|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Bishops' Pastoral Letter
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
There has been widespread media coverage this morning of the House of Bishops' Pastoral Letter in advance of the British General Election.
In a highly critical leader article, the "Times" has called it "a political letter" which is "unsolicited, disingenuous and in at least half a dozen respects nakedly partisan". The "Sun" claims that the CofE has "revealed its hand as the religious wing of the Labour Party"; while the "Mail" sees is as "narrow-minded and insular" and suggests that "the bishops should throw away their mitres and stand for election" if they "wish to enter the political fray" - or else "stick to their day job".
My feeling is that the Bishops have done a good job and clearly touched a nerve! I also feel that they are always caught on the horns of a dilemma, accused of being "political" and "interfering" if they make statements of this kind, yet dismissed as "out of touch" if they confine their interventions to churchly affairs. To me it seems axiomatic that there are guiding political values within the teaching of Jesus and the Scriptures; what do other Shipmates think?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
Nice to see some positive news (the statement, not the newspapers)
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Has it annoyed the Tory press? That's generally a sign you're getting it right.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
marzipan
Shipmate
# 9442
|
Posted
only read your link, not any of the reaction, but given that a few bishops already have a political role, it seems good that they are encouraging other folks to act politically too (by which i mean think, discuss, vote etc)
--------------------
formerly cheesymarzipan.
Now containing 50% less cheese
Posts: 917 | From: nowhere in particular | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There's no way I'll have time to actually read the fairly long document itself. So, I have to rely on what the media say about it.
BBC News picked up a couple of points. One was that the Bishops letter was very critical of the political system, in particular the BBC highlighted the rather disgraceful nature of Prime Ministers Questions. The BBC reports also highlighted support for some general principles from each of the main parties, as well as criticism of some general principles from each of the main parties.
My impression is that the letter isn't a call to vote a particular way. More, it's a call to think about how you vote, and some guidance as to how the bishops consider Christians should think about the questions.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I think that's right. But, by emphasising values such as justice in wealth or opportunity, Britain's place in the wider European community and welcome to strangers, it appears to be promoting more of a left-leaning ethos than one which inclines to the right. Hence the anger in some Tory circles (which, of course, may also still hold remnants of the view that the CofE is part of the "establishment" and should therefore not challenge the status quo).
FWIW, one Sunday before an election many years ago, I prayed that such values as the Bishops are advocating would be upheld as people went to vote. After the service I was roundly confronted by a true-blue member of my congregation who charged me with "preaching politics in my public prayers" and told me that it was "obvious" which party I voted for. Neither assertion was true.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Just read it.
I agree with most of it and it reminds me of a document from the RCC called 'The Common good' which came out before a previous general election.
I'd be interested to know which particular bishops had a hand in its drafting, though it seems obvious to me that Welby had a lot to say, given that much of the content echoes RC social teaching, in which he has a strong interest.
I dare say that the tories will have not understood the word 'incarnation' let alone its implication (one tory colleague of mine once thought this doctrine was about REincarnation.)
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I agree with most of it and it reminds me of a document from the RCC called 'The Common good' which came out before a previous general election.
Indeed, although that wasn't exclusively RCC: Nick Sagovsky (who I've heard talking about it and who did a lot of the writing and thinking behind it) is an Anglican who is/was attached to Westminster Abbey. He is not the only Anglican involved, while Andrew Bradstock comes from the URC. So it's quite ecumenical although with a definite RCC flavour!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Hence the anger in some Tory circles (which, of course, may also still hold remnants of the view that the CofE is part of the "establishment" and should therefore not challenge the status quo).
Since our membership of the EU is the current status quo, they should surely approve. Actually most of what the bishops say would be endorsed by most Tory politicians up to (and of course excluding) Thatcher. The nation has moved significantly to the right.
There is, though, anger in some LGBT circles within the C of E at the bishops' apparent hypocrisy in calling for justice in wider society while withholding it from many members of the Church. Obviously this is a Dead Horse but I thought it important to flag it up here.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes, I can understand that ... but (seeing that we now have Equal Marriage in Britain) is this a political concern that will be specifically discussed in the run-up to the Election? I rather doubt it.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
From the summary on the CofE website:-
quote:
the Bishops urge Christians to consider the question how can we "build the kind of society which many people say they want but which is not yet being expressed in the vision of any of the parties?"
