Return to: Home | Politics | UK Politics
Leader: The government needs to know how afraid people are
Published 09 June 2011
We are being committed to radical, long-term policies for which no one voted.
I can imagine a New Statesman reader looking at the contents of this issue and mentally supplying: "That's enough coalition ministers (Ed)." After all, the NS has never exactly been a platform for the establishment to explain itself. But it seems worth encouraging the present government to clarify what it is aiming for in two or three key areas, in the hope of sparking a livelier debate about where we are going - and perhaps even todiscover what the left's big idea currently is.
The political debate in the UK at the moment feels pretty stuck. An idea whose roots are firmly in a particular strand of associational socialism has been adopted enthusiastically by the Conservatives. The widespread suspicion that this has been done for opportunistic or money-saving reasons allows many to dismiss what there is of a programme for "big society" initiatives; even the term has fast become painfully stale. 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.
Digging a bit deeper, there are a good many on the left and right who sense that the tectonic plates of British - European? - politics are shifting. Managerial politics, attempting with shrinking success to negotiate life in the shadow of big finance, is not an attractive rallying point, whether it labels itself (New) Labour or Conservative. There is, in the middle of a lot of confusion, an increasingly audible plea for some basic thinking about democracy itself - and the urgency of this is underlined by what is happening in the Middle East and North Africa.
Incidentally, this casts some light on the bafflement and indignation that the present government is facing over its proposals for reform in health and education. 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. Not many people want government by plebiscite, certainly. But, for example, the comprehensive reworking of the Education Act 1944 that is now going forward might well be regarded as a proper matter for open probing in the context of election debates. The anxiety and anger have to do with the feeling that not enough has been exposed to proper public argument.
I don't think that the government's commitment to localism and devolved power is simply a cynical walking-away from the problem. But I do think that there is confusion about the means that have to be willed in order to achieve the end. If civil society organisations are going to have to pick up
responsibilities shed by government, the crucial questions are these. First, what services must have cast-iron guarantees of nationwide standards, parity and continuity? (Look at what is happening to youth services, surely a strategic priority.) Second, how, therefore, does national government underwrite these strategic "absolutes" so as to make sure that, even in a straitened financial climate, there is a continuing investment in the long term, a continuing response to what most would see as root issues: child poverty, poor literacy, the deficit in access to educational excellence, sustainable infrastructure in poorer communities (rural as well as urban), and so on? What is too important to be left to even the most resourceful localism?Government badly needs to hear just how much plain fear there is around such questions at present. It isn't enough to respond with what sounds like a mixture of, "This is the last government's legacy," and, "We'd like to do more, but just wait until the economy recovers a bit." To acknowledge the reality of fear is not necessarily to collude with it. But not to recognise how pervasive it is risks making it worse. Equally, the task of opposition is not to collude in it, either, but to define some achievable alternatives. And, for that to happen, we need sharp-edged statements of where the disagreements lie.
The uncomfortable truth is that, while grass-roots initiatives and local mutualism are to be found flourishing in a great many places, they have been weakened by several decades of cultural fragmentation. The old syndicalist and co-operative traditions cannot be reinvented overnight and, in some areas, they have to be invented for the first time.
This is not helped by a quiet resurgence of the seductive language of "deserving" and "undeserving" poor, nor by the steady pressure to increase what look like punitive responses to alleged abuses of the system. If what is in view - as Iain Duncan Smith argues passionately on page 18 - is real empowerment for communities of marginal people, we need better communication about strategic imperatives, more positive messages about what cannot and will not be left to chance and - surely one of the most important things of all - a long-term education policy at every level that will deliver the critical tools for democratic involvement, not simply skills that serve the economy.
For someone like myself, there is an ironic satisfaction in the way several political thinkers today are quarrying theological traditions for ways forward. True, religious perspectives on these issues have often got bogged down in varieties of paternalism. But there is another theological strand to be retrieved that is not about "the poor" as objects of kindness but about the nature of sustainable community, seeing it as one in which what circulates - like the flow of blood - is the mutual creation of capacity, building the ability of the other person or group to become, in turn, a giver of life and responsibility. Perhaps surprisingly, this is what is at the heart of St Paul's ideas about community at its fullest; community, in his terms, as God wants to see it.
A democracy that would measure up to this sort of ideal - religious in its roots but not exclusive or confessional - would be one in which the central question about any policy would be: how far does it equip a person or group to engage generously and for the long term in building the resourcefulness and well-being of any other person or group, with the state seen as a "community of communities", to use a phrase popular among syndicalists of an earlier generation?
A democracy going beyond populism or majoritarianism but also beyond a Balkanised focus on the local that fixed in stone a variety of postcode lotteries; a democracy capable of real argument about shared needs and hopes and real generosity: any takers?
Dr Rowan Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury
Post this article to
150 comments from readers
- Jules Wright
09 June 2011 at 11:21I don't believe anyone voted for you Dr Williams.
- Mel Davis
09 June 2011 at 11:33At the end of the day Dr Williams can speak about any subject that he so wishes since we live in a democracy, nobody voted for me, but I am the right of free expression so I can speak out, or why don't we just go and live in Syria or communist China?
- Briar
09 June 2011 at 11:34Perhaps you should read the article before commenting. That would be more constructive than firing off one line snarks.
- howard
09 June 2011 at 11:38@Jules Wright
Everyone all over the place keeps saying this, I don't get it, okay no one voted for him so what.
No one voted for him because he did not put himself forward to be a politician with legislative power.
Does this render him (in your view) unable to have an opinion.
I did not vote for any of the 200 odd most powerful industrialists and corporate financiers who at st moritz are deciding upon the future of world events and world realpolitik which affects us all but you don't hear me complaining about that do you.
- Nick
09 June 2011 at 11:41"I don't believe anyone voted for you Dr Williams."
Not many people voted for a coalition either, and certainly not a radical reorganisation of the NHS or £9000 tuition fees
- theasianlioness
09 June 2011 at 11:48Given the controversy and the fact that IDS said he would have preferred a more 'balanced view', I found the article less critical of the coalition than expected.
He criticises coalition policy, but he also criticises the Opposition for not providing a credible alternative policy. The Opposition has a great responsibility to hold the govt to account and are not doing it well enough.
Personally, I am livid with the Coalition Health and Social Policy - I work in this area and think these policies are dangerously stupid. These were not voted by anyone,...and in a 'democracy' there is not much I can do. I wrote to my MP who wrote back with some waffly platitudes and basically said 'I know best' and I don't really care what you think or voted for.
- Mr. Divine
09 June 2011 at 11:54The community that you are looking for Rowan is one that needs to be geographically based. What is needed is small groups of about 15 houses on about 5 acres. People can have their own space but there are communal facilities such as laundries, vegetable gardens and a small hall. The houses can be built cheaply ... you can probably build them for 60,000 quid and they can have solar, methane and wind power as well water tanks and even compost style toilets. Consequently the people living there have very low costs. It means they can save and pay off their mortgage quickly and even start investing so as they can retire very early. As a group they can be encouraged through tax incentives to start up small businesses.
The mortgage can be half titled, that is half is owned by the people and half by the government or the church. So with a 30,000 quid mortgage and low living costs working people can knock this off pretty quick and start saving to retire to part-time work.
Are you with me so far?
- Plashing Vole
09 June 2011 at 12:00OK, nobody voted for Williams, but all you British voters decided that a minor and declining cult should have a central place in the constitutional furniture, so stop complaining.
Rowan Williams has earned his editorial by being hugely intelligent and well-read (and I'm an atheist). I'm particularly pleased with his references to syndicalism, which is of course part of the Welsh tradition of socialism.
The C of E has for too long been the Tory Party at prayer: big cathedrals stuffed with the decaying flags of Empire and conquest. RW is a return to Faith in the City and even Cosmo Lang. We're lucky to have him.
plashingvole.blogspot.com
- David Williams
09 June 2011 at 12:15I am relieved to hear at last someone from one of the groups that represent the moral dimension of our society (the clergy and the monarchy) speak out about the coalition government's policies which in part seem to be a punitive form of retribution against the worst off and most vulnerable in our country, while it was the wealthy (ie the bankers & risk takers in the City) and not entirely the previous government that got us into a financial mess. We hear so much about not being able to afford social expenditure until later but our 'dire' circumstances have not inhibited a massive spend on weaponry to achieve regime change in Libya. As for as the shake up of the NHS is concerned, an intention not mentioned in the pre-election manifestos, does not such an urgent need as it is described as being imply a failure of the structure of NHS Trusts, introduced by John Major's government as the last attempt to create competitive, market-driven (and by definition, more-efficient) practices to our health service?
- James
09 June 2011 at 12:17It really disconcerts ring wing people when moral arguments are used, just look at the different Telegraph responses to this and the abuse Polly Toynbee gets for talking about children in most of her articles. This is a good reminder that people will be hurt by the Coalition's plans.
