Politics - A Chasing After the Wind?

ScottishJohn

Contributor
Feb 3, 2005
6,404
463
45
Glasgow
✟16,690.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Hey - it's been a wee while since I've been at all active on these boards, I used to hang out here a lot.

I wanted to share a few thoughts that have been growing in me over the past several years, I'd love to hear input from others.

I am interested in the political process and how we engage with it.

My observation is that over the past century or more in my country and in the us there have been very few occasions where election results have deviated from the established pattern.

In the US for example since 1950 the only deviations from two terms and swap would be Jimmy Carter and George Bush Snr.

In the UK we the pattern is moe varied - three and four consecutive terms being possible - Labour have served 8 terms since 1950 and the Conservatives 9.

If we go back further - The Republicans have served 15 terms since 1900, and the Democrats 14, in the UK we have 16 Conservative Governments and 14 Labour or Liberal (centre left) Governments.

My question is - what if we just cancelled elections and gave the two main parties two consecutive terms and then swapped. What would change - how would it impact on society?

My feeling is that the political process is superficial and pointless. People do not engage with substantial parts of the process, they vote without reading manifestos, politicians are not held to account, promises are broken without consequence, and it costs a lot of money and wastes a lot of time. The whole process is in my opinion is tilted towards the status quo and the least amount of change possible. When was the last time you remember a politician actually solving a problem?

So maybe we could just let them get on with it? Leave them to run this crazy circus without getting sucked into all their nonsense. Ecclesiastes 2:14

The theory is that democracy makes the government accountable, but really how accountable are they now?
 

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,624
2,674
London, UK
✟822,987.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hey - it's been a wee while since I've been at all active on these boards, I used to hang out here a lot.

I wanted to share a few thoughts that have been growing in me over the past several years, I'd love to hear input from others.

I am interested in the political process and how we engage with it.

My observation is that over the past century or more in my country and in the us there have been very few occasions where election results have deviated from the established pattern.

In the US for example since 1950 the only deviations from two terms and swap would be Jimmy Carter and George Bush Snr.

In the UK we the pattern is moe varied - three and four consecutive terms being possible - Labour have served 8 terms since 1950 and the Conservatives 9.

If we go back further - The Republicans have served 15 terms since 1900, and the Democrats 14, in the UK we have 16 Conservative Governments and 14 Labour or Liberal (centre left) Governments.

My question is - what if we just cancelled elections and gave the two main parties two consecutive terms and then swapped. What would change - how would it impact on society?

My feeling is that the political process is superficial and pointless. People do not engage with substantial parts of the process, they vote without reading manifestos, politicians are not held to account, promises are broken without consequence, and it costs a lot of money and wastes a lot of time. The whole process is in my opinion is tilted towards the status quo and the least amount of change possible. When was the last time you remember a politician actually solving a problem?

So maybe we could just let them get on with it? Leave them to run this crazy circus without getting sucked into all their nonsense. Ecclesiastes 2:14

The theory is that democracy makes the government accountable, but really how accountable are they now?

I guess the Tories winning the election in 2010 and the ways in which the Lib Dems were coopted into the administration are factors here for you.

There have been differences in the administrations elected with different levels of economic competence for instance. Thatcher and Blair were different kinds of choices thst changed the way things worked. We would not have won the Falkands war or the Cold war without Thatcher and in all probability the miners would still hold the country to ransom. Similarly it took a Reagan to win the cold war. These choices do make a difference. The massive and unsustainable increase in spending on public services under Labour was a choice also.

But so also democracy protects us from overly radical changes of the kinds dictators would impose. Democracy changes at an organic pace responding to circumstances and the successes and failures of previous administrations.

The MPs expenses scandal would probably not have occurred if we were not a democracy. The Panama papers have schocking revelations about corrupt politicians in Russia and in China who will most likely not be held to account
 
Upvote 0

Sultan Of Swing

Junior Member
Jan 4, 2015
1,801
787
✟9,476.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Hey - it's been a wee while since I've been at all active on these boards, I used to hang out here a lot.

I wanted to share a few thoughts that have been growing in me over the past several years, I'd love to hear input from others.

I am interested in the political process and how we engage with it.

My observation is that over the past century or more in my country and in the us there have been very few occasions where election results have deviated from the established pattern.

In the US for example since 1950 the only deviations from two terms and swap would be Jimmy Carter and George Bush Snr.

In the UK we the pattern is moe varied - three and four consecutive terms being possible - Labour have served 8 terms since 1950 and the Conservatives 9.

If we go back further - The Republicans have served 15 terms since 1900, and the Democrats 14, in the UK we have 16 Conservative Governments and 14 Labour or Liberal (centre left) Governments.

My question is - what if we just cancelled elections and gave the two main parties two consecutive terms and then swapped. What would change - how would it impact on society?

My feeling is that the political process is superficial and pointless. People do not engage with substantial parts of the process, they vote without reading manifestos, politicians are not held to account, promises are broken without consequence, and it costs a lot of money and wastes a lot of time. The whole process is in my opinion is tilted towards the status quo and the least amount of change possible. When was the last time you remember a politician actually solving a problem?

So maybe we could just let them get on with it? Leave them to run this crazy circus without getting sucked into all their nonsense. Ecclesiastes 2:14

The theory is that democracy makes the government accountable, but really how accountable are they now?
Back in 2010 there wasn't much difference at all between the Tories and Labour and I'd see your point. Now there's a lot more, with Corbyn opposing Trident and foreign wars, etc. Imagine a government that didn't go jumping into wars all the time, now that would be different to what we have now.

Imagine during the 70s and 80s especially, during the Cold War when Labour wanted complete nuclear disarmament while the Tories didn't. There were two completely different parties, with different consequences for the party.
 
Upvote 0

ScottishJohn

Contributor
Feb 3, 2005
6,404
463
45
Glasgow
✟16,690.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I guess the Tories winning the election in 2010 and the ways in which the Lib Dems were coopted into the administration are factors here for you.

Yeah they are, although not the only factors. I guess I watched that unfold and saw the party I had campaigned for based on ideology sell that out for a shot at power, and I also saw another party which deserted its traditional stance on a lot of things to get into power. More and more I think politicians are unable to hold to any particular ideology because it makes them unelectable in this knee jerk fear driven age. We like bland policies and bland budgets. Honestly we all like to be able to ignore politics and get on with our lives apart from the odd bout of whinging. Watching the collapse of labour, the rise of the snp,
UKIP dancing around the edges, the more pointless the whole thing looks.

There have been differences in the administrations elected with different levels of economic competence for instance. Thatcher and Blair were different kinds of choices thst changed the way things worked. We would not have won the Falkands war or the Cold war without Thatcher and in all probability the miners would still hold the country to ransom. Similarly it took a Reagan to win the cold war. These choices do make a difference. The massive and unsustainable increase in spending on public services under Labour was a choice also.

I guess I'm not entirely convinced on the significance or otherwise of the electorate in ration to these events and also the significance of the figures in relation to the events either. Thatcher and Reagan would have had their go because their turn came up, but I'm not one of those who think that life is so simple that the wall came down just because reagan said it should. In fact ita more like it came down on his shift. We could have had twn terms of Reagan and he could have commanded he wall to come down ten times, but internal factors in the Soviet Union and the work of Gorbachov - not elected - would have been more significant every time. As for the Falklands, and the miners, win lose change or stay the same, it's just juggling budgets around. We have massive nationalised industries here which had people employed and fulfilling a purpose and provided social cohesion. We shut those down and now we have generational mental health problems and people who are institutionalised on benefits. We just moved the cost from one column to another but we are still picking up the tab, and we always will. Added in some mental health stuff that we don't know how to deal with. And so the world keeps turning. Thatcher stroked her own ego and went to bed knowing she had won against the unions, but Inertia wins out every time.

But so also democracy protects us from overly radical changes of the kinds dictators would impose. Democracy changes at an organic pace responding to circumstances and the successes and failures of previous administrations.

I just don't really see that as particularly helpful. We are protected from real solutions to problems, we are protected from anyone breaking away from the status quo. And we would be protected from those things if we just swapped colour every 8 years. The new lot could undo all the stuff the old lot did and the whole pointless charade could continue.

The MPs expenses scandal would probably not have occurred if we were not a democracy. The Panama papers have schocking revelations about corrupt politicians in Russia and in China who will most likely not be held to account

When do we hold them to account anyway??
 
Upvote 0

ScottishJohn

Contributor
Feb 3, 2005
6,404
463
45
Glasgow
✟16,690.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Back in 2010 there wasn't much difference at all between the Tories and Labour and I'd see your point. Now there's a lot more, with Corbyn opposing Trident and foreign wars, etc. Imagine a government that didn't go jumping into wars all the time, now that would be different to what we have now.

Imagine during the 70s and 80s especially, during the Cold War when Labour wanted complete nuclear disarmament while the Tories didn't. There were two completely different parties, with different consequences for the party.

The thing is corbyn probably is unelectable, in the same way Kinnock was. We prefer bland Teflon coated politicians who stand for nothing.

In terms of disarmament, British nuclear disarmament would have had a zero net effect on the world.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,624
2,674
London, UK
✟822,987.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yeah they are, although not the only factors. I guess I watched that unfold and saw the party I had campaigned for based on ideology sell that out for a shot at power, and I also saw another party which deserted its traditional stance on a lot of things to get into power. More and more I think politicians are unable to hold to any particular ideology because it makes them unelectable in this knee jerk fear driven age. We like bland policies and bland budgets. Honestly we all like to be able to ignore politics and get on with our lives apart from the odd bout of whinging. Watching the collapse of labour, the rise of the snp,
UKIP dancing around the edges, the more pointless the whole thing looks.

The way the Tory leadership sneaked in Gay marriage against the wishes of the grass roots membership has left a bitter taste. If Labour had not been so utterly incompetent last time round that might have destroyed the party. You have to choose the lesser of 2 evils for the good of the nation. I know rank and file lib Dems were outraged by Nick Cleggs change of heart on student grants but to be honest it was a completely pie in the sky and unaffordable policy. Holding ideals you cannot afford and which the reality of power disallows is far less serious than the gay marriage issue in my view which the lib dems were probably a major factor in supporting. It was an example of the complete theological shallowness and moral relativism of our political elite.

I guess I'm not entirely convinced on the significance or otherwise of the electorate in ration to these events and also the significance of the figures in relation to the events either. Thatcher and Reagan would have had their go because their turn came up, but I'm not one of those who think that life is so simple that the wall came down just because reagan said it should. In fact ita more like it came down on his shift. We could have had twn terms of Reagan and he could have commanded he wall to come down ten times, but internal factors in the Soviet Union and the work of Gorbachov - not elected - would have been more significant every time. As for the Falklands, and the miners, win lose change or stay the same, it's just juggling budgets around.

That the soviet system stopped growing in the 70s and yet tried to match the Reagan defence budget increases was a big factor as was the moral illegitimacy of a regime that persecuted Christians and oppressed and impoverished its people. Thatcher and Reagan saw clearly what Communism was, how evil it was and the need to defeat it. The new confidence encouraged by the Falklands the return of growth to the British economy and the defeat of fifth columnists like Arthur Scargill were all a part of that. Unilateral disarmament policy by Labour condemned them to opposition for 18 years and rightly so. They were not fit to govern.

We have massive nationalised industries here which had people employed and fulfilling a purpose and provided social cohesion. We shut those down and now we have generational mental health problems and people who are institutionalised on benefits. We just moved the cost from one column to another but we are still picking up the tab, and we always will. Added in some mental health stuff that we don't know how to deal with. And so the world keeps turning. Thatcher stroked her own ego and went to bed knowing she had won against the unions, but Inertia wins out every time.

That defeat of the unions and denationalisation was the background to 20 years of growth until Labour wrecked the economy again. It was unreal in the 70s - the public sector were always on strike for wages paid for by subsidies rather than profits! Modern mental health problems have more to do with moral relativism, the rise off abortion, perversion , divorce , the collapse of families and the Christian social consensus on values. People lack the sense of belonging because society is less worthwhile connecting, seems more broken and anyway it is more fun to do your own thing. They key decisions that wrecked Britains mental health included: the abolition of capital punishment ( and the moral boundaries it clearly delineated), with the 1967 abortion law, with Sunday trading, fast track divorce and gay marriage. The crisis of faith has been encouraged and compounded by foolish laws , lobby groups and by a failure by British Christians to rise to the challenges of atheism and Islam. It is not just about moving chairs around this is life and death stuff. The abortion law has probably led to more than 3 million deaths for instance.

I just don't really see that as particularly helpful. We are protected from real solutions to problems, we are protected from anyone breaking away from the status quo. And we would be protected from those things if we just swapped colour every 8 years. The new lot could undo all the stuff the old lot did and the whole pointless charade could continue.

Nigel Farrage, Donald Trump ,Marie le Penn are hardly pillars of the establishment. Things are shaking even if we disagree with the shakers. Indeed this is an exciting time.

The rise of the SNP in scotland , the referendum on Europe , corbyns utter naivety about how the world works , the migrations into Europe, the Greek debt crisis, a newly assertive Russia are all potentially seismic events. We most definitely have not reached the end of history yet!!
 
Upvote 0

ScottishJohn

Contributor
Feb 3, 2005
6,404
463
45
Glasgow
✟16,690.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
The way the Tory leadership sneaked in Gay marriage against the wishes of the grass roots membership has left a bitter taste. If Labour had not been so utterly incompetent last time round that might have destroyed the party. You have to choose the lesser of 2 evils for the good of the nation. I know rank and file lib Dems were outraged by Nick Cleggs change of heart on student grants but to be honest it was a completely pie in the sky and unaffordable policy. Holding ideals you cannot afford and which the reality of power disallows is far less serious than the gay marriage issue in my view which the lib dems were probably a major factor in supporting. It was an example of the complete theological shallowness and moral relativism of our political elite.

See the thing is, ALL parties are full of it. The Tories no less than any other party. The sounds they make and what they say about themselves may align more where where your heart and your morals pull you - but what they deliver doesn't begin to match up with any of that. They've given their Eurosceptic base a referendum on Europe - but even they are campaigning to stay in. It may be comfortable to think that the Tories might have been corrupted by the Lib Dems on Gay marriage - but somewhere in your heart you know that the Tories are just not what you would hope them to be.

I think thats one of the main points. that political parties are not a fitting receptacle for hopes or trust - that there isn't one party out there who would not jettison most of its core principles just to get into power. That what they say before an election and what they do after an election are two radically different things.

I think the way it has influenced my behaviour is that I have withdrawn all energy from the political process - I used to believe that energy invested there could bring about positive change. I now believe that if I want to see positive change I need to focus on the areas where I actually have influence and leverage. Like the people round about me, the communities I work in and live in. Choices and actions made on this level bear fruit. Westminster and Holyrood are broken, disfunctional and they corrupt any form of idealism into obedience to the status quo. I spoiled my paper at the last election because I could not in good conscience support any of the parties standing in my area. I will probably have to do the same at the next election.


That the soviet system stopped growing in the 70s and yet tried to match the Reagan defence budget increases was a big factor as was the moral illegitimacy of a regime that persecuted Christians and oppressed and impoverished its people. Thatcher and Reagan saw clearly what Communism was, how evil it was and the need to defeat it. The new confidence encouraged by the Falklands the return of growth to the British economy and the defeat of fifth columnists like Arthur Scargill were all a part of that. Unilateral disarmament policy by Labour condemned them to opposition for 18 years and rightly so. They were not fit to govern.

There is no 'moral legitimacy' to our governance either. Both run absolutely counter to kingdom values. I have been so utterly impressed reading through the pentateuch at the core of financial justice that is in the laws God established for the nation of israel. The sense of protection both for those who work hard, and for those who fall on hard times - the protection of future generations from their parents actions and behaviour. It is a thing of beauty. Soviet Russia was a product of the regime which it replaced - the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

The whole thing is a lot more nuanced than you allow for. It is the head and the tail of the same snake - not two different entities.

That defeat of the unions and denationalisation was the background to 20 years of growth until Labour wrecked the economy again. It was unreal in the 70s - the public sector were always on strike for wages paid for by subsidies rather than profits! Modern mental health problems have more to do with moral relativism, the rise off abortion, perversion , divorce , the collapse of families and the Christian social consensus on values. People lack the sense of belonging because society is less worthwhile connecting, seems more broken and anyway it is more fun to do your own thing. They key decisions that wrecked Britains mental health included: the abolition of capital punishment ( and the moral boundaries it clearly delineated), with the 1967 abortion law, with Sunday trading, fast track divorce and gay marriage. The crisis of faith has been encouraged and compounded by foolish laws , lobby groups and by a failure by British Christians to rise to the challenges of atheism and Islam. It is not just about moving chairs around this is life and death stuff. The abortion law has probably led to more than 3 million deaths for instance.

This is overly simplistic. The factors behind growth and recession are far more complex and far more dependent on global factors than you allow for. And the influence of each government on economics is similar to the influence a toddler has on the direction of a car each time he turns the play steering wheel in the back seat.

The single greatest impact on mental health as far as I can see is a loss of purpose. One of the most encouraging and most quoted verses in the bible is Jeremiah 29:11 - where God speaks to Israel of hope and a future. The loss of purpose and clear paths has been extremely difficult for our society. Outside of the south east it is a similar picture everywhere. Whatever you make of the unions and the industries they propped up, you need to look at the social impact behind their loss.

It may be as you say that the other factors you mention play a part too. I suspect it is the other way around tho. I suspect that many of the things you name come out of a lack of mental health and self respect. I have spent the last 15 years working in some of the most deprived areas of Glasgow, I work day in day out with people directly effected by these issues. I know this stuff like the back of my hand. These people are real to me and I love them, and regardless of the decisions they make God also loves them. And Thatchers legacy here is real and painful and above all it has proven incredibly costly. And it is your Tory friends who whinge most about carrying the cost of their recklessness - but who insist on adding to the burden.

Prior to the wholesale destruction of our manufacturing base there were clear and well trodden paths to purpose and employment. Those paths led through apprenticeship which was both learning a trade and also for most young men, learning how to be a man. You were apprenticed to an older man who alongside teaching you how to do your job - one on one - he would also teach you how to behave, how to socialise. How to treat those around you. We really threw the baby out with the bathwater. You would have liked a lot of this stuff. It was very traditional. Very old school.

The thing with Unions were that they represented the pride and esteem with which working men held themselves. you cannot crush that without there being severe consequences.

I don't argue the point that they were out of balance and needed brought into line. However Thatcher took the easy road of just destroying them. And we all pay the price for that.


Nigel Farrage, Donald Trump ,Marie le Penn are hardly pillars of the establishment. Things are shaking even if we disagree with the shakers. Indeed this is an exciting time.

The rise of the SNP in scotland , the referendum on Europe , corbyns utter naivety about how the world works , the migrations into Europe, the Greek debt crisis, a newly assertive Russia are all potentially seismic events. We most definitely have not reached the end of history yet!!

Yeah this is all true. And for all of history it has been true - regardless of whether we join in or not. History and the petty squabbles of the ruling classes continue. But there is nothing new under the sun.

When Jesus came - he came into a Godless morally corrupt empire and he came into a country ripe for rebellion. Yet throughout his ministry he made no effort to engage with any of that stuff. He went and hung out directly with the most deprived and needy, and he created a movement to continue that work throughout the rest of history. Politics and politicians are ten a penny. However we can build his kingdom without reference to any of them. We can do it outside of their power and dominion. We can render unto caesar without getting all distracted and caught up in worshipping caesar. I feel like politics becomes a form of idolatry. It sucks in our energy and attention but provides us with absolutely nothing in return.
 
Upvote 0

ScottishJohn

Contributor
Feb 3, 2005
6,404
463
45
Glasgow
✟16,690.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Back in 2010 there wasn't much difference at all between the Tories and Labour and I'd see your point. Now there's a lot more, with Corbyn opposing Trident and foreign wars, etc. Imagine a government that didn't go jumping into wars all the time, now that would be different to what we have now.

Imagine during the 70s and 80s especially, during the Cold War when Labour wanted complete nuclear disarmament while the Tories didn't. There were two completely different parties, with different consequences for the party.

Yeah I think those things are potentially true - what I'm not convinced is that those changes make huge impact.

Noone stays in power for ever - and I think we are held roughly over a central line of status quo - the more moderate the party the smaller the departure - each government leads us off the line to a small extent - so the tories take us a little to the right, labour a little to the left, but after a while their support wanes and the they are replaced by the opposition who cancel out their impact and begin their own measures. so its kind of like a sine wave. The more extreme the government the more extreme the opposition and corrective action.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,624
2,674
London, UK
✟822,987.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
See the thing is, ALL parties are full of it. The Tories no less than any other party. The sounds they make and what they say about themselves may align more where where your heart and your morals pull you - but what they deliver doesn't begin to match up with any of that. They've given their Eurosceptic base a referendum on Europe - but even they are campaigning to stay in. It may be comfortable to think that the Tories might have been corrupted by the Lib Dems on Gay marriage - but somewhere in your heart you know that the Tories are just not what you would hope them to be.

There is a difference between grass roots Tories and the ones that currently lead the party. The difference between these and those of other parties is even greater still.

I think thats one of the main points. that political parties are not a fitting receptacle for hopes or trust - that there isn't one party out there who would not jettison most of its core principles just to get into power. That what they say before an election and what they do after an election are two radically different things.

Oh come on. You do social work in Glasgow and imagine that politicians are any more together than the people you experience daily. Since when has politics been some kind of Aspiration for Utopia. It is more a grimy battle in the mud between imperfect people. Put your trust and hope in God and keep your powder dry!

I think the way it has influenced my behaviour is that I have withdrawn all energy from the political process - I used to believe that energy invested there could bring about positive change. I now believe that if I want to see positive change I need to focus on the areas where I actually have influence and leverage. Like the people round about me, the communities I work in and live in. Choices and actions made on this level bear fruit. Westminster and Holyrood are broken, disfunctional and they corrupt any form of idealism into obedience to the status quo. I spoiled my paper at the last election because I could not in good conscience support any of the parties standing in my area. I will probably have to do the same at the next election.

So you never hold your tongue when listening to clients spouting rubbish or decide not to ridicule their life defeating or immoral decisions? Do you not deal with the imperfect daily and seek a better way in a persons situation to the light through the reality of dirt and imperfection. Yet somehow politics remains the theatre of dreams where white knights slay dragons and rescue princesses from dark and menacing fortresses.

There is no 'moral legitimacy' to our governance either. Both run absolutely counter to kingdom values. I have been so utterly impressed reading through the pentateuch at the core of financial justice that is in the laws God established for the nation of israel. The sense of protection both for those who work hard, and for those who fall on hard times - the protection of future generations from their parents actions and behaviour. It is a thing of beauty.

While I agree with that i think also the Pentateuch was providing a blueprint for a theocratic state in which the boundaries of grace, freedom and mercy were set much more tightly than Christians can now set them. But the principles are a fantastic resource for considering how Christians should seek to direct the development of a society.

Soviet Russia was a product of the regime which it replaced - the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

It had a continuity with that regime but its ideology and personalities were of its own creation and were profoundly evil and dysfunctional.

The whole thing is a lot more nuanced than you allow for. It is the head and the tail of the same snake - not two different entities.

This is overly simplistic. The factors behind growth and recession are far more complex and far more dependent on global factors than you allow for. And the influence of each government on economics is similar to the influence a toddler has on the direction of a car each time he turns the play steering wheel in the back seat.

No the crash of 2008 hit Britain so hard because of the imbalances in the economy caused by the policies of Labour. Manufacturing in the UK was in recovery in 1997 but Labour had let it rot. The Brown deficit of 2008 was 4% compared to surpluses in Germany. The economy was too heavily dependent on its greatest successes e. G the city and on an unreal housing boom that Labour brought on by its immigration policy and failures of policy. Then also you had global factors which compounded the issues.

The single greatest impact on mental health as far as I can see is a loss of purpose. One of the most encouraging and most quoted verses in the bible is Jeremiah 29:11 - where God speaks to Israel of hope and a future. The loss of purpose and clear paths has been extremely difficult for our society. Outside of the south east it is a similar picture everywhere. Whatever you make of the unions and the industries they propped up, you need to look at the social impact behind their loss.

It may be as you say that the other factors you mention play a part too. I suspect it is the other way around tho. I suspect that many of the things you name come out of a lack of mental health and self respect. I have spent the last 15 years working in some of the most deprived areas of Glasgow, I work day in day out with people directly effected by these issues. I know this stuff like the back of my hand. These people are real to me and I love them, and regardless of the decisions they make God also loves them. And Thatchers legacy here is real and painful and above all it has proven incredibly costly. And it is your Tory friends who whinge most about carrying the cost of their recklessness - but who insist on adding to the burden.

Prior to the wholesale destruction of our manufacturing base there were clear and well trodden paths to purpose and employment. Those paths led through apprenticeship which was both learning a trade and also for most young men, learning how to be a man. You were apprenticed to an older man who alongside teaching you how to do your job - one on one - he would also teach you how to behave, how to socialise. How to treat those around you. We really threw the baby out with the bathwater. You would have liked a lot of this stuff. It was very traditional. Very old school.

The thing with Unions were that they represented the pride and esteem with which working men held themselves. you cannot crush that without there being severe consequences.

I don't argue the point that they were out of balance and needed brought into line. However Thatcher took the easy road of just destroying them. And we all pay the price for that.

Yeah this is all true. And for all of history it has been true - regardless of whether we join in or not. History and the petty squabbles of the ruling classes continue. But there is nothing new under the sun.

When Jesus came - he came into a Godless morally corrupt empire and he came into a country ripe for rebellion. Yet throughout his ministry he made no effort to engage with any of that stuff. He went and hung out directly with the most deprived and needy, and he created a movement to continue that work throughout the rest of history. Politics and politicians are ten a penny. However we can build his kingdom without reference to any of them. We can do it outside of their power and dominion. We can render unto caesar without getting all distracted and caught up in worshipping caesar. I feel like politics becomes a form of idolatry. It sucks in our energy and attention but provides us with absolutely nothing in return.

Everything that requires Gods grace and mercy sucks life away rather than gives. That is why our inexhaustible resource is always God. But whether on the streets of Glasgow or in the moral grime of Westminster a Christian must walk according to His calling.

The destruction of manufacturing in Scotland was overdue. It was hopelessly uncompetitive. But the encouragement of new businesses with apprenticeship schemes is also over due. Our purpose comes from God but I agree a functioning economy provides a helpful context to that. Both the Lib Dems and Labour have however little idea how an economy works
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums