Looking ahead to 2015

Let’s look forward to what the New Year holds in store, the coming months will be increasingly dominated by the General Election on Thursday 7th May 2015.

Before we groan at the thought of endless political clamour we should recognise the significance of government and politics.

If there are specific policies we deprecate it is worth asking what we did to persuade politicians and public opinion not to choose them as opting out removes our right to complain.

The generations who struggled to win votes for all must turn in their graves at the 40% who don’t bother to vote and anyone cynical about politicians has to say what they have done to help elect people they respect.

The 2010 election gave no party a majority and the Coalition was born and the polls currently suggest a similar result but not another coalition.

If he doesn’t win a majority Mr Cameron is thought to favour a minority government and Labour leaders are having similar thoughts.

The Liberal Democrats have suffered from being in coalition and are expected to lose seats and they will want to restore their political identity and not join another coalition.

Alternative coalition partners are unattractive and Cameron is said to have ruled out working with UK Independence Party (UKIP), who are unlikely to win enough seats to make much difference anyway. 

A Labour led coalition with the Scottish National Party (SNP) is unlikely if the nationalists take many traditionally Labour seats in Scotland but they will probably be the third largest party at Westminster..

Minority government is fragile and only survives if given ‘supply and confidence’ support by the smaller parties.

This means voting with the government so that it wins votes of ‘no confidence’ and passes its Budget.

With that in mind the Conservatives have been cosying up to the eight Democratic Unionist MPs and Labour might do a similar deal with the SNP if the concessions demanded by the Scots are not excessive.

We voters will have a big say in what happens but we might not like the result.

Minority governments are vulnerable to pressure from their own extremes as John Major experienced in the 1990’s.

Perceptions of weakness would only increase voter cynicism and they would also make it more difficult for Ministers to tackle difficult issues such as climate change and developing low cost sources of energy, that require long term planning.

Sorting out the economy and the right balance between the responsibilities of the State and the individual and the implications of that for taxation and the welfare system won’t happen in a weak government.

  

Determining Britain’s future international role and relationship with the European Union (EU) also call for a government not constantly fighting for survival.

Christians concerned about the incidence of family breakdown and the moral state of the nation will also be frustrated by governments lacking the will and authority to adopt appropriate policies.

Secular materialism and moral relativism will continue to shape public opinion and public policy until a credible Christian voice persuades us to change course.

My New Year resolution will be to pray for this.

What does it mean to bless the poor this Christmas?

Whether it’s filling a shoebox or donating to charity, Christmas has traditionally been a time to remember the poor.

As Christians, we are – or should be – good at giving to those in need; the Bible is full of commands to look after the most vulnerable.

But what if the needy aren’t miles away, but on our doorstep? 

Inequality in the UK is steadily increasing, and we are currently experiencing the greatest gap between rich and poor since the Second World War. 

With 13 million in poverty, and of these an estimated 4 million living in food poverty, this Christmas many will be relying not on shoeboxes but on parcels from their local food banks.

That this deprivation exists in the seventh richest nation in the world is shocking, but it’s not just this that is the problem.

Also of fundamental importance is the way we view the poor – because the portrayal of the poor in the media is as much of an issue of injustice as poverty itself.

The idea of the deserving versus the undeserving poor emerged in Victorian times, and is a concept that is just as prevalent today.

On the one hand, charity adverts and programmes press all the right buttons to get us to part with our cash.

Against a background of sad music, a tale is told of blameless victims of circumstance, poor through no fault of their own and serious-sounding celebrities implore us to donate whatever we can.

They are the type of ‘hard-working families’ politicians tell us the welfare system is there to help.

And then there is the second camp: the unemployed scroungers, the druggies, the hoodies with ASBOs and the chavs who buy plasma TVs with their dole money.

Newspapers scream headlines of benefit fraud and immigrants sponging off the state.

There is an assumption that some people deserve to be poor because they are too lazy to work or simply bad at managing their money.

The fact is that many popular perceptions of poverty are untrue, and the poor often go unheard, powerless against a political-media narrative that is biased against them.

When times are financially tough, it’s the most vulnerable – the poor and the outsider – who become society’s scapegoat, and never the rich and powerful.

This polarisation of the poor is also far from biblical, where instead of polarising, we are instructed to bless the poor without condition.

Jesus never said: “Give to the poor, but only those you think deserve it.”

This is the Jesus who died for us, regardless of our merit and we should give generously and without judgment, because when we give, it’s as if we give to Jesus himself (Matthew 25:40). 

But when we buy into the humiliation of the poor, we deny one of the core values of Christianity – to love our neighbour as we love ourselves.

So how should we respond and what does it look like to bless the poor this Christmas?

Giving is – well – a given! Whether we can afford a little or a lot, there are many ways to give financially, be it donating to charities or directly to those in need.

But secondly, and I believe just as important, is our mind-set.

Poverty is so much more than a lack of resources: it’s a state that robs people of joy, hope and purpose.

Loving the poor means treating people with dignity and honour, and challenging the notion that anyone deserves to be in poverty.

So this Christmas, let’s turn our attention to giving generously and loving without judgment, just as Jesus did for us.

“Then the righteous will answer him: “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?” 

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”  (Matthew 25: 37-40)

Would Jesus renationalise the railways?

A recent YouGov survey won the prize for the most stupid question in an opinion poll:

Do you think Jesus would support or oppose renationalising the railways, so they are run in the public sector rather than by private companies?

It's unlikely Jesus would have held a view, given that public transport had not been invented. 

But as one wag pointed out on Twitter: 'He arrived by Virgin'!

This is just one of a series of questions YouGov asked in what it calls 'a new thought experiment', with the explanation, 'we would like you to image that Jesus expressed views on the political issues of the day.'

In the analysis of its findings, YouGov compared respondents' own views with what they imagine Jesus would think which, they claim

'suggests interesting insights as to how virtuous, or at least Christian, they consider their own political views to be.'

For instance, on nationalisation of the railways:

the net proportions who support and oppose it in the public are similar to the proportions who think Jesus would support and oppose it, suggesting that it is not considered a particularly moral issue.

By contrast, however, Jesus would not see eye-to-eye with most of the public on immigration:

where 77% of British people say immigration limits should be tighter and only 5% looser, Jesus is imagined as favouring looser restrictions by 39-15%.

and on the death penalty:

with the public tending to support it by 45-39%, but Jesus imagined as being in opposition by 49-17%.

The most interesting response of all was:

On the issue of gay marriage, the British public maintain that Jesus would be in favour of it - although to a lesser degree than the public are themselves. As of May 2013, voters were in favour by a margin of 54-37%, while Jesus is thought to only slightly support it by 35-30%.

If you're concerned about whether or not Jesus would save the railways from privatisation, you may be pleased to know that the majority (38%) of respondents thought he would.

What have we done to the image of Jesus, liberator of the oppressed, when the public think he is more likely to renationalise the railways than to respect the dignity of loving same sex couples and their desire to make a life-long commitment to one another?

Making sense of the Autumn Statement

On Wednesday 3rd December 2014, the Chancellor delivered his last Autumn Statement before next May’s general election.

The purpose of the Statement is to report on the state of the economy and outline the government’s economic strategy, with detailed changes being announced in the Budget.

Next year’s Budget day is too close to the prorogation of Parliament for its impact to be felt in time to influence the voters so Mr Osborne announced measures on Wednesday 3rd December 2014 that might ordinarily have come in the Budget.

The key aim of his economic policy set in 2010 was eliminating the deficit by next year and that is only half done and more cuts in public expenditure are needed to achieve that goal in the next Parliament.

However much the public recognises the need for this, five years of austerity have left most of us feeling worse off.

The Chancellor had no scope for big hand-outs but had to offer something to sweeten the public mood and persuade us to return him to office to finish the job.

He began by listing what his policies had achieved.

The economy is growing by 3% this year, faster than any other developed economy. Business investment has grown 27% since 2010 and manufacturing is growing faster than other sectors.