- Yonmei
09 June 2011 at 12:25"For someone like myself, there is an ironic satisfaction in the way several political thinkers today are quarrying theological traditions for ways forward."
Let us hope that those "theological traditions" do not include the Christian tradition of hostility and injustice to LGBT people - the recipients of charity and their own employees and fellow workers.
You yourself, Doctor Williams, have embraced the Christian tradition of hating and excluding lesbian and gay people, and claimed that having to be around lesbian and gay people living openly is a "cross to bear".
When you write "seeing it as one in which what circulates - like the flow of blood - is the mutual creation of capacity, building the ability of the other person or group to become, in turn, a giver of life and responsibility" I, like many other lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people, our families and friends, have to wonder, how do you plan to exclude *us* from this dream community of yours - since you loathe gay people so much you excluded Gene Robinson from Lambeth and consulted lawyers to get around the provisions in the Equality Act against homophobic discrimination?
- David Manclark
09 June 2011 at 12:26It is refreshing to hear Dr Rowan Williams speak out like this in his capacity as Archbishop.
With the country in disarray and too many people suffering as a result of government policies, what our country needs now, more than ever is Spiritual leadership.
- Mr. Divine
09 June 2011 at 12:27What is needed therefore is the right land. There is lots of military and crown land that can be used. And of course there is Church of England land!
Then there is money .. the government and the church has money. It wont cost that much to set a couple of communities up as a pilots and there will be returns.
You can of course try to do it with existing properties but I reckon that it is too much messing about. You could try smaller communities of say four households but again I'm not sure. Perhaps 12 is the right number! Remember Jesus didn't convert 60 million people all at once.
If it starts becoming successful it'll catch on. Many working people are tired of full-time work by the time they're 40. If there is a way out, and they can see it happening to others then the demand will come. It'll be like a snowball effect and drive the economy and energise people.
What have got to lose Rowan?
If the government wont set it up why don't you use the Church's resources?
- Matthew D
09 June 2011 at 12:30As I read the article, his main point seems to be there is an absence of a credible response from the opposition to the Coalition's policies. I wish the BBC had read the article before filling the airwaves with lots of incorrect guff.
- ektope
09 June 2011 at 12:30The word democracy has been used a lot of times to promote evil policies which are against poor and other people .It is not the first time that the tories are using the word democracy to punish people .One cannot stop but think of Thatcher.During the course of world history the word democracy was in a way as to promote fascists leaders and their ideas .One has to remember Hitler.This is a great article by a man who is a true Christian with capital letters.Thank you Sir and may God gives you years to help the weak and needy.
- Mr. Divine
09 June 2011 at 12:31There again you might just want to keep on talking and writing until you met me in heaven.
- Jon
09 June 2011 at 12:41I refer all readers to Luke 14 vv28-30. The great intellectual Dr Williams may have some intricate logic to avoid the plain truth here and its applicability to the public finances, but an ordinary person will know better. His unwillingness to enthusiastically support the vision of the big society says more about the church he leads than it does about the Coalition. Shame on you Rowan!
- Mick
09 June 2011 at 12:43I have no problem with Dr Williams making these comments. He has just as much right to do so as anyone else. What I cannot fathom is why people consider his opinions any higher than anyone else's - i.e. why do the media put great emphasis on his thoughts? Bizarrely Alistair "we don't do God" Campbell even applauded his comments saying he has an important "moral leadership". He doesn't. Religious people are no better, more moral, wiser educated, taller, shorter than anyone else. They do not, in my opinion, deserve any greater influence or coverage than any other person.
I am an atheist and I consider myself to be equal to Dr Williams. Oh, except he believes in magic, fairytales, and wishes the world to run itself on the basis of some evidence-less storytelling
- Chris Ingram
09 June 2011 at 12:46It is about time the Church spoke out and it has everything to do with them, afterall we are supposed to be a Christian country!! How can anyone who purports to be a Christian sit back and do nothing as this unelected government attacks the genuine disabled, unemployed, children, women, education, health and the elderly?? This government cares only about money and sees everything in terms of cash and puts profit before the lives of the people of the UK. Tragedy is you all sit there and take it and slag off people such as the Archbishop who have the guts to stand up and be counted!! A christian country?? Hypocrits sitting back and beleiving the crap in the media is what this country is made up of!!!!
- Denise
09 June 2011 at 12:46Mr Williams thank you for having the faith to speak out against the coalition government, which is really an extension to Margaret Thatcher policies which does not care about the poor and only serves to increase the north and south divide. Of which Labour worked so hard to reverse with its equality bill. Let’s face it the Coalition have duped us all, and they themselves are now seemingly having to review their ill thought-out policies like education and health. So I have no faith in them and thank God for you speaking out we need more support from the clergy because this is going to be a ethical dilemma if it’s not already
- Attrition47
09 June 2011 at 12:57~~~~~After all, the NS has never exactly been a platform for the establishment to explain itself.~~~~~
Oh I do apologise for the sound of hollow laughter.
- Jim Easby
09 June 2011 at 13:02One of the benefits of living in a liberal democracy, which the UK is (almost) is that anyone can hold whatever views they care to, and publish them in public subject to certain restrictions related to the effects on public order (and PC censorship). The Archbishop has every right to say what he likes.
As a corrollary every person also has the right to ignore the opinions of anyone else, again restricted to the effect this may have on public order.
Rowan Williams has spoken and I've read what he has to say. Now I'm off to the pub to talk about what I am interested in, which doesn't include Rowan Williams's opinion.
Fair enough?
"Very few things matter very much and most things do not matter at all".
- Bill Fraser
09 June 2011 at 13:03Who voted for Dr.Williams, a man wearing a silly hat and a frock?
- Heather Kemball
09 June 2011 at 13:12Thank you Rowan Williams for voicing the concern and frustration that I and so many I know are feeling at the way the coalition are exercising government. The growing divergence between what was promised and what is happening is alarming and frightening. This is particularly the case with the education and health provision so treasured and valued by those of us who do not have the resources to purchase alternatives ( unlike a great many of the current cabinet.)
- Stephen
09 June 2011 at 13:15The Archbishop does not wield power. He is entitled to use his influence to ensure policies are moral. This is a legitimate role for the Church. I wish the Catholic Church had dome more to oppose the Nazis in 1930s and 1940s Germany.
- C Baker
09 June 2011 at 13:15There seem to be lots of people out there that take the high moral ground. Look after children better, care for the elderly, treat immigrants more favorably etc. All this is well and good, but the people that pay for these improvements are ironically the squeezed lower and middle classes through their high taxes in relation to wages.
Yes better social care, health and education policies need to be achieved, but I've yet to find a wealthy left wing politician, union leader, banker or clergyman ready to house the immigrants in their many second homes, care for the elderly in their spare time, or give their time and funds to disadvantaged kids. So all the talk is fine- so long as they are not paying for it!
Same old tripe.
- Stephen
09 June 2011 at 13:16The Archbishop does not wield power. He is entitled to use his influence to ensure policies are moral. This is a legitimate role for the Church. I wish the Catholic Church had dome more to oppose the Nazis in 1930s and 1940s Germany.
- Jens
09 June 2011 at 13:20Of course this man has freedom of speech - he is in a position to access a more publicised platform than the rest of us. I do wonder though, does he believe that the democracy he talks about extends to muslim clerics having a place in our government on the same basis as the blessed bishops? Who elects them - oh yes, their chums who belong to the same club. I think its time for all religions to be either included or excluded.
- Monro
09 June 2011 at 13:24What a hopeless, muddled mind. It's barely readable
The root cause of most of the Nation's ills stem from a lack of strategic direction, consistently applied.
Government is awash with cash: 20% VAT, 50% top rate of income tax. Come on. The means exist but the democratic system militates against efficient management of resources.
Long may it continue. It has always been the least worst form of government, but that's good.
Get out more. Look at E. Europe, Africa, parts of the Middle East.
People from those parts of the world regard Britain (and I quote) as a 'Sanatorium'.
So come on, Archbish., stop whingeing and get cracking. You, at least, are in a position to make a difference but not if you squander your time having a pop at a Government that does not share your partisan political opinions.
You should be better than that!
- Harry Drummond
09 June 2011 at 13:25@Bill Fraser - who voted for these cuts? I heard nothing about a trebling of tuition fees in either party's manifesto. Truth is, they don't have a legitimate manifesto to implement either party's reforms because of the fact that there was not overall victory.
- Nigel
09 June 2011 at 13:28I would like to echo the sentiments of those correspondents who support Dr Williams thoughtful and measured comments about the way the coalition are exercising government. Despite the lack of mandate or majority, the conservative party are pushing through major reforms of the NHS, local government and the schools systems at breakneck speed based on extremist ideology and in the face of strong opposition from people who really understand these sectors.
- Jules
09 June 2011 at 13:30THANK YOU ROWAN WILLIAMS FOR SAYING WHAT SO MANY PEOPLE FEEL. THE BANKERS GET AWAY SCOT FREE WHILST THE POOR ARE MADE TO SUFFER FROM THEIR MISTAKES
- Mrs. Moon
09 June 2011 at 13:30What is the big society and when is it going to happen? I can''t wait.
- Tessa K
09 June 2011 at 13:31A democracy that helps people to live well and benefit others does not have to be religious in its roots. Social animals (including humans) have evolved to do pretty much that in flourishing societies. In social groups as big as ours, it is necessary for some government intervention to make sure things run smoothly.
Williams is implying that Christianity (and St Paul in particular) provides an ideal model - but then he would.
- maxinemf
09 June 2011 at 13:32Thank God for Rowan Williams. He is speaking out for the silent majority who do not have a voice in British politics.
- Rob
09 June 2011 at 13:37Brilliant! The speed and the extremity of this government's policies, particularly on health and education, are absolutely at odds with the way in which they were elected. This was no landslide victory - the public didn't wholeheartedly get behind either party in power, and their approach should respect their rather tentative victory. Cameron said the NHS would be protected and Clegg promised not to raise tuition fees. Even the people who did vote for either of these parties must be feeling rather cheated now.
- Monro
09 June 2011 at 13:38Hopeless and muddled. Even worse, barely readable.
Democracy is the least worst form of government.
It's bound to be rubbish but it's as good as it gets.
For heaven's sake, stop whingeing.
Amazing as it sounds, we are the envy of most of the world. That's why so many people come here.
This is simply a partisan political rant masquerading as a balanced critique from a man now outside the political establishment that he once belonged to.
We expect our senior Archbishop to be better than that.
How about a Zimbabwean to take over. We have a great one up here in York!
- Bankrupt Britain
09 June 2011 at 13:43I think those of use who voted Conservative knew exactly what we were voting for. And the LibDems - well they didn't get many votes and have got key policies through, like raising the tax thresholds. The Archbishop just doesn't like the policies, that is different from saying we didn't vote for them.
And how vociferous was he about the Iraq war, or about the use of immigration to strengthen the labour govt, though it has backfired in part, or about labour's failure to regulate the credit markets? Those really were things noone voted for!
Finally, illiteracy rates are a scandal, as is child poverty. Has it occurred to him that 60 years of socialist interference in private lives is a cause of this? Everyone expecting someone else to do their parenting, their healthcare, their old age provision? The Big Society to me is about finding a better way forward.
- Bankrupt Britain
09 June 2011 at 13:50Mrs Moon at 13:30 typifies this ("what is the Big Society and when is it going to happen? i can't wait). That's the point - it isn't something you wait for. Go out and do something. Are you currently volunteering to read to children in schools? Getting parents involved in painting their school (some private sector schools ask that, why not state ones). Giving advice from your field to teenagers about work? Probably not, you sound like you expect the government to be doing it all, probably without you paying enough tax to cover it (ah yes, if only the bankers paid more than their current 60-70%!)
- Adam Roberts
09 June 2011 at 14:00@Jules Wright
@howard
@Plashing Vole
@Bill Fraser
The pendant inside me really wants to say that fourteen members of the Crown Appointments Commission, plus the Prime Minister, voted for him.
(Sorry.)
- Jonathan Warne
09 June 2011 at 14:00It is not surprising that someone who presides over an institution whose main aim is to indoctrinate children from birth and then expect them to unquestioningly follow that doctrine through life, would think this.
What he really means is that he is delighted that the number of workless households doubled under Labour and the number of people languishing on benefits without hope is at an all time high.
It shocks him that a government doesn't want people to waste their lives on handouts. The fear that the more independent people become the less likely they are to tow the statist line makes him worry they may start questioning other things too - like why do we need a state religion and a head of that religion?
The church has always been a tool of oppression and he hates to see the possibility of the massive benefits dependency and ruined lives being dismantled. Like Labour it is what he feeds on.
Shame on him.
- Matthew Harris
09 June 2011 at 14:04I have blogged on this from a different perspective at: http://matthewfharris.blogspot.com/2011/06/all-gas-and-gaite... - do please come there and share your comments
- Callum Evans
09 June 2011 at 14:15The point is, we didnt elect him. He is not part of the soverignty of power in the UK.
So why does he have the platform on whcih to comment on political decisions? he has NO palce in the political world.
He is an outspoken, overrated, un-christian fool.
- Callum Evans
09 June 2011 at 14:17The point is, we didnt elect him. He is not part of the soverignty of power in the UK.
So why does he have the platform on which to comment on political decisions? he has NO palce in the political world.
He is an outspoken, overrated, un-christian fool.
- Brencb
09 June 2011 at 14:20I totally applaud the contents and sentiments of Archbishop Rowans New Statesman Leader. Who else should shout loud and clear from the rooftops the fears of so many thinking people about the current coallition policies which are changing so much of the social fabric of our country. The long term outcomes of these untried and hastily implemented pollicies are frightening.
- Bristolman
09 June 2011 at 14:20Monro - "How about a Zimbabwean to take over. We have a great one up here in York!" If you mean John Sentamu, he was born in Uganda.
It is a shame that most of the posts that are critical of the Archbishop's comments do not address his central point that the policies that are being advanced by the coalition do not bear any resemblance to the manifestoes on which either party fought the last election. Irreversible changes are being pushed through on education with less parliamentary scrutiny than the ill-fated Dangerous Dogs Act. This is an abuse of democracy and he is right to point this out.
- beggar at the gates
09 June 2011 at 14:25can't we just step over the bodies of the undeserving poor, ill, old, uneducated, dispossed, imigrant, refugee, vagrant.........................after all if we ignore them they'll just go away , won't they. Must go I'm late for my community neighbourhood watch dogshit liason meeting .
- Revd Martin Brown
09 June 2011 at 14:27It is bad enough having to maintain obedience as an ordained priest within the Anglican Church where Rowan is unable to resolve basic issues like our institutional bigotry against women and homosexuals.
To be forced to defend Rowan's avowedly socialist perspective of our national politics, whatever your political persuasion, is intolerable. Rowan's contribution today is partisan and as such, is unwise.
We are called to care for all, exercising a ministry of reconciliation, love and care in difficult circumstances, working with the poor, the broken, the ill, and the bereaved in diffcult contexts like the estate where I work in Watford.
Rowan's comments simply stir resentment against the church, makng the difficult task of ministry even harder, and ultimately undermining the good news of our Christian story.
I am sure there will be those of you who read The New Statesman who delight in his support of your political position but for those of us who are out on the front line of society, Rowan's article does not help at all and leaves me deeply saddened today.
- 13eastie
09 June 2011 at 14:32Would like to post, but this web-site is all over the place today.
- Mr G.
09 June 2011 at 14:33I read this article in some detail and I agree. 'Localism' is a canard, and essential services for vulnerable people are being cut, with nothing to replace them. In fact, the charitable sector is also shrinking. I regard these developments with fear and trepidation, and I defy any thinking person with a social conscience to do otherwise.
- 13eastie
09 June 2011 at 14:36My comments posted on Left Foot Forward:
- Devondave
09 June 2011 at 14:36Yet another failure of this truly useless man.When has he taken a strong line on teenage mothers, drug takers indolent workers,We have the highest rate of unmarried mothers in Europe,collapse of family values.High rates of divorce.Marriage numbers dropping.When has he forcefully spoken out on these problems.I am not a catholic,but Cof E(just!).ThanGodfor the Pope.who still believes in Christian values, and stands up for them.
- Lewis Gilbert
09 June 2011 at 14:38The Archbishop is right: the coalition and its policies are not legitimate because it and they were decided after the election by a minority political class, rather than at the election by the majority of voters.
The longer the illegitimate coalition remains the more it will be seen as a bent, opportunistic, and contradicted family of 'political thieves' who must eventually fall out.
- Steven Clark
09 June 2011 at 14:39The Church of England was at one time referred to as “ the Conservative Party at prayer”. The implication was that the Church was part of the ruling elite, was hostile to workers’ rights and in favour of the status quo in society. This was at a time when England was believed to be nation divided by class, when everyone” knew their place.”
Since then, quite rightly, the Church and society in general has tried with some success to shake off the shackles of class and privilege, in short to become a meritocratic and fairer society. During this transition, the leaders of the Church of England have tended to side with what are perceived as progressive policies, which they believe to be to be in line with the teachings of Christ.
However, I wonder if this journey has been taken too far by our present Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams ? In his recent article in “The New Statesman”, which by anyone’s definition is a very left publication, he attacked the policies of the present government on the issues of the NHS, Education and “ The Big Society”. Without going into the details of his arguments for and against, my point is whether it is the place of the Archbishop to interfere in the party politics of the country?
The views of Rowan Williams seem to be out of touch with the majority of people in this country, his pronouncement about the introduction of Sharia Law caused widespread offence as are his views about the punishment of offenders.
