One of the great debates of Calvanism concentrated on the issue of lapsarianism. There were two schools of thought in lapsarianism; supra and infra. One school argued that God decides who to save before the fall of mankind and the other schools argues that God decides to allow the race to fall before he makes a decision as to whom he should save.
When you consider the contrasting experiences of the current Labour party it makes you begin to wonder which what was decided when it came to Brown and Blair.
Whilst I fundamentally disagree with Tony Blair on so much you cannot but argue that his premiership was a gifted period for the Labour party. Unworried by an opposition that could challenge him, or internal critics who were prepared to challenge him, he led a sainted premiership where he never looked under threat at the polls and never looked likely to lose any of the three elections he fought. Like Margaret Thatcher, whether you agreed or disagreed with him you admired him for his determination to see something through.
So, the fact that God decided he should depart the scene when he did, before the disasters of the past few months befell the Labour Government, can only demonstrate that the Calvinistic viewpoint of supralapsariansim was at work.
But what then of poor Gordon? Did he deserve the disaster of the last few months, or were they the creation of Blair?
It is interesting to note that of the areas where he has had success it has often been when he pursues the style or the policy of Blair that has brought Brown the plaudits. It was pure Blairism that Brown used when he went out to the people during the Summer floods. The ‘policy’ of troops out of Iraq was one started by Blair - although I accept that Brown’s presentation of it went spectacularly wrong; Blair would never have done what Brown did.
Then there is the economy. How is it that after ten years of spinning the Labour economic miracle (which in fact was no miracle but a lesson in how to succeed by doing nothing) it is only when Brown leaves that job that the economy starts to fall apart. Was that, in the Calvinist term, God deciding who to destroy or who to save after the fall of the economy?
You could argue that the party funding rows were a hang over from the Blair years and yet it was Brown’s appointments to the Labour party that failed to take action when they heard about the problems of secret third party donations. The General secretary might not have been a Brown man but the chief fundraiser most definitely was.
Of course, Calvanism should be closer to the faith of Brown than that of Blair, but as 2008 looms on the horizon there can be little doubt that after many years of apparent foreign strife we now face a period of domestic social and economic unease we have not seen since the late 70’s.
High tax, a declining economy, soaring fuel prices, heightened strike activity, a huge balance of payments deficit, failing public services, a declining third party, a Prime Minister in office having never won an election - this feels like the late 70’s.
Whichever side Calvin’s lapsarianist God is on, it sure isn’t Gordon Brown’s.
Categories:
