In this last week, the news has been a fairly constant stream of death, pain, anguish and misery. In particular, the Boston marathon bombings and subsequent apprehension of one suspect and death of the other; the explosion in West of a fertiliser factory; an earthquake in China.
What I want to focus on, however, is the reaction of many people to these events. In particular, the fact that many Muslims have experienced very negative reactions, because the Boston bombers adhered to their faith. It seems to me that this is completely unreasonable, utterly unfair.
Let me make a point: the Boston marathon bombers left 3 dead and many injured, some very seriously. The West explosion left some 15 dead and many others injured. The Chinese earthquake has killed 100 or more, and injured many hundreds.
In the same week, many have died in Afghanistan and Syria, numbers unknown.
And yet the hatred and anger is focused on the religion of the two men who caused the fewest of these deaths. I don't see calls for fertiliser to be banned. I don't see calls for earthquake zones to be abandoned, and yet these are bigger killers than the Boston bombs.
Of course, the bombings are deliberate acts, not accidents.
I don't see calls for troops to leave Afghanistan or intervention in Syria, despite the fact that the dead here are the results of deliberate acts.
I am convinced that the reason for this discrepancy is that many people - not just in the US, of course - see Islam as Bad, and so look for reasons to see the bad in acts of any Muslims. This is a mistake, and a dangerous one.
There is a lot of good and a lot of bad in Islam. As there is in a lot of good and bad in Christianity. And in atheism, monetarism, and any other ism you want to focus on. Islam is not the worst of these - one could argue that it is the greed and selfishness that requires large amounts of fertiliser to keep producing produce to sell. In the UK, the government's austerity measures - based on research that has been shown this week to be seriously flawed - have caused a whole lot of suffering and death.
Demonising other people because of their difference is dangerous and damaging. Not least, because it is the people who are substantially like us who tend to cause the most problems and the most suffering. Yes, the radical aspects of Islam do need reigning in, almost certainly by the leaders of their faith. But the radical aspects of Christianity also need reigning in, and of monetarism, the forces of greed and avarice. And some of these are our responsibility to change.
The rejection of more restrictive gun control in the US this week indicates that this sort of change may still be some way off.
Saturday, 20 April 2013
Thursday, 18 April 2013
What is a leader?
I do remember being told that "you can recognise a leader by how many people follow them". The definition was completely flawed anyway, in the context, but it made me think about whether this is a good definition of the sort of person who should have responsibility in a Christian group.
I believe that within these criteria, the answer is no. What is more, I believe that the same applies on a wider basis.
Now I should point out that there is a need for figurehead leaders, but this does not mean that they should be decision makers or that this is the only form of leadership expected. It is a core problem of a democratic ideal that the best people tend not to rise to the top, but the ones who can command a following.
The problem I have, in the particular context it was raised, is that I do not want people to follow me. I want people to follow Jesus, I want people to explore my ideas and thoughts if they are useful, I want people to think for themselves, and find their own way. The last thing I want is for people to hold me up as their example, their "leader", because that is not Christianity.
That is where my problem with this form of "leadership" lies. If you define "good leadership" by "people follow you", then clearly the aim of a church leader is a large church. The thing is, Jesus scared people away from him, telling them to seriously consider what following him meant. Towards the end, while there were lots of people who enjoyed the party, there were only 12 who followed him. And in the end, there only seemed to be a few of his friends and followers around the cross. If leadership was about how many people follow you, then Jesus was a lousy leader.
Of course, I don't want to go the other way either, and argue that a good leader is someone who challenges and excludes people - that would make Fred Phelps and his ilk good leaders, and that is also not the case. I think, in contrast, we need to reconsider the nature of leadership.
The best leaders I have known show two significant features, which don't fit with popularity measures:
1. Tolerance and acceptance of dissenting views and perspectives. This means being prepared to accept that other people may come to a different answer, to support and respect that direction, and allow then to explore that further. This means helping people do things that you do not understand or value, but they do.
