Fairness

There has been an outcry amongst the public about the fairness of otherwise of the proposed bonus for Stephen Hester head of largely state owned Royal Bank of Scotland. This is been joined by politicians of all parties.

Multi-millionaire Nick Clegg has missed out on life. Born into a wealthy family, Nick went to fee paying Westminster School and then Cambridge and Minnesota universities. This was followed by a series of non-productive  jobs such as fact checking for Christopher Hitchens, Brussels sinecures with the European Commission and working for a firm which lobbied for Libya in the early 90’s. Finally young Nick made the ultimate escape from reality and became a full-time Lib Dem politician.

Now I'm In Power It's Time For Fairness

 He is now Deputy Prime Minister of Great Britain. This post with no constitutional power was employed by the mendacious Tony Blair as a sop to John Prescott who was never going to make it to the top yet retained a segment of support which had to be appeased. Nick Clegg is Prescott’s worthy coalition successor.

Give Me A Fancy Title Or It's Going To Be Trouble

Likewise Nick’s counterpart as leader of the Labour Party, Ed Milliband, has had a privileged upbringing avoiding the rough edges of reality most of us have to negotiate. In this they are no different from most members of either front bench, practically all are wealthy or come from privileged backgrounds.

When politicians jump on the ‘fairness’ bandwagon I am tempted to ask just how ‘fair’ have their privileged lives been. To avoid hypocrisy ‘fairness’ has to apply to the practice of politics just as much as the practice of banking.

It may appear that they and those like them have lived a life of luxury and ease with their path smoothed ahead of them, and they have. However, they have also missed out on some of the formative experiences shared by we plebs, and they are lesser men and women for it.

Young Nick and Ed never stood shivering in the wintery blast in a primary school playground whilst teams were picked. The two best footballers, there was no other game, took turns picking. They went through the assembled boys selecting players in turn. Eventually the discard pile was reached, those there to make up the numbers and who were picked with reluctance. Somebody had to have them, it was just a pity it had to be your team.

If they had, as was my fate, stood with the relentlessly shrinking group of incompetents no-one really wanted they would be much better politicians today.

On what basis did the captains choose the teams? Only one, ability to play football. They didn’t care about looks, wealth or lack of it, status or scholastic ability. They didn’t care about the feelings of those picked last. They cared about one thing only, footballing ability. Any other suggestion would have been greeted with scowls of incomprehension.

And you know what, they may have operated with that ruthlessness found only in primary school playgrounds and the Hell’s Angels, but they were fair. They did not discriminate positively or negatively, they did not truckle to fashion. They chose those whom they thought best for their teams.

Given the context that was fair. Is the fact that some children are larger, faster, more experienced, and perhaps more talented somehow unfair? This is what Nick and Ed have forgotten or never learned, fairness depends upon context.

“Fair” is one of those warm, fuzzy words that allows the listener to define it to his own personal taste — and the definition changes from one specific case to another. Which is why grown ups, and that excludes populist politicians, do not talk about fairness but about justice. Anytime I hear the word fairness I expect it to be followed by “Teacher, make him give my ball back.”

This playing of the “fairness” card is evidence that they’ve never played playground football.  They recognize an unfair situation immediately, but can’t accept the fact that there are differences in life outcomes that are not the result of discrimination, patronage, or some other “unfair” factor.

They cannot accept that all men are not created equal when it comes to ability and effort, and early personal choices often determine the opportunities for reward later in life.

The equality of men is not a description of ability or skill, talent, intelligence or level of determination. There is only one area in which all are equal, and that is in the eyes of God. And God made us marvellously mixed and gloriously unequal.

There is no way that I would be able to beat Viswanathan Anand at chess. This is not just because the current world champion has bags of innate chess playing ability whilst I am to chess what a giraffe is to ice skating. Anand practices hour on end, day after day, week in week out, no matter what. He shows a level of determination separating himself from those who may have the same level of ability, but who are not as determined, or obsessed.

Fairness has to do with the opportunities presented to us, not to the outcomes. Is it fair that Stephen Hester should earn more in a day than a corporal fighting in Afghanistan earns in a year. Probably not. But I and most able bodied people could do what the corporal does, and conscription and several wars prove that true. I could not, however, and I doubt any of my readers could either, run the Royal Bank of Scotland.

