We can all speak out against the arms fair

On Tuesday (13 September), one of the world’s largest arms fairs will open in London. The London arms fair – known euphemistically as Defence & Security International (DSEi) – will see some of the world’s most vicious regimes and active warmongers send delegations to London to view arms and make deals.

UK-based companies, along with many others,  will be taking the opportunity to display their wares, in an era in which over 90% of all people killed in war are civilians.

The guest list for DSEi has yet to be published. In previous years, it has included representatives from Saudi Arabia, China, Israel, Bahrain and Gaddafi’s Libya.

Ministers’ support for the Arab Spring is about to ring hollow as regimes such as these again turn up at the Excel Centre in east London. They are likely to be addressed by the “Defence” Secretary, Liam Fox.

DSEi, which takes place every two years is now owned by Clarion Events (who also run the Baby Show). The previous owners, Reed Elsevier, sold the fair after a sustained campaign by their customers, their shareholders, members of the public and the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT).

DSEi is organised with political and financial support from UK Trade and Investment (UKTI), a unit of Vince Cable’s Department for Business. UKTI devotes more staff to promoting arms exports than to all sectors promoting civil exports, even though arms make up only 1.5% of UK exports.

UKTI took over responsibility for promoting arms exports following the closure of the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO), a unit of the Ministry of Defence that was a commonly seen as a lobbying channel for the arms industry. DESO closed following years of campaigning by CAAT, the Fellowship of Reconciliation and other groups.

As the campaign successes with Reed Elsevier and DESO show, the arms dealers do not always have it all their own way. As the power of Clarion Events and UKTI illustrates, there is still a long way to go.

The first major protest is this afternoon. There will be a nonviolent demonstration outside the Royal Bank of Scotland, who are sponsoring a seminar for arms dealers to explore “opportunities” for arms sales in the Middle East. The seminar has been moved to a secret location to avoid campaigners. (See http://thefriend.org/article/a-secret-location).

Over the following week, there will be range of protests – whether you prefer a lawful march, civil disobedience, lobbying your MP or joining in street theatre, there will be a way to make your voice heard. Please see http://www.stopthearmsfair.org.uk for a list of planned events.

If you can’t make it to London, you can lobby your MP at home, write to your local paper, call a radio phone-in or protest outside a local arms factory.

And you can tell other people how outraged you are by the arms fair – this is often the most vital action.

Repenting of homophobia at Greenbelt

I’ll soon be off to Greenbelt, a Christian festival that I really love attending every year. Thousands of people gather at Cheltenham for music, performances, worship, talks, debates and much more. I love it.

That’s why I was particularly excited when Greenbelt endorsed my pilgrimage of repentance for homophobia earlier this year. As some of you know, I walked from Birmingham to London, giving talks and joining in worship on the way, before joining in the Pride march the day after I arrived. 

If you’re going to Greenbelt, you can find me speaking about my pilgrimage, and answering questions, at 9.30 on Monday (not a great slot for those who like to stay up late chatting at Greenbelt!). I’ll also be participating in the “OuterSpace” (LGBT-focused) worship at 11.00pm on Sunday night.

Also, I think my book, The No-Nonsense Guide to Religion, will be on sale in the Greenbelt bookshop.

And I’m pleased to say that my colleagues from the Christian thinktank Ekklesia will also be at the festival, involved in a number of panel debates and other events.

I’m really delighted to have been asked to speak about my pilgrimage by a number of different groups. I’ll soon have given more talks since the walk than I gave on the walk. I’ve spoken to Courage (a gay and lesbian evangelical group) and at the Student Christian Movement Theology Summer School. I’ve now been invited to speak about the pilgrimage to student groups in Sheffield, Warwick and Southampton, and at churches in Cardiff and Leeds.

I hope these talks will help me and others discern where to go next in terms of the issues and possibilities that came up on my walk. Your thoughts and suggestions are welcome.

Greenbelt’s a great place to catch up with old friends and meet interesting new people. I look forward to seeing some of you there.

A mansion tax and the realities of class

Britain may be broke, but the government’s desperation to cut the deficit seems to have its limits. This morning, Eric Pickles has ruled out an increase in council tax for houses valued at more than a million pounds.

This is the so-called “mansion tax” proposed by the Liberal Democrats when they were in opposition.

As Communities Secretary, Pickles is responsible for council tax. But he went further, saying in an interview with today’s Daily Telegraph that he also wants to see the end of the 50p tax rate for those on high incomes.

