The mistake of the mandate

In the days when I was much younger and ( perhaps) more naive, a University lecturer reminded me that the Westminster system is not about mandates.
"We elect people to govern, not to implement a narrow raft of policies" he would say ( or words to that effect ).
He was not saying, I suggest, that politicians should be  allowed to make a swathe of promises and then not be held to account; but rather that we, the electorate, should pay attention to the tenor of the discussion rather than the minutiae.
We are not electing people to implement piddling little policies. that would be far too small,  but to govern according to clearly articulated principles.  This is of course easier said than done.
We, the electorate,  by and large have allowed ourselves to be seduced by minutiae...make my tax go down, stop the boats, free beer for all...
Rather than demanding that our politicians GOVERN according to PRINCIPLE.

The reason why the narrow mandate is a mistake, is that we actually discover there is not one but  a number of mandates (plural)....[housing, infrastructure, security, States' rights, increased wealth, closed borders, care for refugees, better education, military expenditure, lower taxes, improved health care, indigenous rights, marriage equality, law and order, water quality, a republic, farmers' rights, housing costs...... you get the idea...and I could go on]

Thinking back to the last election ( which was close... almost too close) all of these things and more were aired.

The electorate votes, I would say, not for one of these issues . But for the Team it believed most closely approximated most of their views in principle.
Some would hold that border control and lower taxes were what they held to be important. Others that water quality and military expenditure, law and order and marriage equality were what suited them.
We could go on and realise that some of us want part of this agenda and others want a different part.

This is NOT a mandate, this is an accomodation to a way of thinking.

So it is not appropriate or accurate to say that if I happen to have been elected, then everyone agrees with everything I said.
It is not even accurate to say that all those who voted for me ( and in this case it was barely 50%) were agreeing about the things that I was proposing.

There was no mandate for anything.
There was rather permission to govern.
Do not use the Mandate Argument to say...I cannot do this. Rather take the cudgels and govern.
Nothing would seem to be black and white, it is rather an invitation to enter into the mêlée of proper discussion.
Not applying the arbitrary mandates, but rather the principles that engender good government.

I fear that the "mandate argument" is the excuse of the craven to not declare themselves.

I do not believe that this wafer-thin government had a mandate for a plebiscite. If anything the reaction of the Houses shows that they clearly don't.

Get on and govern! You do not have a mandate for a plebiscite. And possibly not for much else either!
Get on and govern ...and realise the art of the possible......which after all according to many luminaries (Including J W Howard) is what politics is all about.

Marriage equality- playing politics

The curious  Attorney-General, George Brandis, had the cheek to stand in thew Senate yesterday and yet again berate his fellow Senators (berating  seems to be a standard tactic of the Right these days...we are berated by Brandis, by Abbott, by Joyce, by Pyne...and poor Malcolm does not seem to like this tactic, but is increasingly seduced by his fellows to become the Berater -General!)
Brandis stood in the Senate and whined "Stop 'playing politics' with the lives of gay people"
His dubious argument being that (despite weeks of notice) because the Senate core: the Labor, Green and certain cross-benchers (NXT, Derryn and others)...did not capitulate to the berating ..they were 'playing politics'
Neither Brandis, Turnbull or Pyne and others have answered the criticism that The idea of plebiscite itself is a political ploy. And indeed a highly cynical political ploy.
There are two or three points I would like to make:

1. The Plebiscite Proposal of itself was a cynical political ploy of Abbott,  Brandis, Pyne, Abetz and Joyce et al .... ( as members of the inner group) by implication...
This proposal was shifting  the decision from the party to the amorphous voter...
It is noted in Western democracies (like the UK and indeeed Australia and elsewhere) that when decisions get too uncomfortable for the lily-livered..they then suggest plebiscites.  Get the people  to decide. Then the cowardly politicians, who are paid big bucks to dcide on our behalf, don't have to take the heat
Now mind you we pay the people ( in the Australian case) at least $200, 000 a year to be 'decision makers'
To me, not a politician, but an humble presbyter....it seems that the pollies who are paid this way should do what they are paid to do.
The cynical political ploy is to NOT do what you are paid to do.

