This guest post was written by Rev Shuna Dicks of Aberlour Parish Church in Moray (who also blogs here). We’ll let Shuna introduce herself and her politics below but, for the benefit of doubt, the views expressed below are hers and not ours (especially the party affiliation!).
I am a Christian and I am a socialist. A minister in the Church of Scotland and a card carrying member of the Labour Party (and seriously considering expanding this by affiliating to the Co-operative Party). But which of these important values based sets has the greatest influence on the decisions I make? Which came first? Ideology or theology?
I am the product of a long and happy marriage of two Christian parents – one a socialist for all her life – the other a more recent convert to socialism after decades of liberal leanings. The recent in this is not post May 2010 BTW – more a post 1997 gradual swing.
I have been in and around the Church of Scotland all my life. My earliest political thought was during the 1979 referendum – when I was pro-devolution. At the grand old age of 10 I made my first political statement when tasked with marking the school playground with arrows pointing the way to the class room being used as a polling station. I added a few ‘yes’ and ‘no’s to the arrows – the final arrow having a yes above it! Can you imagine getting away with that these days? Another anecdote worth sharing is that at one time I had political aspirations and wanted to be on the Labour Party list of approved candidates for the first Scottish Parliamentary elections – my dad at that point suggested I give that up and go into the pulpit instead. Little did he or I know that a decade later that is exactly where I would be.
I do not know the answer to the question I posed in the title of this post. I am not even sure it is that important. But church and politics do collide. They can and do work together. And I believe the church does have something to say on how our country is governed and what the priorities should be. I wrote this pre-defence review announcement and pre-spending review – quite deliberately because I have the sinking feeling had I written this afterwards I would really not know where to begin. But I wrote this with the consultation document for possible/proposed cuts to be made to services by The Moray Council by my side. This document went with me to the meeting of Moray Presbytery’s Church and Community sub-committee, which I convene. We discussed it and (I hope) proposed some ‘deliverances’ to go before the next Presbytery meeting asking Kirk Sessions to fully engage with the consultation process – there are things in there that will greatly impact on the lives of our parishioners.
Despite what many people might think, the church still represents a significant number of people and in my induction to my parish I made vows to serve the whole parish not just those on the roll (i.e. members). The Church of Scotland still exercises a parish ministry – every part of Scotland is in a Church of Scotland parish. I take the parish seriously – I want to be involved in as much of it as I can. I am a member of the local Community Association in one of my villages and have attended the village council in the other; I am on the board of a community hall, a public park and soon a Parent Teacher Association. None of them compulsory for the local minister but for me key to playing a full role in my community and making me a better, more effective minister. I am also going represent the Presbytery on The Moray Council’s Children and Young People Committee. All of these involvements are politics with a small ‘p’ and all very local.
But should I mix politics with a big ‘P’ with my role as minister? Have I the right to use my pulpit for political purposes? No and I refuse to do so. That to me is an abuse of my position. I am happy to let my political affiliation be known (a quick Google of my name tells anyone that – a reminder of my failure to be elected as a local councillor!) but I will not make any party political pronouncements from the pulpit. I may comment on the impact of what we face this week – but only by way of illustrating its compatibility or not with what I think the Scriptures teach.
This is where both my ideology and theology collide: I believe in a loving God, who teaches justice and fairness through all of Scripture. I believe in Jesus Christ who taught us to love your neighbour as yourself.
And in the spirit of loving my neighbour I respect the right of others to disagree with me – whether that’s my faith or my politics.
#1 by Colin MacKenzie on October 25, 2010 - 6:11 pm
I really don’t understand how any intelligent person can still support the corrupt Labour Party. And if you are a socialist then why would you support the most right-wing party to have emerged in recent history – New Labour. Cheating, warmongering and proponents of a police state yet you still align yourself with them.
#2 by John Ruddy on October 25, 2010 - 9:12 pm
But apart from your personal attack on the OP and her political beliefs, what do you think about the question she poses – should her (or indeed those of any church minister) political views be preeched from the pulpit?
I’d like to think that actually they should. A minister’s job is to care for their parishoners, to look out for their well being, and to do so following those Christian principles of equality, fairness and caring for your fellow man, whatever their circumstances.
#3 by Malc on October 25, 2010 - 9:24 pm
I actually find it quite interesting that Christianity and conservatism are seen much more closely linked on the continent (witness Christian Democrats in Germany) while we’ve never really had the same religion/politics link. I mean, other than voting behaviour (sweeping generalisation: Catholics voted Labour/ Protestants voted Conservative) we’ve never really seen the link here.
