Redeeming Politics?

What would it be like to be awoken suddenly by your parents in the middle of a starry night, to roll yourself out of your bed, run down the close, and tumble into the Anderson Shelter for fear of the incendiary bombs that are falling from the sky?

What would it be like to drive a truck back and forth to the front line, constantly under fire, bringing back the dead and wounded from the battlefield slopes of Monte Cassino? How would that affect your view of the world? What would be your reaction to losing your best friend to the arbitrary trajectory of a high explosive shell? How do you think you would spend your life in the aftermath of these events?

Even in our turbulent times, it’s hard to imagine what my Grandparent’s and their peers had to endure during the Second World War. It’s also difficult to grasp how, after all they experienced, they managed to pick themselves up and throw themselves into building the peace, and to renewing a society which until that point had been grossly unequal. My Grandpa in particular found an outlet in the Union movement and in local politics to play his part in creating a new kind of society. If Union and Political Party membership is anything to go by, so did millions of others.

But by the early stage of the 21st Century this civic engagement – and in particular, engagement with politics – has become much more of a niche pursuit as apathy, disenfranchisement and disaffection with our political process has grown. Just ask any taxi driver the views of their customers on politics for a depressing insight into the rise of cynicism.

It’s become an almost-hackneyed idea to encourage voting by an appeal to the sacrifices of previous generations. For me, the stark contrast of how things could have been without the victory over Fascism secured by people like Bill and Cath, remains a powerful reason to not just vote but to get involved in our political process. But the truth is, it’s not really enough for many people today. Many feel that politics is something which happens to them, not through them, and have entirely given up, on the trip to their local polling station on Election Day, let alone any more active involvement in politics.

Although this spectrum of non-voters includes those of all Faiths or none, it’s interesting to note that, according to recent research, 8 in 10 Christians are likely to vote in the election; double that of the general population. With the first General Election in the UK in five years nearly upon us, one which is likely to be the closest and most unpredictable in a generation, why is it that Christians generally feel more of a compulsion to use their democratic franchise than others? And can this inform those who have lost hope in our democracy?

First though, a confession for the Register of Interests: I’m not only a Christian, I’m a Labour Party member and on the left of the political spectrum. Everything I say here comes from that perspective.

So, what kind of politics are we aiming for? Let’s assume we’re talking about democracy only. It’s what we’ve got, and as Churchill famously said,

“democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”.

Simply put, democratic politics is the process through which society orders its priorities, and through which we express our understanding of Public Good.

This should be a concern for all people in society, and it’s certainly the concern of a Christian and Biblical worldview. Understanding and then creating Public Good is something that we can either participate in or not. But it’s never something which we can remove ourselves from. As Nick Spencer has said, “However much we might attempt to privatise life – whether through the adoption of human rights or the extension of market mechanisms into every aspect of life – shared public “space” is an irreducible phenomenon, and public space which is not simply anarchy must be governed by some idea of the public good”.

So why is Public Good so central to a Christian worldview, and how can this guide how we assess our politics, and even how we use our vote? I believe that the political party which most closely applies the following ideas in its policies and vision is both worthy of your vote and likely to form the best government:

Love of neighbour – we might as well take first things first. The injunction of Jesus to love your neighbour as yourself is the core idea at the heart of Christianity on how Christians should aim to live with other people. For the avoidance of doubt, the Parable of the Good Samaritan makes it abundantly clear that this means all people, including our enemies. If politics is the process through which society orders its priorities, loving your neighbour through politics means that we should shun individualism, selfishness and sectionalism in all areas of life, including in government.

The equal worth of all humans, before GodPart of the reason that we’ve to love our neighbours is because we’re all equally sinners (“All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”) and because we all equally and beautifully reflect the image of God. In this sense, all humanity is equally precious and equally broken: no-one is inherently more valuable than another. Our political system and the Government it produces should reflect this in the way it views individuals, taking as a first principle the idea that all citizens have the same intrinsic worth – regardless of their social standing or background. But Governments should do more than recognise our inherent equality; they should actively work to reduce inequality. The Biblical understanding of human nature recognises both our tendency towards fallibility and the immense capacity within humanity for progress. If applied by governments, this understanding would lead to policies that encourage the goodness within humanity to rise to the surface and empower those who have been marginalised by the brokenness of our world.