Is it not fair to say that the Church of England under Rowan Williams is in danger of becoming the “ Labour Party at prayer” with all that implies about our relationship with God?
- Callum Evans
09 June 2011 at 14:47So lets just clear one thing up folks.
The coalition IS legal.
THATS why their in power.
- John Pottinger
09 June 2011 at 14:55Thank you, archbishop, for setting this out so clearly. It is clear that the government has no mandate for what it proposes for the NHS. We get this wrong at our peril for we shall be back in the pre war days when the cost of my mother's mastectomy almost bankrupted my father.
- Alexander
09 June 2011 at 14:57Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?
- Stuart Holder
09 June 2011 at 14:58Let us hope that the raising of bthe retirement age does not apply to Archbishops of Canterbury.
- John Lynam
09 June 2011 at 15:13Dr Williams must be allowed to express his opinion; he and his thought-provoking article are under fire because he has had the temerity to voice some of the widely-held reservations regarding the Coalition's approach to the current economic (and social) crisis.
- Peter Moore
09 June 2011 at 15:19No one voted for the Windsors either.....
Who will rid us of them?
Was Christ a Tory or a Marxist?
- Peter Moore
09 June 2011 at 15:19No one voted for the Windsors either.....
Who will rid us of them?
Was Christ a Tory or a Marxist?
- RK
09 June 2011 at 15:21Since when did Communists start to believe in Democracy? And since when did they understood it?
My way or highway thats communist way. All others are just 'right wing'
- Michael Law
09 June 2011 at 15:28I'm not a follower of religion, but I have great respect for Rowan Williams, and he's 100% right about the results of the despicable policies of this hugely dishonest government of con men and neo-liberal scumbags who keep trying to blame Labour for the financial problems when it was their buddies the bankers who actually caused it, not the Labour government and are using the excuse to dismantle the best things about this country while demonising the poor and the disabled so as to bring in draconian policies which take us back to the Victorian era, or even feudalism (they wish)!
- Exercist
09 June 2011 at 15:29Actually, I believe that the General Synod of the Church of England and the Lambeth Conference both voted for Dr Williams.
- Mark
09 June 2011 at 15:31Very well said Dr Williams.
I am concerned at the attempt to force through radical reforms to the NHS with insufficient scrutiny and debate about where the changes will lead.
I think a fairly high percentage of the public (myself included) don’t feel they properly understand the proposed changes.
- jim
09 June 2011 at 15:45At long last someone has spoken out the thoughts and feelings for the majority of the Indigenous British Public. Well done and keep it up Archbishop Rowan Williams. It is a pity that Ed Milliband and the rest of the Labour MP's dont follow the Archbishob example and for once come out with such truthfull verbal criticism whilst in the House of Commons, instead of just whimpering, or moaning about their own personal paycuts and loss of expenses
- Suzanne Kelly
09 June 2011 at 15:47The PEDANT inside me needs to correct your typo Adam Roberts.
- Angus Wright
09 June 2011 at 15:53Shame the Archbishop couldn't have joined the real radical majority at the time of the UK invasion of Iraq. I've never understood why he remained silent then.
- Wexfordman
09 June 2011 at 15:55It's a pity that so much of the response to Dr. Williams' article is either vituperative or calls into question his right to express his opinion. The policy of the New Statesman of handing over an issue to a guest editor is imaginative and enlightened and exposes regular readers to views that we might not normally come across.The logic of that policy is that the guest will express an opinion, and the mature response of those who don't agree is to rebut the arguments using evidence
- David Lindsay
09 June 2011 at 16:02I hope that all the enthusiasts for the "free" schools policy, the Conservative Party's only one in 2010, are terribly pleased that it is endorsed by Tony Blair in today's Times. But then, like Andrew Lansley's abandoned health policy and like so many other things besides, it was in fact devised by Blair and by David Miliband. They just couldn't get these things past Gordon Brown, Ed Balls and Ed Miliband.
Blair won two General Elections that any Labour Leader would have won and a third at which any viable Opposition would have beaten him. In that last case, he lost Labour 100 seats that anyone else would have kept against the laughable rump of the Tories in 2005, his only ever contribution to the outcome of a General Election.
But no one is allowed to point this out. Hence the headless chicken reaction to the statements of the obvious by Rowan Williams. He has reminded the universally Blairite media that they did not get what they wanted and what they specifically instructed the mere voters to give them: a Cameron overall majority leading to a Cabinet with James Purnell restored to No Work and Hardly Any Pensions, with Andrew Adonis at Education, and with places for Peter Mandelson and Alan Milburn (and also for Stephen Byers, before his bit of trouble), all of which had been publicly announced months before the Election, and none of which would have resulted in any withdrawal of the Labour Whip in the Lords where they would all have sat, since the Leader of the "Opposition" would have been David Miliband, who would also have been an attendee at a Cameron Cabinet and bound by its collective responsibility, as would Tony Blair have been without his even having to have been a member of either House.
Ed Miliband should seize this opportunity and agree wholeheartedly with Dr Williams, thereby breaking once and for all with this wretched little junta as surely as with the closely connected one that we have instead, which, as he rightly points out, is not merely wrong but illegitimate, hence its enthusiastic endorsement by its real head, and now would-be directly "elected President of Europe", Tony Blair.
- Naglar
09 June 2011 at 16:05The Archbishop of Canterbury has made a valuable contribution to the bigger debate that surrounds the policies of the conservative lead coalition.
The majority of people are unsure how these policies will impact them in the longer term. As he statesthes epolicies are not discussed or indeed debated. What is clear is that these sweeping cuts are being replaced by further ideologically driven policies. Capitalist policies whose primary focus is to channel public money to private entities, further perpetuating the transfer of the state's resources to private and non-accountable entities.
The so called program of reforms and policy initiatives, big society, NHS, education et al is but a continuation of the ongoing process of privitising the state's core functions - defense, education, health, social programs, tax collection (tax free havens) where profit is represented by numbers on a balance sheet and not by direct benefits to the community not to mention the less tangible indirect benefits.
The recent economic melt down (private interests who socialised their losses to the public but kept all of their profits) are the same interests that are benefiting from the shock troop tactic of mass cut backs and ideologically driven privitisations. Once these have been enacted it is almost impossible to turn back the tide of these vested interests. Interests who are represented by armies of lawyers and accountants and so called experts that overrun increasingly cash strapped and poorly resourced and motivated civil servants and public watchdogs.
My only point about the Archbishop would be to shave the beard and make himself look more media friendly as I believe he is a man who has an important message to give society.
- Mary
09 June 2011 at 16:13I am an ordinary woman and quite frankly, I am unable to understand a lot of the long words used in the New Statesman article, but I do get the gist of it.
Dr Williams is an intellectual and I think that the views he is expressing in his article, are based on the long outdated ideology of his youth, rather than any understanding of the reality of the present situation this country finds itself in.
If the coalition government were only able to act on the policies that were common to the manifestos of the two respective parties, there would be precious little that they would be able to achieve. As things stand the measures put in place have to withstand the scrutiny of the parliamentary process.
What alternatives do Rowan Williams and his fellow left wingers offer? More of the same policies that have brought this country to the brink of bankruptcy?
I see a country with large parts of the population languishing in a great trough of despondency. Of course, the poverty brought about by unemployment etc.cannot be ignored or dismissed. But equally worrying is the poverty of spirit we see in our communities. The benefit culture allowed to flourish under the last government has eroded the dignity, initiative and motivation of so many people. David Cameron is trying to address this with his "Big Society" and I think that is disgraceful of Rowan Williams to dismiss this initiative in this way. Surely, as a Christian, he should be encouraging anything that helps people to realise their worth and their full potential as human beings.
- Sue Marsh
09 June 2011 at 16:35" The benefit culture allowed to flourish under the last government has eroded the dignity, initiative and motivation of so many people. "
God, I'm so BORED of reading Daily Mail drivel written by people who've never looked at a chart in their lives.
So then Mary, how many people were unemployed under the last Tory Gov? Did it go up or down under Labour? How many young people? Did disability and sickness bens go up or down? Is the overall welfare bill higher or lower as a proportion of GDP?
Usually, people who make comments like yours have not the tiniest, weeniest clue, but have bought into the idea that if we just stamp on the poor and the unemployed and the sick hard enough all our problems will go away.
- Mary
09 June 2011 at 16:51Sue.
We obviously differ in our views as to the best way to deal with the current situation faced by the country.
However, if you read what I am actually saying in the last bit of my comment, you will see that I am speaking UP for the poor, sick amd unemployed. My concern is for their dignity as human beings.
- Alec Macph
09 June 2011 at 16:51>> A democracy going beyond populism or majoritarianism but also beyond a Balkanised focus
Not the most measured part of the article.
- Liz
09 June 2011 at 16:53At least the Arch bishop has got everyone's attention and us all discussing some really important issues. Otherwise who would care that I know longer can afford to send my son to university after encouraging him in that direction for most of his life. I believe 100% in Higher Education but with a years notice of a 3 fold increase, it's disheartening.
- historybuff
09 June 2011 at 16:55This is same guy who insists that committed Christian gay people should not be allowed to get married, but also wants to see Islamic Sharia Law imposed on the UK.
A fine leader for Britain's Christian community!
- Billy Gotta-Job
09 June 2011 at 16:57I've offered my considered thoughts on the wisdom or otherwise of Dr Williams' remarks here: http://billynojob.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/should-we-be-rid-...
- Alec Macph
09 June 2011 at 17:02>> At least the Arch bishop has got everyone's attention and us all discussing some really important issues.
It's been on people's minds before now.
>> Otherwise who would care that I know longer can afford to send my son to university after encouraging him in that direction for most of his life.
Don't worry, he still will get a loan which he, not you will be able to pay back over the course of many years.
- Dr CAS
09 June 2011 at 17:03I agree with the Archbishop 100%. It is so refreshing to see a public figure who seeks the truth and who speaks his mind so intelligently.
- John
09 June 2011 at 17:03""For someone like myself, there is an ironic satisfaction in the way several political thinkers today are quarrying theological traditions for ways forward."
Let us hope that those "theological traditions" do not include the Christian tradition of hostility and injustice to LGBT people - the recipients of charity and their own employees and fellow workers.
You yourself, Doctor Williams, have embraced the Christian tradition of hating and excluding lesbian and gay people, and claimed that having to be around lesbian and gay people living openly is a "cross to bear".
When you write "seeing it as one in which what circulates - like the flow of blood - is the mutual creation of capacity, building the ability of the other person or group to become, in turn, a giver of life and responsibility" I, like many other lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people, our families and friends, have to wonder, how do you plan to exclude *us* from this dream community of yours - since you loathe gay people so much you excluded Gene Robinson from Lambeth and consulted lawyers to get around the provisions in the Equality Act against homophobic discrimination?"
You seem to think that everyone in society should bow to your wishes. You have equality and know one has a right to stop homosexuality. But thats not enough. You discard an entire complex religion that is the heartbeat of communities and means a lot to certain people yet because of one small issue, "homosexuality", you think an entire religion is bad and should be changed to suit your needs
- Zella 07
09 June 2011 at 17:04No one voted for changes to the NHS?? Really?
“We will give every patient the power to choose any healthcare provider that meets NHS standards, within NHS prices. This includes independent, voluntary and community sector providers” (CONSERVATIVE MANIFESTO 2010)
“We will strengthen the power of GPs as patients’ expert guides through the health system by giving them the power to hold patients’ budgets and commission care on their behalf” (CONSERVATIVE MANIFESTO 2010)
"We will allow range of different types of provider, including for example staff co-operatives, on the basis of a level playing field in any competitive tendering – ending any current bias in favour of private providers”
(LIB DEM MANIFESTO 2010)
“Patients requiring elective care will have the right, in law, to choose from any provider who meets NHS standards of quality at NHS costs” (LABOUR MANIFESTO 2010)
Really??
- Carolekins
09 June 2011 at 17:10At last, Dr Williams: someone who is prepared to call a spade as spade and criticize the Coalition's policies as they should be criticized. Also, someone with a bit of compassion for the weak and unlucky. After all, the strong, the lucky and the employed(if they stay that way) will survive this Government's flea-brained initiatives, many others won't.
- brook boysen
09 June 2011 at 17:12The "Big Society" has been alive and kicking in France for decades and more, though not under that name.
Families try to do their bit to help less lucky members, along the traditional dictates of the "Code Napoléon" and there are over a million non-profit making "Associations" of well-meaning people, and charitable outfits, all doing their bit.
The result is threefold. Millions of people have to collect food parcels, queuing for hours, five days a week, just to survive. There is no legal redress if no-one decides to help you in any way. There are more people living rough, in the street than in the UK.
What is missing is not a society with a different name, but a decent basic wage (yes, some people in the queues, and even in the street, sleeping in their cars - are in work) and a decent level of social security benefits for the unemployed.
- Rosa
09 June 2011 at 17:21Dr Rowan Willians is an intellectual ; he makes us aware that our children future is planned by politicians bent on reducing the budget without consultation or debate. Are we in a democracy? As parents, what do you want for your children?
- EhtchTee
09 June 2011 at 17:22I can't see what the fuss is all about? Nothing was said in the article that wasn't the truth, and put across with excellent judgement on the mess the Coalition are making of things. It is true for some that the truth hurts, it seems, as seen by Cameron's indignation earlier - Dave just still does not get it.
- Chivers
09 June 2011 at 17:23Congratulations!
At last - a broadside that is really authoritative and damaging against the wicked people who pretend to represent the country
Thank you for your courage
- Val Gaize
09 June 2011 at 17:29I am delighted with Dr Williams' comments, which run along similar (and kindlier!) lines to letters I've been writing to my (Conservative) MP, sundry Cabinet ministers, and the local and national press ever since the general election and the tragic LibDem decision to coalesce rather than let Messrs Cameron and Osborne sink or swim on their own.
This government has rushed to legislation with a whole raft of policies ill-conceived and un-thought-through from the outset, and scrapped or hastily modified half-way through. If the Archbishop of Canterbury is prepared to draw attention to that fact, then I am not alone in applauding him.
To imply that it's not his place to do so seems to me both to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the concepts of free speech and democracy; and to display a woeful ignorance of the pastoral role of the established church in setting a lead where the government unfortunately isn't.
For example, the unemployed are vilified as workshy and held responsible for their own plight: this in spite of the fact (yes, fact) that unemployment figures are five times higher than vacancy figures. Although jobs are being created, unemployment is rising faster.
People genuinely unfit for work are being forced off Invalidity Benefit and Disability Allowance onto Jobseekers' Allowance (and see above for unemployment figures v vacancies), after assessment by doctors sometimes with little intelligible English, who make no reference to sufferers' GPs.
The government's plans for education seem to have gone sadly awry, at all levels from special-interest schools' maybe having large classes and employing untrained teachers, to virtually all universities' daring to charge top whack in fees.
I am delighted that the Archbishop is prepared to be the focus for people's legitimate fears and concerns! The government seems to be putting money as high on its agenda as the IMF, despite its duty of care for the electorate. Love it or loathe it, believe or don't, the raison d'etre of the Church is people; and it is at least speaking up for us.
- British Bulldog
09 June 2011 at 17:32Well done for speaking up!!
We are more the better for open intellgent debate rather than media manipulated political soundbites seeking votes
- Val Gaize
09 June 2011 at 17:37Cantering back through earlier posts, I notice a number ask whether Dr Williams would be so concerned about Muslim issues.
Well, yes, I firmly believe. Ecumenism has moved forward in leaps and bounds in the last few decades; and while there will be Muslim and, indeed, Christian extremist sects which would turn their backs - mainstream people of every faith and none (humanists, for example) are united in trying to look out for the common good, for everyone without exception. And Dr Rowan Williams would reflect that concern in his personal as well as official capacity: otherwise, he wouldn't be Archbishop of Canterbury.
- CofE - when asked
09 June 2011 at 17:42“The government needs to know how afraid people are”…..
I think that Dr Williams has managed to encapsulate the current mood of sections of the British people in this leader headline, however his analysis of what the problems actually are in Britain today and his conclusions, are both simplistic and politically biased (– “He is really a bearded leftie” says a friend. - interview New Statesman 18 December 2008).
I was not at all happy to discover that the leader of the Church of England, my church in fact, is continuing to use this platform to promote a ‘progressive’ socialist agenda. Of course Mr Williams is entitled to hold his personal views and he should be allowed to express them freely whenever he wants, but he must speak as Dr Rowan Williams the private individual, not as the Archbishop of Canterbury, the spiritual leader of the Anglican Church.
My personal fear is not of the coalition, nor of the policies they are currently pursuing regardless of how painful they are, but of a gradual return to the Blair agenda, something that Mr Williams still appears to support.
The Anglican Church needs to have good leaders and leaders that are ‘good’ - people with vision, honesty, wisdom and integrity, people who know what they should be doing to support our ailing society – the church should not be providing a cosy platform for individuals to engage in politics and spin, we have had enough of that in Britain within the last decade.
- Scotty
09 June 2011 at 17:46He's good for a laugh isn't he, and he certainly makes every one aware of the blinkered nature of socialist arguments. The government was elected to run the country and take what action is necessary to restore its economy and systems after labour's failed attempt - so he's wrong on the basics, the principles behind the action being taken was in the parties manisfesto's - so he's wrong again. He's right about the fear in people, but wrong in blaming the present government and he's wrong to say the role of labour in putting us where we are should not be highlighted - of course it should - they left us with no money.
Just as labour are doing in opposition, he has also opposed and not proposed - just what does he think can be done - note can be done not what he would like to do, that answer would come from the dream world he obviously lives in.