I kind of disagree though John. I mean, I agree that a minister’s job is to look out for her parishioners, but just because they agree with your religious views they don’t necessarily agree with your political views – and may have different views as to how best their religious views are followed through in politics – and wouldn’t that then change the church dynamic?
#4 by John Ruddy on October 25, 2010 - 9:45 pm
I agree that the tradition view is that Catholics voted labour and Protestants voted Conservative, but perhaps that is more a class thing. In this country Catholics have usually been the poorer, working class citizen (typically Irish), which would obviously be fertile ground for the left. Whilst The Church of England, at any rate has been characterised as the tory party at prayer simply because it is also part fo the establishment, and has a vested interest.
I’ve always pictured Christ as the ultimate socialist, all people were equal in his eyes, women, tax collectors, lepers etc, even though they were shunned by the establishment. He was not interested in wealth for his own use, but re-distributed it according to need (the feeding of the 5,000), and the Sermon on the Mount is as much a political tract as it is a religious one.
#5 by Malc on October 25, 2010 - 10:03 pm
Aye John, the class aspect probably did feed into it. And I think your view of Jesus as a socialist is quite apt… but as I say, it just seems interesting to me that Christian Democracy has always been more associated with conservative (centre-right) politics more than socialism. But then that is probably because socialism is related to communism, where the idea of religion was not really acceptable.
#6 by shuna on October 25, 2010 - 9:50 pm
I wonder if Colin read my last sentence 😉 But to answer in part his criticism – I am a member of a political party not because I agree with absolutely everything they do or say but because I agree with the essence of what they stand for. And for me the labour party is where I feel most comfortable. In the same way I am a minister in the Church of Scotland because it is the denomination to which I have the greatest affiliation but I do not always agree with all my colleagues.
The problem with using the pulpit to put forth political views is that politics like religion is a a personal thing and many people are uncomfortable discussing either. Therefor I have to have an understanding that not everyone will have the same political views as me. I have many wealthy people in my congregation, I have people with little – they are a wonderfully diverse group of people. And I have to be able speak in some way to them all and have them want to listen.
Interestingly though I have had to preach a few times this year on passages that suggest Jesus (God) has a bias to the poor – the way I tackle this is to suggest that having money is not wrong it is where in your personal priorities that matters. I know many people who are wealthy and are generous with their money and time (indeed my own personal circumstances are such that we, as a family, are comfortable well off) and I also know people with little who are quite self centred. Wealth is not a measure of goodness. Not all wealthy people are ruthless and not all less well off people are community spirited.
I want a socially fair society where those with more help those who have little, a society where all feel valued for who they are not what they have. A society where we genuinely care about our neighbour for who they are and not what we can get from them. These are Christian values.
I wonder if Jesus would have described himself as a socialist or a social democrat or what?
Malc, on your point about the Christian Democrat example, there is possibly a good discussion to be had about evangelical Christianity Vs liberal Christianity and how they align with political parties. The US would be an obvious place to start – the Bible belt being predominately Republican for example. In my mind scary theology aligned with scary politics!
#7 by Malc on October 25, 2010 - 10:12 pm
See Shuna, this is partly where my views and yours (and indeed, some of those of my co-editors) diverge slightly. I agree with your sentiment “I want a socially fair society where those with more help those who have little, a society where all feel valued for who they are not what they have. A society where we genuinely care about our neighbour for who they are and not what we can get from them” entirely. I just disagree that it is an entirely socialist or even social democratic value.
On your last point, it certainly is interesting. The political parties in the States are, if your pardon the expression, broad churches though. There are evangelical Christian Democrats who have some right-wing economic views and liberal, secular Republicans who are pro-welfare. Its all so mixed up – and at the end of the day, they are supposed to protect the division of church and state!
#8 by James on October 25, 2010 - 10:54 pm
Thanks for your piece, Shuna.
Just to clarify, seeing as Malc brought the team into it, personally I don’t believe in any form of deity, and, as I mentioned in passing in my piece on tackling Nazis, I think faith or absence of faith is at right angles to politics here, it’s really not determinatory. We’ve managed the separation of church and politics pretty well without an equivalent to the First Amendment, even if there are still established faiths.
Although goodness only knows how anyone could believe in the New Testament and not be a leftie, or indeed how anyone could believe in the Old Testament and not be a conservative…
Finally, although Colin may have been a bit blunt above, there is a point there. I’m curious to know how you can reconcile your faith and principles with Labour’s widening of inequality from 1997-2010, with their brutal and unnecessary foreign wars, their authoritarianism etc. Blair’s suggestion that God told him to unleash shock and awe would have made me angry on one more level if I was a believer.
#9 by shuna on October 25, 2010 - 11:22 pm
I know Colin has a point, as you do James. But the Blair/Brown years were not all bad – minimum wage, improvements in education and the NHS, Devolution….
Simplistic answer I know but I am old enough to have lived through the 1980’s and what Thatcher and the Tories did to people all in the name of ideology. (Can I recommend Brassed Off, Billy Elliot and The Full Monty as suitable viewing?) What they did to people was evil and a deliberate choice – beat them down and keep them there.
I am pretty confident and comfortable that the Labour party of today is a fastly different beast to that. Which is perhaps why I still want to align myself with them. Lets just see what kind of society the Con-Dems create….if last week is anything to go by I am going to get pretty angry at them!
#10 by James on October 25, 2010 - 11:35 pm
Yes, the Romans did do stuff for us, I know – and there are more, even if Blair denied two of them in recent interviews (hunting, FOI). But the wrongs continue. EdM isn’t going to oppose the anti-poor changes to housing benefit or disability benefit, so who will speak up for them? Isn’t this just a shiny new round of triangulation to appeal to the prejudices of Middle England?
The difficulty I have with your second paragraph is therefore one of logic. The Tories are malicious (agreed) ergo Labour (eh?). Why not join an actual socialist party, or the Greens, perhaps?
That interests me professionally, actually. What makes a person who seems to share Green principles sign up to Labour? I would certainly be grateful if you felt like continuing to be a focus group of one…
#11 by shuna on October 25, 2010 - 11:55 pm
I signed up to Labour when the Greens were a mere protest group (I am that old!)- I have just admitted to Malc that maybe I need to read more about them!
You are right though – so much of politics is aimed at Middle England – I assume they are the swinging vote? But I think the voting public are starting to get a little fed up with assumptions being made about them. We have entered/are entering a very interesting period in our political/social history.
#12 by Math Campbell on October 26, 2010 - 1:43 am
Shuna,
Thanks for an interesting post. It’s certainly a different tack to the usual things one reads on a Scottish political blog, and a nice change in tempo (and full credit to Jeff, Malc etc. for doing these Guest Posts)…
With regards to what you said, I thought I’d bring in an opposing perspective, in fact, I could hardly be more opposing.
I am a Scottish Nationalist. Or rather, I am an activist in the SNP – I’m not Scottish, I’m an immigrant from more southern shores, but I am fully committed to making Scotland a better place to live, a more prosperous, just and fair country, and it is in that vein that I joined the SNP, knowing that this will never happen whilst Scotland remains the plaything of English-minded parties.
I am also a practising Pagan. Like I said, couldn’t get much farther from yourself. But I agree with you that the pulpit is not place to be espousing politics. Religion and politics are like dry wood and fire. Both have their place, but put them together and no good can come.
However, I too, whilst respecting your beliefs,both religious and political, question as to whether the your membership of that party is compatible with your religious beliefs. I wouldn’t dream to lecture a woman of the cloth about Christianity, but I would say that the people of your parish would be a lot better served by a party that puts Scotland first over one that puts the interests of Middle-England voters first.
For all there are genuine folk in Scottish Labour, they are far outweighed by the trade-unionsts and political consultants, all a-eager to get their “reward” for time served (a safe seat in Glasgow or the like), and even more so by the vast ranks of English Labour, who may be genuine in their desire to make England better, but thanks to the realities of parliamentary arithmetic, mean that Scotland’s needs come a way down the list of priorities by consequence.
Also, one should look to their recent record in Scotland – what sort of social democratic party raises taxes on students (student fees), increases tax on the poorest (10p tax), stands opposed to letting the people vote on an issue of national importance 85% are said to want a say on (the independence referendum), threaten even now to vote down measures that would save thousands from alcohol deaths purely to make a rival party look bad???
These are not the actions of the Labour Party of your youth. They have, if you’ll pardon the pun, lost their faith, and with it any credibility. If you want to be a Christian Socialist, or a Socialist Christian for that matter, in Scotlad, your only option is to join the no-hopers (Tommy’s latest rag-tag team if he’s not in the gaol) or to commit to helping Scotland resist the Tories and their cuts by joining the SNP and standing up for Scotland…
#13 by James on October 26, 2010 - 8:23 am
Sorry to bang on, but there are plenty of Christian socialists in the Greens too. And I’m also curious to see any evidence of socialism in action from the SNP administration, or indeed what the practical elements of this cut-resistance are.
#14 by Malc on October 26, 2010 - 9:38 am
Sorry to be blunt James, but I think the point that both Shuna and Math are making (to an extent) is the fact that there are trade-offs to be made. The SNP currently and Labour previously are in a position (government) to make the changes that (some of) their membership want to see – in terms of lefty stuff. Now you can argue whether they have done so (and I’d agree with you – social democracy in the UK is more of a myth than a reality) but they have had the chance to do so. While the Greens can influence government policy, they can’t make it. That may be part of it – and that may be the message you guys need to get across: if enough people join/vote Green, they can be the 21st Century party of government. Or something…
#15 by James on October 26, 2010 - 12:49 pm
Any evidence of SNP efforts to protect the poor would be appreciated. There’s not much to look at on tax, but the Council Tax freeze helps the better-off most, for instance. Also, despite the Lib Dem efforts to make coalition a dirty word, we still believe in it, and I reckon we are more likely to be in government the first time as the smaller party. The Germans look likely to get there as the larger one soon, interestingly. Early days..
#16 by Indy on October 26, 2010 - 10:54 am
This is maybe about the much-vaunted “moral compass”. And that is what I don’t get about people who stick with Labour. There are some, a very few, issues which are simply about right and wrong – Iraq and nuclear weapons maybe being the most obvious ones. How can you be a Christian and support nuclear weapons? You can’t. And it’s no answer to say well I am in the Labour Party but I am also a CND supporter. There are compromises and compromises. You can’t really compromise on stuff like that. If the SNP ever became pro-nuclear I would tear up my membership card (well actually I’d have to cut it up because it’s made of plastic now) But so would the other 15,999 members of the SNP. Which us why that will never happen.
#17 by Indy on October 26, 2010 - 1:36 pm
What a silly comment James.
You know perfectly well that the SNP suppots a local taxation system which is based on ability to pay. If we had a majority in parliament council tax would have been abolished by this time.
We do not support coumcil tax as a system of taxation because it is regressive. It is simply nonsense to say that wealthier people benefit more from the council tax freeze. Yes, wealthy people benefit – but it is people on low incomes who benefit the most.
Make no mistake, increasing council tax would cause serious hardship among those least able to afford it.
I am sure I am not the only one who has spotted the irony of Labour et al arguing that the council tax freeze benefits the wealthy. You could almost suppose from that they supported a local tax based on ability to pay! We know they don’t because one of the arguments they used against local income tax was that it would drive wealth creators out of Scotland.
#18 by James on October 26, 2010 - 3:21 pm
Agreed, Council Tax isn’t the right answer, but local income tax (in the form proposed, effectively another national salary tax, excluding shareholdings and unearned income) isn’t progressive either. Also, you know revaluation has been put off primarily to avoid upsetting the rich.
I’m not arguing for Council Tax, but until we can replace it the freeze will cost unsexy local jobs with local councils, and my guess is that will typically be those staff who support the poorest.
#19 by Indy on October 26, 2010 - 4:34 pm
Again, I think you are aware that the LIT policy was designed to be compatible with what we can do within the devolved powers. It is no-one’s ideal policy but any Scottish administration would be constrained in what they can do by the Scotland Act.
I am not aware that anyone has suggested revaluation. Every political party has at some point or other indicated that they are not happy with council tax as it is so why proceed with a revaluation? Of course our main opponents have not come up with an alternative to council tax but you never know. We have of course gone ahead with the business rates revaluation.
However if anyone’s priority was to ensure that the wealthiest paid a larger share towards local services than the poor they should have supported the SNP’s proposals, as imperfect as they were. They chose not to.
And of course the amount raised by increasing council tax now would, in the scheme of things, be quite small. The benefit it would deliver to councils would certainly not outweigh the burden it would impose on individual households.
#20 by James on October 26, 2010 - 5:03 pm
We’ll have to agree to disagree, but I’m going to leave this one now – we’ve derailed Shuna’s discussion long enough!
#21 by Shuna on October 26, 2010 - 7:56 pm
lol James thats ok.
I want to pick up on one of Indy’s comments about the moral compass. You raise the question of nuclear weapons and their imcompatability with Christianity and suggest through your comments that therefor I should no longer be a member of the Labour Party. I have always held the belief that the only way to change an organisation is from within. There are many members of Labour who are also members of CND (I am not one btw – and not because I do not support their cause just that I do not koin everything!) If everyone who held that view left how would they ever get the party to change?
Back to nuclear weapons and their incompatability with Christianity – The Church of Scotland is agin them and many members and ministers have criminal records courtesy of protests at Faslane. Many of our members are also pacifists – I am not.
As a minister I know that in a few weeks time I will lead services of Remembrance where I have to honour those who have lost their lives in wars past and present. These are men and women who have chosen to serve their country in a way that not many do – they have chosen to put their lives on the line for us. I will be honouring them by paying tribute to what they have done for us – condeming what they are involved in will not do that. My understanding of the Bible is not that Jesus was a pacifist – there is every likelihood he carried a knife. Jesus also acknowledges that there is no greater thing that someone can do for their neighbour than lay down their life for them.
In politics and in faith there are many times when we do have to compromise. You are right for some the compromise can be too great. But I personally look at the big picture – not individual policies/doctrines. If I found myself in a position where I was increasingly disagreeing with either the majority of the ideology of my political party or the theology of my church then that would be the time for me to walk away.
BTW I am a female minister in a church were some congregations do not even have women elders – the best way for me to support women in those congregations is to prove that I am good at what I do. I am on what we would describe as the liberal (not the political use of the word) wing of the church and as I see it the best way to influence thsoe who do not share my theology is to remain within the Kirk.
It is not always easy – but I have learned over the years to pick the fights worth fighting. And it sounds like nuclear weapons is your fight. It is not mine. This is entirely personal and I do not criticise anyone for not sharing my stance.
#22 by Malc on October 26, 2010 - 8:13 pm
I reckon that’s a post in itself!
One point I want to pick up on Shuna. You say
“If I found myself in a position where I was increasingly disagreeing with either the majority of the ideology of my political party or the theology of my church then that would be the time for me to walk away.”
but also:
“I have always held the belief that the only way to change an organisation is from within.”
I’m not convinced the two are consistent positions, but I’ll leave that to one side at the moment. What I really wanted to ask was this: how much of Labour’s policy do you agree with at the moment? What if you sat down, looked through the manifesto, picked out each policy (say 100 things) and found that you disagreed (or did not agree) with 51 of the items? Is that it for your membership? I’m not suggesting (or maybe I am!) that you would disagree with a majority of it… but might it be a worthwhile exercise – to discover how much the party differs from your preferred ideological position?
#23 by jim jepps on October 26, 2010 - 8:49 pm
I think the two are mutually compatible and it’s a trick that hundreds of thousands of people pull off with their membership of parties, community organisations or whatever.
I think the key lies in the idea about whether you *can* change the organisation from within and whether the organisation still provides *enough* sustenance to keep you in – an art rather than a science to be sure – but not logically contradictory.
Now I don’t support Labour any more because I felt that a) the ability of ordinary members to change the course of the party was no longer there and b) any good it was doing was massively outweighed by the bad.
Obviously if I’d built a career in the party or worked for it I may have had a more difficult decision to make, so not everyone who uses these arguments are necessarily articulating all the reasons they stay in, but I think this dynamic of compromise up to a particular line is an important one.
#24 by Malc on October 26, 2010 - 8:54 pm
That’s fair enough Jim. But I’d argue that (in most cases – I don’t want to offend Shuna!) the belief that you can change the organisation from within is misplaced. And if a party has changed away from the reason you joined it in the first place, then it isn’t likely to change back to what you want it to be – so staying seems a little foolish. But yes – party “career” types may have a different opinion…
#25 by shuna on October 26, 2010 - 10:42 pm
I think what I was trying to say, in a rather long winded slightly incoherant way, was that if we all left political parties and or faith groups because we didnt agree with everything they said or did then there would be no membership!
Malc, maybe changing an organisation from within is difficult but if you aint in it how can you change it? I think it does possibly depend on the organisation – easier to influence a small one that a big one I guess.
