FOR GOD AND COUNTRY
How far should we expect the State to build Christian values into public policy and legislation? We are a minority today and from a democratic perspective we probably should not but historically a majority probably did embrace the Christian faith. That was why marriage was once the norm, reflected in the tax and benefit system. That was phased out in the 1990’s when Ken Clarke and Gordon Brown were Chancellors of the Exchequer. They understood that more couples were choosing to cohabit before or instead of marrying.
Nevertheless, most Christians believe that marriage is part of our Maker’s pattern for the best way to live but in 2008 married couples became a minority for the first time in Britain. This is significant for public policy because married couples are statistically more likely to stay together than those who cohabit, whilst family breakdown increases the benefits budget and can do lasting harm to the family members involved. One child in four under the age of 16 in Britain experiences the traumas of breakdown, with potential consequences for their mental health, poverty, education, substance abuse and even criminal behaviour in some cases. One estimate of the cost of family breakdown is £24 billion per year.
Awareness of these issues will have inspired David Cameron’s pre-election aspiration to make Britain the most family-friendly society in the world. Last week Gavin Poole, the Executive Director of the Centre for Social Justice, reminded the Prime Minister of this intention and called on him to honour it. His failure to do so is a consequence of being in coalition with the Liberal Democrats who, like the Labour Party, opposed privileging marriage over other forms of relationships – co-habiting, same sex and single parent families. Their goal was an inclusive society that did not tell people how to live and imply a moral superiority for marriage.
CARE’s consultants, Don Draper and Leonard Beighton, have shown that our tax and benefit system “penalises stable couples and encourages family breakdown and un-partnered childbearing” and the Institute of Fiscal Studies has confirmed their research. Approximately 1.8 million low earning couples are materially worse off than their single parent counterparts, losing on average £1,336 a year by living together. Poverty and debt are common causes of divorce and family breakdown. This is not to suggest that needy single parents should not be supported but it is to argue for removing the couple penalty and actively encouraging long-term stable couple relationships.
Last year Mr Cameron proposed recognising marriage in the tax system with a transferable allowance scheme that would benefit lower and middle income couples to the tune of £150 per year for basic rate taxpayers. Nick Clegg dismissed this as “patronising drivel that belongs in the Edwardian age”, which is why the Coalition has not implemented the proposal. For the sake of encouraging family stability and preventing the social, psychological and economic consequences of breakdown, it is time for the Government to come up with something better.
Martyn Eden
20th May 2011
COALITION GOVERNMENT AFTER ONE YEAR
The Coalition Government is one year old. Given that they have a working majority of 80 plus the Government ought to be safe for another four years but tensions between the two parties keep the media speculating about its imminent collapse. The referendum on electoral reform has been the biggest cause of tension so far. The Liberal Democrats made the referendum a condition for joining the Coalition and David Cameron gambled on the nation rejecting change. He won and they lost. The nation, or at least the 42% who voted, unambiguously vetoed the adoption of AV. No part of the country bucked the trend and electoral reform is probably off the agenda for a generation.
As if this was not damaging enough for the Liberal Democrats, the results of the local council elections held on the same day were just as bad. They lost 695 council seats. Labour did moderately well, picking up 800 seats but even more galling for the Liberal Democrats was the 81 gains made by the Conservatives when they had expected to lose 1000 as a result of the public expenditure cuts they have made. Some bitterness has been evident but the Coalition will survive. Were the Liberal Democrats to quit the Government they could expect another thrashing in the general election that would follow whilst the Conservatives might even take seats from them to achieve an overall majority.
The biggest challenge facing the Coalition remains the achievement of economic recovery and the virtual elimination of the huge debts they inherited by 2015. Failure would almost certainly mean electoral defeat. However, the success of SNP in the Scottish Parliamentary elections provides a fresh challenge. With an overall majority of nine, the nationalists are now free to legislate for a referendum on independence. Each of the major English parties favour preserving the Union but they all under- performed and lost their Scottish leaders. Apparently there is not yet a majority for independence in Scotland but Alec Salmon will no doubt try to provoke a row with Westminster to stir up resentment north of the border to swell support for independence. Ironically, if the 59, mostly Labour, Scottish MPs, were no longer there the Conservatives would become the natural majority at Westminster. To his credit, Cameron has said he will campaign to preserve the Union. No doubt Labour will do the same.
In the meantime, the Coalition will tussle over such issues as reorganising the NHS, and elected Police Commissioners, whilst the Liberal Democrats seek to demonstrate their capacity for governing and their differences from their Coalition partners. While they do that we voters, who made the Coalition necessary by giving no party a majority, can be praying that they succeed in reviving the economy and creating jobs. As last year’s election and the referendum show, we have a potentially significant part to play in our nation’s politics and prayer about how we do this is part of our Christian discipleship.
Martyn Eden
13th May 2011
HANDLING EXTREMISM
The assassination of Osama bin Laden this week has been hailed as a victory for justice over extremism. Few in the west would deny that the figurehead of al Qaeda, who inspired horrendous terrorist acts that left thousands of innocent people dead, was an extremist. Nevertheless, there are people in Britain and elsewhere who will grieve for him and seek revenge for his death. As one French diplomat observed, Britain is and remains an incubator and exporter of Islamic radicalism, tolerating the likes of Abu Hamza preaching hatred towards the west and its values.
