Nicholas Wapshott's recent article in the <em>Catholic Herald</em> about the US presidential election (April 2024) could be summed up, channelling Shakespeare, as “a plague on both your houses”. A similar feeling may be widespread about the forthcoming UK general election, which has been announced for 4 July.
Few people think the sitting Conservative government has done well, but is a Labour government likely to be better or worse? For most voters the most important concerns are probably economic conditions and migration. But what is the view from a pro-life perspective? The answer seems to be that the choice is between bad, worse and worst – and the worst is very much worse than the others.
In the 1997 election, which swept New Labour to power under Tony Blair, the only issue that the women candidates had to sign up to was to be pro-abortion. Meanwhile, as Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Keir Starmer relaxed the enforcement of laws against assisted dying and has promised to support a bill to take it further.
Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and the Greens have all passed resolutions that are pro-abortion and in favour of legalising assisted suicide. Some of their members are less rabid on these issues than others, and might abstain on votes, but there is no chance of a candidate with openly pro-life views being chosen. The Reform Party has no policy on pro-life issues, and leaves it to the individual candidate.
What about the Conservative Party? The present government allowed “abortion by post” during the Covid-19 pandemic, without even minimal checks by a doctor; it outlawed peaceful prayer outside abortion clinics; it removed child benefit for more than two children. Numbers of abortions have risen astronomically during its tenure, and it continues to allow human-embryo abuse and destruction on a vast scale.
This is, to put it mildly, not a good record. The best that can be said is that it is not as bad as the rest. Some Conservative MPs are pro-abortion, some are wishy-washy on the subject and some are heroically outspoken in defence of human life from conception to natural death.
At this point it become sensible to ask what, in a British general election, does your vote really do? In theory it helps to select someone to represent your views as part of the government; in practice it depends on your constituency. If it is a marginal one, where a comparatively small difference in the number of votes will determine the outcome, then your vote, and those of people whom you may influence or persuade, may be decisive.
In this case it is obviously important to look at the likely effect of your vote. It may be so important to keep out a candidate who is rabidly pro-abortion that you might need to vote for someone with a chance of beating him or her, rather than an otherwise preferable one with no chance. In 1997 and afterwards the Prolife Party was very careful not to stand where we might take votes from good candidates in a marginal constituency.
A further complication in the 2024 election is that seats that would have been thought safe for one party in normal conditions may not be so this time, with complications introduced by the Reform Party and in Scotland by the SNP, and of course the unreliability of forecasts.
If you are absolutely certain that your constituency is safe for one party, different concerns apply. A few votes may not affect the outcome this time, but they may send a message, either to the candidates or to the parties in general, that people care, and that perhaps next time the constituency will become a marginal one.
Of course it is everywhere important to try to tell candidates and voters the facts about abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide, and human-embryo abuse. The Prolife Party that stood in UK and European and regional elections between 1997 and 2004 did not poll a very large proportion of votes, but did a great deal of useful education in this way.
What is really the most important matter to you in national politics? Some people who are lifelong devoted supporters of one party are willing to support pro-abortion candidates if they believe other policies are for the good of the country: the so-called “seamless garment” view.
For example, they might argue along the lines that “A lot of women have abortions for financial reasons. Our party would make them better off so there would be no pressure.” At the same time it is important to understand that plenty of good, well-meaning people honestly think pro-abortion policies help women, in spite of overwhelming evidence against this.
What would be a deal-breaker for you? Would you vote for a party or candidate who wanted to legalise slavery again? What if you were convinced that their other policies would genuinely provide every important good for everyone else in the country? If they claimed that it would even be better for the slaves, since modern slavery exists widely and should be legalised and regulated? With “safeguards”, of course.
What if one specified racial group were excluded? Or if all males would automatically benefit, but females only if granted the right by a male? Or only those over a certain age; nine months from conception, for example?
Some people complain about “single issue voting”. But it was exactly this which gained rights for African-Americans in the 1960s. Enormous numbers voted contrary to their usual patterns on this one issue. If the Catholic bishops and leaders of Evangelical and other religious groups made together a concerted effort – educating the public about the development of babies before birth, and the potential damage to women’s health – we could at the very least eliminate late abortions.
In places where a few votes could not possibly make a difference to the result, you might spoil your ballot. Write something like “Although I am a lifelong whichever-party voter, I cannot vote for someone who supports abortion, or assisted suicide.” Spoiled votes have to be shown to all the candidates before the result is announced, and even a small handful in those circumstances is going to have an impact.
Pro-life voters in a constituency with a pro-life candidate who has a good chance of being elected are lucky. The rest of us will probably need to vote unenthusiastically for someone who is just less bad. And pray, of course.
<em>Dominica Roberts has stood for the Prolife Party in Bracknell in three general elections</em>