- andyjw0114
09 June 2011 at 17:51Thank you Archbishop for sticking up for those minorities who don't have the voice to enable them to stick up for themselves - the coalition have taken notice (finally) of the critics of the proposed NHS reorganisation because the critics have the ear of the media.
Let's hope your views may lead to similar re evaluation of the welfare reforms which are going through quietly - so far there have only been, allegedly, a few suicides amongst those who have been in the firing line so far.....I don't know if they have been from the deserving or undeserving poor but am pretty sure no one has been representing their interests effectively. Benefits are being cut indiscriminately. Having just listened to the news -
Mr Cameron doesn't seem to like this criticism does he? I hope he has to get used to it.
- Wexfordman
09 June 2011 at 17:52It is a tribute to George Osborne's skills as a polemicist that Mary can believe that the country was the victim of policies which "brought this country to the brink of bankruptcy." In the last 5 years of the Conservative administration which left office in 1997, the debt-to-GDP ratio rose from 31.4% in 1992 to 42.5% in 1997. Gordon Brown reduced this to 35.9% by 2007, just before the financial system went into meltdown. The ensuing rise in the deficit was fuelled not by reckless public spending but by the sums needed to bail out the banks and the collapse of tax revenues caused by the recession. Treasury data shows that before the recession public sector current spending was 38% of GDP - that is lower than in 8 of Margaret Thatcher's 11 years in office. For purely political purposes Osborne talked down the economy when shadow chancellor, with ludicrous stories of impending bankruptcy and far-fetched comparisons with Greece. In fact our level of debt, less than 60% of GDP net of bank assets is within Maastricht treaty limits and lower than almost all OECD countries. It is low by historical standards, and in the immediate aftermath of the 2010 general election was falling, because the policies initiated in the last year of the Labour administration were causing the economy to grow, and it is economic growth, not cuts in public spending, which reduces a deficit. As a result of the coalition's economic policies, growth has been strangled and the deficit is rising. These are facts, verifiable by reference to Treasury figures, not perceptions dreamed up for political ends.
- EhtchTee
09 June 2011 at 17:54The Vatican had their tongues tied through Mussolini, Ethiopia and on to 1945. Thankfully the C of E can say whatever they wish, if they believe future social conditions are being planned to be compromised unfairly. And thankfully too - how would history judge Rowan if he did not speak out now, before we, seemed to be, enter some sort of "valley of darkness"?
- andyg
09 June 2011 at 17:58"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".
A. The left's version would be exactly the same, that's why the general public don't bother voting.
Why do we automatically think that bigger cities deliver better value for money? The larger the city, the more police, crime etc. The smaller the city the bigger the community spirit. We have over the years traded happiness and security for prosperity and insecurity.
- Voice of Darkness
09 June 2011 at 18:09Whatever the many failings of any organised religion, in these demoralising times I am glad that a person of Dr Williams' standing is speaking out so clearly. He takes both Government and Opposition to task; and I look to many more opinion leaders to do the same. However, if we criticise we must offer alternative ideas: and I am very afraid that nobody in authority or finance *anywhere* has a clue what to do, to solve our problems. I do know that, in Gloucestershire, people with the hardest lives will have less and less access to free books and education - as half our libraries are shutting as I type; that our best council managers are losing their jobs, replaced by gormlessly obedient pen-pushers; that I might as well try to fly off Clifton Suspension Bridge as try to earn a living from being moderately intelligent and creative. Indeed I'm beginning to feel that mass suicide is probably the only real answer: it would cut hospital waiting lists and the prison population...! The brutal facts are that our politicians do not represent us; they don't care what happens to any of us; and life is looking less and less worth living.
- EhtchTee
09 June 2011 at 18:12andyg - that last paragraph perfectly describes Scotland's option in a few years, to go alone, and become some sort of Norway-type country, and a result of Coalition-type policies. They do not want a repeat of the 1980's decimation of their country again, imported from Westminster.
- Peter
09 June 2011 at 18:15Rowan's done a pretty poor job of making some simple points here: essentially, the point he's blustering over is that the new coalition government is cannibalising our public services and resources to pay for an inbalance in the tax system.
This results in cuts to the NHS, education, Police and Military, along with attempts to sell off our National Parks for timber and commercial development, and all with strong resistance from the people.
Meanwhile, the huge disparities in taxes paid over taxes owed by some of the largest and most profitable companies who are most able to pay them go unchecked and unenforced,
The so-called austerity measures being enforced by the government are going to be detrimental our society while furthering a right-wing capitalist agenda to allow the ultra-rich to evade taxation, which is a basic duty in an advanced society such as ours.
- Mike Vere
09 June 2011 at 18:24It's about time someone was brave enough to speak out against the vile policies of this government, and it is most gratifying that an intellectual like Rowan Williams should be the man to do it.
The government cannot just brush this away, though it will do its best to do so. I live in wealthy Malvern, and the council has decided to close the local youth centre, a vital link between the haves and the hidden poverty of this area. So much for the Big Society. There is a feeling that the arogance of conservatism is returning with avengence after the demise of Thatcher. Except this time their undeclared plan is the complete destruction of of those state run services that those of us who are less well off take forgranted.
I can only hope that the British people will wake up to what is happening and see through the airbrushed gloss of Cameron and his cronies. Why are the banks and big business not suffering, why take it out on the weakest people in our society - did I say society? I'm not even sure it exists any more.
- Steve Williams - not related
09 June 2011 at 18:30A “national debate” is often talked about but where and who takes part in it, not the likes of me that’s for sure. If there is to be a national debate as Rowan Williams wants then it will only be held by the great and the good. The hoi polloi such as myself won’t get a look it.
- Max Boeré
09 June 2011 at 18:32I think it is sad that someone who is supposed to be neutral, uses the same sort of text as Labour.
labour has said, for instance :
"Last year the Tories fell short of a majority in the General Election, unable to command the support of the British people for their right-wing agenda. Since then, rather than proposing reform that commands consensus, David Cameron's Tory-led Government has attempted to force through right-wing policies for which they have no mandate. Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Labour Party, said: “There is an alternative to letting Nick Clegg and David Cameron return to business as usual pursuing policies which haven’t been thought through and for which people did not vote."
Doesnt it sound familliar?
This is what Rowan Williams said too, in almost the same words. He at least should try to be neutral, not quoting labour.
- Ruth Fry
09 June 2011 at 18:34In my opinion Rowan Williams is absolutely right in all he states in this article.Any one who takes their faith seriously has to be profoundly concerned about this government's attack on the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society. Ed Milliband should take note and come up with a credible and fair alternative.
- Graham Smith
09 June 2011 at 18:37Great! A church leader who offers moral guidance on political choices. Let's have more of it. Where, for example, is the morality of:
-bombing Tripoli: how does that protect civilians? It's certainly way beyond CS1973.
-failing to tackle the root causes of schools which become challenging because of admissions systems which create favoured and disadvantaged ghettos?
-why was there no clear moral guidance about sanctions against Irak (1/2 million children killed), invasion and occupation?
-ditto Afghanistan (why are we Brits so keen to bomb and kill? We surely need moral guidance)
-if the NHS is to become publicly-funded but privately-run (like academies) how will we avoid funds being creamed off for profit to the cost of patients (as in care homes now)?
-how are youngsters with no home advantages to access FE and HE?
-why do we not oppose our Israeli allies when they get away with murder?
Current political discourse, such as it is, is devoid of moral considerations (though not the plausibly persuasive weasel words of Etonians and the like). We need properly informed debate: the BBC et al do not foster this. Well done Archbishop. Let's hear more. Much more.
- hazel hewlett
09 June 2011 at 18:41I don't understand why the government hide under the banner of "This is the legacy we have inherited from Labour."
It seems that with these words Cameron is manipulating the people. Yes we need to clear debt. And this is nt the only country doing that. They were nt all run by Labour. The problem is that its the poor in our society that money is being taken from. Every body deserves an education. Some people can afford the fees. the ones who cant simply wont go. Who wants to face a lifetime of debt? What future do our most vulnerable brothers and sisters have to look forward to. Renting from dodgy landlords who only want to make a profit. Cameron has forgotten how many council houses were sold off by the conservatives?
Money is given to banks but taken from the NHS and education. I am very concerned and frightened . What can we do?
- Lamia
09 June 2011 at 18:48@ Lewis Gilbert,
You claim:
"The Archbishop is right: the coalition and its policies are not legitimate because it and they were decided after the election by a minority political class, rather than at the election by the majority of voters."
They are not merely a 'minority political class', they are elected representatives of the people. The leaders of the first and third largest of such groups of representatives formed a coalition. Coalitions happen when there is no clear majority for any party.
It is infantile and dishonest to claim that a perfectly normal, constitutional - and well known in advance - procedure is 'illegitimate' simply because you don't like the coalition. You need to learn about the rules pertaining to elections in your own country and to understand that you don't always get what exactly you want in an election, and when there is a hung parliament, NO-ONE gets exactly what they want, and nor is anyone entitled to.