2. Providing challenge that is not criticism or rejection. this means working with people, and providing acceptance with challenge. This challenge is difficult to provide, and is there to prompt and help people grow, not to get them to conform.
Of course, this is not very popular, especially amongst people who want to be told what to believe (or want their own beliefs unchallenged). This is not the way to be popular, not the way to climb the career ladder.
In fact, the most likely result of this is that you will end up alone. But - and this is the critical part - there will be people who have been made to think because of what you have said. Probably after you are dead.
That is true leadership - leading people to their own fulfillment, their own independence. Don't expect to be popular. In fact, people will probably crucify you.
I believe that within these criteria, the answer is no. What is more, I believe that the same applies on a wider basis.
Now I should point out that there is a need for figurehead leaders, but this does not mean that they should be decision makers or that this is the only form of leadership expected. It is a core problem of a democratic ideal that the best people tend not to rise to the top, but the ones who can command a following.
The problem I have, in the particular context it was raised, is that I do not want people to follow me. I want people to follow Jesus, I want people to explore my ideas and thoughts if they are useful, I want people to think for themselves, and find their own way. The last thing I want is for people to hold me up as their example, their "leader", because that is not Christianity.
That is where my problem with this form of "leadership" lies. If you define "good leadership" by "people follow you", then clearly the aim of a church leader is a large church. The thing is, Jesus scared people away from him, telling them to seriously consider what following him meant. Towards the end, while there were lots of people who enjoyed the party, there were only 12 who followed him. And in the end, there only seemed to be a few of his friends and followers around the cross. If leadership was about how many people follow you, then Jesus was a lousy leader.
Of course, I don't want to go the other way either, and argue that a good leader is someone who challenges and excludes people - that would make Fred Phelps and his ilk good leaders, and that is also not the case. I think, in contrast, we need to reconsider the nature of leadership.
The best leaders I have known show two significant features, which don't fit with popularity measures:
1. Tolerance and acceptance of dissenting views and perspectives. This means being prepared to accept that other people may come to a different answer, to support and respect that direction, and allow then to explore that further. This means helping people do things that you do not understand or value, but they do.
2. Providing challenge that is not criticism or rejection. this means working with people, and providing acceptance with challenge. This challenge is difficult to provide, and is there to prompt and help people grow, not to get them to conform.
Of course, this is not very popular, especially amongst people who want to be told what to believe (or want their own beliefs unchallenged). This is not the way to be popular, not the way to climb the career ladder.
In fact, the most likely result of this is that you will end up alone. But - and this is the critical part - there will be people who have been made to think because of what you have said. Probably after you are dead.
That is true leadership - leading people to their own fulfillment, their own independence. Don't expect to be popular. In fact, people will probably crucify you.
Monday, 15 April 2013
John and Cuthbert
While on my retreat, I wrote a short story about Cuthbert. I hope you enjoy. it is not perfect, but made a point for me at the time.
John and Cuthbert
John had always admired Cuthbert, of course.
John and Cuthbert
John had always admired Cuthbert, of course.
“But how would he cope with my life, my work, my problems”
he would sometimes mutter. The work and pressures of his particular monastic journey
were getting John down. He always seemed to be busy, never finding time to unwind.
“It’s alright for him”
he moaned, “wandering off to his island there whenever he wants to. Some of us
have to do the work that keeps him fed, you know”. The work that morning had
been particularly tough and unrewarding, meaning that he was going to have to
return later to finish off.
It was odd that they bumped into each other just an hour
later, passing in the cloister. John tried to avoid the meeting, but Cuthbert seemed
to make an effort to come over to him. John was not sure why, as Cuthbert simply
greeted him saying “God’s blessing on you, Brother John” as he passed.
It was the late afternoon, when the monks would normally be
free for a couple of hours private study or similar before the evening meal,
when John had to return to the field and finish off. He watched Cuthbert walk
over to his island, huddled in his hood as the wind lashed him. “It’s alright
for you” John thought. Even more so as the rainclouds gathered, threatening,
above him.
As he continued to work, Johns mood became as dark as the
clouds above him. The rain had started, and the only bright spot was Cuthberts
island.
Hang, on, that was wrong. Why should the island be OK, when
everywhere else was miserable and dark? That made no sense. As he finished on
bundle, he looked over and saw that, sure enough, the island was lit up, as if
it was bright sunshine.
“Typical” muttered John, “he even gets his own good weather”,
but he was puzzled, because the light seemed to radiate from the island, not
onto it.
As he watched, the island glowed, centred on the cross that
always stood there. The cross glowed too, but not the white shine of the rest
of the island – in the midst of the storm, the cross was a just visible red
streak.
John sat down and offered this vision to God. It slowly started
to dawn on him.
Cuthberts role wasn’t the easy one – it was just different.
His role wasn’t the hard one, it was just the place he fitted into at the
moment. It is probably true that Cuthbert would not have coped as well as he
did with some of the pressures of his work. It is almost certainly true that
Cuthbert struggled with the whole monastic life thing, just like John himself
did, sometimes. It was wrong to be jealous, because every place has its
challenges, its problems.
That was the thing, he realised. Being jealous is wrong, because every role has its challenges as well as its benefits. It is far too easy to see the benefits, and not realise the challenges, especially if these are hidden.
That was the thing, he realised. Being jealous is wrong, because every role has its challenges as well as its benefits. It is far too easy to see the benefits, and not realise the challenges, especially if these are hidden.
The truth is, John realised, that each has their own part to play. It may take a time to find that part, and the part will not necessarily be easy, but it is where you best fit. That is Gods ideal place for you at this time, and if it is Gods place, he had no right to be complaining.
He was still kneeling when he felt a touch on his shoulder,
and opened his eyes to see that it was getting dark. As he turned, Cuthbert was
standing there, smiling.
“Come, on, lets see if there is any food left” he said.
Saturday, 13 April 2013
Cultural widows?
I have just started reading Diana Butler Bass's Christianity after Religion, and it is proving to be an interesting read so far, However, there was a well known quote that gave me some insight into other events this week.
"Those who marry the spirit of the age will find themselves widows in the next." GK Chesterton.
Within church circles, this is often used to critique those who define their faith in terms of the current society - the postmodern paradigm that is predominant across most of the world today. They are right, in that if you define your faith in terms of a single worldview, it will be difficult when that worldview is challenged, because that will be seen as a challenge to your faith. In fact, in many cases, I see this when trying to interpret Christianity in post-modernist terms to those with a modernist worldview.
Most of the time, interpreting the historical faith in terms of a new perspective is exactly the right thing, even though it is often difficult. What is more, people do not always get it right, and fresh expressions of faith seem to come under far more scrutiny than old expressions.
This is not to to dismiss this quote as irrelevant or meaningless. It is a very important and significant statement and idea, that is just too often used in the wrong direction. The truth is many church people are stuck in a modernist paradigm, and what they see, when there are new ways of interpret church, is their own faith becoming irrelevant. they are the ones who are becoming widows in a new age, because their faith has married the spirit of the age we are leaving.
And yes, the majority of Christian theology and ecclesiology is very distinctly modernist in its approach.
But the Christian faith historically needs to be interpreted for different cultural environments. Whether this is modernist or post-modernist, Western or Eastern, it is important that the faith is appropriately interpreted for the cultural milieu that it is being expressed in. The fact that this will reject or challenge other interpretations is part of the nature of a culturally interpreted faith. So yes, I firmly believe that the full range of properly interpreted Christian faith will include paradoxes and contradictions. What is more, that is an important part of it.
What of this weeks news? Well I have already put my views down, and there is a whole lot more that has been said that it doesn't seem worth saying any more. But I have been particularly distressed by the lack of leaders who have been prepared to stand up and be critical of Margaret Thatchers legacy. Bishop Pete Broadbent and MP Glenda Jackson have stood out as a very few who reflect the negative side of her legacy. This is not to support some of the viciousness that has been shown against the person herself, and that is a worrying sign, But the truth is that, when in power, she did earn a whole lot of hatred, and her legacy is not a positive one for everyone.
Some people seem to have been taken by surprise at the vehemence of the feeling expressed against her. I am not sure why - it was always clear to me that when she died, many people would shout "ding dong, the witch is dead" - which doesn't mean I agree with it.
The problem is that most MPs and most church leaders seem not to be in touch with society, the society that Baroness thatcher polarised so much. To ignore this, to simply talk of her strength and leadership, just the positive aspects of her personality and leadership is to miss the zeitgeist. For many people - myself included - the legacy of the Thatcher years is damaging and negative, as I have expressed elsewhere, and this perspective of her time in office should be reflected as we reconsider her life.
That so few of our leaders have accepted this and been prepared to address this tells us something about them, and just how widowed they might be.
"Those who marry the spirit of the age will find themselves widows in the next." GK Chesterton.
Within church circles, this is often used to critique those who define their faith in terms of the current society - the postmodern paradigm that is predominant across most of the world today. They are right, in that if you define your faith in terms of a single worldview, it will be difficult when that worldview is challenged, because that will be seen as a challenge to your faith. In fact, in many cases, I see this when trying to interpret Christianity in post-modernist terms to those with a modernist worldview.
Most of the time, interpreting the historical faith in terms of a new perspective is exactly the right thing, even though it is often difficult. What is more, people do not always get it right, and fresh expressions of faith seem to come under far more scrutiny than old expressions.
This is not to to dismiss this quote as irrelevant or meaningless. It is a very important and significant statement and idea, that is just too often used in the wrong direction. The truth is many church people are stuck in a modernist paradigm, and what they see, when there are new ways of interpret church, is their own faith becoming irrelevant. they are the ones who are becoming widows in a new age, because their faith has married the spirit of the age we are leaving.
And yes, the majority of Christian theology and ecclesiology is very distinctly modernist in its approach.
But the Christian faith historically needs to be interpreted for different cultural environments. Whether this is modernist or post-modernist, Western or Eastern, it is important that the faith is appropriately interpreted for the cultural milieu that it is being expressed in. The fact that this will reject or challenge other interpretations is part of the nature of a culturally interpreted faith. So yes, I firmly believe that the full range of properly interpreted Christian faith will include paradoxes and contradictions. What is more, that is an important part of it.
What of this weeks news? Well I have already put my views down, and there is a whole lot more that has been said that it doesn't seem worth saying any more. But I have been particularly distressed by the lack of leaders who have been prepared to stand up and be critical of Margaret Thatchers legacy. Bishop Pete Broadbent and MP Glenda Jackson have stood out as a very few who reflect the negative side of her legacy. This is not to support some of the viciousness that has been shown against the person herself, and that is a worrying sign, But the truth is that, when in power, she did earn a whole lot of hatred, and her legacy is not a positive one for everyone.
Some people seem to have been taken by surprise at the vehemence of the feeling expressed against her. I am not sure why - it was always clear to me that when she died, many people would shout "ding dong, the witch is dead" - which doesn't mean I agree with it.
The problem is that most MPs and most church leaders seem not to be in touch with society, the society that Baroness thatcher polarised so much. To ignore this, to simply talk of her strength and leadership, just the positive aspects of her personality and leadership is to miss the zeitgeist. For many people - myself included - the legacy of the Thatcher years is damaging and negative, as I have expressed elsewhere, and this perspective of her time in office should be reflected as we reconsider her life.
That so few of our leaders have accepted this and been prepared to address this tells us something about them, and just how widowed they might be.
Wednesday, 10 April 2013
Baroness Thatcher is dead
Just in case you haven't noticed. I am intrigued by the vehemence of the responses to this event, despite the fact that I am aware that she always provoked strong reactions. So I wanted to take a look at this reaction and her legacy.
Firstly, I would like to point out that I am not celebrating her death, because it is wrong to celebrate the death of anyone, whoever they are, and whatever they have done. Especially, as in this case, where she has left family behind who are mourning for their loss. As John Donne said, no man is an island, everyones death diminishes me.
