www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Who runs the country when Cameron is on holiday?

Forgive this apparently trivial question, but it has been troubling His Grace.

Nick Clegg is the Deputy Prime Minister.

This morning, Mr Morus informs us that William Hague has taken Lord Mandelson's previous title of 'First Secretary of State'.

For these two titles not to reside with the same person begs the question of who is in charge when David Cameron is on holiday or otherwise indisposed.

There is no doubt that Liberal Democrats will expect their man to be left in sole charge at Number 10: he is, after all, the Deputy Prime Minister. That is, he deputises for the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister is unable to fulfil his duties.

But Conservatives would find this more than a little unpalatable. It would not only provoke even greater fury on the back benches (as if they were not already seething enough). But Conservatives and non-Conservatives the length and breadth of the nation might just wonder how the leader of the party which came third in the General Election ends up running the show.

Yes, we know this is a coalition. And we perfectly understand that a few manifesto pledges had to be traded away in order to arrive at a working partnership.

But the Liberal Democrats are not equal partners in this coalition, though they appear to be behaving as though they are and David Cameron uses an awful lot of flattering rhetoric to maintain that impression.

It even transpires that Mr Hague and Mr Clegg are 'time-sharing' the 3,500-acre Chevening House in Kent: it is to be their official country residence on alternate weekends.

Yet this is traditionally the grace-and-favour home of the Foreign Secretary alone.

It ought to be evident to any fair-minded person that, when David Cameron is away, William Hague ought to be left in charge.

How else can we be sure that a Conservative programme of government (if it be) is sustained?

posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 9:48 AM Permalink 8 comments

Friday, May 21, 2010

Why the Conservatives did not win the General Election

Much has already been written; even more is yet to be. But while the politicos, specialists and analysts pore over the ‘UKIP effect’, the scale of the BNP vote, the lack of a Lynton Crosby, the absence of a ‘big theme’ or ‘strategic idea’; the inadequacies of George Osborne and the effect of the televised debates, there is far more to be gleaned from the voting patterns of faith groups.

If David Cameron made one mistake during this election campaign, it was his decision to sideline the Christian majority. It is one thing to ‘love bomb’ the Liberal Democrats and to court the minority faiths, but quite another purposely to rile and alienate Christians.

The Prime Minister professes ‘a fairly classic Church of England faith that grows hotter or colder by moments’.

Thus is he the embodiment of the English national spirituality.

Yet he denigrates and misrepresents the Church of England; he proclaims that ‘it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around’; and he asserts that if Jesus were around today he would be supporting ‘gay rights’.

Such comments seemed purposely crafted to provoke and cause offence. The Church of England - traditionally the Conservative Party's spiritual wing - was not attracted by the temporal 'broad church' on offer.

Mr Cameron did not criticise the homophobic Mosques or misogynistic Gurdwaras; he did not exhort Muslims, Sikhs or Hindus to integrate with the British way of life; and he did not suggest that Mohammed, Guru Nanak or Krishna, were they around today, would support ‘gay rights’.

All genuine Christians are every bit as concerned with poverty, family breakdown, injustice and ‘Broken Britain’ as the Prime Minister. They may differ in the solutions, but they will talk to each other, debate, listen and learn. David Cameron has consistently refused to listen to Christians, even eschewing the pre-election offer of a high-profile interview with one of country’s most senior and respected religion journalists. This would have reached tens of thousands.

Considering that the Conservative Party was just 16,000 votes short of an overall majority, such a decision seems inexplicable.

The country faces the worst economic crisis it has ever experienced in peacetime. It is Labour’s fault, and they have been judged and found wanting. If we are to reform education, eradicate welfare dependency, halt inflation, stem the increase in unemployment and minimise home repossessions, we must now support the most stable option on offer, and that is the Liberal-Conservative coalition.

It may not be ideal, but it is the least worst option or lesser evil.

And we are commanded to pray for them.

posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 9:28 AM Permalink 91 comments

Thursday, May 20, 2010

The Godless Labour Shadow Cabinet

Members of Parliament are obliged by law to swear allegiance to the Monarch before they may take their seats and draw a salary. Only Sinn Féin members refuse to conform to this requirement, though it has been known for republican-orientated members to swear allegiance with their fingers firmly crossed. But while allegiance to the Monarch is mandatory, MPs are given a choice on the divine dimension: they may either swear an oath ‘by Almighty God’ or they may simply ‘affirm’.

It has been observed that there is a distinct divide between the Libservative and Labour frontbench teams.

A clear majority of the Government frontbenchers swore allegiance under the religious form of the oath, while the Labour Shadow Cabinet was dominated by those who chose to affirm their loyalty in a secular form.

The majority of the Cabinet, led by David Cameron, took the oath: one by one they made a solemn declaration on pain of divine or preternatural wrath:

I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg declared:

I do solemnly, sincerely and most and affirm I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.
Oliver Letwin was the only other Coalition frontbencher to affirm using the non-religious oath. Senior Liberal Democrat figures Vince Cable, Danny Alexander, David Laws and Chris Huhne all opted for the religious oath.

