I don’t agree with you though, APL, about the shoe chauffeur business. That was black propaganda peddled by Chris Huhne and co. and taken up eagerly by the BBC, to make you think the bike was just for the cameras. Red boxes contain important State documents and cannot at the moment be carried about in a pannier as if they were the shopping. And someone who gets into trouble for edging ahead at the traffic lights etc is obviously a real bicyclist trying to stay alive. You have only to look at the difference in energy between him and car-bound Brown to see the good that bicycling is doing him. Ditto for Boris vis a vis taxi-bound Livingstone. It is a great pity that so many people swallowed this lie and that it is still appearing, as it would otherwise have been good advertising for bikes – and goodness, we need it, with the pollution and unfitness our country suffers from compared with other more go-ahead countries where people of all ages bicycle in safety without wearing helmets or lycra. Rather than knock him for riding a bike, welcome it, and use it to get safer arrangements for bicyclists – so that they may multiply in numbers, for all our benefit.

’Love your neighbour as yourself’

Why?

The Chritian faith is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ as contained in the Gospels of the new testament.

The main message in the new testament is to love one another and to love God. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

It is true that there are many bloody episodes and many apparently strange laws (Read in the context of a modern world) in the old testament, however, most of the books to which critics refer are histories rather than teachings.

The problem with any faith, when discussing it with a non believer is just that, a religious faith is a faith as opposed to something one can see or touch.

I always say the following in reply to someone that mocks my choice to follow my chosen religion:

It is better to live life believing that there is a God and then find out after death that there is not, then to live a life believing there is not a God only to discover after death that there is a God………..Are you prepared to take that risk?

I would say that there has been a historical trend of Conservatism which has ben similarly Luddite – from the time when Wellington oppoded railways on the grounds that it would let the common people move round the country to John Major’s evocation of old maids bycling. It is not a side of conservatism I have much sympathy for as my call on another thread for the working classes to be able to have houses in the country will have shown.

I doubt if Mr Cameron, having been a strong Thatcherite when first in Parliament, is overly concerned which idealogical wing of the party, if any, his apparent commitment to opposing global warming, came from.

Anyway, the lady you mentioned smoked cigarettes! Outrageous!

I think the split in the C of E is a little more than whether the book of common prayer is used or not.

Are you saying by supporting the “personal freedom” agenda that the gospels are wrong?

Was Jesus Christ wrong not to appoint female apostles?
Was he also wrong not to allow men to lay with men as men would with a woman?
(sentence left out-ed)
As I understand it, the Christian teaching is that marriage is confined to one man and one woman. Sexual intercourse is confined to within a marriage. Unmarried people, according to the scriptures, should refrain from sex, that must include homosexuals. Not attractive in the modern world but, does that make it wrong?

The Lord tells us to hate the sin but love the sinner, ie love the person but reject the sin.
Modern people may not like the teachings but, the teachings are the teachings. It is not man’s place to pick and choose which scriptures he accepts. If one decides to cut out one teaching they dislike and someone else decides to do the same, soon you have nothing left. In the Catholic Church we have a saying that we have a shortage of applicants wishing to join the Priesthood but we have a surplus of people that wish to be Pope.

I believe many of society’s ills have happened since we in the UK have turned away from Christiananity and it’s moral code.
The media have led the anti Christian message, aided by successive governments.
Children no longer attend Sunday school and neither did their parents, so where do they get their moral guidance from now? They won’t get it from a politicised education system or from the media.

Is it right to abandon ones principles just to be acceptable to people? Is this not what the political parties have done and have they not also lost support?

I do feel for the C of E and would urge any Christians that still hold the teachings of the bible to be true to consider coming home to the Catholic Church.

May the Lord bless you and open your heart to his message.

I was perhaps unclear, I was not suggesting the bible is better or worse than any other religous texts or indeed the Stoics. If you insist on looking somewhere for morality in philosophy, might I suggest you take a look at the works of Ayn Rand?

In the first instance what Cameron thinks about the environment is a personal matter for him, he has no business imposing his opinions on you or I, simply because our opinions happen to be generally aligned on some other totally unconnected matters.

As he chooses his religion, if he has one, he is perfectly at liberty to cycle to work, as I did for three years between Tottenham and the West end, of course I did not ask my driver to toddle along behind me in my limo all for the benefit of the meeja. But overall, despite inconsiderate London drivers I felt better for the exercise.

