Christian Candidates and Election Results

OK, for anyone interested in how the Christian candidates have faired this election:

Clwyd West: Rev Dr David Griffiths – Christian Party – 239 votes – 0.6% of vote – 6th place

Western Isles: Murdo Murray – independent Christian candidate – 1,412 votes – 9.6% of vote – 3rd place

Cardiff North: Derek Thomson – Christian Party – 300 votes – 0.6% of vote – 6th Place

Barking: George Hargreaves – Christian Party – 482 votes – 1.1% of vote – 6th place

Cardiff South & Penarth: Clive Bate – Christian Party – 285 votes – 0.6% – 8th Place.

Brecon & Radnorshire: Jeffrey Green – Christian Party – 222 Votes – 0.6% of vote – 6th Place

Central Croydon: James Gitau – ex-BNP Christian Party – 264 votes – 0.5% – 8th place

Lincoln: Rev Robert West BNP – 1,367 votes – 3% of vote – 4th place

Pontypridd: Donald Watson – Christian Party – 365 votes – 1% of vote – 6th Place

Vale of Glamorgan: John Harrold – Christian Party – 236 Votes – 0.5% of vote – 7th Place

Ynys Mon: David Owen – Christian Party – 163 votes – 0.5% of vote – 7th Place

BOLTON SOUTH EAST: Navaid Syed – Christian Peoples Alliance – 195 votes – 0.5% of votes – 7th Place

Brentford & Isleworth: Navaid Syed – Christian Peoples Alliance – 195 votes – 0.5% of votes – 7th Place

CAMBRIDGSHIRE SOUTH EAST: Daniel Bell – Christian Peoples Alliance – 489 votes – 0.8% of votes – 7th Place

Dover and Deal: David Clark – Christian Peoples Alliance – 200 votes – 0.4% of votes – 7th Place

Erith & Thamesmead: Sid Cordle – Christian Peoples Alliance – 379 votes – 0.9% of votes – 8th Place

HYNDBURN: Kevin Logan – Christian Peoples Alliance – 795 votes – 1.9% of votes – 6th Place

ILFORD NORTH: Robert Hampson – Christian Peoples Alliance – 456 votes – 1% of votes – 7th Place

KINGSTON & SURBITON: Anthony May – Christian Peoples Alliance – 226 votes – 0.4% of votes – 7th Place

Lewisham & Penge: Stephen Hammond- Christian Peoples Alliance – 317 votes – 0.7% of votes – 6th Place

Lewisham Deptford: Malcolm Martin – Christian Peoples Alliance – 487 votes – 1.2% of votes – 6th Place

LIVERPOOL WALTON: John Manwell – Christian Peoples Alliance – 297 votes – 0.9% of votes – 6th Place

Milton Keynes North: John Lennon – Christian Peoples Alliance – 206 votes – 0.4% of votes – 7th Place

MILTON KEYNES SOUTH: Suzanne Nti – Christian Peoples Alliance – 245 votes – 0.4% of votes – 7th Place

RICHMOND PARK: Susan May – Christian Peoples Alliance – 133 votes – 0.2% of votes – 6th Place

Sutton & Cheam: Matthew Connolly – Christian Peoples Alliance – 52 votes – 0.1% of votes – 8th Place

West Ham: Stan Gain – Christian Peoples Alliance – 1327 votes – 2.8% of votes – 4th Place

West Suffolk: Colin Young – Christian Peoples Alliance – 373 votes – 0.8% of votes – 7th Place

Northampton North: Timothy Webb – Christian Peoples Alliance – 98 votes – 0.2% of votes – 8th Place (thanks Colin for emailing)

Put in its simplest form, the Christian candidates have done about as well as the BNP.

UPDATE: Colin has emailed over a very comprehensive list of Christian candidates and their vote scores which can be found on this link:

Christian Votes – download Document

Christian Votes PDF format

Thanks Colin!

Tags: ,

29 Responses to “Christian Candidates and Election Results”

  1. Jim Says:

    Anyone care to interpret these figures?

    When I found that the CPA was fielding all these candidiates I thought it was a rash move. What other result could there possibly have been than a humiliatingly low number of votes.

    I expect some people will latch onto this and declare that this proves there are even fewer committed Christians in the UK than previously assumed. We know of course that most Christaians will have voted for the mainstream parties, so what is the benefit to Christianity of this apparent bid for recognition? I would have thought it has badly backfired, but maybe I’ve misunderstood.

    Incidentally, I found the manifesto refreshingly sane and well argued, although I don’t agree with several of the policies.

