in the three-horse race we now appear to have, Christians must exercise their discernment to judge between the worst, the less worse and the least worst.

And these degrees of ’worseness’ are intrinsically linked to extents of evil: it is the task of government to enshrine righteous laws to yield justice and mercy; to navigate a path between the liberty and coercion of the individual or, as St Paul would say, between freedom and bondage. Augustine observed that it is the state which restrains the effects of sin in society, rendering the state a wholly necessary evil.

But we live in an era in which there is no longer agreement on what constitutes sin or what differentiates right from wrong. There is no absolute truth and no morally-cohesive foundation which, historically, has been provided by the Established Church. Since our political leaders have been seen to flout the laws of God, break the Commandments and ignore His precepts, there is a sense in which Parliament has already been secularised: the prayers before each session are pretence, and the parties’ protestations of Christian conviction nothing but a vacuous soap opera.

If one were to seek honesty, trust, integrity and truth, one would not naturally turn to the politician. And yet it is they who are elected, and it is they who are appointed by God to legislate for liberty, morality and on matters of Mammon.

Of one thing Cranmer is certain: when today is over and the votes are counted, we will get the Government we deserve. He quite understands why Christian might historically have voted Labour. But New Labour has abandoned its Christian roots and has legislated to create a Britain which has become distinctly hostile to Christian expression. Even its own Christian MPs have referred to the ‘darkness’ at its heart.

His Grace has reported over the years numerous examples of how the Christian foundations of the nation have been systematically undermined by this Labour Government. Over the past 13 years, under the premierships of two ostensibly professing Christians, we have seen Christianity relegated to the peripheries of public life. When Christians dare to be convicted, Labour portrays them as bigots. When they articulate a view with which Labour disagrees, they are bigoted or dogmatic. When they defend the unborn, Labour says they are unenlightened. When they oppose animal-human embryos, Labour says they are anti-science. When they express concern over the fatherless, to Labour they are homophobic. When they speak up for the poor or refer to inequality, they are liars. When they defend faith-based education, they are intolerant. When they seek to uphold marriage, Labour brands them ‘right wing’ reactionaries.

While Gordon Brown pretends to defend the right of worshippers to express their faith in public, the natural consequence of Labour legislation has been a steady stream of state persecution of Christians.

There have been nurses, teachers, foster parents, registrars, hotel owners, B&B proprietors, bishops, street preachers, and adoption agencies which have suffered immense detriment as a result of Labour’s profoundly anti-Christian agenda.

Bishops of both the Church of England and the Church of Rome have expressed their concern at the hostile culture which seemingly has no tolerance of Christian orthodoxy.

Of course, Christians in the UK are not being persecuted in the same sense as our brothers and sisters are in some parts of the world, where each day really is a matter of life and death. But we are increasingly being marginalised.

We have a choice: to abandon ‘mainstream’ politics and protest from the cultic fringes of obscurity. Or we can remain very actively involved in the ‘mainstream’, arguing within the Conservative Party for what we hold to be true Conservative values and to ensure that we are salt and light as we are commanded to be. This is, of course, a matter of conscience. Yet the more salt and light which abandons the Conservative Party, the more it is likely to abandon its church roots and be given over to the forces of evil as those who contend for the Faith diminish in number, leaving evil to triumph.

So why is His Grace voting Conservative?

He could talk about Burke, conservatism, natural law and religion. But he will not, principally because the history increasingly matters little and the longer this post is, the less likely it is to be read.

He will focus instead upon the here and now: upon Labour’s record in Government and the alternative vision being expounded by the Conservative Party.

1. Labour’s blasphemy

Perhaps Labour’s entire period in Government is symbolised by their decision to abolish the laws of blasphemy and blasphemous libel, which were repealed as part of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 after a concerted campaign by atheists. Since then, we have been subject to increasingly illiberal but unwritten blasphemy laws which favour all faiths but Christianity, and one in particular. The blasphemy laws may have been otiose, but they were symbolic of that which underpins the British Constitution. Having removed them, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who is also the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ has become but one deity in the pantheon of gods.

Significantly, the blasphemy laws were staunchly defended by Conservative MPs – Jewish, Anglican and Roman Catholic.

2. Labour’s disregard for the Sanctity of Life

Labour passed the odious Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act in 2008. It legalised the creation of animal-human hybrid embryos for research; allowed the creation of ‘GM children’ or ‘saviour siblings’ and abolished the need for a father. While Labour allowed its MPs a free vote on these three issues, their MPs were whipped to support the Bill as a whole.

Conservatives were allowed a free vote on animal-human hybrid embryos. David Cameron has said that he will respect the primacy of the individual conscience: to him, whipping such a Bill through Parliament was objectionable. Conservatives also had a free vote on the ‘fatherhood’ issue, and Party spokesmen stated that children conceived through IVF needed a male role model. David Cameron voted for keeping the ‘need for a father’ requirement.

The Bill saw also an attempt to lower the upper limit for abortion from the present 24 weeks. Labour MPs were permitted a free vote on this. Gordon Brown himself voted against any reduction, as did Nick Clegg. In the final Commons debate, the Government used a tactical procedural measure to ensure that amendments to further liberalise the abortion law went to the bottom of the list for consideration. Lack of time then meant that they never reached a vote.

Conservative MPs had a free vote on abortion. David Cameron voted to lower the abortion time limit to 20 weeks. Andrew Lansley, the Shadow Health Spokesman, wanted the abortion limit to be reduced to 22 weeks. If elected, David Cameron has given an assurance that he will revisit the issue and has said that it would be subject to a free vote.

Labour also passed the Mental Capacity Act in 2005 which legislates for euthanasia by omission. It did not formally legalise the practice, but created what have become known as ‘living wills’ which could open the door to euthanasia.

David Cameron has condemned the idea of decriminalising assisted suicide and warned that helping the terminally ill to die is “dangerous for society”. The Conservative Party allowed its Peers a free vote on assisted suicide when an attempt was made to weaken the law in the 2009 Coroners and Justice Bill. The Party’s instincts are more ‘pro-life’ than both Labour’s and that of the Liberal Democrats.

3. Labour’s erosion of our Liberty

The Employment Act 2003 saw the introduction of special employment rights for homosexuals and employment laws covering ‘religion or belief’ which have interfered with the ability of churches and Christian organisations to maintain their distinctive doctrines and ethos. Under these laws, the Bishop of Hereford was successfully sued for refusing to employ a homosexual youth worker.

Labour have consistently refused to include conscience protections for Christians in business. It was this Act which set up the egregious Equality and Human Rights Commission which increasingly defines what is permitted and what is prohibited. Absurdly, they also appear to be defining what constitutes a religion.

Labour’s Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) of 2007 banned any adoption agency from refusing to place children with same-sex couples. Since then, almost all Catholic adoption agencies have either become entirely secular bodies or closed. The SORs have also been used to sue Christian B&B owners who refuse double rooms to same-sex couples.

Almost three times as many Conservative MPs voted against the SORs as voted for them. A significant number also abstained or were absent.

After several earlier attempts, the Government finally succeeded in passing an incitement to religious hatred offence in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Many prominent lawyers, politicians and academics rightly feared that the offence, as originally worded, threatened free speech. However, after an extensive campaign, vital safeguards were introduced to protect, amongst other things, religious debate and evangelism. As amended, the law (which has a maximum seven-year prison sentence) only covers threatening words or behaviour intended to stir up hatred, and there is an explicit protection for free speech and evangelism. The Government opposed these safeguards, which were introduced by the House of Lords, and said it would remove them in the Commons. However, in only the second Commons defeat for the Government since it came to power in 1997, MPs voted to keep the safeguards.

The then Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, said the proposed law would “seriously undermine freedom of speech” and would be “massively counter-productive”. In the Lords, Conservative Peers voted against plans to introduce religious harassment laws in the provision of goods and services following concerns about free speech and religious liberty.

The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on public bodies – like schools, hospitals and the police – to actively promote homosexual and transsexual rights at the expense of religious conscience. Labour accepted amendments by Lord Alli to permit the registration of civil partnerships in churches (and other religious buildings).

Conservative MPs and Peers were whipped to support an amendment by Lady O’Cathain maintaining existing employment exemptions for churches. Its Peers were allowed a free vote on whether the registration of civil partnerships should be allowed in churches.

In 2007 Labour introduced an offence of ‘incitement to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation’. There was no free speech protection. However, a free speech clause was successfully inserted by the House of Lords after a campaign led by Lord Waddington. Having tried three times during 2008-09 to remove the free speech protection in the Lords and losing each time, Labour brought the incitement offence into force including the free speech shield in March 2010. They have, however, pledged in their Manifesto to repeal Lord Waddington’s free speech clause, and to invoke the Parliament Act if necessary to overcome the opposition of the House of Lords.

4. Labour’s disregard for public morality

In November 2003, Labour approved the reclassification of cannabis from a class B drug to a class C drug by passing the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2003. This applied to the whole of the UK, and came into force in 2004. However, in response to overwhelming evidence of cannabis damaging mental health, Labour restored the drug to class B in 2009. It was later revealed that in England and Wales cannabis users would not be arrested until they have been caught three times – a softer approach than is usually taken with other class B drugs. Recent figures show that only one sixth of people caught with cannabis were prosecuted.

The Conservative Party opposed the reclassification from the outset.

Labour’s Charities Act 2006 removed the presumption that churches exist for the ‘public benefit’. They are now required to prove that they provide ‘public benefit’ to obtain or maintain their charitable status, and this means being subject to equality legislation.

The Conservative frontbench led an amendment to ensure the presumption that churches and religious organisations are for the ‘public benefit’ was explicitly retained in the Bill and pushed the issue to a vote.

The Gender Recognition Act, passed in 2004, provides a raft of legal rights for transsexuals – including the right for people to change their legal birth sex. So a man can become a woman in law and then marry another man. And the other man has no right in law to know the original gender of his partner.

The Licensing Act 2003 allowed for 24-hour drinking, which came into force in 2005. The Act also brought lap-dancing clubs under ‘entertainment’ licensing which allowed a proliferation of lap-dancing venues across the country. In 2009 the Government reversed its liberalisation by moving lap-dancing clubs into the ‘sex establishments’ licensing system, tightening up the law.

The Conservatives have promised to repeal the 24-hour licensing legislation, replacing it with greater control for local councils over whether to grant licences.

In 2005, Labour passed the new Gambling Act. The Act swept away layers of sensible restrictions which, for years, had controlled the worst excesses of casinos, betting shops and slot machines. It formally legalised virtual casino machines in betting shops and elsewhere. These machines, known as Fixed-Odds Betting Terminals, have been called the ‘crack cocaine’ of gambling.

The Act also greatly reduced restrictions on new casinos opening, repealed the 24-hour membership requirement and lifted the general ban on all gambling advertising. In addition, slot machines with unlimited stakes and prizes were allowed for the first time. Licences were granted for 16 huge new casinos – with the largest of them considerably bigger than anything existing before the Act. The Prime Minister only rejected plans for the one super casino allowed by the legislation.

And on marriage, Labour’s Manifesto rejects tax breaks for married couples and states that “financial support should be directed at all children, not just those with married parents”.

The Conservatives Manifesto gives a commitment to “end the couple penalty for all couples in the tax credit system”. It also states that marriage will be recognised in the tax system in the next Parliament.

5. Labour’s persecution of Christian schools

Labour say they are committed to increasing the number of academies, a programme which allows the creation of publicly-funded schools with a Christian ethos. However, by banning existing schools from interviewing the parents of prospective pupils, Labour has made it harder for church schools to ensure that applicants subscribe to a Christian ethos.

Labour’s instinct is to eradicate faith-based education and to assert an aggressive secularism in state education. In their most recent Children, Schools and Families Bill, they planned formally to regulate home education, including provision for officials to question home-schooled children without their parents being present. The Bill also proposed to liberalise and centralise control of sex education, including forcing state schools to teach about civil partnerships and cohabitation alongside marriage, repealing the right of parents to withdraw their child from sex education when the child reaches the age of 15, and removing control of sex education from school governors. The Bill also made it compulsory for Christian schools to teach about abortion in an ‘enlightened’ and ‘non-judgmental’ way.

The Government’s proposed curriculum included teaching seven-year-olds about civil partnerships. Draft sex education guidance published alongside the Bill suggested detailed sex education lessons for children as young as five.

The sex education and home education elements of the Bill failed to become law before the General Election, but Ed Balls has vowed to reintroduce the measures “in a new bill in the first session of the new Parliament” should Labour be re-elected.

The Conservatives blocked plans contained in the Children, Schools and Families Bill to clamp down on home-schooling families and to change the law on sex education. During the Bill’s passage through Parliament, the Conservative Party tabled an amendment which rejected the planned new primary curriculum, including primary school sex education. The Party said it did not object to primary and secondary school sex education in principle, as long as it is “taught appropriately” and schools have “flexibility” in teaching it. They also sought to amend the Bill to require schools to formally consult parents over their sex education policies. The Government had planned to include compulsory sex education within a statutory national curriculum for Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) education. David Cameron has said he is opposed to centralised control of sex education by Whitehall or Westminster.

Michael Gove, Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, has committed the Conservative Party to supporting new state-funded ‘independent’ religious schools. David Cameron has said he supports faith schools “politically and personally”.

6. Labour's undermining of the Constitution of the United Kingdom

By signing the ‘Constitution for Europe’ (aka the Lisbon Treaty), Labour have subsumed the British Constitution to a higher sovereign authority.

On the day the ‘Constitution for Europe’ became law, the ‘President of Europe’ became our head of state. The Queen is still the Queen, but she is now subject to the provisions of the new constitution. The Prime Minister is still the Prime Minister, but he is now obliged to promote the aims and objectives of the European Union over and above those of the United Kingdom. We are now but a province in the Empire of Europa: the Queen is but a regional governor beneath an omnipotent Emperor; Parliament is but a regional council, yet it lacks even the authority to legislate for refuse collection.

David Cameron has said that all future treaties would be subject to a ‘referendum lock’. He has withdrawn his MEPs from the federalist EPP grouping in the European Parliament and committed to invoke the Maastricht subsidiarity provisions in order to repatriate aspects of employment and social law. He has also pledged to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 with a UK Bill of Rights.

By attacking the hereditary principle in the House of Lords, Labour have left unanswered the issue of an hereditary head of state. On House of Lords reform, in March 2007 the Government was heavily defeated in the Lords over plans for an all-elected Second Chamber. The Labour Manifesto says they will “ensure that the hereditary principle is removed from the House of Lords” and create a fully-elected Second Chamber in stages.

Over recent years it has been the House of Lords, not the Commons, which has been a more effective protector of religious liberties and a firmer defender of family values. Many Christians will be concerned at any curtailment of the role of the House of Lords.

Labour created the new Supreme Court. It began operating in October 2009, replacing the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords as the highest court in the UK. Christians are becoming increasingly concerned that the Supreme Court is adopting a more political and acutely secular role which makes rather than interprets the law and takes sides on the great moral issues of our time.

The constitutional settlement in Britain provides that Britain is not a secular state. The Protestant Reformed Christian nature of the Constitution is evident not only in the Monarch’s Coronation Oath, but also in the establishment of the Church of England and the bar on the Monarch either being or marrying a Roman Catholic (the latter contained in the Act of Settlement 1701).

Gordon Brown announced last year that the Government was looking at the issues regarding the bar on the succession of Roman Catholics to the throne, but also added: “What we’ve got to do is to protect the position of the Queen as head of the Established Church, the Church of England. So nothing we must do (sic) must affect that.” The Labour Manifesto states: “We believe that there is a case for reform of the laws concerning marriage to Roman Catholics and the primacy of male members of the Royal family. However, any reform would need the agreement of all the Commonwealth countries of which the Queen is the Sovereign.”

7. Labour’s legacy of debt

Yesterday, the European Union warned that the UK’s budget deficit will hit 12 per cent this year - higher even than that of riot-hit Greece. Gordon Brown has ignored the deficit warning, choosing to focus instead on an EU prediction that the British economy would be the fastest-growing in Europe next year - “but only under the polices we are pursuing”.

“This is not a Conservative moment,” he told an audience at Bradford University in his final set-piece speech before election day. “Everybody knows that the wrong cuts in the wrong places at the wrong time will risk our recovery - everybody except the Conservatives.”

The reality is that Labour have bankrupted the country (again). This is an issue for Christians insofar as it is the poorest (again) who suffer.

As chancellor, Gordon Brown consistently spent above his means, taxed the most vulnerable, and gave away the nation’s gold reserves (the price has quadrupled over the past decade, losing us some £14 billion). As prime minister, he has made the supply of money unlimited to pay for his imprudence and economic dysentery. And the world is ditching paper money for gold once again, because it is finite and precious: it cannot be created ex nihilo and quantitatively eased out.

“It is required of stewards, that a man be found faithful” (1Cor4:2).

The one who is guardian of the nation’s wealth is entrusted with that which belongs to us all. And he is constrained by a centuries-old unwritten code of ethics in the administration and distribution thereof. He will be tempted to succumb to the bribes of man and the pressures of the world. But the moment he does so, the public lose confidence as he is seen to give in to corrupt, ignorant and short-range considerations of what may seem right, as against what we know to be unsound or sense not to be quite right.

It is not for the theologian to tell the surgeon the details of his business. And yet even a theologian knows when the right hand must be cut off. And the wise doctor will always listen to the intuition of the patient.

Labour are beyond surgery and incapable of listening. They do not do what is right and necessary because they no longer know what is right. They are devoid of conscience, deficient in intellect and lacking knowledge.

Cranmer exhorts his readers and communicants today to vote Conservative: it is our only hope. God knows they have their flaws and David Cameron is far from perfect, but they certainly represent the least worst option for Christians: they are the only party capable of defeating Labour and forming a government of righteousness, justice and peace.


Anonymous LDS said...


6 May 2010 at 08:54  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Truly Weird!

6 May 2010 at 09:05  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Your Grace will have to go to hell before I vote for the Conservatives. I am voting in one hour.

6 May 2010 at 09:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On Your Grace's analysis, the loony lefties seem to be not so much misguided as positively evil, aided and abetted by unthinking foot soldiers immune to reason such as Jared Gaites

6 May 2010 at 09:39  
Blogger Amusing Bunni said...

Excellent, well thought post, Your Grace. I would vote Conservative, If I lived in the UK.
Labour has surely gutted Great Britain, I hope it will return to some of it's glory and sovereignty once Labour is in the dustbin of history.

6 May 2010 at 09:49  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

YG You have given us seven reasons NOT to vote Labour. But that is not the same as seven reasons to vote Conservative.
The truth is that secularism and cultural Marxism is indelibly stamped upon all three main parties, and this is mutually exclusive of the Christian principles, you, I and others on this blog are committed to.

The truth is also that politically 'Christians' are expendable as a group (as opposed to Moslems) and no party even bothers to accomodate them. Nothing new in that.
There is however, one sound reason why Christians CANNOT support the Conservative party. Because by deliberate intent they have embraced the so called "gay" ideology - the dark province of moral relativism.
From this post-modern ideology of no absolutes, no moral standards, and a deliberate defiance of the laws of God, they will continue the polices of their predecessors in the form of "gender equality" laws.
Have you heard Cameron repudiate any of these with a promise to repeal them? No. That tells its own story. He and and Michal Gove have publicly boated of their pride in dispensing with Section 28 laws so strongly supported by Thatcher, and to allow and promote homosexual teaching directed to our most vulnerable - young children in the State education system. (Matthew 18:6 is directly applicable here)
DC is prepared to sacrifice what little concern he has for Christian principles primarily because the "equality" laws introduced by Labour are those which are laid down by the EU Commission for all member states to follow.
In Romans 13 Paul defines the permissable limits of State power based on the premise that the State is first and foremost a SERVANT of its peoples under God, not their master. The State therefore has no mandate to impose (homosexual supporting laws) on its peoples.
"Caesar" therefore does not have ALL power to carte blanche impose immoral laws through a mis-use of the limited authority it has been given under God.
It was for this reason that Jesus gave his definitive verdict for the guidance of his people, namely to "render unto Caesar (only) those things which belong to Caesar....."
For Christians to vote Conservative therefore in the full knowledge of this party's deliberate flouting of God's clearly expressed law is to defy God's will and purpose, which is exclusively for heterosexual marriage and the primacy of the family unit.
Recognition of the "equality" of all men before God is a Christian duty, for God himself is no "respecter of persons".
But that recognition does not extend to the practice, or promotion of homosexuality which is condemned in Scripture.
Christians have freedom of choice and need to make value judgments as do others in the political realm, but this does not extend to the acceptance of this ungodly ideology.
For this reason alone Christians cannot vote Conservative.

6 May 2010 at 10:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


NuLabour would send us all to hell in a handcart, if it kept them in power to continue in our pockets, in our lives and destroying everything we hold dear.

They are traitors to this country and its people.

However, I also remember the ineffective opposition that sat on the fence and watched while the frame was made and the wheels were put on said handcart and they did nothing.

They are also traitors.

The LibDems would grease the axles to ensure we got there even quicker.

So, I will vote for someone not tainted by the corruption the LibLabCon happily wallow in and who gives me a little confidence they believe the people that died protecting this beloved country and all it stands for are worth remembering with pride.

6 May 2010 at 10:25  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

@Dreadnaught 09.05

Thank you, good Sir, for your considered comments on His Grace's position. Exactly what bit of it, please, is truly weird, and why? Perhaps you could acquaint us all with your thinking....lest we, too, in our innocence, think that you, in turn, might be "truly weird"

I wouldn't even suggest that Dreadnaught might be a Zanu-Lab place-person, but the thought has crossed my mind that such spoiling tactics are now routinely employed on any blog that ZanuLab doesn't like. Please feel free to say that I'm wrong, of course

PS Dave doesn't get my vote either. The Tories annoyed me far too much during their long arrogant years in power. Mrs T sighed up to Maastrict, too....let alone traitor Heath, may his immortal soul rest in hell.

6 May 2010 at 10:43  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...


There is much in your piece that a political neutral can agree with. The 13 years of Labour rule have seen many failures and only a few successes, all of which you chosen to ignore, given that this is a conservative blog I forgive you for that.

Where your analysis fall apart is your attack on secularisation, such as it is and its affect on the “moral fabric” of the nation.

You said...
Perhaps Labour’s entire period in Government is symbolised by their decision to abolish the laws of blasphemy and blasphemous libel

Do you seriously suggest that I should be bound by law to respect your belief in god and that to insult him/it should render me liable to criminal prosecution?

You imply that your faith deserves respect as well as legal protection and you blame many of the ills of society on the lack of it. You claim a special place for it in British society simply because it was once dominant. You ignore the faiths of others presumably because they are foreign.

With the exception of immigrants religious faith has been in decline since the Second World War. This is not due to an onslaught by secularists but because people just don’t believe the myths any more.

The conservative Christian mores that once pertained flourished in a society stratified by class and stultified by deference. Where countless couple endured loveless marriages and women died at the hand of the back street abortionist. Where homosexuals were imprisoned for expressing what to them is natural sexual desire. Where children were classified aged eleven by a single exam that determined their life chances forever. This was an era of steady industrial decline and diminishing national influence against the backdrop of the Cold War.

The colour of the age was grey until suddenly in the sixties a new generation began to sweep away hide bound traditions and out of date beliefs. Amongst the young there was a great idealism along with increased interest in spirituality and morality, but not of the sort found in the empty pews of your draughty Christian churches. Rather the exotic sounds and bright colours of Hinduism and other eastern faiths.

This was the beginning of the end of your Christian tradition in Britain and that decline has been remorseless ever since. Sadly the idealism has declined as well in part due to the “greed is good” philosophy of Thatcher’s Britain in which “Society” was deemed to have no place. Her utterly heartless but unfortunately necessary policies did restore a little national pride but what a price many paid.

For a while Blair too made us feel better but then came the Iraq war. Another nail was hammered into the coffin of British Christianity when it became clear that for Blair and Bush this was a Crusade. Blair hid his beliefs from the British public only to be exposed later and they were furious. That he has now converted to the discredited and immoral Church of Rome sickens most reasonable people.

Conservatism might be good for Britain although I doubt it, Christianity is a lost cause. Rather than bleat about it those who comment here should join us secularists in thwarting the rise of Islam in Europe and the UK, which is a cause worth fighting for.

6 May 2010 at 10:59  
Anonymous no nonny said...

All those reasons indeed that we should not vote Labour, Your Grace.

And is it not odd that Nigel Farage should be in hospital after his light aircraft crashed. Perhaps someone fears a UKIP/Con coalition! Or dislikes the possibility of losing the Labour Speaker.

6 May 2010 at 11:04  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, I have voted, but not alas for the conservatives and not labour or liberal. I think I agree with your demolition of labour, but as some-one else says this does not automatically translate into support for the conservatives.

This was a choice not taken without any thought and indeed given that it takes seconds to put your x on the ballot,it seemed like an eternity to do so. I have never voted anything other than conservative, but I am not convinced to do so at this election.

I think the Tories will form the next government, but let us see how they govern in the next year, then perhaps I will revise my vote, come the election in 2011.

6 May 2010 at 11:19  
Blogger Ian said...

I wont be voting Labour today - as there is no UKIP candidate standing in our ward, I will only have one choice.

There is only a 120 vote difference in 34,000.

6 May 2010 at 11:53  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

YG, I think you may have missed a word in your eighth paragraph:

"Of one thing Cranmer is certain: when today is over and the votes are counted, we will get the Government we deserve. He quite understands why Christian might historically have voted Labour."

Apart form that, there ain't a hope in hell I am voting for Conservative.

6 May 2010 at 12:08  
Anonymous Jaz said...

Thanks for the laugh.
I got as far as:

1. Labour’s blasphemy

Told me all I needed to know about the rest of this diatribe.

6 May 2010 at 12:59  
Anonymous Peter Shields said...

Your Grace, I agree - seven superb reasons not to vote Liebour. And whilst I think the Conservatives would be better than Liebour or Liberals, the choice is only like picking between a poke in the eye, a punch in the mouth or a knee in the groin.

I shan't be voting for any of them. And here is why.

The definition of Stupidity

6 May 2010 at 13:02  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Graham Davis @ 10.59 said 'This was the beginning of the end of your Christian tradition in Britain and that decline has been remorseless ever since', Wrong, Christian belief has gone private, which means you can't see it.

If you look at the great collective institutions in society, the trade unions, membership of political parties and of course the established churches, all have declined in membership and national importance since 1963, to take a starting point. Electronic media has changed the way society relates, hence the words I write now. Group loyalty is less often expressed in the way that it was. Individual rights are now emphasised in preference to collective obligations.

Football club supporters are one obvious exception.

While I heartily endorse your recognition of the threat of Islam, which is fascism by another name, the prospect of winning that battle through atheism/humanism/secularism seems highly improbable to me. If Islam is to be defeated it will be done in the West by educating Muslim women on a Western syllabus. That means acceptance of the Christian message which is the bedrock of Western society.

As a Christian I am prepared to concede that Jesus Christ did not invent democracy, but he got the rest right.

6 May 2010 at 13:14  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace appears to have descended into insanity, probably triggered by your obsession with the multi-millionaire, never had a proper job, expenses thief Cameron.

7 very good reasons not to vote Labour, not a single reason to vote for more of the same in the Con party.

1 very good reason why Christians should not vote for any of this marxist dross; God says not to:

2 Corinthians 6 vv 14-17

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

18And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

6 May 2010 at 13:17  
Blogger Glorfindel said...

None of these are actual reasons to vote Conservative. On all the gay rights issues the Tories are exactly the same as Labour. Ditto for cannabis! Constitutionally they're committed to doing nothing.

6 May 2010 at 13:21  
OpenID yokel said...

It won't be all that often that one hears praise for Galloway on this blog, but one must give him credit for his description of NuLabour and BluLabour being "two cheeks of the same arse" in 2006. Peter Hitchens makes a good case for forcing BluLabour (aka "Call Me Dave's Conservative Party") to disintegrate at the same time. Then we might get a party rise from the ashes that actually espouses what is good.

Whoever gets in now, the next five years will be evil.

Fortunately I don't have to worry about that choice. My ABB is not "Anyone But Brown", it's "Anyone But Bercow". The only Conservative standing is an independent who doesn't stand a chance.

6 May 2010 at 13:26  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Do you all purposely ignore the comments about David Cameron, his viting record, the Conservative Party's Manifesto or Conservative spokesmen on these issues? Are you simply anaesthetised to any expression which is vaguely pro-Tory?

The point is that the natural Conservative instinct in these matters is manifestly antithetical to Labour's anti-Christian agenda. That is not to say that all Conservatives agree; they do not. But, as His Grace has said, no party is ideal and no leader is perfect.

6 May 2010 at 13:27  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mr Grumpy - I just cant see how one can import religion in to politics without giving base for the argument used by the Taliban or the Ayatollahs of Iran. Or - Maybe it's me that's Truly Weird.

6 May 2010 at 13:32  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

I have voted YG, and it was not for the stinking Tories. There was a Tory prat wearing a rosette who asked for my number, he was told to get stuffed.

6 May 2010 at 13:37  
Anonymous Sonofthe Blood said...

'We shall get the government we deserve'? Surely YG knows that representative democracy is a system in which we all get the government that the majority of the people who bother to vote deserve. And in the UK that works constituency by constituency.

6 May 2010 at 13:39  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Remember, everytime someone votes for david cameron, a puppy dies.

6 May 2010 at 13:41  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Sonofthe Blood,

No, we all get the government we deserve. Those who do not bother to vote deserve whatever is inflicted upon them.

6 May 2010 at 13:42  
Blogger Dioclese said...

As Jay Leno said when interviewed on the BBC "I envy the British as they have moved into a post religious society unlike the US"

I respect religious views but do not want them rammed down my throat. I do not want to be converted. I regard mytself as upholding christian values, but not as a member of any Church.

Tolerance and understanding is all in my opinion. Freedom to express one's views and freedom for other people to peacefully disagree.

Unfortunately, when religion comes into this category, my experience is that tolerance seems to go out the widow...

6 May 2010 at 13:43  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"Unfortunately, when religion comes into this category, my experience is that tolerance seems to go out the widow... "

On the contrary. Anglicanism has accommodated all manner of expressions and tolerates the articulation of all opinions: it is benign and conducive to the common good.

The reality is that tolerance goes out of the window with secular assertions of 'neutrality'.

6 May 2010 at 13:48  
Anonymous Jewish Bag Lady said...

Well your Grace, I voted Tory.

6 May 2010 at 14:11  
Anonymous So Tory I have blue blood said...

Clearly the socialist trolls are attacking on this site! Where is the Singh when you need him!

6 May 2010 at 14:19  
Anonymous no nonny said...

The marxists swarm, Your Grace.

I'm thankful for Mr. Wood's comment, though, because Mr. Singh yesterday turned to Henry V. H5 did much for us, though he reigned only from 1413-22 and left us with a boy-king- and his foreign mother. I relate Henry VI to the topic of avoiding undesireable influences on children.

They forced marriage on H6, but many believe him to have been homosexual; they so weakened and exploited him that we landed in the Wars of the Roses. Edward IV split Henry's reign, and from what I've read he gloried both in europhilia and in immorality among all genders. H6, though, was Christian - many deemed him saint and martyr. So the religion that made him try to be a good man saved his standing among the people, in the end.

The parallel I suggest is between the trouble that ensues when we demoralize our children, and the already visible effects of the marxist trend you describe. My examples are of kings, but if we let Trots and Alenskyites do the same to the entire population, and without the benefit of Christian thinking, then how can the results be less catastrophic?

So yes, Mr. Wood - I say protect the children; and the teachings of Judaeo-Christianity are there to help us do that. But as Bezmenov argued, it will take at least 15 years to turn the tide. And we'll have to find our Margaret Beaufort and her H7 (Tudor) - ASAP. But where? I still must place my hope among Cams party, and pray for UKIP where it won't divide the vote.

Doubtless the pests will now re-inscribe with renewed vigour: to reflect the "ignorance" of 600 years ago vs. the "enlightenment" of the '60's. Right - the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and hash and worse; Dylan and the Tambourine man; the Flower Children;... Nothing fried about those brains, then. None of the navel-gazing brigade were infiltrated by commies; oh no.

That infiltration is our problem; it was and is designed to dispossess us, children and all.

6 May 2010 at 14:25  
Anonymous Mr Katana Sword said...

All these so-called tories, now saying they won't vote conservative! The traitors, such as Lord Lavendon, G Davies,Jared Gaites, They should be shot! What next, D.Singh saying he'll vote lib dem?

Why cannot they see that the conservative party deserves to win this election and that Cameron should be prime minister.

6 May 2010 at 14:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What has No Nonny's post got to do with the election? Shouldn't it be no brains instead?

6 May 2010 at 14:27  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Your Grace should be urging us to vote for any party except the Conservatives:

❛Speaking on Australian television, [American economist David] Hale said: ‘I saw the governor of the Bank of England last week when I was in London and he told me whoever wins this election will be out of power for a whole generation because of how tough the fiscal austerity will have to be.’❜—Daily Telegraph

I could never vote for a party that, if it formed a government, would send more of our best young men to be killed and maimed in a futile war. One of those brave men, Rifleman Daniel Owens, features in this article. Cameron, Brown and Clegg are not fit even to lick his boots.

6 May 2010 at 14:28  
Anonymous D.Sing said...

A vote for the lib dems is the only course of action chaps!

6 May 2010 at 14:28  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

YG, I have profound sympathy with your cause. I too am a natural Conservative. I too think they are the least worst option from 3 very bad options - which particular poison shall I drink from?

When do you want to go deeper into Europe:
b)very soon
c)quickly but not quite as quick as (a) or (b).

When shall we end or even reverse the immigration trend:
b)Not at all
c)Not in my lifetime you racist bigot

Do you want to see the institution of the family protected:
b)Not really
c)You homophobic bigot

Which of these virtues do you think we should dispense with first:
a)Righteousness, Justice & peace
b)Peace, Righteousness & Justice
c) Both (a) & (b)

It it must be dispiriting for you to have so many negative comments. I admire your tenacity and faithfulness. But you see my dilemma. I like the conservative view of the world. I think it should be the natural political home for the Christian I believe. But alas the conservative PARTY no longer seems to want us even if we want them.

So whilst you continue to protest that they are the least worse of 3 evils, I say there are more than 3 to choose from!

6 May 2010 at 14:32  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

'Are you simply anaesthetised to any expression which is vaguely pro-Tory?'

Oh, Cranny! '...vaguely pro-Tory...'?

Rabidly, more like.

Let's think about a few key points, some large and some small.

EU membership: Cameron has given out a few empty sops to Euro-realists in the hope that we will be bamboozled by them. Cameron's promises are a bit like Brown's apologies -- they dissolve into mush on close examination. The 'referendum lock' is a meaningless concept in the real world of Euro-inegration.

Selective schools: Cameron's view remains exactly in accord with his party's voting record. His party, under his leadership, voted in early 2006 for a Labour measure which made new grammar schools illegal (Cameron himself was absent from the vote). Gove's free schools would still be forbidden to select on the basis of ability.

Homosexual equality: I am in favour of not discriminating against homosexual people in employment, etc. I have no objection to the idea of civil partnerships, as long as they are not described as marriage. But I continue to regard the activities of practising homosexuals as perverted and unnatural. Philip Lardner's mild and reasonable statement along those lines led to his removal from his Conservative candidacy. Cameron would rather have no candidate standing than a genuine Christian conservative. Cameron himself has repeatedly said that children should not be taught that homosexual practices are abnormal or perverted. He has set his face against Section 28 which only forbade the promotion of homosexuality by publicly funded schools.

Global warming: Cameron is completely in thrall to the warmist pseudo-science threat to our economic survival. He is committed to an energy policy that will cost ordinary people huge sums of money for no gain and plenty of loss.

I could go on, but won't.

I response to the 'lesser of evils' argument, I ask: how many concessions to the left-liberal PC establishment do you expect us to swallow, Cranny, in order to install a party and a leader whose differences from the present government are more to do with style than substance?

Their subservience to ever-closer union with the EU would be enough on its own to disqualify them. But there's plenty more.

6 May 2010 at 14:37  
Anonymous Tory who takes conservatives for granted said...

So is the Anabaptist not going to vote conservative either? What the blazes is going on? And why are you all voting for things like BNP or UKIP?

6 May 2010 at 14:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vote Lib Dem!

6 May 2010 at 14:44  
Anonymous Louis-Joseph de Montcalm-Gozon, Marquis de Saint-Veran said...

Well les roist biffs have not been as good as they used to be. I like the fact you are ashamed of your history and past imperial greatness. I am pleased that we french have had the final victory!

6 May 2010 at 14:50  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, what is more worrying is how any of the parties are going to really deal with the deficit. Everyone has been living in some dreamworld during the campaign. Given that our public debt is worse than Greece, I dread to think what will happen after this election.

If we have to call in the IMF and they impose upon us measures like they have in Greece, i.e. 6-10% of the public budget, the party in power is going to have to cut £100 billion and not £6billion. And let us not forget that Greece has been told to do this within 6 months and not 5 years as the more modest cuts of labour, tory and lib dem suggest.

6 May 2010 at 14:54  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

'Are you simply anaesthetised to any expression which is vaguely pro-Tory?'

Answer : YES

6 May 2010 at 14:55  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

I voted early this morning for my UKIP candidate. I have made this intention clear for several weeks on this list. I am voting for UKIP becasue, even though they are not perfect, they are the nearest representatives of my own views.

UKIP are not minor players: in the European elections they came second in the popular vote.

Only if Cameron is given a bloody nose is there any hope of a genuine conservative party arising in this country. It may not work, but it is the only chance.

And there is no substantial difference on an issue that really matters between any of the parties. As matters stand, we are simply electing a local government. We need to send a clear signal that we are not deeply unhappy with the choices given to us by the main parties.

Currently, genuine conservatives are disenfranchised unless they vote for a party with virtually no chance of forming a governnment. I will not succumb to that blackmail. I would prefer to go down fighting.

6 May 2010 at 15:01  
Anonymous Mr Katana Sword said...

Why would anyone not vote conservative? I am ashamed of everyone on this blog.

6 May 2010 at 15:02  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

I also voted UKIP for the first time.It was not an easy choice, but one must go with what one feels right and not with political calculations or tactical voting. If we get clegg/brown, then let us see how they deal with the economic storm which will soon hit our isle.

6 May 2010 at 15:05  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr Katana Sword, why don't you try reading the arguments instead of falling back on irrational tribalism? Copious reasons have been given for not voting Conservative. You should be ashamed of yourself, rather than of everyone else.

6 May 2010 at 15:07  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Well done, Lord Lavendon. Perhaps Mr Singh's 300 Spartans (whom he is wont to quote ad nauseum) are genuinely an example to us after all.

6 May 2010 at 15:09  
Anonymous Mr Katan Sword said...

So yet another liebour traitor, Lord Lavendon. You should feel the wrath my my sword, you peasent!

As for the anabaptist, well, you have given the field to Zanulabour.Brown will still be PM and not dave Cam, who deserves to be PM through birthright and having lots of money.

6 May 2010 at 15:12  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

"You should feel the wrath my my sword, you peasent!"

Why is it when people on this blog disagree with me that they start to talk about swords and duels?

6 May 2010 at 15:21  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I am not wishing to defend NL or that I fundamentally disagree with much of what HG writes, but to leave out the contributory part played by the Heads of the CoE is a bit disingenuous. Have they not also contributed so destructively in the demise of the culture of the Nation?

He (the ABC) added that there is a "drift of understanding" towards what he was saying, and that the public sees the difference between letting Muslim courts decide divorces and wills, and allowing them to rule on criminal cases and impose harsh punishments.

HRH insists that the wording of the Oath of Obligation be amended from Defender of the Faith by deleting ‘the’ and -
Prayers and readings from other denominations and religions, including from the Muslim, Sikh and Jewish faiths, are expected to be included in the ceremonies marking Prince Charles's accession to the throne

6 May 2010 at 15:28  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6 May 2010 at 15:49  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6 May 2010 at 16:04  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Graham Davis,

While His Grace welcomes you warmly, your language is becoming offensive and you are posting off topic simply to denigrate Christianity. Please desist, or start your own blog.

Bless you.

6 May 2010 at 16:14  
Blogger Graham Davis said...


My apologies. I am suitably chastened.

6 May 2010 at 16:24  
Anonymous Mr.Kantana Sword said...

Graham Davis sums up what's wrong with atheists and nudists etc.

Lavendon- I did not ask to duel you, but to say that you should be punished as a mere peasent, my trusty Katana will see to that.

Anyway, vote tory, vote tory, Cam for PM.

6 May 2010 at 16:32  
Anonymous Oswin said...

So Torry I have blue blood at 14.19

I think you'll find that most dissent shown here emanates from TRUE Tories who feel that they no longer have a party that adequately represents them.

6 May 2010 at 16:44  
Blogger D. Singh said...


Re-read what His Grace has written.

Recall now what this national socialist government has done to our brothers and sisters in the Lord.

It is this governmnet, national socialist, that hunts down Christians.

Do your duty men! Get rid of them! Never ever sit back as a target! Take the fight to them!

God be with you; and God speed.

6 May 2010 at 16:49  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Mr.Katana Sword - I'm always wary of ''peasents'' who cannot spell.

I'm futher wary of those who favour Japanese invariably suggests 'chav'- do you perchance, keep a snake too; a parrot, or a pit-bull even?

6 May 2010 at 16:52  
Blogger D. Singh said...

At 14.28

You impersonate me: you snivelling little coward.

6 May 2010 at 17:00  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

I, too, have voted UKIP

This makes about half a dozen votes on this blog which have gone their way, all by thinking persons (of varying persuasions) who have all thought through the issues and made their democratic choice

Obviously, these votes will make not the blindest bit of difference in the real world, where millions of people cast their vote "cos my family's always been labour", (or, "because that's what I've always done" for Dave's boys and girls)

Sad, isn't it.

And, tomorrow, (barring the most statistically unlikely UKIP victory in the history of, well, history itself) the eu will still be there, the smile on the face of the tiger. That much, Ladies and Gents, is 99.99999% guaranteed

6 May 2010 at 17:17  
Anonymous Anne E. said...

I agree with all your points Cranmer, and I voted Tory - my first vote in over 25 years!

6 May 2010 at 17:35  
Anonymous Mr.Katana Sword said...

Oswin, I have a half starved pit bull ready to defend the 'ouse.

"Jap cutlrey", it would slice ya in half!

6 May 2010 at 18:03  
OpenID britologywatch said...

And yet, the Conservative Party manifesto does not mention Christianity or the Church of England (or, indeed, any church) one single time. Hardly the Church of England at politics any more!

Does his Grace agree with the Conservatives' 'big idea' of the Big Society? And is this not a plan to systematically privatise the public sector in England (the only part of the UK to which it applies), turning over our schools, hospitals and public services to unbridled market forces under the guise of 'co-operatives' and 'social enterprises' that are nonetheless going to have to compete against each other commercially for ever-dwindling budgets?

To say nothing of making voluntary service and civic duty a compulsory thing (for young English people only, to begin with), and a practical necessity, where it's not a legal obligation, in order to compensate for the savage and indiscriminate cuts that are on their way?

6 May 2010 at 18:45  
Blogger D. Singh said...



Cameron cannot have the 'Big Society'; until he adresses the Big State, the Federal Authority: the European Union.

6 May 2010 at 18:50  
Blogger Anglichan said...

I'd like to thank you, Mr. Cranmer, for listing your reasons for voting Tory.

You've obviously worked hard on your piece and you make a compelling case.

I'd also like to thank your readership. They also make some very good points and I'm grateful for their learned and erudite arguments.

It seems a bit churlish to mention names but Graham Wood has been particularly helpful in reminding me about what is also important to consider in this election.

Other helpful contributors, not just today but over the last few weeks, have been Anabaptist, no nonny, Gnostic, bluedog, oswin, a host of others and, last and definitely not least, Jared Gaites, because he just makes me laugh.

Thanks to everyone. May we not get what we deserve after today.

6 May 2010 at 20:21  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

I have reluctantly gifted my vote to Mr. Nicholas Soames. I have done this based on his skills as a candidate and not on his party affiliation. Apart from being willing to stay in Europe he seems like the sort of chap to vote for.

We still live in a real democracy. None of the cloak and daggers of Proportional Representation or the audacious Liberal bias of Alternative Vote. Party affiliation is only a small part of why we vote for each candidate.

If each Conservative supporter voted only for Euro-sceptic Conservatives, then the party would be filled with Euro-sceptic MPs. They would quickly catch on, and their policy would change based on our will. That is why FPP is far superior to other voting systems: because we get to choose our MPs on a candidate by candidate basis. If we vote based on party affiliation, then any Europhile or Christianophobe (for want of a better word) could get voted in by the very people they oppose.

6 May 2010 at 21:39  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Your Grace, I owe you an apology for I did not fully read your article. You did give 7 good reasons not to vote Labour and - contrary to what I said in my previous post - with each you also gave a good positive reason to vote conservative. Please forgive me.

Alas - I am convinced that the whole damned ship is going down and we need to abandon ship, not merely change the captain.

6 May 2010 at 21:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, obviously Labour are wicked, but do you have any positive reasons to vote for the self-styled heir to Blair's cocktail of social libertinism and gree related profligacy?
If you didn't vote UKIP today, may G-d have mercy on your soul.

6 May 2010 at 22:28  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older