The Fabians's have stood the test of time and are the best think-tank on the centre-left. These words are wise and from a critical friend of Labour. However, Uncle Arthur would suggest a few words of caution. The Fabian's link this call to a call for a'Progressive Manifesto', this is not a word used by the working-class base. Also road pricing schemes are bound to be a vote loser in many core Labour areas. This saddens me but I am afraid it is cold, harsh reality.
Brown must win back working-class voters, says thinktank
A key Labour thinktank has warned Gordon Brown that his attempts to rise "above politics" risk alienating crucial working-class voters.
A new paper by the Fabian Society cautions that core working-class support is critical to Labour winning another general election and beating a resurgent Conservative party.
By attempting to be "all things to all people" to win cross party support, the government could end up fatally neglecting traditionalists, it says.
Instead, the Fabian Society's general secretary, Sunder Katwala, said a "bolder Labour vision" was now a strategic necessity.
Tackling child poverty with multi-billion-pound funding and standing firmly against any US plan for military action against Iran should form part of a new policy platform to reinvigorate party loyalists, the paper recommends.
Mr Katwala said: "Brown's initial positive appeal was built on leadership, competence and authenticity.
"But political vision is central to the authentic Gordon Brown. The message to his advisers should be 'let Gordon be Gordon' - and that must mean letting Gordon be Labour, too."
Thursday, 1 November 2007
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
The Direction of Public Services under Brown
Introduction
The government’s agenda on the public sector been a defining theme for many assessments of their record. High and unprecedented levels of public expenditure have heightened public expectations to demand high quality, world class public services in an increasingly consumer orientated world. Such levels of expenditure even have forced the Conservative opposition to publicly match Labour’s commitment to sustainable levels of expenditure.
Yet the government’s mantra on public services, has created unique pressures on Labour’s trade union support base and generated a wider debate about the efficacy and equity of such an approach. The raising of the bar on public service investment and reform naturally raises the political temperature whenever there seem to be apparent shortcomings in the public services.
This paper aims to chart the development of this debate, the likely direction of public services under a Brown premiership and an analysis of the forthcoming legislative agenda and the recent CSR pre-budget report to discern the likely direction of the public services agenda. There will be a continued use of PFI, marketisation developments in social care and library services where we can expect a clear move towards further fragmentation.
The paper concludes that we cannot exaggerate the difference between a Brown premiership from a Blairite one on this subject. Yet, we must not be wholly gloomy. Brown has overturned certain Blairite programmes, and we must believe that alternative policy platforms can be calibrated and unwelcome public service developments challenged on a case by case basis. The New Labour narrative on public services will not change substantively. There may also be a sense that the Brownite camp is more amenable to dialogue on alternative paradigms on public services where such endeavours ultimately proved a fruitless exercise under Blair.
With the accession of Gordon Brown to the Labour Party leadership and ergo becoming PM, it is an opportune time to take stock of what has happened in public services under Blair and what is the direction of travel under Gordon Brown. Will there be a substantive shift in direction? Will the narrative be different? If so how can Unison frame it’s positively public campaign in the light of a different leadership?
Anatomy of Public Services Under New Labour
Under Labour the marketisation and part-privatization of the public services has continued apace, naturally this has attracted vehement criticism. The Labour Party has been able to publicly position itself as the custodian of public services, citing its high and unprecedented levels of public expenditure and defining itself against a Conservative Party who allowed themselves to be potential cutters of public expenditure. For example Oliver Letwin MP sabotaged the Conservative’s 2001 eelction campaign by indicating to the Financial Times that a Conservative Government would reduce public spending by up to £20bn. Given a change in stance from the Conservative Party and financial instability in Health Trusts it may be more difficult for the Labour Party to do this in the future.
Labour emphasised‘Schools and Hospitals first', in the General Election of June 2001 fusing the mantra of invest and reform, although a simple message it worked in defining Labour as pro-public sector as against the more ideologically bound Conservatives. 2001 election –Schools and Hospitals – narrative provided a very simplistic dividing line with the Conservatives. Blair had originally staked out his mission in reference to the public service agenda in the now infamous sound-bite summarising his priorities as ‘Education, Education, and Education’.
Sometimes the tone and rhetoric used by Tony Blair was unfortunate and alienated public servants, for example when in 2000 he referred to ‘having scars on his back’ due to his public service reforms. The reform agenda which seemed to take a step-change towards privatization during the 2001 election:
‘So this is a great challenge to us as a government and a cabinet, to our public services. There should be no barriers, no dogma, no vested interests that stand in the way of delivering the best services for our people.’
These tensions came to a head in Labour Party conference 2001.
‘The confrontation between ministers and unions over Labour's public service reforms has dominated Tony Blair's second term’
The government attempted to define it’s agenda for modernizing/reforming public services in 2002 by adopting an adversarial posture. Given that the decision to expand private sector involvement in the public sector would be problematic for trade unions in the public sector the government sought to define these forces as ‘producer’ interest, juxtaposed to the interests of the consume ie the public. This narrative even led to one government minister inferring that opponents to this agenda were ‘wreckers’. In a speech to the Labour Party Spring Conference 2002 in Cardiff the phrase wreckers was clearly used in thinly disguised attack on public sector unions.
The rhetoric has evolved but has never been de-coupled from the marketisation agenda. In particular, this point is evidenced by the governments promotion of the concept in choice in public services, particularly choice within the health service. Some saw this philosophical development as an attempt to construct a ‘trojan horse’ through which more marketisation could be pursued. Certainly the government felt they had to craft a modern health service that fitted the consumer orienated, information savvy aged. Fearful that public service legitimacy could be undermined by the middle-classes exiting the service in favour of private provision. The accession of Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP, has seen a toning down of the choice rhetoric.
To many observers Gordon Brown was inextricably bound up in this public services agenda. As Chancellor of the Exchequer oversaw a marked expansion of the PFI scheme, the Treasury’s preferred route for developing public sector infrastructure. Hence to expect him to oversee a substantive shift in direction would be a leap of faith. Brown was of course also the architect of the PPP for the Tube, so heavily criticized by Ken Livingstone and transport unions.
Brown seems to have the same implicit faith in the private sector that Blair had, which we could summarise as private sector good; public sector bad, in a conversation with academic and expert on PFI, Alyson Pollock Brown said, when pressed on the justification for PFI.
“ His response was simply to declare repeatedly that the public sector is bad at management, and that only the private sector is efficient and can manage services well. By 2003 the business paradigm was the only model that the Treasury and senior Department of Health officials could relate to”
There were however moments during Brown’s chancellorship, when it become clear (or politically expedient) that Brown was not wholly convinced by Blair’s direction of travel. For example, during the foundation hospital debate it became apparent that Brown was not happy with policy detail. The message conveyed, albeit discretely, was that Brown realized there should be boundaries to the marketisation process in way that either Blair did not recognize or was untroubled by. Brown may have allowed his lieutenant, Ed Balls to articulate on these differences by hinting that markets have limits. Yet Brown’s real misgiving may have been that foundation hospitals would stoke up private debts that would fall on the public purse ie the Treasury.
‘Brown is vehemently opposed - not to foundation hospitals having autonomy - but to the idea that their proposed freedom to borrow will somehow create private rather than public debt. He thinks the proposition is ludicrous. It will be taxpayers' money being used to service the borrowing; of course it is public debt and, of course, the Government is ultimately responsible’
(Will Hutton, the Sunday Observer, October 6 2002)
It is a safe assumption that now the PFI driven, marketisation trend within the public sector is now embedded in practice and in world-view and shifting it substantively would be a phenomenal development within the public policy world. Indeed the government is still committed to the PFI model.
The UK experience has to be seen in context, there is a global trend, encouraged by global financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank.
“The story is not unique to Britain. Universal health care systems are being dismantled and privatized across the world”.
It is difficult to find an area of UK public services that has not been subjected to some degree of commercialization or market discipline, from the postal services to the BBC globalizing and liberalizing processes are all changing the configuration of public services, some of these are driven by EU processes eg the Postal Services Directive. Furthermore, the debate about the Directive on Services in the Internal Market (‘Bolkestein’ Directive) intensified fears that the pro-liberalisation agenda within Europe would further fragment public services.
Yet, the UK is not just mirroring the international context, it has been criticized for exporting its model of privatization to developing countries and that global institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF are ‘forcing’ developing countries to privatize their indigenous public services (particularly utilities) often to the detriment of the poor. Whilst the global financial system is often blamed in this instance clearly the UK government has pro-actively made decisions that enhance privatization in the developing world.
‘… the World Bank and IMF - to which the UK contributes many millions of pounds of aid money each year - continue to force developing countries to privatise their public services as a condition of loans and debt relief ’
Moreover, George Monbiot bemoans the assistance that DFiD has given the Adam Smith Institute to promote public sector reform in South Africa:
‘The agency keeping the South African government on track is Britain’s Department for International Development (DFID). This year it is giving £6.3 million to the Adam Smith Institute - the ultra-rightwing privatisation lobby group - for “public sector reform” in South Africa. Staggeringly, the Institute has been given its own budget - £5m of British aid money - to disburse as it pleases. By this means, DFID can generate all the support it likes for privatisation and public-private partnerships, while avoiding direct responsibility for the decisions the institute makes.’
( ‘Exploitation on tap’, George Monbiot, 19 October 2007, www.monbiot.com)
Stands New Labour where it did? – Can we anticipate any leverage in a new environment? Direction of travel under Gordon Brown as Prime Minister
To what extent then can we identify if Brown will oversee a tangible change in New Labour’s agenda on the public services? This paper seeks to identify the direction of travel of public services under the Prime Ministership of Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP. It would seem that we cannot exaggerate our hopes that the direction will be that much different to what we have witnessed thus far.
“..most commentators agree that a Gordon Brown led government would continue to steer the public services policy agenda in a very similar direction”
(The Guardian Society, 20 June 2006)
We can make some assumptions based on what happened under Blair, when Brown was
chancellor, what he has said and in detail what has appeared in the Legislative Programme and Comprehensive Spending Review/Pre-Budget Report and to some extent public statements since becoming PM. These are the most clear signs of any detailed policy that has emerged that may have a material impact on employees in the public services.
The new Prime Minister is conscious that he wants to define his tenure at No.10 on domestic policy and public services in particular. On becoming Prime Minister Brown stated that the NHS would be his priority and education his passion. He alluded to this a little more in his speech to Labour Party Conference, which did not hint at a distinct, necessary boundary mark between the public and private sector. He did focus on public services; health, education and social care and although this included some fresh thinking there was no hint at a change of direction. The references to choice and personalized care all sounded a touch Blairite.:
‘This is the future of our public services. Accessible to all, personal to you. Not just a basic standard but the best quality tailored to your needs. Education is my passion’
‘Our great ambition now: a National Health Service that is also a personal health service’
There exist of course urgent opportunities for Brown to develop a more detailed narrative. It is worth noting that one of his stated reasons to opt not to call a ‘snap election’ in the autumn is that he needs more time to articulate his vision. If so, then he has to articulate this vision fairly rapidly and we should observe what says and how he says it in case it contains some clues and hints that the public service narrative will be crafted in a different way.
It is worth noting however, there has been change in direction under Brown in some areas of policy, so there has not been an exact replication of all Blairite priorities. Perhaps this is of some significance. Change has happened in certain areas that indicate Brown was not wholly content with everything that happened in the Blair era. Some examples of this include the decision to review Super-Casino licences, reviewing the re-classification of the status of cannabis. Also he has hinted at changes in the constitution so we can watch that agenda to see what happens. Thus, we know that policy is not monolithic and more dynamic, adapting to the worldviews of different politicians and a changing environment. We should be hopeful that thoughtful, robust arguments on the public sector could still have effect. We need to be realistic about direction of travel but not wholly pessimistic.
The government’s agenda on the public sector been a defining theme for many assessments of their record. High and unprecedented levels of public expenditure have heightened public expectations to demand high quality, world class public services in an increasingly consumer orientated world. Such levels of expenditure even have forced the Conservative opposition to publicly match Labour’s commitment to sustainable levels of expenditure.
Yet the government’s mantra on public services, has created unique pressures on Labour’s trade union support base and generated a wider debate about the efficacy and equity of such an approach. The raising of the bar on public service investment and reform naturally raises the political temperature whenever there seem to be apparent shortcomings in the public services.
This paper aims to chart the development of this debate, the likely direction of public services under a Brown premiership and an analysis of the forthcoming legislative agenda and the recent CSR pre-budget report to discern the likely direction of the public services agenda. There will be a continued use of PFI, marketisation developments in social care and library services where we can expect a clear move towards further fragmentation.
The paper concludes that we cannot exaggerate the difference between a Brown premiership from a Blairite one on this subject. Yet, we must not be wholly gloomy. Brown has overturned certain Blairite programmes, and we must believe that alternative policy platforms can be calibrated and unwelcome public service developments challenged on a case by case basis. The New Labour narrative on public services will not change substantively. There may also be a sense that the Brownite camp is more amenable to dialogue on alternative paradigms on public services where such endeavours ultimately proved a fruitless exercise under Blair.
With the accession of Gordon Brown to the Labour Party leadership and ergo becoming PM, it is an opportune time to take stock of what has happened in public services under Blair and what is the direction of travel under Gordon Brown. Will there be a substantive shift in direction? Will the narrative be different?
Anatomy of Public Services Under New Labour
Under Labour the marketisation and part-privatization of the public services has continued apace, naturally this has attracted vehement criticism. The Labour Party has been able to publicly position itself as the custodian of public services, citing its high and unprecedented levels of public expenditure and defining itself against a Conservative Party who allowed themselves to be potential cutters of public expenditure. For example Oliver Letwin MP sabotaged the Conservative’s 2001 eelction campaign by indicating to the Financial Times that a Conservative Government would reduce public spending by up to £20bn. Given a change in stance from the Conservative Party and financial instability in Health Trusts it may be more difficult for the Labour Party to do this in the future.
In the 2001 election –Schools and Hospitals – narrative provided a very simplistic dividing line with the Conservatives. Blair had originally staked out his mission in reference to the public service agenda in the now infamous sound-bite summarising his priorities as ‘Education, Education, and Education’.
Sometimes the tone and rhetoric used by Tony Blair was unfortunate and alienated public servants, for example when in 2000 he referred to ‘having scars on his back’ due to his public service reforms. The reform agenda which seemed to take a step-change towards privatization during the 2001 election:
‘So this is a great challenge to us as a government and a cabinet, to our public services. There should be no barriers, no dogma, no vested interests that stand in the way of delivering the best services for our people.’
These tensions came to a head in Labour Party conference 2001.
‘The confrontation between ministers and unions over Labour's public service reforms has dominated Tony Blair's second term’
The government attempted to define it’s agenda for modernizing/reforming public services in 2002 by adopting an adversarial posture. Given that the decision to expand private sector involvement in the public sector would be problematic for trade unions in the public sector the government sought to define these forces as ‘producer’ interest, juxtaposed to the interests of the consume ie the public. This narrative even led to one government minister inferring that opponents to this agenda were ‘wreckers’. In a speech to the Labour Party Spring Conference 2002 in Cardiff the phrase wreckers was clearly used in thinly disguised attack on public sector unions.
The rhetoric has evolved but has never been de-coupled from the marketisation agenda. In particular, this point is evidenced by the governments promotion of the concept in choice in public services, particularly choice within the health service. Some saw this philosophical development as an attempt to construct a ‘trojan horse’ through which more marketisation could be pursued. Certainly the government felt they had to craft a modern health service that fitted the consumer orienated, information savvy aged. Fearful that public service legitimacy could be undermined by the middle-classes exiting the service in favour of private provision. The accession of Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP, has seen a toning down of the choice rhetoric.
To many observers Gordon Brown was inextricably bound up in this public services agenda. As Chancellor of the Exchequer oversaw a marked expansion of the PFI scheme, the Treasury’s preferred route for developing public sector infrastructure. Hence to expect him to oversee a substantive shift in direction would be a leap of faith. Brown was of course also the architect of the PPP for the Tube, so heavily criticized by Ken Livingstone and transport unions.
Brown seems to have the same implicit faith in the private sector that Blair had, which we could summarise as private sector good; public sector bad, in a conversation with academic and expert on PFI, Alyson Pollock Brown said, when pressed on the justification for PFI.
“ His response was simply to declare repeatedly that the public sector is bad at management, and that only the private sector is efficient and can manage services well. By 2003 the business paradigm was the only model that the Treasury and senior Department of Health officials could relate to”
There were however moments during Brown’s chancellorship, when it become clear (or politically expedient) that Brown was not wholly convinced by Blair’s direction of travel. For example, during the foundation hospital debate it became apparent that Brown was not happy with policy detail. The message conveyed, albeit discretely, was that Brown realized there should be boundaries to the marketisation process in way that either Blair did not recognize or was untroubled by. Brown may have allowed his lieutenant, Ed Balls to articulate on these differences by hinting that markets have limits. Yet Brown’s real misgiving may have been that foundation hospitals would stoke up private debts that would fall on the public purse ie the Treasury.
‘Brown is vehemently opposed - not to foundation hospitals having autonomy - but to the idea that their proposed freedom to borrow will somehow create private rather than public debt. He thinks the proposition is ludicrous. It will be taxpayers' money being used to service the borrowing; of course it is public debt and, of course, the Government is ultimately responsible’
(Will Hutton, the Sunday Observer, October 6 2002)
It is a safe assumption that now the PFI driven, marketisation trend within the public sector is now embedded in practice and in world-view and shifting it substantively would be a phenomenal development within the public policy world. Indeed the government is still committed to the PFI model.The UK experience has to be seen in context, there is a global trend, encouraged by global financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank.
It is difficult to find an area of UK public services that has not been subjected to some degree of commercialization or market discipline, from the postal services to the BBC globalizing and liberalizing processes are all changing the configuration of public services, some of these are driven by EU processes eg the Postal Services Directive. Furthermore, the debate about the Directive on Services in the Internal Market (‘Bolkestein’ Directive) intensified fears that the pro-liberalisation agenda within Europe would further fragment public services.
Yet, the UK is not just mirroring the international context, it has been criticized for exporting its model of privatization to developing countries and that global institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF are ‘forcing’ developing countries to privatize their indigenous public services (particularly utilities) often to the detriment of the poor. Whilst the global financial system is often blamed in this instance clearly the UK government has pro-actively made decisions that enhance privatization in the developing world.
‘… the World Bank and IMF - to which the UK contributes many millions of pounds of aid money each year - continue to force developing countries to privatise their public services as a condition of loans and debt relief ’
Moreover, George Monbiot bemoans the assistance that DFiD has given the Adam Smith Institute to promote public sector reform in South Africa:
‘The agency keeping the South African government on track is Britain’s Department for International Development (DFID). This year it is giving £6.3 million to the Adam Smith Institute - the ultra-rightwing privatisation lobby group - for “public sector reform” in South Africa. Staggeringly, the Institute has been given its own budget - £5m of British aid money - to disburse as it pleases. By this means, DFID can generate all the support it likes for privatisation and public-private partnerships, while avoiding direct responsibility for the decisions the institute makes.’
( ‘Exploitation on tap’, George Monbiot, 19 October 2007, www.monbiot.com)
Stands New Labour where it did? – Can we anticipate any leverage in a new environment? Direction of travel under Gordon Brown as Prime Minister
To what extent then can we identify if Brown will oversee a tangible change in New Labour’s agenda on the public services? This paper seeks to identify the direction of travel of public services under the Prime Ministership of Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP. It would seem that we cannot exaggerate our hopes that the direction will be that much different to what we have witnessed thus far.
“..most commentators agree that a Gordon Brown led government would continue to steer the public services policy agenda in a very similar direction”
(The Guardian Society, 20 June 2006)
We can make some assumptions based on what happened under Blair, when Brown was chancellor, what he has said and in detail what has appeared in the Legislative Programme and Comprehensive Spending Review/Pre-Budget Report and to some extent public statements since becoming PM. These are the most clear signs of any detailed policy that has emerged that may have a material impact on Unison and it’s members.
The new Prime Minister is conscious that he wants to define his tenure at No.10 on domestic policy and public services in particular. On becoming Prime Minister Brown stated that the NHS would be his priority and education his passion. He alluded to this a little more in his speech to Labour Party Conference, which did not hint at a distinct, necessary boundary mark between the public and private sector. He did focus on public services; health, education and social care and although this included some fresh thinking there was no hint at a change of direction. The references to choice and personalized care all sounded a touch Blairite.:
‘This is the future of our public services. Accessible to all, personal to you. Not just a basic standard but the best quality tailored to your needs. Education is my passion’
‘Our great ambition now: a National Health Service that is also a personal health service’
There exist of course urgent opportunities for Brown to develop a more detailed narrative. It is worth noting that one of his stated reasons to opt not to call a ‘snap election’ in the autumn is that he needs more time to articulate his vision. If so, then he has to articulate this vision fairly rapidly and we should observe what says and how he says it in case it contains some clues and hints that the public service narrative will be crafted in a different way.
It is worth noting however, there has been change in direction under Brown in some areas of policy, so there has not been an exact replication of all Blairite priorities. Perhaps this is of some significance. Change has happened in certain areas that indicate Brown was not wholly content with everything that happened in the Blair era. Some examples of this include the decision to review Super-Casino licences, reviewing the re-classification of the status of cannabis. Also he has hinted at changes in the constitution so we can watch that agenda to see what happens. Thus, we know that policy is not monolithic and more dynamic, adapting to the worldviews of different politicians and a changing environment. We should be hopeful that thoughtful, robust arguments on the public sector could still have effect. We need to be realistic about direction of travel but not wholly pessimistic.
The government’s agenda on the public sector been a defining theme for many assessments of their record. High and unprecedented levels of public expenditure have heightened public expectations to demand high quality, world class public services in an increasingly consumer orientated world. Such levels of expenditure even have forced the Conservative opposition to publicly match Labour’s commitment to sustainable levels of expenditure.
Yet the government’s mantra on public services, has created unique pressures on Labour’s trade union support base and generated a wider debate about the efficacy and equity of such an approach. The raising of the bar on public service investment and reform naturally raises the political temperature whenever there seem to be apparent shortcomings in the public services.
This paper aims to chart the development of this debate, the likely direction of public services under a Brown premiership and an analysis of the forthcoming legislative agenda and the recent CSR pre-budget report to discern the likely direction of the public services agenda. There will be a continued use of PFI, marketisation developments in social care and library services where we can expect a clear move towards further fragmentation.
The paper concludes that we cannot exaggerate the difference between a Brown premiership from a Blairite one on this subject. Yet, we must not be wholly gloomy. Brown has overturned certain Blairite programmes, and we must believe that alternative policy platforms can be calibrated and unwelcome public service developments challenged on a case by case basis. The New Labour narrative on public services will not change substantively. There may also be a sense that the Brownite camp is more amenable to dialogue on alternative paradigms on public services where such endeavours ultimately proved a fruitless exercise under Blair.
With the accession of Gordon Brown to the Labour Party leadership and ergo becoming PM, it is an opportune time to take stock of what has happened in public services under Blair and what is the direction of travel under Gordon Brown. Will there be a substantive shift in direction? Will the narrative be different? If so how can Unison frame it’s positively public campaign in the light of a different leadership?
Anatomy of Public Services Under New Labour
Under Labour the marketisation and part-privatization of the public services has continued apace, naturally this has attracted vehement criticism. The Labour Party has been able to publicly position itself as the custodian of public services, citing its high and unprecedented levels of public expenditure and defining itself against a Conservative Party who allowed themselves to be potential cutters of public expenditure. For example Oliver Letwin MP sabotaged the Conservative’s 2001 eelction campaign by indicating to the Financial Times that a Conservative Government would reduce public spending by up to £20bn. Given a change in stance from the Conservative Party and financial instability in Health Trusts it may be more difficult for the Labour Party to do this in the future.
Labour emphasised‘Schools and Hospitals first', in the General Election of June 2001 fusing the mantra of invest and reform, although a simple message it worked in defining Labour as pro-public sector as against the more ideologically bound Conservatives. 2001 election –Schools and Hospitals – narrative provided a very simplistic dividing line with the Conservatives. Blair had originally staked out his mission in reference to the public service agenda in the now infamous sound-bite summarising his priorities as ‘Education, Education, and Education’.
Sometimes the tone and rhetoric used by Tony Blair was unfortunate and alienated public servants, for example when in 2000 he referred to ‘having scars on his back’ due to his public service reforms. The reform agenda which seemed to take a step-change towards privatization during the 2001 election:
‘So this is a great challenge to us as a government and a cabinet, to our public services. There should be no barriers, no dogma, no vested interests that stand in the way of delivering the best services for our people.’
These tensions came to a head in Labour Party conference 2001.
‘The confrontation between ministers and unions over Labour's public service reforms has dominated Tony Blair's second term’
The government attempted to define it’s agenda for modernizing/reforming public services in 2002 by adopting an adversarial posture. Given that the decision to expand private sector involvement in the public sector would be problematic for trade unions in the public sector the government sought to define these forces as ‘producer’ interest, juxtaposed to the interests of the consume ie the public. This narrative even led to one government minister inferring that opponents to this agenda were ‘wreckers’. In a speech to the Labour Party Spring Conference 2002 in Cardiff the phrase wreckers was clearly used in thinly disguised attack on public sector unions.
The rhetoric has evolved but has never been de-coupled from the marketisation agenda. In particular, this point is evidenced by the governments promotion of the concept in choice in public services, particularly choice within the health service. Some saw this philosophical development as an attempt to construct a ‘trojan horse’ through which more marketisation could be pursued. Certainly the government felt they had to craft a modern health service that fitted the consumer orienated, information savvy aged. Fearful that public service legitimacy could be undermined by the middle-classes exiting the service in favour of private provision. The accession of Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP, has seen a toning down of the choice rhetoric.
To many observers Gordon Brown was inextricably bound up in this public services agenda. As Chancellor of the Exchequer oversaw a marked expansion of the PFI scheme, the Treasury’s preferred route for developing public sector infrastructure. Hence to expect him to oversee a substantive shift in direction would be a leap of faith. Brown was of course also the architect of the PPP for the Tube, so heavily criticized by Ken Livingstone and transport unions.
Brown seems to have the same implicit faith in the private sector that Blair had, which we could summarise as private sector good; public sector bad, in a conversation with academic and expert on PFI, Alyson Pollock Brown said, when pressed on the justification for PFI.
“ His response was simply to declare repeatedly that the public sector is bad at management, and that only the private sector is efficient and can manage services well. By 2003 the business paradigm was the only model that the Treasury and senior Department of Health officials could relate to”
There were however moments during Brown’s chancellorship, when it become clear (or politically expedient) that Brown was not wholly convinced by Blair’s direction of travel. For example, during the foundation hospital debate it became apparent that Brown was not happy with policy detail. The message conveyed, albeit discretely, was that Brown realized there should be boundaries to the marketisation process in way that either Blair did not recognize or was untroubled by. Brown may have allowed his lieutenant, Ed Balls to articulate on these differences by hinting that markets have limits. Yet Brown’s real misgiving may have been that foundation hospitals would stoke up private debts that would fall on the public purse ie the Treasury.
‘Brown is vehemently opposed - not to foundation hospitals having autonomy - but to the idea that their proposed freedom to borrow will somehow create private rather than public debt. He thinks the proposition is ludicrous. It will be taxpayers' money being used to service the borrowing; of course it is public debt and, of course, the Government is ultimately responsible’
(Will Hutton, the Sunday Observer, October 6 2002)
It is a safe assumption that now the PFI driven, marketisation trend within the public sector is now embedded in practice and in world-view and shifting it substantively would be a phenomenal development within the public policy world. Indeed the government is still committed to the PFI model.
The UK experience has to be seen in context, there is a global trend, encouraged by global financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank.
“The story is not unique to Britain. Universal health care systems are being dismantled and privatized across the world”.
It is difficult to find an area of UK public services that has not been subjected to some degree of commercialization or market discipline, from the postal services to the BBC globalizing and liberalizing processes are all changing the configuration of public services, some of these are driven by EU processes eg the Postal Services Directive. Furthermore, the debate about the Directive on Services in the Internal Market (‘Bolkestein’ Directive) intensified fears that the pro-liberalisation agenda within Europe would further fragment public services.
Yet, the UK is not just mirroring the international context, it has been criticized for exporting its model of privatization to developing countries and that global institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF are ‘forcing’ developing countries to privatize their indigenous public services (particularly utilities) often to the detriment of the poor. Whilst the global financial system is often blamed in this instance clearly the UK government has pro-actively made decisions that enhance privatization in the developing world.
‘… the World Bank and IMF - to which the UK contributes many millions of pounds of aid money each year - continue to force developing countries to privatise their public services as a condition of loans and debt relief ’
Moreover, George Monbiot bemoans the assistance that DFiD has given the Adam Smith Institute to promote public sector reform in South Africa:
‘The agency keeping the South African government on track is Britain’s Department for International Development (DFID). This year it is giving £6.3 million to the Adam Smith Institute - the ultra-rightwing privatisation lobby group - for “public sector reform” in South Africa. Staggeringly, the Institute has been given its own budget - £5m of British aid money - to disburse as it pleases. By this means, DFID can generate all the support it likes for privatisation and public-private partnerships, while avoiding direct responsibility for the decisions the institute makes.’
( ‘Exploitation on tap’, George Monbiot, 19 October 2007, www.monbiot.com)
Stands New Labour where it did? – Can we anticipate any leverage in a new environment? Direction of travel under Gordon Brown as Prime Minister
To what extent then can we identify if Brown will oversee a tangible change in New Labour’s agenda on the public services? This paper seeks to identify the direction of travel of public services under the Prime Ministership of Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP. It would seem that we cannot exaggerate our hopes that the direction will be that much different to what we have witnessed thus far.
“..most commentators agree that a Gordon Brown led government would continue to steer the public services policy agenda in a very similar direction”
(The Guardian Society, 20 June 2006)
We can make some assumptions based on what happened under Blair, when Brown was
chancellor, what he has said and in detail what has appeared in the Legislative Programme and Comprehensive Spending Review/Pre-Budget Report and to some extent public statements since becoming PM. These are the most clear signs of any detailed policy that has emerged that may have a material impact on employees in the public services.
The new Prime Minister is conscious that he wants to define his tenure at No.10 on domestic policy and public services in particular. On becoming Prime Minister Brown stated that the NHS would be his priority and education his passion. He alluded to this a little more in his speech to Labour Party Conference, which did not hint at a distinct, necessary boundary mark between the public and private sector. He did focus on public services; health, education and social care and although this included some fresh thinking there was no hint at a change of direction. The references to choice and personalized care all sounded a touch Blairite.:
‘This is the future of our public services. Accessible to all, personal to you. Not just a basic standard but the best quality tailored to your needs. Education is my passion’
‘Our great ambition now: a National Health Service that is also a personal health service’
There exist of course urgent opportunities for Brown to develop a more detailed narrative. It is worth noting that one of his stated reasons to opt not to call a ‘snap election’ in the autumn is that he needs more time to articulate his vision. If so, then he has to articulate this vision fairly rapidly and we should observe what says and how he says it in case it contains some clues and hints that the public service narrative will be crafted in a different way.
It is worth noting however, there has been change in direction under Brown in some areas of policy, so there has not been an exact replication of all Blairite priorities. Perhaps this is of some significance. Change has happened in certain areas that indicate Brown was not wholly content with everything that happened in the Blair era. Some examples of this include the decision to review Super-Casino licences, reviewing the re-classification of the status of cannabis. Also he has hinted at changes in the constitution so we can watch that agenda to see what happens. Thus, we know that policy is not monolithic and more dynamic, adapting to the worldviews of different politicians and a changing environment. We should be hopeful that thoughtful, robust arguments on the public sector could still have effect. We need to be realistic about direction of travel but not wholly pessimistic.
The government’s agenda on the public sector been a defining theme for many assessments of their record. High and unprecedented levels of public expenditure have heightened public expectations to demand high quality, world class public services in an increasingly consumer orientated world. Such levels of expenditure even have forced the Conservative opposition to publicly match Labour’s commitment to sustainable levels of expenditure.
Yet the government’s mantra on public services, has created unique pressures on Labour’s trade union support base and generated a wider debate about the efficacy and equity of such an approach. The raising of the bar on public service investment and reform naturally raises the political temperature whenever there seem to be apparent shortcomings in the public services.
This paper aims to chart the development of this debate, the likely direction of public services under a Brown premiership and an analysis of the forthcoming legislative agenda and the recent CSR pre-budget report to discern the likely direction of the public services agenda. There will be a continued use of PFI, marketisation developments in social care and library services where we can expect a clear move towards further fragmentation.
The paper concludes that we cannot exaggerate the difference between a Brown premiership from a Blairite one on this subject. Yet, we must not be wholly gloomy. Brown has overturned certain Blairite programmes, and we must believe that alternative policy platforms can be calibrated and unwelcome public service developments challenged on a case by case basis. The New Labour narrative on public services will not change substantively. There may also be a sense that the Brownite camp is more amenable to dialogue on alternative paradigms on public services where such endeavours ultimately proved a fruitless exercise under Blair.
With the accession of Gordon Brown to the Labour Party leadership and ergo becoming PM, it is an opportune time to take stock of what has happened in public services under Blair and what is the direction of travel under Gordon Brown. Will there be a substantive shift in direction? Will the narrative be different?
Anatomy of Public Services Under New Labour
Under Labour the marketisation and part-privatization of the public services has continued apace, naturally this has attracted vehement criticism. The Labour Party has been able to publicly position itself as the custodian of public services, citing its high and unprecedented levels of public expenditure and defining itself against a Conservative Party who allowed themselves to be potential cutters of public expenditure. For example Oliver Letwin MP sabotaged the Conservative’s 2001 eelction campaign by indicating to the Financial Times that a Conservative Government would reduce public spending by up to £20bn. Given a change in stance from the Conservative Party and financial instability in Health Trusts it may be more difficult for the Labour Party to do this in the future.
In the 2001 election –Schools and Hospitals – narrative provided a very simplistic dividing line with the Conservatives. Blair had originally staked out his mission in reference to the public service agenda in the now infamous sound-bite summarising his priorities as ‘Education, Education, and Education’.
Sometimes the tone and rhetoric used by Tony Blair was unfortunate and alienated public servants, for example when in 2000 he referred to ‘having scars on his back’ due to his public service reforms. The reform agenda which seemed to take a step-change towards privatization during the 2001 election:
‘So this is a great challenge to us as a government and a cabinet, to our public services. There should be no barriers, no dogma, no vested interests that stand in the way of delivering the best services for our people.’
These tensions came to a head in Labour Party conference 2001.
‘The confrontation between ministers and unions over Labour's public service reforms has dominated Tony Blair's second term’
The government attempted to define it’s agenda for modernizing/reforming public services in 2002 by adopting an adversarial posture. Given that the decision to expand private sector involvement in the public sector would be problematic for trade unions in the public sector the government sought to define these forces as ‘producer’ interest, juxtaposed to the interests of the consume ie the public. This narrative even led to one government minister inferring that opponents to this agenda were ‘wreckers’. In a speech to the Labour Party Spring Conference 2002 in Cardiff the phrase wreckers was clearly used in thinly disguised attack on public sector unions.
The rhetoric has evolved but has never been de-coupled from the marketisation agenda. In particular, this point is evidenced by the governments promotion of the concept in choice in public services, particularly choice within the health service. Some saw this philosophical development as an attempt to construct a ‘trojan horse’ through which more marketisation could be pursued. Certainly the government felt they had to craft a modern health service that fitted the consumer orienated, information savvy aged. Fearful that public service legitimacy could be undermined by the middle-classes exiting the service in favour of private provision. The accession of Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP, has seen a toning down of the choice rhetoric.
To many observers Gordon Brown was inextricably bound up in this public services agenda. As Chancellor of the Exchequer oversaw a marked expansion of the PFI scheme, the Treasury’s preferred route for developing public sector infrastructure. Hence to expect him to oversee a substantive shift in direction would be a leap of faith. Brown was of course also the architect of the PPP for the Tube, so heavily criticized by Ken Livingstone and transport unions.
Brown seems to have the same implicit faith in the private sector that Blair had, which we could summarise as private sector good; public sector bad, in a conversation with academic and expert on PFI, Alyson Pollock Brown said, when pressed on the justification for PFI.
“ His response was simply to declare repeatedly that the public sector is bad at management, and that only the private sector is efficient and can manage services well. By 2003 the business paradigm was the only model that the Treasury and senior Department of Health officials could relate to”
There were however moments during Brown’s chancellorship, when it become clear (or politically expedient) that Brown was not wholly convinced by Blair’s direction of travel. For example, during the foundation hospital debate it became apparent that Brown was not happy with policy detail. The message conveyed, albeit discretely, was that Brown realized there should be boundaries to the marketisation process in way that either Blair did not recognize or was untroubled by. Brown may have allowed his lieutenant, Ed Balls to articulate on these differences by hinting that markets have limits. Yet Brown’s real misgiving may have been that foundation hospitals would stoke up private debts that would fall on the public purse ie the Treasury.
‘Brown is vehemently opposed - not to foundation hospitals having autonomy - but to the idea that their proposed freedom to borrow will somehow create private rather than public debt. He thinks the proposition is ludicrous. It will be taxpayers' money being used to service the borrowing; of course it is public debt and, of course, the Government is ultimately responsible’
(Will Hutton, the Sunday Observer, October 6 2002)
It is a safe assumption that now the PFI driven, marketisation trend within the public sector is now embedded in practice and in world-view and shifting it substantively would be a phenomenal development within the public policy world. Indeed the government is still committed to the PFI model.The UK experience has to be seen in context, there is a global trend, encouraged by global financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank.
It is difficult to find an area of UK public services that has not been subjected to some degree of commercialization or market discipline, from the postal services to the BBC globalizing and liberalizing processes are all changing the configuration of public services, some of these are driven by EU processes eg the Postal Services Directive. Furthermore, the debate about the Directive on Services in the Internal Market (‘Bolkestein’ Directive) intensified fears that the pro-liberalisation agenda within Europe would further fragment public services.
Yet, the UK is not just mirroring the international context, it has been criticized for exporting its model of privatization to developing countries and that global institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF are ‘forcing’ developing countries to privatize their indigenous public services (particularly utilities) often to the detriment of the poor. Whilst the global financial system is often blamed in this instance clearly the UK government has pro-actively made decisions that enhance privatization in the developing world.
‘… the World Bank and IMF - to which the UK contributes many millions of pounds of aid money each year - continue to force developing countries to privatise their public services as a condition of loans and debt relief ’
Moreover, George Monbiot bemoans the assistance that DFiD has given the Adam Smith Institute to promote public sector reform in South Africa:
‘The agency keeping the South African government on track is Britain’s Department for International Development (DFID). This year it is giving £6.3 million to the Adam Smith Institute - the ultra-rightwing privatisation lobby group - for “public sector reform” in South Africa. Staggeringly, the Institute has been given its own budget - £5m of British aid money - to disburse as it pleases. By this means, DFID can generate all the support it likes for privatisation and public-private partnerships, while avoiding direct responsibility for the decisions the institute makes.’
( ‘Exploitation on tap’, George Monbiot, 19 October 2007, www.monbiot.com)
Stands New Labour where it did? – Can we anticipate any leverage in a new environment? Direction of travel under Gordon Brown as Prime Minister
To what extent then can we identify if Brown will oversee a tangible change in New Labour’s agenda on the public services? This paper seeks to identify the direction of travel of public services under the Prime Ministership of Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP. It would seem that we cannot exaggerate our hopes that the direction will be that much different to what we have witnessed thus far.
“..most commentators agree that a Gordon Brown led government would continue to steer the public services policy agenda in a very similar direction”
(The Guardian Society, 20 June 2006)
We can make some assumptions based on what happened under Blair, when Brown was chancellor, what he has said and in detail what has appeared in the Legislative Programme and Comprehensive Spending Review/Pre-Budget Report and to some extent public statements since becoming PM. These are the most clear signs of any detailed policy that has emerged that may have a material impact on Unison and it’s members.
The new Prime Minister is conscious that he wants to define his tenure at No.10 on domestic policy and public services in particular. On becoming Prime Minister Brown stated that the NHS would be his priority and education his passion. He alluded to this a little more in his speech to Labour Party Conference, which did not hint at a distinct, necessary boundary mark between the public and private sector. He did focus on public services; health, education and social care and although this included some fresh thinking there was no hint at a change of direction. The references to choice and personalized care all sounded a touch Blairite.:
‘This is the future of our public services. Accessible to all, personal to you. Not just a basic standard but the best quality tailored to your needs. Education is my passion’
‘Our great ambition now: a National Health Service that is also a personal health service’
There exist of course urgent opportunities for Brown to develop a more detailed narrative. It is worth noting that one of his stated reasons to opt not to call a ‘snap election’ in the autumn is that he needs more time to articulate his vision. If so, then he has to articulate this vision fairly rapidly and we should observe what says and how he says it in case it contains some clues and hints that the public service narrative will be crafted in a different way.
It is worth noting however, there has been change in direction under Brown in some areas of policy, so there has not been an exact replication of all Blairite priorities. Perhaps this is of some significance. Change has happened in certain areas that indicate Brown was not wholly content with everything that happened in the Blair era. Some examples of this include the decision to review Super-Casino licences, reviewing the re-classification of the status of cannabis. Also he has hinted at changes in the constitution so we can watch that agenda to see what happens. Thus, we know that policy is not monolithic and more dynamic, adapting to the worldviews of different politicians and a changing environment. We should be hopeful that thoughtful, robust arguments on the public sector could still have effect. We need to be realistic about direction of travel but not wholly pessimistic.
Good Quote on Prayer
"Jean Nicholas Grou, a mystic from the eighteenth century, prescribed that healthy prayer should be humble, reverent, loving, confident and persevering – in other words, the exact opposite of impatient”
P288, Phillip Yancey, ‘Prayer – Does it make any difference?’
P288, Phillip Yancey, ‘Prayer – Does it make any difference?’
Word for the Week - Mark 13v11
"When you are brought to trial, don't worry about what to say. Just say whatever is given to you, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit" Mark 13v11.
Saturday, 6 October 2007
Election Speculation Thoughts
What must be going through Gordon Brown's mind now? Within the space of ten days an eleven point poll lead has shrunk to either parity or a marginal lead, depending on which poll you read. This has led Uncle Arthur to reflect on just how unreliable and limited opinion polls are. Certainly they reflect the increasing volatility and fluctuations of public opinion and as we all know in the past they have been wrong.
On balance, I think there will be an election some time in November. In many ways, looking ahead, it can't get much better for the Prime Minister and perhaps things will improve for Cameron, even without a 'snap election' he will be able to put his difficult summer behind him.
Uncle Arthur fears that at the margins the election could be negative, with the Tories subliminally attacking Brown for being a Scot and Labour attacking Cameron for being a toff. Neither of these points come anywhere near serious politics but I fear they may surface at some point.
I will be interested to see how much of the christian vote is attracted by the proposals on supporting married couples. If it really is effective it should be a wake-up call to Labour to adopt a more coherent view on this and other aspects of social policy.
On balance, I think there will be an election some time in November. In many ways, looking ahead, it can't get much better for the Prime Minister and perhaps things will improve for Cameron, even without a 'snap election' he will be able to put his difficult summer behind him.
Uncle Arthur fears that at the margins the election could be negative, with the Tories subliminally attacking Brown for being a Scot and Labour attacking Cameron for being a toff. Neither of these points come anywhere near serious politics but I fear they may surface at some point.
I will be interested to see how much of the christian vote is attracted by the proposals on supporting married couples. If it really is effective it should be a wake-up call to Labour to adopt a more coherent view on this and other aspects of social policy.
Wednesday, 3 October 2007
Cameron's Speech - to the audience not the nation
Uncle Arthur has been listening to Cameron's speech, he seems to have done a good job in cementing his bond with the Tory faithful but surely the job is about crafting a narrative to the nation, it did not appear to do that.
I liked the part where he rejected Utopia, which is welcome from a christian perspective, utopianism is disabling the left and is a dangerous path. Yet, given that the enlightenment framework shapes UK politics to some degree how can the Tories really escape this kind of discourse?
Uncle Arthur thinks the Tory proposals to support married couples are welcome. This is not to say that material wellbeing is needed to regenerate marriage. We have seen UK prosperity rise immeasurably in the last fifty years and this has not necessarily benefitted marriage. It is surely a good thing that the state takes a positive stance on marriage. Labour has done much to support families through social policy and support for children, if it could make the step to be positive about marriage in an explicit sense we could see the party returning to it's roots. Sadly, I will not hold my breath. I will however, stay within the party and make the case.
I liked the part where he rejected Utopia, which is welcome from a christian perspective, utopianism is disabling the left and is a dangerous path. Yet, given that the enlightenment framework shapes UK politics to some degree how can the Tories really escape this kind of discourse?
Uncle Arthur thinks the Tory proposals to support married couples are welcome. This is not to say that material wellbeing is needed to regenerate marriage. We have seen UK prosperity rise immeasurably in the last fifty years and this has not necessarily benefitted marriage. It is surely a good thing that the state takes a positive stance on marriage. Labour has done much to support families through social policy and support for children, if it could make the step to be positive about marriage in an explicit sense we could see the party returning to it's roots. Sadly, I will not hold my breath. I will however, stay within the party and make the case.
God Squad
Uncle Arthur spotted this article on the Progress website, it doesn't seem too unfair when you read it. However, one can't helping wondering that British secularist's on the left seem transfixed by a fear of a US style polity whenever the question of religion and politics is mooted.
God squad
Britain is unlikely to see its own version of America's religious right
08 September 2006
Drive across the United States - as I did this summer while researching a book about politics and the religious right - and you cannot but be struck by the tone of the political debate.
As you fiddle with the car radio dial, and discussion programmes, phone-ins and commentaries hover in-and-out of synch between the rock music and country and western, you get a sense of a country with a wholly different political discourse from the rest of the western world.
It sometimes seems to be a land where it is taken for granted that only Christians can be moral; where other developed countries such as those in Europe are sunk in secularism or, worse, Islam; and where the United States is itself under attack from powerful insurgent forces of liberalism and secret, Godless, conspiracies. If only, you sometimes find yourself thinking.