    I’m surprised to see you include Rev Robert West in this list. Is it becasue of the Rev title? Surely it’s not the BNP allegiance? ;)

  2. webmaster Says:

    I agree Jim.

    Yes, Rev West (BNP) included because he is touted as a high profile ‘Christian’ politician, but you knew that anyway :)

  3. Bump Says:

    Glad they didn’t do any better.

    Robert West shouldn’t have been included, it is an insult to Christianity, even the idiot Christian, party to suggest he is a Christian.

  4. Martin Earls Says:

    Perhaps we have lost sight of the fact that small parties don’t run to win. They run to bring attention to their core principles and to air their positions in public venues. They influence the mainstream parties by their presence, even without winning. Today the CPA succeeds as a still small voice.

    Thank you for posting this summary of the Christian candidate results.

  5. jack G Thomas Says:

    To have a BNP candidate as “Christian” is shocking.
    The three main parties were Christian once, and have moved away from their roots. The BNP were fascist (Oswald Mosley), and are now pretending to be Christian – I surprised people are fooled. I agree that the CPA were mad to field national candidates (apart from may be in Westham). Does any one know about local candidates? The CPA manifesto is very good and well argued it’s a shame they are not a bit bigger – lets see what happens with PR

  6. Susan Says:

    Christian Concern for our Nation has just issued a press release saying how chuffed they are about the election of Christian Conservative Candidate:

    Here’s the press release:

    Former Liberal Democrat MP and front-bench spokesman Dr Evan Harris has been unseated in the Oxford West and Abingdon constituency by Nicola Blackwood, in what is a significant development for both Christians and the political world.

    Following a close-run campaign, Nicola Blackwood overturned Dr Harris’ 2005 majority of more than 7000, winning by just under 200 votes.

    Christian concerns over Dr Harris’ extreme position on many ethical matters have undoubtedly played an important part in the result. Many local Christians and churches have engaged with the election process in a way not seen before. In particular, constituency resident and ordained Anglican minister, Rev Lynda Rose, has worked tirelessly and boldly to draw voters’ attention to the reality of Dr Harris’ anti-life and secularising agenda.

    It seems that for many, these critical issues, which include matters of life and death, have outweighed party considerations. Given Dr Harris’ track-record, such a development is unsurprising.

    In spite of his medical background, Evan Harris has consistently pushed anti-life policies that strike at the heart of human dignity. He has promoted the further liberalisation of abortion provision, backed controversial embryonic research methods and campaigned for the legalisation of assisted suicide.

    Since 2000 he has been honorary president of the Liberal Democrats Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender group, Delga, and he has backed attacks on the traditional understanding of marriage and family, voting for example against the requirement to consider a child’s need for both a mother and a father in determining eligibility for IVF treatment.

    His determined and ruthlessly applied secularising agenda has been recognised in his being awarded the National Secular Society’s ‘Secularist of the Year’ award in 2009 and in his being appointed a Vice President of the British Humanist Association. It is also reflected in his opposition to faith schools and to protections for Christian ethos organisations to act in line with their doctrinal positions.

    Worryingly, Dr Harris has occupied positions of significant influence and responsibility both within the Liberal Democrat party and in Parliament. He has in the past been front-bench spokesman on health for the party and since the 2005 election has held the science portfolio. He has also sat on parliamentary committees for education and employment, science and technology and human rights.

    Commenting on the result, Andrea Williams, Director of CCFON, said: “This is one of the most significant individual results of the election as it sees the removal of one of the most prolific anti-life and anti-Christian parliamentarians. However we must not take it for granted. Christians must work to support Nicola as she takes her seat in Parliament and pray that she will be a Christian of courage and conviction.”

  7. Webmaster Says:

    Just to let folks know that after all of the controvesy surrounding the revelation that Phillippa Stroud (Conservative rising star and candidate) used to excerise demons to cure homosexuality….see here:

    http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2010/05/02/philippa-stroud-tory-candidate-cameron-advisor-ran-church-cured-homosexuality-prayer/

    She lost anyway……

  8. Sophie, Surrey Says:

    Having participated here for some months it’s very clear to me that there is nothing even approaching a Christian consensus on what one might describe as social issues. Some Christians oppose abortion, others support a woman’s right to choose. Some oppose homosexuality, others feel equally certain that it’s a human rights issue. When debate is particularly fierce it seems to me that the only thing we really have in common is the label “Christian.”

    The policies of the Christian Party on a number of issues are repellent to me, and it seems downright dim to launch a party based on policies that are by no means common to all, or even most, Christians. You could easily have the bizarre situation at the next election of Christians on doorsteps campaigning against the Christian Party. Talk about confusing!

