So, have you made your mind up yet, or are you still undecided? Back in 2016, I honestly walked into the polling station and picked up the pencil, still working through the issues in my head and not fully certain about whether my cross would go against leave or remain. Many of us may feel like that tomorrow as we go into the booth to cast our vote in the General Election.
My aim throughout the General Election has not been to tell people how I think they should vote (I’m genuinely unsure myself both in head and heart but rather to encourage Christians in how to think carefully through their decisions.
For some people, it feels like a slam dunk. Here’s a quote from former footballer Gary Nevill that has been circulated on social media:
“They partied , they bet on elections , they crashed the economy, they broke every public service, they destroyed integrity and honesty in public office , they paid their mates billions , they put their friends in the House of Lords, they gave their cronies knighthoods, they went into the jungle , they lied again and again, they were convicted by police, they went on holiday when they shouldn’t and they have the cheek to question Keir Starmer’s work ethic. I would never take anything for granted but I hope they are annihilated on Thursday. The worst people and government we have ever had!
Gary is obviously describing the Conservatives isn’t he. Except, there are significant question marks about his claims. It’s good, tribal, political rhetoric but does it accurately reflect what has happened? Well, it is true that there has been sleaze and denial but does that mean that the Tories are single handedly responsible for the collapse of trust, that they alone have “destroyed integrity and honesty in public office”? The word “cronies first gained currency when used o rhyme with Tony, a reminder that these problems sadly come with longevity for any party. The old saying is that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Whils, Blair, Thatcher/Major and the recent Conservative administrations have not had absolute power, they have at times come close to it due to the weakness of opposition.
And I’m tempted to ask people like Gary Neville where this moral anger was in 2019 when many of us were warning about exactly the type of character a Boris Johnson gvoernment would have, stating why we could not vote for him and desperate for genuine alternative. At that time, the opposition decided to take the luxury of rallying behind a man equally unfit for public office. Those who did so must shoulder a share of the blame for the state of affairs today.
It’s important too that we seek out an honest critique of the current government. Did they make significant mistakes? To be sure, they never really got a grip of the deficit left behind from the previous government and the Credit Crunch, they were slow to respond to the cost of living crisis and their post Brexit immigration policy created serious supply chain challenges that affected economic performance. Their policies which left the Bank of England to carry out quantative easing meant that we never really got weaned off of our addiction to debt and this has contributed, along with the Ukraine War, to high inflation. Liz Truss’ disastrous, economically illiterate short sojourn in Down Street probably lost the Tories any remaining credibility for economic management.
It is also worth remembering that if high government borrowing and the need to recover that through a higher tax burden is there exactly because the Conservatives were following redistributive type policies, rebranded for the centre-right as “levelling up” and also through the furlough scheme which enabled many people to stay in work through the pandemic.
So did they crash the economy? Well no, they didn’t. They didn’t managed to get it running well and growing fast, it has stuttered along and looked fragile since 2008 but despite a serious dip in 2020 during the pandemic and a small, recent recession, GDP has grown a little since 2010.
The biggest issues with the Conservatives have been
- The concerning attitude towards the rule of law and the courts, seen especially under Boris Johnson.
- An immigration system and approach to asylum that has been deeply unethical and ended up being both cruel and inefficient.
Just one final note on the “They partied” line. I understand the anger many feel towards Boris Johnson particularly over “party gate”. Many of us paid a grave price through the pandemic because of the impact of lockdown and so when we heard about things that had happened in Downing Street, it was a kick to the gut but again, we need to eschew the political rhetoric and speak truthfully. First of all, yes, senior politicians broke the law, whether or not they quite understood it and whether or not those laws were fair and reasonable is irrelevant. The laws were “strict liability” ones and these were the laws they had made. It does seem though that primarily the issue was a staff culture and whilst it may fit the stereotype, I’m not sure that we saw evidence that Boris and Carrie were recklessly partying the nights away but rather that they crossed the line between necessary work contact and social engagement several times, which contributed to a culture that blurred the distinction.