It would be totally wrong to brand all Muslims with the same attitudes and behaviour. The vast majority of them are peace-loving citizens who may have come to Britain to escape the oppression of sharia law in their birth countries. It would also be wrong to ignore the many homegrown examples of extremism in Britain, Europe and the USA. The Klu Klux Klan, BNP and neo-nazi groups in Germany are extreme in their ideology even if they do not kill on the al Qaeda scale. There have also been examples of American anti-abortionists attacking abortion clinics and practitioners. Some animal rights activists have resorted to criminal violence towards scientists experimenting with or testing their products on animals.
Speaking in Parliament on Tuesday, the Prime Minister drew a distinction between extremist acts and extremist ideologies. A casual survey of blogs reveals some very extreme opinions being aired by apparently respectable, professional people. One example this week, were comments in response to an announcement that a book about Madeleine McCann is to be published on the fourth anniversary of her disappearance. Her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann were abused in the most outrageous manner, as murderers. Similarly, euro phobic Conservatives condemn David Cameron on their blogs, in the most vituperative language, for not leading Britain out of the European Union. They are entitled to their opinions but their extremist language has no place in public discourse.
The most embarrassing example of extremist language is reported by Christian MPs who say that some of the nastiest letters they receive come from constituents identifying themselves as Christians. They not only fail to persuade their MP of their point of view but also bring their faith into disrepute. “Be completely humble and gentle, be patient bearing with one another in love”, wrote St Paul to the Christians at Ephesus (4:2).
Globalisation makes it necessary to coexist with people from different cultures, with ways of thinking and living different from our own. If we do not learn to respect them as God’s creatures, made in his image, our future will be bleak. In so far as religion is a cause of division and conflict it is a Christian duty to love even those who present themselves as our enemies. “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons (and daughters) of your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:44)
Martyn Eden
6th May 2011
PRESERVING OUR CHRISTIAN HERITAGE
Secularists may not like this but it is an historical fact that Britain has a Christian heritage. Whilst not claiming that every contribution by faith-based organisations has been above criticism it remains true that many continue to provide essential services. I have observed before the debt owed to the Salvation Army, caring for ‘down and outs’. The same could be said about projects like Yeldall Manor, helping people with drug and alcohol problems. The hospice movement had Christian roots and some of the best work with people who have disabilities is being done by such organisations as Prospects and Liveability. The Children’s Society and Dr Barnardos also had Christian origins.
My purpose here is not to smugly pat them all on the back but to sound an alarm. Some organisations that began life with a clear Christian identity are now losing it.
In our increasingly secular society, a faith basis and religious identity can be a liability. Some faith-based organisations have been denied public funding or had it withdrawn by local authorities. Others have been taken to employment tribunals because their employment policies and practices are considered to be incompatible with equality legislation. They are expected to appoint the best technically qualified applicant for a job, regardless of their sympathy with the religious identity of the organisation. That is like asking a political party to appoint staff without reference to a candidate’s political loyalties.
The result is that in some cases Christian organisations are appointing senior managers and trustees who are not Christians. Sadly, that is not just because of the law but also because the most gifted and experienced Christians are not applying for those jobs or willing to attend Board meetings. Charity pay and conditions may not be the best because these employers, denied public funding, are dependent on less reliable donation income.
Does this matter? Those who think religious faith is a private matter that has no relevance to the workplace, especially if it involves public service, will say it does not matter. If they have their way Christian heritage belongs to the past. Business decisions should be made on a rational basis and faith is irrational. To dismiss as irrational and irrelevant the faith that motivates sacrificial service for the good of others, especially for the most needy members of society, is foolish nonsense and will make Britain a less caring and civilised society.
There are two ways to stop this erosion of our Christian heritage. The Christian community has to wake up to what is happening and extend its concept of vocation to include a calling to serve in these faith-based organisations. Government can also recognise the valuable contributions made by faith-based organisations and ensure that sufficient public funding is available to sustain their essential services.
Some campaigners interpret the drift away from our Christian roots as evidence of rising levels of persecution. Perhaps it is that the Christian community is simply neglecting to preserve our Christian heritage.
Martyn Eden
29th April 2011
WHAT IS ALL THE FUSS ABOUT?
The forthcoming wedding of Prince William and Miss Catherine Middleton is not obviously a political matter but the newspapers seem to think it is important. Of course it is important for the couple, making vows to stay faithfully together for the rest of their lives, but William’s future role as head of state gives the wedding a national as well as a personal significance.
There are not many dynastic monarchies left in the world and republicans think we should replace our hereditary head of state with an elected president. They argue that this would be more democratic and make it possible to periodically change the head of state instead of being stuck with the same one for life, for good or ill. The Libyan people are not the only ones who have found that doing this is not as easy in practice as in theory. Even democratically elected presidents have their downsides. American presidential elections seem to last for more than a year and cost huge sums. Political heads of state can also be divisive in a way that our Queen has not been.
The British Monarchy is only as effective as the incumbent makes it but the institution has a number of virtues. The Queen has reigned since 1952. Twelve different Prime Ministers have served in that time. Constitutionally she acts on their advice and her role is generally limited to giving advice and either encouraging or cautioning her Prime Ministers in their weekly meetings. The only formal constitutional power she has is to invite the leader of the majority party to form a government after an election. This becomes a real power only when there is no leader with a parliamentary majority and she has to decide whom to invite, without the benefit of political advice. What the Monarch lacks in actual power is more than offset by the influence conferred by experience gained over many years.
Heads of state are also supposed to be social leaders, exemplifying the values and behaviour that make for a stable and harmonious society and community life. The Queen’s father did this admirably during the 1939-45 war, refusing to leave London when the bombs were falling and giving a strong moral leadership. The Queen herself has similarly served the nation well, notwithstanding the controversy over her response to the death of Princess Diana. Her Christmas messages have maintained a clear Christian witness to the nation. Her children have not had so positive an influence, with three broken marriages amongst the four of them, though they do work hard on numerous public engagements.
It is this social role that makes the forthcoming wedding of more than ordinary significance. If William and Catherine stay faithfully together and serve the nation well, the Monarchy has a future. They should be regularly in our prayers, that with them we may “live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” (1 Tim 2:2)
Martyn Eden
22nd April 2011
GIVING CAESAR HIS DUE
Last week I wrote about the Coalition Government’s attempt to move our political system to a more mature and participative form of democracy and commended it, not on the grounds of political bias but those of biblical anthropology. I return to this theme because of disturbing evidence of public disrespect for all politicians. This is one of the consequences of the ‘them and us’ attitudes that are an element of a centralist political culture.
Obviously the expenses scandal did not encourage the public to trust and respect them but the number of MPs guilty of criminal or just daft abuses of the expenses rules was fewer than 10% of the last Parliament. Public opinion polls, political blogs and media coverage indiscriminately tarred all politicians with the same brush. The worst offenders have been prosecuted and most of those who made silly claims have retired and a new generation of MPs has replaced them. The House of Commons now includes more Christian MPs than at any time in the last 50 years. Yet public opinion has taken no account of this and remains hostile.
As I see it, with 44 years of political involvement, as a politics teacher, policy analyst, lobbyist and broadcaster, the vast majority of MPs are no different to the people they represent. They are as flawed as we are but not more so. They work long hours serving us, not just to advance their own careers. They make sacrifices for our sakes, being away from their families four days a week and then return home to attend numerous constituency engagements. They are paid more than most of us because they have to maintain two homes but they are poorly paid compared to their peers in business and the professions. It is a miracle that they persevere despite the constant criticism.
From a Christian point of view widespread and indiscriminate disrespect towards MPs is sinful. The Apostles Peter and Paul both urge us to "submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men. Show proper respect to everyone" (1Peter 2:13 & 17 & Romans 13:1-7) and pray for those in authority (1 Timothy 2:1-2). This is not to suggest that only Christians can be civil but that we have a duty as 'salt and light' to set a good example (Matthew 5:13-17).
The media must play a major role in changing attitudes and public opinion about politicians. Caricaturing them as a bunch of self-serving parasites is in most cases untrue. Journalists do it because it makes for strong headlines that sell newspapers and boost audience share. Threaten that with critical letters to editors and producers and they will stop. Politicians can play their part by giving no cause for scandal. Ridding our political culture of its ‘them and us’ attitudes will help. So too will more of us meeting our MPs and Councillors in their surgeries and getting to know them. Respect grows in honest relationships and dies without them.
Martyn Eden
15th April 2011
PARTICIPATIVE DEMOCRACY
The big idea of the Coalition Government is to move our political system towards a more participative model of democracy in which citizens take greater responsibility for decisions affecting themselves and their local communities. This is not a new idea. Those who campaigned in the 19th century for every adult to have the right to vote had the same vision. Unfortunately, in the 20th century control of major decisions was increasingly shifted from town halls to Whitehall. Local government became more an agent of central government than its partner. Centralisation created a political culture in which we, the citizens, routinely looked to them, in central government, to make every major decision and solve every problem for us. History shows the presumption that ‘Whitehall knows best’ is wrong but centralisation has created an immature form of democracy that the Coalition wants to change.
This aspiration explains a number of current policies. The abolition of bureaucratic Primary Care Trusts and transfer of responsibility to GP consortia is intended to move decision making closer to patients. The election of police Commissioners is designed to increase accountability to local people. Creating the possibility of parents and local groups starting their own ‘free’ schools also belongs in this strategy. Giving citizens the right to initiate parliamentary debates if they attract sufficient popular support and empowering us to recall elected representatives if they have misbehaved are other examples. So too is the legislation to give local authorities a general competence to do whatever is in the best interests of their community.
Cultural change takes time and these initiatives alone will not produce a more participative form of democracy. Our attitudes and expectations that ‘they’ are always responsible could take a generation to change. It will need many of us to adjust our lifestyles to create space for community involvement. We will have to learn to accept the consequences of local communities choosing different local policies and identify when equity really matters more than local autonomy. Ministers will need to not intervene when a local authority makes choices of which she or he disapproves. Parliament will have to accept that the Minister is not always responsible and cannot be called to account for local decisions.
Given that this is a long-term strategy, it will not be achieved if a different Government chooses not to carry it forward. That is a statement of the obvious not a pitch for the present Government. However, a biblical case can be made for the strategy that has nothing to do with party politics. When he created humankind and gave us a mandate to rule over his creation, God gave this responsibility to us all, not to a few. Dispersing power and responsibility also limits the dangers of concentrating power in the hands of a few sinful human beings. Moving our political culture and institutions towards a more mature and participative form of democracy is an ideal worthy of our prayerful consideration, regardless of our party loyalties.
Martyn Eden
8th April 2011
PRISON CONUNDRUM
Questions to the Justice Department this week exposed a tricky problem for the Lord Chancellor. Ken Clarke is possibly the most unpopular member of the Government, at least amongst some of his own backbenchers. When appointed last year he indicated that he favoured fewer convicted criminals being sent to prison. “Too often prison has proved a costly and ineffectual approach that fails to turn criminals into law-abiding citizens. In our worst prisons it produces tougher criminals”. This evoked sharp disagreement from Michael Howard, another former Home Secretary who memorably proclaimed “prison works”
On Monday, Philip Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley, took the Howard line. “What Conservative Members want is more robust sentencing and more people sent to prison”. There are currently 85,454 men and women in prison, compared with 45,000 in 1993, when Mr Clarke was Home Secretary. The last Government forecast continued growth in the prison population to 95,000 by 2014-15 but Mr Clarke considers this unnecessary.
Prison serves five purposes. It defines the seriousness of a crime, punishes offenders, protects the public from dangerous criminals and is meant to deter others from committing crime. It is also meant to reform offenders and send them back into the community as law-abiding citizens. This it clearly fails to do because even the most conservative estimate of re-offending is 60% and on Monday Philip Davies cited figures ranging from 74% to 92%. Failure to rehabilitate is also seen in the number of people who enter prison drug free and leave with a drug problem. The growth in the prison population also suggests that the deterrent aspect does not work either.
Obviously crime should be punished and the public protected from violent criminals. The real question is whether prison is an appropriate way to deal with less serious offences by non-violent offenders. There are approximately 66,000 prisoners in this category each year. Ken Clarke’s argument is that sentences of less than a year do not give sufficient time to reform these people. The Prison Governors Association and the National Association of Probation Officers support him in this. The alternative, non-custodial sentences are seen by some to be too soft but this overlooks the fact that many on short sentences lose their jobs, their homes and their families whilst they are ‘inside’. There has been insufficient time for them to learn new skills or gain qualifications that could motivate them to ‘go straight’ after release. Instead they have served their sentence in the company of hardened criminals and they may have lost the three things that would help them to ‘go straight’. It is little wonder that re-offending rates are so high.
If that is Ken Clarke's thinking he needs a radical rethink about non-custodial sentences. These sentences need to be seen as genuine punishment whilst giving first offenders the motivation and relational support to become law-abiding citizens. Enabling them to see the effects of their crime by bringing them together with their victims could help.
Martyn Eden
1st April 2011
A LONG TERM VIEW OF THE BUDGET
Given the state of the economy and the national debt, anyone who was expecting a ‘give away’ budget was destined for disappointment. With 2.5 million people unemployed, the Chancellor had to make growth and job creation his first priority. His austerity measures have hit most of our wallets but there are some modest measures in the budget to help us, especially our poorest neighbours. The £1000 increase in the personal tax allowance, the small reduction in fuel duty, and the Council tax freeze will not make anyone wealthy but they will help a bit. We should surely be pleased that over one million of the poorest people no longer have to pay income tax at all.
The real test of the budget is surely how much it will help to grow the economy, create jobs, eliminate the national deficit and restore the economy so that belt tightening is no longer necessary. Small firms, which are the most likely job creators, will welcome being freed from lots of bureaucratic regulations that inhibit their expansion. The creation of 21 new Enterprise Zones, 24 new University Technical colleges and funding 250,000 apprenticeships over the next four years will help unemployed youngsters to develop skills and find jobs. Measures to stimulate the construction industry could also create new jobs. £250 million have been set aside to lend to first-time buyers who want to purchase newly built properties but cannot yet afford the deposit.
The budget included several other long-term changes that could affect us all in due course. He wants to simplify the tax system to make it intelligible to everyone. He will consult about merging income tax and national insurance into a single tax on incomes. This would save employers the costs of administering national insurance payments. He also wants to see simpler pension provisions, with a single tier pension of £140 per week for new pensioners.
Employers will welcome a 2% cut in Corporation Tax this year and further 1% reductions in each of the following three years. This will take the tax rate to 23%, lower than equivalent taxes in America, France and Germany, helping to make Britain more competitive in world markets.
Charities will appreciate measures to simplify Gift Aid and encourage wealthy people to give more to them. If they leave 10% of their estate to a charity, their inheritance tax liability will be correspondingly reduced. They will gain nothing from this but the charities they support would. Estimates suggest that 100,000 charities could benefit by as much as £240 million.
It is easy to say the Chancellor should have done more for us in the budget but he cannot spend money the nation does not have. We will only know if the pain of his austerity measures is worth it in four years time, when he expects the deficit to be paid off and the economy returned to something approaching normality. The 2015 election will be our opportunity to pass judgement.
Martyn Eden
25th March 2011
THE CHURCH AND POLITICS
How far should churches be involved in politics. For secularists, faith is a private matter so they see no place for the churches in the public square. For Christians, God is sovereign over all of life. If the churches remain silent how will Godly perspectives be brought to bear on decisions about laws and policies? I want to suggest four important contributions they can make.
The first is a prophetic ministry in society. As Kenneth Kaunda, the former President of Zambia, suggests, “what a nation needs more than anything else is not a Christian ruler in the palace but a Christian prophet within earshot”. It is crucial that when the church seeks to speak prophetically it is not seen to be grinding a partisan axe or seeking privilege for itself. Nevertheless, there is a biblical model for the church to enter the political arena to speak prophetically about some action or lack of it by the Government.
A second role is as an agent of reconciliation. Politics frequently involves division and conflicts of interest. Jesus not only reconciled people to God, he also reconciled them to each other. All Christians have a reconciliation role in our personal relationships but at the community level the church can have an influence, which individuals cannot. As a body that cares for people on all sides of a dispute, the church can use its neutrality to bring the parties together and find a basis for compromise and reconciliation.
Thirdly, the church can spearhead a ministry of prayer for the nation. Again, we should all be praying individually but it is important and biblical that there should also be corporate intercession for the nation in our churches. This is something most churches do infrequently and half-heartedly.
Finally, the church has a prime responsibility to teach its members and this should include our duties as citizens of the nation as well as of the Kingdom of God. If churches pay little attention to this aspect of Christian discipleship, is it any wonder that Christian influences in politics and government are limited and society is becoming increasingly secularised. Churches that hold many meetings during the week reduce the likelihood of their members engaging in politics. It is said that the doors of the churches in Calvin’s Geneva were locked on Sunday night and remained locked until the following Sunday morning. The proper place for the faithful was in the world, being salt and light.
Whilst the political role of the church is best limited to these four activities, there need be no such constraints on Christian individuals and campaigning groups provided they participate in a manner consistent with their Christian faith and identity. We may not all have the same depth of interest in politics and all the other areas of church life continue to need people to attend to them but there are various levels of political involvement and we do not all have to engage at the same level.
Martyn Eden
18th March 2011
HAS THE MONARCHY A FUTURE?
The royal family have hit the headlines this week. Prince Andrew, who is a volunteer UK trade envoy, has featured for some of his personal relationships. Prince William and his fiancée Catherine Middleton have provided contrasting copy about their forthcoming wedding. The Queen, our hereditary head of state, retains the nation’s respect and affection but she is 85 and Prince Charles, her heir apparent, is controversial and less popular. Is it time to consider abolishing the monarchy and becoming a republic, like most other countries?
Republicanism in Britain is not strong. An ICM poll in 2009 found 76% supporting the monarchy and only 18% favouring its abolition. No political party has abolition in its manifestos but republicanism has greater support amongst left-wingers. They argue that a monarchy denies the people the right to choose their head of state. They are hostile to the unaccountable power the Royal prerogative gives to Governments, devaluing parliament. They complain about the cost of the monarchy, ignoring the greater costs of many elected Presidents.
Monarchists point to the continuity the institution brings to our political system. The Queen’s reign spans 59 years during which we have had 12 different Prime Ministers. She has little power but this experience gives her immense potential influence. She can advise, caution and encourage heads of government who remain accountable to Parliament and the voters. In exercising this role she has no axe to grind, though whether Prince Charles will be able to act with similar discretion remains to be seen. The Monarch is a national icon and a focal point for national unity, especially in times of crisis. In her personal faith and moral conduct Queen Elizabeth has been an admirable role model but sadly her offspring have not always followed her example, hence some of this week’s headlines.
We live in a time of rapid change. It is almost inevitable that all our ancient institutions will be questioned sooner or later, but change for change’s sake would be foolish. However, members of the royal family behaving badly could fuel republican calls for a national debate on abolition, notwithstanding similar behaviour by many in every strata of society. The monarchy was abolished in the 17th century, when King Charles 1 was beheaded but, after eleven years of Cromwell’s Protectorate, Charles 2nd was recalled to the throne. Republicans today want to reverse that decision when Charles 3rd comes to the throne.
What of the alternatives? Elected presidents are not guaranteed to behave well. President Clinton comes to mind. Nor are they certain to unite the nation. The idea of Presidents Thatcher or Blair would have deeply alienated some people. It is true that most other countries manage without a monarch as head of state but are they happier, better governed or more united than Britain? St Paul was wise when he advocated prayer “for Kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.”
Martyn Eden
11th March 2011
IMMIGRANTS NOT WELCOME
A startling report, “Fear and Hope: the new politics of identity” was published this week by the Searchlight Educational Trust. It reports the results of a Populus poll that showed that 63% of white Britons, 43% of Asian Britons and 17% of black Britons consider immigration has, on the whole, been bad for Britain. Almost half of the respondents were willing to vote for a new far right party provided it was not violent in its opposition to immigration.
The net level of migration rose by 36% last year. 572,000 people entered the UK on a long-term basis and 346,000 left, but from a global perspective these statistics are of modest proportions. The U.N. reckons that there are approximately 214 million migrants moving across the globe. These include Africans entering Europe to find work, refugees escaping the upheaval in Libya, and migrations from Asia to Australia. It is a fact of life today and has become politically sensitive in Holland, Denmark, France and the USA, as well as Britain.
Those wanting to limit immigration argue that incomers take jobs that unemployed Britons could do. Immigrants are said to work for less and drive down wages. They also point to the involvement of some east European immigrants in sex trafficking and prostitution in our cities. Others, aware of Britain’s declining birth rate and ageing population, see incomers bringing needed skills and boosting the economy by at least a quarter point. The Home Office says immigrants pay more in tax than they receive in benefits. Whatever the truth of these conflicting claims, Gordon Brown’s ‘bigot-gate’ incident in Rochdale highlighted the political sensitivity of the issue.
The Coalition Government’s policy has been to set a cap on non-EU immigration to reduce it to tens of thousands instead of last year’s half million. This has been criticised by business interests who want the scarce skills some immigrants offer. Universities are worried about losing overseas students who pay full fees for their courses. Nevertheless, a Mori poll found that 57% support the cap, only 15% oppose it, but 47% think it will not work.
At a deeper level we have to consider how important it is to preserve distinctive national identities and characteristics. Being an island nation helps but for countries like Bangladesh, vulnerable to rising sea levels, large-scale migration could become inevitable. Global warming and its consequences have been caused by the wealthy industrial nations so we ought not close our hearts or our frontiers to its victims. Nor should we deny asylum to those fleeing religious and other forms of persecution. Both the Old and New Testaments enjoin us to love the foreigner in our midst, which means ensuring their social, moral, economic and relational well being and helping them to integrate. There are practical limits to how many more people we can accommodate on our island but we surely have a Christian duty to welcome those who come in good faith.
Martyn Eden
4th March 2011
MAKING VOTES COUNT
We do not make much use of referenda in Britain. Hitherto, the only nationwide referendum, in 1975, was to determine whether the UK should remain a member of the European Union. Others were held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in each case about devolution, and in London in 1998, to create the Greater London Assembly and Mayor. 37 local referenda have also been about directly elected mayors. They have all involved constitutional changes that Governments felt required more than the normal authority of Parliament. This year we will have two more referenda, one about devolution of legislative powers to the Welsh Assembly and the other about the electoral system. It is the latter that is most controversial and will grab headlines until 5th May.
The present electoral system is one of simple plurality, sometimes confusingly called ‘first past the post’. The candidate receiving the most votes in a single member constituency wins. It is the simplest electoral system but it has a number of flaws that persuade some of the need for change. First, the winning candidate can be elected with fewer than 50% of the votes. The likeliness of this increases with the number of candidates contesting the election in the constituency. Second, parties with many losing candidates may still obtain significant support nationally but few or no seats in Parliament. Thus in 2005 the Labour Party won 55% of the seats with only 35% of the votes nationally, whereas the Liberal Democrats polled 22% of the vote nationally but won only 10% of the seats. This seems unfair.
Despite these flaws, the current system remains popular for four reasons. It is intelligible to voters who are only required to mark an X against their preferred candidate. It is simple to count the votes and produce a result quickly. It produces a clear identification between the constituency and the elected member that would be lost in system of proportional representation that requires multi-party constituencies. Finally, simple plurality usually produces stable majority Governments, though the 2010 election was an exception.
The preferred alternative, on which we will be asked to vote in May, is the Alternative Vote (AV). This is a progression from simple plurality in that it still operates in single member constituencies but requires voters to rank the candidates in order of their preference. If no candidate obtains 50% of the votes, those cast for the candidate with the fewest votes are redistributed to the second preferences on those voting papers. Redistribution like this continues until one candidate receives at least 50% of the votes.
Advocates of AV say that it ensures that every MP has the support of a majority of their voters, giving them a clear mandate but this will only be true if voters rank all the candidates. It probably penalises extreme parties that will not attract many second preferences. It may also discourage negative campaigning because parties will not want to alienate supporters of other parties. What AV does not achieve is a genuine proportionality of votes cast to seats won. That would require a genuine PR system.
Martyn Eden
25th February 2011
FAITH IN EDUCATION
From time to time I have written about the challenges of living the Christian faith in an increasingly secular culture. That culture is not out to persecute believers but it does view our faith as a private matter that has no place in the public square. For a few that has meant losing their job or even facing prosecution for breaches of the Equality legislation. A more strategic challenge concerns the continuing place of faith-based schools in our public education system.
There are some 7,000 faith-based schools in Britain, which equates to a third of all primary and secondary schools. They are popular with many parents, who go to great lengths to secure places for their children in these establishments because they are perceived to set high standards and have good disciplinary records. Recognising their popularity, both the last and the present Government have endorsed their contribution.
In stark contrast, secularists consider faith-based schools as unjust and discriminatory because they operate selective pupil and teacher recruitment criteria. They campaign for these requirements to be abolished in all state-funded schools and argue that religion should have no place in the schooling of young people unless it is taught in a neutral and objective manner. Thus faith-based schools, collective worship and religious education that privileges any one faith should all be ended, at least in the public sector. It is argued that these schools only achieve higher standards because they select potentially high achieving children from middle class backgrounds, few with special needs or eligible for free school meals, and with parents who support the school’s values.
Essentially, this is a contest between two worldviews. Atheists want to diminish the influence of religion and replace it with their own worldview. Education is a major agent for socialising young people and they want this to happen in a way that produces secular humanists, not religious believers. Their assumption that it is possible to educate in a neutral and objective manner is also questionable. Every lesson and every textbook is prepared and delivered by individuals who reflect their own worldview and experience in what they teach and write. Neutrality and objectivity are myths.
We all operate within a framework of beliefs. For some these are religious beliefs, for others they are non-religious beliefs. Atheists believe that there is no God but that is a belief not a fact. What we believe shapes how we interpret the world around us and how we behave in it. We should all be open about our beliefs, especially teachers, because young pupils are still developing skills of critical discernment but to pretend that religious beliefs are all bad and secular beliefs are all good is nonsense.
The challenge for faith-based schools is to ensure that they faithfully reflect the faith with which they identify. If they do not help their pupils to fulfil their God-given potential and those pupils leave with a negative perception of the faith, perhaps they should not exist.
Martyn Eden
18th February 2011
THE RIGHT WAY TO HANDLE CONTROVERSY
There are groups of Christians in each of the three largest UK parties, Christian lobby groups such as CARE, EA and Keep Sunday Special, and campaigns, petitions and marches for various causes and issues. Others oppose such groups and controversy inevitably follows. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Faith has always had political implications. The two cannot be separated but they are uncomfortable partners. Jesus was often controversial in his responses to the religious authorities, as was St Paul. However, it is when the controversy is between Christians that we need to be careful.
Politics is mostly about means and there are genuine differences between Christians about the best ways to achieve the ends we share. Politics is also about conflicts of interest and, rightly or wrongly, Christians do not always see their interests as identical. Politics is about the exercise of power and Christians are not immune from the temptations associated with power. Some enjoy controversy for its own sake, without regard for the consequences. Some are temperamentally confrontational, whilst others may be too thin-skinned. Others have a tendency to baptise their personal prejudices with dogmatic absolutism.
It is when controversy undermines Christian unity, distorts perceptions of the faith and damages Christian mission in the wider society, that it becomes a serious problem. So, whilst it is right to campaign vigorously for causes rooted in faith and conscience, it is essential that we handle our differences in a distinctively Christ-like manner. Activists and campaigners would be wise to adopt some simple ground rules.
What are our motives – to serve Christ or personal ambition or prejudice? How careful have we been to check the facts of our case before entering the fray? Have we understood our opponent’s case before attacking it? Is the issue sufficiently important to justify controversy and risk dividing Christians? Is it essential to conduct the argument in public or would it be better handled in private, face-to-face discussion? Christians surely have a prior commitment to Christian brothers and sisters before those of party. Is our style of campaigning gracious, our language temperate and do we avoid personal attacks?
The bottom line in everything we do has to be faithfulness to Christ. It is easy to assume that what makes us angry is also offensive to him and our controversies become issues of faithfulness for us. Sometimes this is legitimate, especially in a spiritually hostile context, but in relation to disagreements with other Christians we would do well to remember that God’s call is not only to preach peace but also to embody it. To that end a commitment to campaign relationally makes sense. We are more likely to influence someone if we have first built a relationship with him or her. We are more likely to avoid nasty, divisive controversy if we can relate respectfully with our opponents. This relational approach reflects God’s dealings with us, making it the obvious model for how Christians handle controversy.
Martyn Eden
11th February 2011
THE LIMITS OF OBEDIENCE
Events this week in Egypt raise some challenging questions. Is it legitimate for mobs to overthrow the elected Head of State? President Mubarak has not respected his people's rights and liberties, so is he a legitimate ruler?
St Paul's letter to Rome is a good starting point in looking for answers. “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established (13:1) He who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has established.” (2) So, mob rule is illegitimate. However, Paul says rulers are God’s servants (4). If they are not behaving as such, do we have any obligation to obey them? Rulers are ordained to commend what is right (3) and punish wrongdoers (4-5). They exist to establish and maintain justice and if they do not do that they are no longer God’s servants. Paul is not suggesting that rulers have a carte blanche to do whatever they want.
If the primary task of government is to maintain justice, the rulers themselves must also act justly and operate under the rule of law rather than doing whatever is in their own interests. The Egyptian demonstrators want to overthrow a President who has been in power for 30 years during which he has apparently ridden roughshod over his people’s liberties and welfare with the support of his ‘security forces’. Despite widespread poverty and illiteracy in Egypt, it has the largest army in Africa. 20% of Egyptians live on the equivalent of, or less than $2 a day and another 30% live only just above that poverty line. The demonstrators see an affluent elite and no prospect under Mubarak of real change.
The President has indicated this week that he will not seek a sixth term in September’s elections but rumours suggest that his son is being groomed as his successor. However, there have been allegations of widespread fraud in past elections in which the National Democratic Party won all but a small number of the 518 parliamentary seats. It is significant that the NDP headquarters were one of the demonstrators’ first targets.
Arguably, another strand of biblical thinking is that government should also be representative of the people. This has nothing to do with the secularist myth of popular sovereignty. If God is sovereign, the people cannot be. Instead, it is a reflection of what the Bible says about people and power. Power should not be concentrated in a few hands because of our tendency to sin and the potential of power to corrupt. Power should be dispersed because we all share God’s mandate to subdue the earth and rule (Genesis 1:28). Clearly this is not applied in Egyptian government and politics.
The demonstrators’ case for major constitutional, social and economic change is legitimate but if mob rule leads to further loss of life and injustice towards Egypt’s minorities it will lose this legitimacy. Honest elections are the way forward.
Martyn Eden
4th February 2011
BROKEN LIVES: BROKEN BRITAIN?
Court reports this week have made wretched reading. A boy preparing for GCSE exams was hunted and knifed to death last year by 20 youths from a different school, in Victoria Station during the evening rush hour. This was triggered by a feud over a girl and a scuffle the previous day. The attack was carefully planned on Facebook. A second report concerns a 17-year-old girl, who, with an older friend stamped on the head of an unconscious gay man in Trafalgar in 2009, and killed him in what was explicitly a homophobic attack.
Knife crime reports have become all too frequent in recent years, especially in London. Six teenagers were stabbed to death in the first six weeks of 2007. Eleven youths were murdered on London streets in the year to March 2008. The good news is that the incidence of knife crime decreased by 41% in the last twelve months and the UK comes only 46th in the world’s murder statistics.
Nevertheless, even one teenager killing another is bad news. One life is lost and the other one damaged by the criminal act and its consequences. The standard response is to call for tougher sentences and handle each case in the criminal courts. Punishing killers and protecting society from them is obviously right but preventing these crimes should be our first priority. To do that we need to identify the causes of violence and they are complex.
One answer is that individualism and cultural diversity have eroded community and social cohesion and created a generation of alienated youth. Unemployment and poverty contribute to this but relational poverty is another key factor. Family breakdown, absent paternal role models, and parents working long and atypical hours also play a part. Proverbs17: 6 says, “children’s children are a crown to the aged and parents are the pride of their children” but how can this be today when families rarely spend quality time together and children have poor relationships with their parents? The peer group becomes a substitute for family support and solidarity.
In the past youth clubs, Scouts and Guides, and sporting activity offered young people recreational opportunities, safe adventure and healthy exercise. Today fewer adults have time to organise these activities. Scout and Guide groups are short of leaders and the youth and community service is short of funds and volunteers. Bored youths engaging in anti-social behaviour are one outcome.
In the words of Romans 1:30, some individuals “invent ways of doing evil, they disobey their parents, they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless” but not everyone from a poor and broken family carries a knife and behaves violently. There is no simple solution to a very complex problem, but we can do a lot more to revive local community life, make it easier for parents to spend time with their children and rebuild social cohesion, to save at least some of those broken young lives. That really would be a Big Society.
Martyn Eden
28th January 2011
WHY THE HASTE?
Michael Gove has stirred up a hornets’ nest with his plans for an English Baccalaureate. His aim is to raise standards in our secondary schools. This will surprise anyone beguiled by annual headlines that the proportion of pupils achieving five GCSEs at grades A to C keeps rising. The problem is that apart from maths and English, many of these passes were in ‘soft’ subjects, or that is how the Education Secretary interprets these results.
The Baccalaureate is a qualification awarded to those who achieve five grades A to C in maths, English, two sciences, a language and either history or geography at the GCSE level. A re-analysis of last summer’s results shows that only about 15% of pupils achieved this standard. Thus many schools that claimed excellent results by the old standard fall well short of the new one, which the Education Secretary is applying retrospectively. It is no surprise that head teachers are very angry.
There can surely be no opposition to raising standards. Employers have been complaining for years about the poor skills of many young recruits and the need to compensate for this in the workplace. In so far as schooling is a preparation for employment, the new qualification should be an improvement. However, if Latin is the chosen language it will be of limited interest for most jobs. On the other hand, some of the ‘soft’ subjects, such as information technology, business studies and product design might be more relevant to some pupils’ future careers. The issue is what is the most appropriate broad foundation for further, vocational or higher, academic studies?
However legitimate these changes are, the law of unintended consequences is at work. Pupils who chose to study, say sociology, on their teacher’s advice, may now find that they have not qualified for the Baccalaureate, which did not exist when that choice was made. If this affects their job prospects they are entitled to feel aggrieved. Second, Heads whose schools are threatened with being labelled as ‘failing’, as a result of the retrospective application of the new rating, are mad about goal posts being moved without any consultation.
They will now be reviewing their staff lists to decide which teachers they need to recruit or lose in order to meet the new situation. Those teaching options outside the Baccalaureate have reason to be apprehensive. RE teachers are amongst them, though RE remains a compulsory subject. The risk is that religious studies will be taught by anyone with spaces in their timetables. Yet RE is a rigorous and demanding academic discipline, requiring analytical skills, historical understanding and involving textual study and literary skills. It is not a ‘soft’ option. As it remains compulsory it ought to be an alternative to history and geography for those who choose it.
Understanding the different religions in Britain ought to diffuse ignorant prejudice and contribute to building harmonious communities but marginalizing RE in school will not help achieve this.
Martyn Eden
14th January 2011
TAXING MATTERS
Parliament is still in recess but political debate continues, focussing this week on the increase in VAT from 17.5% to 20%. The Chancellor aims to raise an additional £13 billion towards cutting the deficit inherited from the last Government. The Opposition says this is unfair and unnecessary but the Government questions what Labour would do instead to reduce the deficit.
A good tax has six characteristics. It should bring in sufficient income to fund the public services and manage the economy. It will be simple and intelligible to the taxpayer, cheap to collect and difficult to evade. It should also relate to the taxpayers ability to pay and be fair, taxing the rich more than the poor.
Mr Osborne claims that this increase is fair and progressive because the rich spend more and will therefore pay more. Households with a total income of £70,000 could pay an additional £561 p.a. in VAT whilst those taking home £25,000 will only pay £150 more. Ed Miliband counters that it will be regressive because the poor spend more of their income on essentials. However, food, children’s clothes, books and newspapers are all zero-rated whilst domestic heating bills are only rated at 5%.
The real issues for debate lie elsewhere. The VAT increase is a deliberate attempt to rebalance the economy away from consumption and encourage savings. Britain has been living beyond our means personally as well as nationally. Thus many economists welcome the move. However, if consumers spend less now this may slow economic growth just when we need growth to create jobs and pay off our debts. There is also a risk that the increase could stoke up inflation, prompting the Bank of England to increase interest rates, which would also slow recovery.
The second problem is the likelihood of increased fraud. ‘Carousel fraudsters buy goods abroad that are VAT free or rated lower than in the UK, charge customers the full 20% but do not pay this to the Revenue. Estimates of up to £4billion could be made if HMRC do not detect the crimes.
Another problem for the Government is that this tax increase comes on top of the increasing cost of petrol and diesel, above inflation increases in train fares and also gas and electricity bills. This year we will begin to see the effects of public expenditure cuts and the rising unemployment statistics that will result. We know that belt-tightening is needed but after a decade of general consumer affluence, the cumulative effect may be too big a shock for some. The Opposition contend that cutting the deficit more slowly would have eased the pain but the Government believe that doing this would have damaged confidence in the British economy amongst the nation’s creditors and they point to the experience of Greece and Ireland as evidence.
Individually and nationally we have to relearn Mr Micawber’s lesson, “Annual income £20, annual expenditure £19. 98, result happiness. Annual income £20, annual expenditure £20.02, result misery.”
Martyn Eden
7th Jan 2011