Bishop in saying something sensible shock!

[Rum]

from: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-s ... government

Archbishop of Canterbury: "no one voted" for the coalition's policies

Posted by George Eaton - 08 June 2011 22:00

Rowan Williams launches an outspoken attack on the government in a leader for the New Statesman.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has launched a remarkable attack on the coalition government, warning that it is committing the country to "radical, long-term policies for which no one voted." In a leading article in tomorrow's New Statesman, which he has guest-edited, Williams writes that the "anxiety and anger" felt by voters is a result of the coalition's failure to expose its policies to "proper public argument".

With specific reference to David Cameron's health and education reforms, the Archbishop says that the government's approach has created a mixture of "bafflement and indignation" among the public.

"With remarkable speed, we are being committed to radical, long-term policies for which no one voted," he writes. "At the very least, there is an understandable anxiety about what democracy means in such a context."

Before the general election, Cameron famously promised to stop the "top-down reorganisations of the NHS" but later embarked on the biggest reforms to the health service since its creation.

In reference to Michael Gove's education reforms, the Archbishop writes: "[T]he 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." Gove's free school reforms were pushed through Parliament last summer with a haste usually reserved for emergency anti-terrorism laws.

Williams warns: "Government badly needs to hear just how much plain fear there is around such questions at present."

The Archbishop also questions David Cameron's "big society" agenda, a phrase which he describes as "painfully stale". He writes that the policy is viewed with "widespread suspicion" as an "opportunistic" cover for spending cuts, adding that is not credible for ministers to blame the last Labour government for Britain's problems.

"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."

Williams also launches a sustained attack on the government's welfare reforms, complaining of a "quiet resurgence of the seductive language of "deserving" and "undeserving" poor". In comments directed at the Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, the Archbishop criticises "the steady pressure" to increase "punitive responses to alleged abuses of the system".

In the leader, Williams says that his aim is to stimulate "a livelier debate" and to challenge the left to develop its own "big idea" as an alternative to the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.

[Atheist-Lite]

Playing both sides against the centre. Give the man a medal?

[Pappa]

And Cameron's response: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13713606

David Cameron rejects Archbishop of Canterbury's claim

Prime Minister David Cameron has mounted a robust defence of government policy following criticisms by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Mr Cameron said Dr Rowan Williams was "free to express political views" - but he "profoundly disagrees" with them.

Dr Williams criticised the coalition's flagship welfare reforms and branded the PM's Big Society "stale".

And he said "radical" policies "for which no-one voted" were being pushed through with "remarkable speed".

Mr Cameron was asked about the remarks in Dr Williams's article for the left-leaning New Statesman magazine, the latest edition of which the most senior cleric in the Church of England guest-edited.

In the magazine, the Archbishop said the government was facing "bafflement and indignation" over its health and education plans: "With remarkable speed, we are being committed to radical, long-term policies for which no-one voted. At the very least, there is an understandable anxiety about what democracy means in such a context."

He added: "The anxiety and anger have to do with the feeling that not enough has been exposed to proper public argument."

He also said there had been a "quiet resurgence of the seductive language of 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor" and he wrote that Mr Cameron's own Big Society initiative was viewed with "widespread suspicion" and the term had become "painfully stale".

But Mr Cameron, in Belfast ahead of addressing the Northern Ireland Assembly, rejected the criticisms.

He said: "I've never been one to say that the Church has to fight shy of making political interventions, but what I would say is that I profoundly disagree with many of the views that he's expressed, particularly on issues like debt and on welfare and education."

Mr Cameron said he saw nothing "good or moral" in passing national debts to the next generation, trapping people on welfare or in schools that were not offering a good education.

'Deserving poor'

The prime minister added: "I am absolutely convinced that our policies are about actually giving people greater responsibility and greater chances in their life and I will defend those very vigorously."

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, whose sweeping welfare reforms aimed at making work pay came in for some criticism, said the Archbishop was entitled to his views but added: "I think in this respect it's a little unbalanced and unfair."

Mr Duncan Smith denied resurrecting the Victorian concept of the "deserving poor" and said the welfare system he had inherited from Labour had left many people abandoned on benefits, with a record number of workless households and "broken homes".

He added: "All of this is going on in a system which is, in itself, damaging the very people it seeks to save. There is no kindness in that."

Business Secretary Vince Cable told the BBC he welcomed debate with Dr Williams but said he was "wrong on the specifics" about health reforms - as there was a "very big debate" about them at the moment..

And he rejected the suggestion the coalition government did not have a mandate for its work: "The two parties of the coalition got substantially more than half of the total vote at the last election... so I don't think that criticism has much weight."

But Dr Williams got some support from the Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Rev Christopher Hill, who said his remarks had been "eminently reasonable".

"Government cannot at any stage simply abrogate its responsibility. One of the prime, core functions of government is the care of all in society, especially those at the bottom," he told the BBC.

And the Bishop of Leicester Tim Stevens told the BBC it was "right and natural" for an archbishop to draw attention to disquiet over government policies and said he had been "absolutely balanced in what he says".

Dr Williams is no stranger to controversy and has previously criticised the previous Labour government on various issues, including the Iraq war.

In his article he also appeared to question what Labour's "achievable alternatives" were.

He said that the prime minister's "Big Society" initiative was viewed with "widespread suspicion", but "we are still waiting for a full and robust account of what the left would do differently and what a left-inspired version of localism might look like."

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair said there was a long-standing tradition of archbishops criticising government.