Now, all of this means that there is a strong case for change. However, I struggle with the rhetoric of annihilation. There are three reasons why I find this language unhelpful. First of all, I don’t find that kind of language in good taste, knowing that brothers and sisters around the world face real persecution and the word has a concrete meaning for them. Let’s not casually throw it about here please. Secondly, I think there is a huge danger in seeking to game the system. I think it’s worth noting that the Tories themselves have suffered from their own attempts. I suspect that the Lib Dems are now about to get revenge from the way that Conservatives ruthlessly stuck the knife into their coalition partners in 2015 all for maybe half a dozen seats. Many on the right rubbed their hands in pleasure and even talked gleefully about taking out Labour party membership in 2016 in order to get Corbyn elected. The result was that he came so very close to the seat of power in 2017. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
This is also why I am not keen on the idea of tactical voting. I understand why people have sought to do things to correct the imbalances of First Past The Post in the past but tactical voting this time around risks exaggerating the FPTP distortions.
Thirdly, I think that when there isn’t a credible opposition, the government become complacent or find that true opposition comes from their own fringes. This means that unchallenged government is actually bad for the victorious party and for the country at large. Be careful what you wish for.
I think all of this means that we need to be careful about letting negative reasons dictate how we vote. There may be many reasons to vote against the Tories but perhaps some good reasons to vote for them. The same is true for each of the parties. It is important as we prepare to vote that we are careful to work through those reasons.
All of this is a long preamble to what comes next. At one point, I had the idea of getting some guest bloggers to share the case for voting a particular way. This wasn’t possible but I thought it might be helpful to give a quick survey of why we might want to vote for each party and why not. I’m only going to cover UK wider parties here.
The Green Party
They’ve been around in UK politics for most of my life and all of my adult, voting life but have never really broken through although in Scotland they hold the balance of power and they’ve had more success across the rest of Europe.
Why vote Green? Well, I guess the obvious answer is that we are called to be wise stewards of God’s creation. It is also fair to say that a lot of other issues relating to peace and security are affected by the pressures of climate change.
However, the Greens have for a long time sought to be more than a single issue party, even if, in a similar way to the way that UKIP saw the EU as core to everything, they see the environment as at the centre of everything. This means that to some degree, especially post Corbyn, the Greens have become home to the radical left. This means that if you lean socialist in your thinking that this may provide a reason to vote for them, especially if they stand a chance in your constituency. Of course, if you are not left leaning, then this will be a tick in the against box.
Other reasons for not voting Green are first that there is a risk that the environment and climate change has become such a hard ideology in recent times that it is almost a religion in itself and definitely can be idolatrous.
Of greater concern to many Christians will be the way in which the Greens have taken up radical positions on ethical positions that will bring them into serious conflict with God’s Word. Whilst it is the case that most parties have pretty much accepted a socially liberal position, some are wanting to push things further.
The Liberal Democrats
Like the Greens, the Lib Dems tend to push hard at the socially liberal end of ethics. It was after all, a Liberal, David Steel who brought in the Abortion Act in 1967 for example. However, there have been prominent Christians including Tim Farron amongst the Liberal Democrat’s numbers who have been willing to take a strong stand on social and moral issues.
The Liberal Democrats are in effect a coalition between social democrats (the moderate left), social liberals and classical liberals who tended towards a free market view of economics. The latter was represented at the turn of the century by so called “Orange Book Liberals” and it was this that made the Coalition with David Cameron’s Conservatives possible, especially as he sought to move the Tories to a more socially liberal position.
The Coalition Government perhaps offers some of the strongest reasons for why people are reluctant to vote Liberal Democrat and even 9 years after they were punished for their role in that government and austerity, voters have not returned to the fold. It will be tactical voting and good old FPTP that will deliver them an increase in seat numbers rather than better vote share. Their number one failing in that government was no doubt their U-Turn on tuition fees.
However, it may also be argued that they did on many issues constrain Conservative instints. This may be a positive but also potentially a negative because some would argue that it was this constraining influence that restricted the Government’s ability to properly deal with the economic crisis at root and so the country was still vulnerable post Brexit and when the pandemic and the Ukraine War hit.
Meanwhile, that government also gave Liberal Democrats to enact their policies. They were primarily responsible for the significant uplift in personal tax allowances which for a time took many people out of the tax system altogether. They also were behind the Pupil Premium.
Liberal Democrats are likely to support investment in health care and education. If you were pro remaining in the EU then this party is most likely to advocate for return. They are also the most consistent advocates for voting reform and a fairer system. It is perhaps ironic that they will be among the main beneficiaries of the current system’s weaknesses.