It would be wiser for those parties (Labour and Green I'm looking at you) that take it for granted they have a monopoly on the moral high ground, to take that statement a bit more seriously, rather than just smugly assume the bishops are slating the Tories.
Although it doesn't read like something that leaps off the pages, there's some good stuff in its 56 pages. Indeed, what's slightly worrying perhaps, is that it's difficult to find anything that a right-thinking person of any respectable party should find themselves disagreeing with.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, it's a bit like an extended version of some of the Queen's Christmas Broadcasts. That is actually a compliment. It expresses a similar vision.
I'd commend Para 54 which at last gets towards recognising something that nobody will admit, which is that you can't have both subsidiarity and absolute equality of provision. Most people instinctively agree strongly with subsidiarity even if they've never heard the word and don't know what it means. But there is a price that has to be paid for it, a circle that can't be squared, and it's time people were prepared to accept this openly and defend it. e.g.
quote:
54 As an example, “post code lottery” has become a term of disparagement for local variations in public services. But that implies that a single standard, determined and enforced nationally, is the only way to order every aspect of public life.
Paras 98 and 99 on the Scottish referendum is rather good as well.
The one thing that is missing is that it's a bit too high minded, worthy about policies and vision. It does not acknowledge that, when deciding for whom to vote, we are morally and spiritually both entitled and obliged to assess how competent and trustworthy X is, whether we really believe he or she will, or has the ability, to deliver.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I have not read it, but I have heard the opinions of others who have not read it on a talk radio station this morning.
Their understanding of religion seems to be based on two sections of the NT. The parable of the Good Samaritan, the point of which is that society needs rich people who can afford to give money to charity. And the passage in which Jesus tells people to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's, which apparently is only to be read on the surface level, and means that clerics should shut up whenever they think that their religion teaches something that runs across current party political matters.
So, when I get to read it, I will probably agree with it.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I have not read it, but I have heard the opinions of others who have not read it on a talk radio station this morning. ...
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
How all too many of us get our opinions.
[ 18. February 2015, 16:28: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
So which party will be the first to come out with "as the CofE Bishops reminded us so well...." then?
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
From the summary on the CofE website:-
quote:
the Bishops urge Christians to consider the question how can we "build the kind of society which many people say they want but which is not yet being expressed in the vision of any of the parties?"
It would be wiser for those parties (Labour and Green I'm looking at you) that take it for granted they have a monopoly on the moral high ground, to take that statement a bit more seriously, rather than just smugly assume the bishops are slating the Tories.
Although it doesn't read like something that leaps off the pages, there's some good stuff in its 56 pages. Indeed, what's slightly worrying perhaps, is that it's difficult to find anything that a right-thinking person of any respectable party should find themselves disagreeing with.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, it's a bit like an extended version of some of the Queen's Christmas Broadcasts. That is actually a compliment. It expresses a similar vision.
Yep. As one of the bluer people around these bazaars, albeit Disraelite/Baldwinite//Macmillanite/Majorite in tooth and claw I've read it, endorse it (with a slight cavil as an ex-serviceman about the utility or otherwise of trident), and think that across most of the 56 pages there's nothing much to disagree with.
The papers are just doing the usual papery things in attacking it because it's got CofE written on it so it must be lefty rubbish.
Far from it, for the most part.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
I think we have made a more nuanced contribution than the right wing press allow. Cameron appears to have put his attack dogs up without actually having taken the trouble to engage with the analysis, thus (regrettably) proving our point that UK politics is in a more parlous state than the Westminster Village would care to admit. It's by no means party political, and there is an interesting response from a more reflective right wing commentator here. I think we must hope and pray that it doesn't get ignored, not because it's our letter, but because it's asking a lot of questions that are usually ducked. It's the rejoinder to the Russell Brand critique -as the Bishop of Norwich suggests.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I have not read it, but I have heard the opinions of others who have not read it on a talk radio station this morning. ...
How all too many of us get our opinions.
Noted. I usually turn off when that lot get going, as I don't want to damage my radio. I get my opinions confirmed in opposition.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
A lot of the argument from politicians and the press is the usual rhetoric of the bully who's been caught out doing something else wrong.