"Obviously people used to criticise our policies, not just on Iraq and foreign policy, but on domestic policy and reform as well. It's just part of the way things work," he said.

Labour's shadow education secretary Andy Burnham said: "Rowan Williams is saying what many people are feeling and the government in my view is very wrong to dismiss out of hand what he is saying - I think they should reflect a bit more carefully."

[Horwood Beer-Master]

I wish every opinion I expressed got debated on Question Time.

[Atheist-Lite]

I wish every opinion I expressed got debated on Question Time.

[Pappa]

Rowan Williams responds: http://newsthump.com/2011/06/09/archbis ... mandments/

Archbishop reminded that no-one voted for the ten commandments

After criticising the coalition government for implementing policies that no-one voted for, the Archbishop of Canterbury has been reminded that he’s spent his life advocating policies from a leader no-one can see, let alone vote for.

The Archbishop claimed in the New Statesman that the government implementing such policies had serious implications for democracy, seemingly forgetting the strict policies the unelected church has advocated for a couple of thousand years.

“That’s different,” said Dr Rowan Williams, “and you know it is.”

However, the coalition are said to be reassessing some of their policies, all because a man who believes that the universe was created by an omnipotent super-being described them as ‘madness’.

A Downing Street source told us, “It’s a difficult decision, certainly. Do we do as he says, or do we do as his organisation has done for hundreds of years. We can’t do both, obviously.”

Let’s vote on it

The Archbishop’s stance has given many non-believers a difficult morning, with much time spent trying to take a logical position on the subject.

35 year-old shop-keeper Mike Williams told us, “As a confirmed atheist I’m not sure you understand just how uncomfortable it makes me to agree with him.”

“My default position is that anything that man says should be immediately dismissed, because it’s probably based on magic and fairy tales – but criticising the coalition just feels so right. You know?”

“That said, if he doesn’t want elected officials doing things people didn’t vote for, can we assume he’ll be giving up his seat in the House of Lords?”

[Atheist-Lite]

Rowan Williams responds: http://newsthump.com/2011/06/09/archbis ... mandments/

Archbishop reminded that no-one voted for the ten commandments

After criticising the coalition government for implementing policies that no-one voted for, the Archbishop of Canterbury has been reminded that he’s spent his life advocating policies from a leader no-one can see, let alone vote for.

The Archbishop claimed in the New Statesman that the government implementing such policies had serious implications for democracy, seemingly forgetting the strict policies the unelected church has advocated for a couple of thousand years.

“That’s different,” said Dr Rowan Williams, “and you know it is.”

However, the coalition are said to be reassessing some of their policies, all because a man who believes that the universe was created by an omnipotent super-being described them as ‘madness’.

A Downing Street source told us, “It’s a difficult decision, certainly. Do we do as he says, or do we do as his organisation has done for hundreds of years. We can’t do both, obviously.”

Let’s vote on it

The Archbishop’s stance has given many non-believers a difficult morning, with much time spent trying to take a logical position on the subject.

35 year-old shop-keeper Mike Williams told us, “As a confirmed atheist I’m not sure you understand just how uncomfortable it makes me to agree with him.”

“My default position is that anything that man says should be immediately dismissed, because it’s probably based on magic and fairy tales – but criticising the coalition just feels so right. You know?”

“That said, if he doesn’t want elected officials doing things people didn’t vote for, can we assume he’ll be giving up his seat in the House of Lords?”

He can still be right even if he's got a invisible friend telling him what to say. Sometimes the splif really does have the answer, man. Chill.

[Geoff]

And the reactions...

After criticising the coalition government for implementing policies that no-one voted for, the Archbishop of Canterbury has been reminded that he’s spent his life advocating policies from a leader no-one can see, let alone vote for...

[Audley Strange]

The Old fucker should keep his trap shut about political matters no matter how right or wrong he might be unless he wants to volunteer his ghost club up as a business for taxation to help sort out the economy.

[Svartalf]

I fear the good bishop is mistaken.
If the people voted for the tories, they de facto voted for what they would do once in power

if they voted for cameron and were too stupid to know what his policy would be, they still deserve what they get.

[Pappa]

I fear the good bishop is mistaken.
If the people voted for the tories, they de facto voted for what they would do once in power

if they voted for cameron and were too stupid to know what his policy would be, they still deserve what they get.

The Tories got less seats than Labour (IIRK). They're only in power because of the uncomfortable coalition they formed with the Lib Dems to gain an overall majority.

[Svartalf]

well, write it off to my ignorant froggy ways and substitute names where appropriate.

if you vote for a sleazeball, don't be surprised to have rotten policies out the black box

[Geoff]

I fear the good bishop is mistaken.
If the people voted for the tories, they de facto voted for what they would do once in power

if they voted for cameron and were too stupid to know what his policy would be, they still deserve what they get.

The Tories got less seats than Labour (IIRK). They're only in power because of the uncomfortable coalition they formed with the Lib Dems to gain an overall majority.

Not exactly. Cons got about 50 more than Lab, so even a Lib/Lab pact (with the 50 Libs) would only have got a very tiny majority.

Can't be bothered looking up the exact figures, but it was something like Con 300, Lab 250, Lib 50.

Not that there's much to choose between any of them.

[Santa_Claus]

I think the Bishop needs to read up a bit more on how democracy works.

Funnily enough I don't have any problem with him entering the political debate - but what I do strongly object to is him being treated with kid gloves. If you wanna play with the big boys be prepared to take some hits.