He described top-rate taxpayers, and people with million-pound homes, as “middle class” and “hardworking homeowners” who put lots into society but “don’t take a lot out”. These three phrases combined can easily give a misleading impression about who would be affected by a “mansion tax”. Indeed, they perpetuate an inaccurate understanding of wealth and class in British society.

Firstly, Pickles talks about the “middle class”. Only about 1% of houses are valued at over a million pounds. Similarly, only 1% of the population are rich enough to pay top-rate tax. In no sense are these people in the “middle”.

Eric Pickles is following the common practice of implying that a tax on the very richest would apply to far more people than it does. These implications help to create more opposition to such taxes (as I pointed out when the Liberal Democrats proposed the “mansion tax” two years’ ago – see http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/10256).

Secondly, Pickles regards this wealthy section of the population as a group of “hardworking homeowners”. I am sure that many of the are indeed hardworking. Some are not. Many people are low or middle incomes are also hardworking. Some are not. There is no general correlation between hard work and income within the population as a whole. The majority of people in the UK live and die in the same social class into which they were born.

But certain politicians and commentators constantly associate wealth with hard work and poverty with laziness. Despite the lack of evidence behind this, it conveniently makes inequality appear fair.

Thirdly, Pickles claims that “middle class families have put a lot into the country and don’t take a lot out”. Again, he is using “middle class” to mean the tiny percentage rich enough to pay a mansion tax or top-rate income tax. To suggest that these very wealthy people give lots to society without taking much is demonstrably untrue.

As Church Action on Poverty (CAP) point out, richer people pay a lower percentage of their income in tax than poorer people. Admittedly, income tax is higher for the better-off, but VAT is the same rate for everyone from a homeless person to a billionaire. CAP’s research suggests that the richest fifth of the population spend 7% of their income on VAT. For the poorest fifth, the figure is a whopping 14%.

Between them, a number of corporations and wealthy individuals deprive the Treasury of billions every year through tax avoidance. Of course, there are some wealthy individuals who conscientiously pay their tax without looking for loopholes, and I applaud them for doing so. But the extent of tax avoidance undermines Pickles’ claims about how much wealthy people, taken as a group, put into society.

More importantly, the very fact that the rich are rich means that they have taken more of society’s wealth than the rest of us. We are encouraged to see wealth as a personal possession. If we instead see society’s (and the world’s) wealth as belonging to society (and the world) as a whole, it is clear that some people have taken vastly more than others.

The Daily Telegraph quotes Tory MPs who believe that tax cuts for the rich will stimulate the economy and increase growth (from its current level of virtually nothing). For now, I’ll leave aside the question of whether growth is good in itself. But many of those who want to see growth would acknowledge that giving more money to the richest is not an effective way of generating it. Poorer people are far more likely to spend extra money that richer people. And only the very richest syphon off their money to tax havens, where it is of literally no use whatsoever to the British economy.

As you will have guessed, I would be happy to see a “mansion tax” and would like to see the top rate of tax increased, not abolished. However, the money these measures would raise would be minimal compared to the amount that could pour into the Treasury’s coffer if there was a serious crackdown on tax havens and other means of tax dodging by corporations and the very rich.

Ministers tell us that the economic situation is so dire that they have no choice but to increase VAT, abolish Disability Living Allowance, make massive job cuts, scrap Education Maintenance Allowance, treble university tuition fees, attack public sector pensions, cut funding for local services and basically tear the heart out of the welfare state.

But it seems that the situation is not bad enough for minsters to introduce a mansion tax, slightly raise the top rate of income tax or bring in VAT on private education and private healthcare. And the most commitment they have shown to tackling tax dodging is feeble words that seem to have led nowhere.

Their treatment of the wealthy contrasts sharply with the demands made of the rest of us. New Labour governments also seemed wedded to the interests of the rich, though their loyalty was rarely so blatant or their economic policies so extreme.

This situation makes one thing clear. The coalition’s economic policies are not primarily about addressing the deficit. They are the weapons in a vicious assault against the working class and lower middle class. In short, ministers are fighting a class war.

I have for a long time hesitated to use this sort of language. But I am now convinced that it is an accurate description of the extreme approach to society and economics that this government is pursuing. It’s time for people of all classes to stand up and say so.

———-

This blog post appeared originally as my latest column on the website  of the Ekklesia thinktank. To read more of my Ekklesia columns, please visit http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/news/columns/hill.

Rich thugs, poor thugs

During last year’s general election campaign, Nick Clegg said that the Tories’ economic policies could lead to riots in the streets. It seems that Clegg was more accurate in his predictions about the Tory policies he is now implementing than he was in his claims about how Liberal Democrats would behave in government.