But the Shadow Cabinet revealed their godlessness as the Almighty was set aside. David Miliband, Alistair Darling, Harriett Harman, Alan Johnson, Hilary Benn, Yvette Cooper, Bob Ainsworth and John Denham all successively chose to ‘affirm’ rather than ‘swear’ allegiance.

During the swearing-in process, one backbench MP was caught on microphone observing: "Presumably in other times in our history the oath has been used to work out who is Catholic, who is Anglican, and all that?"

"Or who's religious and who's not," the clerk suggested.

It was, of course, nothing to do with discerning who is ‘religious’, and the Clerk really should have known better. Religious restrictions in the oath effectively barred individuals of certain faiths (Roman Catholics, Jews and Quakers) from entering Parliament for many years. But servants of the Crown have sworn allegiance to the Monarch since Magna Carta. Over the centuries this developed into three distinct oaths: of Supremacy (repudiation of the spiritual or ecclesiastical authority of any foreign prince, person or prelate); of Allegiance (declaration of fidelity to the Sovereign); and Abjuration (repudiation of the right and title of descendants of James II to the throne).

In 1953, the Queen swore on oath at her Coronation ‘to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to their laws and customs’. She promised ‘to maintain to the utmost of (her) power the Laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed religion established by law’. She declared, with Bible in hand: ‘The things I have here before promised I will perform and keep. So help me God.’

In swearing this, she committed herself and the Crown-in-Parliament to uphold the supremacy of Scripture. Thus every Member of Parliament swearing their Oath of Allegiance, while not being constrained in their individual conscience to profess the Christian faith, is declaring their commitment to defend biblical Christianity. Allegiance to the Queen must, at the very least, demand a defence of her oaths and promises to her subjects.

Thus those Members of Parliament who opt simply to ‘affirm’ their allegiance are, in fact, dedicating their lives to upholding the institution of Monarchy and therefore to defending the Coronation Oath.

Ergo, whether they ‘swear by Almighty God’ or ‘affirm’, MPs are making a formal declaration of the supremacy of the Protestant Reformed religion established by law.

posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 9:46 AM Permalink 76 comments

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

To deport, or to be blown up: that is the question

What a dilemma.

Abid Naseer is a Pakistani national and al-Qaeda operative who is suspected of planning an atrocity in the UK. The evidence was presented in court and the presiding judge so determined. The Special Immigration and Appeals Commission said it was 'satisfied that Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom and that…it is conducive to the public good that he should be deported'.

You might think this would be sufficient.

Yet he has said that he would be tortured if he were to return to Pakistan.

And so, under international treaty obligations and in accordance with the Human Rights Act, he cannot be deported, for that would render Her Majesty’s Government complicit in torture.

And we can’t be having that, can we?

So, here we have the British Government impotent in the forcible repatriation of a Pakistani national to a member state of the British Commonwealth.

If the Pakistani government is not able to give adequate assurances that they would not torture or ill treat Mr Naseer, on what basis do they continue to be a member of the Commonwealth?

It beggars belief that an Al Qaeda operative should be able to assert his ‘human rights’ and continue to reside in the UK when this is the very terrorist organisation which is threatening an Olympic spectacular in 2012, or a few special fireworks for Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee.

Home Secretary Theresa May is not appealing the decision. She has said she finds it ‘disappointing’.

Iain Dale prefers to call it ‘bloody terrifying’.

Dr Richard North is even more scathing.

Mr Dale said: “I helped elect a new government to pass laws to stop this sort of thing happening. I don't want to hear from ministers that it is ‘disappointing’. I want to hear what they intend to do about it.”

There was a time when the Conservative Party was intent on dispensing with the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a British Bill of Rights. In fact, it was a manifesto pledge.

But this must have been an early victim of the Con-Lib Coalition.

And since Dominic Grieve is now the Attorney General, he would doubtless resign if the Act were repealed in any case. For it is not the Act which is at fault, he has averred, but the judiciary's consistent misinterpretation and application of it.

It ought to be the primary duty of a government to protect its citizens. It has a moral obligation to prioritise issues of national security, public safety and the economic well-being of a country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The Human Rights Act upholds all of that.

MI5 has maintained that the men, all students from Pakistan, were 'members of a UK based network linked to al-Qaeda involved in attack planning'.

Yet we cannot deport them.

Mr Cameron, do we not still need a British Bill of Rights to clarify the matter?

posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 7:59 AM Permalink 150 comments

Monday, May 17, 2010

The man who should be Speaker

While the nation and media are preoccupied with the next trivial election - which Miliband might become leader of the Labour Party - the rather more important one is far more imminent. Tomorrow, MPs gather for the first time and their first task is to elect the Speaker. Usually it proceeds without a murmur of dissent.

But John Bercow is not likely to be nodded through quite so easily.

As a placeman of Labour, his election was one of the most partisan elevations to the Speakership in recent history. And he has performed appallingly, not only with his patronising and condescending manner but also in his manifest bias against numerous Conservative members.

Cranmer's choice for Speaker is now the formidable Edward Leigh, a former barrister and devout Christian man who is firmly on the Right of the Party. He commands the respect of the whole House and his reputation as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is unparalleled. If he achieves for Parliament what he has gained for the public purse, he would be a truly great Speaker.

If not he, then, in the spirit of ecumenical 'broad church' coalition, Cranmer's second choice falls to Ming Campbell. Again, he is a man of great stature with cross-party respect. A former Olympic sprinter and QC, he is one of the few Liberal Democrats who is not viscerally anti-American. There is much about him with which Conservatives may find difficulty - his support for multilateralism, the EU, the UN, higher taxation and opposition to Israel's military action in Gaza - but he would restore honour and integrity to the Office of Speaker.

And the joy is that Nadine Dorries affirms His Grace's opinion on this matter, and approves these two candidates. And it is she who is likely to shout 'No, no, no!' when the question is put to the Commons assembled.

Watch and pray.

posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 8:54 AM Permalink 46 comments

Sunday, May 16, 2010

The Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain

Is it not a joy to see the return of tradition and respect for an ancient office of state? The Conservative order manifests itself in patriotism, custom, respect for the law, loyalty to the Monarch, and in the willing acceptance of the privileges of those to whom privilege is granted.

The return of the wig gives hope for the future.

The office of Lord Chancellor has behind it more than a thousand years of history. Kenneth Clarke QC is now an ex officio Church Commissioner and in the Order of Precedence outranks all politicians; indeed, he defers only to the Royal Family and to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 10:45 AM Permalink 47 comments

Friday, May 14, 2010

That 'Special Relationship'

Cranmer hopes the new Foreign Secretary told the US Secretary of State how utterly unacceptable was her mealy-mouthed response to Argentina's gripe about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. They are unequivocally British, populated by a free people, and we will defend them. And if the United States wishes to be 'neutral' on the matter and side with the anti-democratic aggressor, then the United Kingdom will set an example to the world.

Cranmer regrets the brevity of this post (again) but he is beset with demons which imperil his ashen incarnation: the time may be coming to return to dust.

posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 6:34 PM Permalink 76 comments

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Sarkozy on Cameron

"He'll start out eurosceptic and finish up pro-European. It's the rule," Sarkozy told his MPs, according to Le Figaro today. "He'll be like all the others."

The rule?

Divine?

posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 11:07 PM Permalink 86 comments

David Clegg and Nick Cameron


Cranmer is pondering...

He will speak anon.

posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 5:58 PM Permalink 29 comments

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

David Cameron is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland


At last, the deal is done. The details are yet to emerge (and some of them appear to be a cause of considerable alarm) , but we can at last give thanks that David Cameron has achieved his political objective and is safely installed at 10 Downing Street as the first Conservative prime minister since 1997. It is has been a long and painful 13 years in the wilderness, and we are not out of the desert yet. But another five years of being Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition would have stretched loyalty to breaking point, and now at least the Conservative Party have a foot over the threshold of power (...the other over-sized shoe belongs to Nick Clegg).

It is interesting how some have an easy path to power and for others it is tortuous. Some spend years if not decades honing their skills in vain, while others attain high office as if by magic, quite unprepared politically and philosophically.

In a sense, David Cameron was destined to be Prime Minister: born into a wealthy family, Anglican, Eton, Oxford, PPE, well-connected, CCO, political adviser, after one election rehearsal became a shoe-in for a safe Tory seat, entered Parliament in 2001, swiftly promoted, leadership candidate just four years later…

This path contrasts greatly with that of Margaret Thatcher: born to a family of modest means, Methodist, grammar school, Oxford, chemistry, no influential connections, had to apply to many associations before finally entering Parliament in 1959, frustrated at many turns, had to wait almost two decades before becoming a leadership candidate…

Let us hope that the years 2001-2010 have taught David Cameron what Margaret Thatcher learned between 1970-1974: how not to govern.

The more state spending, borrowing, taxation and regulation we have, the less is the incentive for enterprise.

David Cameron must espouse limited government, individual freedom, private property ownership and the rule of law.

Margaret Thatcher faced the Winter of Discontent – a bankrupt nation, public sector strikes, unbridled trade union power and national demoralisation.

David Cameron faces a summer of near-bankruptcy, public sector strikes, resurgent trade union sabre-rattling and a nation under EU occupation.

Margaret Thatcher faced a Cabinet largely hostile to her reforms; David Cameron has surrounded himself by congenial sorts, even if a disproportionate number appear to be Liberal Democrats.

Margaret Thatcher’s vision to reverse state control, liberate individual initiative and stand up to the communism of the mighty Soviet Empire was shared by President Ronald Reagan.

But whatever David Cameron may wish to achieve economically or against the Islamism which today threatens the peace and security of the world, he will find no soul-mate in President Obama.

There are problems and uncertainties, yet this is an exciting time to be alive.

All that we need now is a vision.

And that vision must be one of compassion.

And we must wait and see if David Cameron has the answer to today’s political, social and economic problems, and whether or not he possesses the courage to resolve them.

posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 8:10 PM Permalink 48 comments

France to UK: "Help yourself and heaven will help you."

