Nobody Left Out In The Cold - minimum acceptable compromise on Disability Cuts

Take a good look at the above picture.  It is called 'Left Out In the Cold', and it is by disabled artist Kaliya Franklin lying on a British beach on a freezing cold day, just out of reach of the wheelchair she needs to get around.  It represents the almost certain consequence of the Government's planned cuts to support for the long-term sick and disabled. Deeply vulnerable and  disadvantaged people left just out of reach of the vital financial and care support that they need to lead safe and dignified lives as part of our society, despite the disadvantage of their illness or disability.

I have already written about the full range of Cuts to support for sick and disabled people at some length here. If you're thinking of clicking on that link I apologise in advance for the length.  It's long. Unfortunately the scale and range of cuts, and the general public ignorance about this issue means it has to be long to cover the subject even vaguely properly.  I would still honestly recommend you read it though, or at least look up something else on the issue.  It's extremely unlikely you've even heard of the main planks of welfare that support Sick and disabled people, unless you, a close friend or a family member are Sick or Disabled.  But this is such an important issue you really need to.  They are an absolutely essential life-line for literally millions of people in this Country and they are deeply threatened by the Government's planned cuts.  If I still haven't convinced you to read more about it, don't worry, this will be mercifully short.  

The main facts that everyone should know are extremely simple.  Even before the Recession and any of the cuts to support for Sick and Disabled people families with a Sick or Disabled member were twice as likely to be living in Poverty and had an unemployment rate running at 50%.  The Sick and Disabled are facing the entirety of the squeeze on public services and taxes that everyone else are experiencing, whether cuts to council services, education, healthcare, public sector job losses, housing benefits cuts, rises in VAT and National Insurance, surging fuel prices and Inflation and stagnant wages.  This on its own is probably enough to drive already struggling and vulnerable households into Poverty or just deeper in.

Incredibly though above of and On top of this general financial squeeze they are also facing additional swingeing and targeted cuts to the extra support available to Sick and Disabled people totalling some £5 billion a year.  Employment Support Allowance (ESA), Disability Living Allowance (DLA), the Access To Work Fund, the Independent Living Fund.  All are facing significant cuts and restrictions.  These cuts and changes will make it considerably harder for Sick and Disabled people to move into work.  They will take a segment of our society that already has a Poverty rate DOUBLE that of everyone else and push hundreds of thousands more into Poverty.  DLA, for example, is being cut by 20%, far above the average 11.5% cuts facing the Public Sector. They are fundamentally unjustifiable on this basis alone.  Dry figures are certainly not all there is to this though.

Suffering a severe, long-term illness or disability is one of the most difficult things to live with of any of the disadvantages in people can face. Almost by definition it robs people of so many advantages the rest of us take for granted including too much of the ability to take part in society. It is often painful, almost always fundamentally exhausting and draining and always stressful for the rest of a sick or disabled person's family.  It often makes life constantly more of a struggle than for well people. It also leaves a person open to a constant flow of minor indignities and general ignorance from a society where many people are still totally clueless about how to relate to disabled and extremely sick people in a human manner.  I could, of course, go on; the difficulties faced by disabled and long-term sick people are as various as the possible mental and physical conditions and the unique individuals that must live with them, but I'm sure you understand the general idea.  The truth is for many families and invididuals who struggle with these problems the effect of these cuts will be to pile stress, fear and struggle, both financial and emotional, on already difficult circumstances above and beyond that faced by any of their able-bodied and mentally well fellow citizens.

I'm an optimist about human nature.  I don't think politicians are deliberately trying to drive some of the most vulnurable people in our society into poverty, harship and despair. I just think they're ignorant.  But the truth is there none the less.  And it is centred on three massive issues that the Government must be forced to compromise on.  I get the idea that some cuts will fall on the Sick and Disabled.  Cuts will always fall on those already struggling because, quite frankly, that's where the money is being spent.  If the Coalition compromises on these three issues though they will have a defensible, if harsh, platform. Without compromise though they are leading an organised public Outrage.

Issue No.1 is DLA.  Disability Living Allowance is a universal benefit designed to help people with the extra costs of care or mobility that comes with being disabled or seriously ill, put by one study at 25% higher than the living costs faced by a non-disabled person. And is only available to the most disabled and ill.  Being disabled or sick is an expensive business.  Whether it's expensive home modifications, mobility equipment, prescriptions, taxis because public transport or driving is impossible, tuition support, personal care or god alone knows what else.  DLA is not an out-of-work benefit, it helps many people who are sick or disabled stay in work as well as others who cannot work. DLA is an almost model benefit.  It is heavily targeted at the most Sick or Disabled (see here for some of its restrictive conditions), it helps large numbers of people into useful employment, it has the lowest fraud rate of any piece of welfare.  Despite this the government has announced they are going to entirely redesign it.  In theory to improve it.  They have been stunningly vague about how they are intending to improve it, but they have very clearly stated they want to restrict it massively and cut spending by 20%, save £2 billion.  This is a massive cut, pure and simple, masquerading as a redesign.

DLA is already restricted to the very Sick and Disabled, massively restricting it further like this, and prioritising achieving a certain saving over need, will leave many people without vital support.  A simple compromise would be to readjust the figure for Savings to £1 billion, a 10% cut.  This would be in line with the general cuts across the Public Sector, it would still be a considerable cut, but it would maintain the integrity of DLA.  It would be a total that is far more likely to be achievable without taking support away from those with truly serious need.  It would give a chance to reform DLA, if that is truly what the government wants to do, without basing the changes around the need to make deep savings, giving the chance to actually improve support.