When I mentioned this on Twitter a few days ago, I was accused of making excuses for the rioters by blaming the Tories. It’s been hard to talk about the root causes of the riots without being accused of supporting the rioters. David Cameron attributed the events of the last week to “criminality pure and simple” – a convenient way of avoiding any responsibility.

I wonder how anyone manages to tackle a problem without considering the causes. Do these people invite a plumber round when the sink is blocked and then take offence when he starts talking about the cause of the blockage. “The cause of the blocked sink?! I want to defeat the blocked sink, not make excuses for it! Whose side are you on?!”.

Right-wing columnists have been having a field day, using the situation to peddle viciously insulting messages about single parents, benefit recipients, working class people and anyone else they don’t like. Melanie Philipps in the Daily Mail attributed responsibility to “a liberal intelligentsia hell-bent on a revolutionary transformation of society”.

A number of them have responded to the riots with sweeping assertions about people they know nothing about. Christina Odone wrote in the Telegraph that “the majority of rioters are gang members”. How can she possibly know that?

Max Hastings literally dehumanised the rioters in the Daily Mail, writing that “They respond only to instinctive animal impulses – to eat and drink, have sex, seize and destroy the accessible property of others”. I cannot accept that this is true of any human being, even those who readily engage in violence and intimidation. But even if it were possible, there is no way that Hastings could know the details of the rioters’ psychology. 

He also claims to know the details of their everyday lives. His most bizarre assertion is, “They do not watch royal weddings or notice test matches” (I don’t watch royal weddings either, Max). He goes on to insist that “The notions of doing a nine-to-five job… are beyond their imaginations”.

This claim seems to be in tension with the screaming headlines about the apparently respectable jobs of several of the rioters. Several youth workers, a trainee accountant and an estate agent are among the accused. This fact also undermines the assumption behind the online petition calling for rioters’ benefits to be removed.

Right-wing columnist Alison Pearson, who has made a career out of stirring up class hatred towards people poorer than herself, joined in the guessing game. Writing in the Telegraph, she asked “How many [of the looters] come from homes without a father? I reckon we can guess the answer.” Pearson’s columns are based on guessing. Some of us would rather wait for the facts.

At least she didn’t advocate murder on national television, unlike Kelvin Mackenzie. “All we hear about is these scumbags on the street,” he said on Newsnight, “Shoot them. I would be in favour of shooting them.”  

The attitudes of these professional right-wing ranters – most of whom are far removed from the riots – bear a marked difference to the approach of some of the rioters’ victims.

Ashraf Haziq, who was mentioned by David Cameron after he was mugged by people pretending to help him, has said he “feels sorry” for his attackers.

Abdul Quddoos Khan, whose two brothers were murdered in Birmingham, says he spent Wednesday night persuading other young Muslim men not to resort to violence and revenge. He said, “I am angry but violence won’t achieve anything except make another mother and father lose their child. What good would that do?”

Given that those of us who talk about root causes are accused of siding with the looters, let me make clear that I oppose the violence, intimidation, trauma, devastation and destruction of livelihoods that have been taking place in the last few days.

Indeed, I think I’m far more consistent in my attitude to looting than the likes of Max Hastings and Alison Pearson. I oppose violence and looting by young, poor men in hoodies and I also oppose violence and looting by respectable middle-aged people in suits.

I oppose the corporations who have looted the treasury through their tax avoidance, the bankers who assaulted society through the financial crash and the arms dealers who profit from selling weapons to tyrants. I oppose Cameron, Clegg and their gang of thugs who are launching a daily assault on the poorest members of society with their vicious cuts to public services and the welfare state.

David Cameron said “The root cause of this mindless selfishness is.. a complete lack of responsibility in parts of our society”. Clearly, in Cameron’s eyes, selfishness and a lack of responsibility are traits that are acceptable only among the rich.

———-

This blog post appeared as my latest column on the website of the thinktank Ekklesia. To read more of my Ekklesia columns, please visit http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/news/columns/hill.

Riots, looting and the hypocrisy of Boris Johnson

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, appeared on Radio 4 this morning and was asked about the underlying causes of the recent riots. He attributed them to a “sense of entitlement” among young people who were showing the effects of a lack of discipline in school.

When Johnson was a young person, he attended Eton, the most elite school in the UK, before making the natural progression to Oxford University. At Oxford, he was part of the Bullingdon Club, a gang of upper class yobs. Other members included David Cameron.

