[Closed] So who would Jesus vote for in 2015?

Did anyone ever figure out what the Big Society was actually meant to be? And how we'd know if it was happening?

maccruiskeen - Member
Did anyone ever figure out what the Big Society was actually meant to be? And how we'd know if it was happening?

Celeb bb s finished innit?

They might have more luck if they managed to be more concise, no one is going to read 52 pages and I say that as a church goer.

......what the Big Society was actually meant to be?

It was meant to be an antidote to neutralize the effect of Thatcher's toxic claim that there was no such thing as society and the perception that the Tories were the "Nasty Party".

Although Thatcher's fanclub are quick to point out that she didn't mean it like that. She meant it in a much nicer way. Apparently. So that's alright.

He's the Lord God! We'd all be on our knees, especially some so called non believers on stw. I can see it now "it were'nt me who wrote that, Stephen Fry nicked me password".

The whole political climate would make him very cross.

Green?

Jesus was a rebel, he'd stick it to da man...

If he wanted the planet to still be here after another 2000 years he'd go green

I think the posturing and rebuttals from westminster are as good/informative a read as the 52 page letter, in terms of how interested the 3 main parties seem to be in being called out by the church of england and wales on their duties toward the little people.
I would also be interested to see where Justin Welby is on this. So far so good, he is not talking (in public at least) like ine might fear that an eton-educated former oil indistry chief would talk.

Also will be listning out for my own mp who is a rather charismatic christian (in the falling-over spiritual healing sense) but still grabbed his 10-second soundbite on national news laying into Rowan Williams the time-before-last that the church questioned the christian values of the government.

Jesus was a rebel, he'd stick it to da man...

Jesus? Founder of the death cult Jesus? He'd strap on a bomb vest and make a statement on public transport.

Russell Brand is the second coming and he's not going to vote.
Actually he's an odious little gobshite. Let's crucify him anyway.

The church is just stating what everyone with half a brain already knows. Summed up here in the New Statesman: [url= http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/ministers-are-reaching-beyond-scroungers-and-aiming-britain-s-working-poor ]Ministers-are reaching beyond 'scroungers' and aiming at britains working poor[/url]

Good on 'em. The Tories lack of empathy and compassion, and general inhumanity, that we all just take for granted, now seem to have morphed into an active vendetta against the poor. To punish them for being poor. One that they all seem to be rather enjoying.

IMHO pointing this out is exactly what the church should be doing. If the government doesn't like it - which they clearly don't - then it's touched a nerve. Mainly because its perfectly valid criticism

The Crutch of England will now be cashing in all it's commercial investments and redistributing the money to "the poor", presumably?

From what I could gather from a couple of interviews with various bishoperati, they don't think Jesus would vote UKIP or for career politico tossers tied to the corporate world so there's no one for him to vote for, which pretty much sums up all of our predicaments.

They're wrong of course Jesus would vote Green he loves everyone, even gormless women and tree huggers.

Jesus doesn't really strike me as the "voting for someone else" type, it's His way or the hell way.

But who would Satan vote for?

They're wrong of course Jesus would vote Green

Yes, I've always thought that the jesus character in the famous fairy tale was a bit of a dimwit.

So who would Jesus vote for in 2015?

Bill Hicks or Jim Jeffries.

ernie_lynch - Member

It was meant to be an antidote to neutralize the effect of Thatcher's toxic claim that there was no such thing as society and the perception that the Tories were the "Nasty Party".

Although Thatcher's fanclub are quick to point out that she didn't mean it like that. She meant it in a much nicer way. Apparently. So that's alright.

For the younger forum user that may want to avoid ernie's deliberate misinformation:

There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.

Jesus wouldn't vote.

Obviously SNP for god's own country. 🙂

Bit rich of the church to lecture anyone on wealth considering they have benefited massively from preferential tax rates and direct government funding. They are also some of the biggest landowners in the UK and have funds of ~£4 billion.

If I were the government I'd be ringing them up and reminding them of that fact.

IMHO pointing this out is exactly what the church should be doing.

IMHO the church should not meddle in politics. It's not their role, we have political parties to do that. The fact that the Labour Party no longer effectively speaks up for ordinary people doesn't somehow transfer that responsibility onto the church.

There are of course situations when the church is the only voice that can speak for ordinary people, in those circumstances it has a clear obligation to do so. But that's not the situation in Britain in 2015.

