Welfare Reform. Time to Celebrate?

"They sell the righteous for money, and the poor man for shoes. They trample like dust of the earth the head of the poor and they twist the judgement of the humbled" Amos 2:7

I was very happy this week to hear that The Moral Maze was back. This Radio 4 programme is a bit of a favourite of mine, for while sadly it does not delve too deeply into the issues it is discussing (and how could it, with a time slot of less than an hour) it does, however, give a good flavour of the arguments on both sides of a debate. This week the chosen subject was about the welfare cuts proposed by our coalition government, specifically the issue of universality in the provision of benefits. This combined with my reading about the 19th century Unitarian social reformer and MP John Fielden of Todmorden, got me thinking about this subject which has animated many over the past few weeks.

Firstly I have no choice but to stress that I am no economist, my mathematical skills are simply shocking as my previous teachers (and anyone who goes shopping with me) can attest. What I think is clear to all however, is that something has to be done about the large budget deficit and about the incomprehensible situation of government spending necessitating billions of pounds of borrowing to maintain. Any system in which outgoings are bigger than income is doomed to failure.

Over the past few weeks, we have seen and heard, practically on a daily basis, group after group coming out and warning of the terrible repercussions, if not an actual catastrophe, that will befall us all if their funding is cut. The impression that springs to my mind is of a nation addicted to government money. The picture is conjured of a dealer withdrawing addictive narcotics from a desperate and pleading addict, who threatens to turn nasty if he does not get what he wants. We have seen in some European countries this anger boil over into actual violence, and earlier this year innocent people died as a result of the national "fix" being taken away. Clearly cold turkey is not a method to take lightly, Cameron and Clegg be warned!!

I am also somewhat perturbed by the level of hostility (verging on open hatred) towards all who work in the banking profession who may also happen to be very wealthy. (Not helped by the continued large bonuses still present in what does not seem to be a very contrite industry). In my local paper a letter cautions against what he or she terms an "ideological divisive vendetta against the poor". Amen to that, but we also don't need an ideological divisive vendetta against the rich, after all according to our teacher Jesus they have a sufficiently tricky situation as he said "where a man's treasure is there his heart is also" Luke 12:34.

The unfortunate reality is that most of us are like those bankers! So many of us spent more than we really knew we should, often money ultimately belonging to others, that we were given on credit by banks and other providers. The solution to this problem will have to be faced by all of us. It is a collective problem and must have a collective solution. Ultimately the question comes down to this: have the Lib-Con's Con-Dem'ed the poor to a harsher future or are they taking steps that will better the lot of all in our country?

Should benefits be universal? I suppose the answer to this question depends on what you think welfare is all about. Can any society call itself civilized if it does not believe itself to have a duty of care to all within its orbit? Can justice feature in the vocabulary of a people that reject the need for the collective to ensure that all have the basic requirements of life? I think that the answer to these questions is no. Our faith in the Kingship of God should if nothing else demonstrate to us that we are only custodians of His creation. That our wealth is not truly our own but belongs to Him and that it is His will that we should use the gifts he has bestowed upon us to provide for the less fortunate the basic requirements of an honourable life. Our faith in the Fatherhood of God, should if nothing else lead us to love our fellow brothers and sisters with that active love which seeks out their well being. For what Father is happy at the indifference of His children to each-other? It was The Heavenly Father Himself, who informed us "do not stand idly by the blood of your brother" Leviticus 19:16.

But these duties devolve on us as moral individuals in reciprocal and free relationships with our fellow citizens (and the larger world) and not on the state, which is ideally only in place to protect us from the criminality within and the aggression from without. I personally regard state benefits as a necessary safety net. A way of the state ensuring that no one lacks their basic needs through no fault of their own. I believe that the state's involvement in securing this safety net is an unfortunate product of societies that fail to live up to, or are unable to live up to, their eternal missions, as it seems to me that in a perfect world, society should support the needs of those who have become unable to provide for themselves not the state. State provision erodes, even if only slightly, an essential human aspect of coexistence, those mutual bonds of kindness and responsibility that dignify us collectively and individually. Therefore it seems clear to me that government involvement in providing the needs of freely choosing human adults should be kept at a minimum. Better that obstacles that stand between people and the ability to be self supporting be removed. The many wonderful social reformers that Unitarianism has produced such as the inspiring MP John Fielden had the removal of these obstacles firmly in mind when pursuing their social reforms. He battled to prevent industrialists from exploiting their workers, for example by arguing for the introduction of a minimum wage and and he championed the restricting of hours that workers could be forced to work. His efforts culminated in the 1847 Factory Act. During the difficult times caused by the Cotton Riots, he paid workers who had lost their jobs, to build roads and public buildings. In these ways and more he ensured that work was a viable path to a better and more prosperous life. Could we in the 21st century not learn from his endeavours?

