At least here in Chelmsford even the sunset sky was painted in the colours of the two parties of the moment, blue and orange, as David Cameron took over as Prime Minister.

Gordon Brown faded away much more quickly than I expected, apparently because his own Labour party was not behind the suggested “progressive alliance” with the Liberal Democrats.

So we will have a coalition instead between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. I wish the new government well. I hope its colours will turn out to be not so much of the sunset as of a new dawn for our great country.

Tyson asked me to comment on a post on his blog wayfaring stranger (but not lost) entitled The Basis for Social Justice in the Bible. The following is based on my comments there. It also provides some background material for my criticism of the Westminster 2010 Declaration.

It seems to me that Tyson made an indisputable case that God’s people in the Old Testament were expected to practise social justice and care for the poor, and that that was enforced by the Law of Moses. There are clear provisions in that Law requiring all Israelites to make adequate provisions for the poor, for widows and orphans, and for destitute foreigners. And there are clear if sometimes implicit sanctions against those who do not do this.

Tyson also argues from Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The position is perhaps even more clear in Amos and Micah, especially Amos 2:6-7, 5:11-12,24, 8:4-6 and Micah 6:8-16.

But there is a weakness in Tyson’s argument which is clear in his last sentence:

Christians today do not live in a theocracy like the Israelites did when given the law of Moses, but we can apply biblical principles to government in regard to social justice the same way we advocate on behalf of the unborn and to protect families.

Ancient Israel was a theocracy in which divine commands were enforced by the government. But we live, for the most part, in secular states. And it may well be wrong for Christians to expect secular states to enforce on the general population rules intended for the people of God – on social justice issues just as much as on moral ones. If it is not wrong, a careful theological case needs to be made for this – and Tyson omitted this step.

So perhaps the Old Testament is not the place to look for the principles we should apply. At least we should be looking to the books of Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, and parts of Genesis and Exodus, where Israelite believers lived under pagan governments. Or we should be looking at the New Testament where the same applies. In Matthew 23:23 for example we find a clear endorsement of the principle of social justice – but at an individual and community level, not a governmental one.

There is of course a democratic argument that if the majority of the people, or their representatives, are in favour of (for example) social justice, an elected government has the right to impose this. However, we also accept that the government does not have the right to go against certain fundamental human rights even of a minority, and that might include the right to enjoy one’s property without excessive taxation etc. But that is not really a biblical way of arguing.

Joseph, Daniel and Nehemiah are perhaps the only biblical believers to hold high government office outside the theocratic state of Israel. So it is valid for us, living outside a theocracy, to look to them as examples on these issues.

Consider for example how Joseph dealt with the famine in Egypt, in Genesis 42 and 47. For seven years he taxed those who had an abundance by taking a share of their grain. And then when the famine came he sold this grain back to the people in exchange for their money, their livestock and their land – thus in effect nationalising these. He then (47:26) imposed a lasting 20% tax on agricultural produce. This sounds remarkably like state imposed socialism to me. And, although this is implicit, it seems to have had God’s blessing.

Now I’m not suggesting that anyone uses this as a biblical argument for something like communism. But it does show how state intervention to provide for the poor is highly biblical, even outside a theocratic state. Therefore it gives a justification and an encouragement for believers like us, Christians with significant influence in democratic societies, to seek to persuade secular states to impose on their countries, and on the world, social justice according to the biblical principles laid out in the Old and New Testaments. So let’s go ahead and do that.

As a child I learned that a mixture of red, orange, green and other colours gives a dirty brown mess. Now it is beginning to look as if a mixture of parties with these colours (but not blue) will lead to a messy Brown government, at least for a few months. Gordon Brown has announced that he will go by the autumn, after a successor has been elected. So it looks as if he will not so much resign as fade away, like an old soldier, and his successor as Prime Minister is more likely to be a Miliband than a Cameron.

But will this messy government last? I don’t see why not. The pro-Conservative press has been repeating the opposite so often that people (such as Phil Ruse in a comment at Clayboy) are starting to believe it, but it is not true: a parliamentary alliance between Labour and the Liberal Democrats will not be hopelessly unstable.

Let’s look at the figures. Here is the new composition of the House of Commons:

Is there is a new pact between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, it will have 315 seats. Then include its Northern Ireland allies SDLP and Alliance which give it 319, or 320 with the likely support, at least tacitly, of the Green MP.

To defeat it requires an alliance of Conservatives, DUP and SNP for a total of 321, or 324 with Plaid Cymru, assuming Sinn Fein and the Speaker stay neutral. SNP at least will be terrified of supporting the Conservatives and precipitating a Cameron minority government or a new election. But without nationalist support the Tories have only 315 votes and so no chance of defeating the “progressive alliance”.

So it seems to me that, as long as their own MPs don’t break ranks, a coalition of Labour and Lib Dems is likely to be quite stable. It should certainly be stable enough to do what needs to be done to stabilise the economy, as presumably the Conservatives would not want to precipitate an election on such matters. It might not be able to get through Parliament some of its more radical ideas, but perhaps what we need now is stability rather than radical change.

As for the argument that this government would lack legitimacy, that is nonsense. Under the current electoral system as supported by the Conservatives (they are now offering a referendum on a kind of change but would campaign against it) the winner is the grouping which can command a majority for the Queen’s Speech. It looks like Cameron cannot. Brown may be able to, and that looks like making him the winner.

While all eyes have been on the General Election, in much of the UK (but not here in Chelmsford) there have been local elections. I thank a Facebook friend for letting me know through his status, and the BBC website for confirming, that the British National Party has lost all twelve of its seats on the London borough council of Barking and Dagenham. This is in addition to the BNP leader Nick Griffin coming in a poor third place, with his share of the vote reduced to 14.6%, in the Barking parliamentary constituency which he had hoped to win.

In fact this time Labour has taken all 51 seats on the Barking and Dagenham council, as two Conservatives and five “others” have also lost their seats – or is there some story here I am not aware of?

I am glad that the people of Barking and Dagenham have shown their true colours, which are not those of the BNP. The reason for their success at the previous local elections in 2006 was probably that most people who don’t like them stayed at home. This year, they came out to vote because of the general election on the same day.

The moral of this is that if you care who represents and governs you, whether locally or nationally, you must make the effort to turn out and vote.

The Evangelical Alliance, of which I am a member, has issued a press statement concerning the election result, quoting Steve Clifford, their General Director, as saying:

I think that we realise difficult decisions will have to be made and the level of public services we are used to may not be sustainable.  But in taking these difficult decisions I ask that whatever form the Government takes they remember what was asked of the apostle Paul, to remember the poor.

I welcome this statement. It is indeed vital that any government of this country, or of any other, remembers the poor, both at home and worldwide.

But it is rather late in the day for Steve Clifford to make this appeal, one which should have been heard more clearly from Christians during the election campaign. It was implicit in the Faithworks 2010 Declaration which I reported on during the election campaign. But the poor merit only a brief mention in passing in the Westminster 2010 Declaration, which I also reported on, and no mention at all in the pledge which that group asked election candidates to sign – it seems that the pledge was simply to

respect, uphold and protect the right of Christians to hold and express Christian beliefs and act according to Christian conscience.

Yet this is the Declaration of which “Steve Clifford – General Director, Evangelical Alliance” is listed as one of the Key Signatories, in fourth place following three bishops. And this is the Declaration whose backers, as I pointed out a couple of days ago, were clearly using it to promote the Conservative party – the party which was campaigning for higher taxes and reduced public services for the poor, and tax breaks for the super-rich.

I don’t know if the Westminster Declaration had any effect on the election result. Its 61,234 signatories (as I write) are a tiny number compared with nearly 30 million votes cast. They were not successful in getting Philippa Stroud into Parliament, but other candidates they backed were elected even when this was not the expected result.

But surely it is somewhat perverse for Steve Clifford to give his backing, and implicitly that of his Alliance, to a campaign which was in effect to elect Conservatives, and then after the event call on them, as the likely next government, to embrace a policy of remembering the poor which goes against their manifesto commitments. He would have done better to avoid endorsing in the first place a Declaration as unbalanced as the Westminster one. If his repentance now is genuine, that is good. But it is too late for this election, and so he may have put himself, and all the Christians in this country, in something of the position of Esau in Hebrews 12:17.

A month ago I wrote, not very positively, about the Westminster 2010 Declaration of Christian Conscience. I always had my misgivings about the lack of balance in this Declaration, which correspond to what I wrote a few days ago about issues of Christian principle at election time. To summarise, the Declaration seems to have largely ignored the real issues in this election, and the issues of poverty and social justice which ought to be of top priority for Christians.

So I was not really surprised to read, initially from Ruth Gledhill and also in their own latest news report, how the true political colour of the Westminster Declaration has now come to light. Now they write:

Westminster 2010 is not party political but concerned solely with conscience issues.

But their true leanings towards the Conservative party, if not already clear from their selection of issues to campaign on (and from the list of key signatories, including the husband of the controversial Conservative candidate Philippa Stroud), become clear from the list of preferred candidates which they have now issued:

Preferred candidates include 192 Conservatives, 35 Liberal Democrats, 19 Labour, 2 SNP and 2 Independents. Tories come out on top because in general their MPs have better past voting records on Christian conscience issues …

But let’s examine how they came to their conclusions in two constituencies.

In my own constituency of Chelmsford, the sitting Conservative MP Simon Burns is being strongly challenged by an excellent Lib Dem candidate Stephen Robinson, with the Labour candidate Pete Dixon likely to take a poor third place. Westminster 2010 is bold enough to “prefer” the Conservative. But on what basis? None of these three candidates have made the Westminster 2010 pledge, nor have any of them explicitly refused it. The Westminster 2010 preference seems to be based entirely on the sitting MP’s past voting record. But that is a quite unfair basis of judgment because the other candidates, who have not been MPs, have no known past record to be judged.

Then let’s look at another constituency, Sutton and Cheam. Here there is a Christian Peoples Alliance candidate who has signed the Westminster 2010 pledge. But Westminster 2010′s preferred candidate is a Conservative who has not signed it – although she is Philippa Stroud (with her name mis-spelled).

So, in the words of the Facebook commenter quoted by Ruth Gledhill,

it’s quite clear what you’re saying…”vote Tory.”

I’m glad I didn’t sign up to this Declaration. I urge my Christian readers to think twice before following the group’s recommendations, and to bear in mind what I wrote a few days ago:

So, how should Christians vote on Thursday? I don’t suggest that there is only one correct answer. But I do say that all Christians need to think about these issues of social justice as well as about those of life and personal morality, and need to base their vote on what the various candidates and parties are actually promising to do on these issues.

In a comment on a previous post here Andrew Roycroft asked me an interesting question about how Christians might vote at the general election this week:

a question arises in my mind about how to square the liberal values of a party like the Lib Dems (some of which are no doubt shared by the blues and reds) with Christian principle. … I’m thinking particularly of life issues like assisted suicide and abortion.

Andrew has his own interesting blog focussing (at least at the moment) on a Christian response to political issues. I was particularly impressed by what he had to say about Nick Clegg’s lack of Christian faith, and his conclusion to that post:

As I look at Cameron, Clegg and Brown how I need to pray for these men as people, as souls, as those whom God may bring to Himself through His Gospel.

To return to Andrew’s question to me, I answered it in my own comment. But I felt that what I wrote was worthy of wider circulation. So here is an edited and expanded version of that comment.

The short answer to Andrew is that “life issues like assisted suicide and abortion” are not issues in this UK general election. I don’t think any of the main parties have clear policies to make any changes on these matters. I accept that I do not agree with the majority of Liberal Democrat and Labour candidates on these matters, and would probably find more Conservative candidates who agreed with my Christian position. However I don’t think the result of this election will affect what happens on these matters in the next parliament – which will most likely be nothing much. So I am instead choosing who to vote for on the basis of the actual policies which separate the parties, matters on which the result of this election could make major differences to the future of our country.

I could also argue that it is not the duty of government to legislate concerning private morality; rather this is the concern of the Church. Now I accept that taking life is more than a matter of private morality. As the two specific issues which Andrew named are matters of life and death, perhaps they should be matters for the government to legislate on. But many of the issues of principle which Christians get worked up about should not be considered matters for the government. For example, it is certainly regrettable when Christians working for private companies are not allowed to wear crosses at work, but what makes this a matter for the government to act on?

Finally and most importantly, I would argue that there are other vital Christian values, such as matters of social justice for the poor, which Andrew did not mention, and which are often ignored or marginalised by Christians who support more conservative (with a small “c”) politicians. This is what lies behind my ambivalence about the Westminster 2010 Declaration, and is why I am more positive about the Faithworks Declaration.

To be more specific, here are just some of the issues relating to the poor which I think Christians should be concerned about – and many of these are real election issues. Our own British poor need good housing, health care and education. Asylum seekers who have been forced to leave their possessions as well as their countries should be welcomed into ours. The poor of the Third World need not so much aid as a fair world economic system. Which party has the most “Christian” policies on these matters? Probably not the same as is most “Christian” on abortion and assisted suicide.

So, how should Christians vote on Thursday? I don’t suggest that there is only one correct answer. But I do say that all Christians need to think about these issues of social justice as well as about those of life and personal morality, and need to base their vote on what the various candidates and parties are actually promising to do on these issues.

Thanks to clayboy (Doug Chaplin) for the link to this quiz. In the light of his recent past attacks on the Liberal Democrats I was surprised to see that he came out as a recommended Lib Dem voter. I was less surprised to find the same for myself. The following are my results as copied from their site:

Take the Who Should You Vote For? England quiz

You expected: LIB

Your recommendation: Liberal Democrat

Click here for more details about these results

Update 2: Solved the formatting problem, I think, by replacing the problematic HTML with an image.

Opinion poll results currently suggest that the Labour party might come third in this election in terms of votes cast but still have the largest number of seats in Parliament. So Gordon Brown might try to continue as Prime Minister despite being thoroughly rejected by the voters – although he can’t expect help with this from the Lib Dems.

Perhaps that is why Gordon has turned to Elvis – for advice on how to live on after being declared dead!

Picture from The Mirror.

I’m not going to discuss election policies here. But as long time readers of this blog know, I am an active member of the Liberal Democrat party and a former local election candidate. For some time I have been a member of the Facebook group I’m voting for the Liberal Democrats in 2010. And today, as a member of that group, I received an invitation to join a new group with the interesting name We got Rage Against the Machine to #1, we can get the Lib Dems into office! I joined, and my Facebook frends who are UK voters (or I think they are – and they are not already group members) will by now have received from me an invitation to join this group.

Late last year a Facebook campaign to get the Rage Against the Machine song “Killing in the Name” to number 1 in the UK singles chart. According to Wikipedia, at one time “the Facebook group membership stood at over 950,000″, and the song took the Christmas number 1 slot almost certainly because of this campaign.

As I mentioned in my previous post today, a similar Facebook campaign on behalf of a Christian song attracted over 70,000 members, and the song reached number 4 in the charts.

If campaigns like this can swing the pop charts, can they swing a general election? I think it is quite likely that they can. After all Barack Obama’s success in the USA is widely attributed in part to his successful use of modern media.

Now of course in principle such a campaign could benefit any party who made good use of this technique. But there are several reasons why this is likely to benefit the Liberal Democrats most, even if expertly copied by other parties – and the new group is deliberately making use of them.

One reason is that many LibDem policies appeal especially to students and other young people – especially the pledge to abolish tuition fees, which is highlighted on the group’s info page (although sadly the pledged change would be too late to help the current generation of students). But these same young people are perhaps the least likely group to vote. So a Facebook appeal targeted at young people, and fans of Rage Against the Machine (a group which also opposes two party politics – but I am not endorsing them), is likely to attract a disproportionate number of LibDem voters.

Another important factor is the bandwagon effect. Although the group claims “This is NOT a bandwagon!”, in some ways it is. One aim is to increase confidence that a vote for the LibDems is not wasted, so that people don’t vote tactically for one of the main parties. Doug Chaplin seems to take it for granted that the LibDems are only interested in tactical votes, but he is wrong: they want people to vote for them on principle. Indeed, they are confident that a majority of the country agrees in general with their principles, and in this way they are aiming to win.

So will this Facebook campaign be effective? First it needs to grow considerably beyond its current 30,000 members, but it has three weeks to do so. But I think it has the potential to be highly effective – dare I say far more effective than tonight’s TV debate, which I will not be watching? Will the campaign get the Nick Clegg into Downing Street? Well, three weeks are a long time in politics, and anything is possible!

Apologies if the image or any of these links work only for Facebook members.