More people are in work than ever and 80% of the new jobs are full time.

Average wages have increased 4% over the last year and the gender pay gap is at an all-time low.

We may not feel the benefit yet so what could he do to cheer us up?

A focus on housing was one response and a cut in Stamp duty for 98% of homebuyers, paid for by increasing the duty on the most expensive homes will be welcome, so will the sale of £1 billion worth of government-owned land to make possible the building of 100,000 affordable homes.

Other measures include an extra £2 billion for the NHS, and £1.2billion for GP services, to be paid for from fines on foreign exchange dealing in the City.

The freeze on fuel duty will continue and air passenger duty for children under 12 will be abolished.

Pension law will be changed to enable the pensions of deceased persons to be passed to their loved ones free of tax and there is also help for churches needing major repairs.

The Chancellor observed gloomy prospects for other economies, especially those in Europe which are our major market for goods and services.

A £45 million package will help British firms to connect with the faster growing developing economies.

Multinational companies that avoid tax by transferring their profits overseas now face a 25% tax and the business rate relief on small businesses has been doubled.

The Shadow Chancellor (who when in the latest Labour government was partly to blame for the banking & economic crisis) was as predictably unimpressed who stated that:

 ‘Osborne’s pledge to balance the books by 2015 had been broken, working people are worse off and tax revenues are down.’ 

‘Productivity is not increasing and our exports record is poor. Bank lending to small firms has been inadequate.’

Has the Chancellor done his best?

Will people remember the mess the previous government left the UK in between 1997 - 2010?

The voters will decide on Thursday 7th May 2015

Restoring democracy in British politics

British politics is on the brink of major change, the 2010 election gave us a coalition government and 2015 is likely to do so again.

The Conservatives have half done the job of cutting the deficit but living standards have fallen.

Labour do not yet look like an alternative government and are expected to lose up to 30 seats to the Scottish Nationalists.

The Liberal Democrats are competing with UKIP and the Green Party for smaller numbers of seats.

SNP could be the third largest party at Westminster and say they would only support a Labour led Government on terms unlikely to be acceptable.

What is causing this change from the traditional pattern?

One obvious cause is growing disillusionment with the mainstream parties and the MPs expenses scandal was not the principal driver but it did not help voters to respect MPs.

The increasing number of professional politicians who have not had a previous career outside politics also distances them from their electors, but more serious is the perception that MPs are preoccupied with short term partisan squabbles and not getting to grips with serious long term issues.

The economy is one example.

We will have had five years of austerity but the deficit is still too high and more public spending cuts are required and promised tax cuts are a distant prospect.

That is unwelcome to a generation told that waiting can be taken out of wanting.

Immigration is a second big issue for some voters, school class sizes, NHS waiting times and shortages of affordable housing are the pinch points persuading voters that more migrants from the EU is a price not worth paying – hence growing support for UKIP.

Climate change and finding eco-friendly energy sources is another issue about which the politicians seem to be dragging their feet whilst vested interests block progress.

Welfare reform divides the parties who seem unable to agree a balance between caring for the genuinely needy poor and rebuilding a culture in which work and self-reliance are popular virtues.

Underlying these issues is the short term nature of politics today.

These are long term issues not capable of being resolved within the scope of a five year Parliament.

So what can be done to restore a democratic political culture and institutions?

Devolution is already on the agenda but so far primarily for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and it could be taken further.

Giving the larger local authorities power to raise local taxes, more discretion in land use planning, housing and social services, with proper mechanisms of accountability, could encourage citizens to greater engagement in local politics.

This would break down the ‘them and us’ attitudes that undermine democratic participation.

Nationally, the parties could be encouraged to seek cross-party consensus on such issues as climate change and energy supplies instead of making them subjects for partisanship, that would make possible policies that survive changes in government.

If we want democracy we as citizens must be prepared both to participate and pray for practices and policies that restore and maintain it.

Ebola Outbreak: What is it that scares us so much about it?

We have all been watching with concern as the Ebola outbreak in West Africa worsens week on week.