I am happy to concede that an exercise of manefesto appraisal might be a valuable one – don’t suppose you have a spare labour manefesto lying around? 😉
#26 by Malc on October 26, 2010 - 10:52 pm
Of course changing an organisation from within is difficult (Messrs Blair, Brown and Mandelson found that too!). I think my point was really that when it is so different to why you joined it then it may be time to find another organisation!
Oh, and Labour 2010 manifesto can be found here (its in pdf form).
#27 by shuna on October 26, 2010 - 10:58 pm
lol cheers Malc. Something for my ‘To Do’ list.
Can I just say how much I have enjoyed the banter/discussion on this topic? I have been challenged by it and that has been a good thing.
I have also really enjoyed Better Nation so far – even if some of it goes over the top of my head. Keep up the good work!
#28 by NoOffenceAlan on October 26, 2010 - 11:02 pm
I was brought up Church of England – Sunday School as a kid in the 60s, confirmed as a teenager in the 70s, then lost interest when I went to Uni(1979).
What I’ve noticed is the Church gradually becoming more ‘socialist’ over the years.
The first example of ‘political correctness’ I can remember is when this verse was dropped from the hymn “All Things Bright and Beautiful” –
‘The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them high or lowly,
He ordered their estate’.
I ‘got’ that, though (I was still at primary school at the time) – people’s place in life should be determined by merit, not by birth.
The Christian message I understood when young was “It’s OK to be poor – you’ll get your reward in heaven” and Envy was one of the 7 deadly sins.
But that message seems to have changed over time. Envy seems to be have become a virtue in the Churches’ campaigns.
The thing that gets me angry is the new version of the Lord’s Prayer, especially because
“Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us” has now become
“Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors”.
To me, that is completely distorting the original meaning. Fair enough, “trespasses” is an old-fashioned word and I can see the need for something more accessible, but why not “sins” or “wrongs” or “faults”. That would still keep the original sense of an act of wrong-doing, but a debt is a contract, to be honoured by both sides. There should be no guilt attached to insisting a debt should be re-paid.
On the LIT issue, I remember that the anti-LIT campaigners would say Scotland would lose top earners if it was introduced. One example often quoted was Fred Goodwin.
#29 by Stuart Winton on October 27, 2010 - 9:10 am
Shuna said:
“What [the Tories] did to people was evil…”
Hi Shuna. I’d be interested to read your views on Daniel Hannan’s latest blogpost.
#30 by Indy on October 27, 2010 - 12:23 pm
The question for me is why should people even have to persuade Labour to change? Why do they not already reflect the position of the people they represent?
There’s a clear cut majority in Scotland opposed to nuclear weapons. If political parties are about reflecting the priorities of the communities and people they represent, surely they should be looking at ways to advance that consensus and actually rid Scotland of nuclear weapons?
Incidentally I wouldn’t say that nuclear weapons are my number one priority either, I picked that issue because it is a black and white issue. Obviously most issues are much more nuanced and sometimes it’s a case of picking the least worst option.
Where the moral compass issue comes into play for me – although I would never call it that, to me it is a question of values rather than morality – is that you have to be able to trust the basic values that your party represents. That is what will guide the decisons they make. And the values can be seen perhaps most clearly on those black and white issues.
There are things I disagree with in the SNP, things that Alex Salmond says and does that I may not particularly like. Some where I think he has got it completely wrong. But I trust him – and the SNP – not to get it completely wrong on something fundamental.
And I just don’t see how Labour people can overlook something as fundamentally wrong as supporting nuclear weapons or supporting Iraq. For me it’s not an answer to say OK so a Labour Government sent troops to illegally invade and occupy another country, caused hundreds of thousands of deaths but on the other hand they brought in the minimum wage and tax credits.
#31 by Shuna on October 27, 2010 - 12:39 pm
Stuart – an interesting blog. In the spirit of my faith can I hate the sin but love the sinner? Hate is a harsh word and I hate no-one.
But I saw what Thather’s policies did to people and I am sorry they were a deliberate move to beat down the masses and ulitmately (the real goal) break the unions. In the process we had people in our country having to rely on soup kitchens for a meal to feed their children. People were hurt and broken by a set of policies which matched an ideology of the poor do not matter. Was it Mr Tebbit who said that high unemployment was a prices worth paying? Nice when you are not the open paying the price of losing your job and in many cases your home.
Just as Mr Hannn knows some nice labour people I know some nice Tories, Lib Dems. SNP, Green, Communist, the list goes on…