It is not a good week for the Tory brand.
The first all-out junior doctors strike in history came just hours after ministers refused to allow 3,000 lone child refugees languishing in European camps into the UK. And it is only Tuesday.
Anger swept through Labour, Lib Dem and SNP politicians along with numerous charities and individuals who have campaigned for the UK to take child refugees from Europe's camps.
Twitter joined in the outrage and #DubsAmendment and #3000children were among the UK's top trends on Monday night and Tuesday morning. The nation seemed collectively appalled at the 289 Conservative MPs who voted against the move.
How could this happen? Given the awful conditions in Calais and other camps around Europe, how could anyone possibly refuse to accept unaccompanied children, the most vulnerable of the vulnerable? The answer it seems is simple. Heartless Tories. Of course. Only the devil's own.
The problem is for many this is where the debate ends. "Bloody Tories. Rich and callous. We must keep them out of government." The idea that there might actually be a moral argument the other way is inconceivable. "The Tories? Moral!? Never!"
But there is a moral argument for the other side. You may not agree with it. You may find it totally wrong and repulsive. I do not want to persuade you either way. But you must engage with that argument. It is not good enough to rant and rage and blame the Tories. Anger is justified. But remaining angry without moving into a position of engaging with the other side's argument is not justified. It is lazy.
If you want the most retweets, by all means rant. But if you want to actually change minds, look beyond the headlines to what the other side actually says.
The government's case is that if you save 3,000 child refugees now, more will make the perilous journey into Europe and thousands more will die in the process. The government says it is better to take refugees only from camps in the Middle East to discourage more from putting themselves in danger by travelling to Europe. Now that may be wrong. That may be a bad decision. Or there may a very valid case for making an exception to that approach when it comes to unaccompanied children. But engage with the argument and take it on.
Too often we caricature our opponent's arguments. We make assumptions on what they said based on our perceptions of them, or based on headlines, and not on what has actually been said. It is called building a straw man. In this case it might be said: "The Tories voted against accepting 3,000 children because they hate immigrants and they are heartless." Reinforcing that straw man does not achieve anything other than a few "likes" and "hear-hears" from people who already agree with you.
If you want to actually make progress take this test: before disagreeing with anyone, you must first be able to state their argument in a way they themselves would be happy with. Then you can take it on. Because then you are disagreeing with what they are actually saying and not just your perception of what they are saying.
You don't love your enemies by caricaturing and misrepresenting them. You love them by fairly representing what they say and giving them the respect of debating it. Simply, it is thinking the best of your opponents rather than the worst.
It is worth noting that committed and loving Christians walked into both voting lobbies last night. You may passionately disagree with one side. But don't misrepresent them as evil and callous. Think the best of your enemies. Love them. And grant them the respect of listening to their argument before you engage and disagree.