    As for the CCFON press release, it annoys me that this deeply conservative bunch claim to be the voice of Christian concern. They represent themselves and their unpleasant agenda, not me nor others like me.

    I was particularly annoyed by the paragraph: “In spite of his medical background, Evan Harris has consistently pushed anti-life policies that strike at the heart of human dignity. He has promoted the further liberalisation of abortion provision, backed controversial embryonic research methods and campaigned for the legalisation of assisted suicide.”

    In spite of? In another life I’m a medical writer and most medics have very much the same views as Evan Harris. He seems an enlightened bloke, and The Times describes his departure yesterday as part of “a terrible night for science.” Reading about his interests and achievements, he far better reflects my opinion than CCFON.

  9. Jim Says:

    Interesting to read the CCFON piece on Dr Evan Harris. Next they’ll be calling him Dr Evil…

    I guess whether you think he is an extremist or not depends on where you stand. Yes, some of his views are inconsistent with some Christian doctine, and he is outspoken, but does that make him the extremist that CCFON paints him to be? And isn’t it part of British tradition to have secular government?

    Incidentally, he was awarded the National Secular Society’s Secularist of the Year Award in recognition of his role in the abolition of the common law offence of blasphemous libel. I understand there are many Christinas who agree that abolition was appropriate.

  10. Webmaster Says:

    Dead right Jim, I agree with the abolition of all blasphemy laws and that includes the back door variety.

  11. Sophie, Surrey Says:

    Just up on the BBC site: “The British National Party (BNP) has lost all 12 of its seats on east London’s Barking and Dagenham Council.”

  12. Jim Says:

    I’m tempted to say “Alleluia!”, but I’ll limit myself to “Thank Goodness!”

  13. Sophie, Surrey Says:

    Giggle.

  14. DAVID GRIFFITHS Says:

    As the Christian Party of Wales Candidate in Clwyd West, I ran to proclaim the Lordship of Christ Jesus.

    In my speech after the count I appealed to the heart of all parties that this election was not about politicians, not about parties but about our nation, a nation that had turned away from Christ Jesus. It was about HIS LORDSHIP – not even about the Christian Party winning or even participating.

    Yes, I had talked to Labour Party activists who understood about the heart of their party and the loss of Christian Socialism. Yes I did influence them but not out of self gain – but out of the love of Jesus calling them back to their Christian roots.

    Yes, the Conservative activists congratulated me on my speech for I had recognised David Jones MP wonderful record on ethical issues in the Commons and the fact that he shows his Christianity to all. His dear wife showed such love and understanding towards the proclamation of Christy’s Lordship. He had signed the Westminster Declaration like me – it was very important. I was stopped by one of his Christian activists on the Promenade in Llandudno who acknowledged the pre-eminence of Christ Jesus in all of this.

    You see I did not stand for self gain. I love the Lord Jesus with all my heart and I love my nation. The only answer is HIM!

  15. Webmaster Says:

    You see I did not stand for self gain. I love the Lord Jesus with all my heart and I love my nation. The only answer is HIM!

    I understand that David.

  16. webmaster Says:

    UPDATE: Colin has emailed over a very comprehensive list of Christian candidates and their vote scores which can be found on this link:

    Christian Votes – download Document

    Christian Votes PDF format

    Thanks Colin!

  17. Colin Says:

    the motives for people standing in the election is confusing. David tells us he ran to proclaim the Lordship of Christ Jesus. Timothy stood so we could have a Christian alternative to the bnp.
    The case for Christian Democracy is to restore Judaeo-Christian values to politics.
    Sophie condemns ccfon as a bunch of conservatives. I have discovered one does not have to be a member of the Tory party to belong to the Christian Conservative Fellowship. CCF are a great bunch. If they were typical of the Tories. I might even join their party.
    What is the point of an all-swinging all-dancing Christian party? We already have the conservatives. The various Christias parties are not perfect, but they all have the core values of the traditional Faith. We find full-blooded Christian liberalism at odds with the Gospel of Jesus Christ

  18. Jim Says:

    I would tend to agree Colin.
    If you want to see Christian values promoted isn’t it better to cultivate them in the mainstream parties and encourage those candidiates who espouse your values, rather than trying to set up a separate “Christian Party” whose candidates have no chance of being elected, and therefore have no chance of influencing policy?
    There are already sub-groups within all the major parties who share in common a Christian belief (just as there are equivalent Humanist groups within each party). Surely that’s a better way forward?

  19. Webmaster Says:

    Surely that’s a better way forward?

    Yes it is Jim.

