Home  ›  Making (theological) sense of the election result

Making (theological) sense of the election result

Written By Saturday, February 5, 2022 Add Comment Edit

So the dust has settled, the result is articulate, and the stalemate on leaving the EU has been unblocked. The debates continue to rattle around my various social media threads, and it is worth pausing and reflecting on the way that the result came about, and whether we are in a new political era—or not. Here are my observations about the election, and some reflection on what they mean for Christians and the church building.

Starting time, it is worth remembering that the vote waspartial, in the sense that the biggest vote went to 'none of the to a higher place' considering 31% of the population eligible to vote did not exercise and so. Non-voter out-numbered those voting for the Conservatives, and non-voters outnumbered the winning candidate in 142 constituencies, and outnumbered the winning margin in many more. I take not seen any analysis of the possible party or political views of non-voters as a whole, and so nosotros cannot exist sure what the affect would take been. But we should surely ask some questions about political date when, in a 'vote of a lifetime' which will 'change the management of the UK', and despite the campaigns to get people to vote, nearly one third of the population did not engage.

Secondly, information technology was lost much more than information technology was won. The repeated comment on the doorsteps, and from those who voted Conservative even though they had been lifelong (and generational) Labour voters, was that they could not vote for Jeremy Corbyn to be leader. This was in part because of the issue of anti-Semitism, and connected claims that the (impress and circulate) media were biased against him. But I am not sure the broadcast media were biased, so much as they showcased what sort of leader Corbyn would be. To me, he came over every bit petulant, grumpy, irritable, and lacking the focus that is needed. Peter Brookes' cartoon in The Times summed it up: he was Johnson's greatest asset!

Since the outcome, numerous supporters of Corbyn have tried to minimise the bear upon of his reputation, which does not augur well for the prospect of Labour finding a apparent successor. And since Labour have hoisted themselves on the petard of allowing their party membership to elect the leader of the parliamentary political party, without any protection from radical entryism, it is non clear that they volition have resolved this before the next election in 2024.

But what is even more remarkable here (and I haven't seen very much comment on this): the Conservatives under Boris Johnson barely won any more support than Theresa May had done 2 years earlier, moving from overall 42.% of the vote to 43.six%, a shift of only 1.iii%. The big departure was that Labour leached support away in critical seats, assuasive the Conservatives to take them. In fact, many of the changes in margin in those seats had been delivered in the previous election, but just not quite enough to encounter the seats alter hands. It appears that May did well-nigh of the background (or rather, Corbyn had already lost nearly of his credibility) and Johnson reaped the benefits of that:

Thirdly, it was dishonest. This has been described as 'our get-go post-truth election'. There was dishonesty on both sides, simply far more on the side of Boris Johnson and the Conservatives. Former Tory supporter Peter Oborne has kept a list of Johnson'due south lies on a defended web-site, and it is a long list. Merely a week before voting solar day, Sajid Javid claimed that homelessness had increased nether Labour, and declined under the Conservatives—exactly the opposite of the truth. The first result of ostend the exit poll predictions was the election of a Bourgeois in Blyth Valley, loyal to Labour since 1918—and it turns out that the candidate (now the MP) claimed to be an NHS nurse when he wasn't. Three of the biggest pledges of the Conservatives (increased numbers of nurses, police officers and spending on schools) practice little more have us back to where Labour had left them in 2010, and were very far from existence records. And so it goes on. Never before in an election take nosotros been so depending on fact checking by reputable agencies; the most useful radio programme has been Tim Harford'due south More than or Less, but even in the broadcasts you tin can almost hear him becoming more despairing.

And this is not just the 'regular' dishonesty of the party political punch-up. Partly because of social media, nosotros are now in an era where truth and lies are very hard to distinguish. Sometime Bourgeois cabinet member, Dominic Grieve, was almost lost for words when speaking on the Today programme on Radio iv in the days before the ballot.

Politics has e'er been a dirty business concern—but what Boris Johnson has been doing is unprecedented in the Conservative party.

Peter Oborne sees the abandonment of any principle, other than the desire to govern, equally destroying the political party that he knew and loved, and detaching from its historic roots.

Once over again, Peter Brookes sums it upwardly in his cartoon of Corbyn and Johnson driving through the trust of the electorate—only what is striking is that the lies and dishonesty don't appear to have affected the event, unless we encounter that visible in the high level of non-voters.

Fourthly, it was very much influenced by money, even if it was not won by it.

In the first fortnight of the election campaign, the Tories broke the record for the most money raised in a British election. The Electoral Commission's latest data on donations shows the Conservatives consolidating their lead in the coin stakes. Since the starting time of Nov, large donors – those who requite more £7,500 – have contributed at least £12m to Tory party coffers. No other party comes shut.

In fact, the Conservatives raised more than money for their election campaign than all the other parties put together, past some margin. Tv advertising is banned in the UK (thank goodness!) just there is a loophole hither in that online advertising is not regulated—a loophole which surely needs closing—so that Conservative adverts were prominent on YouTube every bit well as on social media.