This, however, is not a religious insurgency that has suddenly sprung up in American society. Religion has played a prominent part in politics since the Pilgrim Fathers struggled ashore on Plymouth Rock. George W Bush is not the first overtly religious president, either. He's a Methodist, but don't forget that his two Democrat predecessors Bill Clinton (admittedly not a shining example) and Jimmy Carter are both southern Baptists, as is Al Gore.
What is more disconcerting is the openly partisan and highly politicised nature of the religious lobbying groups and their access to the airwaves. This is not because what they are saying is necessarily new, but because they are more determined and professional - indeed entrepreneurial in pursuit of followers - in getting their message across. Furthermore, their audience can be easily targeted because it is highly atomised, with little social superstructure beyond its shopping malls and local churches.
The Republican party machine has also been very happy to exploit this congregation: buying up its membership lists, targeting its priorities and playing to its prejudices. This paid off in 2004. The Democrats maximised their votes but the Republicans did better: 78 per cent of white evangelicals - who make up 23 per cent of the total electorate, well over the margin of victory in certain key states - voted for Bush. No wonder the Democrats are belatedly taking lessons in how to appeal to a religious electorate.
Could the same happen here? There are some on the fringes of British evangelical religious life, such as Christian Voice, who would like politics to move that way. But the leaders of the main denominations (just like their counterparts, by and large, in the US) do not wish to be embroiled in partisan politics.
Instead, they are content to lobby on issues which concern them, such as abortion; as they are entitled to do like any other citizen. When Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, restated church policy on this issue shortly before the last general election, he was startled to discover himself being creatively interpreted in the Tory tabloids as throwing the church's weight behind Michael Howard, who had recently announced that he favoured reducing abortion time limits. The cardinal promptly scuttled for cover, terrified of being thought party political.
On the fringes, Christian Voice, which led the assault on productions
of Jerry Springer - the Opera, is nasty and sectarian, but appears to be run largely out of a farmhouse in Wales. Its political agenda - anti-EU, pro-capital punishment and, bizarrely, opposed to traffic speed-humps - is scarcely coherent. Or Christian. It doesn't like Catholics much, either.It can kick up a fuss, but is shunned even by other evangelical groups.
Of course, religious groups other than the Christian evangelicals also flex their muscles, most notably Muslim ones. Their agenda has not, however, been primarily religious. Furthermore, there are crucial differences in the funding and the access to the airwaves that the fringe groups enjoy in Britain, compared with the US. A British Pat Robertson would not be given the airplay or the chance to run his own cable channel. This is unlikely to change.
Perhaps British society is a bit more sceptical, too. Christian Voice's Stephen Green appeared on Question Time this year, but was disconcerted to find himself ridiculed by the audience.
But there is no room for complacency. There is evidence that some of the American multimillionaires who fund the lobbyists in the US have started diverting some of their dollars here as well. Howard Ahmanson, the Californian real estate heir who funds fundamentalist and creationist groups in the US, last year is thought to have given $60,000 to an Anglican conservative evangelical pressure group, campaigning on the gay issue in the Church of England. That's small beer compared with such groups' funding in the US. But Ahmanson has certainly got long arms and deep pockets, and is presumably not giving his money away out of the generosity of his heart.
Stephen Bates is the religious affairs correspondent at the Guardian. He will be speaking at the Progress 10th anniversary conference seminar, We Don't Do God: Is Faith Finding Politics?
God squad
Britain is unlikely to see its own version of America's religious right
08 September 2006
Drive across the United States - as I did this summer while researching a book about politics and the religious right - and you cannot but be struck by the tone of the political debate.
As you fiddle with the car radio dial, and discussion programmes, phone-ins and commentaries hover in-and-out of synch between the rock music and country and western, you get a sense of a country with a wholly different political discourse from the rest of the western world.
It sometimes seems to be a land where it is taken for granted that only Christians can be moral; where other developed countries such as those in Europe are sunk in secularism or, worse, Islam; and where the United States is itself under attack from powerful insurgent forces of liberalism and secret, Godless, conspiracies. If only, you sometimes find yourself thinking.
This, however, is not a religious insurgency that has suddenly sprung up in American society. Religion has played a prominent part in politics since the Pilgrim Fathers struggled ashore on Plymouth Rock. George W Bush is not the first overtly religious president, either. He's a Methodist, but don't forget that his two Democrat predecessors Bill Clinton (admittedly not a shining example) and Jimmy Carter are both southern Baptists, as is Al Gore.
What is more disconcerting is the openly partisan and highly politicised nature of the religious lobbying groups and their access to the airwaves. This is not because what they are saying is necessarily new, but because they are more determined and professional - indeed entrepreneurial in pursuit of followers - in getting their message across. Furthermore, their audience can be easily targeted because it is highly atomised, with little social superstructure beyond its shopping malls and local churches.
The Republican party machine has also been very happy to exploit this congregation: buying up its membership lists, targeting its priorities and playing to its prejudices. This paid off in 2004. The Democrats maximised their votes but the Republicans did better: 78 per cent of white evangelicals - who make up 23 per cent of the total electorate, well over the margin of victory in certain key states - voted for Bush. No wonder the Democrats are belatedly taking lessons in how to appeal to a religious electorate.
Could the same happen here? There are some on the fringes of British evangelical religious life, such as Christian Voice, who would like politics to move that way. But the leaders of the main denominations (just like their counterparts, by and large, in the US) do not wish to be embroiled in partisan politics.
Instead, they are content to lobby on issues which concern them, such as abortion; as they are entitled to do like any other citizen. When Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, restated church policy on this issue shortly before the last general election, he was startled to discover himself being creatively interpreted in the Tory tabloids as throwing the church's weight behind Michael Howard, who had recently announced that he favoured reducing abortion time limits. The cardinal promptly scuttled for cover, terrified of being thought party political.
On the fringes, Christian Voice, which led the assault on productions
of Jerry Springer - the Opera, is nasty and sectarian, but appears to be run largely out of a farmhouse in Wales. Its political agenda - anti-EU, pro-capital punishment and, bizarrely, opposed to traffic speed-humps - is scarcely coherent. Or Christian. It doesn't like Catholics much, either.It can kick up a fuss, but is shunned even by other evangelical groups.
Of course, religious groups other than the Christian evangelicals also flex their muscles, most notably Muslim ones. Their agenda has not, however, been primarily religious. Furthermore, there are crucial differences in the funding and the access to the airwaves that the fringe groups enjoy in Britain, compared with the US. A British Pat Robertson would not be given the airplay or the chance to run his own cable channel. This is unlikely to change.
Perhaps British society is a bit more sceptical, too. Christian Voice's Stephen Green appeared on Question Time this year, but was disconcerted to find himself ridiculed by the audience.
But there is no room for complacency. There is evidence that some of the American multimillionaires who fund the lobbyists in the US have started diverting some of their dollars here as well. Howard Ahmanson, the Californian real estate heir who funds fundamentalist and creationist groups in the US, last year is thought to have given $60,000 to an Anglican conservative evangelical pressure group, campaigning on the gay issue in the Church of England. That's small beer compared with such groups' funding in the US. But Ahmanson has certainly got long arms and deep pockets, and is presumably not giving his money away out of the generosity of his heart.
Stephen Bates is the religious affairs correspondent at the Guardian. He will be speaking at the Progress 10th anniversary conference seminar, We Don't Do God: Is Faith Finding Politics?
Word for the Week - 2 Timothy 1v7
"For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline" - 2 Timothy 1v7.
Friday, 6 July 2007
Denham tackles student poverty
One of the most encouraging signs of the Prime Minister's new team was the appointment of John Denham MP to be the Secretary of State for the new Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills. In his first major move he has announced new financial arrangements to provide greater assistance to University students, which will eventually be worth £400m.
My first point is that the appointment of John Denham to the Cabinet will be well received within the Labour Party. Mr Denham was a Home Office Minister four years ago and resigned over the vexed issue of Iraq. He stated his reasons for doing so publicly and then got on with his job as being MP, he did not parade himself around the studios of the Westminster village forever exploiting the issue. His decision was principled but has earned much respect for doing so. He is likeable and independent minded, well done Gordon for this decision to offer him a role.
Secondly and obviously this move is welcome and hopefully a sign that the Brown government will try and heal some of the damage caused by the more extreme and daft decisions made in the Blair era. Probably there was little option to go down the road of tuition fees, but as much must be done as possible to encourage the poor and working-class to aspire to a university education. Social mobility seems to have ossified recently and remember this is a Labour government.
Hopefully this move is a portent to more wise decisions from the new government. Uncle Arthur is optimistic that it will not be a one-off.
My first point is that the appointment of John Denham to the Cabinet will be well received within the Labour Party. Mr Denham was a Home Office Minister four years ago and resigned over the vexed issue of Iraq. He stated his reasons for doing so publicly and then got on with his job as being MP, he did not parade himself around the studios of the Westminster village forever exploiting the issue. His decision was principled but has earned much respect for doing so. He is likeable and independent minded, well done Gordon for this decision to offer him a role.
Secondly and obviously this move is welcome and hopefully a sign that the Brown government will try and heal some of the damage caused by the more extreme and daft decisions made in the Blair era. Probably there was little option to go down the road of tuition fees, but as much must be done as possible to encourage the poor and working-class to aspire to a university education. Social mobility seems to have ossified recently and remember this is a Labour government.
Hopefully this move is a portent to more wise decisions from the new government. Uncle Arthur is optimistic that it will not be a one-off.
Uncle Arthur - On the Radio
Last week on the eve of the Prime Minister's first cabinet Uncle Arthur was asked to speak briefly to a radio station to speak about his new team.
This was a great opportunity albeit to a limited audience to raise the standard for credible christian engagement in politics. I briefly inferred that there would be fresh faces in the new cabinet, he had a cluster of talented junior ministers, some of whom would be promoted. I referred to Liam Byrne, Andy Burnham, James Purnell, Yvette Cooper, Ed Miliband and I guess Ed Balls fits in what that generation. Also, although some experienced people were understood to be on their way (Beckett, Reid Hewitt) there would be a delicate balance of youth and experience.
However, I was particularly pleased to be able to talk about the significance of this moment for the church. Whatever the reality of the 'Son of the Manse' really means, christians should see this as an opportunity. The government have been a bit ham-fisted in dealing with faith issues, sometimes being aggressively secular and on occassions arrogant. Within Brown's worldview is an openness to what faith can and should contribute in the public square. Equally, the church needs to find a credible, biblical and positive way to engage in politics. We need to be involved, speaking into the system and not screaming at it, which sometimes happens. For some christians, it is the time to have their calling affirmed, for politics should be seen as public service and for the christian a clear consequence of seek th extend the kingdom of God.
The Prime Minister has called for a public life rooted in values. Where did he get that notion from?
This was a great opportunity albeit to a limited audience to raise the standard for credible christian engagement in politics. I briefly inferred that there would be fresh faces in the new cabinet, he had a cluster of talented junior ministers, some of whom would be promoted. I referred to Liam Byrne, Andy Burnham, James Purnell, Yvette Cooper, Ed Miliband and I guess Ed Balls fits in what that generation. Also, although some experienced people were understood to be on their way (Beckett, Reid Hewitt) there would be a delicate balance of youth and experience.
However, I was particularly pleased to be able to talk about the significance of this moment for the church. Whatever the reality of the 'Son of the Manse' really means, christians should see this as an opportunity. The government have been a bit ham-fisted in dealing with faith issues, sometimes being aggressively secular and on occassions arrogant. Within Brown's worldview is an openness to what faith can and should contribute in the public square. Equally, the church needs to find a credible, biblical and positive way to engage in politics. We need to be involved, speaking into the system and not screaming at it, which sometimes happens. For some christians, it is the time to have their calling affirmed, for politics should be seen as public service and for the christian a clear consequence of seek th extend the kingdom of God.
The Prime Minister has called for a public life rooted in values. Where did he get that notion from?
Word for the week - 1 John 4v9
"In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only son into the world that we might live through him" 1 John 4v9.
Friday, 22 June 2007
Gordon's Lib-Labbery
Hello,
Well, I am not sure what to make of the reports of the very soon to be Prime Minister Gordon Brown's offers to various Lib Dem's and even Lord Stevens to join
his big tent. However, although it will be interpreted as a sign of poor political judgement it raises a number of issues.
Firstly, Uncle Arthur thinks that GB's incumbency at number Ten Downing Street is going to throw up a number of surprises. There could be sweeping changes and a number of innovations that will help restore the vigour of UK politics and restore some degree of trust in the body politic, ok that's a big ask, but it needs to be done and I'm sure 'Big Gordie' - as Kevin Maguire calls him - will give it his best shot.
Secondly, are the Lib Dem's really serious about pluralistic politics and taking the opportunity to be involved in government? It is easy criticising from the sidelines and using the space and freedom they have to project a radical agenda but serious politics is about decision making and taking responsibility. Too often they remind me of student politicians who have not really left the union debating chamber. In all seriousness I think Ming Campbell would make an excellent Foreign Secretary but involvement in government would pose some serious questions for their rank and file.
So, in conclusion, I would expect more surprises and audacious moves by Brown, it may get messy at times but to employ a well-know cliche, 'to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs'
Well, I am not sure what to make of the reports of the very soon to be Prime Minister Gordon Brown's offers to various Lib Dem's and even Lord Stevens to join
his big tent. However, although it will be interpreted as a sign of poor political judgement it raises a number of issues.
Firstly, Uncle Arthur thinks that GB's incumbency at number Ten Downing Street is going to throw up a number of surprises. There could be sweeping changes and a number of innovations that will help restore the vigour of UK politics and restore some degree of trust in the body politic, ok that's a big ask, but it needs to be done and I'm sure 'Big Gordie' - as Kevin Maguire calls him - will give it his best shot.
Secondly, are the Lib Dem's really serious about pluralistic politics and taking the opportunity to be involved in government? It is easy criticising from the sidelines and using the space and freedom they have to project a radical agenda but serious politics is about decision making and taking responsibility. Too often they remind me of student politicians who have not really left the union debating chamber. In all seriousness I think Ming Campbell would make an excellent Foreign Secretary but involvement in government would pose some serious questions for their rank and file.
So, in conclusion, I would expect more surprises and audacious moves by Brown, it may get messy at times but to employ a well-know cliche, 'to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs'
Tuesday, 19 June 2007
Uncle Arthur's Votes
Hello,
In the interests of openness and honesty I can reveal how many votes I have had, in what sections and who I voted for.
1) Uncle Arthur's votes - Six in total (It's the beauty of the federal system)
2) Where the votes come from:
a) The Labour Party
b) SERA
c) CSM
d) Unite/Amicus
e) GMB
f) The Fabian Society
3) Who Uncle Arthur voted for and why:
a) Jon Cruddas (First Choice) I agree with his analysis and narrative
b) Hilary Benn (Second Choice) I like him and he would make a good deputy leader
c) Harriet Harman (Third Choice) I am not saying!
In the interests of openness and honesty I can reveal how many votes I have had, in what sections and who I voted for.
1) Uncle Arthur's votes - Six in total (It's the beauty of the federal system)
2) Where the votes come from:
a) The Labour Party
b) SERA
c) CSM
d) Unite/Amicus
e) GMB
f) The Fabian Society
3) Who Uncle Arthur voted for and why:
a) Jon Cruddas (First Choice) I agree with his analysis and narrative
b) Hilary Benn (Second Choice) I like him and he would make a good deputy leader
c) Harriet Harman (Third Choice) I am not saying!
The choice for Deputy Leader
The other week Uncle Arthur decided to undertake some phone canvassing for Jon Cruddas MP in the midst of the election for the deputy leader of the Labour Party. It seemed that most people had received their ballot paper and various communications from the differing candicates.
