David Cameron and Gay Marriage

So David Cameron has moved from merely supporting gay marriage to wanting it to take place in church. Why do you think he has done this? And why now? Why is he making such a big thing of it when there are other issues (the economy and the continuing war in Afghanistan to name but two) of greater importance?

The minister from one of our  local baptist churches, who comes from Sweden where the culture is even more secular that the UK, has the answer. He can risk he wrath of his back benchers because it is popular with all parties and the public at large. Right now, he has successfully manoeuvred media attention away from the autumn statement. It is nothing more or less than a populist tactic. There is something very inconsistent about the leader of a party that wants to slim down state intervention trying to dictate on matter of individual conscience.

As a bible believing Christian, I am unwilling to redefine marriage to include same sex couples. I agree with Nigel Wright, former president of Surgeon’s College that there needs to be a separation of church and state. Let all couples have a legally binding civil partnership, as in other countries like Japan, followed (if the couple so wishes) by a wedding according to religious, or non-religious, affiliation. The Church of England does have a problem, because it is the state church, and we baptists, as a self- funding theocracy, are in a much more favourable position. Earlier this year, we debated several issues, including gay marriage, and the speaker, a non-practising gay man, was not himself in favour of gay marriage.

Although there is currently not going to be any pressure on churches to marry gay couples, this latest thoughtless act of David Cameron is another step in that direction.

What is a Socialist?

When I read that the Christian Socialist Movement (CSM), of which I’m a not very active member, was thinking of changing it’s name to omit the word ‘socialist”, I wasn’t well pleased. Why? I suppose it was a gut reaction to what happened when Labour became New Labour. A move I considered to be a move away from socialism and towards big business capitalists and bankers. I regarded myself as definitely ‘old’ labour and definitely not a Blairite. I can understand that the Labour party needed to get the press on its side if it were ever to get in power but, like the late Dennis Potter, who called his cancer Rupert, I deplored this man’s power and influence long before it was fashionable to do so.

So what does the word ‘socialist’ mean to me, and how does this relate to my Christian values? First of all, it means social justice: a fairer society in which there isn’t an ever widening gap between rich and poor with the rich getting ever richer and the poor being told that there is opportunity there if only they are prepared to work. I’d like to see a society in which there is a much fairer distribution of wealth. It’s not yet as bad as America, where the absurd electoral system puts power directly into the hands of the country’s richest citizens, but it’s going that way. Jesus teaches us to have compassion for the poor and the vulnerable and i see a socialist political ideology as most conducive to this.

Secondly, for me, Christian Socialism stands for the common good: a society in which everyone cares about everyone else, obeying Jesus’ commandment to love one another. It’s the antithesis of Thatcherism which encouraged greed and for us all to think only of ourselves. It doesn’t mean utilitarianism – the greatest good of the greatest number – although that’s an improvement on what we’ve got. Neither is it based on rights – a real buzz word these days – because one person’s rights clash with those of somebody else.  We’ve seen this having a negative effect on Christians when it comes to displaying symbols of our faith or offering to pray with people. The society that I think we should be aiming for is based on responsibilities rather than rights.

Left of centre governments are generally expected to tax and spend so what is my view on taxation? Well, I think we should all pay our fair share of taxes. It should not be possible for companies like Starbucks, Amazon and Google to avoid paying tax and stay inside the law. Again (and I really do abhor Thatcherism) the more people have the more they want to keep. I can avoid going to Starbucks and, although this is harder, I can stop buying books and other goods from Amazon, but Google has now insinuated it’s way into the browser of my MacBook!

On benefits, I have blogged before. I see them as a safety net rather than as a universal right. New Labour did hand out far too much money in housing benefit which went into the hands of landlords who happily put up the rent and invested in more properties.

The other thing Thatcher did in her war against socialism was to sell off the public utilities. The prices of gas, electricity and water, have got ever higher in the name of competition. I’m sorry but I don’t want all those choices and to keep having to shop around for a cheaper supplier when the one I’ve got puts its price up. These are things we all need and they should be available at a reasonable price. So, yes, I do believe in a degree of common ownership. I haven’t yet mentioned the railways which became a complete mess after they were sold off. It’s hardly fair that different people pay different prices for the same journey in the same railway carriage depending when and how they bought their tickets.

In conclusion, I cling to the word ‘socialist’ because for me it suggests a fairer society in which Christ rather than Mammon can reign.

Weekly Whinge

I am a member of the Labour Party and CSM (Christian Socialist Movement) but I find myself in sympathy with David Cameron, and (even more unlikely) George Osborne. Yes, Osborne’s welfare reforms weren’t properly thought through – a family receiving joint income of £80 000 is to receive child benefit whereas one earning over £44 000 is not. But in my book, neither of them should get anything. The welfare state was not set up to provide pocket money for the middle classes. It should not be a universal right. Only the poorest and most vulnerable should have to rely on the state. The argument about rents in the south east of England doesn’t wash.Shame on you Diane Abbot – you were second on my list of preferences for Labour Leader! If the rents are unaffordable, landlords should be forced to put them down. The property bubble burst; the same should happen to lettings.

The last labour government was too generous with welfare benefits. A woman on a high salary received more than one on a low salary for child care. She shouldn’t have received anything as she could afford to pay. David Starkey talks about the unworthy poor, what about the unworthy rich?

Cameron? Well, I do occasionally like Conservative politicians. I have quite often found myslef agreeing with Ken Clarke. Cameron, apart from banging on incessantly about the legacy of the last Labour governernment, is doing an OK job. I’m keeping an open mind. Nick Clegg is a different matter all together. Take note Ed Milliband – we are watching.