Author Archives: symonhill

The reality of BAE’s job cuts

Posted on by symonhill

I don’t claim to be an expert at making political predictions. Some of my predictions have been woefully off-course. But yesterday I made what must surely be the most precise political prediction of my life.

Speaking about the arms trade at a fringe meeting at the Labour Party conference, I was asked about the impact on jobs if the UK stopped exporting arms. I replied that even if arms exports are not reduced at all, arms industry jobs would gradually disappear from Britain, as companies such as BAE move employment to India and elsewhere. Later in the day, BAE confirmed nearly 3,000 job losses in the UK.

The redundancies are already being blamed on the government’s military cuts. The reality is that cuts to the military budget (or the “defence budget”, as its euphemistically known) have been relatively slight when compared to the coalition’s swingeing attacks on public services and the welfare state.

Furthermore, BAE have got form for being misleading about employment. When they signed a major deal with India last year, they said it would protect jobs at their Brough plant. Within months, they were announcing job losses at Brough. In 2006, when arms dealers were lobbying to end a criminal investigation into BAE, they claimed that the latest Saudi arms deal would provide 16,000 jobs in the UK (and both the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph put the figure at 50,000). Once the deal was signed, BAE cynically announced that most of the jobs would be based in Saudi Arabia, with very few new jobs in the UK.

In this context, it would not be a surprise to hear an announcement from BAE pretty soon about the creation of new jobs in India or the USA. If this happens, it would be naive to think that this had no connection with the job losses in Britain.

There is no future in the arms industry. Apologists for the arms trade try to justify it by speaking of the number of jobs it creates (a tactic also used by supporters of the transatlantic slave trade over 200 years ago). In reality, the arms industry is subsidised with about £700million of taxpayers’ money every year. Future generations will look back in disbelief, unable to understand why, when faced with the horrors of climate change, we chose to throw millions into arms production. We could be using those millions, and the skills of thousands of British workers, to research and develop renewable energy and technologies that can help us to tackle the physical, economic and security threats resulting from climate change. Let’s start by retraining the workers that BAE have so callously thrown on the dole.

To read more on arms trade issues, please visit the Campaign Against Arms Trade website.

The Labour Party and the arms trade

Posted on by symonhill

Yesterday, I was pleased to be able to speak on the arms trade at a fringe meeting at the Labour Party annual conference in Liverpool. The meeting was organised by the Christian Socialist Movement (CSM). The text of my talk was as follows (I deviated slightly from this text at times).  

It’s great to be here. Many thanks to the Christian Socialist Movement for hosting this event and many thanks to all of you for coming.  

I’m Symon Hill. I’m first and foremost an activist. I’m also associate director of the Christian thinktank Ekklesia. And I’m a member of the steering committee of the Campaign Against Arms Trade. I’m not a member of the Labour Party or the Christian Socialist Movement, although I am a Christian and a socialist. Those two words describe my approach to politics and to life.  

As a socialist and as a Christian, I believe that change is possible and that ordinary people like you and me can bring it about. I’m inspired by Jesus, who through his teachings and actions promoted a radical approach to human relationships with principles that we might now call equality and active nonviolence. I would not be a Christian if I did not believe that Jesus’ teachings were realistic. 

So let’s be real. Two weeks ago I was protesting outside the London arms fair. The government had invited some of the world’s most brutal regimes to meet arms dealers in east London. Earlier this year, ministers revoked arms exports licences to Bahrain after the Bahraini regime used its weapons against its own people. But despite this, a delegation from Bahrain was invited to turn up at the London arms fair. 

As many of us protested outside the arms fair, Liam Fox was making a speech inside. Fox told the arms dealers that he was “proud” of the UK’s arms industry – or the “defence industry” as he euphemistically calls it. Fox talked about how many jobs the arms industry provides.  

I would like to share a piece of advice that’s always helped me: Beware of Tories talking about jobs. Conservative ministers are not usually motivated by a desire to tackle unemployment. When they justify something by the jobs it provides, it’s time to be suspicious.  

So let’s look at some of the facts. 

