Surveying the new General Synod

Summary: This article, along with supporting linked data that enables exploration of the election results, seeks to offer an initial analysis of the recent elections to General Synod. After noting the complexities that such an analysis faces, it provides an overview of some of the key features of the election results. The composition of the new Synod is then explored in relation to various features: the past Synodical experience of members, their age distribution, and the balance of men and women standing and being elected. Brief observations in relation to GMH and LGBTQI+ candidates and the evolution we may be seeing towards more of a 3-party (or 3-bloc) pattern of candidates is followed by exploration of the stance of the elected members on questions related to marriage and sexuality. Noting the difficulties in assessing the position of many members it explains how it has attempted to reach a conclusion. This shows that revisionists have again secured a clear majority among the clergy but argues that the House of Laity is too close to call, in part because of the number of members where there is insufficient clear evidence of their views. However, it seems likely the laity are more conservative than before, and it is not impossible there could be a conservative majority. The conclusion considers the implications if this proves to be the case.

Andrew Goddard writes: The membership of the new General Synod has now been formally posted on the Church of England website. There are no less than 487 numbered places although not all are filled and not all that are filled are able to vote. These members comprise

• 53 in the House of Bishops but with 14 currently non-voting (Acting Diocesans) or vacant, 
• 202 in the House of Clergy and 
• 213 in the House of Laity. 
• 19 non-voting members (3 Deaf Anglicans, 11 Ecumenical Representatives and 5 Young Adult). 

The new Synod may decide to co-opt further members, for example to increase GMH representation as in the last Synod.

Of these members 9 of the bishops, 200 of the clergy and 200 of the Laity have just been elected by, broadly speaking, suffragan bishops, licensed clergy, and Deanery Synod members respectively.

A Complex Election

Trying to make sense of General Synod elections is complicated by a number of factors:

• There are, in effect, 95 different elections
  • 1 each for clergy and laity in each of the 42 dioceses (84 elections filling 185 clergy and 193 lay seats)
  • 1 each for clergy and laity also among (a) religious communities, (b) the Channel Islands and (c) the Armed Forces (so 6 elections – Channel Island clergy not strictly elected – for  6 clergy and 7 laity). The first of these 3 groups had no election as all candidates were elected unopposed, the other two have declared winners but I have been unable to find any other details as to the process and they may well also have been unopposed
  • 2 clergy elections by province among deans (3 seats in Canterbury and 2 in York) which were also both uncontested
  • 1 clergy election among universities and theological education institutions (4, at least 1 must be from York) and
  • 2 elections by province for bishops from among the non-diocesans (5 elected for Canterbury, 4 for York)
• Each election is publicly declared on the diocesan website in its own time and manner (just as each election has its own policies about whether there should be hustings, questions to candidates etc). 
  • The Church of England has brought a large amount of material together here (although the original promise of Diocesan Election Results appearing on Monday 19^th October proved overly optimistic). 
  • Peter Owen has a helpful guide to finding addresses and results here 
  • I previously wrote about the election process and the candidates with access to databases relating to elections, candidates and key words and phrases in addresses. Note that 6 lay candidates and 1 clergy candidate across 5 elections apparently subsequently withdrew and so are not included in the results analysed here where there are 998 candidates (431 Clergy, 550 Laity and 17 suffragan bishops). 
  • What follows draws upon data which can be accessed in a set of 6 Synod Explorer pages I have created. These relate to Synod Overview, Detailed STV results, Sex, Synod Experience, Age and Sexuality Stance. You are encouraged to explore these yourself and may find this guide helpful. There is also a Scenario Builder in which you can adjust the current assigned Sexuality Stances for any candidates and then review any explorer with that scenario (see guide to this here). As I am unable to code these were produced in collaboration with Claude AI. Please contact me with any comments or corrections. Add email
• All elections (except Sodor and Man) are electing more than one candidate and each elector has a single vote which can be transferred in whole or in part to a number of different candidates (hence Single Transferable Vote). This is done on the basis of their ranked preferences. It means the count is much more complex than standard “first past the post” ie winner-take-all single-member constituencies in House of Commons elections. Both Houses in London had over 30 stages before a final declaration and there is in effect a result for each stage in each election. Overall there are therefore over 750 results counting all stages across all 86 known contested elections. To explore these use the STV Results Explorer.
• What each diocese produces in terms of details varies. There are two main outputs – (a) those elected and (b) details of that complex electoral process by which they were elected. These are presented in up to 4 distinct documents with the number and format of them released varying from diocese to diocese
  • Official Form of Return of Election Result containing personal details of all those elected and at what stage they were elected and usually but not always the number of ballots issued and returned, spoilt papers and turnout.
  • Full Result by Count as (i) a PDF table, (ii) a Spreadsheet (iii) a detailed voting sheet giving a written report of each count rather than a table of numbers.
• Although as will be discussed below there are a number of different groupings there is no party system. Each candidate stands as an individual. It is up to each candidate in their address and each grouping involved in supporting particular candidates to decide how much they will declare any allegiances or commitments. Each voter has therefore to determine how much to find out about their candidates and this will vary enormously drawing on a wide range of possible sources including their addresses, any hustings or Q&A, asking others about the candidates, and consulting any lists circulated privately or publicly by networks supporting candidates.
• Ascertaining the new Synod’s balance of views on even what are widely seen as key issues (such as the church’s teaching and practice in relation to marriage and LGBTI+ people) is therefore very difficult to pin down precisely.