- The Reverend Canon Susan Russell
09 June 2011 at 18:50Incidentally, this casts some light on the bafflement and indignation that the present ACO leadership is facing over its proposed Anglican Covenant. 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 communion means in such a context. Not many people want polity by plebiscite, certainly. But, for example, the comprehensive reworking of the Anglican Communion that is now going forward might well be regarded as a proper matter for open probing in the context of wider debates. The anxiety and anger have to do with the feeling that not enough has been exposed to proper public argument.
The Reverend Canon Susan Russell
All Saints Church, Pasadena CA
- eddie price
09 June 2011 at 18:55A considered reading of the article will not find a justification for the vitriolic attacks on Rowan.
The problem is that R offers nothing more than his instinctive criticism against free market economics whilst noting that the left have not articulated a viable option. Further he seems incapable of understanding how his management of his own church leads many people to question the value of the opinion on how to manage a country whose electorate expects to have their individual situation improved with no cost to themselves.
He offers no solutions to our immediate complex economic and social problems other than they can be solved by increased expenditure and a removal of personal culpability.
Surely his unique input to this debate could have been about the transforming power of his God on people’s lives and how they consequently served society for the better. Creating this environment for this miracle to happen more frequently in his church would do much more for the country than an article that could have been written by any 6th former studying comparative religion.
- Andrew
09 June 2011 at 18:55Well I don't remember any of us voting for mass immigration as a policy either but we got that too!
If it weren't for the last government's complete hash up, the current one wouldn't be having to do such unpleasant things to try and save our financial bacon.
Frankly, Dr Williams should leave the politics to the politicians and concentrate on leading the church in spreading the gospel.
- Advocate
09 June 2011 at 18:56Bravo Rowan for calling for this debate. Despite the criticism of you it is your role to bring to the attention of this country what is happening within our communities .
Despite what is being said in the media I agree with you there is fear due to the impact that coalition policies will make on the lives of children, families and communities.
I fully agree with what you have highlighted in the article I just wish the PM and deputy PM and GO had your empathy and understanding of life in communities .
- David Faull
09 June 2011 at 19:02I have never seen so wrong a seies of statements from any so say serious leader than the rubbish put out by the Archbishop. Where was he during the election in 2010. The whole debate between the parties was how to recover from the disaster brought about by Labour in the previous dozen or so years. Even Labour agreed there had to be urgent action to recover our economy the only question was how and both parties in the coalition made it cloear hard treatment was unavoidable.
As for mandates the coalition is the first government since 1935 to have a mandatefor anything with 50%+ of the popular vote. So what does he recommend? Maybe we should all fall to our knees and pray for a miracle to rescue us from the follies of the noughties. It does not work like that. Debt cannot be willed away it has to be paid off and if he can see a way to avoid the pain I am sure Messrs Cameron and Clegg would love to hear from him.
- Johanan
09 June 2011 at 19:16MONSEIGNEUR
If someone publicly signs a pledge before the elections and than breaks this pledge the moment he is elected and enters government do you really think that this new pledge (about what he is aiming for) can be relied upon?
- Mike maley
09 June 2011 at 19:19Your worship
Comerons lot comes up with ideas from an age old thatcherism spasms.They do not care whom they hurt when making decisions.We know that there isn't enough to go around but for goodness sake at least protect those that are finding life dificult, its not about long term unemployed, its about getting the jobs first then they can sort out the long term unemployed .This is bourne out on the matter of the coalition looking into ways of helping those to get into work without being worse of than on benefits another statement on there election bullsh'''t. Someone has to point out they are neglecting the poorest due to an idiology they shared with us the last time thatcherism was around and they are in part to blame for this long term unemployed.as they ruined the workplace by throwing the fathers and mothers of this generation onto the scrapheap.The sins of Lady Thatcher returns. Speak up louder anybody. mike maley
- Brother Stephen of Cymru
09 June 2011 at 19:24The Archbishop's comments in his article are perhaps the most astute and intelligent observations made by a public figure since these lying neo-liberal jokers seized power by default. I just wish Mr Milliband had the wherewithal and common sense to mount a similar attack on the Coalition's misguided policies...
- oldfatgit
09 June 2011 at 19:25He has the right to his opinions and to publish them, however, I find it surprising that he gets his opinions published because he leads a sect of a religion who believe in talking snakes, that a virgin can have a baby fathered by their invisible friend who eventually, after being executed in accordance with the laws of the day and the passage of a day or so, rise from the dead prior to flying away without any form of recognisable propulsion. That adds authority to his views then doesn't it?
- Brother Stephen of Cymru
09 June 2011 at 19:26The Archbishop's comments in his article are perhaps the most astute and intelligent observations made by a public figure since these lying neo-liberal jokers seized power by default. I just wish Mr Milliband had the wherewithal and common sense to mount a similar attack on the Coalition's misguided policies...
- Brother Stephen of Cymru
09 June 2011 at 19:26The Archbishop's comments in his article are perhaps the most astute and intelligent observations made by a public figure since these lying neo-liberal jokers seized power by default. I just wish Mr Milliband had the wherewithal and common sense to mount a similar attack on the Coalition's misguided policies...
- hugh markey
09 June 2011 at 19:37A little respect please. Rowan Williams was good enough to marry Prince William to a commoner and nobody in government circles raised so much as a murmur of protest.
Rowan Williams sounds like a good Welsh name and it's a shame our having to hark back to Henry VIII and the foundation of the Church of England. The Tudors were not too proud to refer to their Welsh roots.
Where is all that free speech David Cameron keeps on about? North African peoples [ Iraq and Afghanistan have already had a dose of English free speech ] will be thoroughly disillusioned and may be put off coming here.
Protestant!
- Steve
09 June 2011 at 19:41twat
- Catherine Murphy
09 June 2011 at 19:54I applaud Rowan Williams for his brave and articulate comments.
I urge the Leader of my church in the UK , Cardinal Vincent Nicholls, to speak out in a similar vein for the most vulnerable in our society. I am absolutely sure that he does but, sadly, recently he has only grabbed the headlines for saying that Catholics should return to eating fish on Fridays!
Dr. Williams's remarks are wholly relevant to present day issues. As the coalition is so appalling, the opposition should be wiping the floor with them. I think Ed Miliband is a good man but he has so much to beat the con-dems with that he should really be having a field day. I hope he gets into his stride. Currently, Ed Balls is doing an excellent job in picking huge holes in the government's policies.
This is the first time I have seen Cameron really rattled and the smug look wiped off his face. Well done Archbishop!
I was beginning to despair that anyone but the elite would get a voice in this country. It was disgraceful that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were excluded from the Royal Wedding on a technicality when they were voted in THREE times. Looking around the make-up of the guests at the Abbey was terrifying.
I am so pleased that Rowan Williams has taken this stand.
- Derek Edwards
09 June 2011 at 19:54Rowan is spot on with his comments. Most politicians today are gangsters in suits.
- Jeremy Marsh
09 June 2011 at 20:01I may be agnostic bordering on atheist but for a long time I have felt that Rowan Williams makes Christianity eminently attractive; and that of course is the point here - he is espousing christian values, particularly care and thought for those less fortunate than most of us.
Of course, the fact that he is doing this will be totally lost on the right wing press, whose headlines will undoubtedly reach warp factor rant, as they criticise his temerity for stating the self-evidently truth.
- J Hill
09 June 2011 at 20:02I just don't get it. I mean I've read the article three times and I just find it....unfathomable. Granted, I could be deeply thick, but what does it mean? It seems to be written in such a subtle and pseudo-academic style that it verges on obscurity. What sort of policies does this man favour? I really cannot guess from this article. I assume not just some big lumbering centralised state that spends money like it's going out of style, but if not this, what? The man's a riddle. Also, I don't sense much fear out there. A lot of people are pissed off and gloomy, but - hey - this is England, what's new?
- Gill O'Neill
09 June 2011 at 20:11"a long-term education policy at every level that will deliver the critical tools for democratic involvement, not simply skills that serve the economy"
Critical tools instead of 'skills that serve the economy'? Yes please! How many British politicians have argued for education's intrinsic value over the last two decades? Virtually none. Good on you Rowan Williams.
- scott taylor
09 June 2011 at 20:16i am sick of this national debt nonsense its funny that a lot these tories didnt give a monkeys about "the deficit" when they were battering their expenses. i dont give a toss bout no national debt i give a toss about feeding my family (and i am not talking foie gras and bottles of petrus either). What do i know i am just going on my 14 hour shift @ £6.33 an hour then at least i got ajob!! well done rowan
- honey
09 June 2011 at 20:17Well done, this is brilliant. His man is only stating what a lot of the "every day" person is thinking. I myself do not support any religion, i dont like the organisation. BUt this Archbishop i have a lot of respect for him. The politcians need to be thrown out of their comfy, well paid lives and see how the majority of the country are siffering with high petrol, food prices and the threat of job losses. Mr Cameron and his goverment are living in fantasy land, with an "Ime all right jack" attitude.