Nor have I asked anyone else to put a windmill on their roof, just because I have the urge to do so. Should I take leave of my senses and put a windmill on my roof, it would be in direct contradiction of my knowledge that the cost of doing so far outweighs the benefits of any electricity it might generate. Not to mention the structural damage it may well cause to my house.

Should too, I decide to look at the North Polar Ice cap, I would be sure to do it in the most ecologically economical manner, knowing as I do that flying by jet, is an evil thing, also that asking a load of freeloading meeja folk along would just compound the sin and generally make the ice melt faster, thus contributing to the supposed decline of the North polar ice cap that I had gone there to see in the first place. That to me would not seem like a very conservative action, nor an economical one.

Lastly, he is not my leader, we shouldn’t be encouraging the cult of personality in UK politics, that sort of thing is for the Labour party and North Korea, David Cameron is just a chump who at the right time happened to pull the right strings among his Meeja chums – surprising actually since Meeja is the only place he has ever worked. Whereas his opponent who had fewer friends in the Meeja, has recently demonstrated he holds true to some real conservative principles.

Rosie: “Conservation and concern for the environment were exclusively Conservative preoccupations.”

No, not correct. Conservative concern for the environment arises principally from the concept of private property. That is it, if you own something you tend to care for it. Private property is the founding principle of true conservatism.

The Socialists, like the Green party (and it is worth mentioning here the BNP usually wrongly branded by BBC smear a ‘far right party’ ) you mention, are each of them collectivists, they refute the concept of private property. The result is since no one owns a thing, no one cares for it. That is what leads to the sort of situation you describe. I believe it is called ‘the tragedy of the commons’.

Why am I hostile to ‘my’ leader? Because at each opportunity to show some backbone, demonstrate some principle, he has declined. Be it to keep his promise to take the conservative s out of the EPP or, well, what other promise has Cameron made?

However, it is worth noting that whilst we offer the traditional choral services regularly, attendance at them is minimal; whilst our modern language service of Parish Communion attracts 200 people every week.

That is not to say that the Green Party, which has usurped the cause of the environment, is not a socialist party in reality; rather that the Conservative party should never have left a gap in which that essentially left wing movement could grow. (In the same way that they should not have left a gap for the BNP, which is essentially another one issue party with a left wing agenda not fully understood by the electorate.)

Don’t worry, you are not alone there!

JR: “I need time to consider the blog and how to edit it to protect the site and the writer.”

I think that is a fair appraisal of what happens. One or two of my posts have been delayed for a while, one or two never appear. I agree, it is after all Mr Redwoods blog. I admire him for permitting the energetic exchange of views he does.

However, I too have serious doubts about Mr Cameron, I think he is too enthralled by the Green faction, I do not think his conservative credentials are nearly as clearly defined as Mr Redwood wishes us to believe.

I also agree that the edges of political influence have been blurred, some creatures have taken advantage to infiltrate the Tory party to its disadvantage.

Events now unfolding will radically redefine *everything*, the fence will shortly be a very uncomfortable place to sit.

I have offended you and I apologise. Sometimes I get really carried away at the keyboard and say things I would be less likely to say face to face.

It seems to me that when a political leader says modernise in relation to their party, they actually mean they are moving away from the main ideals, values and beliefs that were traditionally at the heart of that party and the basis on which that party was founded. We have seen this with the Labour Party and again, in my opinion, we are seeing it with our own party.

The frustrating thing for me and I suspect, others with similar more traditional beliefs like mine, is that I feel there is no longer a party that reflects my political views. The Conservative Party, under most of the previous leaders, did.

I find it difficult to put my finger on exactly what we stand for now and what our priorities actually are. It seems that Mr Cameron’s main message is about inclusiveness and being green. I feel Mr Davis has hit on something that is more important to many of us than being green or inclusive; Cutting back the size of the state and the amount of interference from the state in our lives I would suggest, is more in keeping with our more traditional beliefs.

As each party struggles to take the centre ground, those that are left wing are no longer represented by the Labour Party and those of us that are right of centre, no longer feel our traditional party, The Conservatives, represents us.

It seems to me, that both of the main parties have adopted the worse of their rival’s ideology and have kept the worse of their own ideologies.