So what are the problems with universal benefits? The following spring to my mind as being the main drawbacks of such an approach:

1) Universal benefits deplete the finite resources of money/help available, by offering them to people who simply do not require them. In most other walks of life, people would distribute their money by considering the greatest need of the potential recipient. This universalism is seemingly not interested in practicality or utility but on exclusively ideological grounds. Extremely wealthy countries like Saudi Arabia, or countries with small populations like Sweden and Finland, better still, small countries that are also very wealthy like Kuwait or UAE, can afford to have practical and highly effecient universal benefits and services. Countries like ours that are wealthy but not excessively so and who have large populations simply can not have universal provision. This strikes me as logical but I am no economist and would welcome an informed refutation from those who disagree.

2) Making benefits universal sends out the message that it is the state that has the prime obligation to provide for the needs of the people, and not the people themselves. This leads to both an entitlement culture that infantilizes people and a selfish culture were people are concerned only about their needs and feel that the needs of others should be taken care of by the state. In such a society people can neglect the neighbour next door in the mistaken belief that "it has nothing to do with me". Does anyone else see the irony of a country that believes it is the personal duty of its citizens to provide money to ease the plight of the poor abroad but who feel it is the duty of the state to look after the unfortunate of its own land? Even the coalition has said it will maintain the same budget for overseas aid, while cutting the funding for its own poor. Is this not a national portrayal of Dickens' Mrs Jellyby?

Some of the arguments against the removal of the universal principle that need to be considered and I believe refuted, are as follows:

Services exclusively for poor people will be poor services! This is non-sequitur. There are many charitable services for the exclusive benefit of the poor, that do a fantastic job, and put the state sector for shame. All that is needed is resolve and a genuinely committed group of people. People who see public service as a vocation and not a career.

That services for the exclusive use of the unfortunate would stigmatise them. This is simply a failure of imagination. There are many ways to provide for the needs of people and at the same time maintain their self respect and innate dignity. A beautiful scene from the BBC adaptation of Elizabeth Gaskell's Cranford leaps to mind. The ladies of Cranford come up with a scheme to provide the finances that are needed by their dear friend Miss Matty. They each give money which is then presented to the lady in question by a third party who claims that it is rightfully hers as there was an error in the bank! (See even in those days banks still made mistakes). In this way they support their friend and neighbour while doing nothing to damage her pride and dignity. A modern example is the huge markets in Jerusalem before the expensive festival of Passover, that give away free food, wine, shoes, clothes to the poor of the Holy City, but which looks like any other market. People are given vouchers so that they can "purchase" their products like anyone else.

The removal of the universal principle would make people too individualistic and lead them to have no regard for the wider society or so the argument goes. I think the opposite is true. If a benefit is for everyone then it is simply something owed to us all by virtue of being citizens. Just like the provision of electricity, gas and water to all our homes does not make us feel like we are somehow responsible for all our neighbours and neither does the provision of any welfare payments. However if the provision was exclusively for those in need, then those who's taxes pay for it but who do not benefit directly from it, would have a clearer sense that we all have a duty of care to all our fellow human beings. The benefits themselves would proclaim the duty of the affluent for the poor.

On the other hand I do recognise the value of state funding in certain aspects of national life. There are things which are fundamental to the success and survival of the whole country which therfore are best provided by central funding (if not central control), such as basic education. There are also national resources which all can benefit from, and which extend throughout the length and breadth of the realm such as railways, roads which would benefit from central funding. Which is why I am not supportive of the governments plans, mentioned in the Sunday Telegraph, to sell state owned forests. This is a retrograde step that will in time lead to a loss of a precious natural and national resource. I also see some benefit in the state, acting as the public voice of our society, funding institutions to a lesser or greater degree, which are communally viewed as valuable, such as marriage.

