Praxis

Time to stop gambling with our future? First signs of a rethink on dangerous gaming machines

noreply@blogger.com (James North) — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:17:00 +0000

A recent Government statement suggests that critics who have been warrning of the normalisation of gambling in the United Kingdom are getting their message across. While the Government has announced no specific measures to reverse the dangerous trends of recent years, it endorses what charities, churches and campaigning groups have been saying: gambling is not just another leisure activity but dangerous in view of the extreme harm that problem gambling can cause individuals and communities.

In 2011 the Methodist Church and its ecumenical colleagues were invited to give written and oral evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee’s enquiry into the implementation of the Gambling Act 2005. The churches were among the few groups to state clearly that the evidence from the Gambling Prevalence Survey in 2010 was worrying. The Act specifically mentioned the need to protect children and vulnerable adults. If the Act was working as it should, problem gambling should have gone down. Instead, not only had it maintained previous levels: it had risen. (Despite a largely unsympathetic response, the Committee asked the Methodist Church for supplementary evidence on key areas, which may be viewed here.)

The Committee’s subsequent report showed little recognition of the seriousness of the situation. One of the Churches’ key concerns was around the clustering of betting shops on high streets, particularly in poorer areas. This is largely because these are allowed to contain up to 4 of the profitable and highly addictive, casino style B2 gaming machines. The Committee recommended that betting shops be allowed to contain more than 4 B2 machines: this would enable the industry to maintain its profits without needing so many betting shops on the high street. But at a time of increasing poverty and inequality, it is unacceptable that the gambling industry should seek to maximise its profits in ways which will impact on vulnerable communities.

It is somewhat encouraging that the Government’s statement says “It would not be right for the Government to consider any liberalisation with regard to category B2 machines until evidence is in place, potential options for harm mitigation are better understood and the industry has demonstrated its capability to manage better the harm its products may cause to some customers”. However the need for caution remains: this suggests that continued liberalisation is basically desirable, even of category B2 machines, as long as the industry makes some improvements in harm mitigation. It also focuses concern on 'some customers', supporting the outdated view that addiction is only a problem of a susceptible minority. But churches and charities argue that research already shows liberalisation has gone too far and too fast and that the Government should return to a default assumption of caution rather than laissez-faire in gambling policy.

Other statements suggest greater awareness that Government policy since 2005 has involved risky liberalisation and that greater regulation is required. The draft legislation requiring all gambling operators selling into the UK market to obtain a license from the Gambling Commission will be introduced as soon as possible. This is necessary to prevent a free for all of unregulated online gambling. Also the Government has retained the right to impose a statutory levy on the gambling industry to provide sufficient funds for research, education and treatment around gambling and problem gambling. This is important as it has not yet been proved that the current system of voluntary donations is sufficient to ensure funds for suitable research.

From 2005 onwards, stakes and prizes on gambling machines have increased, advertising on television and gambling has been legalised and online gaming and advertising has proliferated. The Churches have been among the few groups that have argued the need for caution and public protection. It remains to be seen how the Government will enforce its commitment to ensuring public protection and a balance between the needs of the gambling industry and the bodies that regulate it. This is a small but significant victory for campaigning groups and churches, but those concerned must continue to make their voices heard, locally and nationally.

London Launch of Enough Food for Everyone IF

noreply@blogger.com (Wendy Cooper) — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:23:00 +0000

The world produces enough food for everyone, but not everyone has enough food.

Tim Whitby for Getty Images

Getting hundreds of people (myself included) to stand outside for an hour on a very cold winter’s evening is no mean feat but it happened. Wednesday 23 January saw months of work and planning come to fruition with events around the country to launch the new campaign supported by more than 100 NGOs and faith groups, Enough Food for Everyone IF.

In London, Somerset House with its vast courtyard provided a spectacular setting for the challenging films and celebrity speeches projected across one wing of the building. Arriving early with colleagues, I certainly felt the sense of anticipation that precedes such occasions as people gathered, young and old, different cultures and backgrounds, all committed to taking action together to bring an end to the scandal of hunger.

So why a new campaign this year? The UK assumes the presidency of the G8 and David Cameron has committed to hosting a Hunger Summit prior to the G8 Summit in June. It is a crucial opportunity for the UK to show leadership in tackling the four big IFs:

Aid Enough food for everyone IF we give enough aid to stop children dying from hunger and help the poorest families have enough food to live.

Land Enough food for everyone IF we stop poor farmers being forced off their land, and we grow crops to feed people not fuel cars.

Tax Enough food for everyone IF governments stop big companies dodging tax in poor countries, so that millions of people can free themselves from hunger.

Transparency Enough food for everyone IF governments and big companies are open and honest about the actions that prevent people getting enough food.

IF our leaders take these steps, it will change the future for millions of people who live with the day to day struggle of hunger. This year could be the beginning of the end for global hunger.

Change happens when motivated individuals persuade others to act with them to tackle injustice, as evidenced by the campaign to abolish the slave trade (as actor Bill Nighy reminded us on Wednesday evening), and more recently, Jubilee 2000 and Make Poverty History. But it’s a long haul. IF is all set to join that list but this year will only be the start.

The Methodist Church, Methodist Relief and Development Fund, the United Reformed Church and the URC’s Commitment for Life programme have all signed up to the campaign and will be helping to resource action and reflection during the year.

There’s an enormous amount of information already so find out how you, your church and community can get involved in IF.

Israel's election – rise of moderate centre parties still leaves future negotiations with Palestinians uncertain

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Hucklesby) — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:07:00 +0000

In Israel’s election on Tuesday Binyamin Netanyahu’s Likud Beiteinu polled more than any other party albeit with a substantially reduced number of seats. The biggest surprise is the strong showing of the newly formed centrist Yesh Atid party that has secured 19 Knesset seats. Its leader and former TV broadcaster Yair Lapid stated before the election that he would only join a coalition that was seriously committed to negotiations with the Palestinians [1].

Israel’s system of proportional representation has ensured that no one party has ever been able to deliver an outright majority in Government. But yesterday’s election results were particularly confusing, splitting the Knesset down the middle with 60 seats each for the right wing and Centrist/left blocks. In order to form a government Binyamin Netanyahu is “reaching across the aisle” to potential centrist coalition partners such as Yesh Atid.

If, as is likely, Netanyahu succeeds in forming a coalition involving one or more of the centrist parties, it is doubtful that this would bring about any significant change of direction on policies towards a peace process.

Firstly we should not attempt to read into the results of the Tuesday’s election shifts in Israeli public opinion on dealings with the Palestinians or on policy towards Iran. While these may be a consideration for voters, domestic issues are the main priority.

Secondly most in the former right wing coalition had been looking forward to a clearer policy rejecting any further compromise with Palestinians and pursuing an assertive and unapologetic policy on illegal settlement expansion. Netanyahu has a rather tepid commitment to negotiations with Palestinians but the majority of those on the Likud Beiteinu Party list do not support negotiations of any form. One Likud Member of the Knesset asserted last week that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2009 speech calling for a Palestinian State was no more than a tactical manoeuvre to placate the world and that the party remains opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian State. Yair Lapid has been critical of Netanyahu’s lukewarm approach to negotiations and supports a near complete withdrawal from the West Bank. But any influence arising from the presence of centrist parties joining a coalition will be constrained by a mood within Likud Beiteinu that wants to see the Government to deliver a strong and punitive response to the Palestinian’s claim for recognition at the UN.

On the other hand, as settlement expansion continues and the prospects for a two-state solution appear to retreat further into the distance, a coalition involving Yesh Atid or others from the centre ground could provide a government that is more responsive to pressure brought to bear by the international community. But in essence it would appear that a confused election result does not provide Netanyahu with a mandate either for conducting meaningful negotiations or for refusing to negotiate on the future of the Palestinian territories.

[1] Yair Lapid has also made clear that Israel’s commitment to “an undivided Jerusalem” is not up for negotiation.

Discipleship in Berlin

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Barr) — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:57:00 +0000

Germany is definitely the place to be in Advent. The Tannenbäume and festive decorations glisten in the cold, freshening air. And they look even better when it snows. The Weihnachtsmärkte liven up the broad streets with happy shoppers, brass bands and the scents of Bratwurst and Gluhwein. Reader, be in no doubt: the Germans do the biggest and best Christmas celebrations in Europe. So, with this in mind, I took off last Friday for a weekend in Berlin.

The place was indeed roughly as outlined above. But although it is now a city of bonhomie and party fun, Berlin was in rather a different mood in December of 1944. Germany’s armies were being fought back by British and Americans in the West, and the Russians in the east. And in Berlin the Nazi government was growing ever more reliant on violent suppression to maintain its hold.

With my raging appetite for Gluhwein momentarily sated I took a stroll down Wilhelmstraβe, once the very epicentre of the Nazi regime. The street contained the central offices of the chief organs of Nazi administration. Most of the original buildings are long gone, but their former locations are clearly marked. The German army once held parades down this road in devotion to the Fűhrer. I soon came to Niederkirchnerstraβe, once known as Prinz-Albrecht-Straβe, where the Gestapo had its headquarters. There is a museum on there now, Topography of Terror, which details the history of the SA, SS, the Gestapo and the SD and their brutal crimes.

Yet the heart of Nazi terror is also a monument to startling Christian discipleship. Lutheran Theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer was imprisoned here during the winter of 1944. That Christmas he was allowed to write a letter to his fiancé, Maria von Wedemeyer. He speaks of his joy at being able to write to her - with an enthusiasm not dissimilar to Paul’s letters from jail - and sends her these verses which he called a Christmas greeting. They later became a popular hymn.

By gracious powers so wonderfully sheltered,

And confidently waiting come what may,

we know that God is with us night and morning,

and never fails to greet us each new day.

And when this cup You give is filled to brimming

With bitter suffering, hard to understand,

We take it thankfully and without trembling,

Out of so good and so beloved a hand.

“When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die” as Bonhoeffer wrote elsewhere. I have sung the hymn in church a thousand times or more, but I had never quite seen the sheer devotion to God and the absolute and unquestioning surrender to his designs, until I had understood the context and location in which they were written.

Bonhoeffer was not one who by instinct campaigned against the powers that be. Rather, he was a man of books and learning. But he found that the Nazi regime left him no option. In 1939, already a man marked by the Nazi government, he left the safe haven of America to return to Germany. Most were travelling the other way. He was an avowed pacifist, but he joined a resistance group and got involved in the July bomb plot to kill Hitler. This is true discipleship in the face power. Bonhoeffer sacrificed his safety, his instincts, and his plans for the sake of a higher purpose.

Discipleship - a word so easily used in church straplines and Bible focus groups – is a serious, sometimes life-threatening business. Its high cost, much more than the festive cheer, is surely a thing to remember in Advent. And few have understood it as well as Bonhoeffer, locked up in Prinz-Albrecht-Straβe that Christmas of 1944.

Daily Mail Welfare Story - Untrue and Dangerously Misleading

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Morrison) — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 23:59:00 +0000

If I blogged every time the Daily Mail printed an untruth about people on benefits I wouldn't get away from my laptop very often. But today’s untruth is designed to soften up public opinion for benefit cuts to be announced on Wednesday – and as such it deserves some examination.

The argument from Government which is supported by this erroneous article is that the UK cannot afford the current welfare system and that its costs have spiralled out of control. Affordability is a value judgement – is the benefit of our Welfare system worth the price. The price however is a matter of fact. A useful understanding of the price is can be informed by data and is all too easily misinformed by distortions and untruths.

The key line in the article is “In 1948 spending on benefits accounted for 10.4% of Britain’s total income, against 24.2% this year.” This is under no circumstances true.

National Income is a term that generally refers to the Gross National Product* (GNP). “Benefits” is a difficult term to define but to illustrate I have produced a graph showing both the Office of National Statistics and the Department of Work and Pensions figures at their very largest. They include, in size order, pensions (over half of total spending), sickness and disability, Tax credits (ONS only) income support, unemployment (under 5% of total spending) and various other money transfers. It is a graph of Welfare spending as a proportion of GDP over time from 1979 to 2012/13. These are the numbers I have to hand – but the point is clear – Welfare spending is a lot less than 24.2%

Graph of Welfare spending as a proportion of GDP data available Data

You may notice something else – that using the very sensible measure of Welfare spending as proportion of GDP welfare spending is still lower than the mid-1990s. Not something you will hear Government spokespeople saying. Indeed the article quotes an increase in 60% of benefits under Labour – I am sure there is a way of defining the terms such that this is true – I am equally certain it is at best a small fraction of the truth.

Other points made in the article are that the state pension has trebled since 1948 and unemployment benefit has doubled. I wouldn’t take the numbers at face value as the make up of the benefits has changed markedly eg. Pension credit, contributory pension, housing benefit, winter fuel allowance and other transfers may or may not be included in the comparison. It is important to realise that neither the state pension nor unemployment benefits have kept pace with the average wage for over 30 years. Recipients of only these basic benefits are in reality a great deal poorer than the 1980s.

Can we afford the current Welfare Budget?

In cash terms and real terms (where the numbers are adjusted for inflation) Welfare expenditure has increased – a great deal. Our personal incomes and national income has also increased a great deal – in recent years faster than the welfare budget.

The question is do we think the old, the sick and the vulnerable (who make up the vast majority of welfare recipients) should share in our increased national wealth? The alternative is that these groups become increasingly disadvantaged relative to the rest of the population. If, as I do, you think these people should not be gradually disadvantaged the comparison of national income to welfare spending is the most important measure to use. In which case we have afforded greater than the current welfare levels in the past and should not accept the argument that we are unable to afford it now.

Link to the data – workbook include graphs of the groups receiving benefits over time, essentially working age families decreasing as a proportion of spending and retired age families increasing.

*The term “total income” might mean the UK Govt’s tax take but that doesn't get to 24.2%. My best guess is that the number is derived from the ONS welfare expenditure, which is the largest measure available, and projected to be 24.17% of the Total Govt's managed expenditure in 2013/14 - nothing like "Britians Total Income".

Palestinian statehood and need for continued reform

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Hucklesby) — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 23:17:00 +0000

News has just come through on the vote at the UN recognising Palestine as a “non-member State” and Palestinians are celebrating the streets. Several European states decided in the past few days not to oppose the vote that President Mahmoud Abbas has described as issuing "a birth certificate for the State of Palestine".

Leaders within the Palestinian Authority need to use this moment to press ahead with reconciliation and reform. The Palestinian Authority is restricted in its ability to govern by the Israeli occupation and cannot be said to be truly sovereign even within the West Bank. However even within the constraints imposed by occupation it must demonstrate its competence to represent diverse Palestinian interests well. Over the past decade the Palestinian Authority has developed from a dysfunctional body with no popular mandate to an administration that shows an increasing capacity to deliver essential services, albeit highly dependent on outside donors and the willingness of the Government of Israel to pass aid funds on. Currently corruption within the Palestinian Authority still remains a significant problem although some progress has been made.

If the people of Palestine are to capitalise on their non-member State observer status at the UN, the Palestinian Authority must walk the walk that even UN “non-membership” implies and demonstrate to the world it is ready to move to full sovereignty. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights documents the abuse of basic rights in both the West Bank and Gaza. These include; police violence (beatings etc), the use of torture by security services, the constraint on press freedom (particularly with respect to articles supportive of either Hamas or Fatah in the West Bank and in Gaza respectively) and the use of military courts without due legal process. To be in compliance with the core values of the UN, Hamas must be unequivocal in its renouncement of attacks against civilians and show greater willingness to promote the path of non-violence.

There have been positive developments. In October local elections were held in 92 of353 municipalities in the West Bank for the first time for 6 years. But they were boycotted by Hamas who alleged threats, intimidation and arrests of potential candidates.