- Canon Roland Meredith
09 June 2011 at 20:19I am delighted by the Archbishop's article. It is an intelligent critique of this present government which is enacting policies which were never mentioned during the election. It is time that the big questions were asked - and Rowan has done it extremely well.
ROLAND from WITNEY
- Eddy S
09 June 2011 at 20:22the main problems with the economy began from atleast 2003 onwards when the economy began to binge on private sector borrowing and public sector spending.
what we have to realise is that bouyant property and finance sectors were bring booming tax revenues, this was good while it lasted but it would not last forever. the feel good factor was enhanced with cheap imports from china which kept inflation low (now they are a superpower they influence world commodity prices).
if gordon brown had followed his golden rules he would have balanced the budget over the economic cycle so that we would have had more money to spend now.
in addition, printing money, lowering rates to near zero and increasing debt further means that there is less ammunition left for the next shock that will hit the world economy.
the problem is that the west has been living beyond its means for years. it is the far east who are setting an example financing our debts etc and rowan williams should know this !
we should start thinking about how we are going to pay our way around the world. what are we going to make and innovate? we should reduce government spending of the admin variety and maintain infrastructure spending, we should lower taxes on productive resources such as labour and capital and increase it on less mobile unproductive resources such as land, tax pollution more and provide tax incentives for green energy industries, help the north (not through government spending but through tax cuts), help the poor more not through hand-outs but tax cuts and providing better incentives for work. the coalition are doing many of these things but they could do more of it.
- andyg
09 June 2011 at 20:35@ Ehtch Tee
And till we've built Jerusalem on Yorkshires green and pleasant land.
Frrrrreeeeeeeeddddddooooooooommmmmmmmmm
- scott taylor
09 June 2011 at 20:36corporations constantly looking to cut labour costs, short term employment to create a "flexible labour force" and social housing to cost 80% of the market value plenty of incentives to work in london EDDY S sounds like economic genocide to me!!
- MikeH
09 June 2011 at 20:38Rowan
In response to your comments in the New Statesman, may I offer my full support and agreement.
Uttering this perfect criticism of the Coalition's assault on democracy is Labour's role - which bizarrely it has failed to do. The quality of our social democratic past is degraded by this Government's actions.
As you break the convention of the Church's separation from the state, today I'm more inclined to join the Church, than the Labour Party.
Please keep up the excellent work
- andyg
09 June 2011 at 20:50I'm quite happy for the church to come out and join public debate, in fact stir it. I have a great deal of respect for people who leave themselves open to criticism. Good on ya RW even though you've said a lot but managed to stay on the fence. I'd have even greater respect if you told us what you really thought of those thieves in Westminster. Take them out and show them the consequencies of their policies. Rub their faces in the shi... that they bring about just like that fella Jesus did in the temple.
- Carol Moore
09 June 2011 at 20:51It's about time the Archbishop spoke out. I hope it's a habit he get's into.
- David
09 June 2011 at 20:55As someone has said above, Bishops are indeed elected, although it's not much like the process that elects governments. The Crown Appointments Commission, based at Number 10, has a major hand in the process too, so it might be said that our bishops are chosen by those we elect.
Setting aside questions of where Bishops' authority comes from (and I don't believe it's from the process that chooses them) I'm hugely grateful that Dr Williams, among others, can still find a prophetic voice.
- Raj
09 June 2011 at 21:02Thank you very much Dr Williams! You expressed the thoughts, worries and anxieties of the majority of the people in this country about the policies of this coalition government taken on education and health and other important public services. I agree with you by 100%. May God bless the government people to rethink and correct their policies before it is too late to do so.
- Conrad B Fash
09 June 2011 at 21:08I am very pleased to read the archbishops comments, which resonate with my experience. He has expressed a view I suspect many people agree with in the chasm of silence from the Labour party.
An emphasis on sustainability is something many voters might find appealing.
Picking up on the theme of Jerusalem, I would like (I know this is unneccessarily personal) to connect this with Mr Cameron's shiny aristocratic complection:
'And when the countenance divine
Shines forth among these clouded hills
Is something very nasty being builded here
Among these dark satanic Bills?'
I do have reservations about the verse; I think it is best to leave God and the Devil out of things really.
Conrad
- John
09 June 2011 at 21:08I don't think I'm bothered to pull this one apart. Its the same as all his other rambles full of contradictions.
The lad is an individual who posseses a good memory but just like a portion of that sector lack cognitive ability. The ability to apply the knowlegde gained to any given situation. He is the library, not the thinker, that needs to be left to someone with cognitive abilities, someone who can reason.
Dr Williams is someone amongst others who a leader capable of vision would pick the brains for information but not someone who should attempt to do the same.
I have not read one speach of his which is not full of contradictions. He is incapable of forming an hypothesis for that reason and should not be in the position he is.
- Sambfriend
09 June 2011 at 21:11God bless you, Archbishop Rowan. You are a beacon for truth and justice and no amount of criticism can erase the good you do. God's word never returns to Him empty. May you and your family know peace and protection at this time.
- John
09 June 2011 at 21:20If I can just add an inconvenience here, economics does matter. The borrowing of the UK and the US according to the World Health Organisation meant that there was a shortfall to the 3rd world expected to cost the lives of 300,000 women and children.
The rich nations blowing their money on borrowing do not help the vulnerable. Passing ever more debts onto the younger generation I would say is not the Friendly Samaritan.
- margaret
09 June 2011 at 21:22At all costs there must be a genuine coming together of C hurch and State for the sake of our young people .
Principles of peace> and harmony please , as well as good policy
How else can children develop and know their path
- Roland
09 June 2011 at 21:36Thank you Dr Williams for your excellent analysis. Anyone with a modicum of objectivity will recognise the truth in what you are saying. Your voice is being heard because you are who you are. It's about time more people in authority like you show courage and speak up.
- Liv Singh
09 June 2011 at 21:54The Archbishop is right: we have different political parties but they all sound the same and by doing so fail to represent the majority of the people.
Can we really call ourselves a healthy democracy when so much power resides with a small ruling elite?
The majority of the people didnot vote for the dismantling of the welfare state yet that is what we are getting. Health and education are the targets now following from housing that has been crushed over the past 30 years. The example of housing is clear - the private sector does not meet the needs of the majority it seeks to make a profit for the few.
- john noblet
09 June 2011 at 22:10did jesus ask you to say this or did he ask you to go into all the world and preach the gospel. My understanding is that the church's main priority should be to preach the gospel. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.
Bless you.
- N. O.
09 June 2011 at 22:16As usual fantastic article. Brave, to the point and giving voice to the views of so many...
- Louise
09 June 2011 at 22:18Thank you Rowan, you saying this means so much to me, I think it even offers me some faith where I had none. You are saying what every sensible person with a heart & brain knows to be the truth.
- Hugh Williams (No relation!)
09 June 2011 at 22:18Thank you Rowan Williams for a thoughtful and timely questioning of the direction of current government policies; especially given their long term radical impact on society which was not brought up during the election. As Dr Williams says we should be seeking to find ways of building a “generous” community of communities in which we are equipped to build the resourcefulness and well-being of each other
- Rodney Yates
09 June 2011 at 22:20Dr. Williams' observation that the Government has no mandate and makes no reference to an endorsement from the electorate for its decisions, is a point of Fact, not of Opinion, as David Cameron so Arrogantly asserts. DC is self-delusional if he thinks that brow-beating people who expose his con-tricks lends him or his government any more credibility when he is undeserving of the position he holds. In short, the ConDem coalition is in an untenable position and it is only a matter of time before the whole charade is blown away and a proper mandate is sought and obtained to govern our country - and we call time on this ridiculous pantomime.
- Sayitasitis
09 June 2011 at 22:23Well, I've been reading here for a while. I came here to comment that I am glad someone spoke out to keep the discussion about the reforms current. I am an atheist, so I am not normally remotely interested in what he or any of his colleagues has to say. Religion sickens me.. if you want to know about double standards, this is where you start looking.
However, all I have read here is a lot of self opinionated twits with nothing better to do (I know, I have joined you), than posting opposing comments and having a childish dig at each other. What is far worse, are you saddos who are trying to get people to go to your pathetic little blogs. Get a life, haven't you got anything better to do?
- John C
09 June 2011 at 22:25I find the Archbishop's article quite astonishing. it was his friends in the Labour government that created the deficit that the current government has the unenviable task of now addressing. The government were democratically elected on a manifesto of recovering from the abyss into which this country was plunged by Messrs. Blair, Brown and Balls. Let us all hope that they are successful.
- Ted
Friday 10 June 2011
New Statesman - Leader: The government needs to know how afraid people are
via newstatesman.com
Flickr - projectbrainsaver
www.flickr.com
|