Firstly, we have the physical effects of the arms trade. It is often argued that if people want to fight a war, they will find the means to do so. There is some truth in this. But it would be naïve to suggest that the arms industry is simply supplying a need. Violence begets violence. Violence also begets profits.

As the world watched with excitement a few months ago, the Arab Spring saw millions of amazingly brave and inspiring people standing up to tyranny. It quickly emerged that many of the regimes concerned had been supplied with weapons from the UK. When the Bahraini regime invited the Saudi army in to help suppress peaceful protest, the Saudi forces arrived with armoured vehicles made in Newcastle.

Furthermore, many of the people who die as a result of the arms trade are not killed directly with the weapons involved. Corruption is inherent in the arms trade. And as Hilary Benn has put it, “corruption kills”.

For example, the multinational arms company BAE Systems is alleged – and if there are any libel lawyers present, I hope that word will be sufficient – to have bribed Tanzanian officials to spend public money on equipment that the country clearly did not need. The money could have been spent tackling poverty or providing healthcare.

The economic effects of the arms trade are also bad for Britain. Have a look at UK Trade and Investment (UKTI), a unit of Vince Cable’s Department for Business. UKTI is responsible for promoting British exports. They devote more staff to the section promoting arms exports than to all civil sectors combined. But arms make up only 1.5% of UK exports.

Only about 0.2% of British jobs are dependent on arms exports. Every one of those people has a right to be considered. Nobody’s livelihood is irrelevant and I refuse to discuss any economic question without considering the people it will affect. I grew up in the eighties under Thatcher with my father on the dole. I know what unemployment does to people and I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.

Apologists for the arms industry seem to have a much more more laid-back approach to unemployment. As controversy raged over BAE’s Saudi arms deals in 2006, BAE’s friends at the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph made increasingly wild statements about the number of jobs that would be created by the latest Saudi arms deal. The original suggestion had been 11,000 jobs across Europe. Soon, it was said there would be 16,000 jobs in Britain alone. This magically rose to 50,000 and the highest figure I saw was 100,000. Almost as soon as the deal was signed, BAE announced that most of the jobs would be based in Saudi Arabia, with few new jobs in the UK.

The arms industry receives around £700 million in taxpayer-funded subsidies every year. This is partly through the funding of research and development. Future generations will look back in amazement, unable to understand why, when faced with the threat of runaway climate change, we subsidised jobs in the arms industry instead of putting money into renewable energy and other technologies to tackle the environmental, economic and security threats that climate change is bringing.

Our economy is distorted by the arms industry. This is because our democracy is distorted by the arms industry. Sixteen years ago, I sat in Labour Party conference and heard Robin Cook promise that under a Labour government, there would be no arms sold to regimes that used them for internal repression or external aggression. I’m sure that many of you share my sadness that this change never came about. In his diaries, Robin Cook lays bare the grotesque influence wielded by the arms industry. He says that he never saw Tony Blair take a decision that would inconvenience BAE Systems.

The arms industry’s influence within government means that exports regulations are full of loopholes and worded so vaguely that they allowed Cameron’s government to attempt to sell sniper rifles to Gaddafi only months before the Libyan uprising. This influence means that the UK government can stand up at the United Nations and back an Arms Trade Treaty so flimsy that ministers have assured British arms companies that it will make no difference to them.

Many people, both within the Labour Party and beyond it, were inspired by Robin Cook’s commitment in 1995. We need a renewed commitment to ending arms exports to oppressive regimes. This cannot be done by regulations alone. A future Labour government, if truly committed to democracy, would need to reduce the power of the arms dealers by tackling the structures and cultures that give them so much influence. Robin Cook wrote in his diaries that the chairman of BAE Systems had “the key to the garden door at Number Ten”. We need to get the locks changed.

———

Many thanks to CSM and CAAT for inviting me to give this talk at their fringe meeting. The meeting was chaired by CSM’s director, Andy Flanagan. The other speakers were Wilf Stevenson (Shadow Trade Minister), Alan Storkey (Christian theologian and economist) and Helen Goodman (Shadow Justice Minister). Please click here for a news report on the event.

