Nadhim Zahawi: The Importance of Ministering Justice to Ministers.

This morning, Nadhim Zahawi - the Member of Parliament who was Chairman of the Parliamentary Conservative Party who is also constituency MP for Stratford-on-Avon (namely the constituency that I live and work in),  was fired by the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak.

 

Nadhim Zahawi, MP for Stratford-upon Avon

It was found that he had breached several aspects of the Ministerial Code including misleading HMRC over his tac affairs. This was discovered during his short tenure as Chancellor of Exchequer - the very role that has oversight over matters of taxation policy within the UK. Previously it had been claimed that Mr Zahawi's "mistake" was "careless" and not "deliberate". The subsequent probe found his activities and inactivies made this an impossible line to maintain though, and action had to be taken.

It is not the first time that Mr Zahawi has gotten into hot water over his poor choices.in offic. In 2018 at the height of the #metoo movement, he was serving as Children & Families Minister and was caught attending a gala at the scandal-hit President's Club. It was only when he was tipped off that the optics of his attendance were not great, that he made his excuses and left the gala.

Then there was his involvement in the downfall of Boris Johnson. Now I'm not a hypocrite... I'm very grateful that Johnson is political toast, but it should be noted that Mr Zahawi used the opportunity to wrangle up through the ranks and secuiring the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer from the then Prime Minister before promptly turnimg on him and stabbing him squarely in the front. Now you might say that this doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things - he was in that post for under two months. However, the fact remains that by virtue of serving in role AT ALL, he is granted a pension for being in that role.

We also have his role in the expenses scandal some time back, where he notoriously charged the taxpayer his expenses for keeping his stables warm.

When he has been caught out in these findings, his modus operandi seems to be that it's all an embarrassing but honest mistake which he will pay for and do better next time.

It was the author Ian Fleming who once noted in his James Bond book "Goldfinger":

“Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: 'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action'.”

I put it to you that Mr Zahawi's history of actions goes far beyond happenchance, and coincidence... ad should be classed as enemy action. You might consider that he has received his punishment from the Government - having been consigned to the backbenches at least for now. But as his constituent, I'm not happy to leave the matter there. So what should be done?

Well ironically, Mr Zahawi provides the suggestion himself in a blog on his own website, written in April 2010, entitled - People Power. kicking out bad MPs:

However our People Power manifesto changes that introducing a right to recall if a Member of Parliament is found guilty of wrongdoing. So unlike in the current system whereby MPs, who have broken the rules and have been officially sanctioned by parliament and the Standards and Privileges committee, can continue to represent a constituency until the next election, we will give constituents the right to recall their Member of Parliament. Under a conservative government if an MP is found guilty of any wrong-doing then a right to recall will be offered to his or her constituents. This process will begin with the filing of a notice-of-intent-to recall petition to be signed by at least 100 constituents and submitted to the local returning officers. A recall petition will then be circulated within the constituency. If this petition has been signed by more than 10% of the electorate (in the case of Stratford by 6,936 people) within 90 days then a by-election will be triggered. This is a radical change, and a change that is truly needed, it removes the concept of the “safe seat” and makes MPs directly answerable to their constituents over the whole, parliament not just every five years. Most importantly it will force MPs to remember who they are are there to represent first, their constituents.

I remember that Mr Zahawi was a vehement supporter of Brexit and yes indeed, my constituency sadly voted for it. However, during the debate the major employers in his seat (most notably the National Farmers Union), spoke out against it. Whatever your views on Brexit, I'm forced to consider that his position in the debate was just another case of the pattern - the enemy action. One does not simply ignore the most important voices  you have a mandate in your tenure to represent. For me, this all points to a potential personal agenda and that for me seals the deal. Mr Zahawi should go on trial locally for the future of his political seat.

Indeed I believe that the Recall of MPs act as limited as its scope unfortunately is, does contain the remit in clause 3 to do this:

If an MP is convicted of providing false or misleading expenses claims, regardless of whether they are imprisoned.

It seems to me that this has been satisfied, so my appeal to my fellow constituentts is to get om this... because the betrayal (though internal) is to my mind as bad as that other Stratfordian MP of old's (John Profumo), external one.

Or perhaps to put it in the words of Stratford's favourite historical son William Shakespeare:

For this revolt of thine, methinks, is like another fall of man.

 

 

Of Fathers and Unexpected Choices.