Very few people seemed clear as to whom they would be voting for. Only a minority seemed to have made a genuine decision as to which candidate would be their preferred first choice on the ballot paper. It is difficult to say whether this experience is indicative of the entire Labour Party membership. However, is it the case that the choice of six candidates makes it difficult for the wavering/floating voter to come to a firm decision who to back. This makes me suspect that the eventual winner may be the one who harvests the most second preference votes. I suspect Hilary Benn may collate many second preference votes as very few people seem to dislike him, although he has not had the backing of the 'big battalions' ie a major trade union, which may tell against him. I also suspect his family name will benefit him amongst certain sentimental Labour Party voters, despite his politics being rooted in the New Labour mainstream.
Very few people seemed clear as to whom they would be voting for. Only a minority seemed to have made a genuine decision as to which candidate would be their preferred first choice on the ballot paper. It is difficult to say whether this experience is indicative of the entire Labour Party membership. However, is it the case that the choice of six candidates makes it difficult for the wavering/floating voter to come to a firm decision who to back. This makes me suspect that the eventual winner may be the one who harvests the most second preference votes. I suspect Hilary Benn may collate many second preference votes as very few people seem to dislike him, although he has not had the backing of the 'big battalions' ie a major trade union, which may tell against him. I also suspect his family name will benefit him amongst certain sentimental Labour Party voters, despite his politics being rooted in the New Labour mainstream.
Word for the Week - Hebrews 4v9
"So there is a special rest still waiting for the people of God...so let us do our best to enter that rest" Hebrews 4v9.
Saturday, 2 June 2007
Bishop N.T. Wright
Uncle Arthur has just discovered this website dedicated to the Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright, prodigious writer and acclaimed theologian. It is an absolute goldmine of information.
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/
Howards End - Is it a polemic?
Uncle Arthur is home for the weekend, getting some R and R and managed to see a copy of E.M Forster's 'Howards End' in the MMTM Library. Flicking through the pages reminded me of the time I went to see the film with my then girlfriend. Her take, on the end scene, when the 'John Majoresque' Leonard Bast is killed by the falling bookcase was rather novel and at the time infuriating. Her view was that he basically deserved it as he was 'vulgar'. I found this a little snobbish as my understanding was that Forster's literary agenda was to belittle the aspirational working-class and nascent socialism that dared to liberate the proletariat through the power of education. It is amazing how this literary vignettes can spark off such disagreements is it not?
Word for the Week - Proverbs 2
"My son, if you accept my words and store up my commands within you, turning your ear to wisdom then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God" (Proverbs 2).
Deputy Leadership
Hello,
I've been away for a while, but I have a few thoughts about the Deputy Leadership race. In the light of the sad lack of a real contest for the leadership, naturally the media have focused on the 'other' election in the Labour Party, the race to notionally replace Rt John Prescott.
Uncle Arthur is supporting Jon Cruddas in this contest and will then support Hilary Benn as a very worthy second choice. I know some people have criticised Cruddas' style on the TV debates, maybe he comes across as a rough diamond. Quite frankly, I don't really care. Labour needs a leader who can address the serious problems facing it. These are:
1) The disconnection with it's core support. Evidenced in some areas (Sandwell, Dagenham and the Potteries)by the rise in BNP activity .
2) The serious malaise within the party, (perhaps related to my first point)which I think is evidenced by a falling membership base and an erosion in the number of councillors.
I am supporting Cruddas and not necessarily dismissing the other candidates, who all have formidable experience and something distinctive to bring. However, we need a fresh face, fresh ideas, energy and momentum in the party and one person is best placed to do that in my opinion.
I've been away for a while, but I have a few thoughts about the Deputy Leadership race. In the light of the sad lack of a real contest for the leadership, naturally the media have focused on the 'other' election in the Labour Party, the race to notionally replace Rt John Prescott.
Uncle Arthur is supporting Jon Cruddas in this contest and will then support Hilary Benn as a very worthy second choice. I know some people have criticised Cruddas' style on the TV debates, maybe he comes across as a rough diamond. Quite frankly, I don't really care. Labour needs a leader who can address the serious problems facing it. These are:
1) The disconnection with it's core support. Evidenced in some areas (Sandwell, Dagenham and the Potteries)by the rise in BNP activity .
2) The serious malaise within the party, (perhaps related to my first point)which I think is evidenced by a falling membership base and an erosion in the number of councillors.
I am supporting Cruddas and not necessarily dismissing the other candidates, who all have formidable experience and something distinctive to bring. However, we need a fresh face, fresh ideas, energy and momentum in the party and one person is best placed to do that in my opinion.
Friday, 11 May 2007
Word for the Week - John 16v24
"Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete" John 16v24.
Long the live the King
Hello,
Well, we are being told that Gordon Brown will inevitably win the now 'official' contest for the Labour Party leadership and the 'crown' is of course the job of being Prime Minister.
Uncle Arthur happened to hear Gordon Brown speak today in Harlow, completely by accident as I happened to be working there. Yes, I know, it's just one of those things. I heard him speak to around eighty Labour activists gathered by local MP Bill Rammell and I have to say Brown got a very warm reception. Most Labour members and voters I think, are, given the opportunity well disposed to the 'Son of the Manse', of course we shall see if this appeal will spread to the rest of the nation. Why don't we give him a chance though?
One thing that is needed most in the nation is a time of healing and a leader who can in particular bind up the wounds of society, and restore the bond between communities and elected politicians. That task is most neccesary, it may not inspire the scribblers and spinners of Westminster but is is central to the job of Prime Minister today, in 2007; for the hopes and needs of 1997 seem a generation away.
Well, we are being told that Gordon Brown will inevitably win the now 'official' contest for the Labour Party leadership and the 'crown' is of course the job of being Prime Minister.
Uncle Arthur happened to hear Gordon Brown speak today in Harlow, completely by accident as I happened to be working there. Yes, I know, it's just one of those things. I heard him speak to around eighty Labour activists gathered by local MP Bill Rammell and I have to say Brown got a very warm reception. Most Labour members and voters I think, are, given the opportunity well disposed to the 'Son of the Manse', of course we shall see if this appeal will spread to the rest of the nation. Why don't we give him a chance though?
One thing that is needed most in the nation is a time of healing and a leader who can in particular bind up the wounds of society, and restore the bond between communities and elected politicians. That task is most neccesary, it may not inspire the scribblers and spinners of Westminster but is is central to the job of Prime Minister today, in 2007; for the hopes and needs of 1997 seem a generation away.
The King is Dead
Uncle Arthur only has a few comments on the departure of an extraordinary and enigmatic Labour Prime Minister.
The fact that Tony Blair has won more successive elections and been in power longer than any other Labour leader should not be overlooked. However, in the long term this will merely be a fact cherished by those esoteric people who love Labour history and obsess over political figures; an infinitesimal section of the UK population.
As the obituaries roll in, in differing forms I think it is worth noting a few points made in Blair's speech.
1) He called the UK 'blessed' - is this not a reflection of his christian worldview?
2) He was as honest about his shortcomings as he could be. Indeed this Prime Minister has actually apologised for a number of things and correct me If I am wrong, other PM's have failed to show such contrition.
3) He re-iterated his view that he acted in good faith when framing his stance on Iraq.
Sadly, it appears that Iraq will cast a shadow on his legacy, and Uncle Arthur, believes he acted in good faith. There was certainly much wrong with that decision, but does he deserve the pernicious and twisted narratives that have impugned that complex and it has to be said disastrous decision in 2003?
The bible tells us not to place our trust in 'princes' and rightly so, in the end they will all fail, none more so than the ones that have promised so much. However, the bible also implores us to pray for leaders and those in authority. Tony Blair is going, all Prime Ministers go eventually, but he has been a leader, who has made courageous decisions and had the humility to admit where he fell short. Will his successors have the same qualities?
The fact that Tony Blair has won more successive elections and been in power longer than any other Labour leader should not be overlooked. However, in the long term this will merely be a fact cherished by those esoteric people who love Labour history and obsess over political figures; an infinitesimal section of the UK population.
As the obituaries roll in, in differing forms I think it is worth noting a few points made in Blair's speech.
1) He called the UK 'blessed' - is this not a reflection of his christian worldview?
2) He was as honest about his shortcomings as he could be. Indeed this Prime Minister has actually apologised for a number of things and correct me If I am wrong, other PM's have failed to show such contrition.
3) He re-iterated his view that he acted in good faith when framing his stance on Iraq.
Sadly, it appears that Iraq will cast a shadow on his legacy, and Uncle Arthur, believes he acted in good faith. There was certainly much wrong with that decision, but does he deserve the pernicious and twisted narratives that have impugned that complex and it has to be said disastrous decision in 2003?
The bible tells us not to place our trust in 'princes' and rightly so, in the end they will all fail, none more so than the ones that have promised so much. However, the bible also implores us to pray for leaders and those in authority. Tony Blair is going, all Prime Ministers go eventually, but he has been a leader, who has made courageous decisions and had the humility to admit where he fell short. Will his successors have the same qualities?
Saturday, 5 May 2007
Election Aftermath - the irreducable core
Hello,
It seems impossible to analyse election results without appearing partisan or being accused of 'spin'. Every party tries to put a brave face on their results or exaggerate their performance.
Once again, Labour has had a tough local election experience, no-one is surprised there. The Lib Dem's didn't do that well, but did win some councils off the south and are cock-a-hoop over winning Hull council. David Cameron's party have had an encouraging set of results, yet in claiming they may have broken through in the north, Uncle Arthur thinks they are being a wee bit speculative.
I would just make one point on Labour's vote. The total overall vote nationally was 27%, compared to 26% nationally. Ok, translated into a General Election result that would equal a bitterly disappointing result. Yet, it is not a General Election and what it may say is that Labour's core vote is relatively solid and people should not talk about melt down. Of course to win an election Labour needs fresh ideas, faces and renewed purpose, but it has a base to build on.
It seems impossible to analyse election results without appearing partisan or being accused of 'spin'. Every party tries to put a brave face on their results or exaggerate their performance.
Once again, Labour has had a tough local election experience, no-one is surprised there. The Lib Dem's didn't do that well, but did win some councils off the south and are cock-a-hoop over winning Hull council. David Cameron's party have had an encouraging set of results, yet in claiming they may have broken through in the north, Uncle Arthur thinks they are being a wee bit speculative.
I would just make one point on Labour's vote. The total overall vote nationally was 27%, compared to 26% nationally. Ok, translated into a General Election result that would equal a bitterly disappointing result. Yet, it is not a General Election and what it may say is that Labour's core vote is relatively solid and people should not talk about melt down. Of course to win an election Labour needs fresh ideas, faces and renewed purpose, but it has a base to build on.
Out on the Stump
Uncle Arthur was campaigning in the Black Country, with a hard working Labour councillor in an area which used to be rock solid Labour. The Labour vote is still relatively bouyant there but the seat has been less certain territory in recent years because of a number of 'independents' who have stood. (Thought: can anyone really be independent?).
I have been in this particular ward, every local election for the last three years (plus the General Election). It is a worrying sign that the only people who have done any work have been myself and the ward councillors themselves, this does not bode well for the Labour Party. However, no matter how difficult things are for the Labour Party nationally it is always worthwhile to go out and campaign, to be on the 'stump' and talk to people. You always learn something and in this area of all areas Labour voters speak your their mind and they always surprise you.
We bumped into a voter, adamant that he could not vote Labour at this election, he had a heavy heart in saying so but he was utterly disillusioned. Well, Labour voters have been fed up for a while now but this was instructive. He was not happy over Iraq, but that was not his main beef. He was genuinely concerned that Eastern European immigration was placing pressure on public services and undermining workers earning power.
This man was not a racist, he was not a winger or malicious. He was an honest Labour voter who in many ways was making a valid point. The extent of immigration, in the context of weakly regulated labour markets is having a disconcerting effect on Labour's core vote. It is ok for wealthy people to praise the virtues of multi-culturalism and free labour in the EU if it benefits their businesses, but working-class people don't all reap these benefits. This issue needs to be addressed. Labour should not patronise people making these points or ignorantly dismiss them as racist. For it is the avoidance of these problems that have allowed the BNP to exploit people's insecurities.
Uncle Arthur did make the balancing point that some Labour MP's had seen this danger and were raising these matters, Jon Cruddas MP, in particular being the most prominent. It is also necessary to remind people that the UK is an aging country and to address labour shortages we need some measure of immigration. Yet, the balancing point has to be made that we need robust regulation and a sensitivity to the genuine fears of working people, who are more vulnerable than most to these pressures. Liam Byrne MP's plans to introduce an Australian style points system may go some way to beef up the necessary regulation. We shall see.
It may have a long way to go to re-assure alienated Labour voters that their party is for them, but going out and talking to labour voters and listening to their fears will always be the first place to start.
I have been in this particular ward, every local election for the last three years (plus the General Election). It is a worrying sign that the only people who have done any work have been myself and the ward councillors themselves, this does not bode well for the Labour Party. However, no matter how difficult things are for the Labour Party nationally it is always worthwhile to go out and campaign, to be on the 'stump' and talk to people. You always learn something and in this area of all areas Labour voters speak your their mind and they always surprise you.
We bumped into a voter, adamant that he could not vote Labour at this election, he had a heavy heart in saying so but he was utterly disillusioned. Well, Labour voters have been fed up for a while now but this was instructive. He was not happy over Iraq, but that was not his main beef. He was genuinely concerned that Eastern European immigration was placing pressure on public services and undermining workers earning power.
This man was not a racist, he was not a winger or malicious. He was an honest Labour voter who in many ways was making a valid point. The extent of immigration, in the context of weakly regulated labour markets is having a disconcerting effect on Labour's core vote. It is ok for wealthy people to praise the virtues of multi-culturalism and free labour in the EU if it benefits their businesses, but working-class people don't all reap these benefits. This issue needs to be addressed. Labour should not patronise people making these points or ignorantly dismiss them as racist. For it is the avoidance of these problems that have allowed the BNP to exploit people's insecurities.
Uncle Arthur did make the balancing point that some Labour MP's had seen this danger and were raising these matters, Jon Cruddas MP, in particular being the most prominent. It is also necessary to remind people that the UK is an aging country and to address labour shortages we need some measure of immigration. Yet, the balancing point has to be made that we need robust regulation and a sensitivity to the genuine fears of working people, who are more vulnerable than most to these pressures. Liam Byrne MP's plans to introduce an Australian style points system may go some way to beef up the necessary regulation. We shall see.
It may have a long way to go to re-assure alienated Labour voters that their party is for them, but going out and talking to labour voters and listening to their fears will always be the first place to start.
Word for the Week - John 8v32
"To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, if you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free"
Wednesday, 2 May 2007
Ten Years - Yesterday
Hello,
Uncle Arthur decided not to post something about the tenth anniversary of the 1997 General Election on the precise date for a plethora of reasons. One of the reasons stems from the fact that I was very busy indeed at work and it just wasn't feasible to post a comment.
However, on reflection this blog and the objectives it is seeking to pursue are not just about Labour being in power and marking off the years, although Labour in power -for the longest ever period - is not to be sniffed at. In all the reflections and of course assessments of Blair's record (very few of them truly objective) Uncle Arthur has one abiding memory of that day.
Uncle Arthur was campaigning for most of the day in a seat somewhere in Lancashire, a marginal seat that returned a Labour MP, who is now a minister. At the end of that
sweltering (and yes, glorious) day he and a colleague spoke to some women outside some flats at about 8.30pm who did not know it was election day and they could still vote. Ok, seems a bit hard to believe, but not everyone lives in the weird and frenetic world of Westminster politics and all the 'sterile fuss' it generates. They were assured that they could vote and as they were Labour voters arrangements were made to chaperon them to the nearest polling booth.
That was the last bit of work Uncle Arthur did that day before returning to Manchester for the celebration and man it was a celebration. Uncle Arthur had one thought as those Labour voters were assured they could cast their vote. The thought was 'I just hope we don't let these people down'
I am not going to be rehearsing the arguments of what has and has not been done for Labour's core vote; that will be repeated ad nauseum in the next few weeks. My point is simply this; it would be good if every election we have a quite and poignant thought for those whom most Labour folk went into politics to serve in the first place. People will be let down by the system but striving to ensure that this experience is the rarity and not the norm is a worthy goal.
Uncle Arthur decided not to post something about the tenth anniversary of the 1997 General Election on the precise date for a plethora of reasons. One of the reasons stems from the fact that I was very busy indeed at work and it just wasn't feasible to post a comment.
However, on reflection this blog and the objectives it is seeking to pursue are not just about Labour being in power and marking off the years, although Labour in power -for the longest ever period - is not to be sniffed at. In all the reflections and of course assessments of Blair's record (very few of them truly objective) Uncle Arthur has one abiding memory of that day.
Uncle Arthur was campaigning for most of the day in a seat somewhere in Lancashire, a marginal seat that returned a Labour MP, who is now a minister. At the end of that
sweltering (and yes, glorious) day he and a colleague spoke to some women outside some flats at about 8.30pm who did not know it was election day and they could still vote. Ok, seems a bit hard to believe, but not everyone lives in the weird and frenetic world of Westminster politics and all the 'sterile fuss' it generates. They were assured that they could vote and as they were Labour voters arrangements were made to chaperon them to the nearest polling booth.
That was the last bit of work Uncle Arthur did that day before returning to Manchester for the celebration and man it was a celebration. Uncle Arthur had one thought as those Labour voters were assured they could cast their vote. The thought was 'I just hope we don't let these people down'
I am not going to be rehearsing the arguments of what has and has not been done for Labour's core vote; that will be repeated ad nauseum in the next few weeks. My point is simply this; it would be good if every election we have a quite and poignant thought for those whom most Labour folk went into politics to serve in the first place. People will be let down by the system but striving to ensure that this experience is the rarity and not the norm is a worthy goal.
Saturday, 28 April 2007
Warning from Caledonia
Uncle Arthur is visiting relatives in Scotland. The week before the Scottish elections it appears that Labour's woes will intensify here. I attended a fund-raising event in Glasgow last night where someone said Labour will get 'gubbed' on 3 May, the Scots don't mince their words.
This socialist heartland may express its ire by backing the SNP and ushering in an uncertain time for the UK polity. The prospect of an independent Scotland, I think is folly and would of course present a major problem for the Labour movement.
Uncle Arthur has taken the time to peruse the rainforest of literature which arrives at homes courtesy of the STV electoral system being used in this election. This of course heralds open season for the minority parties. Uncle Arthur noted that the Scottish Christian Party is standing on an agenda which may alientate some voters but it will be interesting to see how much they poll..not a great deal I would imagine. However, how well this party fares on 3 May is of minor concern to Uncle Arthur. The principal question is why are they standing?
I would imagine that part of their narrative is built upon the analysis that neither of the major parties pursue policies which reflect biblical values. They would find a sympathetic ear in many churches, because this is largely true. Furthermore, Uncle Arthur can think of recent legislation endorsed by a Labour Government, which not only appear rooted in secular ideology but arrogantly make life difficult for the churches in pursuing their own mission, let alone in seeking to interface with the rest of the world. The legislation on religious hatred and the gay adoption debate spring to mind when making this point.
However, whilst empathising with this observation, Uncle Arthur does not support the creation of a 'christian' political party for a number of reasons. Primarily, I do not believe that the bible grants the mandate for a chrisitian political party. I am open to fresh revelation and being corrected if wrong but that is my understanding. Uncle Arthur believes, and is not the only one I would humbly suggest, that christians should engage in politics and if possible join the mainstream parties and each christian should perhaps contemplate joining the party with whom they identify with. It is challenging trying to be a christian in any political party but I think this is the best way forward.
Yet, in conclusion, Uncle Arthur will flag up a contemporary exmaple of the complex interaction between christian narratives and the secular/liberal mindset. It is most instructive. A recent event in North Wales, where a Conservative candidate's comments appear to have been leapt upon (Clwyd West) because he indicated what the bible actually teaches about a matter of sexual ethics demonstrates why some christians will be tempted to form and join christian parties. If Christian standpoints are distorted or treated with over-reaction by whomsoever
then we need to ask what is the real issue? Is it a matter of bigotry or civil rights and discrimination or are we talking about religious freedoms here? I think if religious freedom is increasingly constricted whereby even responsible, compassionate comments are met with villification don't be surprised if more christians make the error of mobilising round christian parties.
There has to be a better way.
This socialist heartland may express its ire by backing the SNP and ushering in an uncertain time for the UK polity. The prospect of an independent Scotland, I think is folly and would of course present a major problem for the Labour movement.
Uncle Arthur has taken the time to peruse the rainforest of literature which arrives at homes courtesy of the STV electoral system being used in this election. This of course heralds open season for the minority parties. Uncle Arthur noted that the Scottish Christian Party is standing on an agenda which may alientate some voters but it will be interesting to see how much they poll..not a great deal I would imagine. However, how well this party fares on 3 May is of minor concern to Uncle Arthur. The principal question is why are they standing?
I would imagine that part of their narrative is built upon the analysis that neither of the major parties pursue policies which reflect biblical values. They would find a sympathetic ear in many churches, because this is largely true. Furthermore, Uncle Arthur can think of recent legislation endorsed by a Labour Government, which not only appear rooted in secular ideology but arrogantly make life difficult for the churches in pursuing their own mission, let alone in seeking to interface with the rest of the world. The legislation on religious hatred and the gay adoption debate spring to mind when making this point.
However, whilst empathising with this observation, Uncle Arthur does not support the creation of a 'christian' political party for a number of reasons. Primarily, I do not believe that the bible grants the mandate for a chrisitian political party. I am open to fresh revelation and being corrected if wrong but that is my understanding. Uncle Arthur believes, and is not the only one I would humbly suggest, that christians should engage in politics and if possible join the mainstream parties and each christian should perhaps contemplate joining the party with whom they identify with. It is challenging trying to be a christian in any political party but I think this is the best way forward.
Yet, in conclusion, Uncle Arthur will flag up a contemporary exmaple of the complex interaction between christian narratives and the secular/liberal mindset. It is most instructive. A recent event in North Wales, where a Conservative candidate's comments appear to have been leapt upon (Clwyd West) because he indicated what the bible actually teaches about a matter of sexual ethics demonstrates why some christians will be tempted to form and join christian parties. If Christian standpoints are distorted or treated with over-reaction by whomsoever
then we need to ask what is the real issue? Is it a matter of bigotry or civil rights and discrimination or are we talking about religious freedoms here? I think if religious freedom is increasingly constricted whereby even responsible, compassionate comments are met with villification don't be surprised if more christians make the error of mobilising round christian parties.
There has to be a better way.
Friday, 27 April 2007
Hurrah for Lord Winston
Uncle Arthur noted that recently Lord Winston gently chastised Richard Dawkins for his aggressive and puerile attitude to faith.
See the link below for the piece in this Wednesday's Guardian written in anticipation of a public lecture at the University of Dundee. Surely, we can foster a more mature attitude to science and evolution without ridicule and caricature. This distorted and sometimes narrow discourse propagated by some secular biologists' also has parallels with the sometimes warped discourse in contemporary politics. Perhaps Dawkins and Jeremy Paxman both fit the cynical post-modern age where deconstruction rules and makes great entertainment.
Lord Winston's contribution will hopefully give hope that the paramaters of the debate can change and the real inter-relationship between faith and science can be established. This should be a healthy and invigorating linkage not a catalyst for culture wars.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2064899,00.html
See the link below for the piece in this Wednesday's Guardian written in anticipation of a public lecture at the University of Dundee. Surely, we can foster a more mature attitude to science and evolution without ridicule and caricature. This distorted and sometimes narrow discourse propagated by some secular biologists' also has parallels with the sometimes warped discourse in contemporary politics. Perhaps Dawkins and Jeremy Paxman both fit the cynical post-modern age where deconstruction rules and makes great entertainment.
Lord Winston's contribution will hopefully give hope that the paramaters of the debate can change and the real inter-relationship between faith and science can be established. This should be a healthy and invigorating linkage not a catalyst for culture wars.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2064899,00.html
Word for the week - Psalm 42v11
"Why are you downcast, o my soul? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my saviour and my God"
Psalm 42v11.
Psalm 42v11.
Saturday, 21 April 2007
Son of the Manse - For such a time as this
It would appear that the police files submitted to the CPS give the indication that personnel close to the Prime Minister may be facing criminal charges. We shall see.
Whatever has happened, we don't know, the whiff of corruption appears very close to Labour's door. Uncle Arthur fears dark days ahead for Labour, it is heading for a traumatic period and I don't simply refer to the inevitable rollercoaster of the electoral cycle.
Should Gordon Brown become leader of the Labour Party,as appears likely, he must demonstrate that he is the 'son of the Manse' and the church background in which was raised informs his leadership of Labour. The party of our non-conformist forefathers has been tainted by flirtation with the super-rich, the futile, singular pursuit of middle-england and grotesque plans for 'Super-Casino's'. It is heading for the rocks and needs a new direction.
Brown has recently written a book on the subject of courage. He profiles Mandela, Bonhoffer, Mandela and Bobby Kennedy and their respective character in the face of adversity. He now must show courage in cleaning Labour's stables and restore some integrity within the British system as a whole. Uncle Arthur believes he can show this resolve, for we must hope and pray that he does.
Whatever has happened, we don't know, the whiff of corruption appears very close to Labour's door. Uncle Arthur fears dark days ahead for Labour, it is heading for a traumatic period and I don't simply refer to the inevitable rollercoaster of the electoral cycle.
Should Gordon Brown become leader of the Labour Party,as appears likely, he must demonstrate that he is the 'son of the Manse' and the church background in which was raised informs his leadership of Labour. The party of our non-conformist forefathers has been tainted by flirtation with the super-rich, the futile, singular pursuit of middle-england and grotesque plans for 'Super-Casino's'. It is heading for the rocks and needs a new direction.
Brown has recently written a book on the subject of courage. He profiles Mandela, Bonhoffer, Mandela and Bobby Kennedy and their respective character in the face of adversity. He now must show courage in cleaning Labour's stables and restore some integrity within the British system as a whole. Uncle Arthur believes he can show this resolve, for we must hope and pray that he does.
Wednesday, 18 April 2007
Facebook Craze
In the last week, Uncle Arthur has been inundated with requests to join other people's 'Facebook' networks. On one level this seems rather futile, all it is an online database of friends with pictures, rooms for messages and the ability to poke' your friends. What is the point of this on-line, elaborate contacts system?
Well, it seems to reveal some basic truths about us. We are human beings, who all crave, community and acceptance. In community we seek to find love, affirmation and equally importantly identity. The facebook network has political dimensions with peoole joining 'Im voting Labour 2007, 'Friends of Herbert Morrison', 'Fabians' and 'I'm voting Labour 2007' networks. On-line people are firming up their friendships and re-galvanising their individual and group identities. Perhaps political parties need to re-think through community, if this was done in an effective way, the political dividends could be huge.
Uncle Arthur believes that true identity and ultimate acceptance is found in relationship with God and this seeking after community secretly craves that original, fractured relationship with the father.
It will be interesting to see how this Facebook thing develops.
Well, it seems to reveal some basic truths about us. We are human beings, who all crave, community and acceptance. In community we seek to find love, affirmation and equally importantly identity. The facebook network has political dimensions with peoole joining 'Im voting Labour 2007, 'Friends of Herbert Morrison', 'Fabians' and 'I'm voting Labour 2007' networks. On-line people are firming up their friendships and re-galvanising their individual and group identities. Perhaps political parties need to re-think through community, if this was done in an effective way, the political dividends could be huge.
Uncle Arthur believes that true identity and ultimate acceptance is found in relationship with God and this seeking after community secretly craves that original, fractured relationship with the father.
It will be interesting to see how this Facebook thing develops.
Word for the Week - 1 Timothy 6v11
"But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness"
1 Timothy 6v11.
1 Timothy 6v11.
Thursday, 12 April 2007
Coming Soon - A Week of Prayer for Politics
In May a special week of prayer is being set aside to pray for parliament and Whitehall. This is an opportunity for christians to engage spiritually with politics and note the link suggests it is praying for and not against politicians. We are to challenge the world of politics so that it reflects God's wisdom not destroy it just because it is a mirror of this flawed world.
http://www.christiansinparliament.org.uk/
http://www.christiansinparliament.org.uk/
Word for the week - James 3v9
"With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mout come praise and cursing"
James 3v9.
James 3v9.
Where have all the lefty Christians gone?
Hello,
This article in the New Statesman does indeed ask a pertinent question and I think the writer is sympathetic to the debt the UK left owes to christians. However, note the context he refers to. He recalls a friend who has the courage to admit having faith in that niche environment; the North London dinner party.
It needs to be said, Christians on the left, originally came from diverse social backgrounds, particulary the non-conformist working classes. Given the moral and spiritual confusion of the UK middle classes perhaps it is not surprising that there seem to be few christians at Hampstead dinner parties. More is the pity, says Uncle Arthur.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200704090023
This article in the New Statesman does indeed ask a pertinent question and I think the writer is sympathetic to the debt the UK left owes to christians. However, note the context he refers to. He recalls a friend who has the courage to admit having faith in that niche environment; the North London dinner party.
It needs to be said, Christians on the left, originally came from diverse social backgrounds, particulary the non-conformist working classes. Given the moral and spiritual confusion of the UK middle classes perhaps it is not surprising that there seem to be few christians at Hampstead dinner parties. More is the pity, says Uncle Arthur.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200704090023
Tuesday, 3 April 2007
Uncle Arthur
This is Arthur Henderson MP, Labour pioneer and a committed christian and trade unionist. He epitomises the generation of men and women who formed the Labour Party, inspired by their faith and trained and equipped in the training ground of the non-conformist churches and craft unions. He was a loyal and 'rock-like' figure within the Labour Party, keeping things together during the the traumatic period when Macdonald opted to join the National Government, leaving Labour stranded. Perhaps, the actions of Henderson and others kept the show on the road, particularly when the PLP was reduced to a rump.
He was known as 'Uncle Arthur' to many within the Labour Party, hence this website is run on behalf of a collective known as 'Uncle Arthur'.
We hope you enjoy this website.
Monday, 2 April 2007
Word for the Week
"One thing I do. Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on to the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward"
Phillipians 3v13.
Phillipians 3v13.
Hope - against all the odds
Last weekend Uncle Arthur had the pleasure of visiting Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland for the wedding of two friends. It was a beautiful day and the entire chain of events; a wonderful wedding service, the marriage of two christians who are 100% right for each other, a superb reception at the Ulster Folk Musem and a hilarious best man's speech all combined to form a memorable and special weekend.
I had never been to Northern Ireland before and was struck by how warm the people are and walking through Belfast and viewing the City Hall and the Harland and Wolfe cranes where images familiar to anyone growng up in the 1970's and 1980's when in UK when in the mainland one primary associated Northern Ireland with the troubles and communities ravaged by sectarian violence.
Earlier in the week, the deal had finally been sealed to pave the way for powersharing between Iain Paisley of the DUP and Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein. To speculate such a prospect, twenty years ago would have been absurd or even be seen as a sick joke. Yet, in the past week we have seen another step in the recent politics of Northern Ireland that has the appearance of a modern-day miracle.
On the Sunday before I left Belfast, Uncle Arthur and a friend took a historical taxi tour of the parts of Belfast that had been associated with this notorious past. The guide a humourus and passionate man named Martin showed us the Shankill Road, Ardoyne, various Loyalist and Republican murals (many of them chilling) and the walls erected hastily that still divide communities. It was an educational experience and in places deeply depressing, yet it is a poignant reminder that the events earlier in the week at Stormont, truly are remarkable.
I wonder if whenever Tony Blair's 'legacy' is assessed whether the work on the peace process will ever feature, but credit must be given to him and John Major for their work, but this pales into significance compared to the endurance and spirit of the majority of the good people in Northern Ireland.
If you are ever in Belfast, ensure you take one of these historical tours.
Contact: Martin - 0771 2673178
www.allirelandtours.com www.belfastcityblacktaxitours.com
Monday, 26 March 2007
Word for the week - Jeremiah 29 vv11-14a
'You will call upon me and come and pray to me and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you, says the Lord' - (Jeremiah 29 vv11-14a.)
Friday, 23 March 2007
The Budget - Uncle Arthur's Thoughts
Attached is a link to a briefing on this week's budget prepared by the Trade Union group of Labour MPs. The Chancellor certainly grabbed the headlines by the highly surprising headline cut in the basic rate of income tax.
This move was clever politically and will put the Tories on the back-foot. However, the debate about the budget in the press seems all too partisan with all the 'rob Peter to pay Paul' platitudes how can we really assess the objective strengths and weaknesses in the budget?
Uncle Arthur is concerned that the abolition of the 10p starting rate appears to affect poor people directly. The balance to this is the boost to the Child Tax credit and further enhancements to the Working Families Tax credit. This policy has to be one of Labour's best policies, but the system needs to be efficient in order to retain it's credibility and mitigate against any 'damage' caused by the disappearance of the 10p rate.
Uncle Arthur would also like to see some recognition and a restoration of the married couple's allowance. No-one is kidding themselves that an extra £55 a month or whatever is the key to re-building marriage in the UK, of course not. But a bold, moral and perhaps spiritual statement by the Government in this regard would be a tremendous stake in the ground. Healthy and committed marriages and strong families would provide a sound foundation to address many of the social problems we face today.
This is Uncle Arthur, checking out, enjoy the weekend (created by God and defended by the Trade Unions!).
http://www.tugroup.net/down/treasurybriefing220307.doc
This move was clever politically and will put the Tories on the back-foot. However, the debate about the budget in the press seems all too partisan with all the 'rob Peter to pay Paul' platitudes how can we really assess the objective strengths and weaknesses in the budget?
Uncle Arthur is concerned that the abolition of the 10p starting rate appears to affect poor people directly. The balance to this is the boost to the Child Tax credit and further enhancements to the Working Families Tax credit. This policy has to be one of Labour's best policies, but the system needs to be efficient in order to retain it's credibility and mitigate against any 'damage' caused by the disappearance of the 10p rate.
Uncle Arthur would also like to see some recognition and a restoration of the married couple's allowance. No-one is kidding themselves that an extra £55 a month or whatever is the key to re-building marriage in the UK, of course not. But a bold, moral and perhaps spiritual statement by the Government in this regard would be a tremendous stake in the ground. Healthy and committed marriages and strong families would provide a sound foundation to address many of the social problems we face today.
This is Uncle Arthur, checking out, enjoy the weekend (created by God and defended by the Trade Unions!).
http://www.tugroup.net/down/treasurybriefing220307.doc
Thursday, 22 March 2007
Labour - For Working People and their Families
Uncle Arthur is not going to opine about yesterday's budget. However, it is important to highlight one announcement that may not be headline grabbing but is significant. The government has decided the expand the funds available to the Financial Assistance Scheme, by a considerable degree. This scheme is designed to help employees who have lost their pension entitlement as a result of scheme insolvency. The scheme was introduced after vigorous campaigning by both Amicus and Community trade unions, through political and legal channels. In 2004 the FAS was set at £400m and will now rise to £8bn.
Although much more needs to be done to expand this scheme even further, this move is most welcome and reflects where Labour's priorities should be focussed - on working people and their families.
The text below is an Amicus/Community press release on the matter.
£8 billion FAS ‘a major step forward to achieving pensions justice’ say Unions
Wednesday, 21st March 2007
Community and Amicus trade unions have welcomed the announcement by Gordon Brown in today’s Budget that the Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) will rise to £8 billion. Both unions have said it ‘is a major step forward to achieving pensions justice’. Community and Amicus have fought a five year political and legal campaign on behalf of their members who lost their expected pensions when their employer became insolvent.
Commenting on the announcement, Michael Leahy, General Secretary of Community, and Derek Simpson, General Secretary of Amicus, said:
‘’The extension of the FAS to £8 billion is a major step forward to achieving pensions justice. It has been achieved, as have all the other steps to protect employees pensions – including the establishment of the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) – as a result of the political and legal campaigning by Community and Amicus.
'However we believe that the commitment highlighted in the Budget papers means that the FAS will only pay 80% of the pension – not index-linked – which is not enough to meet the pensions justice that those affected need and deserve. Nor is it enough to comply with Article 8 of the European Insolvency Directive. In a case brought by Community and Amicus, the European Court of Justice found that successive UK Governments had acted unlawfully in not implementing the Directive properly.
‘Even with the extra money announced for the FAS today, the effect of inflation must be taken into account. Otherwise, based upon past inflation experience, after 10 years the real value of a pension will fall by a third, after 20 years it will fall by half and after 30 years it will fall by three-quarters. That means a member who is 10 years from retirement, who has paid into a pension scheme for over 30 years, and has an expected pension of £12,000 will receive a pension with a real value of only £7,000 when they retire. 10 years later it will be worth £5,000 at today’s value and, should they live to 85 years of age, it will only be worth less than £2,600 in real terms.
‘We believe that there is widespread public and political support for the view that those who qualify for the FAS should receive the same as those that who are covered by the PPF, which provides 90% of expected pension, index linked to RPI. Julie Morgan MP has tabled an amendment to the Pensions Bill to achieve this. We believe that a Labour Government with a strong moral and social compass will want to achieve this. We call upon all MPs to support Julie Morgan’s amendment’
Although much more needs to be done to expand this scheme even further, this move is most welcome and reflects where Labour's priorities should be focussed - on working people and their families.
The text below is an Amicus/Community press release on the matter.
£8 billion FAS ‘a major step forward to achieving pensions justice’ say Unions
Wednesday, 21st March 2007
Community and Amicus trade unions have welcomed the announcement by Gordon Brown in today’s Budget that the Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) will rise to £8 billion. Both unions have said it ‘is a major step forward to achieving pensions justice’. Community and Amicus have fought a five year political and legal campaign on behalf of their members who lost their expected pensions when their employer became insolvent.
Commenting on the announcement, Michael Leahy, General Secretary of Community, and Derek Simpson, General Secretary of Amicus, said:
‘’The extension of the FAS to £8 billion is a major step forward to achieving pensions justice. It has been achieved, as have all the other steps to protect employees pensions – including the establishment of the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) – as a result of the political and legal campaigning by Community and Amicus.
'However we believe that the commitment highlighted in the Budget papers means that the FAS will only pay 80% of the pension – not index-linked – which is not enough to meet the pensions justice that those affected need and deserve. Nor is it enough to comply with Article 8 of the European Insolvency Directive. In a case brought by Community and Amicus, the European Court of Justice found that successive UK Governments had acted unlawfully in not implementing the Directive properly.
‘Even with the extra money announced for the FAS today, the effect of inflation must be taken into account. Otherwise, based upon past inflation experience, after 10 years the real value of a pension will fall by a third, after 20 years it will fall by half and after 30 years it will fall by three-quarters. That means a member who is 10 years from retirement, who has paid into a pension scheme for over 30 years, and has an expected pension of £12,000 will receive a pension with a real value of only £7,000 when they retire. 10 years later it will be worth £5,000 at today’s value and, should they live to 85 years of age, it will only be worth less than £2,600 in real terms.
‘We believe that there is widespread public and political support for the view that those who qualify for the FAS should receive the same as those that who are covered by the PPF, which provides 90% of expected pension, index linked to RPI. Julie Morgan MP has tabled an amendment to the Pensions Bill to achieve this. We believe that a Labour Government with a strong moral and social compass will want to achieve this. We call upon all MPs to support Julie Morgan’s amendment’
Wednesday, 21 March 2007
Lesssons from Wilberforce
This weekend sees the celebration of the vote to end the transatlantic slave trade. Rightfully, christians across the UK will be celebrating this supernatural achievement with a variety of events.
Uncle Arthur will be attending a special 24-7 prayer meeting aimed at addressing the twenty-first century evil of human traffik. Proving that though we celebrate the work of Wilberforce and others, the work of social justice is never truly complete.
http://www.stopthetraffik.org/default.aspx
Although, Uncle Arthur is trying to really discover what are the broader lessons for Christians to embrace when considering the inspiring example of William Wilberforce? Here are some thoughts.
1) Engagement is Vital - Christians in the UK need to engage in politics - and do so in a graceful and truthful way. This engagement needs to be comprehensive and not just on the 'fashionable' issues, eg Make Poverty History, as worthy as they are. Wilberforce saw the need to get involved in politics, which calls for some degree of worldly wisdom and getting your hands dirty. We need more christians prepared to engage and not just 'rage.'
2) Worldview - Wilberforce's worldview shaped his politics. He knew that a christian, kingdom perspective could not live with the 'zeitgeist' of the time which assumed that British economic well-being was linked to the slave trade. He had a different view and that inevitable led him to campaign against and deconstruct the prevailing mindset.
3) Politics is mission - we need to see a generation of christians who see the call to service in politics as godly and noble. The earth is the Lords and we need to see a missionary movement of young christians breaking into politics. Wilberforce clearly saw his political career as a calling. In many ways the UK political scene has been a sort of 'unreached people group' by and large, with it's own tribal traditions and definitely its own inscrutable language. Let's pray for a generation of missionaries to reach this 'people group' with the gospel.
4) When we step out, God steps up. Wilberforce has the courage to stand and saw God move. He was persistent and faced many threats, discouragements and set-backs but God delivered. We need to have a measure of that faith and courage today.
Truth and Grace
Uncle Arthur is slightly concerned that the manner in which some christians engage poltically on contemporary issues, plays into the hands of the hostile media and secular opponents.
The government have been a little unwise in the way they have brusquely handled both the SOR debate and the gay adoption issue. The manner in which it has been dealt with has alienated christians. Yet, some christians need to find a language and lobbying/campaigning approach that is more subtle and less aggressive.
The closest thing I have found to a biblical and compassionate position on SOR is the stance taken by the organisation called Faithworks. Judge for yourself.
http://www.faithworks.info/SubSection.asp?id=2485
Uncle Arthur.
The government have been a little unwise in the way they have brusquely handled both the SOR debate and the gay adoption issue. The manner in which it has been dealt with has alienated christians. Yet, some christians need to find a language and lobbying/campaigning approach that is more subtle and less aggressive.
The closest thing I have found to a biblical and compassionate position on SOR is the stance taken by the organisation called Faithworks. Judge for yourself.
http://www.faithworks.info/SubSection.asp?id=2485
Uncle Arthur.
Monday, 19 March 2007
Word for the week - 1 John 4v19
Every week we will look at a scripture and how we can apply it to politics on the left.
"We love because he first loved us. If anyone says 'I love God', yet hates his brother, he is a liar" (1 John 4v19).
These are challening words, love and compassion for one's fellow man should be a guiding principle which shapes our christian lives and our politics. Yet, in the reality of life and the cut and thrust of the political world, love may be in short supply.
The history of the Labour Party has seen immense factional battles, class hatred iginiting political rhetoric and self-love and vanity abnegating any chance of the love of God breaking in.
The motives of others, petty clashes and the tribal inter-party pettiness that pervades UK politics can affect the christian. Yet, we are challenged by God of love, to follow the way of truth and love, knowing that we have been first loved.
Wouldn't it be great if we see some love for fellow man and love between the eventual candidates in this year's leadership elections permeating left politics this year?
"We love because he first loved us. If anyone says 'I love God', yet hates his brother, he is a liar" (1 John 4v19).
These are challening words, love and compassion for one's fellow man should be a guiding principle which shapes our christian lives and our politics. Yet, in the reality of life and the cut and thrust of the political world, love may be in short supply.
The history of the Labour Party has seen immense factional battles, class hatred iginiting political rhetoric and self-love and vanity abnegating any chance of the love of God breaking in.
The motives of others, petty clashes and the tribal inter-party pettiness that pervades UK politics can affect the christian. Yet, we are challenged by God of love, to follow the way of truth and love, knowing that we have been first loved.
Wouldn't it be great if we see some love for fellow man and love between the eventual candidates in this year's leadership elections permeating left politics this year?
Friday, 16 March 2007
Uncle Arthur
This is Arthur Henderson MP, Labour pioneer and a committed christian and trade unionist. He epitomises the generation of men and women who formed the Labour Party, inspired by their faith and trained and equipped in the training ground of the non-conformist churches and craft unions. He was a loyal and 'rock-like' figure within the Labour Party, keeping things together during the the traumatic period when Macdonald opted to join the National Government, leaving Labour stranded. Perhaps, the actions of Henderson and others kept the show on the road, particularly when the PLP was reduced to a rump.
He was known as 'Uncle Arthur' to many within the Labour Party, hence this website is run on behalf of a collective known as 'Uncle Arthur'.
We hope you enjoy this website.
Wednesday, 14 March 2007
News Statesmen - Faith Column
Dear Mr Davies,
I read with interest your Faith Column. This appears a lively forum for differing, thoughtful contributions from a variety of perspectives and in light of the growing significance of faith in public life, it is a welcome addition to the New Statsman.
I do however note that , although you seem to have a cornucopia of opinions and discourses ranging from scientific scepticism, secular morality, non-religious spirituality, 'old school atheism', radical progressive Judaism, animinism, Hare Krishna, Quakerism and Islam - there is regrettably, only one Christian contribution.
Though I find Mike West's comments thoughtful, persuasive and challenging ,may I humbly suggest that he only represents one very small constituency within the UK Christian community or indeed Liberal Anglicanism. He seems at one point to juxtapose his own liberalism with 'aggressive, fundamentalist creeds', which may be true in some instances but is not really a fair description of those people who are theologically literate and content with pursuing an orthodox path within the Christian faith (i.e. the vast majority of believers in the world) .
Can I suggest you improve this excellent initiative by including a commentator or activist whose theology reflects an evangelical/orthodox perspective? I know of a number of christians, who are committed to left politics and a dynamic faith whose voice is often precluded from these debates, perhaps inadvertently because only one christian opinion is sought. This needn't be so, be a bit more progressive and inclusive and find a writer such as Joel Edwards, Steve Chalke, Tobias Jones etc. I'm sure that such faith perspectives would add a thoughtful and important element to discussions.
Uncle Arthur.
I read with interest your Faith Column. This appears a lively forum for differing, thoughtful contributions from a variety of perspectives and in light of the growing significance of faith in public life, it is a welcome addition to the New Statsman.
I do however note that , although you seem to have a cornucopia of opinions and discourses ranging from scientific scepticism, secular morality, non-religious spirituality, 'old school atheism', radical progressive Judaism, animinism, Hare Krishna, Quakerism and Islam - there is regrettably, only one Christian contribution.
Though I find Mike West's comments thoughtful, persuasive and challenging ,may I humbly suggest that he only represents one very small constituency within the UK Christian community or indeed Liberal Anglicanism. He seems at one point to juxtapose his own liberalism with 'aggressive, fundamentalist creeds', which may be true in some instances but is not really a fair description of those people who are theologically literate and content with pursuing an orthodox path within the Christian faith (i.e. the vast majority of believers in the world) .
Can I suggest you improve this excellent initiative by including a commentator or activist whose theology reflects an evangelical/orthodox perspective? I know of a number of christians, who are committed to left politics and a dynamic faith whose voice is often precluded from these debates, perhaps inadvertently because only one christian opinion is sought. This needn't be so, be a bit more progressive and inclusive and find a writer such as Joel Edwards, Steve Chalke, Tobias Jones etc. I'm sure that such faith perspectives would add a thoughtful and important element to discussions.
Uncle Arthur.
Tuesday, 6 March 2007
Prayer
Thought,
If we are to pray for the leadership of the Labour Party, how should we do so?
What biblical principles guide us and what should we be praying for?
If we are to pray for the leadership of the Labour Party, how should we do so?
What biblical principles guide us and what should we be praying for?
Saturday, 3 March 2007
It is not the critic who counts - thoughts on christian citizenship
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is not effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though chequered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
This above quote is from Teddy Roosevelt, the great US President in a speech on ‘Citizenship and the new republic’ For the past year and a half I have been waxing lyrical about the desperate need for Christians to be active citizens. Not just in the light of the biblical mandate to be salt and light but the need to see political activity as a noble task is pressing.
Why do I say this? Why is this necessary? And indeed what is a workable and meaningful definition of citizenship that can inspire and guide bible believing Christians passionate to engage in the public realm?
I have found the whole experience of being a Christian active in politics fascinating, being involved in Labour politics and particularly so in the past nine years. After years of passionately being anti-Tory it was a personal elation when ‘we’ got in 1997 and kicked ‘them’ out of power, finally. I have felt a rollercoaster of emotions, disappointment, and yet a growing appreciation of the complexities of politics in those years. I have also seen the good that I believe my Labour government has done for poor people, and working people. I also confess, a frustration at some public attitudes to politics and the manner in which elements of the press report current affairs. We cannot let some politicians off the hook for degrading public life but the juvenile, personality obsession of the media is fuelling public cynicism to an unhealthy degree.
So at a time of increased difficulty for Labour and when the party is in a state of pre-transition and flux, do we as Christians on the left give up and accept disillusionment? Are we straddling a contradiction, engaging in ‘progressive’ politics in a broken world and knowing the temporary limits of politics, whilst believing ultimately that this world was and never will be as the Lord intended it to be? A proper eschatology must underpin our Christian citizenship. We should be realists about the world we live in but as people of faith see politics as a noble and worthwhile calling, entering the muddy and bloodied arena in the face of failure but confident our service will not be in vain.
As people of hope, committed to the kingdom and seeing politics as public service we surely cannot accept disillusionment. Frankly, it is a harder task to be a Labour activist than it was in the halcyon days of 1994-1997. Now, with the reality of government and a bored and cynical public, it is a harder task. Reticence is one thing but cynicism acts as a protection for people from trusting and hoping, it justifies not acting and speaking out. We cannot lapse into cynicism, yes trust must be rebuilt but as christians we are people of hope not disillusionment. Surely, our commitment to politics is seeking to build God’s kingdom, not temporary empires.
Given a balanced theology we can view politics as a noble enterprise. If we believe in Christian involvement in mainstream parties as preferable to the establishment of a ‘christian party’, we need to define the boundaries of our involvement. Now is the time to demonstrate commitment to the flawed but necessary process of democratic politics. Christians need be involved in the healthy plurality of parties, for whatever our concerns about key issues important decisions need to be made in the complex public arena. Avoiding those decisions is an absence of responsibility and a failure in citizenship.
So how and where do we start to deepen our citizenship?
We need to understand the distinction between the role of the kingdom, mandate of the church and how that shapes and informs christian political activism. I am always struck by 1 Kings 18, where Obadiah serving in the Royal Palace uses his influence to protect the prophets from Jezebel’s wrath. This may have been hidden and notionally insignificant but it was an action for good that reflected a man of God using his position with wisdom. In contrast Elijah the prophet has the freedom to rail against Ahab as the ‘troubler of Israel’. I see Elijah as the church, prophetic and unbeholden to the culture of the day speaking God’s word with freedom. In contrast, perhaps Obadiah reflects those in public life and the workplace, being influential, maybe in modest ways but making a difference. Clear and prayerfully informed thinking must guide our activism, not false notions or the trends of the day.
I would lay down a healthy challenge to all those people who rightly mobilised on the ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign. This positive harnessing of energy and engagement should not be lost. Yet the church needs to broaden its public engagement into the more noble and mundane foot-soldiering world of national and local politics. We need to be politically active on the ‘less fashionable’ causes and narratives and we need to set the agenda in the public square. To fulfil this calling we need to develop a more holistic and inclusive christian worldview and embrace a wider dialogue apart from the ‘safe ground’ issues of development, as necessary as they are.
We need a campaign to ensure Christians join the party they vote for. We need to pray and partner with Christians from other parties, (as is slowly happening) recognising we have the kingdom in common first and foremost. Yet this should be done without developing a mushy quasi-theology which says ‘we are all in this together’. Yes, we are all in this together but we have differing roles, ideologies, backgrounds and issues, let’s be honest.
If as Christians we are serious about civic renewal, need to encourage and affirm all those involved in politics, appreciating the complex difficulties faced. We should seriously commit to revitalising democracy, voter turnout and challenging the areas of the media that distort truth whilst encouraging the good.
Finally, we need to articulate a theology of politics as legitimate service. People may not think that some people enter politics with noble motives, that it is necessary and it can deliver good. If we can inject that into the churches thinking we can move away from some of the world’s broken thinking that constrains our imagination.
So in the words of President Roosevelt let’s stay in the arena, accumulate a ‘bit of blood and a bit of mud’ and not accept lazy and hollow secular rejection of politics. There is a need always for the church to speak righteousness and justice to the government of the day, but let us be mindful that our critique does not undermine the legitimacy of effective engagement in public affairs.
With biblical thinking, a realistic programme for action and humble appreciation of God’s people who are colonising politics we can build on where we are. We can engage in politics with confidence, knowing that we spend ourselves in the most worthy of causes.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though chequered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
This above quote is from Teddy Roosevelt, the great US President in a speech on ‘Citizenship and the new republic’ For the past year and a half I have been waxing lyrical about the desperate need for Christians to be active citizens. Not just in the light of the biblical mandate to be salt and light but the need to see political activity as a noble task is pressing.
Why do I say this? Why is this necessary? And indeed what is a workable and meaningful definition of citizenship that can inspire and guide bible believing Christians passionate to engage in the public realm?
I have found the whole experience of being a Christian active in politics fascinating, being involved in Labour politics and particularly so in the past nine years. After years of passionately being anti-Tory it was a personal elation when ‘we’ got in 1997 and kicked ‘them’ out of power, finally. I have felt a rollercoaster of emotions, disappointment, and yet a growing appreciation of the complexities of politics in those years. I have also seen the good that I believe my Labour government has done for poor people, and working people. I also confess, a frustration at some public attitudes to politics and the manner in which elements of the press report current affairs. We cannot let some politicians off the hook for degrading public life but the juvenile, personality obsession of the media is fuelling public cynicism to an unhealthy degree.
So at a time of increased difficulty for Labour and when the party is in a state of pre-transition and flux, do we as Christians on the left give up and accept disillusionment? Are we straddling a contradiction, engaging in ‘progressive’ politics in a broken world and knowing the temporary limits of politics, whilst believing ultimately that this world was and never will be as the Lord intended it to be? A proper eschatology must underpin our Christian citizenship. We should be realists about the world we live in but as people of faith see politics as a noble and worthwhile calling, entering the muddy and bloodied arena in the face of failure but confident our service will not be in vain.
As people of hope, committed to the kingdom and seeing politics as public service we surely cannot accept disillusionment. Frankly, it is a harder task to be a Labour activist than it was in the halcyon days of 1994-1997. Now, with the reality of government and a bored and cynical public, it is a harder task. Reticence is one thing but cynicism acts as a protection for people from trusting and hoping, it justifies not acting and speaking out. We cannot lapse into cynicism, yes trust must be rebuilt but as christians we are people of hope not disillusionment. Surely, our commitment to politics is seeking to build God’s kingdom, not temporary empires.
Given a balanced theology we can view politics as a noble enterprise. If we believe in Christian involvement in mainstream parties as preferable to the establishment of a ‘christian party’, we need to define the boundaries of our involvement. Now is the time to demonstrate commitment to the flawed but necessary process of democratic politics. Christians need be involved in the healthy plurality of parties, for whatever our concerns about key issues important decisions need to be made in the complex public arena. Avoiding those decisions is an absence of responsibility and a failure in citizenship.
So how and where do we start to deepen our citizenship?
We need to understand the distinction between the role of the kingdom, mandate of the church and how that shapes and informs christian political activism. I am always struck by 1 Kings 18, where Obadiah serving in the Royal Palace uses his influence to protect the prophets from Jezebel’s wrath. This may have been hidden and notionally insignificant but it was an action for good that reflected a man of God using his position with wisdom. In contrast Elijah the prophet has the freedom to rail against Ahab as the ‘troubler of Israel’. I see Elijah as the church, prophetic and unbeholden to the culture of the day speaking God’s word with freedom. In contrast, perhaps Obadiah reflects those in public life and the workplace, being influential, maybe in modest ways but making a difference. Clear and prayerfully informed thinking must guide our activism, not false notions or the trends of the day.
I would lay down a healthy challenge to all those people who rightly mobilised on the ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign. This positive harnessing of energy and engagement should not be lost. Yet the church needs to broaden its public engagement into the more noble and mundane foot-soldiering world of national and local politics. We need to be politically active on the ‘less fashionable’ causes and narratives and we need to set the agenda in the public square. To fulfil this calling we need to develop a more holistic and inclusive christian worldview and embrace a wider dialogue apart from the ‘safe ground’ issues of development, as necessary as they are.
We need a campaign to ensure Christians join the party they vote for. We need to pray and partner with Christians from other parties, (as is slowly happening) recognising we have the kingdom in common first and foremost. Yet this should be done without developing a mushy quasi-theology which says ‘we are all in this together’. Yes, we are all in this together but we have differing roles, ideologies, backgrounds and issues, let’s be honest.
If as Christians we are serious about civic renewal, need to encourage and affirm all those involved in politics, appreciating the complex difficulties faced. We should seriously commit to revitalising democracy, voter turnout and challenging the areas of the media that distort truth whilst encouraging the good.
Finally, we need to articulate a theology of politics as legitimate service. People may not think that some people enter politics with noble motives, that it is necessary and it can deliver good. If we can inject that into the churches thinking we can move away from some of the world’s broken thinking that constrains our imagination.
So in the words of President Roosevelt let’s stay in the arena, accumulate a ‘bit of blood and a bit of mud’ and not accept lazy and hollow secular rejection of politics. There is a need always for the church to speak righteousness and justice to the government of the day, but let us be mindful that our critique does not undermine the legitimacy of effective engagement in public affairs.
With biblical thinking, a realistic programme for action and humble appreciation of God’s people who are colonising politics we can build on where we are. We can engage in politics with confidence, knowing that we spend ourselves in the most worthy of causes.
Stand at the crossroads and look
'Stand at the crossroads and look. Ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it and you will find rest for your souls' (Jeremiah 6v16)
This blogspot is dedicated to restoring the christian foundations of the Labour Party.
MMTM - stands for 'More Methodism than Marx'. It is believed that Labour's roots owe more to the ideology and activism of non-conformist christians than the secular, materialistic ideology of Marxism. Indeed this quote is often attributed to Morgan Phillips or Harold Wilson. Whoever coined the phrase it encapsulates the understanding that deep within Labour's DNA is a strand of christian faith.
In a time when the Labour Party appears to have lost it's way and the aggressive secular agenda seems dominant in the Labour Party, christians on the left are gathering to pray and seek God to renew this presence once again in the Labour Party. We seek to network with christians who are biblically serious and spirit filled and prepared to to take their rightful place on the centre-left.
Currently, politics appears to to be in flux and held in low esteeem in our nation. The forces of cynicism and consumerism seem to be battering the foundations of the body-politic. Thus, we need a new generation of christian pioneers, faithfully serving the original vision of those men and women who, thank God, formed the Labour Party at the very beginning of the 20th century.
We need to develop a discourse, rooted in God's word that articulates that politics is public service, for the christian it is mission also. The church needs to affirm what is good within politics whilst prophetically speaking for justice and righteousness, over and above political expediency. We must not allow one party to be seen as christian and one as secular. If we do not act we could be in a situation, which mirrors to some degree the situation in the US, where christian engagement in politics is associated with the forces of the right. Though caricatured no doubt this strand of ideology is seen as judgemental, biblically narrow and perhaps owing more to cultural factors than the gospel itself. We need in the UK, christian involvement in all parties, and most definately within the Labour movement.
This blogspot is dedicated to restoring the christian foundations of the Labour Party.
MMTM - stands for 'More Methodism than Marx'. It is believed that Labour's roots owe more to the ideology and activism of non-conformist christians than the secular, materialistic ideology of Marxism. Indeed this quote is often attributed to Morgan Phillips or Harold Wilson. Whoever coined the phrase it encapsulates the understanding that deep within Labour's DNA is a strand of christian faith.
In a time when the Labour Party appears to have lost it's way and the aggressive secular agenda seems dominant in the Labour Party, christians on the left are gathering to pray and seek God to renew this presence once again in the Labour Party. We seek to network with christians who are biblically serious and spirit filled and prepared to to take their rightful place on the centre-left.
Currently, politics appears to to be in flux and held in low esteeem in our nation. The forces of cynicism and consumerism seem to be battering the foundations of the body-politic. Thus, we need a new generation of christian pioneers, faithfully serving the original vision of those men and women who, thank God, formed the Labour Party at the very beginning of the 20th century.
We need to develop a discourse, rooted in God's word that articulates that politics is public service, for the christian it is mission also. The church needs to affirm what is good within politics whilst prophetically speaking for justice and righteousness, over and above political expediency. We must not allow one party to be seen as christian and one as secular. If we do not act we could be in a situation, which mirrors to some degree the situation in the US, where christian engagement in politics is associated with the forces of the right. Though caricatured no doubt this strand of ideology is seen as judgemental, biblically narrow and perhaps owing more to cultural factors than the gospel itself. We need in the UK, christian involvement in all parties, and most definately within the Labour movement.
Friday, 2 March 2007
MMTM
MMTM, the short and perhaps intriguing name of this blog stands for 'More Methodism than Marx'. This statement, attributed to Morgan Phillips, is well known and tends to get raised when people reflect on the roots of Labour's spiritual tradition. However, where is that tradition now?
In a secular, post-modern age, will it ever return with resonance or relevance?
In a secular, post-modern age, will it ever return with resonance or relevance?
New Beginnings
Hello,
This blog, is dedicated for christians seeking to find space and a voice in the Labour Party. I hope you like it or at least empathise with the vision and values we are seeking to promote.
This blog, is dedicated for christians seeking to find space and a voice in the Labour Party. I hope you like it or at least empathise with the vision and values we are seeking to promote.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