Les grenouilles have expressed a certain impatience and disdain for les rosbifs.

Nothing new there, perhaps. But it is rather undiplomatic of Jean-Pierre Jouyet to effectively tell the English not to bother asking the EU for any assistance at all in the wake of any financial problems we might face in the future, simply because Chancellor Alistair Darling has refused to play ball and pledge funds to prop up the euro.

M Jouyet said:

“The English are very certainly going to be targeted given the political difficulties they have. Help yourself and heaven will help you. If you don’t want to show solidarity to the eurozone, then let’s see what happens to the United Kingdom.”

Yes, indeed. Let's see.

And he noted:

“There is not a two speed Europe but a three speed Europe. You have Europe of the euro, Europe of the countries that understand the euro...and you have the English.”

Quite.

At last it is sinking in.

Though why he blamed the English for the decision of the British Government taken by a Scottish chancellor is something of a mystery.

posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 5:56 PM Permalink 16 comments

John Reid on the LibLab 'Coalition of the Losers'



Cranmer never thought he would see the day that he agreed wholeheartedly with Dr John Reid. But it is clear that he is a man of political insight, democratic conviction and moral principle.

posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 10:23 AM Permalink 19 comments

Ashes to ashes


Cranmer received an email after yesterday's 'Change Coalition' post from a Conservative commentator whom he greatly respects and whose opinion he values highly. It simply read:

You were the one of the last people who I expected to fall for all this :(
Before there was even a hint of Lib-Lab formal negotiation, Cranmer responded:

What is the alternative?

One must be pragmatic.

By seizing the political initiative, we retain the policy agenda. If Clegg forges a 'progressive' alliance with Brown (and he may), they will change the voting system, wreck the economy (further) and rape the constitution.

Surely short-term compromise is better than eternal oblivion?
To which the commentator responded:

I think the chances of a LibLab pact are very slim and we should realise the strength of our negotiating position. The LibDems on the family will undermine any social justice policy.
His Grace answered:

The Lib-Lab pact may be slim, but it remains. While it remains, the alternative must be expounded and supported.

It does not need to be formal coalition; it could be ad hoc. Of course our negotiating position is very strong, but it could all collapse into another general election. Some of our policies may be placed 'on hold' while the deficit is brought under control.

Is not Gove's plan for schools alone worth 6-8 months of Lib-Con compromise on other areas? Once enacted, it would be irreversible.

We obviously don't agree on this, but it's not a case, as you say, of having 'fallen' for something. If we are to avoid the greatest evil of Lib-Lab revolution, it is necessary to be pragmatic and argue for moderate, organic, Burkean reform in those areas where we can agree.

The reality is that the LibDems are as divided as the Conservatives on many social justice issues. That will work to our advantage.

Sorry to disappoint you.
No further response was received: His Grace had joined the pariah caste and was not worth engaging further.

And we are now where we are. Nick Clegg is cruising for the best offer, and that is likely to come from Gordon Brown, though God knows how he or his sucessor will deliver it.

It beggars belief that Nick Clegg is now considering a full coalition with Labour (et al) in a 'progressive' rainbow alliance.

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that he is manifestly putting party before country: quite where voting reform sits on the scale of people's priorities is anyone's guess. The LibDems were the only party to advocate PR: they achieved 23% of the vote. Ergo the policy was rejected.

And here it rears its head as the deal-breaker: Nick Clegg is not only playing king-maker; he appears to have the power to determine who the candidates for kingship should be.

Cranmer could not put up with another five years of opposition.

Ashes might just return to ashes.

posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 7:19 AM Permalink 31 comments

Monday, May 10, 2010

A Lib-Con ‘Change Coalition’ augurs well for Compassionate Conservatism

According to Michael Portillo, the election stalemate is David Cameron’s opportunity to destroy ‘the Right’. According to Simon Heffer, the whole election was a ‘con’.


Whatever it is, Cranmer is quite sanguine about it.

The rain is the rain: it’s neither good nor bad; it’s just the rain.

We are where we are.

In forging a government in the national interest – which is the grown-up thing to do (notwithstanding that Cranmer always thought that politicians always governed in the national interest) – there is no reason at all why one may not have Liberal Democrat voices to help shape the agenda. The reality is that there are many Conservative-minded Liberal Democrats and quite a few more Liberal-Democrat-minded Conservatives: there is a line of coincidence with distinct points of Whiggish convergence around which the two great political traditions of Toryism and Liberalism naturally coalesce.

Should they manage to do so, they could keep Labour’s Socialism at bay for a generation, if not eradicate it forever.

If we examine David Cameron’s great vision, his political raison d’etre, his principal policy emphasis since he became Party leader – that of ‘Progressive’, ‘One Nation’ or ‘Compassionate’ Conservatism – there is no reason at all why he may not secure a parliamentary majority with each Bill that comes before the House of Commons. Of course there are divergences in the policy details, but liberal philosophy meets a distinct strand of conservative philosophy at the point of individual liberty.

