Thursday, February 14, 2013

The Eastleigh By-Election

Much has been said on this and much more, and yet unusual for a by election there is an obvious moral dimension here.
We have an MP who has had to resign in disgrace and a Conservative Candidate who has shown a lack of due thought, care, and consideration, to what her duties as an MP. That is if you take into account her comments recorded by David Aaronovich in 2005, for which, I fail to see, we have seen an apology for.

In it she is quoted as saying:


'With an increasing number of immigrants and asylum seekers,' she told one newspaper, 'then the pot is reduced for the rest of us.' This, of course, is inaccurate as far as immigrants go, but I've interrupted her. She went on: 'Mr Blair has got to stop focusing on issues around the world such as Afghanistan and Aids in Africa and concentrate on the issues that affect the people of Middle England, like myself who pay the taxes which keep the country going.' Then came this line. 'I don't care about refugees. I care about my little boy and I want the treatment he deserves.' 

As Aaronovich stated later, her concern for autism has been blighted by these unfortunate comments.
The fact is this does not only show a general lack of concern and consideration on her part, it also shows a lack of judgement, a lack of foresight, a lack of understanding and empathy of issues outside her own immediate environment and those are not qualities an MP should have! I ask the people of Eastleigh who are inclined to vote Conservative, do you really want an MP with such a scatter gun approach and an insulting repertoire towards global issues!

8 comments:

Louise said...

Mmm, while I see your point to an extent I also wonder if it's not a bit unfair to entirely judge her on this one statement. This was a statement made while she was worried about the appalling provision of special needs education for her son. Was it badly worded? Absolutely. But it was completely understandable and I think a lot of people would probably have a lot of sympathy with the point of view.

To judge her on this one statement, made at a stressful time in her life almost a decade ago is a bit unfair. Judge her on her intolerant attitude to equal marriage expressed within the last few weeks - that's much fairer.

Paul Burgin said...

I get your point but it would help if, especially given the time that has gone by, Maria Hutchings clarified her views and made some sort of apology

Helen (married an immigrant!) said...

Why should she appologise for such a sensible, reasonable statement? It is ridiculous that our country welcomes immigrants when we are so overcrowded and do not have enough employment for our own native population.
I'd vote for her! (But if others in her party are going to support pretend "marriage", then I would have to stop voting Tory!)

Paul Burgin said...

But is it sensible and reasonable! It is such a loaded and difficult issue involving many different people immigrating for different issues that it is dangerous to give an overriding sweeping statement. Many immigrate over here because of problems with their country and apply to live here for reasons of safety, including Christians escaping persecution. Not only that but Maria Hutchings has also said that we should not focus on Third World issues, in other words, ignore those who are less fortunate than ourselves. After all, speaking to a fellow Christian, are we not called to love our neighbour, and does it not say in Luke Ch 10 that we are not allowed to decide who is our neighbour!The Bible is also littered with exhortations to care for the immigrant (alien) because the people of God were once aliens in Egypt.

Helen said...

Sorry if I go too far off topic, but as you've mentioned Luke 10 in reply...!

I have been reading on the subject of loving your neighbour recently, and have come across respected theologians who question the biblical mandate for social action.

John MacArthur says:"When people look to the church to end poverty,halt human trafficking, bring drinking water to Africa or cure AIDS, they are looking in the wrong place. The church is not commissioned to do any of those tasks." cited in "The Social Gospel, Yesterday & Today - Part 2" by Gary Gilley (web article)

It has been argued, the mission of the church is telling people how to be saved, not mercy ministry.
http://thecripplegate.com/biblical-pillars-for-mercy-ministry/

http://thecripplegate.com/my-church-loves-the-poor-so-i-dont-have-to/ gives the view that we are to be good neighbours individually, not corporately. So, if I find someone collapsed in dire straits on my doorstep, I am to help, but that does not mean I have to go looking for such!
It could be argued the Good Samaritan supports this view; he came across someone in trouble whilst going about his daily business.

For a REALLY interesting take on the parable of the Good Samaritan teaching something totally different from the received wisdom of the social gospel try:
http://thecripplegate.com/only-god-is-good-including-samaritans/
This makes the point that the Good Samaritan is the most wrongly interpreted and misapplied of all Jesus's parables. Jesus told it, not to tell us how to live, but to refute the idea that being a good neighbour can EARN you salvation.

I love thecripplegate, & whilst I am not a dispensationalist like them, I otherwise have a lot of time for their views.
Blessings

Paul Burgin said...

I would agree only in so far that the Church's primary aim is evangelisation, but it needs to be socially involved and not turn a blind eye or else it would make a mockery to those in need that it cares! Such teachings can encourage Christians to almost wilfully do things corporately that they know deep down will hurt others and to be honest I suspect that such teachers are saying such things so as to give comfort to their own political leanings and give it a theological construct

Paul Burgin said...

In any case the Bible does exhort Kings and rulers to give compassion and help to the Poor!

John said...

Yes, this by election has a moral dimension but it is not the tiresome, postmarxist racism/antiracism dialectic, it is whether or not politicians act in good faith. The three main parties just want votes and then they will forget everything they promised and return to their own self interest when elected. Voters should vote for anyone rather than Tory, Labour and Lib-Dem. See Eastleigh By election.