It's pretty bland really. But it's reassuring and nice to know that the guys in the palaces with the purple suits and chauffeurs are thinking of us "normal" people too.
It doesn't go far enough on the issue of justice IMHO. - if you're old, , mentally ill sick or unemployed then the policies on offer from all parties don't give much hope. Funding for all these areas is being reduced on the local level.
I'd award it a B or B-, on the basis that it sits well with the call to a new society in (the excellent), Faith in the City. That still makes a radical read almost 30 years on.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I think it goes without saying that the whole issue of getting people to engage in the political process is an urgent one but this need has been apparent for a long time: the timing of this Letter is unfortunate, to say the least, and is bound to be seen by some as 'the church sticking its nose into politics'. Rather than producing this Letter now, it would have been more prudent to send something to churches at least 1 year ago and then maybe publish some of the resulting discussion points without fanfare.
In particular, the CofE has an image problem with the younger generation and a 50+ page document was never going to be the best vehicle to inspire debate among a generation that communicates via 140 character tweet Instagram.
The Bishops' use of someone like Russell Brand is foolhardy and not the way to appeal to people under the age of 25 who all of us would like to see voting. People of this age group, such as my own children, see Russell Brand as a middle-aged (he is 40 this year after all) self-publicist: I'm sure there are better people out there (if a role model is really necessary) for the bishops to quote and who could appeal to a broader spectrum of people under 40.
I am very concerned at the factual inaccuracies in the Letter - particularly worrying since they have at their disposal staff in the House of Lords who could easily have checked these things with the ONS. And having got these figures so badly wrong, I'm gobsmacked that the bishops have made no attempt to correct their errors, especially since another tranche of figures were published yesterday which underline the errors (figures for unemployment, number of working families in poverty, etc).
And yes, the hypocrisy of their lordships' call for social justice is breathtaking when considered against the punishment meted out to Jeremy Pemberton and Andrew Cain, and the lack of compassion in denying gay couples the chance of a blessing for their civil marriages.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I don't think they were using Brand as a role model. In fact, they were holding him up as an example of what not to do (ie, not vote).
The rest of your criticisms (timing, length, relevance, hypocrisy) seem a little peevish. If what you're actually objecting to is the content, then say so. When better to produce a document about the importance of voting a little while before people have the chance to vote, rather than when they can't?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The bishops have said that they produced the letter to promote debate about the conduct of political discourse in the UK; that being the case then now is NOT the time to release it because it is bound to attract accusations of bias and get the writers accused of support for one particular 'side' in the forthcoming election.
If the bishops claim not to be able to see that then god help the CofE.
As for Brand being used as an example of what not to be like - why quote him at all? The bishops have referred to him because they think it will make them seem 'in-touch' when in fact the opposite is the case.
You think I sound peevish? Perhaps its because there really is no excuse for the factual inaccuracies which the bishops have used and have made no attempt to correct - nor you to address, for that matter. If this were the era of manual filing systems fair enough, but the correct figures were available at the click of a mouse: one begins to suspect that perhaps the bishops chose not to click because they didn't like the information it would have given.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
You don't quote any figures, just say how appalled you are that they're 'wrong'.
As for bias - I refer you to betjemaniac's post above.
The rest of your objections, I simply shrug at. You're looking for reasons to dismiss it, rather than actively engage with its contents.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Doc Tor
Paragraph 111 quote:
It is good that unemployment has not risen as high as was predicted, or as high as past experience suggested it would. Worklessness has long been acknowledged as corrosive of human dignity and sense of identity.
Unemployment has not risen. FULL STOP.
For their lordships to suggest otherwise is inaccurate and deliberately misleading: I say deliberately because they have been falling for more than 12 months which is long enough surely for even bishops of the CofE to notice.
paragraph 112 quote:
But instead we have seen the burgeoning of in-work poverty – people who, despite working hard, cannot earn enough to live decently. The market can, and does, allow wages to rise and fall in response to demand and supply. But human lives are not infinitely flexible in the way the price mechanism expects, and people cannot live properly when their work brings in too little to sustain dignity.