And we are at a time of such a Conservative and Liberal expression and understanding of the role of the individual that legislation would be protected from extremist expressions: the freedom of the individual is tempered by his or her responsibility to society, even if, at the moment, society has got the better of the individual. The poor need to hear the message of personal responsibility and self-reliance, the optimistic assurance that if they try – as they must – they will make it.

The Conservative Party is intent on empowering communities because the sense of political community is intrinsic to people’s sense of the need for social community. The narrative focus is on welfare, family breakdown and ‘social justice’ in the context of traditional conservative themes like low taxation and the small state. Proponents of Compassionate Conservatism aver that social problems are better solved through cooperation with private companies, charities and religious institutions rather than directly through government departments.

David Cameron’s stated intention to make Iain Duncan Smith the Minister for Social Justice indicates that the Conservative Party is now concerned with the moral and spiritual health of the nation just as much as Margaret Thatcher was concerned with its economic health: economic reality and moral concerns are no longer in conflict. Thus David Cameron talks not only of economic recession but of ‘social recession’ and ‘moral failure’. He writes:

When parents are rewarded for splitting up, when professionals are told that it’s better to follow rules than do what they think is best, when single parents find they take home less for working more, when young people learn that it pays not to get a job, when the kind-hearted are discouraged from doing good in their community, is it any wonder our society is broken? (The Guardian, 2010).
There is nothing here with which the Liberal Democrats would disagree.

David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ is both liberal and democratic: his plans for free schools are both liberal and democratic; his plans for a ‘pupil premium’ for the most challenging pupils are both liberal and democratic; his desire to redistribute NHS funding to the areas with the lowest life expectancy is both liberal and democratic. His opposition to further taxes on jobs is both liberal and democratic; his desire for lower personal taxation is both liberal and democratic; his opposition to ID cards is both liberal and democratic. And what liberal and democrat could possibly resile from the Conservatives’ proposed reforms to Parliament – that of granting the electorate the right to recall their MP, and petition for a parliamentary debate?

David Cameron’s conservatism is further expressed in his desire to increase ‘localism’ and to build upon the liberal strand of conservatism: ‘What the State can usefully do’, said JS Mill, ‘is to make itself a central depository, and active circulator and diffuser, of the experience resulting from many trials’. When a Tory espouses Mill, a Liberal can rejoice. The Conservative Party’s ‘Social Justice Policy Group’ was established to encourage initiatives by various local organisations, including charities and churches, and to examine which governmental functions presently exercised at Westminster may be placed in the hands of local government made more accountable to the local electorate.

What Liberal Democrat could oppose that?

All of these policies are intrinsic to and consistent with a programme of Compassionate Conservatism for they are all concerned with theo-political matters of social justice and the imperative of loving one’s neighbour.

And loving does not demand liking.

But loving does demand engagement, understanding and tolerance of those whose personality we do not like or of whose worldview and beliefs we disapprove.

Not all Christians are the Cameron sort of Christian, that is of ‘a fairly classic Church of England faith, a faith that grows hotter and colder by moments’. But it is this expression of Anglicanism which will now bring him to Downing Street: it does not seek to polarise by setting one moral or political philosophy over another; it seeks consensus in accordance with its traditional via media, or, in the words of the preface to the 1662 Prayer Book, ‘to keep the mean between the two extremes’.

David Cameron’s approach is moderate: it is consonant with his paternalistic Anglicanism that the Liberal Democrats can be embraced as part of his ‘broad church’. It was observed last year that ‘Cameron is not an enigma, he’s an Anglican’, which ‘gives him considerable (some would say contemptible) flexibility as far as dogma is concerned’. But his constant appeal to Disraeli stems from his awareness that under Margaret Thatcher the Conservative Party was perceived to have a harsh attitude towards the poor. His ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ has a distinct focus on those who have little, with policies on health and education in particular to ensure ‘social justice’.

We are on the brink of an economic crisis. Carpe diem.

The post mortem on the election campaign is for another day.

posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 8:28 AM Permalink 36 comments

Sunday, May 09, 2010

Cardinal Schönborn to be the next Pope?


According to The Times, there is now 'open warfare' in the Vatican after Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, accused former Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano of having blocked investigations into sex abuse crimes committed by his predecessor, the late Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer. The BBC confirms the Roman Catholic civil war, quoting Cardinal Schönborn as saying: "I can still very clearly remember the moment when Cardinal Ratzinger sadly told me that the other camp had asserted itself."

This is interesting for a number of reasons:

Firstly, Cardinal Schönborn is a former theology pupil of Pope Benedict and a close ally. He has praised Pope Benedict for having pushed for sex abuse inquiries when he was Cardinal and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He said that 'others' however had stopped John Paul II from taking action, adding 'the days of cover up are over'.

Secondly, Cardinal Schönborn is Austrian and a front-runner to succeed Pope Benedict. There is a certain eurocentric neatness in a Polish pope followed by a German pope followed by an Austrian pope.

Thirdly, there is a cetain religio-political fulfilment for those who are persuaded by the prophecy that the next pope will be the last: the House of Habsburg is best known for being the origin of all of the formally-elected Holy Roman Emperors over the centuries. From 1278 to 1918, the Habsburgs reigned over a territory that grew from a small section of Austria along the Danube, into the 16th century realm of Charles V who boasted that 'The sun never sets on my domain'.

