Careless in the community....

There have been a couple of recent TV series about prisoners, and it raises one particular issue for me, which is the institutionalised nature of so many of the inmates.

Many years ago, "Care in the Community" was the idea of the the Thatcher government to close many of the large institutional hospitals that those suffering with mental problems used to be treated. The principle was that these people could, instead, live in the community with localised support, and so not be simply removed from society, but be helped to cope with their problems within society.

Actually, there is something to be said for this - some people with more minor psychiatric problems used to end up with even more problems because they were institutionally based, and never had help in coping with living in society. The problems were that the community support was not there, the money spent - which should have been at least as much, possibly more - was actually reduced, and it meant that many did not get the help that they needed.

A number of them did end up in prisons, either because it was the only way they could get any help, or because their inability to cope in society put them in opposition to the society. It is not because all people with mental illness are dangerous criminals, it is because they are not able to cope with the society they are "freed" into.

What stuck me about the latest program "The Prisoners" is that so many of these repeat prisoners are institutionalised, and commit more crimes simply to be returned to prison - it is the only place they can go to get food and shelter, and they are accustomed to the prison life. Of course it is a rather more restrictive environment than some others, but it serves the role that so many of them need.

The problem is, by closing the psychiatric institutions, by reducing funding for homeless projects and drug rehabilitation schemes, the only institution that people who need some form on institution to live in is prison. There are some people who are best off in appropriate institutions - people who need the structure and support there to thrive. This is not to criticise them or demean then, just that in certain situations the order and structure of an institution is the best thing for them.

The problem with prisons is twofold. Firstly, they are "one size fits all" places, and are less able to focus on specific problems (drugs, psychiatric issues, social challenge). So it tends not to help them properly and specifically, and it fails - often - to rehabitualise these people to society.

Secondly, the cost of keeping people in prison is very high. The cost of providing this for those who are in need of help rather than incarceration is far too high. If this level of money was actually put into proper support for drugs, homelessness and psychiatric support, then a whole lot of these problems would be improved. And yes, some of them do need to be institutionalised and supported long term. this is not a failure of the care, it is a part of care.

Actually, proper and appropriate support for people, whatever it may be, is the humane and caring thing. Whoever the people are.

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.

Is Green the best option for Christians?

I should make it clear at the start of this that I am a paid up member of the Green party, and have stood for local elections a number of times. Having said this, I am not here going to push the party line, or play silly political games. I am a member because I believe politics is important, and I support the Greens because of everything else I explore here.

I think there is an important starting point in any discussion of political support that we accept that any party we give our support to will hold policies and ideas that we do not agree with and accept. Despite the waffle so often coming from MPs and other party members seeking to progress in the party, any member of any party has parts of their manifesto that they don’t wholeheartedly support. The same applies to me and the Greens. I am not going to outline them, because that is divisive. I am still a member, and I still support them, despite the disagreements. I would have disagreements with ANY party I supported, so they do not matter, if I believe that the core party aims are good.

Politically, I am left-wing, meaning that I believe the state should take care of the people. I am a believer in big government, to the extent that the state should provide certain benefits for the people, and these should be run as services, not as profit-driven business. But I would not call myself a socialist, largely because a) I don’t know any more what this means and b) I do not believe that the age-old party division of left/right, driven fundamentally on economic policy, is any longer valid.

The problem we have in the UK these days is that we no longer have a politically left party. The Tories are firmly right-wing, and are taking the Lib-Dems with them. The Labour party has moved towards the middle ground, and is now more right-wing than the Liberals used to be. We have a political gap in the social-concern area – and it is this that I believe the Greens can satisfy.

And, in case you want to argue that the parties are not, in fact, all far too right wing, they are ALL supporting the appalling retroactive legislation to make the illegal and abusive workfare schemes legal.

But are the Greens any better? Well the core drive for Green politics is towards care for the environment, care for the world, providing sustainability in our resource use. In truth, this can only be achieved nationally by government-driven service provision. That means providing transport systems that do not use our precious oil reserves – and therefore public transport has to be a better option. It means supporting the NHS, because it is health for all, and people are important to Greens. It means support for those in need, because they are important, and paying for it through tax on the wealthier and those who are damaging the environment – these classes tend to be very much the same. It means providing a fair society for us all to live and prosper in, and for our children. It means not being selfish, but being prepared to share with others, now and in the future.

This is not an official outline of Green policies, for which you can look at the party web site. But compassion, care, an sustainability are the core principles.