The number of families receiving in-work benefits - working tax credit (WTC) and/or child tax credit (WTC) - has fallen; this is true for families where the head of the household is in-work and where the head of the household is unemployed. Figures produced by the ONS for the DWP show that the total number of families in receipt of these benefits fell from 5,768,000 in April 2012 to 4,499,000 in December 2014.
No, I am not looking for reasons to dismiss the Letter - don't presume to know my beliefs or values.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Unemployment has not risen. FULL STOP.
Except in areas where it has risen, and in age groups where it has risen, and this sudden entrepreneurial rush of self-employed people who are effectively unemployed. I think you needed a colon or a dash, there.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The number of families receiving in-work benefits - working tax credit (WTC) and/or child tax credit (WTC) - has fallen
"We've made it really difficult for people to claim in work benefits, so the number of people claiming has fallen. G&Ts all round!"
Yeah, I don't think there's any doubt that in-work poverty is on the increase. The claims on tax credits are a poor measure of that.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
No, I am not looking for reasons to dismiss the Letter - don't presume to know my beliefs or values.
Also, your beliefs and values are what you communicate via the medium of a text-based message board. No presumption required.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
So my views on Church of England pensions are?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Paragraph 111 quote:
It is good that unemployment has not risen as high as was predicted, or as high as past experience suggested it would. Worklessness has long been acknowledged as corrosive of human dignity and sense of identity.
Unemployment has not risen. FULL STOP.
For their lordships to suggest otherwise is inaccurate and deliberately misleading: I say deliberately because they have been falling for more than 12 months which is long enough surely for even bishops of the CofE to notice.
That all depends upon time scale. Unemployment has risen since 2008, that 6-7 years after the onset of recession unemployment has started to fall is good news, it doesn't alter the fact that unemployment has risen over the longer time scale. IMO, though headline figures for the last few months make good soundbites, it's the longer term trends that are important. It appears that the bishops are looking at the longer term, and indeed it also appears that the emphasis of modern politics on short term figures to make good sound bites is one of the big themes in British politics that they're taking issue with.
Also, there is much debate as to how to measure unemployment. There are plenty of people out of work (and, therefore, by any reasonable meaning unemployed) who are not claiming unemployment benefit (therefore, according to statistics, not unemployed). They may be claiming other benefits (eg: disability), they may have been forced into early retirement, they may be in college because they can't find work (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), they may simply be inelligible for unemployment benefit. Though whether the total unemployed has fallen over the last year as well as the official statistics I'm not sure.
quote:
paragraph 112 quote:
But instead we have seen the burgeoning of in-work poverty – people who, despite working hard, cannot earn enough to live decently. The market can, and does, allow wages to rise and fall in response to demand and supply. But human lives are not infinitely flexible in the way the price mechanism expects, and people cannot live properly when their work brings in too little to sustain dignity.
The number of families receiving in-work benefits - working tax credit (WTC) and/or child tax credit (WTC) - has fallen; this is true for families where the head of the household is in-work and where the head of the household is unemployed. Figures produced by the ONS for the DWP show that the total number of families in receipt of these benefits fell from 5,768,000 in April 2012 to 4,499,000 in December 2014.
That assumes that only those elligible for tax credits are in-work and poor. It could easily be argued that the threshold for tax credits is too low, and many people who don't qualify are nevertheless paid less than would be needed to maintain an adequate quality of life. It's almost universally acknowledged that the minimum wage is significantly below a living wage (very significantly in some areas where costs of living are particularly high).
You would also need to show that the fall in number of people obtaining tax credits isn't due to changes in elligibility criteria (which could be, for example, the number of families with school age children falling, and/or the average number of children per family falling, no change in income thresholds with a small increase in average income pushing some families out of the system - even if those income rises are below increases in cost of living)
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You would also need to show that the fall in number of people obtaining tax credits isn't due to changes in elligibility criteria (which could be, for example, the number of families with school age children falling, and/or the average number of children per family falling, no change in income thresholds with a small increase in average income pushing some families out of the system - even if those income rises are below increases in cost of living)
That's exactly what has happened. The thresholds for Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit have been reduced and a threshold introduced for Child benefit for the first time. The effect of this is to discourage people in receipt of these benefits from working for a few more hours because it often reduces their benefits by more than their wages increase.
I expect we'll see even more extreme examples when Universal Credit is rolled out.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That all depends upon time scale. Unemployment has risen since 2008, that 6-7 years after the onset of recession unemployment has started to fall is good news, it doesn't alter the fact that unemployment has risen over the longer time scale. IMO, though headline figures for the last few months make good soundbites, it's the longer term trends that are important. ...
Well said.
During the lifetime of the average bishop, for all that there might be a few periods when unemployment has fallen, the underlying trend is likely to have been up.
Even if the number of families receiving in work benefits fell from 5,768,000 in April 2012 to 4,499,000 in December 2014, that still 1,000 short of 5,000,000. How many families are there in the UK if the population is estimated to be c 64M? To quibble at the bishop's figures is a bit like asking 'when did you stop beating your wife quite so often?'
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The thresholds for Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit have been reduced and a threshold introduced for Child benefit for the first time. The effect of this is to discourage people in receipt of these benefits from working for a few more hours because it often reduces their benefits by more than their wages increase.
It would be difficult for me to describe those who the child benefit income threshold applies to as "the working poor". I think moving away from universal benefits is a bad idea, but you're over-egging this pudding a bit.
For the rest of it, there has long been a problem with very high effective marginal tax rates for the working poor, which as you say does strongly disincentivise work.
Universal Credit is intended to make this better. Whether the implementation will actually achieve this is a different question.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Even if the number of families receiving in work benefits fell from 5,768,000 in April 2012 to 4,499,000 in December 2014, that still 1,000 short of 5,000,000. How many families are there in the UK if the population is estimated to be c 64M?
5M families is somewhere between 5 and 10M adults (5M if they're all single parent families, 10M if they're all two parent families). Whatever, that would be somewhere in excess of 10% of the population receiving in work benefits.
Which can mean two things:
1) over 10% of the population are working, but still in poverty requiring in-work benefit, or
2) provision of in-work benefit is largely unrelated to poverty
So, either that statistic strongly supports the statement by the bishops or it's irrelevant to proving or disproving the statement.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Even if the number of families receiving in work benefits fell from 5,768,000 in April 2012 to 4,499,000 in December 2014, that still 1,000 short of 5,000,000.
So things are moving in the right direction, but not quickly enough for your liking? Sounds like a pretty weak case for a total overhaul of the political system.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That all depends upon time scale. Unemployment has risen since 2008, that 6-7 years after the onset of recession unemployment has started to fall is good news, it doesn't alter the fact that unemployment has risen over the longer time scale. IMO, though headline figures for the last few months make good soundbites, it's the longer term trends that are important. It appears that the bishops are looking at the longer term, and indeed it also appears that the emphasis of modern politics on short term figures to make good sound bites is one of the big themes in British politics that they're taking issue with.
Also, there is much debate as to how to measure unemployment. There are plenty of people out of work (and, therefore, by any reasonable meaning unemployed) who are not claiming unemployment benefit (therefore, according to statistics, not unemployed). They may be claiming other benefits (eg: disability), they may have been forced into early retirement, they may be in college because they can't find work (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), they may simply be inelligible for unemployment benefit. Though whether the total unemployed has fallen over the last year as well as the official statistics I'm not sure.
Another factor to throw into the equation is how many of these people moving into employment are on full-time contracts and how many are on part-time or zero-hours?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Which is why paras 111 and 112 should be linked. The question is one of poverty, it doesn't make that much difference if people are poor because they can't find work or if the only work they can get is part time or very low paid (or, both). What they need are more jobs paying a decent wage.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Another factor to throw into the equation is how many of these people moving into employment are on full-time contracts and how many are on part-time or zero-hours?
Additionally, a number of other categories have sprung up - people who have lost their benefits due to being sanctioned. Plus people counted as employed because they are on a temporary training course or an unpaid placement. It looks like young people will lose benefits fairly soon - in which case they will probably also be in some other category that doesn't count against the official unemployment figure.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Even if the number of families receiving in work benefits fell from 5,768,000 in April 2012 to 4,499,000 in December 2014, that still 1,000 short of 5,000,000.
So things are moving in the right direction, but not quickly enough for your liking? Sounds like a pretty weak case for a total overhaul of the political system.