A classic example of the need for the church to speak out because there is no one else left to do so :

[i]"Profound religion leads to political commitment and in a country such as ours where injustice reigns, conflict is inevitable... When a dictatorship seriously threatens human rights and the common good of the nation, when they become insupportable and close themselves to all channels of dialogue, understanding and rationality, then the Church speaks of the legitimate right to insurrectional violence"[/i]

- Oscar Romero Archbishop of San Salvador who died a martyr's death at the hands of US-backed death squads.

Interestingly the C of E was once quite fairly described as "the Conservative Party at prayer", yet now it regularly strongly criticizes Tory governments and that label seems a lot less justified. So what's changed? Well not much in terms of C of E other than like the rest of society it has become more socially liberal, it's not now more "left-wing" than it used to be, the big change is that the Conservatives have drifted further and further to the right.

Bit rich of the church to lecture anyone on wealth considering they have benefited massively from preferential tax rates and direct government funding. They are also some of the biggest landowners in the UK and have funds of ~£4 billion.

If I were the government I'd be ringing them up and reminding them of that fact.

It's a bit like arguing that Unite the union has assets worth millions so therefore has no right to speak on behalf of ordinary working people. It's a crap argument.

People have short memories. The Church wasn't too shy of wading in to Blair, and the labour government either. So its not party political.

Inequality grew massively under Labour. And continues apace under the Tories. They're just pointing out that the society we've created is a bit shit if you're poor. And getting rapidly shitter. And none of the mainstream parties seem to care less about that fact

ernie_lynch - Member
IMHO pointing this out is exactly what the church should be doing.
IMHO the church should not meddle in politics. It's not their role, we have political parties to do that. The fact that the Labour Party no longer effectively speaks up for ordinary people doesn't somehow transfer that responsibility onto the church.

There are of course situations when the church is the only voice that can speak for ordinary people, in those circumstances it has a clear obligation to do so. But that's not the situation in Britain in 2015.

A classic example of the need for the church to speak out because there is no one else left to do so :

"Profound religion leads to political commitment and in a country such as ours where injustice reigns, conflict is inevitable... When a dictatorship seriously threatens human rights and the common good of the nation, when they become insupportable and close themselves to all channels of dialogue, understanding and rationality, then the Church speaks of the legitimate right to insurrectional violence"

- Oscar Romero Archbishop of San Salvador who died a martyr's death at the hands of US-backed death squads.

Interestingly the C of E was once quite fairly described as "the Conservative Party at prayer", yet now it regularly strongly criticizes Tory governments and that label seems a lot less justified. So what's changed? Well not much in terms of C of E other than like the rest of society it has become more socially liberal, it's not now more "left-wing" than it used to be, the big change is that the Conservatives have drifted further and further to the right.

Whilst I can agree with most of that post, you really can't suggest the Conservatives have drifted further to the right, need I remind you of the gay marriage affair during a period when the economy could have used some more attention. It is precisely because the Conservatives have drifted left and Labour have drifted right that we have the likes of UKIP on the rise. Cameron bless him his more of a lefty than Blair.

Satan = Cameron and Osborne's new special advisor?
Jesus = not LibDem any more, veering into Green territory?

Ed Mil and Labour = doh?

Dereknightrider - the Tories have moved steadily to the right economically, as the demonization of poor and disabled people evidently shows.....but some of the Cameroons retain a social liberalism about matters of lifestyle, partly because it ties in with libertarian free market thinking, and partly because growing up when they did they cannot avoid the fact that half their pals have come out. Hence the political space for the likes of UKIP (who in terms of my previous email would probably prefer 'the devil you know'.)

....you really can't suggest the Conservatives have drifted further to the right, need I remind you of the gay marriage affair during a period when the economy could have used some more attention.

Did you notice this bit [i]"like the rest of society it has become more socially liberal"[/i] ? By 'the rest of society' I was including the Tories.

Society has become much more tolerant towards homosexuality and it would make no sense at all for the Tories to take an anti-gay stance, other than if they wanted to alienate voters. Even UKIP supporters take a much more pro-same sex marriage stance than UKIP does.

More importantly there is no economic gain for the Tories to be anti-gay, ie, it won't make them any wealthier. So what would be the benefit to them?

And of course we now see that the Tory pro-same sex marriage stance allows people to make ridiculous and absurd claims that they have become more left-wing. What's not to like for them?

Regardless of views on religion, the underpinning message from the bishops that people should get out and vote and that politicians should give us something worth voting for shouldn't be lost.

MCTD - how dare you bring reason into this discussion!
😉

Indeed. If the poor all got out and voted, like other sections of society do, we'd certainly never see another Tory government. But lets be honest, the labour party hardly look like fearless crusaders for social justice at the moment, do they?

