9 June 2011 Last updated at 13:36Ministers hit back in Archbishop of Canterbury row
<div class="warning"> <img class="holding" src="http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/53325000/jpg/_53325329_jex_1071430_de26-1.jpg" alt="Business Secretary Vince Cable " /> <p><strong>Please turn on JavaScript.</strong> Media requires JavaScript to play.</p> </div>Click to play
Business Secretary Vince Cable: Archbishop is 'wrong on the specifics'
Continue reading the main storyRelated Stories
Ministers have defended their welfare, health and education policies after an attack by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Dr Rowan Williams suggested in the New Statesman that "radical" policies "for which no-one voted" were being pushed through with "remarkable speed".
Business Secretary Vince Cable said he was "wrong on the specifics" as there was much debate about NHS plans.
Iain Duncan Smith said welfare reforms were needed as the system was "broken" and encouraged "destructive behaviour".
The work and pensions secretary told the BBC it was "quite legitimate" for the Archbishop of Canterbury to make his views known but added: "I do wish he had said a little bit more that was positive about what we are trying to do."
He said the system he had inherited had left many people abandoned on benefits, with a record number of workless households and "broken homes".
He added: "All of this is going on in a system which is, in itself, damaging the very people it seeks to save. There is no kindness in that."
In Dr Williams's article, the archbishop said there had been a "quiet resurgence of the seductive language of 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor", and a "steady pressure to increase what look like punitive responses to alleged abuses of the system".
Continue reading the main storyAnalysis
Jo Coburn BBC political correspondentThe tone and strength of language used in Dr Williams' attack on the coalition has taken ministers by surprise.
Accusing the government of being committed to "radical, long-term policies for which no-one voted" is an overtly political statement and one Downing Street has quickly rebuffed.
But they can't ignore the broad sweep of criticism or questioning of their mandate to govern.
The timing of this attack is curious as he has criticised coalition policies before.
It may have something to do with the fact he was guest editing left-wing magazine The New Statesman and wanted to write a thought-provoking piece.
I've heard he wanted to interview the prime minister but Mr Cameron must have declined. Dr Williams also has form when it comes to entering the political arena.
Ministers say they are happy to debate policies with him but clearly feel he has overstepped the mark with the scope of his article.
But Mr Duncan Smith said he had not used that language: "I don't believe in that concept. All I say is that the system itself has created an undeserving group... a group that can no longer aspire to anything."
The cabinet minister also wrote an article for the same edition of the left-leaning New Statesman, which Dr Williams guest-edited.
In his article, Dr Williams said the government was facing "bafflement and indignation" over its health and education plans: "With remarkable speed, we are being committed to radical, long-term policies for which no-one voted. At the very least, there is an understandable anxiety about what democracy means in such a context."
He added: "The anxiety and anger have to do with the feeling that not enough has been exposed to proper public argument."
Business Secretary Mr Cable told the BBC he welcomed debate with Dr Williams who was an "articulate social critic" who was entitled to his views but was "wrong on the specifics".
"The main point which he seemed to be making was that there wasn't enough debate around health reforms for example, which I don't understand because there's a very big debate... We're having a pause, rethinking the reforms."
And he rejected the suggestion the coalition government did not have a mandate for its work: "The two parties of the coalition got substantially more than half of the total vote at the last election... so I don't think that criticism has much weight."
Dr Williams is no stranger to controversy and has previously criticised the previous Labour government on various issues, including the Iraq war.
In his article he also appeared to question what Labour's "achievable alternatives" were.
He said that David Cameron's "Big Society" initiative was viewed with "widespread suspicion", but "we are still waiting for a full and robust account of what the left would do differently and what a left-inspired version of localism might look like."
BBC News Channel chief political correspondent Laura Kuenssberg said ministers were being careful with their language and did not want to get into a row with the most senior figure in the Church of England.
But Conservative backbencher Gary Streeter, chairman of the Christians in Parliament group, told the BBC the comments were "ill judged".
He added: "I think it is of the nature of a party political attack.
"It's so sweeping in its condemnation and I'm afraid most of it doesn't really make sense because the policies of which he complains - in education and in welfare reform - were very clearly spelt out in the Conservative Party manifesto."
Labour said the archbishop's comments reflected the concerns of people across the UK.
Shadow education secretary Andy Burnham said: "This government has no mandate for cutting too far and too fast, subjecting the NHS to a reckless top-down reorganisation and launching an unprecedented attack on young people by scrapping EMA and trebling tuition fees."
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair said there was a long-standing tradition of archbishops criticising government.
"Obviously people used to criticise our policies, not just on Iraq and foreign policy, but on domestic policy and reform as well. It's just part of the way things work," he said.
Thursday, 9 June 2011
BBC News - Ministers hit back in Archbishop of Canterbury row
via bbc.co.uk
Flickr - projectbrainsaver
www.flickr.com
|