God’s deep concern for Justice Love and Justice are closely intertwined. As renowned Evangelist and theologian Tony Campolo has noted, “If we stop to think about it, justice is nothing more than love translated into social policies”. Although the death and resurrection of Christ on the cross is the best example, God’s heart for justice is a consistent theme throughout the Bible and indeed throughout human history. Reflecting our creator, at our best humans recognise and express justice in our relationships with one another as we act upon the Moral Law (as described by C.S. Lewis) which we find within ourselves. In this sense, justice is simply love manifested in our interpersonal and social relationships. This is equally true when we think of government. So, to reflect God’s desire for justice, the Politics that Christians support should be that characterised by justice: economic, social and criminal.

Righteous and Servant Leadership – Whereas the typical approach to politics in general and leadership in particular has centred around the control of power – most often of one group over others – the Biblical template for leadership is one of humility and service to others. This template for leadership and authority again stems from the idea that we are to put the needs of others before our own. In the New Testament we see the explicit teaching of Jesus about the revolutionary nature of the Kingdom of God where the first shall be last and the last first. Practiced in politics, this counter-cultural worldview would create a system of governance in which elected officials would truly be public servants. This therefore requires a leadership which doesn’t accrue power for its own sake, but for the sake of the society it serves. It also implies the need for a political process which is open, transparent and which provides checks and balances against our autocratic tendencies. Finally, righteousness (often called integrity) is a characteristic of a servant leader who doesn’t accrue power or wealth for themselves. If you are truly serving others, you are not seeing political leadership as an opportunity to benefit yourself or your clique.

No political party perfectly reflects these values in their ideology. And political leaders will always let us down. But it’s incumbent on each of us to make a judgement about the individuals and political party which we think most closely characterise them, and give them our support, if only to hold them to the standards that we expect.

I know I have. And so did Bill and Cath.

No Future for Trident


When I was about 13 years old I had one of the most impressionable experiences of my childhood when I explored Faslane Submarine Base on the Firth of Clyde. I and a small group of Summer Campers spent the afternoon being shown around the base, and being taken out for rides on the speedboats which patrolled the Gare Loch. The particular stand out of the trip was the tour of the Polaris Submarine, complete with visit to the nuclear missile launch chamber. CND Youth Camp it was not.

Born in the late 70s, I’m from a generation that, in our youth, knew no other normality than the Cold War and everything that came with it: When the Wind Blows, The A-Team, Rambo, Russian villains in the movies, the Hippy Peace Camp outside Faslane we passed every summer on our way to our own Camp and, of course, the looming shadow of Mutually Assured Destruction. I have vivid memories of talking with my sister and our friends as a very young boy – no more than 8 years old – about what would happen to us in the event of a nuclear war. What would our parents do (as if it would matter)? What would become of us (we always assumed that we would survive)? So, standing in that launch chamber several years later, I was particularly affected.

It’s strange to think of that time now, not so much about the details of the day at Faslane, as the inherent feeling – no matter how remote – of dread that we all carried around in the back of our subconscious. Today I think that we often forget the relief and the release that the lifting of that ever-present threat gave to the world as a whole, even if only for the decade before Nuclear War was replaced in the popular consciousness by Al-Qaeda and the ‘War on Terror’ (that supremely ironic epithet).

So as we move towards the 2016 Parliamentary vote on whether the successor of Polaris, Trident, will itself be replaced, I find myself returning to those memories as a spur to remember the reality of a world order premised on the destructive power of nuclear weapons. And I find myself asking, what is Britain doing with a Nuclear Deterrent in the modern world? In particular, why are we undertaking to spend around £100 billion over the next forty years to build and maintain a replacement to Trident?

To be clear: I don’t believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament. But I do believe that Britain could lead the world on multi-lateral nuclear disarmament, and that renewing Trident would be a mistake. Here’s why.

Historically, Britain developed the H-bomb in order to keep up with the threat posed by Soviet Russia from 1945 on. And you can see the logic. There was a huge degree of uncertainty about Stalin’s intentions towards the Capitalist West and the USSR already had the Bomb. The knowledge of just how horrific Nagasaki and Hiroshima had been was not yet the stuff of high school History text books. It was a different time altogether.

But we’re not fighting the Cold War in 2016.