2.The Pragmatism of Democracy.  This is a dogma much espoused in the Coalition: "Politics is the art of the possible"  we change and bend to accomodate changed circumstances.
Now circumstances have changed you need to accomodate the possible.
Yet there is no shift...why not? You would prefer to whine that Labor have denied this opportunity ...despite the fact that the LGBTIQ communities have steadfastly said they don't want it done like this...they want a direct vote NOW

3. In reality this vote could happen today! The Coalition can allow a direct vote today...this could be a Party Vote...then we would see how the Party is directing its members to vote.  Or if it allowed a conscinece vote..then how would individuals vote?
It does not allow this becaue of the POLITICAL PLOY of the factional right that knows on either scheme it would nbe defeated


Don't berate me George Brandis about playing politics with people's lives...you and yours  started this.
It is now up to you, and those who have any sense of decency and integrity left to STOP PLAYING POLITICS

The Briggs Brag

Interesting article in today's Australian about the defeat of the brash Mr Jamie Briggs in the seat of Mayo.   More than one journalist has commented on the fact that Mr Briggs seems to blame everyone (in this case Julie Bishop) other than himself.  Which I think rather goes to the point that he just doesn't get it...like a lot of career Liberal politicians, his predecessor included; and his colleague in the electorate of Sturt.
The best comment I heard on morning radio was from  the redoubtable Senator X...he was asked why do you think your (the X Team's) candidate Rebekah Sharkie won?...the dialogue went something like this:

X: "Well she is a local, she lives in the electorate  and she worked the local community  for 6 weeks"
Interviewer: "Well so is Jamie Briggs, he lives locally and has been very visible"
X: "Yes" (and this is the killer...so pay attention to his nuanced comment said sotto voce ( which is my only explanation for why this perceptive comment has not been picked up in the press)
X: " The difference is that the more she went round the electorate people warmed to her, and liked her more..."
He left us to wonder what happened as Briggs went around his electorate! I will leave you make your own connection

One of my observations about the culture of the Liberal Party is that it is such a "boys club"  typified by snide remarks,  inhouse jokes, deprecatory slurs, and arrogant proclamations of their own 'rightness' as opposed to 'righteousness'

AD (Briggs' predecessor in Mayo ) used to caricature my predecessor in another position, Ron Williams: innovative missionary, bishop, & ethicist as Ron the Red!
I actually think Ron was not worried...and would have been bemused, knowing what schoolboy antics this boy's club gets up to.
But I think the use of the tactic which dismisses people so glibly is shallow and patronising.

Equally both the bumptious Mr Briggs, and the prissy Mr Pyne used to opine about Senator X.
They hated the fact that he was able to catch the public imagination...often by stunts    and DID!

It was the cry of a political establishment being furious that THEIR message did not impact like the good Senator's.

Well there are lots of messages to be learnt

Religion is not a "private pursuit"

We do not live in isolation.

The slightest thought of the manifestly intelligent person should help us realise that religion is not a personal or private pursuit. 
I mean religion is essentially a community activity, it's about relationships, family life, society....etc and etc.

It's a big call to question the Pope's right to make observations about outrageous things that people say from a religious perspective.

Let's face it, Trump doesn't seem to have any qualms about questioning the Pope or  anyone's bona fides on anything. Certainly  he doesn't seem to think there are any limitations on his right to comment on things that he is manifestly not qualified to coment about.

As for the furphy that religion is private and leaders should not offer political critique, try telling that to Mary...who saw her son crucified. 
Or to Mohammad, peace be upon him, who never felt such compunction. Or to George Bush who blatantly exploited his evangelical credentials.

Or to Barack Obama who sang with true faith of God's Amazing Grace. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN05jVNBs64)

The remaindered life

WE wonder rather
what our life is like!
Is anyone taking the slightest bit of notice!
or have we passed into the area that no one could care less





It is a problem that clergy, and other caring professionals face every day
who even cares about  what we say or do?

Personally it worries me a little that I am so easily discarded
I presume to think that I have quite a lot of important input to offer into the human condition.
Things like ......death is important.......kids must not be sacrificed......don't allow political  correctness to tells us that... this or that....is not important

I now have a  granddaughter....and to my mind she is the MOST important thing in the world
I think most, if not ALL, grandparents get this

More important  than my children (much as I love them),
more important than World Politics,
and more significant than theology, philosophy and any of the serious academic pursuits
If we don't get it right for our kids and grandkids
then we have most likely lost the plot!