The 2nd and 3rd issues are the Employment Support Allowance.  This is the benefit that supports the living costs of those people too Sick or Disabled to work, or to fulfill the requirements for the Dole.  No.2 is the government's plans to restrict contributory ESA to 1 year, for around 90% of claimants.  This move is supposed to save £1.5 billion.  On the surface it seems reasonable.  Contributory JSA is limited to 6 months, so why should the equivalent for those Sick or Disabled and out of work, ESA, be different?  There is still Income based ESA to support those with no financial resources.  The problem comes because the connection between ESA and JSA is tenuous at best in this instance. JSA is meant to be distinctly short-term.  For many ESA will be extremely long-term, even with the government's most optimistic assumptions.  Also the government's definition of financial resources is frankly laughable.  Any family with a Sick or Disabled member that also has either any savings or a partner earning almost any money will be deemed to be not eligible for any ESA.  Ignoring the quite savage work disincentive this creates for families with a disabled or Sick member, as I already said families with a sick or disabled member were already twice as likely to be in poverty as other comparable families before these cuts, and the individuals within these families on average have costs 25% greater than a non-Sick or Disabled person.  The considerable and additional financial pressure of this measure will hence almost certainly push most of the three hundred thousand households affected into poverty, or push them even deeper therein if they are there already.

Compromise is easily possible here to.  This measure is meant to save £1.5 billion a year, by taking £90 a week of ESA away from hundreds of thousands of people who would otherwise be eligible.  As previously discussed, this is an awful ideas that will drive many families already struggling financially, and with Sickness and stress, into the ground.  There are various possible compromises though.  The Labour Party has suggested limiting Contributory ESA to 2 years.  This would avoid catching a considerable number of families, but would still leave most with the same problem, just somewhat later on.  Another possible compromise is based on the structure of ESA.  ESA is made up of two parts in theory, a £65 a week basic element and then a £25 or £30 additional element that everyone gets.  Those effected by this cut would be receiving the £25 additional element.  The compromise is to remove the additional element after 1 year.  This would save around £0.5 billion  a year and while still leaving families with some ongoing support.  Under this regime they would still almost certainly wear down both savings and suffer and struggle financially, considering the high-levels of costs they generally face.  But it would leave them with some support, and would be a change there would be some chance to adjust to, rather than the immediate removal of almost all income.  There are also other options that would deliver some savings to the government, without the same harsh risk of leaving many families facing near destitution if their Sick or Disabled members do not find work within a year.

The 3rd Issue is the nature of the assessments for ESA itself.  These have been roundly, widely and very strongly criticised by everyone from the Citizen's Advice Bureau, one of the experts who actually designed the system, the government's own review of the system, and pretty much every single person who has experienced it.  It has been particularly criticised for failing those with mental health disabilities.  It's not hard to see where the criticism comes from.  The assessments are a tick-box exercise scored on a computer, with all the flexibility and individual consideration that description suggests, and often not even conducted by relevant medical personel.  The evidence that the system is broken is overwhelming.  Appeal rates run at almost 40%, of which about half are upheld. The acceptance rates for ESA are also frankly unbelievable with 2/3rds of applicants being found 'Fit for Work', even some who have then literally died the next day.  The sense that this is all motivated by financial rather than medical need is overwhelming when the government has already announced how much money it expects to save from this whole exercise.

This final issue desperately needs change. The government must recognise the serious problems with the assessment process and commit to sweeping changes to meet these serious issues.  They could start in worse places than implementing the reccommendations of their own Review.  Changing the assessments in a direction of bringing in a genuine holistic assessment of an individual's capabilities, rather than a tick-box exercise, with proper recognition of the distinct circumstances faced by those with mental health conditions or just highly variable long-term conditions.

I entirely understand and appreciate the need to cut spending in this country considering the £155 billion deficit we have. I'm the last person who would argue against that. But like that does not justify any old cut. Families with long-term sick or disabled members already face some of the worst poverty and social exclusion in our society, without even mentioning the obvious pain and suffering that so often comes with these conditions, and the huge stress it places on individual and families.  A lot of cuts are unfortunate and down-right difficult, but they do not involve the risk of fundamental damage to our most basic social duty, provision for those who just cannot provide for themselves.  Neither is this a partisan issue.  many of these problems were started by Labour and are now being continued and in some cases intensified by the Coalition.  There is plenty of failure to go around, and plenty of scope for minds to change and governments commit to do better.  These compromises I have mentioned would 'cost' the government around £2 billion a year.  They are the absolute minimum acceptable if we are to live in a decent and supportive society. This still leaves around £3 billion a year of cuts directed at support for the disabled, above and beyond the wider financial squeeze being imposed on society. Surely more than enough of a reduction to be borne by possibly the most disadvantaged and vulnerable section of our society.

The final question then is what can people do?  Many things.  I wrote to my MP for the first time today.  On its own this won't change anything.  But it is an essential part of making sure politicians are aware of the depth of feeling about this issue.  And that this is something that cannot just happen quietly.  Another important thing you can do is just to get yourself informed about what is happening.  And if you have the chance get others informed as well. The greatest danger is just that so few people know about these cuts, because sadly the sick and disabled do not have the loud supporters, friends in the media or noisy ability to defend themselves shown by more high-profile but less vital issues. Though it is inspiring to see the grassroots movement that has emerged (largely online) in a few months to campaign against these measures. 'The Broken of Britain' is a great collaborative group that attempts to raise the profile of this issue and bring disabled, sick and well and able-bodied people together to campaign against these cuts. 'Diary of a Benefits Scrounger' is a great blog written by a wonderful lady called Sue Marsh, who herself suffers from serious Crohns disease, and explains these issues much more eloquently (and briefly) than I could hope to. Both of these have a lot of information on what people can do to help. There are also a load of other resources online.

There is also some time, since many of these changes do not come in until 2013 or later.  There has even actually already been some success. Under great pressure the government has already decided to review the decision to remove mobility allowance DLA from those in care homes, and in the last day has announced a public review into ESA.  This is hence a crucial time to increase the pressure on them to reverse these cuts and secure proper support for long-term sick and disabled people in our society permanently.

But it will require people like you and me to get off our asses and get informed, get aware and look out for the opportunities to do whatever we can to make sure these disastrous changes are not allowed to just happen around us.



Many thanks to 'Broken of Britain' and Kaliya Franklin for the above Picture.

How could Electoral Reform Fail so Badly?

.
It's not very controversial to say that the result of the AV referendum on was disastrous for the cause of Electoral Reform in the UK.  Almost everyone was surprised by the scale of AV's defeat and this has been followed by an immediate consensus that electoral reform is off the political table for at least a decade, if not a generation. For reformers, after 80 years of campaigning and finally getting the referendum they had dreamt and hoped for reform is now, cruelly, even further away than before.

This would seem an odd time then to talk about the future of electoral reform.  But in reality now immediately after its big defeat is precisely the time that supporters of Reform needs to take stock, think clearly about what has happened and plan for the future. And there is no such thing as a perfect certainty when it comes to politics and the future. With boldness and a serious willingness to really reconsider both means and aims anything is possible.

First it is important to face up to the reality of what happened, what went so wrong, and what must be learnt from 2011 to make sure next time is extremely different.  So this is what I try to do in this article.  In my next article I set out what I believe to be a better option for achievable electoral reform than AV, and then argue how we can apply the lessons outlined here to give the best chance to achieve that success as soon as possible, however long that may be.  


Just a quick note.  If at any point I make rude comments about electoral reformers, I mean the core of leaders of pro-reform organisations, politicians, media commentators and the rest of the small group of people who frame and direct the public image and fight for electoral reform, rather than supporters of electoral reform generally, of whom I am one.

So what happened?  And what went so wrong?

2 weeks ago the UK held its first ever referendum on the subject of electoral reform.  This represented the 2nd closest Britain has ever got to ditching First-Past-The-Post as its electoral system.  The 1st being when a switch to AV and STV was narrowly rejected by parliament after a lot of argument and numerous votes in the 1920's.  The particular chance of electoral reform on offer was of course the Alternative Vote.  This was rejected by 68%-32% on a 42% turnout, or in other words by 13 million votes to 6 million.  It is hard to over-estimate the scale of the thrashing.  AV lost in every region of the UK and in 430 out of 440 counting regions.  Equally telling is the fact that in the tiny number of areas AV did pass in it squeaked through with around 55% of the vote, only gaining more than 60% in a single London Borough.  In contrast it was defeated by margins of 70-30% in literally hundreds of areas.  Most UK regions did even contain a single voting area that supported AV.

Personally I was broadly neutral on the question of AV or not. I remain massively unconvinced that AV would offer a significant improvement on the current system in terms of results or the problems of FPTP. Neither do I think its introduction would have been the end of the world. AV could be summarised as a system that is slightly better than FPTP in some areas and slightly worse in others. At best it would solve 10% of our problems, at worst it would occasionally make them slightly worse.  That said, in one sense it is a deep shame that AV was defeated so badly, because it discourages the thought of considering further ideas for reform, and gives the resemblance of a mandate for the current pure FPTP system, something that system does not deserve. 


In a weird way though I'm glad AV was destroyed so badly. I'm glad because the result was decisive, thus forcing the defeated party to admit clear and straight defeat. The worst of all possible worlds would have been a close result on a low turnout, whether for Yes or No.  Such a result would have only fuelled bad feeling about any change or lack of it and damaged the credibility of the result. It would have led to an orgy of blame with the losing side looking for any chance to excuse their defeat by blaming a technicality or their opponents misdeeds. The sheer scale of the result luckily means that the defeated side was left with no option but to give way gracefully(ish).  

The second silver lining, from my point of view, is that even when Electoral Reform does come back onto the political agenda it is highly unlikely that pure AV will be the alternative option.  This is good because I don't think AV is significantly better than pure FPTP for Britain, nor solves the problems that pure FPTP brings.  It is a step sideways, the illusion of reform without actually solving the serious issues with the current system. I think it was said best by a journalist, raging against the progressive majority's failure to vote through AV, who complained that FPTP was a "broken, majoritarian voting system that disenfranchises millions of voters and puts power in the hands of a hundred thousand or so "swing" voters in "Middle England" marginal seats". To which his solution was to introduce a broken, majoritarian voting system that disenfranchises millions of voters and puts power in the hands of a hundred thousand or so "swing" voters in "Middle England" marginal seats. Right.  

My general lack of interest in the Alternative Vote to one side, I think Electoral reformers made a big mistake in their approach to the referendum that has the capacity to seriously damage the hope of reform over the next years if not understood and overcome.  Starting on entirely pragmatic grounds I think that whoever was running the YES campaign owes supporters of reform an apology, for monumentally cocking up the 1st decent chance for reform in 80 years.

The scale of AV's defeat means it may have been impossible for the best campaign in the world to have won for a YES vote.  The circumstances were very adverse, but they certainly could have done a lot more with them and given the cause of reform a much stronger platform from here on. Now it is really easy to be wise with hindsight and blame the Yes campaign after it lost but there's more going on here than that. There have been numerous serious explanations about just how bad the Yes campaign was, most damningly by senior members of the national Yes campaign who felt unable to speak up before the vote itself, and feel crushed by how their efforts were thrown away.  (For example, here, here, here and particularly here.)  Even from miles away I can rattle off the top of my head 4 things the Yes campaign were obviously doing wrong.

Firstly, running a cosy, smug, left-wing campaign by Guardian readers for Guardian readers. The Yes2AV campaign made almost no effort to reach out to right-wingers, running a campaign opened by Ed Miliband, Caroline Lucas, and involving almost no attempt at political balance. This was an astonishing failure. Especially when they had an ace in the hole in the form of UKIP and its charismatic front man Nigel Farage.  They could have used these to devastating affect to counter the solid Conservative No campaign among right-of-centre voters.  They didn't almost certainly out of the liberal-left's general distaste for UKIP. They'd rather run a campaign by 'progressives' for 'progressives' and lose. Particularly remarkable was the comparison with the relative role given to the Green's Caroline Lucas, despite the fact that UKIP gets about 3 times as many votes as the Greens. The Yes campaign's seeming approach could be summed up by a short conversation I had with a friend. I said the Yes campaign was cocking up by failing to engage right-wingers. He said why should they bother when right-wingers were a minority and would just vote No anyway. My jaw dropped.