At the UN, President Abbas is first and foremost asserting the rights of all Palestinians to self-determination but he is also appealing for the Palestinian Authority to be recognised as a body capable of managing the internal affairs of a future sovereign Palestinian state. For this appeal to be taken seriously Fatah and Hamas must work on implementing the reconciliation agreement of May 2011 (and subsequent agreements since), achieve progress on human rights, accountability and transparency, and conduct free and fair elections. This would, no doubt, result in further pressure on Israel to end the occupation.

Government consultation on the price of alcohol in England and Wales

noreply@blogger.com (James North) — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:52:00 +0000

At long last, the Government's alcohol strategy consultation is out. The alcohol strategy, published in March 2012, includes a commitment to introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol and to consult on the appropriate price. This applies to England and Wales. The Scottish Parliament has already approved legislation for a minimum unit price of 50p, but the Scotch Whisky Association made a court challenge in July, and Bulgaria has indicated that it intends to make a similar challenge under EU competition law. Minimum pricing is already under considation in Northern Ireland. The consultation invites responses on various other proposals, including a ban on multi-buy discounts and making health a licensing objective for responsible authorities.

Medical research has concluded that minimum pricing is the most effective policy to reduce alcohol misuse which is causing serious and rising health problems and strongly implicated in many social problems like domestic violence and child neglect.

Methodist, Baptist and United Reformed Churches joined with other churches and charities and wrote to the Prime Minister in January 2012, calling on him to ensure that the Government implements minimum pricing without delay. David Cameron supports this policy, but the Cabinet is divided. The initial objective of the Churches' Measure for Measure campaign - to make the case for minimum pricing - was successful, but it is vital that Government act resolutely in the face of strong industry pressure and implement it at an effective price.

Unfortunately, it is a policy that often confuses people. This makes it easy for those with contrary political or economic interests to repeat half-truths or even errors, such as that it is a 'tax', that it will penalise moderate drinkers or that there is no proof it will work. In 2011 our churches produced this FAQ document which answers the most common objections.

With Scotland looking to introduce a 50p minimum price, it would make little sense for England and Wales to set theirs lower. Initial Goverment figures quoted 40p and it is likely that 45p will be the assumed figure in the debate during the consultation period. A unified 50p unit price would spread the health benefits to the whole UK and has been identified as the optimal price for limiting the worst effects of excessively cheap, strong alcohol. It would also remove the incentive to illicit cross-border trade.

We will give further updates when our Churches publish their official response. But if you are concerned about the harm caused by problem drinking, please do take a moment to complete the online consultation form - the deadline is 6 February 2013.

A Sleepover in London

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Barr) — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:35:00 +0000

I spent last night in a church hall which had been turned into a night shelter for the homeless (run at this church here). We brought them in, gave them dinner, a warm bed and breakfast and then sent them on their way. The Church was taking part in a rolling night shelter program that gives homeless people a shelter for a night to make it easier for them to deal with applying for social housing, attending language lessons, and even job interviews, during the day.

I had never been involved in such a thing before, and was curious to see what it would be like. We had been told that, though we might think that we serving the homeless, we would find that this was nothing more than a cosy comforting half-truth we employ to make ourselves feel like good people. In fact, the homeless guests would be ministering to us. I hadn’t quite believed it, but it turned out to be true.

I arrived late, having had a couple of messages to run in the city, so dinner was half over by the time I got there. Standing at the door looking over the room, it was genuinely difficult to tell homeless guest from well-meaning volunteer. I took a place at a table I thought was full of our guests, and found myself opposite two friends from church. I had known homeless people have a funny sort of dress sense, - understandably so given their circumstances – but it turns out my friends do too.

One of them was deeply involved in a conversation about politics and economics, of a type not altogether dissimilar from those we have here in the Joint Public Issues Team, with a couple of the guests. They spoke of the ‘madness’ of what’s going on in the continent, recession – austerity – bigger recession – sympathy but more austerity. Then the discussion turned to economists. They have a way, opined the homeless guy, of hiding what they do behind a curtain of jargon in order to prevent others getting in on the discussion, and to pretend the facts of life don’t matter (I paraphrase). I told him a little of my work in JPIT. I regret to report, he laughed.

My interlocutor was quite philosophical about his own situation. “It’s funny” he said, “given my circumstances, but I used to be a volunteer." He then told me how he used to do work voluntarily with young offenders. He made some ‘decisions’, he said, slightly obliquely, - one could argue the toss about whether they were right or wrong - but it is "interesting" to see where they led. So, I thought, this guy was once the good citizen who gave up his time voluntarily to help others. The type we all look up to

The conversation stopped shortly afterwards, when another guest started playing the piano.

“Ahh, how nice it is to be young, that you can be so naive and impressionable” I hear the cynics out there cry. “Your guests might all have been nice guys, but night shelters vet people thoroughly before allowing them in. You were speaking to a select few in a controlled area” True enough, but these people could easily be the same sort of people I will step over on the way home from work today; people who have simply run out of luck, or become the loser in the shortage of housing. Consider this list of the rich and famous who became homeless. Or this of the homeless who became rich and famous (it includes James Bond). It is easily done, but we must be careful not to stigmatise those who sleep on the streets.

Election Fever. Bring out the Ballot Boxes!

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Barr) — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 14:26:00 +0000

Elections are very much the water-cooler topic of the hour. Tonight we shall all enjoy spending the small hours practising our mathematics with the arithmetic of the US electoral college. And on Thursday we shall set our gaze on the 18^th congress of the Chinese Communist Party, at which the next batch of leaders will be selected. What a fine week this is.

But in all the excitement we could easily forget that, on Thursday 15^th November, we shall be having some elections of our own; those for the office of Police and Crime commissioner. These elections have struggled to gain profile against other political stories of the day. This is remarkable given that they are a first, and a key part of the Coalition law and order policy.

Indeed the main way they have made the news is for the extent to which they have been ignored. Last week’s episode of Have I Got News For You told of the sorry tale of one of the candidates for the role of Humberside police commissioner. He held a public meeting, where he was going to tell the good residents of North Hull what he would do if elected, and discuss with them the best approach to law and order. Only four turned up. Three were his sons and one was a gentleman of the press. Only one regular member of the public came in during the course of the evening. Pangs of pity become particularly acute when one hears that this candidate is a father of five

But who is this man who wants to be the Humberside police commissioner? He might be the very stereotype of a bombastic colonel with a tweed jacket, hunting helmet and an overgrown moustache who wants to bang up everyone who falls short of exacting standards of propriety.

On the other hand he might be long haired 1970s style hippy with a flowery shirt who wants to fight the power and finds that punishment is oppression by socio-political structures.

Or he might be a candidate for the BNP or the English Democrats, with an agenda based on prejudice, a policy of scapegoat-ing and proposals far from anything our churches could possibly view as acceptable. Will the residents of Humberside ever know who might hold the police to account on their behalf?

It just so happens that this candidate in question is nothing like any of the above in any way. He is eminently sensible, a retired superintendent with 30 year of experience in the Humberside police force running as an Independent (Against several other candidates). Some may think his experience makes him uniquely qualified, others uniquely unqualified. The point is that one has to know in order to make a decision.

The Joint Public Issues Team has put together a briefing on the new office of police commissioner, and the Caritas Social Network has thought of some questions you could ask your candidates. You can find out who they are here.

So please, if you have any interest at all, find out whose running in your area, find out what they are saying, and VOTE!

The Morality of Drone Attacks – Moral Maze Radio 4

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Hucklesby) — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 15:52:00 +0000

Last night’s Moral Maze on the morality of drones is worth listening to but it should come with a health warning. The cut and thrust nature of the debate that makes the programme so entertaining can cause key arguments to be neglected or too easily dismissed. Three of the ‘witnesses’ on the programme are people that I have worked with closely. Chris Cole, Dr Peter Lee and Paul Schulte span a spectrum of the debate. (Peter Lee and Paul Schulte were contributors to the Baptist, Methodist and URC report Drones: Ethical dilemmas in the application of lethal force.) The fourth witness Richard Kemp, a former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, provided a very worthwhile, albeit somewhat disconcerting, contribution.