Otto Von Habsburg was an MEP until 1999. He is the 'uncrowned emperor' and widely considered the visionary architect of a reunified Europe and continues a thousand-year legacy of Catholic political leadership. Archduke Otto fulfilled the quintessentially Habsburg role as defender of the Pope when John Paul II visited Strasbourg to address the European Parliament in 1988. He had barely begun to speak when the Rev. Ian Paisley jumped to his feet and denounced the Pope as the anti-Christ, while unfurling a banner proclaiming the same message. In an instant, Otto von Habsburg was on his feet to grab the banner from Dr Paisley's hand and, with several others, escorting him out of the chamber.

Archduke Otto renounced the headship of the House of Habsburg to his eldest son Karl (Archduke of Austria, Prince Royal of Hungary and Bohemia), who is also a former MEP and now first in the line of succession to the Austro-Hungarian throne: he is the de facto regent of Germany.

Since 1974, Karl Von Habsburg has been actively involved in the Pan European Movement in Austria. He is considered an expert on minority rights for the Christian Democratic Group (EPP).

He is tipped as a future Austrian chancellor.

An Austrian pope presiding over the 'coronation' of a Habsburg.

Wouldn't that be neat?

posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 8:57 PM Permalink 20 comments

Are the Liberal Democrats the most democratic party in the UK?

It is interesting to compare the approaches of David Cameron and Nick Clegg in their political manoeuvres as they attempt to forge a formal or informal coalition to govern.

Under the Liberal Democrat Party rules, three quarters of all their MPs have to agree the details of any coalition deal before it can proceed.

There is no such constraint upon David Cameron.

Nick Clegg also has to get agreement of his ruling federal executive body.

David Cameron is not bound even to consult with the Board of the Conservative Party.

If Mr Clegg fails to get the backing of his federal executive, he will have to call an emergency conference of senior activists.

There is no requirement at all upon David Cameron to acquire the backing of the National Convention.

The Liberal Democrat leader is constrained by his party's ‘triple lock’ rule. Under the system he must secure the approval of MPs and the executive before making any decision that could compromise the independence of the party. If he fails to garner 75 per cent support from either, he would then have to call a separate conference in which he would need the support of two thirds of delegates. Failing that a postal ballot of all members would take place.

While David Cameron will doubtless consult with his MPs and Peers, he does not need their formal approval before he makes any decision. There is no part of the Conservative Party’s functioning which requires any matter to be put to a ballot of all members, save the appointment of a new leader. And it was the instinct of the present Conservative leadership to deprive Party members even of that.

In short, as a result of the Hague reforms of 2001 which gave Tories their first written constitution, the Conservative Party is in the hands of David Cameron to do with as he pleases. If MPs object, they can be deselected; if candidates resile, they cease to be ‘approved’; if the volunteer membership of turnip taliban, dinosaurs and backwoodsmen dare to utter a syllable of dissent, they can be completely ignored for they have no role at all, save to host occasional bridge evenings and hold the odd fund-raising barbeque.

Perhaps the Liberal Democrats can help guide the Conservative Party towards greater internal democracy.

posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 10:31 AM Permalink 21 comments

Saturday, May 08, 2010

Nick Clegg looks straight ahead to leading Liberals into Government for the first time since the Second World War


This photograph must be one of the most politically fortuitous ever taken. As the three party leaders attended a VE Day ceremony in Westminster today, Gordon Brown looks to his left, David Cameron to the right, and Nick Clegg straight ahead, wondering if he might manage to get more than one Liberal into the Cabinet.

Churchill was the last prime minister to include Liberals in a coalition, when he invited Sir Archibald Sinclair to serve as Secretary of State for Air. He was the last British Liberal to hold Cabinet rank office.

If David Cameron succeeds in forging a Con-Lib alliance, we will probably see at least three Liberal Democrats sitting around the Cabinet table: Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and...

Well, whoever they are, three Conservatives will be dumped to make way.

But that's politics.

It would be far worse under Proportional Representation.

It is curious that those who favour PR are desperate about this interregnum and period of uncertainty. Do they not realise that every election under PR is followed by days if not weeks of 'horse-trading' and 'shabby, back-room deals'.

Perhaps someone remind Nick Clegg that he said just a few years ago that he would 'never join a Labour or Tory cabinet'.

Wonder what changed his mind?

posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 5:12 PM Permalink 18 comments

Why does David Cameron prefer to deal with the Liberal Democrats after an election than with UKIP before?

This is David Heathcoat Amory: a more fierce British patriot and arch-Eurosceptic you would be hard pressed to find on the Conservative benches. Yet he lost the seat of Wells to a Europhile Liberal Democrat by 800 votes, while UKIP picked up 1711.

Let us not pretend that UKIP supporters would not vote for a Conservative candidate if Conservative policy on the EU were more robust. There is a fiction that UKIP are composed of ex-members of all parties, and that at their meetings you will find unreconstituted Socialists and a hefty proportion of LibDems, all united in their desire to leave the European Union.