[quote=dereknightrider ]Whilst I can agree with most of that post, you really can't suggest the Conservatives have drifted further to the right, need I remind you of the gay marriage affair during a period when the economy could have used some more attention. It is precisely because the Conservatives have drifted left and Labour have drifted right that we have the likes of UKIP on the rise. Cameron bless him his more of a lefty than Blair.

The problem you're having there is trying to define a broad set of principles and policies on a one-dimensional left/right line. Political position nowadays tends to be measured on a two-dimensional graph, including authoritarian/libertarian as the second dimension, which is at least a bit more informative, though still pretty limiting IMHO. The only point of this sort of labelling that I can see is to allow people to define themselves, or determine who they should be aligned with based on their own self-image.

Certainly in the context of ernie's comment he is generally right - "the Conservative party at prayer" is a pretty old suggestion, and if you look at where the Conservatives were on the political spectrum as recently as the early 70s, they were a long way to the left of where they are now - arguably further to the left than any current major party. Of course there are other aspects to it - typical churgoers are very conservative with a small c.

To be fair I'm not sure you're wrong about your comparison between Blair and Dave, but then ernie's timescale is rather longer than that, and neither will you find him to be a big fan of Blair!

Jesus doesn't really strike me as the "voting for someone else" type, it's His way or the hell way.

I love the way you have capitalised His. Joking aside (sort of) surely Jesus would be the leader of the Christian Democratic party ? I mean if he wasn't the leader it wouldn't be much of an endorsement for him as the prophet/messiah/superstar/other title would it ?

Indeed. If the poor all got out and voted, like other sections of society do, we'd certainly never see another Tory government. But lets be honest, the labour party hardly look like fearless crusaders for social justice at the moment, do they?

No one, fictional characters dont get a vote. It like asking how Mickey Mouse would vote

aracer - Member
dereknightrider » Whilst I can agree with most of that post, you really can't suggest the Conservatives have drifted further to the right, need I remind you of the gay marriage affair during a period when the economy could have used some more attention. It is precisely because the Conservatives have drifted left and Labour have drifted right that we have the likes of UKIP on the rise. Cameron bless him his more of a lefty than Blair.
The problem you're having there is trying to define a broad set of principles and policies on a one-dimensional left/right line. Political position nowadays tends to be measured on a two-dimensional graph, including authoritarian/libertarian as the second dimension, which is at least a bit more informative, though still pretty limiting IMHO. The only point of this sort of labelling that I can see is to allow people to define themselves, or determine who they should be aligned with based on their own self-image.

Certainly in the context of ernie's comment he is generally right - "the Conservative party at prayer" is a pretty old suggestion, and if you look at where the Conservatives were on the political spectrum as recently as the early 70s, they were a long way to the left of where they are now - arguably further to the left than any current major party. Of course there are other aspects to it - typical churgoers are very conservative with a small c.

To be fair I'm not sure you're wrong about your comparison between Blair and Dave, but then ernie's timescale is rather longer than that, and neither will you find him to be a big fan of Blair!

I don't know, think about it for a second, almost their entire right wing will now be supporting UKIP, David Davies losing the leadership contest saw the left of the party triumphant and but for the Major period you cannot say they are to the right of the position they were post Thatcher.

No one, fictional characters dont get a vote.

Whatever your views on the religion industry, and the whole Son of God thing, its quite likely Jesus wasn't a fictional character.

Jesus was a political terrorist so would not have voted.

Why do people feel the need to bash the bishops?

[quote=dereknightrider ]I don't know, think about it for a second, almost their entire right wing will now be supporting UKIP, David Davies losing the leadership contest saw the left of the party triumphant and but for the Major period you cannot say they are to the right of the position they were post Thatcher.

The Tories haven't moved left due to the rise of UKIP, whatever their supporters might have done. I thought my mention of "early 70s" might have been a clue I was talking about before Thatcher (the phrase was coined well before her).

[quote=LHS ]Jesus was a political terrorist so would not have voted.

He was a provincial, and the provinces didn't get a vote.

I reckon Jesus would have voted for this guy

Though, if we are doing fictional characters, who would dinosaurs vote for then?

Though, if we are doing fictional characters, who would dinosaurs vote for then?

Triassic, Jurassic or Cretaceous dinosaurs?