I just can't help feeling that the greater solution to our problems lies in the reinvigoration of society and community in the horizontal bonds of nationhood. I mean there is something wrong with us all when we prevent those who, for all sorts of reasons, are reduced to total poverty, from begging, while feeling little aversion to grown men earning millions of pounds for being good at the game of football!! And yes while there are people who are in reduced circumstances because of their own incorrect choices and behaviour or because the moral framework of their lives have been dissolved through the post-modern privatisation of morality, this is not an excuse for us to wash our hands of them and blindly continue to horde up our treasure in a place that moth and rust destroy and theives break in and steal" Matthew 6:19 (Babylonian Talmud Bava Basra 11a). Instead we should remember the teachings of he who had not a place to rest his head who taught "those who are healthy have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I do not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" Mark 2:17

Hard times are most certainly coming for many people, even if it is only for a short time, let us stand in the breach and work to create that benevolent society that is in our power to do.

The corrosive power of scorn.

"Happy is the man who walked not in the counsel of the wicked and stood not in the path of the sinful and sat not in the session of scorners" Psalm 1:1

This past week we saw Tony Blair declaring that he is to donate the reported £4 million advance payment of his new book and also any profits it might make, to the Royal British Legion in order to "honour the courage and sacrifice" of British Soldiers.

Mr Chris Simpkins on behalf of the British Legion, has happily and gratefully accepted this offer and has stated that they intend to use his donation, the biggest single donation to that organisation ever, to create a sports centre for injured servicemen and women. I think all of us can be assured that when Mr Simpkins says that the donation will "make a real difference to the lives of hundreds of injured personnel" he speaks the truth. May God bestow His blessings upon this project and may it truly bring assistance and happiness to our troops. And may the need for all such endeavours be removed speedily, when swords are beaten into ploughshares and nations never again learn to make war.

Sadly almost immediately after Mr Blair's declaration, voices of public protest and condemnation began to be heard. One such group of voices originated among some of the loved ones of soldiers killed in service. Those of us who have not suffered what they have suffered dare not express any criticism or judgement of these people or what they have said.

But there were and are other voices, both in the media and amidst the general public, that are passionately critical of Mr Blair, his motivations and his donation. So often this criticism seems to be fuelled by an irrational and quite vicious dislike of Mr Blair and his record in office.

Let me nail my colours (certainly not socialistic red!) to the mast. I have never liked Mr Blair's policies or approach to government. I believe that despite some good done, he and his government damaged our fragile society and changed for the worse our political life. I have had and retain a distaste for the persona he projects and could quite happily have done without either the Blair years or New Labour in general. I also understand many of the arguments and concerns expressed about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and feel that the lack of resources our army had to contend with, will remain a horrible stain on the history of our governing class. But I also wish to make it clear that I equally dislike the total abject irrationality evident in the facile arguments suggesting oil as Mr Blair's motive for war, not to mention the nonsensical conspiracy theories, sadly so often heard in polite conversation these days, and too silly to repeat here. I am also appalled by the blatant party politics that allows opposition parties (now the government) to conveniently wash their hands of all responsibility in either opposing and preventing a war they now declare illegal, or in the insuring that those sent to fight had all they needed to protect themselves.

But what in heaven's name do all the contrary opinions about Mr Blair and his policies, have to do with this charitable gift? Do we have a shortage of evil in the world that we have to mock and pour scorn on acts of goodness, even those that might fall short of perfection? Why must we allow personal dislike or even naked hatred prevent recognition of goodness?

I have seen comments suggesting that this donation will not succeed in buying forgiveness for Tony Blair, and some have suggested that he will find that this donation fails to open any heavenly gates for him. What sort of talk is this? How arrogant of us to assume that we know the inner motivations, the thoughts within the heart, of a man that the overwhelming majority of us do not know personally? I simply don't care if he is only trying to rehabilitate his public image and secure a legacy, or if he has found motivation in the words of King Solomon in Proverbs 11:4 when he says "wealth will not avail in the day of wrath, but charity will rescue from death". These are the types of occasions when we should take to heart the words of our teacher Jesus, who tells us "Judge not lest you be judged" and "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". (Incidentally the only evidence we do have would seem to indicate that his motivation was a simple desire to show respect to our service men and women). These inner reasons are between himself and God, who ultimately he will have to stand before in judgement just as we all will.

And I would ask of those who have poured the ice-cold waters of scorn on this donation, how much have you given or how much do you propose to give? The British Legion can't provide for those in need with donations of cynicism and criticism can they.

My personal opinions of Mr Blair and his legacy in office have not changed, and there is no need for the opinions of others to change either. However let us value an act of charity, let us raise up the voice of giving in our society and strengthen the hand of those who are most in need of it.

