I’m a Christian and this is why I vote Conservative

Conservatives LogoMy article last week’s article discussing Christian voting patterns has generated a fair amount of debate in various places over the last few days. In particular, my thoughts echoing Danny Webster’s comments about whether Christians of differing political persuasions feel equally comfortable about airing their views in public appears to have struck a chord. With the intention of opening this discussion up further, I’ve asked three Christians with a range of political opinions to explain the reasons why they vote a certain way. The first to offer up their thoughts is Neill Harvey-Smith who along with a majority of Anglicans votes Conservative. Neill currently works for the Church of England and is a former communications consultant, social entrepreneur and writer. He tweets under @nhs999 and writes here in purely a personal capacity.


I am going to break the taboo. I’m a Christian, I work for the Church of England, and I vote Conservative. Stone him!

Should it be surprising, as Theos revealed last week, that there are Tories in our midst? We aspire to be a church of all, of Jew and Gentile, welcoming everyone, believing that Jesus is the saviour of the whole world: can political heterogeneity be a shock? Eight and a half million people voted Labour at the last election. Might anyone else be welcome into *our* church? Yes, we Christians must expect diversity of opinion in worldly matters, though we unite around Jesus Christ.

Entrenched views are not just the diesel in the tank of Twitter, but a great hindrance to people knowing Jesus Christ. Lots of people think his divinity is yet another cultural fairy-tale. To believe it, we must be indoctrinated, or gullible, or needy, or unthinking, or damaged, or weird; certainly different, and the only hope is that one day we will grow up and leave all this spiritual nonsense behind. The modern reflex is that believing in some guy coming back to life and governing the universe is so bizarre that it really doesn’t demand any serious thought. Yet when we are willing to test the gospel, to encounter it at its strongest, to give it a genuine hearing, many of us end up seeing the truth. Before I became a Christian, I always found it easier to take a line of Leviticus and laugh at it, or lampoon the ‘man in the sky’ than actually dare to hear and experience what Christian life is like. I lacked the curiosity to wonder if it might be amazing, fulfilling and true. What’s it like being a Tory? Do you lack the curiosity to find out? Let’s not model that behaviour, in case it becomes a stumbling block to others in more important questions. I voted Labour for ten years, and often wondered whether Conservatives really held their views or whether it was just pretence draped over self-interest. Tories were loaded, selfish, sheltered, insensitive, uncaring. Then there were the rural One Nation types: inbred, tribal, privileged, unthinking. Voting Conservative for the first time was a wrench because I was raised in the prejudice of identity politics – assumptions based on rejecting people with a different upbringing, ideas, customs and beliefs.

Now – after experience, thought and a switch of rosette – I get the same from others. Strangers – brothers and sisters in Christ – who have never met me, think nothing of tweeting insults my way. Am I proud of hating the poor and calling them scroungers? An odd one. While Labour promise to be ‘tougher than the Tories’ on welfare, Conservative reforms are supporting the creation of more jobs paying a higher minimum wage. Though I spoke up out of family experience against the bedroom tax, overall welfare reform is needed. I worked for many years to promote education and vocational skills, and help get people jobs. First-hand I experienced expensive government programmes: New Deal, Train to Gain, so many others. I learned that good intentions plus government programme often equals failure, gilded revolving doors leaving hopelessness and cynicism as they spit people out. Yet so hated is the Conservative brood, that cruelty can be presupposed of any wrong-voting Tory.