This is nonsense. UKIP is a lost tribe of Conservatism: they favour small government and low taxation; they support the Established Church, wish to retain the Act of Settlement, expand grammar schools and introduce controlled immigration. They are all innately conservative in disposition and Whiggish in philosophy. Their raison d'être is for the UK to leave the EU. But not without a referendum of the people.

That is to say, UKIP is really the Referendum Party, for that is the only concession they attempted to extract from the Conservative Party.

Yet that was too much for David Cameron.

Even though a referendum pledge is included in the LibDem manifesto, such a demand is an unacceptable exaction when made by UKIP. David Cameron would rather deal with those whose political philosophy is antithetical to conservatism than with those whose conservatism is 'Radical' (or, in the vernacular, 'right wing').

And so we are in a position of having to barter away the voting system and all manner of core policies and manifesto pledges in order to accommodate Nick Clegg - the man who spectacularly failed in this General Election leading the party which came a very poor third.

It is estimated that UKIP helped deprive the Conservatives of at least ten seats by fielding candidates in constituencies the Tories had a very good chance of winning. They might even be blamed for keeping Ed Balls in situ, for he won by only 1119 votes while UKIP took 1506.

ConservativeHome have a list of how David Cameron might have secured a majority if he had been prepared to enter into talks with former-Tory peer Lord Pearson:

•Bolton West: Labour 18,329; Conservative 18,235; UKIP 1,901
•Derby North: Labour 14,896; Conservative 14,283; UKIP 829
•Derbyshire NE: Labour 17,948: Conservative 15,503; UKIP 2,636
•Dorset mid & Poole: Labour 21,100; Conservative 20,831; UKIP 2,109
•Dudley North: Labour 14,923; Conservative 14,274; UKIP 3,267
•Great Grimsby: Labour 10,777: Conservative 10,063: UKIP 2,043
•Hampstead & Kilburn: Labour 17,332; Conservative 17,290; UKIP 408
•Middlesbrough South: Labour 18,138; Conservative 16,461; UKIP 1,881
•Morley (Ed Balls): Labour 18,365; Conservatives 17,264; UKIP 1,506
•Newcastle-Under-Lyme: Labour 16,393; Conservatives 14,841; UKIP 3,491
•Plymouth Moor View: Labour 15,433; Conservatives 13,845; UKIP 3,188
•Solihull: Liberal 23,635; Conservatives 23,460; UKIP 1,200
•Somerton & Frome: Liberal 28,793; Conservatives 26,976; UKIP 1,932
•Southampton Itchen: Labour 16,326; Conservatives 16,134; UKIP 1,928
•St Austell & Newquay: Liberal 20,189; Conservatives 18,877; UKIP 1,757
•St Ives: Liberal 19,619; Conservatives 17,900; UKIP 2,560
•Telford: Labour 15,977; Conservatives 14,996; UKIP 2,428
•Walsall North: Labour 13,385; Conservatives 12,395; UKIP 1,737
•Walsall South: Labour 16,211; Conservatives 14,456; UKIP 3,449
•Wells: Liberal 24,560; Conservatives 23,760; UKIP 1,711
•Wirral South: Labour 16,276; Conservatives 15,745; UKIP 1,274

Of course, hurt and disappointed Conservatives will blame UKIP for these losses, but the reality is that it was present Conservative policy which lost them. Senior Labour ministers who were 'saved by UKIP' include not only Ed Balls, but John Denham, Phil Woolas and Ian Austin.

And now for the shabby deals. And it is more than a little nauseating to watch and hear David Cameron and Gordon Brown fawning for Nick Clegg's support, obsequious and flattering in their expressions of potential accommodation. "Which of you shall we say doth love us most?" asks Clegg, "That we our largest bounty may extend
Where nature doth with merit challenge."

Gordon Brown responds that he loves Nick "more than words can wield the matter;
Dearer than eye-sight, space, and liberty;
Beyond what can be valued, rich or rare."

What shall Lord Pearson speak? Love and be silent.

And David Cameron responds: "Sir, I am made
Of the self-same metal that Nick is,
And prize me at his worth. In my true heart
I find he names my very deed of love;
Only he comes too short: that I profess
Myself an enemy to all other joys,
Which the most precious square of sense possesses;
And find I am alone felicitate
In your dear highness' love."

Then poor Lord Pearson!
And yet not so; since, I am sure, my love's
More richer than my tongue.

And for those who are not familiar with the story, read it and weep.

posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 11:21 AM Permalink 32 comments

Friday, May 07, 2010

Stalemate, impasse, deadlock, limbo...


They were elected as New Labour, and they promised to govern as New Labour.

They didn't.

They did exactly what Old Labour have always done: bankrupted the country and brought us to the brink of a national crisis.

And the man responsible for a decade of economic inefficiency and fiscal incompetence as Chancellor of the Exchequer became Her Majesty’s First Lord of the Treasury.

He was never elected as Prime Minister: he was distrusted by the majority of the nation, criticised by his own Chancellor, loathed by his own ministers and despised by many of his backbenchers.