I accept that this blog is yours and funded by you and therefore ultimately, you have editorial control but, I have noticed that on a few occasions now, when I have been a little controversial or critical of our party leader in my postings, it has been rejected or held for several days and then posted once the thread has died, so effectively, no one will read it.

I always thought political blogs were about the free and frank exchange of ideas, even Labour home allows postings that are critical of their party and it’s leadership.

Yes, perhaps disagreeing amongst ourselves plays into the other parties and the EUSSR’s hands but, my principles will not allow me to stay silent while I believe I see the party being destroyed by being taken further away from our more traditional position.
Were we therefore wrong in the past and were our past leaders and founders wrong, because that is what I feel is implied as we move further and further away from our core principles?

I accept you are in a more difficult position than myself, as your utterings would be used by the media, to bash you and our party with, should you be critical. I accept that should you wish to disagree with Mr Cameron, you do so in private.

I accept that we need as a country, (if we still are a country post Lisbon) to get rid of the Labour government and to put right, yet again, the damage caused, however I do not support the idea of getting back into power by moving our position so much that we alienate many of our supporters.

We are seeing the rise of some of the more extreme fringe parties and we see a general distrust of the political class by the general population, it is my view that by being less clear as to where we stand and by blurring the edges of where Labour ends and the Conservative Party begins, we are in danger of confusing the electorate or turning them off politics even more.

In my view, little or no choice regarding the position of the parties, means no democracy.

Reply: You have not offended me and I do believe in a lively exchange of views. If someone blogs in a way which is close to a libel on a person or company, or gets close to breaking the laws on discrimination/racial/sexual language I need time to consider the blog and how to edit it to protect the site and the writer. As I do this myself I do not always have the time immediately to do that. I accept many criticisms of the Leadership on the blog, but I do think I have the right to say why I think DC is the best chance people have if they want to salavge something from this mire of EU power grab, political correctness and wasteful public sector.

I agree with whatever you say and in particular I believe Mr Cameron is the greatest leader we have ever had. I believe he will unite the party with his great Conservative policies and that he will appeal to the traditionalists, because he is so Conservative by nature. He is right and the rest of us are all wrong.

I believe Mr Brown is being defeated by Mr Cameron and not by his own dubious policies and lack lustre performance.

I believe we are all united behind our great leader and I look forward to saving the planet, nay the universe, under Mr Cameron’s leadership. I look forward to embracing hoodies and hutus.

Please delete my previous post as it serves no purpose to be held until the thread has died and then put up.

I can see political debate will be safe, protected and indeed encouraged under a government of David Cameron’s Conservatives.

I am now ready for my medication nurse.

No, no, Cameron is definately in the Tory party. How about a new political commandment Mr Redwood.

Thou shalt not spin the truth, for all your spinning will appear transparent.

Ken Adams: “I therefore strongly suspect that Mr Davis resigned not to put pressure on the government but to put pressure on the Conservative leadership to stand by its position as expressed in opposition, once elected to power.”

Hmmmm.

Kudos to David Davis even so.

A biblical scholar? No. But any casual examination would present you with Numbers 31:7-18 where Moses is all in favour of extermination of everyone but female virgins of the conquered Midianites

Nor am I greatly impressed by a deity who requires the sacrifice of your son (Abraham and Isaac). Assuming that happened (admittedly unlikely) you can’t help wondering how Isaac felt as he was being lashed to the stake

Then there is the highly credible idea that every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah’s abode

Also, I don’t take moral lessons from a deity who thinks it’s okay to biblically (destroy -ed) the towns of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim because of the sins of their people including presumably the innocent kids (words left out).

Let’s not forget the lessons in Deuteronomy 22:23-24 where women who are raped in cities should be stoned to death, clearly not the work of a misogynist that one

No John, not a scholar, just someone who can read the (word left out) cache of immoral nonsense and conclude I can form my own morals without the help of 3,000 year old fairy stories

I understand that a political party feels it must change in accordance with the people. But the Church must not change with the times, nor buckle with the flow; it must seek to direct that flow itself, and change the times to follow its own Eternal tune. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a Church, nor would it have beliefs.

I think it is worrying that a politician feels the one thing another troubled institution needs is to become more like them. Have you not done enough damage already to your own arena of Parliament? You wish to come after the already sick Church of England too, and embrace it into your descent?

Reply: I gave no advice to the Archbishop on how to keep it togetehr, merely pointed out why what he is doing will split it more.