But from some corners, there’s been criticism that the media coverage has been so focused on European and American victims.

It should come as no surprise to us that the instinct for (self-interested) fear runs deeper than humanitarian empathy for people living far away.

But what is it that scares us so much about Ebola? Not, I don’t think, the thought of the symptoms themselves (horrific though they are) 

It’s the perceived lack of control that terrifies us: the thought that this invisible threat could sneak undetected onto our little island and pass unseen from person to person; the idea that one day soon the coughing work colleague or friend could be carrying something significantly more sinister than a common cold.

However small that likelihood is, fear is certainly a powerful emotion.

That’s why it’s interesting that quite a lot of media attention has been focused on the role of the military in responding to the outbreak: on Tuesday 21^st October 2014, it was announced that 100s more British army personnel are going to fight the epidemic.

For us here in Britain, there’s something reassuring about seeing that khaki presence in West Africa and it helps us to imagine that Ebola is an enemy that can be seen and controlled—or “contained and ultimately defeated”, as the International Development Secretary said on Monday.

And we should be earnestly praying that it would be! Let's beware cynicism.

The right response, as Christians, is to allow our hearts to be broken by the suffering Ebola has caused and those people who are using their God-given gifts and knowledge to tackle Ebola—and are willing to risk their own safety in the process—should be commended.

But we also know this truth: when we feel out of control, it points us to the one who is in control.

He’s the one who is able to stop any enemy — be they guerrilla fighters in the desert or tiny microbes — in their tracks.

Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other. - Deuteronomy 4 v 39

Looking beyond ISIL

Archbishop Justin Welby wrote in Prospect Magazine on Wednesday 15^th October 2014, on the struggle against violent fundamentalism. 

The article deserves reading and the core message is immensely challenging and we should take it to heart. 

The theme is one that he touched on in his speech in the House of Lords on Friday 26th September and then, he stated that our response to ISIL must be on an “ideological and religious basis that sets out a more compelling vision, a greater challenge and a more remarkable hope than that offered by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

We must face the fact that for some young Muslims the attractions of Jihadism outweigh the materialism of a consumer society.”

He suggests that if we are to win this struggle, it requires a review of those aspects of our own culture that rest in power and self-advancement. 

There is a reference our “undisturbed wealth” and the need to reshape our own values, as much as to overcome those of ISIL.

This implies the nurturing of a spirit of humanitarianism and selfless giving. 

This call for self-criticism seems to have been overlooked by the editors who provide a subtitle that includes the anodyne phrase “we should not relinquish our values”.

It is the Archbishop’s comments on intervention, pacifist principles and Just War that might generate the greatest comment. 

His comments on Just War, imply a rejection of the notion of a global war on terror and might also raise obstacles for endorsement of a military intervention in Syria. 

The danger is that discussion becomes limited to ‘military intervention right or wrong’ although the Archbishop has urged a focus on the global struggle for “the heart and the spirit” if we are to defeat extremism. 

This struggle is not solely, or even primarily, concerned with military responses to violence but requires us to question systems of power and trade and reassess our commitment to international law.

In May 2015, who would Jesus vote for?

In May 2015, we have the chance to head to the polls and decide who will represent us in parliament and who will form the next government.

Frustration at being ignored by MPs, anger at numerous public spending scandals and a lack of leadership and substance from political parties’ means deciding who to vote for is no easy task.

Christian children from the 90s and early 00s will remember wearing What Would Jesus Do? (WWJD) bracelets, you probably still find “WWJD” randomly popping into your head.

It’s not surprising then, that as we strive to live a godly life, we contemplate who Jesus might vote for.

As we seek to validate our political position, we may find comfort in convincing ourselves that Jesus would be on our side.

Socialists would emphasise Jesus’ vocal and active concern to care for the poor and marginalised.

Conservatives would look to personal responsibility and a strong work ethic.  

Libertarians would cite Jesus’ challenges to empire as a clear advocate for reducing the role of government in our lives.

Christian anarchists would highlight His refusal to engage systems of government all together to achieve his ministry.

