Dear Mr Cameron

Let me start by offering my congratulations.  I was rooting for you, I voted for your candidate (even in Oxford East, that little bastion of red in the midst of deep blue rural England), and I'm pleasantly surprised by the result.  I think that given the available options, and the current circumstances, you and your party were the least bad option.  And if that sounds a bit like damning with faint praise, Mr Cameron, well, so be it.

Here's the thing.  Most of the people I know and respect - not all, but most - think that voting Conservative makes you some sort of amoral monster.  I'm not exaggerating, or at least not much.  And can I be honest, you haven't helped us.  You ran a campaign based on fear; you won an election at least partly by making us afraid of one another.  I know the other guys were doing just the same thing, and I know it's easier to sell your opponents' nightmare than your own dream; but I'm sure some of the bitterness I'm seeing springs from that campaign.

Listen, Mr Cameron (I know you prefer 'Dave', but I can't quite bring myself to first-name a sitting Prime Minister): I really believe that a smaller state and a bigger civil society can be the best way forward for society; I think you believe it too, but you didn't exactly sell it, that's all.

But actually that's not the main thing.  It's not nice to be considered an amoral monster, but I can hold my own and I'm prepared to make a positive case even if you're not.  The main thing is that I need you to prove them wrong, and that's going to need a change in approach from you.  I believe you when you say that you want to protect the most vulnerable, but people I know are not seeing that desire translate into action.  They don't believe you, because your record and rhetoric don't line up.  Mr Cameron, in your second term, will you ensure that necessary cuts don't punish those who are already suffering?  Will you take a personal interest across government in protecting those who cannot protect themselves?

Like you, I think it is important that we don't take the approach of many on the left, which seems to be to classify large numbers of people as 'poor' and assume they will always be dependent on the state; but on the other hand, there are people who will always be dependent, because they are chronically ill, or disabled.  For them, especially, you need to do better than you have so far.  Compassionate conservatism - that's what I want to see.

Mr Cameron, there's a lot more I could say, but frankly if you take this one thing on board I will be happy.  As a Christian, I am commanded to respect you and to pray for you as a leader.  I'll be doing those things going forward, and God bless you as you make difficult decisions.

RE-POST: The Least Bad

Here is what I wrote on the eve of the last General Election.  I find that my thinking is much the same this time around...

Tomorrow, I will be voting for what I consider to be the least bad of the options put in front of me. None of the options is hugely inspiring, and none is particularly friendly to the Christian gospel. But then, I don't expect them to be. After all, the decisive encounter between Christianity and the state can be summed up in the phrase 'crucified under Pontius Pilate'. That phrase colours my whole idea of what the state is, and it doesn't lead me to expect much.

Can I suggest there are two main things we should be looking at?

Firstly, and most importantly, I can look for the people I think will most promote the common good. By the common good I mean not the interests of any particular section of society, but the good of all. Of course, we will have different conceptions of what the common good actually is; all I can really say to that is: be suspicious of your own ideas. It is very easy to con ourselves into thinking that 'what would be best for me' is the same as the common good. Moreover, the common good can be considered from lots of different angles - financial welfare, liberty, community coherence. Resist reductionism - the common good cannot be only a matter of economics, or only a matter of freedom. Who offers the least bad option, in terms of balancing the desirables?

Secondly, and particularly as a Christian, all I ask from the state is that they leave me free to live, preach, and worship (1 Tim 2:1-4). Who offers the least bad option on this front?

At the end of the day, I am waiting for perfect government, and I belong to a city where that government is vested in the hands of the Perfect King. That doesn't make tomorrow unimportant; but it does put it in perspective.

"But while they live in Greek and barbarian cities, as each one's lot was cast, and follow the local customs in dress and food and other aspects of life, at the same time they demonstrate the remarkable and admittedly unusual character of their own citizenship. (Christians) live in their own countries, but only as non-residents; they participate in everything as citizens, and endure everything as foreigners." - Diognetus, 2nd century AD

Policies AND Personalities

There are lots of useful websites out there which will help you to work out which of the main political parties has policies which you are likely to find agreeable.  This is one of the best.  If you've not decided how to vote you will probably find it helpful.

The only thing I have against this particular website is the strapline: vote for policies, not personalities.  It seems to me that if I am voting for someone to represent me (and bear in mind that is what you are voting for; we don't elect a government, we elect an MP to represent us) I would rather have someone with integrity than not, even if I largely disagreed with them.  "We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them", as President Andrew Shepherd would put it.

Just something to bear in mind,

Be kind

Before I throw myself into the (rather more important) business of the annual commemoration of the Lord's death and resurrection, here is a brief thought about the general election campaign.  I don't particularly want to comment on what's happening 'out there' in the wide world of national politics.  Rather, I want to say something about how you and I - especially if we are Christians - need to conduct ourselves during the campaign.  In so far as this is a rebuke, I promise you that it is directed at me and my past behaviour at least as much as at anyone else.

Here are a few things I think we need to bear in mind:

1.  We don't know people's motives.  It is easy for us to infer motives, especially when we are talking about people we don't know well.  For example, 'David Cameron only wants to help the rich'.  Does he?  That's an inference, I suppose, from Conservative economic policy, but I think we would do well to assume the best of people.  I find it helpful to think of people I actually do know who hold particular political and economic views; it is much harder to just assume that they are evil!  So, for example, my left-leaning friends would probably not say 'Daniel Blanche only wants to see the rich getting richer', even though I broadly agree with Dave's economic policies.

2.  Cynicism is a deadly trap.  I know that politicians give us lots of reasons to be cynical, but the way cynicism works reminds me of the conspiracy theorist I met who couldn't think for long about any subject without linking it in to his skewed worldview.  Cynicism becomes a habit of thought which colours everything and prevents us from seeing any good or nobility in anything.

3.  Tribalism is easy.  It's easy to get into a frame of mind where we think everything 'our side' says and does is right, whilst 'the others' are wrong about everything.  Really, what are the odds of this being the case?  Isn't it much more likely that we could all learn from one another?

4.  Life is complicated.  If we think we have a simple solution to any of the big political or economic problems of today, it probably just means we don't understand the issues.  Let's be a bit more patient with those on all sides of the political spectrum who are trying to wrestle with them.

5.  For Christians, our unity in Christ trumps our political divisions.  I imagine all Christians would agree in principle, but already this morning I've read a couple of articles - and more painfully comments from friends - essentially saying that I can't be a Christian because I am likely to vote Conservative.  Of course, they didn't say this about me - but in critiquing political leaders in strong language like 'clearly he doesn't understand Christianity given his evil politics' you implicitly unchurch all those who agree with that particular leader or his policies.  Let's be careful about that.

6.  Robust debate must have limits.  Let's just speak well of one another, and of politicians of all stripes.  Let's at least give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that we all want what's best.  I know that might be hard, given strong disagreement.  I know that sometimes it's really hard to see how someone can possibly think that.  But we can disagree within parameters of civility.  And indeed, if we are Christians we can disagree whilst showing honour to our leaders (and potential leaders) and love to one another.

I suppose it all boils down to this: let's be kind to one another, shall we?