I don't fully understand  this...but I know it to be true.

She (and her ilk) must be the focus of the world


The fact that many of us have the same reflexion is pretty great.
Our grandchildren are more important than anything


This might just save the world that is hell-bent on self-destruction

Who do our MP's represent?

Today Queensland Member for Cook, just expelled from the ALP, has notified everyone that he is staying on as an independent.
It is his right!  Although elected as a member of a political party (the ALP)...he is actually elected as himself, Billy Gordon!   He is not without controversy.
The Labor Premier called on him first to leave the party, he did ( or was expelled)! And then to do the "right thing" and resign and allow a by-election....even though it might cost her the leadership of the State. 
This is brave of Premier Anastasia Palaszczuk. I am impressed by her integrity and courage. Two virtues which appeal to the Christian heart...integrity and courage.
And, which I would admit, we have not always been good at.
I have met recently with a person who knows her well, his representations to me assure me she is (as 1066 and All That might say....a good thing). I will leave that to you
One of the issues this sets before the electorate, both in Queensland and, throughout the nation at both State and Federal level is whether a person is elected as an individual or as a member of a party ticket.
Inevitably when trouble occurs people frame their answer to meet their own circumstances.
So, Mr Gordon has quite rightly exercised his legal prerogative that he is elected as an individual!
Now he is an "Independent" ie. he has been cut free from the party which no-doubt funded much of his electoral campaign....he can do as his will and conscience require.
Ms Lambie, and Mr Lazarus did this, various others have left their parties after they have been elected.
And it is their right.......Apparently

But is it RIGHT!

Although Queensland does not have an Upper House, the Federal Parliament does and other States do.
We have been, at Federal level, given the option to vote, say, 1 to 16 "Above the line"  or 1 to 133 "Below the line".  
One gets the impression that most people vote Above the line.  Which is decidedly less complex and laborious. That is, they vote for the party and the Party's particular preferential choices.
So when an elected person who may have been elected No. 1 on the Labor or Liberal ticket .....or Palmer United Party....a case referred to above.....decides to jump ship what should happen?
The candidate inevitably says ....I was elected because I was me, and how fabulous am I because of my profile.....and the Party inevitably says .....They should resign because they were elected  on the Party Ticket.
Ms Palaszczuk was rather suggesting this about Mr Gordon...and Mr Palmer certainly wants Senators Lazarus and Lambie to capitulate to his strident influence, I draw short of calling it bullying!

In the end I think ABOVE THE LINE VOTING is iniquitous. It is a ploy of the Party System to manipulate numbers. So it serves them right when it backfires...as, increasingly, it seems to do

They're gone

Much as I hate to admit it I can't help but think that the Gillard government's days are numbered. It is difficult to imagine that the Labor party will be able to find another person to lead it to victory. The thought for example of a Rudd revitalization is just laughable.
To be sure Abbott's unremitting whining is being increasingly believed. The characterization of the PM as a 'liar' has been repeated so often that the electorate has begun to simply accept it.
The nail in the coffin? Nobody wants a tax. This encourages disbelief, people simply Want to believe all this because they don't want to pay.

Laurie Oakes in  a feature piece in the weekend's Herald Sun offers a long sought-after critique of the parlous state of politics  in this fair land. One sentence, perhaps, damns both sides

"the Opposition Leader is getting away with purveying trashy policy because the nation is mesmerised by the Government's woes. While Julia Gillard continues to stumble from one mess to another, Abbott largely escapes scrutiny."

It raises the question about whether we have the best sort of leaders or those who have been seduced by the myth of "pragmatism" versus "policy".
My feeling is that if for one moment our leaders/parties could grasp the nettle of creative policy and pursue it with vigour, whilst resisting the temptation to water down vision with some perverted notion of what is popular we would see a shift in political allegiance. distracted.
 Oh dear! So shallow! On all sides. From all parties.

Surprise! Surprise!

Having watched Yes Minister! at least three times I was not surprised to read in the first Advertiser of 2011 that the State Budget leak enquiry has not been able to nail anyone.

Sir Humphrey clearly demonstrated all those years ago that the purpose of leak enquiries is to obscure a culprit rather than to find one.