As nice and convenient as it might be, Jesus doesn’t fit neatly into our boxes and He most definitely doesn’t fit into the rather simplistic and increasingly irrelevant left/right spectrum

Throughout scripture Jesus throws ideological curveballs that don’t conform to any sort of neat political doctrine.

The reality is that no political system is perfect, no political party is perfect and perhaps stating the obvious, no politician is perfect; the reason being that politics is made up of you and me – sinners saved by God’s unending grace.

So within this reality I think it is completely impossible to claim Jesus for our political side.

As we see in scripture, Jesus never shied away from engaging or commenting on issues of the day. I find so much hope and inspiration in the way that Jesus actively participated in the public square.

I don’t doubt that He would encourage us to vote.

In Romans we’re called to be good citizens and in 1 Timothy to prayer for our leaders, Esther and Mordecai lobbied the authorities of their time and Daniel successfully engaged with the society of his day through a senior government role.

I don’t know if Jesus would vote and I definitely don’t know who He would vote for, but I don’t think that it’s worth dwelling on that.

What is important is to prayerfully consider our vote through the biblical narrative, recognising that no choice will be perfect because we live in a not-yet perfect world.

Jesus is characterised by His compassion and concern for all humans, regardless of their wealth, status, religion or race.

Through a hope-filled message of salvation, Jesus’ actions and words reflected justice and mercy, being a responsible citizen, engaging in community life and caring for the vulnerable.

This is what all of us should reflect on as we decide on whichever party to vote for on Thursday 7th May 2015.

Bombing Iraq: is it falling into 'ISIL' trap?

On Friday 26th September 2014, MPs approved UK military intervention in Iraq against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) by 524 to 43 votes.

This enables the UK government to join the USA in carrying out air strikes on Iraq and the aim is to weaken 'ISIL' forces, responsible for various atrocities. 

But the attack may strengthen them instead.

'ISIL' (a so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant that misuses religion to pursue power) has sparked widespread revulsion after releasing videos of western hostages being beheaded and other abuses include persecuting religious minorities.

Unsurprisingly, many people back military action.

However it is important to question why 'ISIL' has been so keen to publicise its own atrocities, in ways that make it an obvious target for attack.

One purpose of such videos is presumably to spread terror in the areas 'ISIL' controls or is trying to seize and another is to bolster its prestige.

However it seems likely that commanders wish to encourage an attack by the USA and allies.

This may not be simply down to fanaticism or bravado but rather a considered decision that the benefits may outweigh the disadvantages.

While some people are attracted by 'ISIL’ claims, its narrowness and brutality have met local resistance and to regain popularity, Isis may be seeking to exploit the hostility triggered by a display of western military might, with resulting casualties.

The Middle East policy of the USA has largely focused on the interests of oil companies and, to some extent, the arms industry. Out of self-interest dictators have been fêted and toppled, international law upheld and defied.

'ISIL' may wish to pose as an heroic defender of Arab and Muslim honour, bombarded by the same superpower (backed by its UK sidekick) which underwrote the devastation of Gaza and this may divert attention from its misdeeds and assist it in smearing its critics as stooges of the west.

Just as images of civilians executed by 'ISIL' have sparked widespread revulsion, so may pictures of the bodies of women and children blasted by US or UK bombs and the propaganda advantages may outweigh the military drawbacks.

Western governments indeed face a difficult situation, in that their prestige may be damaged and commercial confidence affected if they are not seen to take strong measures and yet even on grounds of pragmatic self-interest, it might be wise not to dance to 'ISIL’ tune.

A drive to promote human rights on a principled basis would probably be more effective in undermining 'ISIL’ power.

In the late 1940s, Muslim and Middle Eastern statespersons, scholars and others, along with those of other faiths and nations, helped to develop a Universal Declaration of Human Rights covering economic and social as well as political rights.

Since then internationally many people, of various religions and none, have helped to develop thinking and practice that advances rights for all, including those at greatest risk of injustice and violence.

Yet many are not aware of this history or of how human rights principles overlap with what is best in their own traditions.

Even when governments give priority to corporate interests or their own prestige, citizens can choose to take a different stance.

Ultimately it should be possible to counter violent extremism and militaristic displays, whoever is responsible, and form alliances to build a better future.

‘Political correctness’ and child protection in Rotherham

There has been widespread anger since an inquiry revealed that at least 1,400 children were sexually exploited in Rotherham from 1997-2013.

Yet many adults in Britain are still in denial about the extent and seriousness of child sexual abuse.

Home Secretary Theresa May on Tuesday 2nd September 2014, claimed in a statement to the House of Commons that “institutionalised political correctness” was partly to blame, a widely-made claim.

This is odd, given the macho, sometimes crudely sexist, atmosphere exposed in the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham 1997 - 2013 report published on Thursday 21st August 2014 by Professor Alexis Jay.

However it did highlight the risks when a few, mainly male, ‘leaders’ are treated as representatives of whole communities.

The abusers in this instance were mainly of Pakistani descent and (at least nominally) Muslim though, nationally, perpetrators are found in every community.

Some of those in responsible positions who tried to cover up such activities pretended that investigating such crimes thoroughly would upset community relations and ongoing revelations raise serious concerns about their motives.

In reality, as the report points out, Asian children were also being abused.

The hard-hitting findings overlap to some extent with those of other inquiries into child abuse, especially on child sexual exploitation (CSE).

This involves under-18s (or a third party) receiving something (for example, food, accommodation, drugs, alcohol, affection, gifts, money) as a result of performance of sexual activities and gangs may be involved and technology such as mobile phones, may be used.

A 2012 report by the children’s commissioner for England pointed out the extent of the problem but senior government sources described this as “hysterical and half-baked”.

The Rotherham report makes it harder to ignore and provides useful information for those who want to protect children from harm in Britain and beyond.

From a sample of case-files examined in depth, many of the children had repeatedly gone missing from home or local authority care:

“Almost 50 per cent of children who were sexually exploited or at risk had misused alcohol or other substances (this was typically part of the grooming process), a third had mental health problems (again, often as a result of abuse) and two thirds had emotional health difficulties.”

Jay stated, “There were issues of parental addiction in 20 per cent of cases and parental mental health issues in over a third... There was a history of domestic violence in 46 per cent of cases. Truancy and school refusal were recorded in 63 per cent of cases.”

While some police were conscientious, a disturbing feature was their frequent indifference or contempt towards victims, whose distress sometimes resulted in ‘difficult’ behaviour, and unwillingness to crack down on perpetrators.

This is all the more surprising given the links with drugs, guns and general criminality.

Disturbingly, “In a small number of cases... the victims were arrested for offences such as breach of the peace or being drunk and disorderly, with no action taken against the perpetrators of rape and sexual assault against children.”

At a case conference for a 12-year-old abused by five adults, a CID representative argued that this was not abuse because he thought the child had been ‘100 per cent consensual in every incident’”.

A council-supported outreach project did valuable work with survivors, but mainstream children’s services were under-resourced and burdened with box-ticking and reorganisation.

Social workers tended to focus their limited resources on small children rather than those slightly older who were sexually exploited and mental health care for survivors who needed it was often not readily available.

While there was some positive change following earlier critical reports, senior managers still largely failed to address the severity of the problem and professional rivalry also played a part.

Far from providing leadership, council members were largely unhelpful or obstructive and some showed worrying attitudes.

Senior officers described how, regarding “Pakistani-heritage women fleeing domestic violence... a small number of councillors had demanded that social workers reveal the whereabouts of these women or effect reconciliation rather than supporting the women to make up their own minds.”

According to the report, “The prevailing culture at the most senior level of the Council, until 2009, as described by several people, was bullying and 'macho', and not an appropriate climate in which to discuss the rape and sexual exploitation of young people.” Improvements have since been made.

But the report warns that progress may be halted as massive cuts hit council services.

Though “across the UK the greatest numbers of perpetrators of CSE are white men”, most known perpetrators in Rotherham were of Pakistani descent and most identified victims were white but Asian children were also targeted.

“One of the local Pakistani women's groups described how Pakistani-heritage girls were targeted by taxi drivers and on occasion by older men lying in wait outside school gates,”

Jay states:

“With hindsight, it is clear that women and girls in the Pakistani community in Rotherham should have been encouraged and empowered by the authorities to speak out about perpetrators and their own experiences as victims”.

According to Nazir Afzal, national Crown Prosecution Service lead on violence against women, quoted in the Guardian on Wednesday 3rd September 2014:

“It is not the abusers’ race that defines them. It is their attitude to women”.

He suggested that Asian men’s role in the night-time economy, for instance as minicab drivers or in takeaways, gave a small minority of sexual predators access to vulnerable youngsters.

Many people, white and minority ethnic, are reluctant to acknowledge the extent and seriousness of child abuse, including CSE, especially if perpetrators or their protectors are ‘respectable’ members of their own communities.

Child protection remains a Cinderella service, heavily overstretched.

Without proper resources and attitude change among the public and decision-makers in Rotherham and nationally, vulnerable children will continue to be repeatedly victimised

The Conservative-led UK government defeated over the bedroom tax

The Conservative-led UK government was defeated in the House of Commons on Friday 5th September after their Coalition partners broke ranks over the controversial bedroom tax. 

Several Liberal Democrats joined forces with Labour MPs on an Affordable Homes Bill 2014-15.

This private member’s bill, brought by Liberal Democrat MP Andrew George, was passed at second reading by 306 votes to 231 and the debate can be watched by following the links below:

·         Affordable Homes Bill 2014-15: Second Reading

It will now be considered in detail at committee stage.

The so-called ‘spare-room subsidy’, widely known as the bedroom tax, was introduced in April 2013.

It slashes housing benefit for social housing tenants of working age by 14 per cent if they are deemed to have one extra room and by 25 per cent for two or more surplus rooms.

But, with narrow exceptions, this takes no account of the particular needs of disabled people and their families or the importance of support networks.

It is estimated that two-thirds of households affected by the bedroom tax have disabled members.

If Parliament passes the new bill, people unable to find a smaller home would be exempt, as well as disabled people needing an extra room (for instance for equipment) or with an adapted home.

Work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith claimed it would cost the Treasury £1 billion to reverse the changes.

Yet evidence suggests that the bedroom tax overall probably costs more than it saves financially in the short to medium term, in addition to the human cost.

Longer-term financial costs may push the price up higher still, since the bedroom tax targets people when they are at their most vulnerable.

For instance, if a single parent loses her job and cannot get another instantly, so that she is reliant on housing benefit, she may be expected to move to another area, so that nearby relatives can no longer offer free childcare.

If a bereaved child struggling to cope with the death of a sibling is then relocated many miles away, far from friends and teachers who would have provided emotional support and companionship, the resulting psychological damage may be serious.

Many people on middle incomes have backed harsh measures against their poorer neighbours because they have believed the government’s claims that such people are ‘scroungers’ living well at their expense.

Yet these ‘strivers’ have seen the super-rich enjoy huge gains while their own standard of living has fallen.

The programme of cuts in social security and public services has been presented as a prudent response to an economic crisis.

Yet money has been found for tax cuts for millionaires, keeping tax loopholes open, and for vast expenditure on weaponry.

Austerity is mainly about ideology, including breaking bonds of mutuality and undermining human rights for all.

While the willingness of some Coalition members to support a softening of the bedroom tax may seem a small move, it may turn out to be part of a wider shift.

Families, the Coalition and Impact Assessments

For people at the sharp end, the poorest and those most dependent on public services, it sometimes feels as if the Coalition has spent the last four years steadily unpicking the very fabric of our society.

For a long time this process has been under-reported by the media, but gradually the results are becoming impossible to ignore.

There can be few people more utterly dependent on the quality of a public service than prisoners.

Exploding the myth that such services could ‘do more with less’, Nick Hardwick, the Chief Inspector of Prisons warned on Monday 11th August

‘Overcrowding and staff shortages in England’s jails are now so bad that they are directly fuelling a rise in the number of prisoners killing themselves.’