I feel pressure to stay silent now in a way that I never did as a Labour voter. The hardest word is ‘selfish’. As Christians, we know it marks us all, but I find the idea that voting Conservative makes you especially selfish the most perverse of all. Barely a day passes without loud criticism of panto villain Iain Duncan Smith. It feels good standing behind Oliver Twist, arms folded, staring down the Beadle as he is asked for ‘more’. But aren’t we – the people of the church – the Beadle here? When did poverty stop shaming us? When did it stop being our responsibility? For one thing, no government ever spent more on welfare than this one. But more to the point: when was it agreed that we as a church ‘fill the gaps left by government’? What part of Jesus’ teaching indicates that to us? The current push to develop credit unions is notable and exciting because we are acting, not lecturing others on their duties. Christian organisations do so much around the world, yet their voices are often drowned out by those shouting at government. When I see Bill Gates, devoting his wealth and expertise to conquering poverty and disease, charting a course, with others, to eradicate poverty as we know it within a generation – I wonder how anyone can look at him and see the 1% who must be preached and marched against, to see his wealth as a problem, to regret it, to covet it, to devise ways to take it from him and hamper him in his work, all in the name of justice. I reflect how the last 200-odd years stand alone in human history: we have witnessed an unprecedented population explosion, and most of these billions of people are richer than their parents were. How many times have we prayed, over thousands of years, that somehow God might act in this world against poverty? The forces of trade and free exchange unleashed by capitalism have created unprecedented wealth, extended opportunity, raised life expectancy, yet are more often criticised than celebrated. And these market forces are based on the principles of service. Your station in life is not apportioned, your wealth not kept in the hands of tyrants, or given to you through obedience to power, but gained freely by doing or making something that other people want.

Is everything rosy? Absolutely not. Some of what we would have our fellow citizens do for us can be immoral, exploitative and degrading. We rightly give legal protections to take the rough edges off our human tendency to abuse others. There remain large numbers of people living in absolute poverty, slavery, war, who must never ever be forgotten or lost in our gratitude for this providence. The Conservative overseas aid commitment is a recognition of this duty. There are also people just down the road from you and me struggling and in need of help. But it is perverse to affect not to notice that utter destitution is no longer the most common everyday experience of human life on earth. Our wealth, not our poverty, sets this moment in human history apart from all others. What might Christians achieve with our share in this generous provision? Christianity cannot be outsourced to worldly authorities by the power of the vote. We – brothers and sisters in Christ – need to build the new Jerusalem together, not carp at others that they have failed to do it. So, yes, I vote Conservative. Faith, wealth, and generosity can be a powerful political mix. Add care for the future – protecting our environment, and refusing to impose the cost of our desires on future generations – and you have a vision of a good society. I believe that high taxes destroy wealth, and reduce the scope for the overwhelming generosity that might transform our world. In writing this, I don’t seek here to impose my way of thinking, or to argue with anyone that they should change, just to be accepted as an equal. If you disagree with me, I trust I am still welcome to stand beside you in our church, because what we have together is most important – our shared faith in the one Lord and our shared prayer: His kingdom come.

Categories: Government, Party politics

Tags: , , ,

41 replies

  1. Thank you for the post: left wingers (who I have at least some sympathy with) shout very loudly, it is refreshing to hear a Christian conservative vision of what a good society might look like. I do have a question though. The unprecedented spread of wealth in capitalist nations has, I think, been accompanied by the concentration of power and influence in the hands of those who have used the system to make the most wealth. This in itself might not be a problem, but not all of the richest in the world seek the common good. So how do we deal with our propensity towards greed and selfishness that would abuse any economic or political system? Is there a way to curb the excesses of injustice perpetrated by those who control the most resources, or eradicate them entirely? Or at least a way to work towards that politically. Ultimately the only one who can remove it entirely is Jesus himself. I’d love to know your thoughts.

    • Thanks for commenting. The evidence suggests power and wealth are more dispersed, and less concentrated, than in the past – look, for example, at the experience of life in much of Asia and South America. Matt Ridley in the Times writes today – brilliantly – about our misconceptions of the world around us on equality. And where there is great concentrated power, individuals like Bill Gates do show a way ahead. I loved his recent annual report, full of achievement and hope. In my view, the answer to the selfishness, cruelty and greed in us all is not political but spiritual. And it troubles not just the banker and the billionaire. The staple of left-wing politics – the demand that other people hand over their money to you to spend in ways you decide suitable – is sometimes a branch of that poisoned tree.

      • I don’t know where you get your info from I suggest you look up some facts which are not hard to find, at Poverty Facts and stats, to quote:

        ‘At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.Source 1

        More than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where income differentials are widening.Source 2

        The poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income.Source 3

        According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”Source 4

        Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be underweight or stunted. The two regions that account for the bulk of the deficit are South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

        If current trends continue, the Millennium Development Goals target of halving the proportion of underweight children will be missed by 30 million children, largely because of slow progress in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa’…

        Making the rich richer does NOT WORK, MUCH AS THE RICH WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE IT DOES.

        Tax Evasion/avoidance financial institutions and bankers are some of the biggest hindrances to equality and fairness for the poor: I do welcome Bill Gate’s comments:
        “Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates says he does not think he pays enough tax, and says wealthy Americans should contribute more in order to solve the deficit problem.

        Speaking on BBC World, Mr Gates said taxing the rich, was “just justice”.

        I recommend you follow ChurchActionPoverty and taxresearch.org.uk and Christian Aid, Cafod, to acquire some real facts from Christian perspectives and stop buying the Daily Mail, Express, and Murdoch trash (Times Sun etc.)

    • The idea that if you make some people richer it will benefit the poor is total and utter tat. This is the system that was used throughout time until the benefit state was implemented. People starved to death while others lived in mansions. Not many starve in this country but people do. Are the Tories proud of this??? http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/28/man-starved-to-death-after-benefits-cut
      It is a disgrace and anyone who helps support this I am sorry I find it hard to accept as a Christian.

  2. “Add care for the future – protecting our environment, and refusing to impose the cost of our desires on future generations – and you have a vision of a good society.”

    Just wondering where the Tory free-for-all on fracking fits in with this…

    • Hi Phil,
      The environmental impacts of fracking are pretty negligible when applied well. And recent EU recommendations do a good job of covering all the main bases (see below). It remains to be seen that this or subsequent governments inact them well, but most mining legislation, particularly in western countries are extremely stringent – and rightly so.


      The benefits to society are two-fold. For the EU as a whole it could maintain gas import dependency at a stable level. For the the man on the street it would likely lower gas prices (at least relatively). What I mean by that is it is likely that the lowering of prices would not be as substantial as experienced in the US, but the latest estimate (also from the EU impact assessment) suggests a relative reduction of 18% in costs compared to if we did not exploit the gas at all.

      • The environmental impacts of fracking cannot be described as ‘pretty negligible’. Shale gas is not able to be readily exploited until the mid 2020s – by which time we need to be rapidly reducing our gas usage in order to avoid dangerous climate change. It’s no use arguing that it could displace coal – by the mid-2020s coal needs to have been displaced by low-carbon sources (e.g. renewables). At best it displaces imported gas (which which it has roughly the same carbon footprint – assuming low leakage rates [which is a major caveat]). This simply increases the supply of gas, leading countries to postpone investment in low-carbon energy.

        No-one credibly thinks it will lower prices (shale gas relies on high gas prices to be viable).

        In terms of local impacts – we should be clear that the EU recommendations are precisely that, they are not binding. It ought to worry people that our Government fought tooth and nail against enforceable legal rules. In addition, they’re claiming that we will have strict regulation, and yet cutting the number of Environment Agency staff responsible and giving them binding 2-week targets to deal with applications. The Agency simply won’t be able to keep up with detailed oversight. Mistakes are going to be made.

        This all assumes that fracking shale can be done safely. In fact, there are plenty of unknowns – I simply don’t see that subject has been studied enough. This political rush for shale gas is madness.

    • I don’t think an attitude towards fracking should put you on a side of the political spectrum. We need to expand the supply of energy, else prices will rise, causing hardship, hurting the economy and risking serious disruption. In how we meet growing energy demand, environmental considerations must be central to our decisions. From the evidence I’ve seen, fracking stacks up well against other types of energy on price, availability and environmental impact. But there are uncertainties – let’s keep learning and thinking. If we care about fuel poverty and just want to walk away from this technology, that’s a tough position.

      • There is an important reason, however, why fracking is dividing political opinion. Most parties are reasonably aware on climate change. The Conservative Party, however, has significant links to fossil fuel industry figures, and is quite recklessly pushing fracking as a solution to various (real or imagined) future problems.