Lessons from my walk of repentance

Posted on by symonhill

This summer, I walked from Birmingham to London as a pilgrimage of repentance for my former homophobia. I wrote the following article for Reform magazine. It appeared in the September issue.

“Gay Christian embarks on homophobic ‘hurt’ journey” declared the BBC website on 16 June, as I set out from Birmingham on my pilgrimage of repentance for homophobia. I was both pleased and annoyed. On the one hand, my walk was drawing media attention to the issues involved. On the other, the coverage included a major inaccuracy.

My girlfriend was one of the first people to text me to tell me that the BBC thought I was gay. After some effort by a friend, the BBC changed the wording to “bisexual”.

The article appeared as I left Carr’s Lane Church, with 160 miles and just over two weeks to go before arriving in London and joining the Pride march. I had received a wonderful send-off the evening before, when Robin Fox, a Methodist minister, led an act of commissioning. Staff at the Student Christian Movement had clubbed together to buy me a waterproof jacket and a Muslim friend of mine suprised me by turning up with a large cake.

As I walked along the Warwickshire lanes on that first day, I was only partly aware that the media interest had taken off on a far larger scale than I expected. It triggered a flood of emails. They offered support, prayers, questions, suggestions, disagreement and occasionally outright abuse. Overwhelmingly, they were positive. I was deeply moved.

I feared the support and publicity might go to my head. At times, I became slightly freaked out by it – such as when someone asked to have her photo taken with me. But the nature of the walk guarded against egotism. It is difficult to feel big-headed while scrambling up a muddy bank with wet feet, or walking miles back in the direction I had come after going the wrong way.

Despite the media attention, I do not think I was doing something remarkable. Many Christians have changed their views on sexuality. After becoming Christian in my late teens, I accepted an anti-gay position, partly out of a desire to fit in at the church I had joined. That church was wonderful and helped bring me closer to Christ. But over time, I concluded that they were mistaken about sexuality. I could no longer reconcile opposition to loving same-sex relationships with a Messiah who fulfilled the law and who calls us to live by love – a message at once more demanding and more liberating than the legalism that Jesus challenged.

It was some time before I became aware of the level of hurt that my prejudices had caused, and even longer before I recognised the damage to my own integrity in denying my own sexuality. When the vision of a pilgrimage of repentance came to me, I knew it was not something I could choose not to do.

It was a chance to pray and reflect, engage in dialogue and draw attention to the issues involved. Although I set out each day with maps, plans and remote support, I had little idea what would happen before the day was out. Prayer, worship, events and chance meetings all affected me, to say nothing of aches, blisters, tiredness and growing awareness of my body.

I had some fascinating conversations, both after giving formal talks and more spontaneously. I met a gay minister who used to deny his orientation, a woman who had nervously decided to introduce her female partner to her church and a man whose pastor told him he would not be welcome at church again after he said he might be transgender.

My walk was made possible by practical help and emotional support from friends and strangers. My excellent “remote support team” divided up the days of my walk, taking it in turns to update the website, check I was OK and help out when I wasn’t. A few people joined me for short stretches. They included Chris Campbell, the first gay Christian I ever knew and now an elder at Maidenhead URC. Chris experienced my homophobia directly and walked with me for a day in solidarity.

In some ways, I am only just beginning to understand how my pilgrimage affected me. I learnt about prayer, pain, dialogue and dependence. Three lessons seem particularly relevant to Christian concerns over sexuality.

Firstly, I realised the value of informal dialogue. On one occasion, I stayed with a minister who did not agree with my position, but kindly offered to host me after my intended host fell ill. Over breakfast, we had a conversation that challenged us both. A few days later, I answered questions from a group drawn from five churches in Chesham. The discussion ranged between marriage, sin, Old Testament law and the nature of gender.

Secondly, I was struck by the fruitfulness of such conversations compared to the official deliberations of denominational institutions. I have no doubt that many denominational leaders (across the churches) are compassionate people genuinely seeking a way forward. But they are hampered by the desire to make balanced statements and maintain unity. I think it’s worth remembering that Jesus did not base his plans on religious leaders, but relied on those on the outside. Change in Christian attitudes comes from the bottom of the Church, not the top.