Duh, everyone knows that by the late Cretaceous period the dinosaurs experiment in democracy had ended and they had moved to an absolute monarchy, that's why he was called Tyrannoaurus [b][u]rex[/u][/b]

aracer - Member
dereknightrider » I don't know, think about it for a second, almost their entire right wing will now be supporting UKIP, David Davies losing the leadership contest saw the left of the party triumphant and but for the Major period you cannot say they are to the right of the position they were post Thatcher.
The Tories haven't moved left due to the rise of UKIP, whatever their supporters might have done. I thought my mention of "early 70s" might have been a clue I was talking about before Thatcher (the phrase was coined well before her).

Heath he was as wet a Tory as ever there was

You mean he was more left-wing ?

Although you did say that "the Conservatives have drifted left", so presumably he was more right-wing ?

Which one is it ?

BTW why was Harold Macmillan, nicknamed the council house builder, less "wet" than Edward Heath ?

I reckon STW has drifted right - that or I've drifted left.

I reckon STW has drifted right - that or I've drifted left

STW has gone right. It has a large content of White middle class professionals after all. Can't you tell when those who are clearly middle of the road and have not changed their position politically, are now being called lefties?

So who would Jesus vote for in 2015?

God knows.

I reckon STW has drifted right - that or I've drifted left.

I reckon you have more likely drifted to the left. I'm sorry because I know that's probably not what you want to hear, however I believe in being brutally honest.

I read The Geek Manifesto, and realised that it'd be nice if policy followed evidence. I literally have no-one to vote for. Everything parties propose is based on ideology, and ideology is only ever incidentally correct.

Aracer, the watch and private banking adverts would suggest that the advertising analysis-bots would say stw has drifted to the right 😉

Fwiw conservative party political broadcast on itv at the moment. No bishops involved so far.

ernie_lynch - Member
Heath he was as wet a Tory as ever there was
You mean he was more left-wing ?

Although you did say that "the Conservatives have drifted left", so presumably he was more right-wing ?

Which one is it ?

BTW why was Harold Macmillan, nicknamed the council house builder, less "wet" than Edward Heath ?

Heath faced the early pressures of consumerism I wouldn't say there was a lot to choose between them, but in Heaths blundering with the Unions, young Maggie lost all respect for both of
them and her Revenge was total.

But even back then there were clear demarcations between the right and the left, labour and capitol, it all started to go awry after we the electorate kicked out the Torys after Thatcher and Major on the basis it was all going to get better, with a swing to the left and that nice Tony and his labour party and all we got was more of the same, then even after Browns public sector profligacy did we get a swing to the right? No we got the Dave & Clegg show and more corporate bollox, neo liberalism and gay marriage, not that I've got anything against gays getting wed, but ffs they represent 1-5% of the population depending on whose stats you believe and there were, still are, far more pressing issues that need sorting.

You know what? I'm lost here, not sure what I'm even arguing about, didn't this place used to be a haven for pinko liberal lefty hand wringers, where have they all gone? Life is confusing, I did that survey and came out politically alongside Ghandi, yet when I did the policies quiz i came out 44% UKIP, I think in all probability I'll do a Russell Brand and not bother, nothing for me to vote for.

not that I've got anything against gays getting wed, but ffs they represent 1-5% of the population

I think I might be starting to understand why you think this shower in power now are a bunch of lefties.

You read a rather fat tabloid size newspaper and like a politician who knows how to hold a pint, don't you?

ernie_lynch - Member
not that I've got anything against gays getting wed, but ffs they represent 1-5% of the population
I think I might be starting to understand why you think this shower in power now are a bunch of lefties.

You read a rather fat tabloid size newspaper and like a politician who knows how to hold a pint, don't you?

[quote=julianwilson ]Aracer, the watch and private banking adverts would suggest that the advertising analysis-bots would say stw has drifted to the right

Phew - so ernie's wrong. I was quite worried there for a while.

Jesus would vote for Russell Brand obvs

dereknightrider - Member

Er no, that was some other Derek allegedly.. I don't 'like' any of them.

But it's you who thinks that the Tories have lurched to the left, right?

All that leftie stuff like even more privatization, tax cuts for the rich, clamping down on benefits, cuts in government spending, and forcing the disabled and sick to work, eh?

Duh! He would vote for Chuck Norris! 🙂

[img] [/img]

Ernie, spending cuts, clamping down on benefits, forcing sick and disabled back to work. All clear examples of saint David continuing (as he so claimed) the work that Jesus started. Perhaps Osborne and IDS snuck a few extra pages into his bible. 😆

Maybe Michael Gove wrote all that 'punish the poor and disabled' stuff as part of his introduction