Those of us who are Unitarian, and also those in the wider Christian and religious world, let us maintain our positive view of life and man, and not fall victim to the negativity of scornful words. Let us not forget that the brother of our teacher is claimed to have said "Even so the tongue is a little member and boasts great things, See how great a forest a little fire kindles!... With it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men who have been made in the image of God... My brethren, these things ought not to be so" James 3:5-10

Pakistan, the mystery of suffering and our response.

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell, if you know understanding!...Did you ever in your life command the morning or teach the dawn its place... Who fashioned a channel for the torrent or a path for thunder clouds that it may rain upon a land.." Job 38:4-29

What are we to think of the unfolding catastrophe in Pakistan? What answers can we offer to explain the depth of suffering etched onto the faces of men, women and children every time we switch on the TV News or read the Papers? The only thing we can be certain of, is that we are not to respond as Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar the friends of Job did. We cannot say that the suffering we are witnessing is a punishment for the sins of those individual people. If we use this argument to assuage in ourselves the discomfort of the pain we see, we too will be told by God "My wrath anger burns against you". In truth we can offer no answers or reasons, and it would be wrong for us to try.

God's majesty is immense. What does not find its existence in His will? He is the source of existence itself. He is the unchanging permanent, infinite reality upon which everything is based. His knowledge encompasses everything. Chaos theory, popularly summed up with the analogy of a hurricane being the ultimate result of many interconnected causes originating in the beating of a butterfly's wings, gives us a sense of the myriad upon myriads of causes and effects constantly taking place. And the magnificent Architect is aware of them all and infusing them with reality. What possible knowledge or awareness of God's mind and plans can we really have? In effect almost nothing. His thoughts are truly above our thoughts. How beautiful and breathtakingly true are the words sung by Libera "How can I sing that Majesty, which angels do admire. Let dust in dust and silence lie, sing sing ye heavenly choir!"

Understanding this we must conclude that it is not our place to "accept" as God's will the suffering we see around us whether in Pakistan, our neighbourhood or in our own houses. From our human vantage point,(the only one we can possibly have and the only one God wishes us to live up to) we see injustice and needless suffering in such miseries. And it is our Heavenly Father who bids us, no demands of us, to alleviate that suffering.

Responsibility,the ability to respond. If any of us have any ability to help lessen the suffering in Pakistan I hope that we have already done so, or will do so soon. There are of course concerns as to whether or not the money will be used properly and effectively. These and other concerns should not be ignored but they should not prevent us from giving. Find a different way to contribute if necessary, if you are unsure of the main charities. I personally recommend the wonderful charity World Jewish Relief, who have a Pakistan appeal.

These events should give us cause to stop and contemplate our own lives and the use of the blessings God has given us. Are we thankful? Do we use our wealth and possessions to serve God or to glorify ourselves instead. We should think about Jesus' comment that "Where your treasure is, there your heart is also". Personally speaking the answers to these questions are not often pleasant, but as Elizabeth Gaskel said "identifying a problem is the first step to resolving it".

I would hope that the Vatican think about the mounting costs of the UK Papal visit estimated now at nearly £12 million. And ask whether or not these expenses are necessary. Perhaps the approximate £7 million being raised by the Catholic faithful would be better directed to providing clean water or shelter to some of the nearly 20 million people who's homes have been destroyed by the floods, or even put to use among the poor of our own country. Do not misunderstand me, I am not against the Pope's visit, it is only right that Catholics in this country be paid a visit by their spiritual leader and no doubt he has much of great wisdom and importance to say. I only ask if the manner in which this visit is to be conducted follows the spirit of Jesus' instruction to his disciples when he sent them out to "preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick" and instructed them to "take nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money".

It is so easy when hearing of suffering and unfairness to loose sight of the immensity of God's kindness and blessings. Each and every day, each and every moment of every day we are suffused with kindness and we should heed the words of King David (who certainly knew suffering):

"Call out to the Lord, all the earth. Serve the Lord with gladness, come before Him with joyous song. Know that the Lord, He is God; He made us and we are His, His people and the sheep of His pasture. Enter His gates with thanksgiving, His courts with praise; give thanks to Him bless His Name. For the Lord is good, His kindness endures forever, and from generation to generation is His faithfulness" Psalm 100

The happiness we feel in our heart when we become aware of God's love and His kindness to us, should spur us to share it with those who have less than ourselves. And to help others appreciate the good that exists in their lives.

I finish this post with the uplifting words spoken by Jesus of Nazareth when he said:

"Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask for bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask for a fish will he give him a serpent? If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? Matthew 7:9-11.

Thank God for your blessings and then share them with others.