Outside prisons, perhaps cuts to local authority funding have the greatest impact on people’s lives, leaving them without adult social care and other essential services. 

But the consequences never become a national story because they are, by definition, local.

Conveniently for the government, people blame Councils for these cuts, despite the fact that the Councils are at the mercy of government spending decisions.

And as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has reported in 2013, that local authority cuts have been targeted on the poorest areas.

With foodbank use rising inexorably, with more and more families finding themselves in problem debt, the Prime Minister came close this week to admitting that many families could have been adversely affected by some of his government’s measures.

But his analysis of the problem ignored some inconvenient truths, and his proposed solution left some people astounded by its contradictions.

In his speech on Monday 18^th August, the Prime Minister said,

‘We know that one of the biggest strains in a relationship can come from problems with money.’

Few people would disagree. But then the Prime Minister said,

‘And the biggest cause of such problems is not having a job.’

It would be understandable if most people believed this, but one would expect the Prime Minister to know that this is not true.

One of the most remarkable features of recent years has been the growth of in-work poverty, so that now, more than half the people living in poverty are in households where at least one person has a job.

And it is now surely undeniable that welfare reform has hastened the downward spiral into poverty for many families.

Even the Centre for Social Justice, a think tank founded by Iain Duncan Smith, and not just supportive of government welfare policy but instrumental in writing much of it, has acknowledged this.

In ‘Maxed Out’, a report issued in November 2013, the CSJ spoke of the alarming rise in debt which puts a ticking time bomb at the heart of many families.

Conceding that the under-occupancy penalty/bedroom tax had contributed to the problem of rent arrears, the CSJ concluded:

 “Unless proactive steps are taken, problem debt in the UK will continue to grow unabated. The current levels of debt are worrying because they not only have severe financial implications, but also more wide-ranging impacts on people's mental health, family stability, and ability to work. These are especially pronounced amongst low-income households and the vulnerable.”

Whilst Mr. Cameron did not actually go so far as to take responsibility for anything specific in his speech, he did say,

‘We can’t go on having government taking decisions like this which ignore the impact on the family. I said previously that I wanted to introduce a family test into government. Now that test is being formalised as part of the impact assessment for all domestic policies. Put simply that means every single domestic policy that government comes up with will be examined for its impact on the family.’

Again, the contrast with his previous pronouncements on such matters was stark.

In a speech on Monday 4^th November 2013,  Mr Cameron promised to get rid of ‘reams of bureaucratic nonsense’. 

He promised to cut back on judicial reviews, reduce government consultations, and continued,

‘We don’t need all this extra tick-box stuff. So I can tell you today we are calling time on Equality Impact Assessments.’

When disabled people virtually begged for a cumulative impact assessment of how welfare reform and cuts were affecting them, they were treated with contempt by the government.

The WOW petition secured a parliamentary debate on the issue, but still no such impact assessment was undertaken.

The government said it was too difficult, despite the fact that several other organisations, like the Centre for Welfare reform, have been able to produce just such a report.

So, if the Prime Minister is suddenly persuaded of the value of impact assessments, this could be good news.

If future policies are properly examined for their impact on families, particularly those in poverty, that would be excellent news. 

There is, however, one big stumbling block

.

The impact of many policy decisions that have already been taken is yet to be felt.

As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation pointed out Tuesday 1^st July 2014, for the poorest families, the worst is yet to come. 

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has forecast that from 2013/14 we will see an increase in the number of households, both in work and out of work, experiencing poverty.

Despite Mr. Cameron’s new appreciation of the value of impact assessments, this means that many more families will be falling into debt.

And as the Children’s Society has said in their report published in May 2014,

‘Our work with families across the country tells us that significant debt can damage children’s health and happiness and do long-term harm to their lives. Children see, hear and feel what is going on around them. They feel debt’s sharp effects and are often left sad, confused and scared.’

For these families and these children, any future impact assessments will be too late