Reform UK
Many people will be attracted to Reform as an alternative to the Conservatives. It is worth noting that they are promoting some of the very policies associated with Thatcherite Conservatism including tax cuts and strong defence at a time of international uncertainty. You may be surprised that they support vote reform too though.
Reform are seen as socially conservative. Christians may well be drawn towards them on this basis. However, I would be concerned about the risk that they are primarily aggravating around this issues because a form of culture war suits their purposes.
This is because primarily, Reform are disruptors. Nigel Farage’s instinct is to stir things up. Their primary aim in this campaign seems to be to destroy the Conservative Party and this pulls us back to the question of whether gaming things is helpful or not.
The main concern with Reform though is the way that they have put immigration at the centre of their agenda. This is something that has followed through from UKIP and the approach has not just been to look at how to have controlled immigration but rather to use inflammatory language which paints immigrants as sinister and dangerous. This affects the culture of Reform and who it attracts. I don’t therefore find Farage’s excuse of “a few rotten apples” getting through selection because of vetting problems. The culture goes back through the Brexit Party and through UKIP.
Labour
It looks like a locked in certainty that Labour will win and win big. The only question is “exactly how big?” This in itself may be proving a reason for some to have second thoughts about voting for them. It does not feel like they’ve sealed the deal in generating enthusiasm and so there is both the challenge of whether or not landslide super majorities are a good thing or not and whether Starmer has yet earned such a majority.
Starmer’s image is that of a moderate/centrist, an heir to Blair and Brown. In actual fact he is probably to the left of both of them in many respects, perhaps aligning more with Ed Milliband’s position after 2010. However, non-natural Labour supporters may be reassured by his commitment to fiscal prudence.
Personally, I think that his approach to the small boats crisis is about right. In the end we need to tackle underlying causes and target criminal gangs rather than victims. There is probably more that can be done and I’d like there to be more of a challenge on France to take greater responsibility for the boats leaving their shores. However, a step back from gimmicks and toxic rhetoric is to be welcomed.
Starmer is also basing his appeal on the claim that he has changed the Labour Party. It is true that the Corbynite wing of the party is much diminished and that Sir Keir has made significant progress in dealing with the problem of antisemitism. However, I would like to see him own and apologise for his part and that of others around him for enabling the Corbyn project to continue for so long.
The narrative on the left has tended to be that Blair and Brown between 1997-2010 were Tories in disguise. Whilst they were more social-democrat than democratic-socialist I think this is to miss how much they did intervene through investment in the NHS, Sure Start schemes, tax credits, class size limits etc. A Starmer government is likely to prioritise a return to serious investment in public services but also with the benefit of lessons learned from PPI.
The Conservatives
As I’ve indicated above, some of the most colourful attacks on the Tories are not completely fair. However, it is true that they are likely to leave office with the tax burden higher and debt no better, if not worse than when they came into office. If your instincts are centre right though, it is still the case that this is where their instincts lie. Tory MPs and ministers are likely to be as frustrated as you at high taxes and a failure to balance the books.
To be fair to them though, there have been serious challenges along the way. They came into office on the back of one of the worst economic crises we’ve known. Then there have been disruptions along the way. Things might have looked different without the interruption of the pandemic. The Government got a lot of things wrong in the pandemic but also made decisions that enabled a rapid vaccination roll out. Whether or not furlough was right or sustainable, it is undoubtedly the case that this showed a willingness to act and to care.
However, as I’ve frequently argued, their immigration policy has been both morally objectionable and practically ineffective. A lot of people have experienced the harshness of the Home Office and net migration has just kept on increasing.
I also see little indication that the Conservatives have serious ideas for the future. An attempt to reintroduce National Service seems a peculiar priority when we need to be thinking about staff shortages in all kinds of areas of public service. Abolishing National Insurance may show good instincts in terms of reducing the tax burden of lower paid workers, however, it leaves open big questions about how we fund health and social care and what we do about the brewing pensions crisis.
The strongest case for voting Conservative seems to be that we need a credible opposition going forward. The time will come when Labour will run out of steam and ideas, there will be the need for a viable alternative. In the meantime, we need people in Parliament who can hold the government to account.
Conclusion
For some of us, the answer about who to vote for is obvious and already decided. However, for many, the decision remains complex and difficult. It is important that we seek to make our mind up in a godly way and for godly motives. This also means that we need to love and respect those who make different decisions to us.
Faithroots 