        The authorities have also been very clear on this – a higher gas future is far more expensive (and therefore worse for the fuel poor), than a low-carbon one. Millions of pounds are being spent on fracking – money that would be far better spent on energy efficiency and renewables. Better, of course, for the fuel poor, Jo Public and the billions who will be adversely affected by climate change, rather than the short-term financial interests of the fossil fuel companies.

        Walk away from this technology we must.

  3. Gillan

    Maybe you should ask a fourth to write on “I’m a Christian and this is why I find it almost impossible to bring myself to vote at all”!

  4. Hi Gillan,

    I’m guessing the other two you have lined up are for Labour and the Lib Dems. If you’d like to add in a Green to that, I’d be happy to write one for you.

  5. I am. Christian and therefore a Socialist. Nothing in the article contradicts my experience that Tories are basically selfish greedy and rich. The recurring theme of the NT is that there is a problem with wealth and power but mainly wealth.(camels and needles) The idea that capitalism brings untold wealth is laughable- true for the 1% who hold the wealth. As a Councillor in a Labour authority I am aware of the shameful inequality of the settlements from the Tories, for local authorities, mainly Labour in the North, transferring wealth to the rich Tory councils in the South. This Tory shower have demonized the poor, the immigrant, the asylum seeker, the refugee, fragmented education, privatized the health service, destroyed the economy, all in contradiction to the imperatives of the Gospel. Theologically I find that evangelicals lack a proper understanding of the Incarnation, and the communal nature of the history of the Christian faith. By this I mean that the history of the faith is that of the community, and the individual within community. The OT is the history of a nation, and the NT is put together by the Church, and our faith is a product of the ecclesia.

    If Tories are capable of reading I would suggest they have a look at anything by R H Tawney, and Marilynne Robinson, especially her essay Austerity as Ideology. This to me is the main problem i.e. the core fundamental ideology of Conservatism including its excessive individualism is completely at odds with the core message of the Gospel as endorsed by Christ ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,’

    • Mike, I’ve read a great deal of Tawney, and have a Left Book Club collection that would make your eyes water. The difficulty I have is not that I can’t read, or lack exposure to socialist ideas, but that I’ve come to disagree with socialism, over time, partly in light of the terrible experiences of people in those large parts of the world in which it has been implemented, and who subsequently moved away from it. What I used to do when faced with discomforting ideas is say ‘what Tories really mean is X’ and argue against X, lacing it with insults. Is that happening here? The truth is that you and I both yearn for that message of Luke 4:18 to be reflected on earth. Let’s share in that, learn from the evidence around us and work for it.

    • “I’m a Christian, and all those people over there are bad and beneath me, and fundamentally motivated by personal malevolence, and I can categorically say I know this because because label”

      It seemed like you said that about 50 times, but looking back it wasn’t that many. Not meant as a comeback of some sort as I am basically neutral re the post above, but you may need to ponder the possibility that you think an awful lot of people are motivated by badness, people are generally not and this tends to suggest a destructive level of oversimplification of “that kind of people” that can lead to all sorts of behaviours that are anything but Christian in nature.

  6. Hi Gillan – in light of your blog post on christian political dialogue, would you invite Neill to interact with readers’ questions about the blog? I’d love to ask a few, but there’s not much point typing them if they won’t get a response!

    • Neill has been away this week (bad timing), but is keen to engage when he gets back, so fire away!

      • Excellent. So then, my questions to Neill:

        1) I often come across statements like the following from christian Conservatives:
        ‘But more to the point: when was it agreed that we as a church ‘fill the gaps left by government’?’

        I’d be interested to know how far you would want to push this line of argument. There are many things that the Government currently does that we might reasonably regard as fulfilling Christian duties. For example, the police and the courts (theoretically) uphold justice, and protect people from some kinds of exploitation. The NHS heals the sick. State-funded chools educate our children. We have state bodies and projects targetting discrimination.

        Now – the existence of these things should shame us. Injustice, illness, illiteracy, institutional prejudice (I’m just alliterating for fun here) are blots on our society. As Christians, we really ought to do something about it. Therefore…we ought to abolish all those state institutions?

        My point is that you seem to be begging the question. You pre-suppose a small-state political philosophy, that makes social security an ‘optional extra’ for states to engage in. I suspect you wouldn’t do the same with defence, the rule of law, protection of contracts etc. It is these presuppositions that we need to draw out. Why, for example, is the eradication of hunger not a fundamental duty of a government (as I would argue it is)?

        But we should be clear: this is an argument about the legitimate functions of the state. It’s not quite so simple as ‘christians ought to do this, therefore Governments shouldn’t’.

        2) I’m also quite interested in your statements about Bill Gates. One thing that I think conservatives often fail to do is recognise that ‘market forces’ or ‘the invisible hand’ (let’s assume they do currently function unaided) are amoral processes. They depend upon the desires of many individuals, no matter what those desires are, and negotiations to determine prices. There is no clear moral input.

        And yet I see many people simply assume that the outcome is just and fair. I really think we need to go beyond the facade, and question how the wealth accrues. We really must ask moral questions about the appropriate return for work, and challenge the total imbalance of power in many worker-employer relationships.

        So, for example, we know that unionised workers earn more than non-unionised workers. This is simply a difference in bargaining power. In this case, two capitalists may have put in exactly the same amount of work, but one was based in an area with anti-union laws. He gets much richer. Maybe his jurisdiction also allows lower health and safety requirements, or environmental protections. Maybe he is granted exclusive access over traditionally shared resources. We can easily see such examples in the real world, and I think we must conclude that redistribution is often a matter of justice, rather than envy.

        Would you not agree?

    • That is some serious alliteration, Tom! Thanks – a pleasure engaging with your thoughts and questions.

      1) Big and fascinating. Needs a book, we’ve only got a comment. It certainly doesn’t follow logically from ‘we really ought to do something about the blots on our society’ that ‘we should abolish state institutions that do something about blots on our society’. One reason is that the ‘we’s are different. The first ‘we’ is we the followers of Christ, and the second ‘we’ is we everyone in this country. My piece is addressed to Christians, and I’m inviting us to consider that when we tell politicians they should force other people to pay more tax to solve a problem we’ve identified, that is for us a gospel imperative, we are in difficult territory. A range of scopes and functions of government are compatible with this view and it’s a huge topic – but translated into party politics, I think it’s about direction of travel: a government running large deficits, forcing lower growth and higher taxes on our children, is not protecting wealth and sustainability, or fostering generosity.

      2) In a calculation of whether market outcomes are fair, why doesn’t what the individual goes on to do with the money feature? In Gates’ case, it would seem to be highly relevant. There also can be huge moral input in markets. The market for fair trade coffee (does it taste better) is just one example we find in many churches. The alternatives to free exchange also carry moral baggage – nepotism, corruption, capture, and so forth.

      I make, with painful brevity, the case that we should set rules and restrictions around markets where they fail, or exploit. This is a Conservative position, just as much as it is anyone else’s position.

      Sorry I can’t say more. Thanks for your time and thought.

      • Hi Neill, thanks for your reply. I’d be interested to probe a little further, and even if you can’t personally reply, I hope some other christian Tory (apparently there are loads of you!) will feel free to step in!

        1) I take it from your reply that the crux of your argument is the economics of the welfare state (deficits, growth, taxes etc), and its effect on wealth and sustainability. I think the generosity point falls prey to my earlier objection – a welfare state damages generosity in the same way that courts damage our hatred of injustice. I think rather our generosity ought to push us to want a welfare state. As Bevan said (about healthcare):

        “Society becomes more wholesome, more serene, and spiritually healthier, if it knows that its citizens have at the back of their consciousness the knowledge that not only themselves, but all their fellows, have access, when ill, to the best that medical skill can provide.