One of the more telling exchanges between the two most senior public servants goes: “Are you suggesting I give confidential information to the press?” “Certainly not! This is confidential disinformation.” To which the potential leaker acquiesces “Ah, that is different!”
Twas ever so.

Look on my works

My prediction is that the foolish words of Treasurer Foley suggesting that future generations will build him a statue will come back to haunt him again and again.
I guess that not a few folk with a more literary bent immediately thought of the poet Shelley who in the desert came across the decayed and broken statue of Ozymandias who had boasted “look on my works ye mighty and despair”. The poet then observes:

“Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away”

If we do not heed the lessons of history about hubris, arrogance and misplaced pride then (as is clearly apparent) we are doomed to repeat our mistakes.

A matter of conviction

Today's paper has one cartoon called "The Politician". The interviewer is pushing a microphone in the mouth and asking "Do you have any convictions that we don't know about?"

The Politician answers... 'Not sure which way you mean it. Either way, No!'

It is an interesting joke, I have oft times bemoaned how many politicians seem to be headline driven rather than principle-driven. It leads to poor policy and the sort of tedious politics that we seem to be experiencing at both a national and state level just at the moment.

The curious reporting of the visit to Afghanistan by both the PM and the Leader of the Opposition in the last week is a case in point. Both seem to have handled this poorly.

Julia could have just chosen to note that Abbott was unable to go at the time and that he would have been travelling later. And why did Tony have to be so stupid as to say he wasn't going going to avoid being jetlagged, allowing the PM and others to at least suggest that troops in Afghanistan were less important than the Conservative party conference.

Then this morning he cries "bastardry", but at least he gets his gun-toting picture in the paper (I wonder if and indeed why he might have had training to use such a weapon). He said he wanted to be 'embedded' with the troops.

How crazy is that? Any fool can see that that is essentially a risky proposition. (At Least Prince Harry who presumably is a similar sort of risk is a highly trained combatant), and it's not that Abbott is endangering himself but he is endangering soldiers who are already at high risk.

Both of them should be ashamed of the way they have attempted squeeze the political advantage out of this.

The Farce. Act II

Could not believe Katter's performance on Q& A last night! I have been spending the week telling folks that he is not as bad as he was. But I am afraid that I have to revise that estimation.

He says many wise things. But he is a bully of a man, who can only deal with criticism by force, shouting down his opponents. Refusing to engage in any constructive dialogue that dares to critique his narrow views.

That was scene 1 of this Act II

Scene 2. Was his appearance at a bizarre Press Conferenece at 1 p.m. today. At which he pontificated and procrastinated. One can only wonder why. He went on and on.

There seemed only one dynamic that was at play here. He was holding a separate Press Conference because his conclusion was different from the other two.

He supported the coalition.

Thank goodness, despite Rob Oakshot's equally tedious prevarication (15 mins), he and Windsor went with Ms Gillard. I will blog later about the one really good thing that Oakshot said and the saintly Fr Spencer Dunkerley who foreshadowed him by 40 years

Almost killing me

I vowed at the beginning of this week that I was not going to blog about the election for a week.
It is almost killing me. But I think it was a good thing to do.

So, this blog about "not blogging about the election" is not a blog about the election, it is a blog about blog content; if you get my drift.

I almost survived the whole of yesterday without deliberately listening to the news or current affairs discussion. I say 'deliberately', because it was impossible to not hear anything as almost every other second comment had something to do with the events of last weekend.

This, too, is not a comment about the election but about the paucity of variation available on talk-radio.

If you think this is a poor excuse for a blog...then you will understand something of my dilemma.

The Tower of Babel

As I reflected on the events of the weekend my mind went to the story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 . While it may seem to some a little too religious as a reflection on politics it is an archetypal story about what humanity does when words become shallow and vacuous and leaders begin to think they are in control of the universe and can promise anything

The Tower of Babel

Did we just witness

Babel's tower

and the damage it has done

to public confidence

to those whose voice is never heard

Did we hear

women and men,

as they strove to touch the sky,

promise to give

what they can

never deliver?

And caring less

than they have cared before

to gain a moment's approval?

Do I make

a bold assumption

that my words are

any less of a Babel

as I write, and speak,

and chit and chat

and not listen to others,

to myself

or to God?

Up for grabs

I would have to say that, by and large, there is nothing in it for me...so my vote is up for sale!