Having said that, I remember her time in power - I was in my 20s at that time - and I remember some of the impact of her policies. I was also around and in my teens during the previous regimes, and I remember the "winter of discontent". I am talking from my experience partly, and I think this gives me a different perspective on the events from the many who have discussed her legacy.
In her first term of office, she was a revelation in UK politics. She did a whole lot of really good things, bringing a degree of stability after a period of serious unrest. The turmoil of the previous years needed a firm hand, a strong leader to bring some of the unrest to a halt. She was firm, decisive, certain of what she wanted and ruthless in getting there.
Given the number of u-turns our current government has managed, there is a part of me that longs for strong leadership. Right or wrong, the endless vacillation of the current administration is a real problem.
Unfortunately, after her first term, the Thatcher legacy turned into one that turned me against her and her policies. I will admit that I voted for her after her first term, but in her term of office, I turned completely against the Tory part and policy. As someone who might have been a natural right-wing supporter, that is a real issue.
The problem is that the later Thatcher legacy is rampant individualism, and the worship of money above all else. It is these two that really reflect the long-term impact of her term in office.
The first one is her famous reported comment that "there is no such thing as society". What she taught people is that the important thing was the individual, not the society, with the infamous "trickle-down effect", with the belief that if you enabled and supported the individuals who were making money and running the businesses of the nation, then the benefits would work their way down through the business, to all of the workers.
If you want to know why David Cameron supports the bankers, and appears to hate the poor and those on benefits, this is the reason, and this is the legacy of Thatcher.
Unfortunately, as she did not get to realise, it is utter crap, because what happens if you just let the rich get on with it, they take and take more and more money, putting it away, and not using it to "trickle down" to others. If they do spend, there is a tendency to spend abroad, to spend with others who are also wealthy, not to enable their own society or their own business or workers.
What is the Thatcher legacy, in reality? It is the Blair government and the Cameron government, and the increasing lies and abuse of the poor that we see today. It is the rampant individualism that the show, not taking the responsibility for others that Thatcher had counted on.
I have heard one person argue that they are more than happy not to be working in the mines, but rather to be working in an office. One part of me agrees - I would rather work in an office than down a mine. Unfortunately, most people work in offices these days because Margaret Thatcher started the decline of the manufacturing and resourcing industries. The danger of office work is that this is, often, easy to outsource to another country, something that employers may do if it is cheaper. This focus on profit and not on society - the local country in this case - are the results of the Thatcher era.
And, of course, if your job is outsourced and you are unemployed, then it is up to you to sort it out, which is individualism, because you can't expect the state to bail you out. The money your employers will save will, eventually, trickle down to you, surely. Except it won't.
So I understand the hatred shown towards Baroness Thatcher. I do not share it, because it is not the person to whom this should be focused - it is her policies, her legacy. As an old woman, who, I genuinely believe, was trying to do her best, I have sympathy. However the Thatcher policies, the legacy that she has left behind, I hate and loath with a passion, because she was very mistaken. She failed to listen to others, which indicates an arrogance that is extremely dangerous in a leader.
So Thatcher - a sad old lady who deserves some dignity in death. Thatcherism - a legacy that is destructive, damaging, and hideous. Each casualty of the seriously screwed-up policies of this current administration is a child of the Thatcher era, a result of the loathsome policies she introduced.
That is what really makes me sick.
Firstly, I would like to point out that I am not celebrating her death, because it is wrong to celebrate the death of anyone, whoever they are, and whatever they have done. Especially, as in this case, where she has left family behind who are mourning for their loss. As John Donne said, no man is an island, everyones death diminishes me.
Having said that, I remember her time in power - I was in my 20s at that time - and I remember some of the impact of her policies. I was also around and in my teens during the previous regimes, and I remember the "winter of discontent". I am talking from my experience partly, and I think this gives me a different perspective on the events from the many who have discussed her legacy.
In her first term of office, she was a revelation in UK politics. She did a whole lot of really good things, bringing a degree of stability after a period of serious unrest. The turmoil of the previous years needed a firm hand, a strong leader to bring some of the unrest to a halt. She was firm, decisive, certain of what she wanted and ruthless in getting there.
Given the number of u-turns our current government has managed, there is a part of me that longs for strong leadership. Right or wrong, the endless vacillation of the current administration is a real problem.
Unfortunately, after her first term, the Thatcher legacy turned into one that turned me against her and her policies. I will admit that I voted for her after her first term, but in her term of office, I turned completely against the Tory part and policy. As someone who might have been a natural right-wing supporter, that is a real issue.
The problem is that the later Thatcher legacy is rampant individualism, and the worship of money above all else. It is these two that really reflect the long-term impact of her term in office.
The first one is her famous reported comment that "there is no such thing as society". What she taught people is that the important thing was the individual, not the society, with the infamous "trickle-down effect", with the belief that if you enabled and supported the individuals who were making money and running the businesses of the nation, then the benefits would work their way down through the business, to all of the workers.
If you want to know why David Cameron supports the bankers, and appears to hate the poor and those on benefits, this is the reason, and this is the legacy of Thatcher.
Unfortunately, as she did not get to realise, it is utter crap, because what happens if you just let the rich get on with it, they take and take more and more money, putting it away, and not using it to "trickle down" to others. If they do spend, there is a tendency to spend abroad, to spend with others who are also wealthy, not to enable their own society or their own business or workers.
What is the Thatcher legacy, in reality? It is the Blair government and the Cameron government, and the increasing lies and abuse of the poor that we see today. It is the rampant individualism that the show, not taking the responsibility for others that Thatcher had counted on.
I have heard one person argue that they are more than happy not to be working in the mines, but rather to be working in an office. One part of me agrees - I would rather work in an office than down a mine. Unfortunately, most people work in offices these days because Margaret Thatcher started the decline of the manufacturing and resourcing industries. The danger of office work is that this is, often, easy to outsource to another country, something that employers may do if it is cheaper. This focus on profit and not on society - the local country in this case - are the results of the Thatcher era.
And, of course, if your job is outsourced and you are unemployed, then it is up to you to sort it out, which is individualism, because you can't expect the state to bail you out. The money your employers will save will, eventually, trickle down to you, surely. Except it won't.
So I understand the hatred shown towards Baroness Thatcher. I do not share it, because it is not the person to whom this should be focused - it is her policies, her legacy. As an old woman, who, I genuinely believe, was trying to do her best, I have sympathy. However the Thatcher policies, the legacy that she has left behind, I hate and loath with a passion, because she was very mistaken. She failed to listen to others, which indicates an arrogance that is extremely dangerous in a leader.
So Thatcher - a sad old lady who deserves some dignity in death. Thatcherism - a legacy that is destructive, damaging, and hideous. Each casualty of the seriously screwed-up policies of this current administration is a child of the Thatcher era, a result of the loathsome policies she introduced.
That is what really makes me sick.
Monday, 8 April 2013
Making work pay
The prime minister has asserted, repeatedly, that the benefit changes are intended to "make work pay". He has made it clear that making work pay is a primary aim of his policies.
The problem is, he is lying.
If he wanted to make work pay, he would not have supported the illegal and abusive workfare schemes, which were work without pay.
If he wanted to make work pay, he would increase the minimum wage, making it worth more to work than to stay on benefits.
I struck me just today that I have heard the same form of lying - saying the right words, but expressing them such that it is clear you mean the opposite - in some clergy. I only mention it because I have heard this happen live, I have heard clergy lie to my face. I realise just how good some people are at it.
I also realise just how much you need to despise the person you are talking to do this.
Of course those at the other end of the social scale to those on benefits most definitely don't want to make work pay. They are quite happy with getting paid without working for it - taking their profits from investments without having to do a lot for them.
So maybe we should introduce a maximum "wage" - the most per hour that people are allowed to gain from salary and investments. Surely that would then encourage the richest - and so, according to the Cameron philosophy, the most significant members of our society who we must not lose under any circumstances - to work more hours, contribute more to the nation.
Maybe we should address the huge issue of tax evasion, because if the wealthiest actually have to contribute to the economy through taxation, then surely they will just work harder to make up this loss. And, as so many have pointed out, tax evasion is a far bigger drain on the economy than benefit cheats.
The problem is that, in our nation today, there are two groups of people who have an expectation of pay without working for it. At one end are those very few people who want to and enjoy living off benefits. There are many others who would happily work if they could, but cannot for whatever reason, and the benefits system does provide an important safety net for these people. We should not forget that, before the welfare state, these people would often end up in the workhouse (basically, workfare with more security), or dead. Sometimes both. The benefit system saves lives, and that is why it is so critical.
The other end is those people who feel that they should be rewarded vastly for the work they do, or the work that has been done by their parents, and so from their investments. These people are just as "lazy", just as expectant of "pay without working", but they are the privileged few who have the money to not work.
And quite a few of them are in the cabinet.
Making work pay is a good idea. Justifying the decimation of the benefits system while encouraging the wealthy to simply hoard their money and not invest in new jobs, is not making work pay. It is abusing your privilege and power for personal benefit and gain.
The problem is, he is lying.
If he wanted to make work pay, he would not have supported the illegal and abusive workfare schemes, which were work without pay.
If he wanted to make work pay, he would increase the minimum wage, making it worth more to work than to stay on benefits.
I struck me just today that I have heard the same form of lying - saying the right words, but expressing them such that it is clear you mean the opposite - in some clergy. I only mention it because I have heard this happen live, I have heard clergy lie to my face. I realise just how good some people are at it.
I also realise just how much you need to despise the person you are talking to do this.
Of course those at the other end of the social scale to those on benefits most definitely don't want to make work pay. They are quite happy with getting paid without working for it - taking their profits from investments without having to do a lot for them.
So maybe we should introduce a maximum "wage" - the most per hour that people are allowed to gain from salary and investments. Surely that would then encourage the richest - and so, according to the Cameron philosophy, the most significant members of our society who we must not lose under any circumstances - to work more hours, contribute more to the nation.
Maybe we should address the huge issue of tax evasion, because if the wealthiest actually have to contribute to the economy through taxation, then surely they will just work harder to make up this loss. And, as so many have pointed out, tax evasion is a far bigger drain on the economy than benefit cheats.
The problem is that, in our nation today, there are two groups of people who have an expectation of pay without working for it. At one end are those very few people who want to and enjoy living off benefits. There are many others who would happily work if they could, but cannot for whatever reason, and the benefits system does provide an important safety net for these people. We should not forget that, before the welfare state, these people would often end up in the workhouse (basically, workfare with more security), or dead. Sometimes both. The benefit system saves lives, and that is why it is so critical.
The other end is those people who feel that they should be rewarded vastly for the work they do, or the work that has been done by their parents, and so from their investments. These people are just as "lazy", just as expectant of "pay without working", but they are the privileged few who have the money to not work.
And quite a few of them are in the cabinet.
Making work pay is a good idea. Justifying the decimation of the benefits system while encouraging the wealthy to simply hoard their money and not invest in new jobs, is not making work pay. It is abusing your privilege and power for personal benefit and gain.
Sunday, 7 April 2013
A musical Easter meditation
This is a piece of music that I have written and recorded. It is not brilliant, but gives a sense of what I am after, as an Easter meditation. It is all recorded by me on my guitar.
Waiting for GPS
For an explanation, the chaos and crowds of Good Friday is finished by the sound of the nails being hammered in. Then we have the rather dead and waiting time of Easter Saturday, when there was a pause in history.
The piece is concluded by a celebration of Easter Sunday resurrection.
Enjoy.
Waiting for GPS
For an explanation, the chaos and crowds of Good Friday is finished by the sound of the nails being hammered in. Then we have the rather dead and waiting time of Easter Saturday, when there was a pause in history.
The piece is concluded by a celebration of Easter Sunday resurrection.
Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)