The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York think that it is their place to instruct voters:
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have urged voters not to let anger over the expenses scandal drive them to vote for the BNP in next month’s elections.
Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu said it would be “tragic” if people abstained or voted BNP at the local and European elections on 4 June.
Sigh… I have no problem with either of them condemning the BNP’s polices, however, I do object when they cross the line and tell people what they should be voting (or not). If people want to express their anger, then they should do just that and stuff what the archbishops think or say.
Their statement said disillusionment was understandable but voters should not allow their anger to be exploited.
Exploited? If people are angry and vote accordingly, that is free choice, which is precisely what it should be.
The BNP said the bishops did not represent the views of the public.
Then that lack of representation will be reflected in the election outcome, won’t it? Or do the archbishops share the political classes’ contempt for the electorate; too stupid to be allowed to vote freely?
Dr Williams and Dr Sentamu said the forthcoming elections were taking place “at a time of extraordinary turbulence in our democratic system”.
“The temptation to stay away or register a protest vote in order to send a negative signal to the parties represented at Westminster will be strong.”
“In our view, however, it would be tragic if the understandable sense of anger and disillusionment with some MPs over recent revelations led voters to shun the ballot box.”
On the contrary – a massive vote of no confidence will be a good thing, not a bad one. A massive vote for small parties or independents, likewise – it will be a visible rejection of the political class.
The archbishops appealed to voters to exercise “great vigilance” in making their decision on who to vote for.
Okay, there are some constituencies where a bratwurst with the appropriate colour rosette will get elected, so this comment has some merit; however, the rest of us do consider carefully where we will place our X, so on balance, the comment is deeply patronising. We are not children, we are adults perfectly capable of making up our own minds without men in frocks telling us what to do.
“It is crucial to elect those who wish to uphold the democratic values and who wish to work for the common good in a spirit of public service, which urgently needs to be reaffirmed in these difficult days,” they said
Well, that’s the main three pretty much ruled out, then…
A BNP spokesman had this to say (among other things):
The spokesman said the archbishops were trying to make themselves relevant in the modern world and that “the Church should stay out of politics”.
Good Lord! I agree with the BNP on something after all.
Is it even possible, to-day, for the sovereign, to convey displeasure — and, precipitate an election — by reversing previous assent on all bills laid in this session, in effect vetoing not the bills but the Parliament?
There’s no such thing as non-political religion. The essence of religion is political activity to shift society towards greater acceptance of, or submission to, religious teachings. It’s all about power.
Bodwyn, I suspect that it is technically possible, but would spark a constitutional crisis. frankly, we could do with one of those right now.
Anticant, indeed. They are scumbags. I will no more bow to the teachings of the church than I will bow to the BNP or any other nasty little fascist organisation.
If I wanted to be told how to vote by a man in a dress, I’d go and ask a transvestite for political advice.