How are cuts in benefits for the working poor "moving in the right direction" outside of tory wet dreams?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Even if the number of families receiving in work benefits fell from 5,768,000 in April 2012 to 4,499,000 in December 2014, that still 1,000 short of 5,000,000.
So things are moving in the right direction, but not quickly enough for your liking? Sounds like a pretty weak case for a total overhaul of the political system.
That's a reduction in the number of families receiving in-work benefits and coincides with reducing thresholds for tax credits, child benefit, revised rules for disabled living allowance and they are just those I'm aware of. If these families actually had more cash to spend we'd actually see some of that economic growth which George Osborne has forecast for five years.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
There's also this statistic from November 2014 that only one in 40 of the jobs created in this recession is a full time job. That fall in unemployment is mostly fuelled by part time work or self employment - which is a wizard wheeze to get people off benefits over a certain age. In addition a record 13.9% are now working from home and the professional level of the roles involved in home working suggests contract work.
1 in 10 people are under-employed according to the ONS.
There are other signs that all is not well. The rate of suicide on the Tube continues to be high, but not recorded publicly. Twitter feeds show this better as the tweets indicate the disruption. (I know how often I am delayed commuting, I'm unfortunate enough to use one of the lines with a higher rate.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Paras 98 and 99 on the Scottish referendum is rather good as well.
I don't understand what paras 98 and 99 are trying to say. Part of my confusion may be that I first read "old country" as referring to England (and therefore Scotland as a separate country), since the United Kingdom is a "new" country formed by the union of the "old" countries, but then I realised that the "old country" is the United Kingdom.
But what are they trying to say?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
They do seem to be implying that the only discussion and thought about independence took place in those couple of months before the referendum, and only took place in Scotland. Which, if that impression is correct, shows considerable ignorance of decades of discussion about and preparation for independence.
Although, my impression is that the statement could be justified south of the border. In that there didn't seem to be any thought of Scottish independence until a few weeks before the vote, when it became clear that it could actually happen. There did seem to be a last minute scramble to formulate arguments in favour of Union in Westminster, with a very hurried commission following the vote plus the whole band wagon about excluding Scottish MPs from voting in Westminster.
I've said before here that I thought the independence vote was flawed in that it was trying to cover the whole distance in a single vote. So, we were voting for a mandate for the Scottish Government to enter discussion on Independence, and as such didn't really know what form Independence would take. Whereas I would have preferred that to have been a first vote, to be followed up by a further vote (in probably at least 2-3 years) to affirm that we agreed with Independence as actually negotiated on our behalf.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
I'm not the target audience for this letter, and I'm genuinely curious as to what paras 97 to 99 mean to those who are the target audience.
My husband agrees with your interpretation, Alan.
I thought quote:
The idea that the future shape of the Union and the relationship between its constituents can be solved in weeks or months is a fine example of politics ignoring the importance of history in favour of the calculated advantages of the moment.
might apply to the 1707 settlement, but that's probably because history is my thing and my mind is quite often a century or two out. But change "can" to "could" and it fits 1707 as well as 2014.
(edited to get the paragraph numbers right!)
[ 23. February 2015, 08:36: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I'm not the target audience for this letter, and I'm genuinely curious as to what paras 97 to 99 mean to those who are the target audience.
....................
I thought quote:
The idea that the future shape of the Union and the relationship between its constituents can be solved in weeks or months is a fine example of politics ignoring the importance of history in favour of the calculated advantages of the moment.
might apply to the 1707 settlement, but that's probably because history is my thing and my mind is quite often a century or two out. But change "can" to "could" and it fits 1707 as well as 2014. ...
I'm not going to comment on the grubby haggling that took place in 1707. Nor do I know whether I'm the target audience. But down here, that extract says something very important. If it doesn't in Scotland, that suggests we're all further apart than I'd feared.
The two largest parties down here give strongly the impression that they view everything about constitutional debate entirely in terms of whether it will deliver an electoral bias in their favour. They have never posed the question,
'if government is supposed to be representative, how should the constitution ensure that it is, rather than that it isn't'.
