*** DEBUG END ***

Press: Gorgeous George returns

03 April 2012

by Andrew Brown

Amusement: The Sun on Saturday

Amusement: The Sun on Saturday

HOLY WEEK was marked, at least at its start, by almost nothing in the British press. Instead, a small and not entirely confected row about The Sunday Times’s choice of an illus­tration for the cash-for-dinners row. This showed a parody of the Last Supper in which David Cameron ap­pears to be the Jesus figure. Obviously, this — and its timing — upset serious Christians; atheists, if they noticed it, will have been horrified that Nick Clegg was not portrayed as Judas.

THE backwash of Dr Rowan Williams’s resignation continued to supply fresh signs of the rather bewildered contempt in which the chattering classes hold Christianity. Catherine Bennett in The Guardian was a fairly representative ex­ample: “Guaranteed places for a dozen male prelates who are guided by religious laws and selected by a church hierarchy which denies equal rights to women and gay people and the dying but incapa­citated: if this is any measure of the democratic zeal of the joint committee on House of Lords reform, you wonder if they shouldn’t just give up now to save disappoint­ment, or legal challenges, later.”

BUT the real religious story was George Galloway, and his victory in the Bradford by-election. Whether he praised “Allah” or “God” or both after he had won is not clear. It seems likely that he praised “God” at the count and “Allah” when touring the city afterwards. Either way, he put the fear of Deity into London.

You might say that he ran against every aspect of Tony Blair’s rule, not just the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the exclusion of God from political discourse. There is an irony here, since Mr Blair, out of power, understands very well the power and importance of faith.

Cue a great deal of Melanie Phillip­sing, not least by Melanie Phillips herself in the Mail. “With Galloway’s election, religious extrem­ism has become for the first time a potential game-changer in British politics.” This might be thought of as an insult to the Scots, and it cer­tainly seems an insult to Ian Paisley — I mean, if he’s not a religious extremist, who is? But of course what she means is Muslim extremism.

“Just as such religious hucksterism inflames millions of followers in the Islamic world, so certain unscrupu­lous British politicians have now realised they, too, can tap into the same well of irrational hatred to deliver them elect­oral victory.”

Reading her column, I was struck by how much of it could have been written in the 1850s about Roman Catholics here, and still more about RC immigrants to Boston. Indeed, Con­gressman Pete King, who takes a very Melanie-Phillips line on Islam, owes his career to the cultiva­tion of pro-IRA sentiment among the Irish diaspora’s descend­ants in the US. Galloway, of course, is a Roman Catholic him­self, though he finds it politic to play down this aspect of his spirituality.

I don’t like Galloway, and would never vote for a man with his record of sucking up to dictators; but it’s difficult to see him as a character more repulsive — or less charming — than Boris Johnson. We ought, I think, to distinguish between the faults of a candidate and those of his electorate.

There was a lot of metropolitan disdain about both at the weekend. Here’s Rod Liddle in The Sunday Times: “Not a great deal was said about the stuff that would interest the voters in 99% of other constituencies — the NHS, jobs, strikes and so on — unless it was simply an adolescent, catch-all condem­nation of how evil capitalism is.

“Instead, we had Galloway insist­ing to his electorate that he was tee­total, and always had been, con­demning all western inter­ven­tion in Muslim lands and claiming his victory was down to ‘the grace of God’, and his sup­­porters bandying about the word ‘Zionist’ at every possible opportunity. . .

“As a campaign strategy, you have to say it paid off hand­somely. Instead of electing a moderate and decent Muslim bloke who was standing on the Labour ticket, Bradford West’s Muslim voters turned out en masse for Gorgeous George.”

I’m on my way to Bradford as I write this, and it’s reasonably certain that the story is a lot more com­plicated than it appears to Rod Liddle and Melanie Phillips, low as that may be setting the bar. What’s missing from their analysis was any con­sideration of how all these Muslims voted be­fore Galloway. The turnout did not rise in his election.

This isn’t a particularly cheering reflection. If it’s true, the people who voted for Galloway were previously voting for other candidates as their clan networks told them to do, and this pattern can hardly be confined to Bradford. Suppose that religious zeal turns out to be a means of breaking these networks down. What will conservatives make of it? What will pro­gressives? Quite probably, since it cuts across the assumptions of both groups, both will ignore it.

Welcome to the Church Times

​To explore the Church Times website fully, please sign in or subscribe.

Non-subscribers can read four* articles for free each month. (You will need to register.)

*Until the end of June: we’re doubling the number of free articles to eight, to celebrate the publication of our Platinum Jubilee double issue.