Hunt’s view seems grounded in his faith – he’s a devout member of the Church of England – but he was quick to clarify that he would not seek to change the existing law.

While he stuck to his principles, Hunt didn’t want to present himself as the “Christian” candidate for No 10. But what if he had? Could Britain, a country synonymous with secularisation and declining church attendance, embrace a politics grounded in religion? If Britain learns from the examples of its political and cultural kin, the US and Europe, the answer could be a strong “yes.”

Forty years ago this summer, American Evangelicals launched the Moral Majority, a religious organisation that put a face to the then-emerging Religious Right, the conservative Christian voting bloc that helped propel Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and even Donald Trump to office.

Suggested reading

How the Church lost its flock over Brexit

By Giles Fraser

The British would hardly tolerate the kind of faith-based politics you see in the United States, where believers have been seeking to use state and national law to implement their ideas on everything from abortion to LGBT rights to prayer in schools. Surveys show that even religious Christian voters in Britain place low emphasis on these types of social issues, focusing instead on economic policies.

But there is an underestimated number of Britons who, I suspect, would be receptive of the type of faith that Hunt suggested; one that respects the separation of Church and State and doesn’t seek to impose sectarian views on society, but a faith-based politics motivated by religious beliefs to seek policies that promote freedom, rights and individual and public welfare.

In this regard, a political Christianity in the UK might look less like the Religious Right of America and more like the Christian Democratic parties of Europe. Since they emerged in the late 19^thcentury, these Church-backed parties have played a major role in many nations: Christian Democratic parties or their successors currently lead ruling coalitions in Ireland, Germany and Austria, and have a major role in European Parliament as well.

Suggested reading

How political should the Archbishop be?

By Andrew McKie

Although Christian Democracy did not take hold in the UK the way it did elsewhere in Europe, there is, of course, a long history of entanglement between politics and religion in Britain. England had the most overtly political entry into the Protestant Reformation when Henry VIII ripped the Church of England away from Rome and declared himself its head. The acrimonious split between Catholics and Protestants led to everything from the Glorious Revolution to the Troubles of Northern Ireland. And the modern party system in British politics was heavily influenced by religion. As the think tank Theos, in its study of religion and voting in Britain, describes the history of party politics in Britain:

Britain never developed a tradition of Christian Democracy or a major Christian party because, by the time this happened in Europe, it already had three – Anglican Tory, Nonconformist Liberal, and Nonconformist and Catholic Labour.

As recently as the 1980s, the Conservative Party could be thought of as the “Church Party”. Religious-based politics has been the rule, not the exception, in Britain’s history.

The obvious objection is that religious politics, and to a large extent, religion itself, are just that: British history, fading relics of the country’s past. The UK is an increasingly secularised society. In some surveys, more Britons now identify as non-religious than as members of all the Christian denominations combined. And high-profile political figures have often treated their faith as a political liability (see Tony Blair’s secret Catholicism). In this environment, it might seem foolish to put much stock on a new religious politics. But the declining numbers may be just what is needed to spur the faithful to political action.

Suggested reading

China's war with Christianity

By Christopher Rhodes

The Christian Democrats of Europe arose in the late 19^thand 20th centuries in contexts of the rise of political liberalism (in its classical sense), and a growing hostility towards religion, and Christianity in particular, that came with it. Similarly, the US Religious Right arose in response to the changes of the 1960s and 70s – communism, the sexual revolution, the counterculture – that it saw as bringing about an end to a traditional Christian social order.

Whether or not this anti-Christian sentiment was real or merely perceived – after all, American Religious Right pioneers even railed against government encroachment on religion in the context of desegregation, a fact they’d like to forget now – it’s undeniable that the idea of a society turning against the Church motivated Christians to come out in force behind candidates who would champion their interests. The politics are different in Britain, but the Church is facing a crisis because of its steeply declining numbers and political clout, and this situation may just be ripe for a political response. Hunt did not want to present himself as the “Christian” candidate, but the potential for mobilising British Christians as voters is very real.

Suggested reading

Does a big society need a Big God?

By Peter Franklin

What’s more, the declining numbers among all branches of Christianity could actually foster unity between the disparate denominations that are individually struggling to survive in Britain. Their differences seem minor in comparison with the shared challenge of secularisation. Marginalisation and the threat of extinction are great motivators towards unity and action, and leaders could mobilise Christian believers into an effective voting bloc.

To do so, Christian politicians in the UK can draw from an American example; not the Religious Right, but the socialist Left. There is technically a Christian Democrat party in Britain (several of them, it turns out) in the same way that there is a Democratic Socialist party in the United States. But the US socialists did not gain any traction until some of their brightest or most promising stars, such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes, injected their beliefs and perspectives into the existing dominant two-party structure that governs American politics.

Similarly, Christian mobilisation in Britain would probably have to come from within one of the two major parties in order to be effective. Fortunately, British Christians tend to sit near the centre of the political spectrum, putting them in an ideal position to be courted by Tories and Labour alike. The key to a successful Christian political mobilisation would come down to sincerity and vision.

Suggested reading

Are capitalism and Christianity really compatible?

By Giles Fraser

To return to the American example, “socialism” had been a dirty word in the US for decades. But in the past few years, it has rapidly emerged as a viable platform because of a few principled politicians such as Sanders, who won over audiences with his firmly-held convictions (Bernie was a socialist for decades before it was en vogue) and by offering a modernised form of their ideology as a solution to the economic divisions facing American society.

It’s hard to predict where such a figure might emerge for the UK’s Christian community. Hunt did not take up the “Christian” mantle in his political life. Perhaps he will in the future, or maybe another candidate will emerge to appeal to this community. Rising stars and political movements often move quickly: five years ago, Sanders was a backbencher from a small state and Ocasio-Cortes was a bartender. But when the moment came, they stepped up and channelled the discontent that existed among many Americans by presenting socialism as the answer to an America that seems to be increasingly driven by the ultra-rich and corporate interests at the expense of the working and middle classes.

Suggested reading

Why Polly Toynbee is wrong about God

By Freddie Sayers

Likewise, a political movement based on Christian values would be well poised to provide moral leadership on some of the most pressing issues facing the UK, such as tackling poverty and fixing the social safety net. An injection of organised Christianity into British politics could also be an asset for UK foreign policy, from strengthening ties with the United States to establishing a moral high ground in dealings with China (persecution of Christians – an issue that Hunt highlighted during his time as foreign secretary – has been a significant but underappreciated aspect of the current protests in Hong Kong).

Before the era of sectarian rivalries, Christianity was a source of unity within Britain and across Europe. Now that secularisation and social divisions trump any denominational differences, Christianity could again become a unifying force in the UK. Mobilised Christians could find at least limited common cause with the country’s Muslim and Jewish populations, tapping into a mutual Abrahamic heritage and co-operating to push back against secularisation and religious-based discrimination.

A modern political Christianity – morally principled but not divisive or exclusionary – could help the nation refocus and find a new sense of purpose and identity.

It is time to put our diseased and decaying political parties out of their misery before they do any more damage to our fragile politics. But this isn’t one of those articles arguing for a new set of parties (one which happens to agree with me on everything, and another full of all my favourite bad guys). We should abolish political parties altogether. They do far more harm than good.

You’ve probably heard the Aaron Sorkin line from the West Wing, urging people to vote: “Decisions are made by those who show up.” Well, in a party political system, especially one like ours, decisions are actually made by those who take sides. And – as I’ve written here before – the act of taking sides is proven to destroy your ability to think rationally about other people and their ideas.

Suggested reading

Can bribery fix democracy?

By Peter Kellner

We have made our political parties increasingly democratic for those who choose to join them. The party I used to work for, the Liberal Democrats, has always been obsessively democratic, offering members the vote on everything from party policy to the members of party administration committees.

The Conservatives now offer the members a vote on the leader, which they never used to. And Labour has continued a shift towards party democracy started by Ed Miliband, who changed the voting system to give members the final say in choosing the leader. The party now tries, at least, to take seriously the party’s official policies, which their last successful leader Tony Blair never did.

Of course all this makes the parties feel terribly smug and happy with themselves. It validates the status and identity of those who have chosen to join these exclusive clubs: it tells them they are special. Internal democracy helps parties hold together. The problem is that it tears a country to pieces.

Suggested reading

Let's junk our electoral system

By Tim Bale

Corbyn is the consequence of Labour’s journey into true democracy: creating a culture of intolerance towards all those with different opinions. When Theresa May is finally dragged out of 10 Downing Street, the country won’t get to choose the next Prime Minister: it will be up to about 100,000 people who chose to be members of the Conservative party. The next PM will be someone who can pander to a single partisan group, instead of someone who can bring a divided country back together.

At every step in Brexit, the PM has asked herself: how do I keep the Conservative party together? It’s common currency to say that getting a deal through ‘with Labour votes’ would be the death of her. And ‘Labour votes’ is said with the tone of voice you would use to say ‘the blood of slave children’. It’s considered beyond the pale to cooperate with elected representatives of the people, simply because they wear a different colour rosette once a year. What total insanity.

So I’m done with partisan thinking. Time to scrap these toxic parties that make us all go crazy with conspiracy thinking and assumptions that the other guys are always wrong.

Suggested reading

Bring on the People's Peers

By Richard Askwith

Of course, we will need something in their place. I’m calling them political movements. They would be simpler, single issue-based organisations that endorsed and funded candidates who agreed with them. Anyone could stand for Parliament, on their own if they chose. But each candidate would be free to seek the endorsement of as many political movements as they wanted – greens, feminists, defenders of the local hospital, pro-nuclear activists, anti-pornography campaigners – giving a far more accurate representation of who they were and what they stood for than a party logo can.

And citizens would be able to join as many political movements as they wanted, instead of being forced to pick a side.

At the moment there is only one political party that permits you to be a member of another political party. It’s the Women’s Equality Party – deliberately styled as cross-party. They offer a political home for women and men who believe gender equality is the most important issue in politics. But they also recognise that equality for women is not the sum total of politics: that it is possible to be a feminist on the Right as well as on the Left. They’re open to feminists of every stripe and you don’t get thrown out for voting differently if you choose to.

Suggested reading

Our political class is afraid to govern

By Paul Embery

Contrast the Cooperative Party, which lets you join the Labour Party, but no others. Daft and self defeating. There are believers in the cooperative movement in all our political traditions. The Cooperative Party would have real impact in our politics if it endorsed cooperative-lovers in all the parties, instead of pretending cooperativism is exclusive to the Left.

Imagine if the Green Party had instead been the Green Movement, backing and endorsing candidates from across the political spectrum who understood the urgent importance of climate change. Instead of one MP, with little power or influence, they would have a strong relationship with hundreds of MPs.

Instead of diluting the green message with hundreds of other policies that have nothing to do with the environment, they’d be a crusading force to protect the planet. Environmentalists could have chosen a winning candidate who came with a Green guarantee, instead of wasting their vote on a minority party that couldn’t win. Progress would have been faster.

More from this author

Why 'separate but equal' is a fraud

By Polly Mackenzie

A parliament elected in this way would need to choose its own Prime Minister: someone who could command the confidence of the House. Instead of just taking a party “whip” on every topic, MPs would be able to gather and decide the approach on different topics with those elected with the backing of the relevant political movement. To win their confidence a Prime Minister would need a programme for government and a Cabinet that brought together a wide range of groups, offering them progress on each movement’s policy priorities. Much better to have this kind of negotiation and debate out in the open, than in the secret rooms where party manifestos are written.

Perhaps this sounds confusing. But informal groupings exist in Parliament already, it’s just that they are only understood by the Westminster watchers. Citizens get little information about what their candidate stands for, just a basic brand of red or blue: under my system it would be crystal clear what kind of candidate you were voting for. And honesty is what we need more of in politics.

Yes, democracy is wonderful. But democracy inside parties privileges the partisans, and is torturing the parties themselves to death. It’s too late. We need a new system that celebrates complexity, cooperation and communication. The party’s over.

Click here to read our series of answers to the question: how can we fix our democracy?