Labour took us to war on a false premise; they replaced Cabinet government with a politburo; diminished democracy; marginalised Parliament; admitted three million immigrants; saddled us with recession and soaring unemployment; given us the highest youth unemployment in history; eroded our liberties; abolished the right to trial by jury; raped the Constitution; politicised the civil service; sold off our gold reserves at the bottom of the market; raided our pensions; subjected us to the Lisbon Treaty; relegated us from 7th to 24th in international maths and literacy rankings; increased pensioner poverty; increased inequality; caused fascists to be elected to Brussels; massively increased our tax burden; imposed an incredible 5000 new laws; created an authoritarian state and thoroughly debased our politics.

After 13 long years of extravagant spending, sinister social engineering, welfare expansion, uncontrolled immigration, endless fiddling with the electoral system, unparalleled electoral fraud, grotesque state encroachment into private lives and personal affairs and now a devalued currency, Labour proved to be the most stunningly incompetent government in the history of the United Kingdom (and God knows there are quite a few to choose from), and the most ideologically illiberal, oppressive and anti-Christian in centuries.

Against this backdrop, you would have thought that the Conservative Party might have been on course for an electoral landslide.

A year ago, they were on course for a resounding victory. Polls were consistently showing a 10-point lead over Labour, and did so for a convincing period of time.

And yet we ended up with a hung parliament, a dead heat, a score draw.

Limbo.

David Cameron won exactly the same proportion of the vote as Ted Heath won in 1974.

How can this be?

What is there worth sustaining in this Labour Government? What is remotely attractive about voting for another 5 years (FIVE YEARS) of Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson, Ed Balls and Harpy Hormone?

New Labour abandoned their Christian foundations long ago; they cast aside all that may ever have been true, noble and good and supplanted it with duplicity, avarice and the stench of sleaze. Their principles were shredded, and their sense of righteous morality pulped and recycled as an idol to every god in the firmament but the One who is known. Labour became the party of war, the party of torture, the party of exploitation and the party of deception. They rewarded the thieves and fraudsters with ‘rights’ while penalising the law-abiding and responsible. Their achievements have been molehills, judged against the towering peaks scaled by New Labour in its rejection not only of Labour, but of any decent and civilised values.

New Labour long ceased to be civilised, for they lost their vision of the meaning of this civility. They are no longer good, for it has lost sight of the common good by inflicting us with a plethora of uncommon relativist goods. The recession may be global, but it is New Labour’s fault that the United Kingdom is the worst-placed nation in the western world to cope with its effects. They became the embodiment of that for which they always despised the Conservatives: Labour became the party of unemployment, recession, inflation, and poverty.

Faith is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see.

Cranmer had faith in David Cameron.

And he achieved some quite remarkable swings - some vastly more impressive than any achieved by the Party over the past 80 years.

But he did not deliver a victory.

It was always going to be a mountain to climb, but perhaps this moment calls for a moment of reflection and a little humility.

Some 'A-list' candidates have behaved appallingly to their local associations and on occasion displayed an alarming degree of arrogance. And they did so with the indulgence of CCHQ and the Party leadership. Some evidently took victory for granted and failed to put in the necessary hours, if ever they knew how. Others decided to talk endlessly about their very good friends Dave and Sam, but never bothered to earn their spurs in the mind-numbing tedium of local politics.

It is not only local Conservative associations which resent having candidates foisted upon them: the electorate evidently objects also. Margaret Thatcher once observed that you can't buck the market: David Cameron needs to realise that you can't buck the people.

Perhaps the Conservative Party needs to mend some fences with their ‘Turnip Taliban’, the ‘dinosaurs’ and their ‘backwoodsmen’.

It is one thing to reach out to the ‘middle ground’, but quite another to do it at the expense of one’s core vote. The Party leadership might just consider that these turnips, dinosaurs and backwoodsmen are not all out-of-touch, anachronistic eccentrics, but often intelligent and discerning individuals possessing of more conservative philosophy in their little fingers than some of the Party’s key strategists appear to manifest in their entire beings.

Those who have consistently and unwaveringly voted for the Conservative Party have done so because they are conservatives. They have the innate intelligence to see beyond the superficial, anodyne and banal. Their notion of diversity is more than skin deep: it is not dependent on gender, ethnicity, sexuality or disability, but on profession, achievement, religion, philosophy and worldview. The shifting sands of a nebulous and platitudinous ecumenical ‘broad appeal’ are no substitute for the rock of the ‘broad church’ laity.

Not least because all attempts by a centralist cabal of Notting Hill clerics to re-build the great Conservative broad church upon a foundation of shifting sand have had the inevitable consequences.

posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 7:24 AM Permalink 79 comments

All-nighter...


Cranmer will be up all night, pondering, twittering, commenting hither and thither, and drinking copious amounts of coffee.

If any nocturnal communicants wish to voice a thought, this thread is for you.

His Grace does not believe the exit polls, and is still expecting to see a modest Conservative majority.

posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 12:08 AM Permalink 39 comments