The greed culture infecting much of the financial industry is an horrific example of a people operating without a moral compass. That is not going to be altered by vote-greedy politicians using ‘fairness’ as a momentarily useful political tool.

Incidentally Stephen Hester may have been forced by the public outcry backed by vote-seeking politicians to give back his bonus. A grand victory for Clegg etc., but a victory which has cost the British public £329,000,000 as Royal Bank of Scotland shares dropped 2.5% this morning on the suspicion in the market that this heralded greater state interference in the running of the bank.

Tolerancemongers

They are everywhere. Open a newspaper, switch on the TV, go to the pub, and especially if you go to church, you will inevitably be confronted by tolerancemongers. From prescriptive governments to humanitarian charities in their unctuous pomp to bishops in their mitres these insistent people continue with their destructive mantra of “We should all try to live together happily without judging each other, whatever our beliefs, habits, inclinations or traditions.”

" If You Don't Behave Yourself ..."

Now not all these do gooding tolerancemongers are in it for the power and the typically fascist rush of being able to tell the rest of us what to do and think. Many of them genuinely believe that if we follow their message it will do us good, a bit like stern Victorian parents “Swallow this medicine, it may taste foul but you’ll be the better for it; Mother knows best.” They think we need their prescription otherwise our innate cruelty would get the better of us and spew forth, and they ought to stop that.

If we are creating a fundamentally rootless society in Britain, and it certainly seems that way, then the tolerancemongers are only making things worse.

They destroy the idea of values which are universal. There are things which no-one should tolerate. When values become malleable and we are supposed to respect and allow any belief and practice no matter how absurd or heinous then there is no defence against the absurd and heinous. When what is absurd or heinous is decided by the latest fashion amongst the trendy elites who shape our society, particularly the media, then we are subject to an ever changing value system, and when values change constantly there are no values.

Yesterday’s report from Essex University, finding that over the last decade Britain has become a more dishonest and cynical country comes as no surprise. The study found that we Britons are significantly more likely to lie and cheat than we were 10 years ago.

According to the report less than 20% of us would hand back money we found in the street. Just a decade ago it was 40%. Today more than 60% of us are prepared to lie, and 30% would contemplate buying goods we know to be stolen. We could well ask: What sort of nation have we become?

Those raised before societal tolerance and malleable values became the controlling ethos de jour, those aged over 45, remain decent people, but attitudes have changed sharply for the worse among the young.

Saturday Night In Britain

We should not however, condemn these youngsters out of hand. They are merely reproducing the self-interest and contempt for decency and standards they see among the most powerful people in our society, whether prime ministers and politicians, media barons and newspaper editors, or even police chiefs.

Ultimately, however, the blame must lie with those with a responsibility for giving moral guidance.

The church, especially the neo-Protestant progressive pastiche which passes as a church, practices a strangely modern form of the heresy of docetism. Docetism argues that Christ was not a real human being but only seemed human to us.

In the progressive concept of Christ we do not have a Jesus who was God made true flesh, one of us, going to work on a building site, knowing our lives as they truly are, even tempted as we are; instead we are presented with an emasculated Jesus, a goody-goody Jesus wandering through Israel thinking good thoughts with a sad smile on His face, a prototypical Green Party councillor with added prayer. For them Jesus is a politically correct shell of a man, a wimp with a halo. He probably even eats tofu.

When Jesus encountered the woman taken in adultery he demonstrated the hypocrisy of her accusers. This does not mean that He accepted her adultery, He told her to “Go and sin no more.” He did not say “Your alternative lifestyle is something I respect, we must each find our own way to happiness.”

Jesus was not a “Whatever floats your boat” kind of guy, He was intolerant. Think of what he said concerning those who caused one of His little ones to sin, it would be better for them to have a millstone tied round their necks and be thrown into the sea rather than falling into His hands.

If teenagers think getting blitzed out of their minds and spewing in the street is cool I strongly suspect that they will receive more understanding from Christ than those who created a society in which this is normal behaviour.

Bishops Defend A Heartless System

Sometimes temptation is too great to be resisted. It is weak I know, but give a dyed in the wool Presbyterian Scot with a covenanting ancestry the chance to disagree with English bishops and he will cave in and grab it.

The Lords Spiritual In Action

Last night the English bishops, 26 of whom have a place by right in the House of Lords, led the charge against the government’s proposed cap on welfare benefits. This they did in the name of holy compassion. According to the CofE the function of the bishops is supposedly to “provide an important independent voice and spiritual insight to the work of the Upper House.”

Strangely enough their position last night was based upon materialistic considerations. In the estimation of the bishops to restrict welfare handouts to £500 per week per family would be an act of cruelty worthy of Gradgrind. We heard heartrending tales of families being made homeless and cast out on to the streets.

Iain Duncan Smith

Iain Duncan Smith, Work and Pensions Secretary, did himself no favours by claiming on radio that according to government and charity definitions it was possible to be declared homeless if children had to share a bedroom. A claim easily refuted with 30 seconds research.

This is symptomatic of discussion around this proposal. Those involved take highly emotional positions which often lose sight of what is happening. The bishops, Lib Dem Lords and the Guardian (recently described as the Pravda of public sector workers) present anguished projections of families being forced to live in cardboard boxes. The Guardian headlined a piece by the ever reliable Polly Toynbee describing this cap as “the final solution.”

If any family is forced from its accommodation because it has fallen into arrears of rent the local council is still obliged to find them appropriate accommodation. That this accommodation is all too often in property owned by rack renting cronies of councilors is something else the government should tackle. But no family will be forced to live in a cardboard box because of this cap.

The government presents this measure as an attempt to cut the deficit and forced upon them by the debts racked up by previous governments. This welfare cap will save £290 million per year, a drop in the ocean when set against the total welfare bill of £192 billion per year.

That politicians peddle horror stories and selective interpretations to back up their party position is nothing new. However, we look to spiritual leaders to have deeper insight into the human condition.

There is a moral point here, one grasped by most non-bishops: paying benefits greater than the average working wage is destructive of society. It creates resentment amongst working people who would, once deductions have been made, have to work very hard to take home the same sum. It also has a destructive effect on the lives of recipients; it encourages dependency as a lifestyle, and it condemns countless thousands of people, generation after generation, to unemployment and wasted, pointless lives.

If this cap has any useful purpose it will be to herald a complete review of a welfare system, which whilst it rightfully gives help to those in need, has also created an underclass who have no hope, no intention, no concept of ever taking responsibility for their own lives. If the bishops truly had compassion they would support a widespread examination of an increasingly heartless welfare system.

Bishops rightly denounce the rampant materialism of our age because Christianity understands that people are more than an accidental conglomeration of atoms and that there is more to life than money. Consistency would be welcome here. If any are able to understand the deeply dehumanising impact of long term and intergenerational welfare dependency it should be their pastors.

Finally it is estimated that you have to earn £35,000 before tax to take home £26,000. The average stipend for a CofE vicar is just under £22,000 plus housing, well below £35,000. Perhaps the bishops could consider their own direct pastoral responsibility for those living on less than £26,000 after tax.

The Tyranny of Niceness

I am not a nice person. I have no wish to be a nice person. The next person who tells me that the world would be a better place if we were all just a little bit nicer to each other is liable to get a punch in the snoot.

If there is one engine which is relentlessly driving Western civilisation to destruction it is the monstrous tyranny of niceness.

There is a move by the ‘Index on Censorship’ which should be supported by all thinking people, especially thinking Christians, which leaves out progressives. The ‘Index’ has called for the removal of the word ‘insulting’ from the Public Order Act on the basis that the word’s inclusion in legislation has “a corrosive effect on free speech” in the UK.

At present Section 5 of the Public Order Act imposes criminal penalties for using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour causing harassment, alarm or distress.

This should be opposed vigorously and not just because it leaves Christians wide open to charges that we have ‘insulted’ any particular group who take umbrage when we don’t give wholehearted approval to their particular depravity. It should be opposed by all thinking people on the simple grounds that some people, movements and ideas need to be insulted.

If someone believes that Prince Phillip is in reality a giant lizard, as David Ickes does, he needs to be told he is away with the fairies. David may find that insulting, but it’s for his own good.

If someone thinks that wandering around Glastonbury festooned in amulets and occult symbols brings them closer to Gia they need to be told they are several sandwiches short of a picnic. This is not being nasty, it’s compassionate, it’s trying to help the deluded.

Being nice is not the same as being polite. We should be polite, there is a need to show respect and not to cause needless offence. That is not the same as being nice. Being nice is being fearful of causing any offence whatsoever. There are times when it is necessary to cause offence.

The niceness cult has practically finished off the church. Our progressive friends (see I can be polite) tell us we must show compassion and understanding, that we should always walk a mile in the other fellow’s shoes before we criticise him. Balderdash. The only possible reason to walk a mile in another person’s shoes is if the shoes are a comfortable fit; then you will be a mile away, have his shoes and he won’t be able to chase you because he is in his bare feet.

The church must recover from its fear of speaking clearly. Look at the Bible, if the early church had been ‘nice’ it would never have been other than the hippy branch of Judaism, confining itself to sitting in a circle singing Kumbaya and thinking good thoughts about the worshippers of Diana.

When Paul found Peter consorting with the Judiasers did he just say that they were taking differing paths to the same destination? No. He confronted Cephas to his face. Bible speak for a knock-down drag-em-out argument.

When Jesus confronted the Pharisees was He nice? Far from it. He called them “Whited sepulchres,” just about as insulting as you could get. This was Bible speak for Jesus saying “See you, you get right up God’s nose.” Not nice, but accurate.

Christians should not be afraid of speaking plainly. We will be censured for sure. So what? I will be told we should speak the truth in love. Most certainly. But is it loving to pretend that some behaviours are acceptable to God when He pronounces them sinful and deserving of punishment? Sugar coating such behaviour is surely a cruel and unloving deception.

I make no plea for Christians to go around deliberately insulting people. But I do ask that we regain the willingness to speak plainly, to call a spade a spade and a sin a sin.

Freedom Of Speech

In the first prosecution under a ‘hate crime’ law passed in March 2010 five Muslims from Derby have gone on trial for the composition and distribution of leaflets. The leaflet describes homosexuality as a sin leading to hell, calls for the death penalty for homosexuals and contains a picture of a mannequin hanging from a noose. Other leaflets were entitled “Turn or Burn” and “God Abhors You.” The men are reported to have said the pamphlets were distributed to “raise awareness” not incite hate.

Awareness Raising in Derby

This is the first prosecution under a law which took effect in March 2010 which makes it illegal to “stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.” The maximum penalty for the crime is seven years in jail. Prosecution lawyer Bobbie Cheema, Senior Treasury Counsel at the Central Criminal Court, told the jury they were “threatening, offensive, frightening and nasty.” She was right.

Bobbi Cheema

So? Offensive and nasty they undoubtedly are but there is an important difference between written material or speech that is repulsive and distressing, and acts such as armed robbery that are physically harmful. One requires a subjective judgement, the other can be judged with legal objectivity

Laws governing thought and speech rather than actual deeds are not just difficult to enforce they are incredibly hard to confine. Much as it goes against the grain I must agree with Stephen Fry who argues that such laws lead to a culture of censoriousness. Worse they stunt free expression and lead to fearful conformity. Legal censorship leads to the even more pernicious and effective self-censorship. When people are afraid to speak freedom dies.

There is huge moral difference between the anti-Christian jokes of Rowan Atkinson and the repellent leaflets published by the accused. But who decides just where the line is drawn? Who do you trust to decide for you what you can say or write? The government? The lawyers? Editorial writers from the Guardian or from the Daily Mail?

AA Gill, is no stranger to controversy and the need to defend freedom of speech. He wrote of the Welsh that they are, ”loquacious, dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls.” Whilst in his opinion the English are “embarrassing” and an “ugly race” as well as a “lumpen and louty, coarse, unsubtle, beady-eyed, beefy-bummed herd”.

It is possible to dispute some of these remarks, I have met tall Welshmen and not every Englishmen is beady eyed. However, it is also possible to agree wholeheartedly with his argument that free speech is like being pregnant: “You either are, or you are not.” Freedom of speech means freedom of speech, no matter whom it offends.

Freedom of speech cannot be other than non-selective. If I support those newspapers brave enough to publish the infamous Danish Muhammad cartoons I must support Muriel Gray’s right to call me an idiot because I believe in God. As soon as we say “I believe in freedom of speech, but…” we have demonstrated that we do not believe in freedom of speech.

The religion of the five accused is irrelevant, their moral stature is irrelevant, whether they are brilliant scholars or never got out of the remedial class is irrelevant, whether their views are widely accepted by the majority of the population or are confined to a tiny minority of knuckle dragging adherents of Salafist theology is irrelevant. Above all whether we agree with them or not is irrelevant. Freedom of speech is indivisible.

If someone hands you an offensive leaflet calling for the death penalty for homosexuals and you find it repellent do what grown ups do with election material from the Lib Dems, put it in the bin.

We should be big boys and girls and stand on our own feet and not look for the government to preserve our fragile egos by shielding us from nasty people who might possibly offend us.

Being rude, offensive or bigoted may be crude, vulgar, boorish and discourteous, it should not be illegal. If it were John Prescott would be in prison and not the House of Lords. A nation which refuses to silence the rude or bigoted is not a nation which approves of or endorses their prejudices, rather it is a mature nation which values rational debate over state coercion and defends freedom, even when it has unpleasant outcomes. To uphold the freedom of the objectionable is to uphold the freedom of us all.

God Is The Issue

In Britain we are assured that there is no such thing as a culture war, that is something which only occurs in the USA where rabid right wingers try to cling to the past, or as Obama would have it where they hold on to “Their religion and their guns.”

Obama's Idea Of Elementary School In The Ozarks

To some extent this is true, in Britain there is no culture war, at most there are a few guerrilla skirmishes, but the war is over and we have lost. Progressive ideology holds the high ground in politics, academia, media and the church. The success of progressive ideology is complete, they have captured the cultural high ground and therefore control what the disparaged and distrusted hoi poloi see, read, hear and think. The question is why, what has brought this about?

There are numerous reason why the UK should differ from the USA. Whilst the bastions of cultural formation have fallen in the USA they still have outlets where the ordinary people can express their views. The main two of these are a widespread free broadcast media, and a cantankerous church which insists on sticking with the Bible. In the UK Christianity has at best retreated, has generally capitulated and at worst collaborated. Christianity has been quite deliberately replaced by the dogmas of multicultural relativism and silenced by the absolutisation of minority rights.

In the UK morality has become privatised and at the same time individual conscience has been universalised. Everyone it is proclaimed has the right to their own truth, but that truth must coincide with received standards. We are left with the illusion of individual freedom in the midst of stifling conformity. Moral legitimacy lies only within a vision of universal progressivism expressed through the dictats of an intellectual elite, the vanguard of a new society. And they are winning.

The success of this deliberate attempt at the destruction of a culture is exemplified by the alliance of militant fundamentalist Islam which denies female equality and preaches death to homosexuals with self-styled progressives who have replaced Christianity with the godless religion of totalitarian amoralism where anything goes. The virulent opposition of both to traditional Christianity harms not just Christians but society in general, including the majority of mainstream Muslims who just wish to get on with their own lives.

Completely opposed in their eschatology and values their differences have been put aside in pursuit of the shared aim of destroying what they see as the main obstacle to their differing ideas of success, the Christian foundations of Western society. Christianity, with its emphasis on personal responsibility before God engenders what our modern totalitarians see as a dangerous spirit of individual liberty.

Totalitarians Make Common Cause

This is perhaps best exemplified by the alliance of such as the Socialist Unity Network and Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist Leninist) along with individuals such as film maker Ken Loach and ex-MP George Galloway, with the more extreme elements of British Muslim society to form the Respect Party.

Whilst Galloway and his rabid chums are easily dismissed as being on the extreme fringes of British political and cultural life it has to be recognised that they are the easily identified examples of more widespread and deeply entrenched attitudes.

Last month the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation issued a report on ‘honour-based’ violence in the UK with incidents running at at least 2,832 last year. In all of its reports the BBC News referred to these incidents as occurring within the ‘ethnic communities.’ There was no acknowledgement that ‘honour-based’ killings and assaults are practically always confined to Muslim families.

In the struggle of worldviews it should be recognised that the greatest contemporary difference between the USA and the UK in their attitudes to cultural conflict is that in the USA the church has not been overwhelmed.

Mainstream neo-Protestant denominations such as the Episcopal Church USA are pretty much collaborationist with progressives having captured the levers of power and influence. However, the result is that such denominations are fading fast with members vanishing like snow off a dyke.

BBC Idea Of A Typical American Evangelical

Despite the propaganda of the mainstream media in the UK not all American evangelicals are rural fundamentalist retards stuck in the 1920′s and not all their leaders spend their time appearing on TV piously requesting donations for their “prayer ministry” whilst driving Cadillacs and screwing anything with a pulse. Within American evangelicalism there is a strongly intellectual element which is much more influential within the church than occurs in the UK.

This leads to greater confidence in both pulpit and pew with the consequence that American evangelicals are much more likely to speak out, to reject being spoon fed progressive platitudes either from the TV screen or the pulpit.

In the UK we must recover that confidence in the Bible and its message. Our nation was shaped by Christianity, our laws, attitudes and culture have grown out of Biblical Christianity. At root the issue is not a matter of scaremongering newspaper headlines or muttering about political correctness over a pint. At root God is the issue. How we understand and respond to His revelation of Himself.

Abraham Kuyper famously said “There is not one thumb’s breadth of all creation of which God does not say “Mine.”‘  As the tide begins to turn we must be prepared to speak out for truth, for it is the truth which shall make us free.

Ignorance Is Not Bliss

In a recent speech Michael Nazir-Ali, one-time bishop of Rochester, whilst complimenting David Cameron on his speech in which Cameron showed how the political development of the nation is inextricably bound up with Christian ideas, remarked on the difficulties confronting any effort to remake British society:

“One issue is religious literacy in the Civil Service, Parliament and local authorities. What Mr Cameron said about Christian ideas being embedded in our constitutional arrangements is no longer understood in the corridors of power. A disconnected view of history and the fog of multiculturalism have all but erased such memory from official consciousness.”

This came home yesterday as I listened to the Today programme on the likely results in the Iowa caucuses attempting to choose the Republican candidate for the forthcoming US election. In the opinion of the BBC the candidates were hoping “to prevent Obama winning re-election. Instantly the Republican candidates were cast as being only negative, with no more purpose than preventing the continuing incumbency of the media favourite.

Even more interesting was Mark Mardell’s report from Iowa in which he described Rick Santorum as an “evangelical Christian.” Rick Santorum is of course a devout Roman Catholic.

Rick Santorum - Still A Roman Catholic

This could be seen in two ways. It could, like the previous example, be in line with the cultural bias of the BBC and be an attempt to label Santorum with a denigrating label. In the BBC mindset evangelicals are really foaming at the mouth fundamentalists who wish to stone homosexuals and force everyone else to wear chastity belts. If they are Americans they also speak in tongues, marry their sisters and handle snakes. Scary or what?

Mark Mardell, is a leading political journalist and North American editor with BBC News. His assignment is to head the coverage of the year long elections in the USA where religious stance and  affiliation is very important, and yet he was completely unable to tell the difference between a Roman Catholic and an evangelical. This is more frightening than progressive bigotry, it is simple ignorance.

Mark Mardell - Still Ignorant

This attitude is not confined to the UK. Bill Keller is Executive Editor of the New York Times, America’s paper of record. Yet back in the autumn this commentator who has risen to the top of the journalistic tree could write, “Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum are all affiliated with fervid subsets of evangelical Christianity, which has raised concerns about their respect for the separation of church and state, not to mention the separation of fact and fiction.”

Whilst many may have their differences with Roman Catholicism it is doubtful that even their most virulent opponent would describe them as a “fervid subset of evangelical Christianity.” Note also the suggestion that because someone is supposedly an evangelical they are unable to tell the difference between fact and fiction.

I would disagree with the bishop inasmuch as we are facing something more than historical forgetfulness or the leavening effect of multicultural relativism. Christianity is not being forgotten by the cultural opinion formers amongst our progressive elites. To be forgotten you have first to be acknowledged; as far as progressives are concerned the subtleties of Christianity need not be understood nor its achievements acknowledged because to do so might be to give them credence in the minds of the hoi poloi.

For progressives Christianity is not to be forgotten, it is to be attacked.

Predictions

New Year seems to be the time for predictions, many of which are obvious.

It doesn’t takes an expert to predict that there will be a continuing series of European crises, on both a financial and a social level. Those elites in control of the EU have evidenced no ability to manage the economic situation and the people of Europe will become increasingly restless as undemocratically imposed austerity bites deeper.

The situation in Greece tells it all. Lucas Papademo, the unelected Prime Minister imposed by Brussels was governor of the Bank of Greece between 1994 and 2002 and was thus in charge of cooking the books when Greece dissembled in order to join the euro in 2001. His reward was to be made Vice Chairman of the European Central Bank in 2002 and imposed as Prime Minister in 2011. When austerity bites even harder do we imagine the Greeks, and Italians who are in a like position, will meekly acquiesce?

When the very people who caused the mess are undemocratically imposed in order to find a way out it is hardly surprising that in a Russia ruled by the corrupt Putin commentators can gleefully point to the undemocratic nature of parts of Western Europe.

To be saved the European Union needs a chap who wears his underpants outside his trousers and changes in a telephone booth. Europe however, has a bad record when turning to political superman, in the meantime all we have are failed bureaucrats. The Euro will survive, the elites have too much wrapped up in it to allow it fail, but it will be badly damaged goods, but not as badly damaged as European democracy. 

This summer will again see record levels of attainment in school exams at the same time as English children slip lower in international league tables in maths, physics and chemistry. Politicians of both main parties (Lib Dems don’t count) are too afraid of the negative publicity of saying that many of the qualifications awarded to our children are effectively worthless and that our educational ideology needs drastic overhaul.

These predictions are too obvious. The only predictions which are worth considering are those which go against the general expectations.

My prediction for 2012 is that despite the increasing trend in recent years here in the UK we will see a gradual shift away from the cultural assault on Christianity and its values and an increasing emphasis on morality amongst public figures. This may be me operating in full Pollyanna mode, but there are straws in the wind.

Recent failures amongst politicians with the expenses scandal and financial authorities with the banking collapse are seen not just as illegal or mistaken but as moral failures. Politicians, who are quick to sense the public mood, are beginning to realise the public are looking for direction. 

Thus we have David Cameron, a part-time Anglican, recently speaking of Britain being a Christian nation and Christianity being the core of British values. Labour leader Ed Milliband, who has been trying to rescue Labour from the Blairite modernising tendency and been reviled in the media for it, has recently hired Tim Livesey, former adviser to Rowan Williams, as chief of staff. As Harold Wilson said half a century ago “The Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing.” 

Political leaders are beginning to grasp that religion and morality are now set to play an increasing and ultimately dominant role in mainstream political debate. 

Austerity focusses the mind on basics rather than on embellishments. People will be more concerned on that which gives solidity and reliable structure to life than that which gives ease and amusement. Ultimate values will be seen as more important than the blind acceptance of moral relativism.

The English riots made many stop and think about the direction our society is taking. Despite the media subsequently spinning the rioters as victims of a heartless society many amongst the public increasingly questioned the nature of a progressive society which could bring about this situation.

A gradual change in social attitudes will only be positive if the church can grasp the opportunity. Normally at this point when looking at Britain’s various denominations I would throw up my hands in despair, but even here there are positive indicators.

The recent submission from the Church of Scotland to the consultation on homosexual marriage by the Scottish government was much more in line with biblical principles than expected. I admit that I was pleasantly surprised by the stance taken. The positions of power in mainstream denominations are still in the grip of collaborators with the progressive establishment but there are signs of a fight back.

Just as the Roman Catholic church has been revitalised by the influx from Poland the evangelical movement could, if we reach out, be strengthened by Christians from abroad. Even if we don’t reach out to them the growing influence of Caribbean based churches and the influx of Christians from Africa and Asia will have a strengthening effect on evangelicalism in the UK.

The biggest problem we face is not a fundamentalist secularism intent on creating a progressive utopia. Our great problem is the fractured nature of evangelicalism. The Roman Catholic church plays the media well, despite the appalling scandals it has faced recently the media still turns to them for comment on social issues. They have a coherent message and consistent stance.

My hope for the year ahead is that we begin to learn to cooperate with each other, that we begin to speak with a coherent and reasonable voice and that we stop trying to triumph over each other.

Despite the decades of decline in numbers and influence, despite the hostility of the media, despite a meandering and assimilated leadership, despite a tradition of silent acquiescence in the pews, despite all these there are signs of hope.

2012 will not be an easy year but my prediction is that it will see evidence of an increasing Christian influence in UK society.