        But private charity and endowment, although inescapably essential at one time, cannot meet the cost of all this. If the job is to be done, the state must accept financial responsibility…”

        And he can take my taxes to do it. Should I ever (though may God forbid it) fall into a top tax band, I will gladly give >50p in the marginal £1 for the assurance that healthcare and a decent standard of living are comprehensively available. Because the truth often is, not that we’re simply requiring other people’s money, but also our own money. Demographically, Anglicans in the UK are fairly well-off. We could afford to pay more in tax to fund social security programmes. We could even vote to do so.

        The economic argument is certainly one we should have. For example, there is good evidence that government healthcare spending boosts economic growth, and I would love to explain to you how the deficit fell under New Labour.

        However, the main point, I think, is perhaps that you may want to reflect on the trade-off (as you see it) between wealth and better social services. It is not clear to me that christian principles demand we choose the former.

        2) It doesn’t feature because they are separate questions: the morality of acquiring wealth is different from the morality of disposing of it. For example, I could engage in serious fraud, but give that money to elderly widows and orphans. Or I could work hard in my job, be productive, and yet buy heroin and pornography with my wages.

        The point is that are amoral. Yes, some people will want to engage in markets with moral motives (fair trade tea), but there is no guarantee. It relies ultimately on negotiations between individuals, and the balance of power almost always rests with the already wealthy. This, as I say, is why wages increase when workers unionise, and decrease when unions are attacked. It has little to do with a fair wage for a fair amount of work, it’s about power. This is why many christians get so vocal about conservative Christians – by deregulating, and promoting free markets (which often, btw, includes attacking minimum/living wages!), they are siding with the powerful against the vulnerable.

        And of course, the outcome of free markets are also amoral – they have no regards for need, just desire. In the event of a shortage, prices rise. But this is of no concern to the wealthy, who can continue to overconsume, even when the poor do without. This isn’t ‘market failure’ – it’s a failure of markets, and we have to bear that in mind.

        I would fully agree about regulating markets, but I would also note; I think much of the anger you will face as a Tory will be precisely because the Conservative party simply aren’t doing this. They are more than happy to relax regulations that we all rely on (employment law, environmental safeguards etc) to favour big business. And big businesses have cynically exploited areas of lax regulation, and have yet been praised, promoted and supported as wealth creators. That’s what really sticks in the craw.

  7. In a nutshell and to some degree oversimplified; insofar as the Tories and their class are servants of Mammon (which they undoubtedly are), they necessarily cannot be servants of God.

    The article and Tory supports in general are forever trying both to promote and then justify hoarding wealth which are, more often than not, directly or indirectly gained at some cost by an army of the minion of the lower classes – with violence – as in the film “12 years a slave”; Privatisation which is violent (yes, violent) confiscation of wealth for the benefit of the few. Tory thinking is in my view in anti-Christian.

    PS as a Christian ex-Labour and newish Green party supporter, I’m looking forward to seeing something from the Green party.

    • Then you’ll be glad to know that I’ve literally just e-mailed the Green Party article in this series to Gillan. I hope you’ll like it, although the tone is rather more gracious towards Christians of a Tory disposition than your comment.

    • It is painful to read that you think I cannot be a servant of God. I had strong reservations about writing the piece, because I didn’t want to feel the way you have just made me feel.

      • I’m sorry if my ‘tone’ is offensive to you, I had no intention of disrespecting you personally. That your are a Conservative politician by God’s grace in a position to speak for the voiceless , I can only Amen. Nevertheless, Christ himself said his gospel of peace, his ‘good news for the poor’ is (surprisingly?) offensive; bringing division even between families members; salt and light, camels and needles etc. I’d go so far as suggesting that if the gospel isn’t offensive to some people -notably the rich and powerful- it isn’t the gospel. The apostle James said, “isn’t it the rich who oppress you”…and again, the churches’ disrespect of the poor by preferential treatment of the rich was (then at least) severely scorned on.

        This is the background of my comments and how it is that a Christian can ever be comfortable being a member of a party that is there (solely?) for the benefit of one class (historically the rich get very much richer under a conservative government), excusing and defending the increasing wealth share of said class, while almost daily disparaging the poorest in society.

        Incidentally – ancient history I know – but it was reading Thatcher’s pathetic (blasphemous?) attempt to use Jesus’ story of the Good Samaritan to justify wealth and trickle-down economics that persuaded me that Tory ‘DNA’ is fundamentally anti-Christian. Nothing, apart from vitriol, has ‘trickled down.’

        Again, sorry if this is personally offensive to you. Jesus himself had wealthy supporters but it didn’t prevent him from condemning wealth insofar as it oppresses and opposes (the default position I’d argue) the kingdom of God.

    • I am one of the “they” you describe, which is to say I am a conservative, not that I would ever vote for whatnow calls Iitself the conservative party.

      I suspect that no single point of your othering about What Tories Are would survive a single decent conversation and pint/lunch/whatever with me. I have faced other kinds of prejudice in my life, too, and the same thing applies to all of them.

      It is easy to say THEY HAVE HORNS! THEY STEAL THINGS! THEY ARE TO BLAME! about other human beings you do not know, or to loudly pretend other people arrive at decisions, not by reason and basically good motivations but through being one step down from an orc of mordor, and I am sure you will find people who will agree with you, but is in truth a ridiculous and ignorant stance to take, as you will no doubt realise.

      • You wouldn’t vote for what calls themselves the ‘Conservative Party’ today? Nah, just the ones of yesteryear who tried to persuade people to vote for them by telling them that they’d get rid of their black neighbours and then blow up an Argentinian ship full of young lads for doing nothing.
        Evil, pure evil.

  8. I’m a Christian too and this is why I don’t vote Conservative: Health Scare Alert: Be afraid, be very afraid. Yes, it’s a parody, but I think it’s the direction this Tory-led government is taking us…

  9. Reblogged this on answer to everyone and commented:
    “What are all these Tories doing in our church?” – my response to a Theos report showing Anglicans tend to vote Conservative, on the God and Politics blog.

  10. What a load of rot! It is reading stuff like this that makes me understand why so many do not bother with church nowadays!

  11. What a load of rubbish. I’m a Catholic and have been so since I was born. Born in Liverpool and (as is probably obvious) a Left-winger. I tell you now, if you think the things what Tories like Margaret Thatcher done were in any moral way “Christian” then you need to go and see a doctor. As my Grandad always tells me (A Eucharistic Minister since his 20’s): “The Tories aren’t bad people. They’re just evil.” and that’s exactly what they are. Greedy, Self-Centred scumbags if I’m honest. I’m having to run myself into the ground going to college in the day everyday, going to do A-Levels (which my Dad had to loan £750 for) every night and trying my utmost to avoid the dole (I’m not too into getting faced with an ultimatum of ‘Go and work for nothing [slavery] or face the consequences). I can’t afford to learn to drive, I can’t afford clothes, I can just about afford to get the bus, I can’t afford to do anything and then some fat, old, horrible Tory tells me it’s because I’m lazy? Whilst their kids get everything. Pah! Christianity and the Conservative Party do not go together. Mr. Cameron and his mates have a cheek to ever speak about Christianity just remember it was his party that once said: “If you desire a COLOURED for a neighbour, vote LABOUR. If you are already burdened with one vote TORY” and “Want a nigger as a neighbour? Vote Labour” and the parasites that wrote that are in top places today! I’m sorry but you CANNOT be a Tory and a Christian or in other words: If you’re a Tory? You’re not a REAL Christian.

    P.S. To the person who wrote this article and to all other “Christian” Tories who may see this- provided you can read- may God bless you and have mercy on your soul.

  12. Christ would never accept the behavior of the Tories, if you are a Tory, then you are not a Christian, read the Bible about the teachings of Christ and see the hypocrisy!


  1. God loves a Tory | The Alethiophile
  2. Health Scare Alert: Be afraid, be very afraid | Phil's Boring Blog
  3. ” Seeking to reduce and better target overseas aid “ | UKIP Hillingdon
  4. Anglicans have some very problematic politics | Graham's Grumbles
  5. Who to vote for? – Green Christian
%d bloggers like this: