The British and Danish debates about Europe have much in common - concerns about migration (read 'benefit tourism'), a sense of threatened national identity, and the division of national and EU powers (to opt in or to opt out, that is the question) - but the tone and direction differ enormously.
The Prime Minister and other members of the government have not said anything very controversial. It is a historical fact (perhaps unwelcome to some, but true) that our main systems of ethics, the way we do law and justice, the values of society, how we decide what is fair, the protection of the poor, and most of the way we look at society... All have been shaped by and founded on Christianity.
With the UK general election only a year away, who is winning the political debate? I differ from many people, who say that all politicians are corrupt and are only in it for themselves. In my experience, most politicians are in fact honest and believe in what they're doing.
Imagine if your government announced that six key ministries - industry, budget and economic and monetary affairs amongst them - are being job shared by other ministers as the six are taking time off to try and land another job. If they fail to land said jobs, they can come back to work...
Religion is a topic which is a constant in the national discourse. Using vitriolic terminology to describe atheists is not conducive to respectable debate and will only serve to sow animosity between religious and non-religious people. Due to the passionate nature of the topic a rational, respectable debate is difficult to nurture, but if it is to be nurtured then such fatuous labeling needs to be rid of.
God moves in a mysterious way, his wonders to perform, something for our newly evangelical Prime Minister to think about. Dave's bacon could actually be saved by a very substantial Ukip vote at the Euro elections. If Ukip do well, they will do well at the expense of Labour, as well as the Tories.
To think the question can be answered yes or no is surely to keep the analysis at Sunday school level. How to describe a country is always going to be complex. A 'Christian country' might be many things...
We should not need them with the welfare system that we have. Instead of opening more food banks we should be dealing with the reason that people are using them. Getting people back to work, increasing the tax limit to £10,500 are policies designed to help those most in need.
Cameron's sincerity isn't the issue here though - in this instance it isn't unfair to say he has none, it's political manoeuvring at its most palpable. The real question is whether it is in the church's best interests to succumb to his seductive eulogy.
Bankers get millions in bonuses, footballers earn thousands every week: we all know the clichés. The market says this is what they are worth, but the general public don't really believe that. Do they earn this money, really? Can anyone do a job that genuinely, demonstrably, should produce that kind of reward?
By highlighting Christian 'virtues' of responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility - is he suggesting that other groups don't have those virtues? If so most people will not believe him. If he is acknowledging (in among the rather confusing language) that most people share these virtues - again, why highlight the Christians? Many Christians are indeed hard-working, compassionate and modest but so are many non-Christians and even many people with no faith! Christians do not have the monopoly on being moral and doing good...
It is wrong for David Cameron to single out Christians for special praise, to offer them privileged access to Downing Street and to support an expanded role for Christian groups in providing essential public services.
Again and again in the past few years, more and more politicians have been joining church leaders in popping up to declare that Britain is a Christian country, that we ought to be proud of this fact, and that we ought to proclaim and promote it.
Religion tends to remain in the background of British politics, and until recently David Cameron was no exception. There was a time, back in 2008, when Cameron compared his religious faith to 'the reception for Magic FM in the Chilterns: it sort of comes and goes.'
To claim an increase in minimum wage will not cause employment consequences is to ignore the prevalence of technology within low-skilled jobs. As the Centre of Policy Studies quite rightly points out, increasing minimum wage is "essentially a tax on those who hire unskilled labour".
When the House of Commons voted to reject military action to protect the citizens of Syria from tyranny - both political and religious - MPs plunged this country, and the world, into the terrifying situation that exists in the region today. Non-intervention has cost Britain and NATO respect on the international stage...