While those who know me will also know I am joking, it would seem that our politicians seem to think that this is what they should be doing...ie trying to bribe the voters with bigger and better what evers.

This is so transparent that it has become laughable. As far as I can tell a couple of things are happening:

• A whole lot of people like me know more about who they are not going to vote for rather than who they are going to end up voting for. At a lunch yesterday, in a lull in the conversation I (perhaps foolishly) threw in "Well have we decided who we are going to vote for?" I was not quite prepared for the tirade that followed against our local member. Though I think it's entirely justified.
• So, a lot of people I know who think the humane treatment of refugees is important find themselves looking for an alternative way through the major party hypocrisy. They will obviously vote Green or (maybe) Democrat.
• Yes, that's another interesting thing. Suddenly Democrats have begun to appear again.
• Others who are perhaps less inclined to focus on the refugee issue seem to be gravitating back to their traditional party (I was conscious that at least one person at the above mentioned lunch who is a traditional Liberal voter would have found the vitriol against our sitting member..AS...pretty hard to cope with...she will never vote Labor, finds it hard to vote Green because they are even more pinko than than Labor.) Such folk whether Labor or Liberal traditionally will gravitate back to their comfort zone
• As one who thinks that it's quite good to have no one party having an absolute right to rule, I would like to think that the Greens will actually get enough votes to win a couple of lower house seats. I think it's unlikely, but we will see.

The hermeneutics of politics

(This article could be subtitled "If you aren't bored enough by the electioneering then here's another boring article")

It is disturbing to us all, I suspect, that there is more discussion about the hermeneutic (here) of the election campaigns, than the policy content.

That is, how the plans are structured, composed, written...and by whom...and to whom they are directed...is actually proving to be more interesting than the policy itself. (see this cartoon)

When you think about it this is not really surprising.

When 'opposing' parties actually seek to ensure they are keeping up with the other in the bidding war then we see (as is clearly observable) that policy looks remarkably similar. It gravitates to a centre of mediocrity.

It is differentiated not by substance, but by degree. It is not (if you like) 'this is my ideology' that drives policy but "anything you can do I can do better".

So we look rather at the (only slightly) more interesting campaign structure and hermeneutics.

"Who is making the decisions?", and "What is the process (eg focus groups) that is used?". "What role does media play in driving the campaign?"

But, in the end, we all realise that this is not what the real game is about.

So we will content ourselves with deciding on whether we think Abbott is more of a bastard than Gillard is a bitch!

God help us!

A new degree of bizzaretude

Last week I was at a function where we were discussing same-sex civil unions. An openly gay person (who has been in a long term committed relationship for 27 years) made the observation that in any long-term political lobbying it would be better if the spokesperson was clearly identified as heterosexual.

I understand what this is about. But I made the observation that I had some problem with that and my opinion was that we shouldn't be requiring people to identify themselves by what is essentially private information and no else's business other than their own...viz. their sexuality!

The politician present made the observation "Obviously you are not a politician!"

I was happy to state that I was not!

But I recognise that despite all the niceties about people's privacy, about tolerance, that people are fascinated by other people's personal affairs.

But, it would seem that we have stooped to a new low in the political arena when the private affairs of our lady PM are being treated in such a cavalier fashion.

She is living in a heterosexual relationship in a way that a good number of the general populace is. Why is it in any way remarkable? Why is it my business or yours?

It would be my hope that the electorate will express its disapproval of this sort of crap, and the invasion of privacy

In a community in which so many people have chosen (and without condemnation) to live in de facto relationships, it seems to me no more or less remarkable that one of our elected leaders should be in such a relationship. It is in reality none of my business.

And even more ridiculous when half the populace now seems to live in such relationships without anyone batting an eyelid.

Right is might

I agree with today's Advertiser editorial that we do not need a people’s assembly to tell us what we already know, that the majority of Australian people are ready to pay for their carbon usage. We understand that this is the right thing to do.
The argument that we should not do it because the Americans can’t get it through their legislature is a complete and utter furphy . If we were to take ourselves back two hundred years and say because the American still have slaves so should we then it rather exposes the shallowness of such an argument. There is nothing wrong, and a whole lot right with Australia leading the way.

Orthodox political thought

In the last week I have had a bundle of political information but only two direct requests to make 'information' available to the people of our church community.