These seem like good socialist ideas.

They also seem like good Christian principles.

Of course, there are some issues with the Green party for Middle-Class Christians. Firstly, it will mean we will be more tightly squeezed, because so much of the middle-class lifestyle is wasteful. So it may mean higher driving costs, a push towards recycling our waste, not just chucking it, less fancy out-of-season food in our supermarkets. But these are good things if you take a wider perspective on the world. These are things we should be pushed to change, because we clearly haven’t done it without the pressure.

The other issue is the whole new-age mother-earth thing about the Greens. Oddly enough, the spiritual beliefs of other parties do not enter into the discussion very often. Is rampant, selfish greed a more Christ-like attitude? Or personal political ambition? These are the driving principles behind so many politicians, and yet we support them. In fact, I believe that an understanding of the world as a living being, as a part of a wonderful creation, as something more than a rock to be lived on is very much in line with Celtic Christian understanding. The care and concern for the environment is part of our Christian heritage and responsibility. There will be those in the movement who come there from a different point, but so what? We are all working towards a better stewardship of the earth. Glad to welcome you. What is more, most Green Party members are hard-headed political realists - people who believe the Green Party ideals, but who are also serious politicians.

Is Green the new Red? It is hard to say, but the recent successes do indicate that the green message is starting to get through. There is a lot of good socialism in the green agenda, and there is more. If you are fed up with the current politics – and to be honest, whatever your position, you should be – then the Green direction may be a breath of fresh air.

A return to Victorian values?

There is often talk amongst politicians, Christians, and other conservatives of a desire to return to the values of an earlier time. This has come up especially in the discussion about Same Sex Marriage, with calls for no "redefinition of marriage", with an assumption - tacit or explicit - that the concept of marriage as one man and one woman is something sacrosanct, divinely mandated, or similarly a perfect ideal that would make everything better.

This is, of course, utter drivel.

There seems to be a call for a return to a society where women and children have no rights at all. Where marriage is close to ownership of a wife by the husband. Where, for the vast majority of people, life expectancy is significantly lower, especially for the working classes. And child mortality is even higher. The only people who benefit are the few wealthy, white, males. The majority of people across the world were substantially worse off in this mythical time in the past.

So yes, hark back to these times if you are one of the wealthy, white, men for whom the society was supporting. But if you are not in this elite, life was difficult.

Ah, people say, but they did have a higher standard of morality then, didn't they?

Well, they proclaimed a different - maybe higher - morality, yes. Those who were educated mainly, who normally proclaimed a higher morality for others. On the whole, the morality proclaimed was not for the privileged, educated people declaring it, but for others. They did not always believe this moral standard should apply to them. Yes, there were exceptions, but the moral code they often taught was a moral standard that others needed to follow, for their betterment.

However, there is another reason why this call for a return to an earlier society is deeply flawed. The problem is, we are not "there", we are "here". It is all too easy to say that in another society, things were better, but we do not live in another society, we live in today. We need to apply our ideas and principles to the society that we live in now, otherwise, they are meaningless.

So the same sex marriage debate should not be conducted by saying that some other society was or is better. We live in the society we are in, where homosexuality is a significant part of our society, and we need to work with that, seek to help and support all the people in our society, whatever their sexual orientation, gender, race or whatever. We are where we are, and we need to deal with that, handle that, apply our theology/philosophy/morality to the world we live in, not a world we might wish we were living in (a world, that, usually, never actually existed).

I have sympathy with Amazon, Google and Starbucks

Well, only to a point, of course. These companies - along with many others - have organised their affairs, come to agreements, planned their finances to pay very little tax in the UK (and other countries too. They just don't pay tax). They do this, of course, to maximise profits, and provide the highest possible earnings for the shareholders and directors. The people who make most of the decisions are also the ones who benefit from this and, like most people, they look to their own benefit. In this, I have no sympathy with them.

However I do find some sympathy with the idea of withholding tax from a government who seems to be behaving in the same way - managing the country's economics to the benefit of themselves and their friends. Those who argue for a boycott of Amazon because of their tax avoidance policies should also consider whether they should withhold taxes from the government who are refusing to support the NHS, those on benefits, those who are the poorest and most oppressed in our society. The principle is, surely, just the same. If you argue for boycotting one company, one organisation, because they are acting irresponsibly with their money, then surely it should also apply to others. If we object to Amazon, Google, Starbucks not taking their civil duties seriously, not fulfilling their duties where they conduct their business, then surely the government should also not be paid.

At the same time, there is news this week that J K Rowling has dropped out of the Forbes Billionaires list because she has given so much of her money away to charitable purposes. I mention her, because she is famously happy to pay her taxes. She is a person who seems to represent the true spirit of the rich, quite prepared to pay her civil duties, but also generous with her money. She stands out because she is pretty much unique in doing this.

I am not, I should point out, suggesting a mass non-payment of tax. I think there is another broader issue here. We cannot ignore the fact that many organisations are not cross-national (and many people too), and it is no longer appropriate to consider how to tax them in one country. We need to find ways of appropriately taxing trans-national entities, that provides appropriate commitment from companies, wherever they are based, and provides suitable contributions to the countries in which they operate. It is time to end the tax havens, where individuals and organisations can operate from purely for the purposes of avoiding paying tax.

It means that companies like Starbucks should have to pay whatever percent of their profits globally, irrespective of where they are based and where they operate. It means that this money should then be fed back to the countries in which they operate based on their taking in those countries.

It means that individuals should pay reasonable rates of tax on their earnings, and this should be paid back to the countries where they spend their time.

It is time that we accepted the impact of an increasingly small world, where sovereign states are no longer as significant as they were. Or rather, they are not the largest or most significant entity. A bigger picture needs to be taken. It is time to make the tax-avoiding tactics of those who can afford it a thing of the past.

Austerity is a lie

The new year is here, and more above-inflation rail fare rises are here, along with more cuts to the benefits system. The cost of living in the UK for the poorest has increased significantly, although the cost for the wealthier has not so much.

The explanation from the government is, of course, that these are austerity measures, because of the global recession, meaning that there is less government money to fund the railways, the benefits system, and local facilities.

The problem is that this is a lie.

This is a lie, because the government could fill the budget gap is a range of other ways. One example here indicates the level of benefit fraud - something the government has emphasised as being a major problem - is not as high as has been suggested. In fact this link (and others are available with similar levels, even if different figures) suggests that fraud levels are around 2.2% of total benefits, some £3.4bn.

It also shows that the there may be some £16bn a year in unclaimed benefit, meaning that if the entire system was cleaned up, and everyone claimed no more or less than they should, the benefits bill would increase by over £10bn.

Of course the government is now starting to attack even legitimate benefit claimants. The most prominent are the increasing demands on the unemployed, as well as the recent suggestions to insist that the retired should contribute to society.

The problem is that most jobseekers are actually looking for work. Not all, I would accept, but most, and so if they do not take a job on offer, there is probably a good reason for it. Forcing them into accepting jobs that are unsuitable is liable to mean they will have to claim more benefits for childcare coverage, or that they will have to give up the job. It is wrong to assume that even unskilled jobs are suitable for just anyone - and it is dehumanising to assume that they are. People are not just units of production, and should not be treated as such, in any situation. Ignoring this is not only wrong morally, but it is liable to throw up more problems in time, not least medical ones, putting more pressure on the NHS.

Pensioners have already made significant contributions to society, and should be able to retire without any further requirements. In many cases, they will make contributions to society.

The other significant information on that link above is the other side of the equation - tax fraud and evasion. This would indicate that this costs over £100bn a year - something like 60% of the total benefit bill for a year (depending on which figures you take, it might be up to nearly 100% of the bill). What is more, this figure is 20 times the benefit fraud figures, so achieving even 10% success in addressing this would make more of a difference, and allow the benefits cuts to be stopped.

This, of course, shows up the real reasons for the "austerity" measures, because there have been plenty of well publicised examples of companies who are not paying their full tax responsibilities, so it is not a problem of finding the money. The real problem is that these companies are the financiers and supporters of the Tory party.

The real reason for most of the government policies - in particular, the financial ones, implemented under the guise of "austerity" - are just extreme versions of standard Tory politics, reducing the tax burden on the rich, and increasing it on the poorer. This is why the government will not raise revenue from the richer, the city and business, despite the fact that the banks are substantially responsible for the economic crisis.

Just for clarification, I don't doubt that some people on benefits are cheating, or that there are some savings to be made in the NHS. I don't deny that we are globally in an economic recession. I have no question whatsoever that we are in tough economic times. But the reason that I say that austerity is a lie is that this is not the reason for the economic changes. The real reason for these is that David Cameron wants to help his friends in this difficult time: the city, the business community (including the train companies) and the wealthy.
Personally, I would call it cronyism instead. "All in this together" it certainly isn't.

This is not a political rant from a lefty against the right wing. It is not about  political positions, as, in all honesty, I don't see any of the main political leaders as being any different in essence. The problem for me is that this is abuse, abuse of those who are not rich, abuse of those who are not influential. This is abuse by those in power of those without power. Forget austerity, this is power games instead.

Embarrassment

After this incident recently, David Camerons response was ""If any other politician got stuck on a zip wire it would be disastrous.With Boris it's a triumph... London is lucky to have him.". It made me think, why is is so good to have a politician who seems to be immune to embarrassment?

The response of so many MPs to the expenses scandal was similarly nonchalant. "We were only claiming what we were entitled to" they seemed to say. In so many cases, there was no embarrassment at what had gone on. there was no sense of having let people down. Some of them did, and credit to them, but not all, and even some of those who were prosecuted wanted to argue that these were not affairs that the courts should have jurisdiction over.

I may be out of step here, but I want my politicians to have a sense of shame when they do something that is wrong, a cause of embarrassment, to attempt to hold up the dignity of their office. We seem to have lost that, rather, so many seem to think that they are entitled to run the country, and get lots of money for doing so. There is something about our political system that seems to encourage this, not least because it is endemic in all of the main parties. I wish I had answers, but I think we need to ask the questions.

It is also sad that I see some of the same problems in the church, worldwide. Church leaders who do not know what embarrassment is, and make the church look stupid. They speak on subject that they clearly know nothing about, because, obviously, as Gods people, they are right on every subject. They make claims on subjects that they should know about, and demonstrate their ignorance and prejudice. They issue statements without, apparently, any understanding of how they will be received.

Church leaders, even more than other Christians, need to be learners. Actually, we should all be learners, whatever our situation, but for those who call themselves Christians, the drive should be because we need to learn more of God in new and different ways, in ways that challenge us. Before we make public declarations on topics, we should be prepared to learn - and as a blogger, I would include myself in this. And all Christians who might make public statements should make sure they know about how the media works. Leaders of all sorts should, I believe, be involved in social media, an understand the effect that this can have.

And I am sorry, but Boris should hold his head in shame for getting caught trussed up like that, in the middle of an Olympics that are showing that the UK can organise global events with a relaxed efficiency, and deliver a stunning Olympics.

"Morally Repugnant"

Apparently, David Cameron thinks that Jimmy Carrs perfectly legal avoidance of tax is "morally repugnant". Carr has apologised, and admitted that he made a mistake. Maybe he did, maybe not - lets be clear, there was nothing illegal in what he did, but it was a means of avoiding paying tax on a lot of money.

It has since been revealed that David Camerons dad made his money - and a lot of it - from providing tax havens. Exactly what he seems to consider "morally repugnant". Cameron himself inherited some 300K of this money. I presume that if Cameron really finds it "morally repugnant", he will give this money to a worthy cause.

Actually, what he has done is announce plans to remove housing benefit from under 25YOs. Taking money from young and vulnerable people because of the economic situation we are in. A situation that he is at least as responsible for as the previous government. Punishing the poor - that is morally repugnant.

Cameron said at the start of his term that "we are all in this together". What he meant, of course, is that while we are all in this together, some peoples role is to benefit, whereas other people suffer. Mainly the rich benefit and the poor suffer. That is morally repugnant.

At the same time that he is claiming that Carrs perfectly legal tax avoidance is morally repugnant, Vodafone have been let off several billions of tax - substantially more than Carr avoided. Apparently that is acceptable - evading tax (illegally) is better than avoiding it (legally). That is morally repugnant - if he is serious about Carr being wrong then surely he should ensure Vodafone pay up.

And, of course, if he is serious about tax loopholes being repugnant, why doesn't he close them? He has the power, so he should do it. Of course he won't do that, because that would hit those who support him - the rich who fund him. If he was serious about us all being in it together, he would crack down on all tax avoidance, he would make sure that the wealthiest pay the tax they owe. That he doesn't, and rather chooses to make the poor pay for the failings of the rich, is the real moral repugnance here.

Note that I am not suggesting any punitive tax rates or a rich tax or anything like that. All I am suggesting is that everyone should pay the tax they should on their income. As a minimum, everyone earning over 20K should be paying 25% on their income earned in this country. Is that too much to ask?

Morally repugnant? Yes you are David.