We all know that the Conservatives think they've got the Labour Party on the ropes because it has hitherto been dependent on a lot of safe Labour Scottish seats. We also know that Labour does not want a Constitutional Convention because it thinks - as would any rational person - that this whole subject requires solemn, careful consideration rather than expediencies plucked out of hats, but because that postpones a threat to their chance of getting an overall majority. And likewise we know that their advocacy of city regions is because it doesn't really like decentralisation and the big cities are where it is strongest.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Thank you Enoch. That makes sense, and I now concur that it's a good comment.
quote:
The two largest parties down here give strongly the impression that they view everything about constitutional debate entirely in terms of whether it will deliver an electoral bias in their favour. They have never posed the question,
'if government is supposed to be representative, how should the constitution ensure that it is, rather than that it isn't'.
At the outset of the referendum process it was clear that what Scottish people wanted wasn't full independence, but beefed up devolution - full fiscal autonomy, an end the Barnett formula etc. ("DevoMax"). David Cameron decreed that there was to be no middle ground, no pandering to majority opinion, but a clear cut Yes or No. He assumed most Scots would default to No. When it started to look as though there was a chance that the majority might default to Yes, there was the hasty giving of promises: "We want you to stay"
The wider picture was indeed that of the parties focussed on electoral bias and the next couple of years, rather than a long term view.
quote:
But down here, that extract says something very important. If it doesn't in Scotland, that suggests we're all further apart than I'd feared.
Given your comments, we're not that far apart!
The comment "solved in weeks or months" did suggest that they were viewing the Scottish referendum purely in terms of 2014; the removal of the middle ground option happened in Oct 2012 (the "Edinburgh agreement") and of course the start of the Edinburgh discussions took place before that. This seems to have misled Alan in the same way as me.
But with that caveat, I think the Pastoral letter does make an important point.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
They [the two largest Westminster parties] have never posed the question,
'if government is supposed to be representative, how should the constitution ensure that it is, rather than that it isn't'.
Whereas, there was such a discussion in Scotland. Probably not as good as it could have been, but at least we had it. The result was the different electoral system for the Scottish Parliament combining representatives elected by both FPTP and proportional systems. Also, the Scottish Parliament is much more of a discussion forum than the usual "shouting at the other side" feel of the Commons. At least when the TV news shows debates in Holyrood I'm not feeling embarrassed about the way our representatives are behaving, unlike far too much of what gets shown from the Commons (and, yes, I know an awful lot of good discussion happens ... it just doesn't usually make the 10 o'clock news).
The AV referendum could have been an opportunity to have that serious discussion about how to change the constitution to make it more representative. It wasn't. Rather it seemed like a bone thrown to the LibDems to get them into coalition, and as it was frames as a simple Yes/No on a specific form of more representative electoral system that was all that was really discussed. Perhaps another example of the sort of thing the Bishops have highlighted - instead of a discussion about the constitution we got something that would simply secure a Tory government for 5 years.
I also think the Bishops have a good point. The last few years have seen some constitutional questions raised (devolution, Scottish Independence, AV, fixed term government), and what discussion there has been has been fairly short and limited in scope. There are almost certainly further constitutional questions that will arise in the next Parliament (further devolution and EU membership certain to be among them). We probably do need to actually have a serious discussion about the constitution (such that it is) and how to make the whole thing work better. That would, IMO, be a task for an independent commission, it should take at least 5 years, and it should report to the people not the government of the day.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
gog
Shipmate
# 15615
|
Posted
As an aside to the CofE statement, similar things are being done else where (but not made the press) JPIT resources on behalf of the Church of Scotland, Baptist Union, Methodist, and URC
Posts: 103 | From: somewhere over the border | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Thank you! The JPIT too often goes unacknowledged - though they did score a coup on the BBC News at Easter a year or two ago, with their report (jointly with the CofS) on poverty.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gog:
As an aside to the CofE statement, similar things are being done else where (but not made the press) JPIT resources on behalf of the Church of Scotland, Baptist Union, Methodist, and URC
And I sincerely wish you better luck than the CofE has had - after it appears this morning that some posts in CofE establishments, including Canterbury Cathedral, pay less than the living wage.
We really are fucking useless sometimes, aren't we?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I can't speak for the other denominations (Baptists, in particular, are highly decentralised so it's difficult to monitor wages that are paid locally), but the Methodists have certainly taken a resolution to pay living wages.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