In fairness he was technically right on one thing. Identifiably right-of-centre parties gained 43% of the vote in the last election, which leads me to my 2nd point. If the Yes campaign were going to be so stunningly complacent as to write off almost half of voters they needed to make absolutely sure they had the other half locked down so tight they could hardly breathe. This again they failed to do. Right from the start it was clear to anyone with half a brain that Labour voters would be crucial to securing or defeating AV.  They were the vital swing voters. Especially if the Yes campaign was planning to not bother with right-of-centre voters they needed to make damn sure they secured the support of the vast majority of Labour supporters. 

One way to do this would be to make the referendum a vote on David Cameron, they barely mentioned him. The other way would have been to make sure they had almost all Labour MP's, CLP's and other senior figures on board.  Again, they failed.  They almost went out of their way to antagonise Labour MP's with their main message, which, bizarrely, was that MP's were lazy and corrupt and AV would make them work harder and be more honest. This understandably didn't fire up Labour MP's, Lords, Councillors and other party figures to throw their weight behind the Yes campaign.  Once it became apparent that NO2AV had secured a considerable chunk of Labour support (let alone a majority of Labour MP's), combined with the Yes campaign's wilful neglect of right-wing voters, it was obvious they were going to lose.

The 3rd bizarre error was failing to reach out to as many voters as possible.  Beyond their choice in problem 1, they failed to utilise the opportunities they have available to them.  They and the NO campaign were both offered one free mailing to every house in the UK. The No campaign eagerly took the opportunity, producing a slick and compelling leaflet. The Yes campaign decided to just not bother. The No campaign launched one of the biggest political ad campaigns in UK history, with billboards around the country and vast quantities of online advertising. Yes2AV barely bothered. Yes2AV did manage to produce a TV political broadcast.  It was absolutely bizarre. It contained voters going around harassing MP's through megaphones, who were portrayed as lazy, corrupt caricatures. It barely mentioned any real positives of AV, only vague nonsense about AV making MP's work harder with no back-up explanation and claiming it would have avoided expense abuses.  It failed to make a genuine case for AV, it failed to make any case as to why FPTP was broken. It assumed voters were idiots. It may as well have promised them that AV would make diamonds rain from the sky.        

The 4th failure was doing their opponents work for them.  The Yes campaign spent far too little time genuinely making a case and clearly pushing the positive improvements of AV, or the glaring problems with FPTP.  They spent far more time trying to rebut their opponents case and thus cemented it in the public's mind.  It failed to pick a single message and stick to it, apart from the nonsensical line taken in their broadcast.  The No campaign, on the other hand, desperately wanted to make people think that AV was expensive so the Yes campaign spent huge amounts of time arguing the toss over how expensive it was.  The electorate, seeing the debate through a thick fog of apathy and other concerns, just heard that AV was expensive.  The No campaign wanted to make it a referendum on Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems in general.  So the Yes campaign obligingly filled the latter stages of the campaign with Lib Dem Cabinet ministers complaining about how mean the No campaign was, and to cap it off Ed Miliband publicly refused to share a platform with Nick Clegg. Thus making sure everyone knew the yes campaign thought Nick Clegg was important. Brilliantly done. These failures combined with the genuinely difficult circumstances the referendum was held in meant AV was doomed, and visibly so.

Apart from these pragmatic issues I think that electoral reformers made a serious strategic error in their more long term approach.  The vast majority of reformers did not want AV before the referendum was called. For what I believe are very good reasons. In fact numerous individuals and organisations had been downright scathing about it. As soon as the referendum was called though most of them moved as one to pushing AV and doubling back on their previous opinions. In of itself I don't blame them for this. AV was all that was on offer.  But that was precisely the problem.  The electoral reform movement is built on an extreme point of principle, whereas AV was the result of some pretty seedy political bargaining. In particular Gordon Brown's death bed conversion to reform in 2010, in a late attempt to cosy up to the Lib Dems, all while holding out the one type of electoral reform that could possibly actually INCREASE Labour's already bloated electoral advantage.  Pro-AV campaigners were caught between a rock and a hard place.  Support AV too strongly and they just looked hypocritical, given their recorded objections to it.  Damning it with faint praise was also not really an option, as that would just help speed it to defeat.  Faced with this choice they went with the 1st option and just looked like hypocrites. There was a 3rd option though.

It doesn't matter if you're YES or NO! Remember to VOTE Today!

.

The Campaigns may have been Crap!
The Claims may have been Outrageous!
The Politicians may have been as Annoying as ever!


You may be YES!  You may be NO!


But none of that matters. . . .


Just make sure you get out Today and VOTE!


Because it's extremely important!
Because it's you only get so few chances!


And because you just know someone stupider Will!


Polls open 7am-10pm.

The Royal Wedding: Verger Cartwheels with Joy down Westminster Abbey! Literally!!

.
Yes!  This is awesome!

And Congratulations to Prince William and Kate Middleton, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge!

God Bless you both!  And give you a long life of Love and Happiness Together!


It was a beautiful day and a beautiful ceremony.  The best of British pomp, ceremony, Christian and Royal Tradition.  It was great to see so many people coming together for an event.  Kate looked absolutely beautiful.  And both Kate and Prince William looked very happy.  Amen to that.


And in the some of the most beautiful words ever written in any language.  The words of St Paul.

1 Corinthians 13.
The Way Of Love.

 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have total faith, enough to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I have to the poor, and even if I sacrifice my life, but have not love, I gain nothing.


 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.  Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will fade. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when everything is made complete, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became a man, I gave up childish things. For now we see as through a glass, darkly but then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

So for now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

Happy Easter!

.
Just under 2000 years ago today a lady called Mary from a small town called Magdala went early in the morning to a rough rock tomb to tend the battered body of her murdered friend and teacher and to say goodbye one last time.  She was soon followed by an unremarkable rural fisherman called Simon Peter and a young man called John.  What they found there that morning changed the world forever more than any other single event in the whole history of mankind.

That is the remarkable truth of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, who we call Christ.  From the good news these three people brought, on that quiet morning so long ago, Empires and Continents and Centuries and Millenia have been transformed.  It has transformed the lives of people from every imaginable time and place, culture and race, nation and language; and today a community of more than two billion people spread across every country in the world exists devoted to those words.  A community transformed by the living God, the man Jesus who reaches out from the pages and experiences of countless books and people to transform lives then and now and tomorrow.

It has transformed my life too.

It has challenged, formed, taught and inspired me.  And always given me the strength to continue when times are darkest.  It has given me a King, a Lord, a teacher and  a friend I could never have imagined.  And if there is any richness in my soul, wisdom in my mind, or nobility in my character, I can only give the credit where it is deserved, to my experience and friendship with the Risen Lord Jesus Christ, who is alive and reigns forever over all the world. He is as close as a prayer, a word, a thought to being right by your side, each and every day since two utterly unremarkable men and one woman brought back the news that the Tomb was empty.  And nothing has ever been quite the same ever since.

Happy Easter Everybody!

God Bless you and keep you.

Good Friday.

We have entered Easter through Palm Sunday, then the journey of Holy Week, until finally we've reached the grief of Good Friday.  This is the most emotionally powerful day in the whole of the Christian calendar, the culmination of the entire story of Jesus’ life and ministry, of the entire story of the Bible: the day they murdered my Lord, the day everything changed.

Good Friday we call it.  And that may indeed seem a strange name when people first see it.  Good Friday. The day my Lord was murdered. Jesus, the perfect man, who loved so greatly, was killed for a crime he did not commit. In the words of St Paul, “We preach Christ Crucified, which is foolishness to the Jews and a stumbling block to the Gentiles”.

But Good Friday it certainly is.  And as I always thought, it's just crazy enough to work.  Good Friday?  The day that our Jesus was murdered.  This day we name good Friday?   Yes, we do, and how could it be any other way, knowing what wonderful thing came from it?  A strange thing it may seem, a true paradox: but so is the true mystery, the wonder, the mixed joy and sadness that defines our human life. Through tears and weeping and brokenness victory comes beyond all the strength of the world.

It is the most perfect name:  Elegant, precise, transcendent.  Good Friday.  The most simple and positive of all descriptions.  A good man, a good day, a good deed, a good life; a Good Friday.

Any more elaborate description would merely make obvious the total inability of description to do any justice.  Far better to leave almost entirely unsaid, to be seen, to be felt, to be experienced.  So the reality can shine through. So nothing is said apart from all that needs to be said.  Good Friday: the very definition of Goodness, the day everything changed.

On the cross of our pain God Almighty was tortured to death, suffering pain we can hardly imagine, for a crime he did not commit. For he so loved the world he gave his life, forgave even those who murdered him, loved even them, to save all men forever from their sins.  Jesus, God Almighty, emptied himself out on the cross, to become less than the least of men: butcher's meat. Another unseen victim of casual brutality and oppression.

Christ died on the cross to take away the sin of the world and so he experienced in his body the pain that sin has caused. He suffered it himself, as all his children have suffered at one time or another.  As he shared our life he shared our pain. Through sharing our humanity our pain could truly flow to him, so also through that sharing his divine power, to overcome all death and fear and hate and pain and weakness forever, could truly flow to us. So we need never fear those things again. God contains all things within him, so when God came into his own creation, he had to suffer our pain on the Cross that he had always carried within him.  It could be no other way.

Just as during his life Jesus healed the sick, gave  hearing to the deaf, sight to the blind, even raised from the dead: to heal physical bodies; so in his own suffering on the cross he healed all the souls of the world.  As during his life he preached how even the least of sinners is held in the love of God, so in his death he became the least of people, and won eternal glory for heaven, even as he descended into Hell.

Christ become one of the least of God’s children, lest in our joy we forget their pain, and to remind us that we may not rest in joy until the least of God’s children are rescued from that pain forever. Since his people suffered pain here on earth, in his salvation of mankind Christ suffered pain as well. So we know that even in our most terrible pain, joy and salvation are assured forever by that sacrifice.

And so the cross of our pain became the tree of our life. He suffered so he can take away our suffering. So from the death of the one perfect human, Life was given to all the Imperfect humans who ever live.  His life was lost to slay death, his blood was shed to wash all clean, his love to cure all the hate in the world: to ensure Love would never be overcome. Good Friday indeed. It could take no other name.

We remember now that pain God suffered on the cross at Calvary for our salvation, so that he could be one with his children as he was in Eden, as though time run in reverse on that fateful day.  For as God walked in the garden of Eden in the evening just before Adam and Eve were divided from him by their sin and rejection, so Christ walked in Gethsemane in the evening before he gave himself up to death to bring Life forever.  Just as our primordial Mother and Father, who represent all mankind, hid themselves in shame before the sight of God after their disobedience, so Christ trembled in fear before the coming pain. But still he submitted himself to that same pain, to bring glory to God by bringing salvation to mankind.  At the end, returning to the beginning, so that God may once more walk in the garden beside us in the evening.


Many Thanks to D_m_i_t_r_y's photostream for the incredible picture of the Crucifixion.

I don't care whether you're for YES or NO. For God's sake please actually go out and vote in the AV referendum on May 5th!

We are now rapidly approaching the 5th May and the long awaited referendum on whether for elections to parliament we should switch from First-past-the-post (FPTP) to the Alternative Vote (AV).  I would like to say that national conversation has been buzzing with the excitement of quite possibly our biggest constitutional change for a century.  I would like to say that campaign has been dominated by thoughtful and accurate but accessible explanations of the different mechanics and likely effects of switching to AV or not. But, that would be an utter lie!

Sadly, the truth is that the AV campaign has so far almost entirely passed the public by. Without the scale and widespread organisation of the main political parties the campaign has just not had the bulk necessary to seriously enter the national consciousness or disturb the thoughts of most of the population.  The Yes2AV and No2AV campaigns have been chipper and enthusiastic but thus far largely ineffective.  With disaster in Japan, War in Libya, Politics at Home, Local and sub-national elections their message has been largely crowded out.

On the other hand this is quite possibly a good thing as the AV campaign has been almost certainly the worst political campaign I have ever seen.  Both sides have barely even tried to wade into the complexity of explaining the somewhat technical differences between FPTP and the proposed AV system. Instead preferring to throw a vast wave of heavily emotive sheer rubbish at the electorate in the hope some of its sticks.  It has been truly awful, with a particular low point from the No side with their Vote No or the Baby gets it line of argument only just beating the Yes campaign's repeated massive non-sequiturs that AV will make politics fairer, MP's work harder, expenses lower and is apparently a more 'modern' system, all without explaining precisely how or why these miracles will occur; not to mention end safe seats (no it won't), make every MP have the support of 50% of his constituents (no it won't), end tactical voting (no it won't) and make election results more proportional (actually in direct contradiction to ending safe seats).  Not to mention simultaneously claiming that it will harm the BNP and also help smaller parties (connect the dots between those two if you can). Both sides have also managed to scrape the barrel when it comes to chasing celebrity endorsement rather than discussing to issues and more widely planning the man rather than the ball.

The campaign over AV has been even worse in quality than our last general election, which was itself a new low. In case you have forgotten that campaign was largely occupied by an argument over making £6 billion of cuts between two parties who were planning to cut £80 billion and £50 billion respectively, shortly followed by an unbelievably silly and impressively short lived personality cult based on one semi-decent TV performance that then fizzled out even before election day two weeks later.  It was pretty grim, but it has been surpassed in sheer balloon-faced stupidity by this AV campaign (from both sides).

It gets worse though.  Largely due to the bizarrely low profile of the AV campaign itself, and also, I think, due to the crass, irrelevant negativity of the two campaigns, there is a record low engagement with this important constitutional change.  At this stage in the campaign Yes and No are roughly equal in the polls, leading to the possibility we could see major constitutional change with the support of perhaps 12% of the electorate.  I call that pretty grim.  Lest you think I am exaggerating let me explain myself.

Turnout in general elections is about 2/3.  Turn-out in devolved, local and European elections is commonly about 35%.  I have seen nothing to convince me this referendum has a higher profile than the concurrent local and devolved elections. And see every reason to believe it will be lower.  People are used to local elections, they are somewhat aware of them as they come along with reasonable regularity.  They are also spurred by the high-profile of party politics.  The AV, as a non-party political one-off, has none of these benefits.  I was recently shocked to discover the people in my office between them knew almost nothing about AV and cared almost less.  These are highly educated people working in one of the UK's top universities.  I would put them in easily the top 20% of the country for expected general political awareness and engagement, and they were barely aware a referendum was even happening.  In places where there are local/devolved elections I expect turnout to be slightly lower than for those, where there are no local elections I expect turnout to be even worse.  All in all this means we can expect a turnout somewhere between 20-30%. On the higher end of that if we're lucky, the lower if we're not.  Combine that with an expectation that the result will be close, and we have AV defeated or accepted with roughly 11-16% of the electorate.

This is dire, you have to go back to the mid-19th Century to find a time when such a small percent of the population got to decide the direction of our constitution. Though, embarrassingly, this time the problem is due to apathy rather than legal restriction. It will be a terrible shame if such serious an issue that so affects us all were decided by a thin majority on a tiny turnout. Something that would quite possibly lead to a crisis of legitimacy for the new or retained system, stuck without any real democratic mandate.  It will certainly leave a legacy of bad feeling and mistrust about such change.   It is in all our best interest, whether win or lose, for as many people to be involved in this crucial democratic decision as possible.  

This is the reason for the headline of this article.  It doesn't matter whether you are for AV or against it.  Please, please go out and vote on May 5th!  If you don't have an opinion then get one. If you know nothing about the issue then please take a small amount of time to get yourself at least reasonably informed.  Whatever the case MAKE SURE YOU GET OUT AND VOTE!!!

Prophetic Witness

"And he has spoken through the Prophets" - The Nicene Creed

Prophetic Witness is something that we are always called to. 

It is not something imperfect man can do at all times but it is something we must always be open to the opportunity for.  Fundamentally it is describing the nature of God to a world that does not know him, and relating this nature precisely and practically to our present world.  It is the meaning of the Kingdom of God and the saving of our troubled world.

As I start it is important to say what it is not.  It is not telling the future.  Rather it is speaking and living the Truth, especially the Truth that is not being spoken by anyone else. 

The meaning of Christianity is God who transcends all reality, in perfection, in value, in power, who is totally beyond all our reality but holds it in the palm of his hand in a manner we can never really describe properly.  But this power and transcendent wonder breaking into our fragile world and our lives of its own choice by becoming a man, God with us, as one of us, and transforming it utterly beyond the ability we, as part of that imperfect reality, have on our own.

This is the purpose and duty of prophets and prophetic witness everywhere, whether big or small, or famous or unknown.  And it is possible for all mankind; both the brave, strong and outspoken, and the quiet, meek and calm; in both extraordinary and entirely ordinary situations and it can come upon a person suddenly, or it can come slowly, through study, prayer or experience, until it becomes so strong it just bursts forth. Because fundamentally it is not the property of one tradition or community, rather it is our common human inheritance. 

I believe that this common inheritance is best described by the example and teaching of the man we know as Jesus Christ, so excuse me explaining it a bit further in those specific terms. 

It is what Jesus Christ taught: that the Kingdom of God is at hand, the breaking into our world of the total power of God and its ability to transform our world beyond all recognition, and our ability to play a part in this transformation, through trusting in God’s power and moulding our lives by the incredible truth he taught.

This was the truth he taught, the possibility of utterly raising our sights beyond the compromises and justifications of a fallen world, like a single shaft of light suddenly illuminating a dark room.  Of acting utterly differently, bringing something of God’s perfection into the world and thus transforming it, at first for one instant and at one single point, but then more and more and spreading out, as the light fills the darkness, until the whole world shines more brightly. No longer resting content with hatred, lies, excuses, half-measures, cop-outs, justifications and fundamentally, imperfection.   

The revelation that no evil, however small, can be accepted forever; and that while we can improve ourselves at all we must do so, for any evil however small, any lack of care, of compassion, poisons the world we share. That we must always act to do more, to give better, to always improve the world and never add to its evil. The rejection of the idea that goodness is a matter of doing just enough to qualify, and then sitting back and being smug, however high that bar is set. And the knowledge that with God’s gift we have the capacity to make that choice to do better each and every day.

This is possible because through the example, teaching and power of Jesus Christ we are given glimpse of a reality that comes from utterly beyond our world and beyond our control, a true revealing of something completely new that thus enriches our possibilities as a miraculous, spontaneous creation.

       

This is the nature of prophetic witness.  Found in Jesus Christ and his teaching, but also in Prophets, Saints, Martyrs, visionaries, heroes and good men and women anywhere, at any time, whether religious or not, that challenges the previously limits with the sight of a higher and better possibility of a more loving and joyful world.

That means constantly attempting to step outside our environment, outside the chains that bind us and our thinking and our compassion. By this I do not mean escapism, seeking to run away from our reality. In fact, precisely the opposite.  I mean to be deeply rooted in your environment, to be acting in direct response to your environment, but to be seeing beyond its horizons and describing what you see that it could be, and how that can enrich the world. 

Christian faith was born in Prophetic Witness, a challenge to the socially accepted standard of that day, and I believe if it is not such a witness, then it is inevitably nothing.  Such a witness is an unavoidable response to being in the world, but not of the world. It can take many forms, and be of great and small sizes, but all share these basic elements, adding that the prophet must always be in a position to speak so the world may hear.  And it is also to step out of the world in such a manner as to drag it with you, all for the purpose of taking it closer to God, the foundation of all that truly is, the unity of all that is valuable, the one who is Love itself.  It is to be utterly concerned with man because one is utterly concerned with God.   

Some of it is, in the modern phrase, to speak counter-culturally, or, in what is apparently a Quaker phrase, to speak truth to power.  But not just the holders of political or financial power, also the cultural, the moral and the social assumptions, whether those working in a single room or across an entire world.  Anyone can do it, just as the prophets of ancient Israel were unremarkable men in every way apart from the fact they were willing to stand up and face rejection, ridicule and violence to speak the full word of God honestly, boldly, and defiantly; of his love and compassion for all and especially the weakest, to a society that just did not want to hear it.

Prophetic Witness, whatever our position, whatever our platform and possibilities, is to be a voice in the wilderness, to speak the words everyone else does not want to hear because it calls always to do better, to try harder and to be more loyal to our duty.  It is not to be puffed up with pride in doing so for there is more joy in heaven at one sinner who repents than at ten righteous men, but rather to humbly exhort and gently persuade, with patience and love, although this may sometimes include anger and frustration as well. 

When true it almost always costs the prophet more than it gains him. It has a place every time an accepted wisdom comes to the fore that accepts as evil and it consists of challenging that wisdom by living or being or just speaking of another way. It is existential for such a person lives and is a different person to the world around him and as such is often challenged physically by that world, even as he challenges it ethically.  Speech is important, because it leads the transmission of ideas, but it is only one part of a person’s expression, and hence only one part of prophetic witness, which occurs with the whole human being.  As such a person’s actions, their tone, their decisions, their attitude, may be prophetic as well.  So often we communicate most powerfully not through words, which are often cheap, but in the actions we take and choices we make that cost us.  It can be speech, action, attitude, thought, choice, song, liturgy, Art or anything else.  

Such a person can say something new and unheard of, maybe by only a little bit, but decisively so, or he can say something old, which is being forgotten, either way as long as he speaks distinctly to the voices around him. I, for one, become more and more convinced that not only is change not always for the good, but that there is nothing more conservative than moral absolutes, although it is something that we speak about today mostly in the mealy-mouthed terms of social justice.  I prefer the 3000 years old language of Amos, "let justice flow like a river, and righteousness like a never failing stream" 

This can be constantly possible for us by acting with our hands in this world but keeping our sight and our inspiration on the New Heaven and New Earth, on the vision of the Kingdom of God revealed by Jesus Christ and by the scriptures and visions and sacraments and Saints and Martyrs, and testified to by prophets of every kind who stand up in their heritage.    

Prophetic Witness then means presenting a better alternative to the conventional language around us whether through speech or action or just the way we live our lives.  It is a constant challenge, that  costs us and we are called to, both to challenge the fallen society we live in with a little bit of God. To stand aside from the prevailing discourse, and place our soul a little bit closer to God, for the purpose of bringing in his Kingdom by being a bridge between it and our society and world. 

It means not taking the evil of the world as an excuse to do evil ourselves, but rather to place one’s feet in the world that must one day be, as truth and goodness are the real Being.  It is of the closest and most real union with God possible in this life, and of the truest meaning of religion, for it is to become a mouthpiece for God's words that would not otherwise be spoken. And it is the possible choice of all people. 

It is something that we can and must do, and, I believe, uniquely through Jesus Christ we are all, always capable of doing this, for he has completely shown the way, and his grace gives us the power to step outside the world's totality and speak, for we have seen the New Heaven and the New Earth and the New Jerusalem and the Lamb is who is above them all “and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father, full of Grace and Truth”.

The Phrase 'Feminist Hero' is used too often these days. . . But not for Veena Malik!!!

.
And can I get an AMEN!!


In fact, not just that.  Can we get Veena Malik a Bafta, an Oscar or  

just jump straight to Sainthood.

I just hope it doesn't cost her. . . .   

It is incredibly sad that I have to say that and it be a genuine fear.  But with recent events in Pakistan it is all too possible.

A fantastically brave and courageous woman.   
 
Her utter refusal to be cowed by open bullying (and implicit violent threats) is an inspiration for human decency and tolerance.  
 
God Bless and protect her.  It gives me hope for Pakistan and humanity generally.

I'm a Tory and proud of it. But still, these Sickness and Disability Cuts are Wrong!

.
The news for the last year has been dominated by the argument about public spending cuts: how soon, how deep, and what to cut? Between the recession and the previous Labour government, Britain has been left with a £155 billion public annual deficit: 11% of GDP, 22% of government spending, £425 million a day, £5,000 a second. Whatever way you phrase it that is a butt-load of money. The arguments about cuts dominated the general election last year and continues to motivate newspapers, press releases, broadcasts, rallies and riots. There is a general consensus that some cuts are necessary but no agreement about how much or what should be cut. The Labour party were planning £50 billion of cuts pre-election and the Coalition have promised £81 billion. Either way this is also a lot of money and won't happen without valuable services being unfortunately restricted or cancelled entirely.

I'm a conservative: by choice, by temperament, by experience, and by Party. When it comes to debt and the deficit I am a hard-liner. I think we should get our debt and deficit down as fast as possible given the health of the economy and the limits of practicality and morality. I believe this is the most sure and responsible way to ensure our future economic prosperity, by taking the hard decisions now. One of the core reasons I voted Conservative was because they promised to bring the deficit down faster and harder than Labour did, and were the first party to have the courage to stand up and say that serious spending cuts would be needed. Not the easiest message to take to the people in any climate. I'm also proud the Conservative Party took the lead in the election in promising to increase our spending on International Aid to the UN target of 0.7% of GDP, despite the immensely challenging economic climate, something Labour never managed in a decade, as well as ring fencing the NHS, protecting the schools budget and reconnecting the state pension to earnings. All while facing up to the fact that these choices mean harder choices must be made elsewhere. Generally I entirely agree with these priorities and the choices the government has made.

There is one glaring exception to this though. One area where support for some of the most vulnerable people in our society is being severely slashed, contrary to these principles I've mentioned, and that is the support available to long-term sick and disabled people. Starting with the previous Labour government and now the Coalition services and welfare that provide essential support for the long-term sick and disabled are being cut by a total of £5 billion a year. Just for some comparison that is equivalent to the money raised by the government's Banking levy and the removal of child benefit from higher rate tax payers combined. These are extensive cuts across the range of support given to sick and disabled people including Employment Support Allowance, Disability Living Allowance, the Independent Living Fund, Access to Work, as well as Housing, Council Tax and Health and Social Care  (Don't worry if you don't know what those are, I'm going to explain).  And their stupidity is being compounded by a choice of language and lack of communication that is just scaring people for no good reason. People are getting the impression that the government is not listening and does not care. Now, I'm an optimist, I genuinely think that politicians, even most of the ones I strongly disagree with, are really trying to do the best for the country. I think they do care, but they are currently not giving that impression to too many of the more vulnerable people in our society.

There has been opposition to all sorts of cuts.  We've had outraged campaigns against selling forests, increasing tuition fees, removing child benefit from the rich, cutting housing benefit, public sector pensions, closing libraries, raising VAT, cutting EMA, Higher Education, the British Film Council, the Future Jobs Fund, defence, the police, councils, and almost everything else. I pretty much support all of these policies (give or take a few details). I even support some cuts the government have given up on including ending free milk for under 5's, something called Bookstart and re-designing NHS Direct to save money.

This does not mean that it is acceptable to just hack away at random though.  Cuts must be restrained by two minimum principles. Firstly, and obviously, what is good for the economy; and secondly a basic level of service and support for those most vulnerable in our society. This is a matter of sheer morality, but also a matter of political honesty. Before the election British politicians, almost as one, united to try to partially conceal the scale of the challenge of cuts and tax rises that would be necessary to bring the deficit under control, whether using the Coalition's plan or Labour's weaker one. Implicit and explicit promises were made that basic standards of welfare and support wouldn't need to be compromised. Nor is there any need for them to be. Even under the Coalition's program the cuts amount to reducing total public spending by 2% a year. It is rather a matter of choosing, admittedly difficult, priorities.

It is very easy to be NIMBY about cuts. To claim to support cuts in theory but oppose cuts in practice whenever they are to a service or money that I benefit from or care about. There has been a huge amount of this since the election, an orgy of special pleading from those representing almost every imaginable group affected by public spending, on occasions brilliantly coupled with complete loss of perspective. The Labour party is currently making an art-form out of combining these features: Supporting some cuts and tax rises in theory while opposing all specific examples in practice, with occasional, uncontrollable outbursts of total, balls to the wall hyperbole.

This is categorically not one of those issues though. Out of all the cuts and policies I mentioned above this massive, badly planned assault on support for disabled and long-term sick people is by far the most serious. Far more than any of those things these are cuts to essential services, supporting basic financial security and opportunities in our society for some of its most vulnerable and disadvantaged members. These are essential, basic elements for a civilised society more so than any of those other things. I think if you oppose cuts to any of those things, if you consider them a bridge too far, then you must oppose cuts to disability and long-term sickness provision even more, as a priority above them.

Suffering a severe, long-term illness or disability is one of the most difficult things to live with of any of the disadvantages in people can face. Almost by definition it robs people of so many advantages the rest of us take for granted including too much of the ability to take part in society. It is often painful, almost always fundamentally exhausting and draining and always stressful for the rest of a sick or disabled person's family.  It makes life constantly more of a struggle than for well people. It also leaves a person open to a constant flow of minor indignities and general ignorance from a society where many people are still totally clueless about how to relate to disabled and extremely sick people in a human manner. Not to mention more objective stats like the fact that disabled people are the most likely of any group in society to be living in poverty (twice as likely) and to be unemployed (50% are).  I could, of course, go on; the difficulties faced by disabled and long-term sick people are as various as the possible mental and physical conditions people can suffer with, but I'm sure you understand the general idea.But that is enough vagueness.  What is it that I am actually talking about?