Dr Peter Lee, KCL

Last night’s debate did have some elements of surprise – even for the well-established panel members Giles Fraser, Melanie Philips, Matthew Taylor and Michael Portillo. One came when Peter Lee was asked, at the start of his witness section, what problems he had with drones. “I don’t” was the two word reply. One area in which the flow of argument seemed less coherent was on the question as to whether or how drones are different from any other form of air power.

However it was implicitly acknowledged, although not actually stated, that drones offer a capability to track and kill which is of an order of magnitude more advanced than other forms of military hardware. Drone technology has been critical to the transformation of the CIA into a paramilitary organisation. The witnesses (with the exception of Chris Cole) all seemed to defend the necessity of this development in the context of counter-terrorism. Paul Schulte argued from a perspective of pragmatic realism. His robust tone might have been more subdued had he been asked more open questions on his view of the morality. As it was, this section strengthened the overall perception arising from the programme that combating terrorists with missiles in a global “war on terror” was an inevitable direction of travel.

The impact of armed drones on communities who are subjected to persistent surveillance was poorly addressed in this 45 minute programme. A view from Pakistan was not present. Are we to accept that the impact is exaggerated by the Taliban? The impact of living under drones was covered briefly in the section with Richard Kemp for whom the impact on communities was an inevitable and excusable consequence of war. But what about countries with whom we are not at war?

We have issues in the UK with video surveillance in our communities. We generally now welcome cameras in our city centres to help combat crime. We are less keen to have them scattered throughout our neighbourhoods and outside our houses. We tolerate or welcome them because ultimately there is accountability for their use (and indeed now we can elect our Police Commissioners). We would not however tolerate a proposal to attach guns to the cameras and enable them to roam our neighbourhoods freely with no accountability. Imagine then, that this proposal is not only implemented, but that the cameras with guns are used to kill 3000 people and are controlled by an un-trusted even hostile foreign power. We would have a major uprising on our hands.

What then is the strategy in north-western Pakistan? Not only is the CIA’s use of armed drones an abuse of human rights, it does not make sense in the battle for heart and minds. It is causing the family members of those who have been unjustly and unaccountably killed to join the ranks of violent Islamic militants.

Giles Fraser, who lectures on ethics and leadership at the Defence Academy, Shrivenham, and who is the keynote speaker for our conference, Think, Speak, Act, provided an impressive performance against difficult odds. He was given 5 seconds for a last word: “it is difficult but we have to hold ourselves accountable to a higher moral standard and we still have to believe in the rule of war”.

Trading Away Peace

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Hucklesby) — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:47:00 +0000

In 1993 the Oslo agreements were marked with the historic handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn. Israel agreed to withdraw from defined areas of the West Bank and Gaza and to allow elections to take place to enable a Palestinian Authority to have some degree of autonomy. At the time the population in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories was 282,000. Today it is over 500,000.

Israeli Government policy has encouraged the expansion of settlements in the West Bank although this expansion is recognised to be illegitimate under international law by the United States, EU and UK government. It is claimed that settlements restrict Palestinian movement to such an extent that they now call into question the viability of the two-state solution.

Today 22 agencies and churches have published a report detailing the EU’s trading relationship with Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The report reveals that the volume of EU trade with illegal settlements is 15 times that of trade with Palestinian communities in the West Bank.

The faith-based groups in the UK supporting this report are Christian Aid, Quakers and the Methodist Church. They are asking for national governments within the EU to make the importation of settlement produce illegal. Meanwhile, in the short term, we are calling for the labelling guidance on Israeli settlement produce that has been introduced by the UK and Denmark to be extended across the EU. This enables consumers to determine, in the case of products originating from the West Bank, whether a product has been sourced from Israeli settlements or from Palestinian areas. The Methodist Church in Britain endorses this report in line with Methodist Conference resolutions that have called for progress towards peace and justice in the region and the avoidance of goods sourced from settlements. The agencies supporting this report do not support a general boycott of Israel.

I have previously mused on the roles that the EU might play today in supporting a durable solution in Israel/Palestine. This focus on trade with settlements represents one possible contribution from the EU which is Israel’s largest single trading partner. Trade with Israel and Palestine should continue to be a force for increased understanding and co-operation. A refusal to trade with illegal settlements would send the strong signal that the EU views adherence to international law as one vital aspect in achieving justice and resolution to conflict.

Welfare Spending Cuts – IMF data undermines the case

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Morrison) — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:19:00 +0000

Welfare Spending Cuts – IMF data undermines the case

Christine Lagarde Director of IMF

This month the IMF has published its latest report into the world economy - the IMF World Economic Outlook . News stories talked of the report’s lowering of UK growth predictions, but much more importantly the IMF report contains a finding that undermines one of the central assumptions of UK’s economic policy. It provides substantial evidence that Government spending cuts do much more damage to the economy than had previously been thought

When the Government cuts its spending everyone agrees that the UK’s economic output (GDP) will be reduced – the question is by how much. The Government has underlying its policy and predictions the assumption that for every £10 of spending cuts only £5 will be lost to GDP. What the IMF report says is that for every £10 of spending cuts somewhere between £9 and £17 of economic output is be lost. In the jargon the fiscal multiplier is not 0.5 as previously thought but varies between 0.9 and 1.7.

The implications for economic policy are huge. Many counties, the UK included, are reducing their levels of borrowing by rapidly cutting government expenditure. Slow economic growth reduces government income and reduces the government’s ability to service its debts. So borrowing less can make a nation worse off if it hurts economic growth too much. If the effect of spending cuts is 2 to 3 times more than anticipated then policy needs revised - and quickly.

As can be expected a number of people have challenged the data, and it will take time to reach a new broadly accepted position on the effects of cuts. What is fascinating is the extraordinarily poor evidence base for the previous consensus and the numbers that underlie the Government’s current forecasting. Moreover the Government numbers for economic multipliers are based on the data of the past 30 years unaltered since the economic crisis. It is not surprising that the current climate has changed the effects of government spending dramatically. What is surprising is that many economists and politicians are unwilling to even contemplate the possibility that the facts are changing – even in the face of the new IMF data.

The driving force behind huge swathes of the austerity policies which are causing pain to the poorest all round the world appears not to be strong evidence but worryingly inflexible ideology. As someone who in my previous career designed new vaccines it shocks me that the level of evidence necessary to test a new medicine on ten volunteers appears to be several orders of magnitude greater than the level of evidence required to impose a potentially catastrophic economic policy on billions.

Welfare spending makes economic sense.

Economic case for further £10Bn of Welfare Cuts undermined

The economic multiplier story has a further twist as everyone acknowledges that different types of government spending have different economic effects. If the money government spends goes to a person or company that in turn spends the cash quickly, then this will have a good economic effect (or high fiscal multiplier). If the money is put into savings or spent abroad, this is economically inefficient government spending (with a low fiscal multiplier).

Poor people have no choice but to spend their money quickly. Poor people have no choice but to spend their money in the UK. For this and a number of other reasons welfare is an economically efficient way to spend government money. Moody’s, a stalwart of the US financial establishment as well as the world’s largest credit ratings agency, in a US study estimated that for each $1 spend on welfare the economy $1.73 of economic growth was generated. The study was performed in 2008, pre-crisis, and all indications are that performed today, the benefit of increasing welfare spend would be considerably more. They also noted that the methods of stimulating the economy preferred by the UK Government – tax breaks to business and people higher up the income spectrum - were much less effective at generating growth, with $1 of government money adding only $0.34 to $0.50 to the economy, largely because the money is not spent by the recipients quickly.

The Effects of Further Welfare Cuts.

You can forget the maths and the jargon if you want but the implications of the data should be remembered. The Churches have argued that hurting the poorest most in public spending changes is morally wrong as well as being socially divisive. The IMF and others have now produced strong evidence that hurting the poorest is also economically damaging.

It is now difficult to find any evidence for the view that the £10Bn of further welfare cuts as announced last week would be either morally, socially or economically wise. Let us hope the evidence reaches the policymakers before further harm is done to the most vulnerable communities in this country.

Colombia – peace, human rights and ecumenical accompaniment

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Hucklesby) — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:45:00 +0000

Photograph: William Fernando Martinez/AP: The Guardian

A new round of peace talks begin this week in Oslo between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc) and the government of President Juan Manuel Santos. Officially peace has already come and under law the government treats armed activity as criminality. In practice many areas remain on a military footing and groups on both sides use violence to control land and business interests. Colombia is still the world’s largest source of cocaine.

Colombia has the greatest levels of poverty and inequality of any country in Latin America. There is a new Victims and Land Restitution Law so that small farmers can apply for the return of lands that they have lost to elites during the war. However in effect much power is in the hands of local military factions. Restitution of stolen land would require the blessing of whatever faction holds sway in the area otherwise the consequences could be life-threatening. More than 25 land rights leaders have been killed since August 2010. In an article in the Guardian yesterday, Victor Salas, a municipal official in the town of Corinto who deals with complaints about human rights abuses, comments that he very rarely gets a complaint about rebel abuses although Farc dominate the area. “Around here you have to know how to live” he says “If you want to stay, you keep your head down”.

In situations such as this the Churches’ commitment to justice is tested. It is encouraging therefore that local and international churches are seeking to rise to the challenge, helping local people achieve restitution and begin to reassert some control in their communities. An Ecumenical Accompaniment programme has recently started, inspired in part by the programme operating in Israel and Palestine co-ordinated by the World Council of Churches. The Methodist Church Colombia is supporting the Latin American Council of Churches in managing this programme in conjunction with international partners. It will place international monitors in affected communities in order to support local people in taking steps to realise their rights. Find out more here and do consider supporting this programme.

Do consider writing to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Draw the Minister's attention to the role of international human rights monitors in Colombia. Ask the Minister to use his influence to ensure that the Colombian Government guarantees protection for Land Reclamants and their human rights defenders in keeping with International Law and Colombia’s Human Rights Obligations.

Living under drones – and UK drones march

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Hucklesby) — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:48:00 +0000

A startling report has been released by Stanford University. It provides a comprehensive assessment on the impact of US drone strikes in northwestern Pakistan. Research teams spent time in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in February/March 2012 and in May 2012.

Two aspects of this report stand out for me. Firstly the detailed account of the impact of drone strikes on community life in the target areas. The report states that the presence of drones “... terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behaviour.”

Secondly evidence that a ‘double-tap’ tactic continues to be employed by the CIA whereby a second missile is fired a couple of minutes after the first killing those who have come to the aid of casualties. There are several testimonies to the effect that consequently after a drone strike people no longer rush to the rescue of those hit for fear of a second missile. A ‘double-tap’ is deplorable. It hardly needs stating that the targeting of rescuers constitutes a war crime under the Geneva Convention.

Our churches have publicly challenged the Foreign Secretary to distance the UK from the US drones strikes in Pakistan. We have written to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and will be publishing the response when it arrives.

The Living Under Drones report illustrates that the capabilities provided by drone technology (e.g. persistent surveillance and track and kill capabilities) are currently running ahead of agreed ethical and legal constraints around the use of drones. The position of the UK military is that the Rules of Engagement that we apply to

the use of the RAF’s armed drones are identical to those that we would apply to fast jets and other forms of air power. But drones raise new questions for us and these need thorough consideration and debate.

Consequently many are calling for the drones to be grounded. Revd Bill Anderson, Chair of Birmingham Methodist District has been marching this week with others to protest the development and use of drones. This will culminate tomorrow in a demonstration at RAF Waddington, Lincolnshire, where the RAF plans to locate its drones control centre next year.

[See also our Churches' report; Drones: Ethical Dilemmas in the Application of Military Force]

Review: Masters of Money on Marx

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Barr) — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:58:00 +0000

Let the ruling classes tremble in the face of a communist revolution. The proletariat has nothing to lose but its chains. They have a world to win. Proletarians of all countries, Unite!

And with that Karl Heinrich Marx signed off the Communist Manifesto and sent it to the printers. It was a radical, nay politically explosive, leaflet that provided much of the inspiration for the communist states of the twentieth century. Needless to say, it didn’t work as intended. The proletariat was not made free, and it did not prosper. But if the fall of the Berlin Wall consigned Marx and his writings to the ‘ash heap of history,’ capitalism’s current sorry pass may turn them into a phoenix. Maybe people will start contemplating once more the revolutionary method. Well, the man is back being discussed on prime time television, anyway.

Masters of Money, the three part series on macro-economists, finished this week by applying Marx (widely recognized as the economist with the best facial hair) to the modern world. If you can look past all the communism stuff, explained the presenter Stephanie Flanders, you may find that Marx does offer a decent analysis of capitalism’s current crisis.

Capitalism has much to its credit. Marx recognised this. But he believed also that capitalism was just a phase of human progress, and that it contains within it the seeds that would one day lead to its ultimate destruction. Pehaps we are seeing this come to pass.

The programme explained how, by means of several helpful illustrations involving wooden logs and lego men.

The fact of private property divides the worlds in to ‘Haves’ and ‘Have-nots.’ The ‘have-nots’ find that, as they don’t have anything, they must work to take wages from the ‘haves’. They are the workers. Their bourgeois bosses, the ‘haves,’ will sell the fruits of their labour on for a greater price than they paid for them. Capitalism is, after all, driven by the profit motive. Bosses will shrink wages as much as possible in order to enlarge profit margins. This will widen the gap between rich and poor (or perhaps, in the phrase of a certain ragtag bunch of campers, the 1% and the 99%). It will also diminish the spending power of the average worker. Money will stop circulating, and that spells crisis. Or, if capitalism is clever, it invents the credit card and sub-prime debt, and reschedules the crisis for a later date.

The drive for profit destroys the means of its production. So capitalism is doomed. It is a historical inevitability.

Is he right in his analysis? Perhaps in part. The last 30 years or so, - the trade union actions of the 1970s, the monetarism of the 1980s - could be viewed as a struggle between boss and worker. The wide pay gap between rich and poor can be ascribed to the aggressive pursuit of profit, and the vast industrial reserve armies of central Asia deflating the value of the worker’s labour. And reckless borrowing can indeed be caused by a lack of funds.

But capitalism is still with us, even after all the crises. And the workers of the world are not paying much attention to Marx’s call. But let us suppose that Marx was indeed spot on. Capitalism is doomed to destruction by its internal contradictions. Let us further suppose, just for fun, that the one solution is indeed revolution. Capitalism was only ever going to be a phase, anyway. Now we must replace it with something new. What shall that be?

Hayek's Austrian way

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Barr) — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:53:00 +0000

Last week, the BBC’s Masters of Money programme explored the life and works of Keynes. This week it crossed over an intellectual gulf to look at his great academic sparring partner: F. A. Hayek. Like Keynes, Hayek had significant influence on western economic affairs and political philosophy. His pamphlet The Road to Serfdom informed the thoughts of the young Nigel, now Lord, Lawson. Margaret Thatcher’s famous handbag contained quotes, apparently. And when Hayek died, his daughter in law was asked if she had informed the President of the United States. So what were all these people reading?

They were, of course, reading the man’s ‘free market’ philosophising. Hayek viewed markets as natural wonders, evolved, in the Darwinian sense, over the years to become the motor that drives civilisation’s progress, that delivers ever greater prosperity to ever more of its citizens. The world’s markets are a grand ‘telecommunications network’ that matches supply with demand and which, somewhat magically, communicates this information through price. It is magnificent work that these markets do, he argued, so let them move. And don’t get in their way, Government! Don’t fix prices and interest rates, and don’t try to bend markets to your will by manipulation of the money supply.

This was Hayek’s most radical idea. When governments try to intervene in the economy they generally foul it up, he said. And there is certainly plenty of evidence.

The programme took us to the New York stock exchange of the 1920s, and described how the newly established Federal Reserve started buying government debt on the open market in order to get money into the economy. It also kept interest rates low. This encouraged everyone to borrow more. With high credit and cheap loans, explained the presenter Stephanie Flanders, a boom was created and people started investing heavily in property and shares. And we all know how the 1920s in New York finished. Fast-forward to 2001, and the Federal Reserve cut interest rates in order to encourage every one to borrow. With high .... I won’t bother repeating myself.

Hayek’s lesson from the sorry tale was that government’s fixing of the interest rates had distorted the signals that the market was sending to its participants: the grand telecommunications system was broken. The artificially low interest rate told that there was much cash available, sitting in bank accounts, waiting to be invested. There wasn’t. And when investors realised this, there came a spectacular bust.

Therefore, said Hayek, states should lose their control of money, and private citizens should be free to trade in whichever currency they trust - there could be dozens in circulation in one economy. Governments would no longer be able to set interest rates, and currency competition would restrain it from such things as quantitative easing. This, thought Hayek, might avoid a lot of trouble.

No Government is going to do this. Giving up power is not in their nature. To many the Hayekian vision looks, as Krugman put it on the show, like the Wild West, when “men were men and currency was free,” a time that was heavily prone to financial crises. But as the Government’s fiscal and monetry tricks for economic revival fall foul of unintended consequences, will the vision of ‘government-free markets’, become more enticing, more doable? Or will it remain a naive and fanciful utopia?

Celebrating Peace this Weekend

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Barr) — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:04:00 +0000

Today is the International Day of Peace a date which has been marked since 1982 as an occasion to celebrate peace. It is also referred to as ‘Global Truce Day’ as throughout the world, people are asked to suspend conflict and reflect on what is required to build peace. And it works: according to the UN Department for Safety and Security Peace Day 2008 saw a 70% reduction of violent incidents in Afghanistan. In that country, Peace Day agreements have led to the vaccination against polio of 4.5 million children in recent years.

Following on from International Peace Day, this Sunday is ‘Peacemaking Sunday’. Churches across the country will explore what it means to be peacemakers in a world of conflict, and how to share the values of the Kingdom in a world of chaos. The Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Methodist Church and United Reformed Church have produced material for a service, including hymns, prayers, reflections and a visual meditation on the many problems that inhibit peace. These materials can be used this Sunday or at another date in the future. They can all be found on our website: http://www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/peacemakingsunday/

Review: Masters of Money on Keynes

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Barr) — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:02:00 +0000

If you, like members of the Joint Public Issues Team, are prone to ponder such things as the power of the markets, Government spending or the velocity of money circulation, you could do far worse than tune into the BBC2 series ‘Masters of Money. ’ Presented by Stephanie Flanders, the three programmes examine some of the problems that dominate the headlines through the lens of Karl Marx, Friedrich August Hayek, or John Maynard Keynes, and the influence they still have on economic affairs. The night before last, the series kicked off with Keynes, one of the earliest cheerleaders for government intervention in the economy. Go watch on Iplayer

While telling the story of his life and times, the programme steered the viewer through some the key insights that Keynes gave the ‘dismal science’ of economics.

· Unlike other sciences, economics has to contend with irrational human sentiments and so can not predict future events by analysis, or the application of set rules. (Keynes learned this the hard way: He used to spend his mornings analysing economic statistics in order to speculate on the markets, but despite all his work he failed to predict the Wall Street Crash)

· If these ‘Animal Spirits’ remain gloomy; an economy may just sink and stay stuck.

· The Government can, and should, ‘step in’ to prevent this from happening, running up whatever deficit it needs to in order to prevent this from happening.

And this basic thought has been embedded in western economic policy ever since. The programme took the viewer to the Hoover Dam, built on government debt during the great depression; to a giant solar-power plant in the Arizona dessert, built on the same stuff today, and to Pirelli, the tyre manufacturers who have been able to continue trading and avoid lay-offs largely thanks to UK government stimulus spending, .

So far so blah, and it would be predictable, inaccurate and invidious for me to turn this post in to an argument against the Governments policy of deficit reduction (a cause which is looking ever more lost). Keynes was proscribing a remedy for the problems of a different era. When he called for more government spending in the 1930s, the treasury was borrowing less than 10% of national income. Now it is hovering around the 60% mark

So why, I hear you ask, do you bring this programme to your attention? Well largely for Keynes’ wider insight into market economies. It might count as a golden rule of capitalism.

· Begger thy Neighbour (trading partner), Begger thyself.

The programme told of how his attending the negotiations for the Treaty of Versailles, at which he saw huge reparations exhorted against his counsel from the vanquished foe. The experience inspired him to write ‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace.’ He argued, not that the treaty was immoral, or unfair, but that it was stupid. Germany was broke, he pointed out; she would not be able to pay these sums, and it would cause untold harm to expect her to do so, with no advantage to victor nations. In the clear light of hindsight, it looks as if he was bang on the money. (What, we may wonder, would Keynes say about the current situation of the Greeks?)

Later on, viewers learned that in 1944 Keynes headed the British delegation at Bretton Woods, a conference organised to discuss the post WW2 economy. The economic woes of the 1930s, and to an extent the War, had as he saw it, been caused by nations pursuing their own interests with scant regard for others. The result was misery for all.

So, applying that principle ‘Begger thy Neighbour, begger thyself”, he proposed a complicated system which would have tied the worlds economies together, and seen those with a trade surplus funnelling money to those with a trade deficit. This would, he thought, force economies in to a close relationship with each other, making a world economy that was more accessible to individual nations, and avoid the financial imbalances that cause so much trouble. It was a very clever scheme for keeping the world economies stable.

The scheme was, understandably, rejected by the richer trade-surplus nations, who did not see how such a policy could be in their benefit.

But one question remains: can such mechanisms for managing the world economy create financial stability, equality, and shared prosperity or, are they a self-defeating hubris that forgets to take account of the 'Animal Spirits'

God and Chocolate - Inspiration from the Great Quaker Industrialists

noreply@blogger.com (James North) — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:17:00 +0000

Cadbury’s Dairy Milk; Fry’s Turkish Delight; Rowntree’s Aero and Fruit Pastilles. These evocative names represent affordable luxury to generations of children and sweet-toothed adults. Yet how many people today know that these global brand leaders that filled the nation’s grocer’s shops and newsagents were Quaker owned and all started out as small family businesses?

In 2010, after nearly 2 centuries of business, Cadbury’s was taken over by Kraft in a widely publicised hostile takeover. Fry’s and Cadbury’s had merged early in the 20^th Century and Rowntree’s became part of Nestle in 1988.

In response to this sense of a passing era, Deborah Cadbury, a collateral relative of the chocolate-making branch of the family, wrote The Chocolate Wars. This engaging and amusing book tells a story that matters to all those interested in social justice, of how Christian-inspired businesses were once a powerful force for social good. Readers are strongly urged to buy the book and read it with a favourite confection to hand.

Social justice and business? If there is one thing many political ideologues on both right and left often assume unthinkingly, it is that business means multi-national companies, venture capitalism and top-down power structures, rather than small business. New Labour largely meant reconciling the Left with this sort of ‘capitalism’. As such it is disappointing but unsurprising that Ed Milliband’s calls for ‘responsible capitalism' have met with widespread scepticism or indifference. But maybe we need not responsible capitalism, but ethical businesses, and historically these have usually started as small, family or community based concerns that grew organically.

Business was essentially the only career open to UK Quakers as until 1828, like other non-Anglican denominations, they were forbidden to participate in the professions like law or attend University. The Quaker ethos was austere, work oriented but compassionate and community-based. These qualities were ideally suited to the age of industry and commerce, and utterly disprove the belief that maximising profits at all cost for anonymous shareholders is the key to success. Chocolate was seen as socially beneficial, a perfect health drink for a time of widespread concern about the harm caused by alcohol misuse. Industrial innovation meant that Cadbury could provide a product in a variety of forms that they could market for its purity, at ever decreasing costs.

Likewise, Quaker religious principles meant that their workers’ welfare was paramount. Cadbury’s built Bournville (which gave its name to a superior Cadbury’s chocolate bar) an exquisite area for Cadbury’s workers which inspired other ‘model villages’ built by religiously-inspired Victorian philanthropists. The Cadbury’s understood that affordable housing, workers’ rights and community development are inseparable: they negotiated cheap rail fares for their factory workers, provided onsite kitchen, sports and even medical facilities for their staff.

But industrialisation also had the potential to increase inequality in society. Joseph Rowntree and his son Seebohm were pioneering analysts and workers against poverty. Seebohm authored the seminal work“Poverty, a study of town life” about poverty in York, which Winston Churchill said “fairly made my hair stand on end”. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation remains a key resource for those campaigning against poverty and inequality.

However, typically, as chocolate became a vastly profitable global business, the Cadbury’s business model – low key advertising, consumer loyalty, the implicit Nonconformist sympathy – was undercut by the competition from companies like Mars and Hershey’s. (American companies in particular made highly effective use of radio and television adverts in the post-WWII period.)

The fortunes of the Cadbury and Rowntree families show that competition and innovation can coexist with a model of work and business integrated with people’s lives, housing and community and that those blessed by God with wealth and influence must give something back. Their Christian faith protected them from the socially destructive blindspot endemic to current policy making, which is to treat people as individual units, who can be housed anywhere or employed in any way decreed by top-down strategies, rather than members of the abundant communities of mutual goodwill God intends.

Yet ironically, as doctors increasingly see sugar as a highly addictive substance and excess consumption implicated in obesity, diabetes and heart disease: can we still see chocolate as a healthy alternative to alcohol and an affordable luxury without a twinge of guilt? The early Quakers would have deplored the tendency for food producers to rely on the ‘addictive’ qualities of highly flavoured or sweet foods to gain a competitive edge, but they did not have the scientific knowledge available to us.

What kind of world would we live in if people made the purpose of their business to make the world a better place?

Gold Medal for the U-Turn?

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Barr) — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:56:00 +0000

The Olympics are over; the flame, at last, is out. Now little remains for us but to tell each other how good it all was, and how ‘positive’ the atmosphere felt, as we await the Paralympics in a fortnight’s time. But if you, at any time, feel you are missing the visceral thrill of watching brave competitors strain every nerve and sinew to succeed at some astonishing feat of power, against heavy odds, fear not. You may soon see politics warming up to attempt a U-turn worthy of a gold medal that will surely be entered in to the annals as a “legislative legend.”

I refer, of course, to reports that some senior minsters are keen to review impact of the current extension of Sunday Trading hours with a view to making it permanent. It is not hard to understand why they want to do this. Despite the quantitative easing, the enterprise zones, and the various lending schemes and targets, the UK economy has been shrinking now, for three consecutive quarters. The government is getting desperate, and so grope, clumsily, for something – anything – that might boost Britain’s trading potential. They look at the laws on Sunday trading, a relic of a bygone era, and see a simple way to deregulate business.

It is far from certain that longer trading hours would do much for the economy, but we must leave that to one side. The economy, despite rumours to the contrary, does not determine everything. Far more importantly, deregulating Sunday trading would be a spectacular U-turn. The government made quite it quite clear that relaxing the restrictions on Sunday trading was strictly a measure for the Olympic and Paralympic games.

George Osborne announced the measure in his 2012 Budget Speech.

“George Osborne: So we will introduce legislation limited to relaxing the Sunday trading laws for eight Sundays only, starting on July 22^nd”

Then, when Vince Cable introduced the Bill, he repeatedly received questions such as ...

Mr Andrew Smith: What sort of assurance can the Secretary of State give the House that the Bill, or the experience of deregulated trading during the Olympics, will not be used as a Trojan horse to introduce wider deregulation measures? Will he promise the House that that will not happen?

Vince Cable responded

Vince Cable: There is the suspicion ... that the Bill is a Trojan horse preparing the way for a permanent relaxation of the rules. It is not: the Bill sets out clear time limits and contains a sunset clause. Any move towards the abolition of the UK’s Sunday trading laws would require new legislation, a full consultation and extensive parliamentary scrutiny. Let me repeat, therefore, that the Bill is not a signal of the Government’s intent on the broader issue of Sunday trading; rather, it is motivated by a desire to capitalise on the unprecedented benefits that accrue from the privilege of hosting the Olympics.

Many politicians, and outside interest groups, accepted or supported the relaxation of the Sunday trading laws on the understanding that it was strictly temporary. To make it permanent would be a Uturn, or as Conservative MP Mark Pritchard has put it, a major breach of trust.

So far, so routine .... and I started by talking about the Olympics. Well, if the government managed to execute this U-turn, and actually bring about complete deregulation of Sunday trading, it would be - for them - a triumph of Olympian proportions. Tory Grande Dame Margaret Thatcher tried to deregulate Sunday trading in 1986. She was at the height of her powers, and her government enjoyed a majority of 140, but the bill was defeated nontheless at the second reading. It remains the only Government bill to be defeated at the second reading since the Second World War.

The current government, on the other hand, is a weak coalition, growing ever more strained, with a majority of 38. It now may be about to attempt permanent deregulation of Sunday trading, despite such a move being identified as the cause of a new rift in the coalition, ripe for Tory backbench rebellion, despite 89% of people being opposed, and despite having promised parliament and the country that they wouldn’t do that very thing. I wish it very best of British luck.

Stand by for a Gold Medal U-turn.

Renewable energy – a medal winning opportunity

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Hucklesby) — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:27:00 +0000

Yesterday we notched up more gold medals in the Olympics than we have had in 104 years with the promise of more to come. Whether this will be a one-off performance for Team GB is yet to be seen but our stellar showing in the medal table this year is no quirk of fate. There has been national programme to identify young talent and help athletes to achieve. Resources have been strategically focused to ensure that those with potential have every chance to perform at the highest level. And clearly it has paid off. In terms of gold medals per head of population, among countries with populations above 10 million, we lead the world!

Could the Olympics offer inspiration to other projects on a national scale? The government recently published their proposals for the most far-reaching reforms of the UK energy markets since the privatisation of the energy sector in the early 1990s. The Energy Market Reform Bill is due to come to Parliament towards the end of 2012. The Committee on Climate Change is clear on what must be achieved. We need to substantially decarbonise our power sector by 2030. They suggest that this implies carbon emissions from the power sector of no more than 50 gCO2/kWh. The good news is that WWF, working with academic institutions in the UK, have published a report titled Positive Energy that demonstrates that this ambition is feasible and affordable without needing to resort to building new nuclear power stations. Their report shows that with the right policies and infrastructure in place we could easily meet 60% or more of the UK energy demand from renewable sources by 2030 without risk of the lights going out.

The bad news is that the Department of Energy and Climate Change are clearly lacking that quality of ambition that has led Team GB to such a success. They seem wedded to expensive investment in nuclear power above investment in green jobs in the renewable sector where potentially Britain could lead the world. Consequently a number of international companies have become nervous about investment in the UK renewable sector and indeed some have axed plans for such investment. The Treasury is keenly involved. With both eyes firmly on the Treasury coffers, George Osborne seeks a new dash for gas. (See the current 38Degrees action directed to Nick Clegg). Gas does have an important role to play in the short term but the Department of Energy and Climate Change want to give new gas-fired powered stations a licence to pollute the atmosphere at unsustainable levels until 2045. 2045 is well beyond the timescale required for decarbonisation of the power sector. The Committee on Climate Change has written to the Secretary of State warning that this lack of ambition implies emissions not of 50 gCO2/kWh but 200 gCO2/kWh in 2030. This is inconsistent with the Government’s carbon budgets and therefore its stated commitment that the UK will play its due part in helping to avert catastrophic global warming.

The General Secretaries of the Baptist Union, Methodist Church, United Reformed Church and Quaker Peace and Social Witness have also written to Ed Davey, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Last week we received a response and will put this on line shortly (sign up to our newsletter for further updates). We are asking for a clear decarbonisation target to be included in the forthcoming Energy Market Reform Bill and for the government to unequivocally state its commitment to and level of ambition for renewables. There will be a strong world market for these technologies in years to come. With just half the ambition demonstrated by Team GB, the Department of Energy and Climate Change could enable the UK become a world leader in renewable energy technology. But the draft Bill offers no clear strategy or certainty for investors. Without this Britain will find itself well down the rankings in the medal table for renewable technology and action on climate change.

Westminster Faith Debate: Religion in Public Life

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Barr) — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:41:00 +0000

This was the grand finale of the Westminster Faith Debates; and, as is the want of grand finales, this event had the biggest names, t he largest crowd and the best venue. The speakers were Tony Blair, - fresh from a Prime Ministers’ Downing Street Dinner with the Queen -, the Arch Bishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, and Charles Moore. They strode in to the room at Methodist Central Hall together and took their seats in front of the assembled audience of 450. A few introductions from Charles Clarke and Professor Linda Woodhead, a masterfully timed, laughter-inducing eyebrow flicker from Rowan Williams, and the discussions began.

The topic in hand – Religion in Public Life – wasn’t new. Indeed, it was a matter that the Ancient Romans also had to debate. The speakers can be forgiven therefore, for not coming out with anything original. What was said has been heard before, but it was interesting to hear it from such worthy voices.

The Archbishop spoke of the church being a place where people put a lot of emotion. They expect it to have a holding or brokering capacity. The church will also, he said, rally round and help out when the nation is in crisis. Good to know! Charles Moore spoke of his journalistic frustration at religions becoming less interested in communication as they get more organised. “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” is a media mission, he said mischievously, and the Gospels are, among other things, extended pieces of journalism. Good point, but how does one make an ancient institution such as the Church of England, media savvy?

Tony Blair, ever the polished politician, encapsulated the political desire to merge the needs of all faiths and communities together so that everyone can get on and live harmoniously in a neat and pithy phrase: We need “religion friendly democracy, democracy friendly religion.” When questioned about legalising gambling by the Salvation Army, Blair said that the case was a good example of what he meant. He didn’t agree with the Salvation Army, but they made their case well and he, after consideration, pursued the course of action that he genuinely believed to be best for the country. That’s how democracy works. Religions must be allowed to make their case passionately from faith, but they must accept that they are not always going to get things their way.

This country has been banging the drum for such democratic pluralism for quite a while now, and clearly it is easier lauded than achieved. There are obstacles in its path. In a Telegraph interview preceding the debate, Blair pointed out that many faiths have an ‘exclusive truth claim’ for their religion: that it alone contains the path to true salvation. This claim can make it difficult to accept that other decent and honourable people will reject the claim, and believe something else.

There was no definitive answer to that, but all agreed that open, honest and good quality dialogue helps. Blair argued that greater religious literacy would help all of us understand each other, and realise how much religions have in common. People must speak openly about their faith, he said, mentioning that while leader of the opposition, he was visited by a representative of the Salvation Army, who after the meeting, got him and a couple of nameless reluctant aides on to their knees for prayer. They said ‘for God’s sake;’ he said ‘exactly!’

Dialogue, though, can be impeded by the widely held concern that faiths are being programmatically pushed out of public life in favour of a new “religion of human rights.” What role can there be for the churches voice in the public square in such circumstances? To this the Archbishop replied that an omnipotent “God does not need disciples to win his arguments”. We mustn’t conclude, he said, that the public square is on some centre ground where all sound people will agree, and where religion is tolerated as an off beam eccentricity, for religions are more involved in public life than that. Human Rights conventions, for example, owe much to the contribution of Christian ethics to society. Religions can and should, advance solid arguments in public, based on faith and grounded in practical fact. Blair and Moore spoke in agreement.

And with that the debate was over. The three stood up and walked out the door opposite to the one through which they had entered, and were gone. The rest of us were left to find a way out through a crowd of clergy, activists, think tankers, and representatives of numerous groups, religious and secular and anti religion. All discussing what they had heard.

A Day of Prayer for Farmers - 29 July

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel Lampard) — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:29:00 +0000

At heart I've always been a city girl, but one consequence of doing an early commute is that I hear Farming Today on Radio 4 each day. As a result I know more about cheese production and badgers than many of my more rural friends.

But urban or rural, late or early riser, it's been hard to miss the farmers in the news recently. Droughts, flooding, grain prices, TB and most recently cuts in the prices for milk - it's not an easy time to be a farmer. Farming is always risky, but this year is proving exceptional, and for many farmers the pressure may prove to be too much.

The Farm Crisis Network is holding a Day of Prayer for Farmers on Sunday 29 July. The prayer below was written by the Right Reverend Donald Allister, Bishop of Peterborough.

Heavenly Father,

the earth is yours and the harvests are your bounty.
We pray for our arable farmers
in this year of extreme weather.
We pray for our dairy farmers
with supermarkets forcing the price of milk down
and with bovine TB in some parts of the country.
We ask your blessing on the harvest
and on all who work in farming.
We ask that farmers facing difficult times
may know your love
and our support.
Through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.

More than Bricks and Mortar?

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Barr) — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:49:00 +0000

Many in our churches believe that their faith calls them to be public-spirited, socially aware and outward-facing. The mission of the Church involves constantly seeking to engage with the world outside, and work tirelessly to perform acts of mercy and justice. So what do the people of a church do when demand for housing outstrips the supply; when the cost of housing rises faster than the average pay packet; and when the need for housing pushes more and more people into unsustainable debt?

Churches have a long and proud history of engagement in housing problems. They have set up almshouses, housing associations, rent deposit schemes and supported housing networks. They run day centres, night shelters, housing advice offices and much else. All this – often voluntary – work is driven by the conviction that secure and affordable housing is essential for the flourishing communities and abundant living of which we so often speak. Cleary Christians should have plenty to say about the current housing crisis. But what?

The new Joint Public Issues Team resource More than Bricks and Mortar aims to encourage and assist church discussions on this important matter. How should we make the ethical and theological case for housing? Should the Government create much more housing or control spiralling housing costs, and how can individuals get involved with housing issues locally? And equally importantly, it considers whether Churches are called to do more to provide affordable housing at this critical time.

This resource was produced after lengthy discussions with experts involved with housing. It summarises key facts and figures, and sets out some of the practical, political and theological dimensions of the housing crisis and offers up some questions for discussion.

Please read this resource, and debate and discuss it with other interested individuals. And then let us know what you think and if your church is acting to tackle housing problems in your area. We would be particularly interested to hear from you if your church has already been called to provide affordable housing, or you think there is an opportunity in your neighbourhood.

Read More than Bricks and Mortar here and contact James North with your comments and questions

Let's hear it for the Methodists!

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel Lampard) — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:20:00 +0000

This was the enthusiastic title of an article in this week's Law Society Gazette, not a usual source of support for our work.

Roger Smith, director of the law reform and human rights organisation, Justice, expressed delight that the Church had "grappled with the ethical elements of one of the major politico-miltary issues of the day - the use of unmanned military drones".

He argues that the key issue raised by drones is the ethics and law of assassination. The report by the Churches makes the point: "Terrorists function outside the law. It is vitally important that the UK and its allies do not do so too".

Actually it should have sung the praises of the URC too, as the report Drones: Ethical Dilemmas in the Application of Military Force was considered at both the Methodist Conference and URC General Assembly, and will soon also be considered by Baptists.

Smith ends with the line: "So the Methodists [and URC and Baptists] are right in their choice of relevance and morality." Encouraging to hear that this work is striking a chord with new audiences.