General Overview (see Synod Overview, Detailed STV results to explore the details)

Number and Distribution of Seats

• The overall number of seats up for election in each of the 3 Houses remained the same as in the last election in 2021 and totalled 200 each in Clergy and Laity and 9 Bishops. However, 20 of the elections had a different number of people being elected compared to the last Synod as explained in GS 2431 and shown in Section 1 of the Overview Explorer.

Turnout

There are 7 elections where turnout figures are not given or able to be calculated (both Houses in Carlisle, Manchester and Portsmouth and the TEIs election) but that data is available in the overwhelming majority and there are some clear patterns:

• Overall across all elections there were 18,155 of 27,524 ballots returned so national turnout at 66.0%, just under two-thirds, with little difference between the two provinces (66.2% in Canterbury and 65.2% in York)
• There was a significantly higher turnout in clergy elections (76.1%) compared to House of Laity (60.5%)
• Some elections had very high turnout – Sheffield clergy at 90.9% just ahead of Newcastle clergy (90.8%) – the next four highest were also all clergy elections.
• Some (all lay) elections had very poor turnout with just 41.6% in St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, well below Hereford (47.0%), Sodor and Man (47.2%) and Norwich (50.4%). 

Contestability & Counts

• On average there were 2.2 candidates for each Clergy seat and 2.8 for each Lay seat but there was a wide range across elections.
• The most contested seats were among Norwich Laity and Europe’s Clergy in both of which 13 people fought for just 3 seats.
• The least contested were the clergy of Canterbury and Coventry there was only one unelected candidate as these saw 4 people seeking 3 seats.
• A typical count had 8 stages with a higher average for lay elections due to there being more lay candidates. 
• The range was from just one for Sodor and Man laity where two fought for one seat up to 33 (Lay) and 32 (Clergy) counts in London. Other drawn-out counts were Oxford (23), Chichester (21) and Southwark (19), all lay elections.

Who won and when and with how many votes?

Under STV there are two key measures that are important. One of these is first-preference votes. This is the nearest equivalent to our regular elections – it says how many people put each candidate first on their list. The other is the quota which is how many votes it is estimated should be needed to be elected (determined by a formula where number of votes cast is divided by one more than the number to be elected).

• About a quarter of those elected (101) were elected at the first count by first preference votes (59 clergy, 39 laity and 3 bishops).
• However nobody passed the quota immediately in 23 of the 86 counted elections and in another 32 only one person was elected on first preferences.
• Some candidates won very significantly straight away. The former Conservative MP, Fiona Bruce, standing in Chester only needed 42.1 votes to be elected but immediately got 106 votes. Another lay woman, Debbie Buggs in London, amassed 133 votes immediately of which she only needed 55 to pass the finishing line.
• Some candidates got elected from a very unpromising start. Also in London laity at the other end of the spectrum Heather Taylor started with just 10 votes (18% of the target, 20^th equal in order of first preferences) but she squeaked into the last, 13^th, seat. Back up in Chester, among the clergy, Emma Speake who had started at the bottom of the 14 candidates with (like two others) just 3 first preference votes managed to get elected to the 5^th seat. This appears to be an example of good management of voting between candidates on the Inclusive list. In the Northern Bishops, one bishop, despite getting no first preferences, then managed to be in the run-off for the final seat.
• Both Taylor and Speake were part of a significant sized group (35 clergy and 58 laity, nearly a quarter of total Clergy and Laity elected) who were elected without reaching the quota. In fact, in only 21 of the 86 counted elections was everyone elected by reaching quota.  The reason this happens is because of

Lost votes

Many electors will, for various reasons, not number all the candidates on the ballot paper. As a result their single transferable vote either in whole or (more often) in part ends up not being able to be transferred at some point in the process and so is not wholly used. 

• Almost 5% (914.9 of 19,209 votes) of votes ended up being non-transferrable.
• More votes were lost by lay voters (5.4%) than clergy (3.9%) 
• The number of lost votes could be high in either absolute or percentage terms. An eighth of the Truro lay votes were lost (Derby, Canterbury and Coventry laity were also high as was Gloucester clergy) and in London laity a total of 36.7 votes ended up not-transferred by the end of that longest of all counts.

A Fight to the Finish

The phenomenon of lost votes can be crucial in determining who gets the final seat. 

• This was most evident in the most marginal election, among York clergy, where Brenda Forrester with 22.32 votes got the seat ahead of sitting member Christian Selvaratnam on 22.29 votes, a difference of 0.03 (quota was 27.86, and 11.69 votes went undistributed). 
• Other close fights for the last seat were in Winchester Laity (Clift over Mayne by 0.10), Coventry Laity (Margrave over Sewards by 0.20), Portsmouth Laity (Johnston over Hunt by 0.31) and TEIs (Mathias over Sheard by 0.35).

Synod Experience: New and Returning Members (see Synod Experience to explore the details)

One of the most important aspects of a new Synod is the degree of continuity with the previous Synod. A significant number of elected Synod members when a Synod ends decide not to stand again (I think just over a third this time, my estimate being 149 seated at the end of July in the old Synod), others stand but do not get re-elected. There are then members who are re-elected, members returning after a break from the outgoing or an earlier Synod, and people totally new to Synod. A slight complication here is that quite a few previously co-opted members (particularly those co-opted to increase GMH representation) stood this time. These therefore served previously but strictly speaking were not being re-elected as they were co-opted after the last Synod was elected.

The data distinguishes 4 categories in relation to Synod Experience:

• Sitting Members (those who were on the last Synod when it came to a close, but some were sitting for a different constituency than where they stood this time eg Youings, Orr and Tall were all in Bath and Wells last time but stood in Bristol, London and Gloucester this time)
• Past Members (those who have served in the past, some for some of 2021-6 but leaving during the Synod)
• Co-opted Members (those who were on the last Synod at some point as co-opted members)
• New to Synod (those who appear never to have served on Synod)

Looking only at Clergy and Laity the following features stand out:

• Overall there are the same number of sitting members re-elected as new members (190 out of 400 or 47.5%, there were also 16 past members returning along with 4 co-opted members). Perhaps the most high-profile of the new members is Nicky Gumbel, elected for the first time to represent London clergy.
• Clergy have slightly more new than sitting (93 new to 91 sitting) whereas it is the reverse in Laity (97 new to 99 sitting)
• The number of sitting members standing again was almost the same in each House (127 Clergy and 128 Laity) but lay members did better (99 Laity re-elected compared to 91 Clergy) although in one of the big shocks, Jamie Harrison, the Chair of the House of Laity in the last Synod, failed to be re-elected in Durham.
• Sitting members have by far the highest success rate with nearly 75% getting elected compared to less than 30% of those new to Synod and nearly 40% of both past members and co-opted members.
• Women sitting members were more often returned (78.8%) than men (71.5%)
• The pattern in relation to past experience of candidates and elected varied enormously across elections. In Canterbury, for example, all 3 clergy were re-elected but amongst the laity no sitting members were even standing.  In St Edmundsbury and Ipswich none of the sitting members in either House stood for re-election.
• Of those seeking re-election whose voting pattern in 4 key sexuality votes pointed clearly to a stance, slightly more were revisionist than conservative (121 to 119) and they were much more successful in getting re-elected (98 or 81% were re-elected compared to only 81% or 68% of conservatives).

Age (see Age Explorer to find out more details)

It is not possible to consider whether age might have been a factor in who got elected as there is only data for those elected (apart from the 9 Armed Forces and Channel Islands members), not for all the candidates. Some of the interesting features are:

• Laity unsurprisingly span the widest age range with the youngest (Noah Chamberlain) only 19 when elected and the oldest (John Michael Brydon) born in the year the Second World War ended. The clergy range in contrast is from 29 to 71.
• Clergy are younger than Laity (median of 53 compared to 59) with only 5 over 70 compared to 20 lay people over 70.
• However, only 16 clergy (8%) are under 40 whereas 33 Lay people (17%)
• Newcomers are younger (the same contrasting medians of 53 and 59 as between clergy and laity) with 36 of the 49 members under 40 being new to Synod.
• 62% of members are born between 1957 and 1976 (so aged 50-69) 

Women and Men (see Sex explorer to discover more information)

One of the features of this election is the comparative success of women although they are still only a majority (and a diminished one, 101 out of 200) in the House of Laity, having a smaller proportion among the Clergy and worst of all among the Bishops.

• Women are now 45.5% of the elected Clergy and Laity, an increase from 42.5% in the elections of 2021 raising the numbers from 170 then to 182 now.
• Women did better than their share of the field as they were only 42.4% of the candidates but 45.5% of those elected.
• The increase in women is among the clergy where in 2021 only 65 (32.5%) were elected but now there are 81 (40.5%). In contrast the number of lay women fell from 105 to 101 comparing the two elections.
• Women candidates were more successful than men particularly in the clergy elections. 51.9% of clergywomen standing were elected compared to only 43.3% of clergymen (the gap was only 39% to 34% among Laity)
• Some elections saw rises in women elected compared to 2021 (Blackburn and Winchester clergy had elected none in 2021 but elected 2 this time and among Chester and St Albans clergy there was a rise from 1 to 3 women) although just one election of three or more seats (Sheffield Laity) returned all women.
• There were, however, movements the other way such as Oxford clergy where women were only 4 of 17 candidates and then only 1 of 10 elected. Manchester clergy dropped from having elected 4 women in 2021 to elect just 1 woman and there were 5 clergy and lay elections with no women elected at all (Clergy – Armed Forces, Carlisle Clergy, Northern Dean; Laity – Lincoln) but this is an improvement on the 10 in 2021.
• Perhaps the most surprising backwards shift was among the bishops where only 2 of the 9 suffragans elected were women. Both these were in York (where only 2 women stood) as in Canterbury all 5 bishops elected were men (only 1 man, a PEV, failed to be elected) despite there being 3 women standing. In fact the 3 women in Canterbury only got between them 5 out of 44 first preference votes and were all behind the lowest male candidate (Rob Munro, Bishop of Ebbsfleet with 4 votes).
• There appear to be more women clergy who are conservative on sexuality elected this time compared to 2021 although most women clergy remain revisionist. Interestingly among the bishops the two northern women elected are more conservative while the three women not elected in Canterbury are not conservative.

GMH & LGBTQI+

It is impossible from the data to determine exact numbers of candidates or those elected who would be in the categories of GMH or LGBTQI+ but a few observations can be made.

Firstly, there is some initial evidence that GMH candidates may have found it harder than others to get elected. The most stark example of this is probably in London diocese. It has the largest number of seats and one of the most ethnically diverse populations and yet no GMH clergy (despite many good candidates, including sitting and former members) and only one GMH lay person (previously a co-opted Synod member) were elected.  In Oxford one GMH sitting clergy and one GMH sitting laity lost their seats.  There would need to be further analysis to see the extent of this, how it relates to other factors such as gender, age and sexuality stance, and then to consider possible causes if this is significant. However, even if not more widespread these examples alone are concerning.

Secondly, two prominent lay conservative contributors to the last Synod who spoke from an experience of same-sex attraction failed to be re-elected (Ed Shaw in Bristol and Laura Oliver in Blackburn). We are also now in the interesting situation where there are, it seems, no opposite-sex couples on Synod but there is a couple in a same-sex marriage, one clergy and one laity, which is a new development as is having an openly gay bishop in the House of Bishops with the election of Simon Robinson the recently consecrated Bishop of Warrington.

A Party System?

As noted at the beginning, ballot papers give no affiliation for candidates although it is clear that in this election more than ever before there has been party-like organisation in the run-up to and during the election process. There have been broadly three party groupings widely identified: the two opposing perspectives on sexuality represented by Together and The Alliance and then, a distinct focus embracing both perspectives on sexuality within it, Save the Parish.  Their approach to the elections process was, however, very different.

Registered Inclusive (Together) candidates

As in the previous Synod election in 2021, there was a list of registered inclusive candidates (and supporting videos by region) produced. The wider Together grouping this time also produced a list of registered inclusive candidates and supporting videos by region. There were 280 listed with 131 clergy (53 men, 78 women) and 149 laity (66 men, 83 women). Of these, 81 clergy (62.8% success rate, 33 men and 48 women) and 77 laity (52.7% success rate, 30 men and 47 women) were elected which was hailed as “an increase of 22% on the 131 elected by the equivalent campaign in 2021” (though the number elected is given there as 160 not my 158). The different numbers and success rates between the two Houses here points to the fact they are stronger among clergy which will become clearer later. In the results tables these candidates are marked by a small “IC” label and data can be filtered to look simply at those candidates throughout the Explorers.

It is important to note that although these candidates were publicly identified clearly by inclusion on this register (1) a significant number of them (28 clergy and 26 laity) were not so clear in their addresses and (2) there were a good number of people who could have been on this list given their well-publicised views but were not included. In other words it under-represents the number of committed revisionists elected.

Save the Parish (STP) candidates

There was no such formal list of STP candidates but I have identified 22 clergy and 68 laity who are labelled as “STP” because they made clear strong statements in their addresses of their support for STP (a further one is not categorised as such as he simply expressed “some sympathy” with their concerns). From this group there were elected 8 clergy (36.4% success, 7 men and 1 woman) and 33 laity (48.5% success, 15 men and 18 women). In the results tables these candidates are marked by a small “STP” label and data can be filtered to look simply at those candidates throughout the Explorers. Of the 89 STP candidates, 6 of the clergy and 14 of the laity were also IC candidates with that dual affiliation marking 3 clergy and 7 laity elected. 

The Alliance

Like STP there was no formal public list of candidates who aligned themselves with The Alliance or the multiple networks within it. However, unlike STP, very few candidates explicitly identified themselves with those networks or the Alliance. As we shall see this is a complicating factor in assessing the strength of those holding “conservative” views on sexuality in the new Synod, especially among the laity.

Stance on Sexuality (Sexuality Stance explorer gives the details and, given the large number of uncertainties and “not established” candidates and elected members you can create your own scenarios using the Scenario Builder)

As already noted, perhaps one of the most-asked questions—concerning how differently this Synod’s members may approach marriage and sexuality—is among the most difficult to answer. The approach taken here has assigned to each person one of 5 positions (though the Explorer allows you to collapse that into 3) and it is important to be clear how these are determined and what they do and do not mean. 

How stance is determined

A stance of “conservative” or “revisionist” in the data can be unqualified or qualified by “Likely” (the 3-category option merges these into a single group) and which of these it is depends on the evidence available. 

An unqualified category is only given on the basis of past votes in Synod (with two or more consistent votes all on one side in 4 key votes last session) or being either on the Inclusive (Together) candidate list or being tied publicly to a position within CEEC and its networks (eg DEF committee, CEEC members, Church Society Council) that would require a conservative stance. The larger number of revisionists compared to conservatives in the data is due primarily to the large number of public inclusive candidates compared to those identified with CEEC positions.

A “Likely” label is based on a less clear voting pattern (just one vote out of 4) in the last Synod or statements made in the candidate’s own election address that are judged to state their position sufficiently clearly. 

All others who lack any such evidence are categorised as “not established”. This simply means there is insufficient publicly available evidence about their own views in the form set out above to label them confidently. It does not mean that their own views are not established or in the middle or unknown to others. Indeed sometimes the people concerned and their position may be widely known. Nicky Gumbel, for example, falls into this category despite being prominent in the Alliance. This is because he was not on the last Synod and so has no votes to consider and his address did not clearly align him with a conservative position. 

In this “not established” category, some indication of a person’s likely position can be calculated by looking at the transfer of votes to and from those candidates who are in one of the 4 different conservative or revisionist categories. So, in relation to Gumbel, on the basis of transfers in voting across 19 counts, 28 votes passed from or to him and those transfers point clearly to a conservative position (estimated probability over 99%). However, this is a statistical estimate derived from how voters’ preferences moved, not conclusive evidence of this candidate’s own position. That is why he (and many others) have not been specifically labelled only on this basis. 

For every candidate in the Sexuality Stance Explorer you can click on their name to find the evidence basis for their designation (eg details of Synod votes, statements from their address). This includes for the “not established” what the evidence of vote transfers points to in terms of likely being conservative or revisionist (as in the Gumbel example quote above). There is also the separate Scenario Builder where you can reassign people’s sexuality stance on the basis of knowledge you have and then apply the new settings to see results in the other explorers (see Guide here).

What are the figures?

Using the 5 categories set out above the initial evidence points to a significantly larger number of identifiable revisionists compared to conservatives in both Houses but falling short of an absolute majority on labelled members alone and well short of the 2/3 majority necessary to introduce new authorised liturgies under Canon B2. The revisionist lead is particularly strong in the clergy with a gap of 27 and only 33 not established.

But what stands out is the significant number, particularly in the House of Laity (where it is over 25%), of those whose views have not been able to be established.

71 of these 86 are new to Synod with 4 being former members returning and only 11 of the 190 sitting members returning falling into this category (as most could be assigned on the basis of their voting record).

In order to try and reduce this figure attention can be paid, as noted above, to vote transfers. 

Technical details you may wish to ignore

About 575 candidates have a label built from other evidence (the IC register, Synod votes, addresses and network lists). For the 360 who also have enough transfers (at least 10 votes moved to or from them), the label can be hidden and it can be asked whether transfers alone would have pointed to the same side. If they can, transfers are a fair guide where there is no label.

Looking at those 360 labelled members with enough transfers, 324 (90%) had transfers pointing to the label’s side with 90%+ probability, 14 (4%) with 75–90% probability, and 22 (6%) showed no clear pattern or pointed the other way. 

The 360 can also be grouped by how strongly their transfers pointed to one side, and checked against the label. At 90% or more, 324 of 325 matched. At 75–90%, only about four in five did, so weaker leans are treated with caution.

Once this method is applied to the 86  “not established” they are found to fall towards the conservative stance although 40-45% still remain unresolved

In the House of Clergy this is a 2:1 split towards conservatives among those being assigned but among the House of Laity it is over 4:1 towards conservatives.

On this basis it would seem that the House of Clergy has, as in the last Synod, got over 50% of its elected members being revisionists supporting change. The total is already at 102 with clear revisionist lean (or 103 including weaker lean) and so even if all 15 still not assigned were to prove conservative (which is highly unlikely) they would still be a minority. 

However, the House of Laity is much too close to call with 84 or 87 Conservatives and 88 or 89 Revisionist adding in those whose vote transfers suggest they lean one way. If the weak leans are included then at 89-87 it is almost a tie. What is more, even assigning the weaker leans, there are still 24 members (over 10% of the House) not established. In order to reach 101 on these figures conservatives need at least 14 of the 24 (58%) while revisionists need at least 12 (50%). 

The question then becomes whether these 24 “not established by evidence” lay members lean conservative like the 29 laity who could be assigned by transfers, and if so by how much. If those 24 were similarly to split 4:1 conservative that would result in something like a 19:5 split and so the elected members would then be 106 Conservative to 94 Revisionist, a good Conservative majority. This assumes the 24 resemble those whose transfers could be read. However, the 24 are mostly low-profile candidates with few votes moved, and the method was tested on better-known labelled members. The 4:1 case is therefore a scenario, not a prediction. As the ratio reduces that majority reduces and a bare Revisionist majority would be secured as soon as the 24 split evenly between the two groups.

My own knowledge of members in this group of 24 suggests that at least 10 of them are conservative which increases the conservative contingent to at least 97 (still not a majority of the 200 lay elected members) with 14 still not determined. An additional complicating factor is that there are an additional 13 non-elected (ex officio and co-opted) lay members.

In summary, whether the majority in the House of Laity is conservative or revisionist it is going to be very small and any particular vote may well depend on who is able to vote when the vote is called. In addition it may be two years before any new proposals are brought to Synod. By that time there are likely to have been some vacancies which for two years are filled by re-running the election counts again including all candidates in this last election willing to serve if elected.

Conclusion

Although there is more continuity with the previous Synod now compared to after the 2021 elections this is, in terms of personnel, a significantly different Synod with nearly half its members never having served on Synod before. In relation to the divisive questions surrounding what should happen post-PLF, however, it looks, despite the many new faces, similarly split i.e. almost down the middle. The claim (sometimes made by revisionists frustrated at the lack of progress made by PLF) that the real problem was that the last Synod elections produced an unrepresentative, excessively conservative, General Synod therefore now looks unfounded. In fact it may be that the House of Laity now is more conservative than previously and possibly even just majority conservative. The House of Bishops also seems likely to be becoming more conservative through both this election and new appointments to diocesan sees.

This outcome must therefore raise serious questions about the wisdom of bringing the questions left unresolved at the end of PLF back into this new Synod whose term of office is almost co-terminous with that of Archbishop Sarah’s primacy. The fact that even among the clergy the revisionist majority is unlikely to reach as high as 55:45 means that standalone services now have no chance of passing given the need for 2/3 majority in every House. Canonical changes to enable clergy to enter civil same-sex marriages would only require a simple majority but to push ahead with this given these results would appear to be to set up one of two scenarios after more protracted and painful debates: either the dashing yet again of raised hopes among those seeking change if the House of Laity does prove to have a conservative majority and blocks it or an even more radical and divisive change than PLF being introduced likely based on an even smaller majority than the Brexity 52:48 witnessed in the last Synod. 

While much therefore remains unclear after these elections one thing is very clear: those who have been elected to serve on the new Synod desparately need the prayers of the wider church that they will be able to discern together how to respond to the many challenges they and the Church of England will face during this new quinquennium.