For Johnson to criticise young people who have a “sense of entitlement” shows either a staggering lack of realism about his own past or a reckless level of public hypocrisy.

Blaming a lack of discipline conveniently ignores the realities of economic and social injustice. The gap between the richest and poorest has got gradually worse over the last forty years and Britain is now more unequal than any other western country, with the exception of the USA and Portugal. The coalition government is slashing services on which the poorest members of society rely, while managing nothing more than feeble criticism of bankers’ bonuses and corporate tax-dodging.

None of this excuses the violence, intimidation and looting that have taken place over the last few days. None of it should stop us condemning the horror of ordinary people suffering the effects of riots that have seen small businesspeople’s shops burnt down and their livelihoods potentially destroyed. To tackle this situation effectively, we need to look at roots causes.

Boris Johnson prefers to criticise a “sense of entitlement” while being part of a party, and a political trend, that has spent the last three decades destroying any sense of social solidarity and defining success in terms of possessions and personal status. He condemns a lack of restraint while calling for a cut in the top rate of tax, which applies only to the richest one percent of the population. He attacks thuggery, but supports a government that consists of a gang of thugs launching a daily assault on the poorest members of society.

Next month, Boris Johnson will welcome one of the world’s largest arms fairs to London, where representatives of some of the world’s most brutal regimes will stroll round the Docklands viewing sophisticated weaponry. Then we will see the reality behind his condemnations of violence.

Benefit claimants and top-rate taxpayers

 A glance at the front pages of this morning’s papers gives a brief snapshot of the grotesque reality of ConDem Britain. The Daily Mail and Daily Express lead with vicious and misleading attacks on disabled benefit claimants, while the Daily Telegraph reports on Boris Johnson’s call for very wealthy people to pay less tax.

 Welcome to the UK under David Cameron, where the poorest are blamed for the nation’s problems while the richest are portrayed as victims.

The gleeful headline on the Daily Express is “Sick benefits: 75% are faking”. The Mail uses the same figures to make a similar claim. To say that these figures are “out of context” would be polite. They are deliberately deceitful.

They appear to refer to disabled people who are assessed for Employment Support Allowance. It takes a fair bit of concentrated reading through the Express article to realise that they have combined figures for those assessed fit for work with those who don’t complete their applications.

Given the bureaucratic hurdles that the assessment process involves, it is no surprise that some give up before they have completed it, particularly if they are applying because of a mental health problem or learning disability.

The Express back up their position with quotes from David Cameron, junior minister Steve Webb (who was regarded as on the left of the Liberal Democrats before he became responsible for slashing benefits) and the Taxpayers’ Alliance, a right-wing lobby group whose main purpose seems to be to object to taxes being spent on anyone poorer than their own members. In a feeble attempt at balance, a brief critical quote from the TUC’s Brendan Barber is thrown in right at the end.

Conveniently, the article makes no reference to the number of claimants who successfully appeal against their assessment. Around 40% of appeals are upheld. This is amazing. It reveals the unreliability of the assessments in which the Mail and Express place so much faith.

The assessments are carried out by Atos, a private company awarded a multi-million pound contract to assess ability to work – and with a clear mandate to get people off benefits, unhampered by such considerations as reality. Atos have found people with terminal cancer to be fit for work. As mental health charities such as Rethink and Mind have pointed out, they also seem particularly unable to grasp the complexities of mental health problems.

Neither Atos nor their friends in the right-wing press take account of the reality that many disabled people would love to work but are prevented to do so by inaccessible workplaces, prejudiced employers and social structures that marginalise them. Disability is caused by society’s attitudes to people with certain impairments, not by the impairments themselves.

But companies will not have their fitness as employers determined by Atos in twenty-minute assessments by unqualified individuals with a biased mandate.

As the government and their friends in the press launch this vicious assault on disabled people, the Daily Telegraph reports that Boris Johnson has repeated his call to scrap the top rate of income tax. It is 50p in the pound and only about 1% of the population are rich enough to pay it. This income tax; when it comes to VAT, everyone pays the same, from a homeless person to a billionaire.

As Church Action on Poverty have pointed out, richer people spend a lower percentage of their income on tax. The poorest fifth of the UK spend about 14% of their income on VAT, while for the richest fifth the figure is only 7%.

The Tories and their allies tell us that cuts are necessary to address the deficit, but it’s hard to take them seriously when some of them are them are keen to offer yet more concessions to those whose wealth would allow them to contribute the most to tackling the economic situation.

In this warped response to economic problems, those with the least have to pay the most.