Thirdly, I am convinced that the need for love and dialogue means we should tackle controversial issues, not shy away from them. Jesus challenged his listeners with parables and actions that engaged them in difficult questions. We are not called to a superficial unity based on shutting up. This is not only an issue about sexuality – important though that is. It is about the nature of a Gospel that frees us from rules and invites us to live by God’s spirit. Love calls us both to engage in genuine dialogue and to stand up for justice.

My journey from homophobe to equality activist has made me aware of how easily I can be wrong. I am sure I am still mistaken about all sorts of things. Humility requires us to recognise that we don’t have all the answers.

It is a paradox of Christian calling that this humility encourages commitment rather than dissuading us from it. We are not certain, but we are called to follow Jesus and seek to live out his message of love and justice – personally, socially and politically. As someone with my appalling lack of navigational ability knows all to well, we walk by faith and not by sight.

———

To read more about my pilgrimage of repentance for homophobia, please visit http://www.repenting.wordpress.com.

Same-sex marriage: The government should go further

Posted on by symonhill

When I first heard that the news that the government is planning to legislate for same-sex marriage, I was very pleased. Then I looked at the details. Now I’m very disappointed.

The first problem is the time frame. Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone has said that the government will begin a consultation next year, with the aim of changing the law by 2015. Of course, it will take time to go over details and make sure the legislation is right. But I can’t believe that it has to take four years, when the momentum for same-sex marriage has been building up rapidly and polls show the majority of the UK population to be in favour of it.

It seems that the coalition can rush through cuts, change benefits and treble tuition fees with barely a moment’s hesitation. Any progressive measure seems to take years (as we’ve already seen with ministers’ approach to banking reform).

The timing of Lynne Featherstone’s announcement is suspicious to say the least. As the Liberal Democrat conference begins, the party’s leaders are no doubt afraid of grassroots anger at their collusion with a Tory agenda. I have said for some time that if same-sex marriage is introduced soon, it is likely to be offered as a sop to the LibDems. Clearly, Clegg and his colleagues are hoping to show that they have some influence within the coalition.

Given how little influence the LibDems seem to have in practice, this gives me serious doubts about the likelihood of the measure ever being introduced at all. The government has already delayed the implementation of a clause in last year’s Equality Act that allows religious elements in civil partnerships.

The second problem concerns the role of religion in the government’s proposals. They are suggesting that same-sex marriage should be recognised only if it takes place in a civil ceremony. This is blatantly discriminatory. A mixed-sex couple will be able to choose between a religious and a civil marriage, while a same-sex couple will not.

Of course, faith groups that do not believe in same-sex marriage should not be obliged to carry them out (and almost nobody is suggesting that they should, despite the scaremongering claims regularly heard in some quarters).  But religious groups who uphold same-sex marriage should have the same legal rights relating to them as they do for mixed-sex marriages.

Several such groups have already committed themselves: Unitarians, Quakers, Liberal Jews, the Metropolitan Community Church. There are calls within the Baptist Union of Great Britain for individual Baptist churches to be able to make up their own minds on the subject. And the United Reformed Church will be debating the question next year.

For some religious groups, the issue is different because they have limited rights to perform marriages anyway. Marriage law in the UK is a real mess. Not only do mixed-sex couples have different rights to same-sex couples,but the Church of England has more rights than other Christian groups, while most-non Christian groups have less. Jews and Quakers have the right to solemnise their own marriages because of a law passed in 1753.

This is ridiculous. We need a thorough overhaul of marriage law. Ekklesia has long suggested separating the religious and legal elements. This would allow people to go through a ceremony with personal, social and – if important to them – religious significance, but legal registration would be a separate procedure (perhaps involving form-filling rather than ceremonies).

I accept that a consultation on how to overhaul marriage law could well take years. Legislating for same-sex marriage should not. Surely we simply need to remove any description of gender from marriage law, with the added provision that no religious group should be obliged to carry out a ceremony they don’t believe in.

That shouldn’t be too difficult, should it? Not, that is, if we had a government with the political will to implement it. Sadly, we don’t.

