Archbishop

[scottycelt]

We can always rely on The Daily Mail for a moderate and thoughtful headline regarding such controversy ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2001848/Archbishop-Canterbury-Rowan-Williams-Coalition-attack-Vincent-Nichols-backlash.html

[Ferretfancy]

If he's not good enough for the Daily Mail, he's good enough for me!

We are currently part of a society in which the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, so the argument that Williams should not comment is manifestly absurd. He is after all supposed to support the underprivileged, and has a seat in the Lords. As it happens, I don't think that bishops should sit in the legislature, but that doesn't mean that their opinions should be stifled.
He's often ineffectual, as his impossible position on gays in the C of E has demonstrated, but in this case I think he's right.

[Anna]

He's often ineffectual, as his impossible position on gays in the C of E has demonstrated, but in this case I think he's right.

Yes, that what was a recent conversation with my neighbour focussed on! However, I think the A of C is right to speak up, why shouldn't the Clergy state their views? They are citizens, voters, and represent their 'flock' who may be suffering under the Coaliton. I think, and this is not from memory but from a search of newspapers, the last Clergyman to make a stance was Robert Runcie against Margaret Thatcher and the climate of greed plus the Falklands.

[MrGongGong]

I'm not a constitutional expert, but I'd say the Archbishop is surely wrong if he is suggesting that a government may only do what the electorate has specifically given it a mandate to do in a general election.

By voting in a general election, the electorate gives authority to a government to govern. The government, in turn, has responsibility to take such decisions as it considers to be in the interests of the country as a whole.

A manifesto is a shop window: its articles can be withdrawn from sale and there are other articles in the back of the shop that can be produced as and when required.

This is why governments never remain popular for very long - because they do things that people don't like.

I think this misses the point
most people who voted, voted for something OTHER than what the government are doing
the honourable thing ( not much chance of that I know ) would be for the coalition government to say that "we don't agree on this" so will NOT act on it as there is no mandate.
There clearly was NO mandate for the decision on tuition fees as that was expressly opposed by the Libdems who then changed their mind when offered a chance to carry the big boys bag !

By voting we do give authority BUT not to do things which were clearly against what people voted FOR

personally I blame Clegg and Co for mucking it up and not having the guts to stand up

and strangely am with the Bish 100%

[Don Basilio]

I'm just an unsophisticated gay Anglican communicant. Can someone explain to me what purely "spiritual" matters are? Prayer touches every aspect of our lives, so it can't be that. (Rowan is a Good Thing, bless him. Trouble is people don't like brains, especially when combined with purity of heart.)

[Frances_iom]

We can always rely on The Daily Mail for a moderate and thoughtful headline regarding such controversy ...

since they seem to appreciate the Catholic position maybe we will see some editorials expousing "Caritas in Verite" and explaining how Catholic Social Teaching is a possible blueprint for the "Big Society"

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, I do think it is true that those in the principal systems, and probably the systems' structures, are quite unable to accommodate a combination of reasonable enough brain and purity of heart. While they may engage with rationality and on issues of morality, give them a rational morality to face and they will quickly cut off. I have come to see them in the last two years as fundamentally evil whereas evil is not a word that hitherto featured much in my perception of externalities at all.

I think my biggest problem with churches, religions, and so on, is financial. They have huge amounts of money and yet it always seems that there is a church building with half a roof. Donations desperately needed etc. It is almost certain that there is investment in weaponry and they also have a big stake in housing and its crisis. Additionally, things like the Synod and the hierarchies seem too close to Parliament and social structures. Too human, not godly enough.

I do describe myself as spiritual. Realise that to many this sounds half-baked but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that what I feel is distinct from agnosticism or atheism. My starting point would be that there is no point in looking to other human beings or even animals for a sense of spirituality. Of course, one has a feeling from others of good or bad.

But it is essentially in plant life, the land and the sea and the natural elements. However, you can also see it in other people when a heightened appreciation of nature is very evident in them. And music is almost a human being's way of expressing something of that nature. At least, that is how it all is in my mind and to me all of that is the soul.

[french frank]

I think this misses the point
most people who voted, voted for something OTHER than what the government are doing

I don't think so. Most people voted Tory because they didn't want Labour back in again, or voted Labour because they didn't want the Tories in. I don't think most people voted for policies at all, and would have been hard put to say what the parties stood for.

That doesn't mean that the Archbishop isn't - rightly - voicing the anxieties of a lot of people.

There clearly was NO mandate for the decision on tuition fees as that was expressly opposed by the Libdems who then changed their mind when offered a chance to carry the big boys bag !

The only difficulty I have about the U-turn is that it looks bad for the LibDems. But the reality is that both Labour and the Tories were going to put up tuition fees (in line with Browne) whether they said so in their manifestos or not. Why should you consider it in any way 'democratic' for a small minority party to try to stop it? Why should the LibDems be given that power when only 23% of the electorate voted for them? 'The electorate' did NOT vote against raising tuition fees. What's more, of the 23% who voted for the LibDems I would guess the majority were not strongly influenced by the issue of tuition fees at all (in many cases they just wanted to stop one of the other parties winning the seat).

By voting we do give authority BUT not to do things which were clearly against what people voted FOR

What policies were 'clearly against what people voted for'?

[Lateralthinking1]

The Health Service reforms?

[french frank]

The Health Service reforms?

What, exactly, is the evidence that a majority of the voters voted against the Tory NHS reforms? (Nobody knew what they were going to be - how could they have voted against them?)

People are angry about the effects of the policies that are being brought in - and have a right to be so. But that isn't the same as claiming the government 'has no mandate'. Governments don't - and never have - need(ed) a specific mandate for every nasty policy they bring in.

[french frank]

And another thing!

People still don't see the connection between the Tory rampage and the First Past the Post system (which came close to giving them a workable majority) - and the country in its wisdom, and in full knowledge of the Tory policies, has just voted to preserve it for a while longer ...

[Lateralthinking1]

Conservative Manifesto 2010

The Environment

The Government believes that we need to protect the environment for future generations, make our economy more environmentally sustainable, and improve our quality of life and well-being. We also believe that much more needs to be done to support the farming industry, protect biodiversity and encourage sustainable food production.

We will introduce measures to protect wildlife and promote green spaces and wildlife corridors in order to halt the loss of habitats and restore biodiversity.

We will review the governance arrangements of National Parks in order to increase local accountability.

We will take forward the findings of the Pitt Review to improve our flood defences, and prevent unnecessary building in areas of high flood risk.

We will work towards a 'zero waste' economy, encourage councils to pay people to recycle, and work to reduce littering.

We will promote high standards of farm animal welfare. We will end the testing of household products on animals and work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research.

We will bring forward a motion on a free vote enabling the House of Commons to express its view on the repeal of the Hunting Act.

I don't see anything about forests here.

[scottycelt]

since they seem to appreciate the Catholic position maybe we will see some editorials expousing "Caritas in Verite" and explaining how Catholic Social Teaching is a possible blueprint for the "Big Society"

I doubt that would appeal to its loyal readership which would be surely more likely to regard Caritas in Veritate as yet more dictatorial European interference in UK domestic affairs, or, even worse, a sinister Jesuit plot to take over the country.

No, it is the headline 'Bishops at war' which is the sort of stuff that might pinch a few extra copies from its tabloid rivals on the day , though it's a safe bet that 'welfare cheats' and 'hordes of illegal immigrants' will very quickly regain Mo 1 spot to to satisfy an ever-outraged clientèle ...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

And another thing!

People still don't see the connection between the Tory rampage and the First Past the Post system (which came close to giving them a workable majority) - and the country in its wisdom, and in full knowledge of the Tory policies, has just voted to preserve it for a while longer ...

Sadly, the "country in its wisdom" will do whatever The Sun tells them to do.

[Lateralthinking1]

I see that huge numbers of jobs in the BBC are again to be cut. I know it is a bit of a cliche but I seriously wonder whether there will be very much of anything at all left soon. Living in this country now feels like being on a sink estate where all the yobs are constantly smashing everything to pieces. Labour, of course, are no answer and an equal part of the problem.

I don't see it as democracy when the choice is between two malevolent forces. You only have to look at 1977 to see how the relationship between the state and the majority of citizens has changed. Then, punk rock sent a quake through the establishment. Now you have rampaging over Tory HQ and no one turns a hair.

The fact is that everything has reversed. The privileged establishment is exercising an anarchic power over everyone else. In the absence of a Johnny Rotten in the wider community, it is absolutely natural that an erudite Archbishop should fill the vacuum.