Murdoch: It’s not about the pie

As the MPs’ questioning of the Murdochs came to an end this afternoon, there was a clear reminder that some politicians’ have not overcome their fear of Rupert Murdoch.

Louise Mensch (formerly Louise Bagshawe) threw the Murdochs a lifeline by suggesting that hacking was common at British tabloid newspapers. She admittedly threw in some soundbites about Rupert Murdoch resigning, before telling him she admired his “immense courage” for carrying on with the hearing after being hit by some sort of custard pie by a member of the public now identified as the activist Jonnie Marbles.

I suspect that News International’s victims may feel that being hit by a custard pie is a relatively minor problem compared to the trauma that some of them have been through.

The danger is that the headlines will now focus on Murdoch being “attacked”, rather than on his appalling answers to the politicians’ questions.

On BBC2, Andrew Neil said soon after the incident that Wendi Murdoch (Rupert’s wife) will be seen as the “hero of the hour” for pushing the pie back into the protester’s face and shouting “I got him!”. Some of those who stood up to Murdoch in the past – in the days when both Labour and Tory leaders were still bowing to his wishes – showed rather more courage than that demonstrated by heroic resistance to an individual with a pie.

Neil also suggested that it could have been something “worse” than a custard pie and questions will be asked about security. But it’s precisely because of security that it could only have been a custard pie.

Rupert Murdoch, undoubtedly one of the most powerful people in the world, was threatened this afternoon not by the aggressive physical attack that this pie-throwing will be presented as, but by being questioned persistently in public in a way that must be a novelty for him.

Not all the MPs were as challenging as they might have been, but some did brilliantly. Under questioning from Tom Watson in particular, Murdoch made clear how he sees his power. He consistently denied knowing anything, in some cases claiming not even to know the names of key people. He appeared to laugh when Watson suggested that he should know what was being discussed about his papers in the British Parliament.

Murdoch basically implied that he is too important to keep track of lawbreaking in one of his British papers. At this moment when he might have been accepting responsibility at last, he only made clear once again the contempt in which he holds Parliament and the public.

This is about power and accountability. It’s not about custard pies.

Pilgrimage of repentance for homophobia

Just over two weeks ago, I finished walking from Birmingham to London as a pilgrimage of repentance for my former homophobia. I kept a daily blog during the walk, but posted it on a site specifically about my pilgrimage, rather than here.

My blog during the walk, as well as my thougths afterwards, can be read at http://www.repenting.wordpress.com.

Having (mostly) recovered from the walk, I’ll now be blogging here more regularly again.

Walk of repentance for homophobia

I am about to undertake a pilgrimage of repentance for my former homophobia. I will walk 160 miles from Birmingham to London, between 16 June and 1 July.

There’s relatively little about my walk on this site, but a lot more – including details of events along the way – at the dedicated sit for the pilgrimage, http://www.repenting.wordpress.com.

That site will include a daily blog for the duration of the pilgrimage. I hope you’ll follow my progress there, and I’ll be blogging here again once the walk is over.

You can also keep up to date on the walk by “liking” it on Facebook. See http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Walk-of-repentance-for-homophobia/172048302829171.

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions, please feel free to email me at symonhill@gmail.com.

I will never own a house. And I am not doomed.

The media this morning (31 May) are very excited about a survey showing that nearly two-thirds of people aged 20 to 45 in the UK expect never to own their own home. Most of the coverage did not even mention that the survey also revealed that nearly a quarter don’t want to.

The Today programme gave the issue a prominent position on BBC Radio 4. Several daily newspapers reported it as a piece of alarming news. Even the relatively progressive ‘i’ newspaper (sister paper of the Independent), had a front page headline declaring “Generation doomed to rent for a lifetime”.

I am 34 and will never own a house. But I am not “doomed”. I am happy to rent. Happy not to have endless meetings about mortgages with banks and financial advisors. Happy not to have pay out whenever something goes wrong with the electricity or plumbing. Happy not to get on the “property ladder”, beloved of those who look forward to buying a house only so that they can sell it and buy another one.

The surprising thing about the survey is that nearly a quarter of people questioned did not say they wanted to own their own home. This is despite all the newspaper front pages about house prices, the TV programmes about buying homes and the constant barrage of messages presenting home ownership as an essential part of being an adult. Not only is ownership held up as the marker of success, but talk of the “property ladder” fuels the notion that the purpose of possessions is only to acquire more possessions.

The recent economic crisis has taught many people that we cannot rely on a fantasy of endless resources and that we need a radical overhaul of the economic system. Bankers, ministers and much of the media don’t seem to have noticed that anything has changed.