Now, the Anglican Church (despite often being otherwise characterised ) is not politically homogenous. It has often been characterised as "the Tory Party at Prayer"...or sometimes more whimsically (referring to the Anglo Catholic section with which I identify) as "The Communist Party at Mass"!

The reality is that we are theologically, socially and, most certainly, politically a heterodox community. It's often observed that our one defining characteristic is that we are all totally different...and we respect each other's right to be so.

This doesn't always make for easy living, but it does make life interesting.

So at times of election I try to be careful to not promote the line of one particular party, though many people would know and/or guess that I lean to the left.

The two requests to make the policies of particular parties known have actually come from other religious groups. One from an agency which promotes Christian Pastoral support Workers (formerly called chaplains) in state schools. Their advice is about the one issue of funding. Though they also urge people to write to their local member (of any persuasion) about the issue. This latter action seems to me perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable is to be seen to be promoting one or other party in particular.

Given, also, what I note above...that Anglicans cherish difference...it would be a mistake to make the assumption that we are all particularly sympathetic and think the same way.

The second solicitation comes from a party which clearly identifies itself as a Christian Party-even though when it suits them electorally they back away from that association, though it is clear that Family First seeks to draw support from mainly conservative evangelical churches.

Such churches probably do not tolerate theological diversity in the way that the Anglican Church does!

It would seem that they also have a fairly narrow conservative political agenda. I don't have any particular problem with people being conservative. What I do object to is the use of descriptors that seem to claim there is only one Christian viewpoint.

Thus when they put out a Christian Values Checklist (see here for similar information) it is for me some what problematic.

Of the 15 points on this particular document, which seems remarkably like the document put out for the recent State election...even though it claims to relate specifically to the Federal parliament..I don't have problems with some (possibly 6 of the 15....) but I would take exception to the bland statement that some points clearly represent "Christian values"

Item 3 for example : Support parental choice of schooling with education vouchers is clearly not a specifically Christian value at all

Of more concern are those matters where I actually think the value is not Christian at all

Item 4 'Protect marriage' (quite happy with that...but it goes on) 'oppose Relationship Registers for same-sex couples'

To my mind this flies in the face of the freedom that God gives to us in the Gospel. I don't dispute that many Christian, perhaps even most won't agree with me. But while I want to protect marriage I don't think that opposing same-sex marriage is the key strategy. What about providing adequate childcare, support for new parents etc. etc?

In fact I want society to stop acting prejudicially against people simply because they are gay. Where is that Christian value.

Item11 also want to prevent same-sex couples from having access to IVF and adoption

There is an agenda here. But to my mind it is not a Christian agenda. It is an anti-gay agenda, and I find no Christian value on this 'checklist' about protecting gay people from discrimination.

Quite the reverse. Items 12 & 13 promote narrow religious privilege with regard to vilification laws and anti-discrimination legislation....that is they want religious groups to have the right to be intolerant and discriminatory in a way that no other sector of society can be allowed to be so. I just think this sort of narrow seeking of privilege is so against the spirit of Paul's teaching about being responsible citizens that it is shocking.

So, I won't be issuing their narrow political advice in the name of "Christian Values"

A

UnAustralian

I tire of the epithet that declares this or that to be "unaustralian".

It is clear that in a pluralist society we are as divided about what is and what is not "Australian" as we can be.

For heavens sake our key value would seem to be that people should be allowed the maximum liberty to do what they like without interference. It's unaustralian to try and minimise people's liberties in fairly arbitrary ways.

No one is seriously suggesting that values of safety and security should be compromised by a sort of anarchy which says anything goes...but saying what people should and should not be allowed to wear...and the burkha is the case in point...is ridiculous

I personally am not inclined to believe that Senator Bernardi is the best arbiter of what is and what is not “Australian”.
His comments about the burkha would seem to be such blatant political opportunism, aimed at the sort of divisive scare tactics that the Opposition is renowned for, that it causes me to conclude he is the last person who should be allowed to pontificate on what is “unaustralian”.

Religion and politics

I hope to offer some thoughts on various aspects of this issue in the days to come. But here is a blog by the amazingly perceptive Ruth Gledhill of the London Times, with particular refereence to the British election campaign

http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2010/04/gordon-browns-gospel-dream-where-wealth-helps-more-than-the-wealthy.html#more