  20. Louise Says:

    No it isn’t Jim……the other secular parties have policies that contradict the Christian faith.You can’t run with the fox and hunt with the hounds.As we stand in this country at the moment it is important that true Christians stand up for their faith as that is our right and our heritage.Our Christian heritage is under threat,especially in politics and the courts of the land…many in history and other countries have died for their Christian belief…don’t waste your time criticising fellow Christians for standing.Get out there and make a difference yourself.

  21. Jim Says:

    @ Louise
    OK. You are of course free to act in whatever way you see fit, but I cannot see the approach you advocate working. There are many ways to make a difference. Some are more effective than others. I cannot see how winning a few hundred votes avery 5 years or so is going to make any difference.

    On the other hand, working regularly with committed Christians in the main parties can and will make a perceptible difference. Within a political party it is the people who comprise the elected representatives within that party that determine the stance of the Party regarding religion; not the party itself.

    Personally I’m indifferent. I just hate to see good people failing in their earnest endeavours through adopting ineffective methods.

  22. Colin Says:

    Christians in the main parties are a minority grouping. You have to become weell-established to be able to your views any great profile. Jim is swallowing the lie put out by the media. New Labour was so terrible that it whipped conscience issues. Vote against your conscience or lose your political career. Parties are run by an oligarchy. When I write to the local press I am free to commend or condemn the big parties and am far less restricted by dogma. Sadly I am not allowed to promote a climate-sceptic line. Climate alarmism is not dissimalarfrom you have to vote for the establishment (Lab/Con). Christian Aid/Tear Fund etc all use the IPCC stats, then people say all the best charities are climate-alarmist.
    But stand for a minor party and you will not get elected. Get a seat and the establishment will squeeze you out.
    But one day, God will turn peoples hearts

  23. Jim Says:

    @ Colin
    You said “Jim is swallowing the lie put out by the media”. Are you assuming that all media adopt the same line, in some sort of conspiracy? The media surely reflect their readers/listeners/watchers ( – who pay for them, either directly or indirectly).

    To take a relevant UK example: why else do Christian bloggers so frequently quote articles from the Telegraph and Mail in support of their views? Why do these same people so often find fault with articles in The Guardian?

    Regarding Christans in the main political parties: Yes, the Party Whips wield considerable power, but it is not absolute. Some MPs still frequently vote with their conscience. There are many ways to gain more widespread acceptance of Christian views (or any other legitimate views) through canvassing, as those orchestrating effective campaigns for other causes have found. (Think of the retired Ghurkas’ rights victory.)

    I agree that if you stand for a minor party you are unlikely to get elected, either now or at any time in the future. I do not agree that voting for a major party necessarily means that the establishment will squeeze you out. “The Establishment” is composed of human beings not so different from you and me. They are absolutely not immune to being convinced to act by well reasoned, and well argued cases.

    I sense that some Christians in the UK feel they should have an automatic right to have what they desire, and that they should not need to have to persuade elected MPs to support their position. In the UK, the Church has always had to argue its position, albeit helped by clergy in high places, such as the CofE Bishops in the House of Lords. That has not changed.

    Regarding “Climate Alarmism”: I’m not sure I would put this in the same category as religion. But more importantly, where’s the downside in taking the potential for disastrous climate change seriously? Those who say that we have to do things differently may indeed be proved wrong. But isn’t it just good husbandry to take better care of our World? And is it such a great hardship to try to be less proflgate with our use of our finite resources?

    And just who is stopping you from promoting a climate-sceptic line? People may argue against you, but they are not stopping you from saying what you want to say are they?

  24. Colin Says:

    1. The media do not simply ‘reflect their readers/listeners/watchers’ You may not choose to believe it, but wield considerable power. Why do you thin BBC stands for British Brainwashing Corporation? Are you not aware of the Bilderbergs and the Club of Rome? If you wantto believe they are nothing more than harmless, there is nopoiint in c ontinuingthe debate
    2. MPs who vote with theor conscience are usualy ltories. The LibDem right to conscience tends not to materialise in practice. As already indicated, New Labour three-line whips conscience issue. Rebel more than once or twice and ou will almost certainly get de-selected.
    3. Sadly “Christians|” includes those who rejedct the orthodox. Faith. So the Church fights itself. There are those who make the thing between their ears their God like an ancient would have carved an idol wood.
    Us traditional Christians know the Bible has called us to speak out. The ‘church’ of Jesus’ day had him crucifield in order to protect their religion. I sense this is broadeningthe debate right out, but it is all part of what I am involved in
    4. Your points on husbandry are spot on. This does not mean that MAN all by himself controls global warming and climate change., The Earth managed four ice ages w/o our help
    5. I thought it was clearI was a member of a member aminor party. I act as local spokesman fot the CPA. The press office will not let me submit climate-sceptic material. I have in the past been published in Church of England Newspaper attacking Christian Aid for wasting donors’ money on taking out full-page ads on climate alarmism. “Switch your monitor off at night” One would think God had lost control

  25. Sophie, Surrey Says:

    @ Jim: I was a journalist for many years and can confirm that there’s no national – or international – conspiracy. Magazines and newspapers print stories their readers want to hear, however trivial. This is why, for example, I could never have worked for the Sun, nothing but celebrities and soaps. No one ever went broke underestimating the public taste!

    It’s true that occasionally a proprietor puts a bias into publications. For example all the News International UK publications supported the Tories in the election. This may be nothing to do with the interests of the owners, indeed I’m sure that’s what they’d confirm, but I know people who won’t buy any of these Murdoch publications because they suspect an agenda and feel foreign owners shouldn’t have such influence.

    Because of how the industry works, proprietor balance is bound to be exposed by other media so people don’t get away with much. Private Eye is often good value for this. Journalists take huge pleasure in exposing the shortcomings of other publications, though the general public are, I’m afraid, often unaware of well-founded contempt for certain news “brands”. Some news sources have such clear bias or such poor fact checking that they are considered of little value by other journalists. As the quote goes “Comment is free, but facts are sacred.”

    Generally speaking, the only agenda in journalism is to print whatever will attract and keep readers. In editorial meetings you prioritise stories entirely on the basis of what’s newsworthy. This can be frustrating in that sometimes what journalists might consider more socially valuable stories are considered not exciting enough and replaced by something more reader-friendly. Horoscopes, for example, or a holiday offer.

    Like most journalists, I gravitated towards publications and therefore readerships that allowed me to focus on what I found interesting. For me facts were central, and so I worked for what I would consider weighty and serious publications or companies including Reuters, for example, globally respected for its objective news.

  26. Paul Walker Says:

    Didn’t expressly self-identify as a ‘Christian politician’ but independent Peter Shields got 237 votes (0.6%) in my constituency, Bradford East. He’s a youth worker in another church in our Deanery and was at least partly appealing to the Christian vote

  27. Jim Says:

    Sophie
    Thanks for putting the meat on my bare bones regarding journalists. I’ve been on the other side of the fence, trying to manage what journalists write about us, and I can confirm its a thankless and often futile task!

    @ Colin
    I will try to answer all your points:

    No. I do not think that pressure groups and vested interests are ever “harmless”. That is exactly what the press is for. With a few notable exceptions, journalists are a mercenary lot, and exposing venality or incompetence in high places is their stock in trade.

    As for saying that the B in BBC stands for “Brainwashing” (or in other versions “Biased”) – Well we’ve moved on, and you may have noticed it’s not the only channel on TV or radio. This vast range of stations freely available now is what keeps these broadcasters honest. With the notable exception perhaps of countries like China, the media really are not controlled, except in ensuring where practical that they do not break any relevant laws.

    I’m not sure how you deduce that MPs who vote with their conscience are usually Tories. I don’t think there’s any evidence to support this, and I’ve had dealings with a fair few. My own expereince has been that there is no monopoly on this in any party. I guess you could say that the Party in power will tend to exercise a firmer rein over MPs voting habits. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next Government!

    I would agree that the Church appears to spend at least as much time in-fighting as defending itself against external forces. That is indeed sad to witness.

    Regarding climate change, perhaps we are in broad agreement. I’m not sure what you meant by saying the the press office would not let you submit climate sceptic material. Which press office? If it’s your own then surely that is a purely internal matter, and does not reflect a wider constraint.

    The exhortation to switch off your monitor at night might seem a trivial one, but actually the real message is not that just doing that is going to change the World. It is the fact that the message sensitises us to the need to be less profligate, and to change our perceptions. IAnd it’s hardly brainwashing. The fact that you do not think it useful, and that you and I are discussing it, means we can still decide for ourselves what to do about it – or not to do about it…

  28. Colin Says:

    Well, the CPA press office. It does mean I cannot write locally on the topic, which is what I was saying.

    How much do you think a full page ad costs. People like Tearfund are dealing with a here-and-now problem. Even if Global warming is indeed containable, it will not help those suffering on the front line.
    These issues are not easily summed up. Satan is alive and kicking and it is not always obvious what comes from that source and what is more of a natural occurence.
    I would suggest we do not pursue the matter just now. There are more important issues – like Jesus Christ

  29. Jim Says:

    Fair enough Colin. I do wish you well. I hope some of what I said was helpful.

Switch to our mobile site