The last time I preached at church I felt quite awkward, I felt there was something in the air that resisted the topic I was talking on... so much so that it made me pretty tense and I rushed my talk. Thankfully this morning was an altogether different experience, which is just as well given that I stuck with a similar message as one of my central themes.

The passage I chose to preach on was 1 Samuel 15:34-16:13. It relays the story of how Samuel (still grieving over God's rejection of Saul),  travelled to Bethlehem to anoint the king's eventual successor - David.

Seeing as the Olympic Torch is due to pass through my town in matter of weeks, I decided my talk would carry an Olympic flavour to it. The first question I posed was this:

What connects these people?

The answer is that they have all been chosen to be Olympic torch bearers. The first two  (Diana Gould of London and Dominic McGowan of Birmingham), are the oldest and youngest people to have been chosen respectively; the latter four (Holly Parker of Redditch, Sandra Lopez of Miami, Youssou N'Dour of Dakar and Sophie Witherford of Malvern), are the torch bearers who have been chosen to run through my own town of Alcester on Sunday, July 1st. Of these, the most well known is going to be Youssou N'Dour (although many in my congregation had not heard of him), as he is is probably the most famous living musician to come out of Africa and for his work as a Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations.

However the important thing about their selection is that it has nothing to do with athleticism. The people who have been chosen to participate in the Torch Relay are those who have been perceived as community heroes of some description. Between them, the people above (and the myriad of others), have clocked up a huge amount community work & voluntary service between them. The criteria for selection was not based on their levels of fitness... indeed there have been some torch bearers who have been running entirely on prosthetic limbs.

Well that in essence is what the passage today was all about. When Samuel was called to visit the household of Jesse in Bethlehem, he was presented with an impressive procession of young men. To my imagination, it must have resembled the conveyor belt from The Generation Game. Samuel saw their strength and stature and was clearly impressed by all of them.. and yet he was surprised to discover that God did not share his enthusiasm.

In the same way that the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG), used completely different criteria to what we might expect, God did exactly the same with regard to his choice of king. Who is it that God chooses? He chooses the runt of the family... the ginger (yes David's physical description says he had red hair), in short... exactly the kind of person who might get picked last by his peers in a school football line up.

The crux of what was happening here is found in verse 7:

"But the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart."

There's an important parallel and lesson here for us both nationally and locally; The Church of England and the Alcester Minster will shortly be due to choose a successor to their current leaders. As touched upon in my previous post, there is a heated debate going on with regard to who the next Archbishop of Canterbury should be. You see people advocating candidates on the basis that they are "liberal", or "traditional" or "evangelical". All the time it seems to me that they are looking for their candidate and not God's. As a character on Babylon 5 once put it:

"Sometimes we stand in front of the light and assume that we are the centre of the universe. God looks astonishingly like we do!"

G'Kar - Meditations on the Abyss

Aren't we all a little guilty of that from time to time? If we are honest (as we are called to be), aren't we?

The choice between a liberal candidate or a conservative candidate is a FALSE choice. In the wake of the election of Pope Benedict XVI, there was a debate on Newsnight as to whether or not the Papal choice should have been liberal or conservative. A woman was arguing strongly that the cardinals had let the world down by electing an ultra-conservative pope. Yet a Roman Catholic priest came back with a very valid comment. He argued that the duty of a pope isn't to be liberal or conservative, that shouldn't even come into the equation when choosing a new pope. A pope should be chosen because he is faithful to God.

That is God's criteria... while we stumble around looking for a candidate who scratches our particular theological itches, we should actually be hoping, praying and seeking out a man of God who is faithful to the will of God... our views and the views of the public aren't nearly as important as that. i can't state it enough.

However God's choice isn't just about people in positions of religious or secular authority. It is about us too. As unseemly as we may think we are, we too have a calling. We too (those of us who choose to accept it), have been chosen.

We stumble... we stagger and sometimes we fall, but it is at those times that God's grace shines so brightly in our lives and maybe that is a major reason why he calls us:

"Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things – and the things that are not – to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him."

1 Corinthians 1:26-29

How can God nullify the world's standards of success by using our weakness? Well perhaps on Father's Day, I can offer you a poignant illustration. In the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, British athlete Derek Redmond was preparing to run the race of his life; he was tipped for a medal in the 400 metres. The race began normally enough, but 150 metres or so into the race, Derek felt a twang in the back of his leg and a searing pain. He collapsed to the ground in agony as the rest of the racers sprinted towards the line. Broken and defeated, Derek had every reason to give up.

He didn't.

Redmond picked himself up off the ground and hobbled along the track like a lame chicken towards the finish line. As he did so, the officials and stewards ran up to him and tried to stop him... but he insisted he wanted to carry on. Suddenly from out of the stands, a short, stock built older man ran out and head for Redmond. Stewards tried to stop him too... but he shrugged them off. As he reached Redmond he told him that he didn't have to finish the race... he'd done enough. Redmond insisted that he needed to cross the line. The man put a hand on Redmond's shoulder and reassured him "then we are going to finish it together".

That man was Derek Redmond's father - Jim Redmond.

The two of them walked to the finish line and received a standing ovation from 65,000+ onlookers in the stadium. I can't watch the footage of that race without welling up, it speaks more to me of the Olympic spirit than even the largest medal haul of any athlete or nation. Furthermore I can't tell you who won that race... I can't even tell with certainty who went on to win the gold medal in the final... but I can tell you that I'll remember what Derek Redmond did until the day that I die.

 

That is what God can do in our lives with his grace. When we struggle or even fail, we have the cosmic assurance that 2,000 years ago a God came down to Earth to atone for our mistakes and make us whole again... and that every day he is with us in the power of the Holy Spirit... not content to watch from the stands, the Father draws near to us and brings us home, to his glory.

How deep the Father's love for us... how vast beyond all measure.

The Voice

I'm not a big fan of reality TV and don't tend to watch any of them unless I am with other people who are watching it, or find myself extremely pushed for something to do. That said in recent weeks I've stumbled on the odd performance on the BBC 1 show, The Voice.

If you aren't already aware, the show's initial twist/hook is that in the opening rounds, the judging panel didn't get to see the hopeful contestants. The idea being that they could not make preconceptions on a person based on their appearance or any back story... but solely on vocal talent. This sets it apart from its main rival on ITV (Britain's Got Talent), where judges form their opinion on who to take forward with other criteria.

It got me thinking about preconceptions in the church, especially as in recent months the ongoing debate between liberals and conservatives on such matters as women bishops, gay marriage and the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury has become more and more amplified. It is a matter that may also strike particularly close to home because early next year, the minster I worship in will be looking to appoint a new vicar/head of ministry.

To be honest I'm fed up with it all... I'm exasperated!

Those who are most vocal on either side of the divide seem so sure of its own position in matters of theology and scripture and community. Each tries to either batter the other side into submission using rhetorical blunt force trauma, or wrong foot them by concocting elaborate schemes. 

While outspoken liberals and conservatives bicker, the rest of the Church suffers

When did we become so sure of what God wanted... that we decided we'd make His decisions for Him? I think there is a severe, ever present danger in each one of us - the danger that we mistake the reflection of our own ego and its preconceived ideas, as being God's. Or perhaps it is a lack of spiritual confidence/maturity. We are so scared that if we don't speak for God, there will be awkward silence and nothing will happen... and we will look foolish. I don't believe any one of us is truly immune to these threats, because each and everyone of us carries within us the potential to be selfish and insecure; each one of us plays host to a sinful nature that even though it has been crucified (for those of us who accept Christ's sacrifice), constantly craves to put "self" on the throne of our hearts either as a result of hubris or insecurity.

I think our fear of losing control directly feeds into this danger and I think that we rely so much on our own convictions that we neglect or lose sight of the most important factor in the guidance and direction of the Church...

... The Voice.

No, I'm not talking about Sir Tom Jones, I'm talking about allowing God the room to intercede and intervene directly in our debates. I think we get so wrapped up in our own earthquakes, winds and fires, that we become deaf to what God is saying. I want to share two passages that I believe demonstrate his willingness to intercede directly in changing the direction of his Church. The first is from the Old Testament. It is quite lengthy so I won't be pasting it, instead you can read the passage by following this link.

In summary, Elijah challenged his opponents to demonstrate to the watching people through an act of power, that their god was worthy of following. Despite all their chants and efforts (even cutting themselves), no such demonstration was forthcoming. After rolling around on the floor and laughing at them, Elijah then made it impossible for his own altar to catch fire... and then called upon the The Lord.

What followed was the biggest barbecue in history.

The god who answers by fire - he is God.

But that's Old Testament... surely I'm not suggesting God is in the business of burning up people at Church who get it wrong? Am I?

No I'm not. But I do still believe God answers by fire.

Which brings me to the second passage:

Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. The church sent them on their way, and as they travelled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”  The apostles and elders met to consider this question.  After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.  God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.  He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.  Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?  No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

  “‘After this I will return
   and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
   and I will restore it,
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
   even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’—
things known from long ago.

“It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.  Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

Acts 15:1-21

Again it is a slightly lengthy passage but I think it makes the point eloquently. It demonstrates that God does still answer by fire - the fire of the Holy Spirit. When the Church hit a wall, a deep theological divide that threatened to split it or create a two tier system, they did not just argue amongst themselves and rely on their own understanding of God's Word... they left room for the Holy Spirit. Peter recounted his experience in the household of Cornelius, where the baptism of the Holy Spirit first came to Gentiles. Following this, Paul and Barnabas shared their similar experiences of the Gentile Christians they had encountered en route to Jerusalem... and how the Holy Spirit had been present then also.

There is a place for personal conviction... but it must take its place alongside the authority of scripture and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. We need to soak our churches in prayer... clothe ourselves in the Spirit and avail ourselves of all the fruit, blessings, gifts and tools God has to offer. As much as our humanity gets us into these situations... it is God's gracefully given divinity that will get us out of them. Conservatives who object to liberal attitudes need to remind themselves that you can't expect people to be refined by the Holy Spirit if you make it difficult for them to encounter him... by shutting the door to God's storehouses firmly in their face unless they change before they are convicted. Liberals need to be prepared to be honest and accept and respond to the Spirit's conviction if they find in their relationship with God that he is calling them to abandon something they otherwise understand or accept to be okay. We all have to do that sometimes... none of us "like" it, but spiritual maturity accepts God's discipline.

So all I'm saying in essence is that before we make any decisions about what God wants; let's open the floodgates and allow him free reign to make us into his people.

Liberal? Conservative? Let us not get hung up on these worldly positions, let us instead give God the floor. For when God answers... there is no longer any debate.

• How do you think the Church of England should resolve its issues?
• Have you seen the Spirit been poured out supernaturally in liberal/conservative churches?
• Share what happened if you are willing.

The Wolf is at the Door

I day I have long feared coming is finally upon us. Earlier today I logged on to the BBC Election coverage page for my constituency and saw... this:

That's right, for the first time as far as I can remember... the "British" National Party are fielding a candidate for Stratford-on-Avon's parliamentary seat in just a little over four weeks.

Truthfully, although I am genuinely grieved in my spirit, this really didn't surprise me and as mentioned previously, I've been bracing myself for it... mainly for three reasons.

Firstly I've known for some time that there is a small clique of BNP supporters in Stratford-upon-Avon. During the last Local/District/European elections, I saw one of the terraced houses along Birmingham Road bearing a supporters window sticker. I've also seen the telltale red buboes on the Google Map of leaked BNP supporter locations... and while I am thankful that my own hometown has no official support... I am angered that Stratford and other local towns do have BNP supporters.... even if it's a minimal number, one supporter is one too many!

Secondly, thanks to their atrocious successes in Europe last year, the BNP now has a more substantial war chest and has the resources to expand their influence by fielding more candidates across the country.

Thirdly, the Conservatives decision to elect an Iraqi born Kurd as their candidate has ruffled the feathers of some of the more traditional core vote... and what has almost exclusively been a Tory safe seat... now looks just a little wobbly (especially when you consider that there are feelings of antipathy towards the town's contingent of Conservative district councillors... and the Tory control of the council is  largely supported by their councillors in outlying towns. This antipathy could easily impact on the General Election seat result).

I wouldn't be so concerned, but many voters in the area being quite, quite racist.

Given his background, many have asked if Nadhim Zahawi is Muslim. I am told by my sources that he is at least nominally speaking, a Christian and that his family escaped the Saddam Hussein regime by the skin of their noses. Although that's nice and favourable to someone of a Christian background,  that someone of the faith should be representing is in Parliament... why that should matter in a secular election is beyond me. It certainly didn't matter when John Maples took the seat, or Alan Howarth... but then they weren't foreign nationals and they "ticked all the right boxes" in terms of appearance and cultural perception.

Some of the "smarter" critics cite the fact that Mr Zahawi would be more palatable if he had moved into the area previously and had some working knowledge of the people of Stratford. Isn't it funny that this same argument didn't matter one jot when John Maples was drafted from Lewisham!

I'm not a Conservative supporter, I leave my direct political allegiances deliberately ambiguous (largely because there is no "nearest fit"... although I'm sure my beliefs and opinions on various political issues are quite clear). However once your MP is elected you make the best of what you've got. On two occasions I've written to John Maples and on both occasions I have felt that my opinion has been ignored and his interpretation of what I had expressed was all that mattered. In short, he was the patrician and I was the plebeian. He came across as a typical Tory. Now Zahawi in his PR comes across as someone who genuinely wants to know the opinions of those around him... so I already prefer him to the predecessor.

Although I don't particularly want to be troubled on the doorstep... I am keen to know what makes all the [reasonable] candidates buzz and which ones best represent my views.

Anyway back to my main point. Zahawi is the perfect target for the BNP. If they can pull of the darkest of unholy miracles and claim the seat... it would become like the sounding of a feudal horn. In their warped and deluded tiny little minds, it would be an endorsement of their opinions... and a declarataion that Middle England could be swayed to their vile opinions. The Daily Telegraph has a flawed application on Facebook that gives you the nearest political party match based on opinion. However it only matches on one scale... and so even if you [rightly] find their social policies repulsive, you can score quite highly with the BNP (because their economics are middle of the road).

God forbid anyone uses that app to sway their decision making on polling day. All things being equal, my current prediction is that Stratford will be a Conservative hold... albeit with a significantly reduced majority.

As for the BNP.... now that we know the wolf has come to our door, we can prepare for battle. We can wait for the BNP to begin their campaign in earnest and shoot them dow at every opportunity.  have special vitriol for the BNP... they constantly try to misappropriate Christian favour by misquoting scripture and suggesting that the unpopularity they suffer is on some level akin to the suffering of Christ and the early Church.

The BNP are not martyrs... they are morons and they certainly do not speak for Christians or Christ!

There is a wolf at the door... and I intend to slay it and take it's pelt!

Definition

I return as promised, to share with you the issue that has bothered me over the past couple of days.

In the past I have spoken of my concern that heresies such as gnosticism could gain in popularity and take root once more, during our lifetime.

It would appear that my concerns have proven justified.

Recently I have found myself taking a strong apologetic stance towards mainstream Christianity when dealing with recent Internet posts. It may seem on the surface that gnosticism is a hokey old heresy that went out with the dinosaurs... but I believe it holds the perfect deceit to entrap the people of this generation.

Gnosticism essentially believes that salvation is earned through the learning of secret knowledge. It holds that anything that is spiritual is good... and that anything that is physical is evil... a trap laid down to ensnare our souls. It rejects the notion of a physical resurrection and believe s that as our bodies are evil and only our souls are important... it does not matter what we do with our bodies. In fact it encourages sin, in order that a person may better understand the nature of sin.

All of which mainstream Christianity takes issue with.

Why do I think such an outdated heresy would be so popular in the modern world?

I believe that many people want an excuse for their actions, they want to do whatever they want, without having to face any comeuppance. Christianity teaches us that there is a comeuppance... but that Christ paid it once and for all and that however much we sin, unending grace is there for us... but having received such grace... we are to do our best to live in a way that is pleasing to God.

Gnosticism carries no such challenge. It offers enlightenment and spirituality... without the need to try and be obedient to God.

It is a completely self indulgent philosophy and puts self at the centre of spiritual development. It forgets that we are broken and incapable of pleasing God without the direct intervention of God.

Why do I think there's a threat that it may return?

In the past few decades, mankind has become endlessly fascinated with the intrigue and shadow play that surrounds conspiracy theory - the Moon landings, the Kennedy assassination, UFOs, secret world organisations and black operations... and this has spread naturally, to the history of the Church. The Church has not helped itself at all with it's previous worldly non biblical handling of heresy. Therefore with certain books and films egging them on... people have started to draw the conclusion that perhaps the heretics were telling the truth and the Church conspired to cover it up.

All of which is nonsense. A large part of the New Testament is aimed at countering the claims of these heresies... and two of the most prominent critics - Peter and John, knew Jesus first hand and were in his inner circle.

Why do I think it could be happening now?

My recent debates with people along the very lines of gnosticism have led me to conclude that there are at least some people propagating it... probably in schools and maybe even some churches!

Which brings me to my main point... definition.

A long time ago I wrote on this blog about the need to define yourself personally... lest other people do it for you.

It is absolutely plain to me that the same is true for what we believe. If we do not speak up for what we believe, then other people will fill the gaps and do it for us... people who do not have a proper understanding of what we believe, why we believe it or even who or what we really are... people who are indifferent or even opposed to the true Gospel message.

Even if you don't believe me on the issue of gnosticism, take a good long look at how the media presents Christianity it skews us into two groups - traditionalists and liberals. Is that what you are? Are you a liberal? Are you a traditionalist? Or are you something else?

Me? I'm a Christian... and I'm not going to settle for being something that somebody else tells me I am.

What I am is what God called me to be... and so are you if you'll only let him have you.

Blessings

N

Poll Axe

So we won't be queuing out in the November rain to cast our votes after all. Gordon Brown has dismissed the idea of an Autumn election and probably also the prospect of a 2008 one too.

It's the right decision.

Think about it for a second. We've had a "New Labour" government for over 10 years... and a change of Prime Minister in only the last few months. If you are in favour of Gordon Brown's leadership... naturally you'll want to extend his reign for as long as possible. If you are against it, I don't think you should be so keen to risk giving him a four year mandate to make things worse.

There are some people who would vote against New Labour purely because they think 10 years under one party's rule is enough. However, change for the sake of change is one of the most erroneous choices a person can make. I have often spoken out against the policies of Tony Blair, so you might be mistaken for believing I'd like to see New Labour out as as soon as possible. In fact, my opinion is that we should give Gordon Brown an opportunity to see if he can keep and live up to his word - he has limited time... not a full term. He will have to hit the ground running to prove his salt... and by the time he is obliged to call an election, we - the voting public will be in a much better position to make an informed decision (for those of us who still believe in doing such things... rather than moronically voting on autopilot for any one party).

However,although we have arrived at what I believe is the right outcome... we have done so in a manner which I believe has damaged Gordon Brown's credibility.

I saw David Cameron's strong arm tactic of calling for an election, as primarily a bluff. It is a gamble that has paid off. Brown has seen a blip in the opinion polls and has been the first to blink. It has weakened his image as a strong leader... but in the long term view, he has given himself more time to prove himself - be that as a success or as a failure.

One of my strongest reasons for not wanting an election now, is that on the face of things we still have two centre right economical and authoritarian parties contending for Government. I want to see if Brown is going to temper Blair's reforms and bring in more laws favouring welfare and less that favour Orwellianism. There is precious little hope of that as it is... but an election would severely damage what hope does exist.

Lets wait and see what 2008 brings.

You can read more analysis and reaction on Nick Robinson's blog over at the BBC.

Political Ideals

I am not a politician and I have no real desire to be one... but I've been thinking a lot about politics lately because somebody close to me is considering standing for a political party at the next District Council Election.

They are probably going to stand for a Party I have no love of and certainly do not trust... and so comes the question - do I vote for the person despite the resentment I feel for the institution they represent. It's a hard choice and I don't yet know which way I will jump (I trust the person implicitly, but I in no way wish to be seen as endorsing a political party. Yes you can say nobody will know, however I will know... and that is enough.)

It brings me back to the old dilemma that I am trapped within. Being a slightly liberal leftist puts me in a position where I can't in good conscience vote for anyone in the area I live. The Conservatives, New "Labour" and the Liberal Democrats are all economically right wing. Incidentally, if you are American and reading this then I'm apparently classed as borderline strong democrat/socialist.

If I could spearhead a bloodless coup, a glorious revolution where the slate was wiped clean and we started all over again... and I had the power to create any political system I pleased, I would go for something like the following:

A series of elections take place to create a forum of independent representatives... no parties, no chief whips. The politicians would only be allowed to be governed by private conscience and the interests of their own constituency... they would not be answerable to a party line.

The forum would then meet and members would nominate, second and vote a maximum of say five, potential Prime Ministerial candidates. The five names would be put to the public (each with their own personal manifesto) and voted on in a second round.

The New Prime Minister would take office and interview potential cabinet ministers, based on their skills and experience. The cabinet team would build a framework of policies but would in know way have the authority to force an entire body to vote in accordance with their views (as is currently the case in the Party system). Any member could propose policy. Each issue would stand or fall on it's merit in the eyes of the entire assembly. The system I propose at heart would reflect a political system resembling Camelot, each member being equal. In fact I'd even go as far as to suggest meeting away from Westminster in a circular building that resembled the Round Table. It would avoid the notion that MP's have to oppose one another just because they sit facing each other in opposition.

It is a system that would probably never see the light of day. It is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. It's probably as close to a personal ideal as I'm going to get. I wonder how the experts would interpret my political persuasion on the basis of those ideas. If you have any comments or suggestions I'd love to hear them.

Dare I put this to a Downing Street petition? I'm seriously open to persuasion on that. What do you think?