So are the other nuclear powers threatening us? Realistically, no. We have a good relationship with China, India, and Pakistan. Iran is finally coming in from the cold, and has neither nuclear weapons nor a delivery system. North Korea, despite all its rhetoric, has no reliable delivery system: what military nuclear infrastructure it does have could be dealt with using conventional weapons.Is Israel really a nuclear threat to the UK? Quite.


The sticking point often presented by those who are pro-Trident renewal is Russia. Yet even Russia’s aggressive foreign policy, led by their bellicose President, is not enough to justify committing the UK to another 40 years of nuclear deterrence: Putin cannot be in power forever; diplomacy has been massively under-used (both with regard to Russia and to multi-lateral nuclear disarmament); the all-singing & dancing Trident submarine is not the only nuclear weapons delivery system option; it is strong and flexible conventional armed forces and alliances which we really rely upon for our territorial defence in Europe.

Perhaps caution alone provides a rational for the UK to remain nuclear? We don’t know what we don’t know, after all. There is the potential for new, rogue nuclear states to emerge in the future. Yet all countries are equally threatened by the presence of nuclear weapons. The only solution to this fear would be nuclear proliferation, and no-one wants that.

And by this insurance-policy rationale you can simply make up Defence strategy on the hoof. We don’t know for sure that the plot to the film Independence Day won’t one day come true. Perhaps our Defence Policy should include investing in giant lasers which point out into deep space as a deterrence against Martian invasion.

It may well be that rogue elements obtain a nuclear weapon. But will the knowledge that we have three nuclear missile-equipped submarines cruising silently somewhere under the waves of the earth’s oceans really stop Islamic State dreaming of planting a nuclear-equipped car bomb in a major British city? No, Britain’s enemies are the type of guys who are more likely to plant a nail bomb in a crowded pub than to preside over a modern Cuban Missile Crisis.

So, the first reason not to replace Trident is that it’s ineffective in terms of our defence. Warfare nowadays tends to be – in the jargon of the military – asymmetric. Mutually Assured Destruction only worked because the destruction was assured. Mutually.

The second reason not to replace Trident is that it’s immorally-expensive in a time when we are being told that austerity requires Fire Fighters to be on active duty until they are 60 years old and when Junior Doctors, Teachers and other public servants are facing swinging cuts to their pay and conditions. As George Osborne continues his drive to reduce spending and the Local Government budget is slashed (particularly Labour-run Councils), the £100 billion set to be spent on Trident looms large. To put this in perspective, the entire Health Care budget for 2015-16 is £134 billion: the ultimate cost of Trident is expected to be more than the total Defence, Police, Transport, Agriculture and Secondary School budgets for this year.

The third reason to scrap Trident inverts one of the most frequent arguments given in its support: our Place in the World. Britain’s membership of the exclusive Nuclear Club is often described as a fact which gives us credibility – like a Pall Mall Gentleman’s Club on steroids. We are a nation that means business, it’s implied; take us seriously. But there’s another way to look at our membership, and that is the example that we’re setting to the rest of the World.

When the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed by the British Government in 1968, we and the other signatories agreed to three key principles. First, we agreed that all signatories are entitled to civilian nuclear energy. Second, we agreed that those without the bomb should not try to get it, and third we agreed that countries with the bomb would negotiate the elimination of all nukes. Yet in reality we have not prioritised multi-lateral nuclear disarmament, and we’re about to update and extend our capacity to initiate a nuclear attack. What is the moral or practical basis for our protestations against North Korea’s nascent nuclear programme? Our bad example of de-nuclearizing nimbyism is exactly the same as the Iranian and North Korean case for the defence.

But the final reason to scrap the Trident replacement project is ultimately the strongest, putting all of the others in the nuclear winter of shades. This is the moral case against the use of nuclear weapons. Nukes are a quite appalling evil in our world, on a scale that is off the chart. In a typically-depressing way, they represent the apogee of humanity’s squandering of the good that is in us: our wealth, intelligence, technological creativity and collaborative spirit. When we have wealth, we tend to hoard it. When we have intelligence our default position is to use it to give ourselves a selfish advantage. When we develop technology we often use it to become lazy. Despite our capacity for collaboration, again and again we lionise the individual at the expense of the communal. And when we discover phenomenal energy, we use it to create the most destructive power on earth. A power that kills men, women, children and the environment indiscriminately, both in a split second, and for decades afterwards.

It’s a power that we and the world could well do without.