Fifthly, it was a victory for the strongman. That is true in two senses of the word. On the one manus, as Lord Ashcroft's all-encompassing leave poll indicates, more men voted for the Conservatives than for Labour—and comparing the marginal preference shows the difference fifty-fifty more than clearly.

Men chose the Conservatives over Labour by a 19-betoken margin (48% to 29%), while women did and then by just half-dozen points (42% to 36%).

It was commented on Radio iv's Woman's Hour that more men switched allegiances than women, and so their views contributed decisively—and I have since been pointed to the prove shown in the graph to the right. Historically, men accept leaned towards voting Labour more than women, who overall prefer the Conservatives more. This might in the by have been related to more men being involved in (blue collar) labouring occupations, but that cannot account for the preference in more recent years. Merely the switch over has been quite recent and dramatic, merely since 2015, and is all-time deemed for by the Conservative promise to 'get things washed'.

But it was noticeable the extent to which men dominated the media coverage in the campaigns for both sides. This was, in part, simply a office of the fashion that both the chief parties were ruthlessly focussed on their chief message, and kept virtually everyone other than their primary leaders out of the media spotlight. This meant that otherwise important figures like Jacob Rees-Mogg and Priti Patel were nowhere to exist seen. And for the Conservatives, the 'Brexit' bulletin dominated, and was reflected in media coverage. I think that fifty-fifty Boris Johnson was, in a strange way, controlled and hidden, in that the Boris Johnson of affable joshing with interviewers, casual and improvising, disappeared from view. In his place we saw a Boris Johnson who, rather out of character, read from notes, and avoided the nigh hard interviews where he would accept to think on his feet. There is a sense in which we elected Dominic Cummings, and non Boris Johnson, as Prime Minister

The importance of the 'strong human' or charismatic leader is at present dominating European politics, springing up from the ruins of the failure to deliver answers to deep-seated issues by the historic political parties, and the frustration that has created.

Of the many lessons about contemporary European politics 1 can draw from Boris Johnson's resounding election victory, the most important might as well be the most obvious: personality rules.

In today's political mural, where ideology and principle have been supplanted by pragmatism and raw opportunism, parties often serve equally piffling more than than wrapping for the larger-than-life personalities who pb them…

Johnson'southward maneuvering and alternative of the Bourgeois Party has been as as dramatic [as changes in other European nations]. As he transforms the establishment bastion of old into the party of the disgruntled working class, many party faithful say the Tories take become unrecognizable.

Sixthly, this election was breathless, or perhaps contradictory. The well-nigh extreme instance of this was highlighted in this comment from someone in Scunthorpe, which did the rounds on Twitter:

It is a strange thing indeed when right-wing commentator Katie Hopkins tin can praise the Conservative victory as a triumph for traditional values at the aforementioned time every bit the new generation of Conservative MPs are the nigh socially progressive in their profile of whatever party now represented.

Looking at this youthful group gives a fascinating insight into the future of the Tory party. In that location is not an Old Etonian in sight, and 24 are openly gay or bisexual, the nigh of any party. Labour has at least 18 — boosting the full to more than than 50 LGBT MPs. Westminster is now the "gayest parliament in the globe".

Seventhly, as Lord Ashcroft'south poll indicates nigh clearly, this result was determined by the one-time. There is an near exactly linear progression from Labour support among the youngest age group to Conservative support amongst the oldest group voting. How you lot brand sense of this volition be determined past your view of both parties and of the impact of ageing! Are the young fresh and optimistic, and the old cynical and selfish? Or are the young naive and gullible, and the sometime wise and critical? Or perhaps it is a sign of security, with the old closing the door of home buying and secure income behind them and the young wanting to be permit in?

Lastly, the event was unrepresentative. On leaving the EU, Johnson immediately claimed that 'Brexit was now the irrefutable, irresistible, unarguable conclusion of the British people'. But that simply isn't true; something like 52% of the electorate voted for parties that wanted to call up farther well-nigh our time to come relationship with Europe, rather than bulldoze through the 'Get Brexit done' slogan, and of course the negotiations with Europe are going to elevate on for many more years. And it is still the case that 53% of the population would not now vote for Exit. Far from Johnson uniting the country and being a 'government for the people', he is going to take us down a route that at least half the population don't want to go downwards.

More broadly, the election showed both the power and the weakness of our 'first by the post' organization. The differing numbers of votes required to proceeds seats for the different parties highlights some bones injustice in our FPTP arrangement, because the party with the most unequal spread of support is the one that tin secure the most marginal seats. In recent history, this has in turn favoured both Labour and the Conservatives, but information technology has consistently squeezed out the middle voices, and in an age of developing extremes, this cannot be healthy. As Johann Hari explained some years ago, information technology means that we accept never actually had the kind of regime that the people of the UK really want.

In United kingdom today, we accept a heart-left majority who desire this to exist a country with European-level taxes, European-standard public services and European-level equality. We have had this for a very long time. Even at the top of Thatcherism, 56 per cent of people voted for parties committed to higher taxes and higher spending. Just the heart-left vote is dissever betwixt several parties – while the right-wing vote clusters around the Conservatives.

And some Christians have been candidature for this for some time.