“Rogue trader” went to a Quaker school

Posted on by symonhill

Much has been written today about Kweku Adoboli, the “rogue trader” who lost £1.3bn of other people’s money. One fact that has received little attention is that he went to a Quaker school.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Adoboli attended Ackworth School in West Yorkshire. The Telegraph doesn’t mention that it’s a Quaker institution, but it does mention that it charges £19,635 per year (only slightly below the average annual income in the UK).

If Wikipedia is to be believed, Adoboli was not only a student at the school, but was “Head Boy” from 1997-98.

The UK’s “Quaker schools” are nearly all privately owned, fee-paying institutions and the vast majority of their students are not Quakers. They provoke bitter debate amongst British Quakers, many of whom object to the name of their religion being associated with anything as elitist and divisive as a private school.

I understand that some of them offer bursaries for students with Quaker parents, meaning that at least a few of their students are not from wealthy backgrounds. But this only adds an element of religious discrimination on top of the socio-economic discrimination inherent in their nature.

I respect the fact that some Quaker parents struggle with the ethical issues involved before deciding to send their children to Quaker schools. What I find alarming is how many Quakers are prepared to robustly defend Quaker private schools while otherwise being apparently committed to principles of equality which lie at the root of Quakerism.

I am not of course suggesting that Ackworth School should be held responsible for Adoboli’s dealings. Far more blame must attach to the financial industry and the politicians who won’t stand up to it. It is not really accurate to describe Adoboli as a “rogue trader”, when the whole investment banking sector is effectively a rogue trade.

Nonetheless, I hope this incident will trigger renewed debate about the realities of Quaker schools and give British Quakers a wake-up call about education.

I have been involved with Quakers, to varying degrees, for thirteen years. I now attend both a Baptist Church and a Quaker Meeting, as well as worshipping in other contexts. Quakerism is a significant part of the way I understand my Christian faith.

Since becoming involved in Quakers, I have been encouraged and inspired by the number of Quakers, and Quaker bodies, taking a radical stand on issues of peace and justice. And I have been enormously frustrated by the lack of radicalism that is apparent whenever it comes to questioning Quaker institutions themselves. For a movement founded on convictions about the free movement of the Holy Spirit, Quaker institutions can be unbelievably hard to change.

Tell someone about the arms fair today

Posted on by symonhill

Wherever you are, whatever you’re doing, however much time you’ve got, you can help to tackle the arms fair today. The most important thing you can do is simply to speak out by telling someone about the fair and why you oppose it

DSEi, one of the world’s biggest arms fairs opens in London this morning (13 September). If you’re in London, it would be great if you could make it along to any of the protests. They include both lawful demonstrations and civil disobedience; some will be calm, others will be more energetic; some are organised by Christian groups, others by secular ones. Whatever your personality, there should be something for you. See http://www.stopthearmsfair.org.uk for a list of some of the actions.

If you’re unable to make it to the protests, you might want to email or phone your MP to ask him/her to speak out against the arms fair. You could protest and/or pray outside a local arms company.

You can also pray about the issue, asking God to strengthen those who are resisting the arms fair and turn the hearts of the arms dealers to repentance and love. We also need to ask God to forgive us all for our complicity in this evil trade, tolerating its presence in our midst. 

But perhaps the most important thing you can do is simply to mention the arms fair to someone. The arms dealers are hoping for a successful event – and for them that means relatively little public or media scrutiny. The arms industry doesn’t rely on public support, but rather on a lack of public discussion. 

So wherever you are today, mention the arms fair. Mention it to a friend or colleague, post a link on Facebook, talk about it in the pub. You can tell people that regimes such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia have been invited to do arms deals in an area of London that was heavily affected by the blitz only 60 years ago. You can tell them that the government is using taxpayers’ money to subsidise a trade that provides only 1.5% of UK exports.  

Speaking out. It’s the nonviolent activist’s first weapon.

We can all speak out against the arms fair

Posted on by symonhill

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

Posted on by symonhill

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

Posted on by symonhill

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

Posted on by symonhill

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.