All this provides the raw material for our reflection on commonwealth, government, the election, and the life of our nation. We demand to reflect on thecontent of our autonomous processes, simply likewise on thecontextin which they sit within our theological agreement.

In relation to content, it seems from all the information above that our supposedly democratic processes are wide open to manipulation of one sort or another. At a bones level, considering of the national distribution of party loyalties, combined with the 'winner takes all' strategy of FPTP in constituencies, and the formation of the government by the party with the near seats, our national government is decided by a small group of cardinal voters. Headlines in the week before the election claimed that '10,000 voters will make up one's mind the upshot'. Given the polarisation of the chief parties on then many bug, that is an bloodcurdling country for us to exist in as a democracy.

But the arrangement is more vulnerable to the stealth of highly-informed strategic planning, the manipulation of social media, the asymmetric spending powers of the dissimilar parties, and the reward (in times of doubt) to those who put upward a single, uncompromising message which disregards nuance, contend, and even the facts. Bill Clinton in one case said:

When people are insecure, they'd rather have somebody who is strong and incorrect than someone who'southward weak and correct.

This is the kind of miracle that W B Yeats was referring to in his poem 'The Second Coming':

Things fall autonomously; the heart cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the earth,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are total of passionate intensity.

We were in a situation of intense doubt following three years of 'Brexit' push button-me-pull-you, so the Strong Man was ever going to have an border in this election. And the explosion of information on social media has, by and large, led to a decline in existent understanding in many arenas, and it is articulate that politics is i of those.

Christians have non e'er supported commonwealth every bit opposed to benign oligarchy; after all, are nearly of united states really equipped with the technical agreement of what makes for the all-time policies in our complex world? And why should we imagine that what people want in any sense reflects what God desires for us equally a nation? Just if we are committed to democracy and to the democratic accountability of those in power past means of full general elections, so we need to call for some serious revision of the system we currently have.

In relation to the theologicalcontextof these issues, from my discussions with friends online and in person across the political spectrum, it seems to me that three principal things are needed.

Beginning, Christians must be in the forefront of engaging with those of different views with honesty, respect and patience. I accept been intrigued to read of Christian friends, including clergy, who appear to assume that everyone shares either their joy or their grief at the election effect, as if there is just i possible Christian response to it. C S Lewis was absolutely right when he commented that, to many people he volition look socially conservative because of his conventionalities in the importance of family unit, relationships, honesty, responsibleness and accountability. Just to many he will also look socially liberal considering of his belief in creating a caring order where the weakest and almost vulnerable are provided for. I don't know many  friends who would disagree with these two concerns; only the reality is that i political tradition emphasises one, whilst the other main tradition emphasises the other, and this leads Christians to vote in different ways depending on how they rank these upshot in importance. It is therefore incumbent on us to ensure that we are listening to and understanding those who would vote in a different way from us, then that we tin continue to reflect on our own agreement and priorities.

Secondly, we need to disentangle our political concerns from questions of the coming of the kingdom. I take been fascinated to encounter, amongst friends on all sides, a hope that somehow God's calendar for our nation might in some manner be delivered by a item political party coming to power. We need to remember that we are non saved by politicians or political systems. But more than than that—we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that, equally the values of our culture motion further and further from historic Christian values, this is somehow bad for the church or the gospel. It certainly will make life more challenging for all those who seek to follow Jesus. But it only is not the example that people in a culture closer to historical Christian ethical values find information technology easier to come to faith. The church has consistently grown fastest in cultures that are more alien, where Christian faith stands out as distinctive.

Thirdly, nosotros need to call back more clearly about what Paul says about government in Romans 13. His affirmation that the powers that be exercise simply ability that is given by God needs to be put alongside his own apocalyptic outlook, and read in conjunction with Rev xiii which tells us that political systems can also exercise the devil's piece of work. Paul affirms, as a Jew who is committed to the thought of the sovereignty of God, that all ability comes from God alone, and that God's opposition to evil is not about a dualistic fight between equal partners, merely about the sovereign Lord bringing his kingdom to reign in the end. Just in saying this, he is articulating the same belief as Jesus did before Pilate: 'You would have no dominance over me at all unless it had been given you from above' (John xix.11). This is hardly an endorsement of Pilate'southward appointment or affirmation of his actions as mandated by God—and I encounter no reason to think either of these things in relation to a particular party coming first in our distorted democratic process.

What nosotros need to practice is to continue to preach the gospel, go on to debate for the truth and for justice, and keep to challenge our civilisation about their values and agenda. If those in power welcome this and listen, all well and skilful; if they don't, nosotros will go on to proclaim what is right.

If you enjoyed this, practice share information technology on social media, possibly using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Like my page on Facebook.

Much of my work is washed on a freelance basis. If y'all have valued this postal service, would you considerdonating £1.20 a month to support the production of this blog?

If yous enjoyed this, exercise share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my folio on Facebook.

Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance basis. If yous accept valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:

Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful contend, tin add real value. Seek start to sympathize, and then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to larn from their perspectives. Don't view fence as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.

kelsobacquithetty56.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/making-theological-sense-of-the-election-result/

0 Response to "Making (theological) sense of the election result"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel