Before I went to Kazakhstan for the first time in 2003 I had little idea of its post-independence history. I knew it quite well (from a distance and in a bit of a weird way) as a Soviet republic, but after the collapse of the Soviet empire and its unilateral Declaration of Independence in 1991, I had lost track and lost interest.
So, 2003 was only twelve years after this massive change. I learned that Russia immediately cut off every economic or financial lifeline to the new Republic of Kazakhstan and left it – the dumping ground of the old USSR – as a polluted and poverty-stricken cast-off, ready to sink into oblivion. Twelve years later, however, the country was developing its economy, shaping its identity, carving out its place in the international political community, and building a confident new nation. Yes, there was also corruption and some very unsavoury things were happening in parallel to all this.
But, the common fact in every conversation about the country – with both old-hand politicians and young media people – was that the first five years were unutterably miserable. I was told by many people that “people starved and died in the street” – a combination of no work, no food, extreme cold and no shelter. The infrastructure had collapsed and had to be rebuilt bit by bit. President Nursultan Nazarbayev was acclaimed, even by serious opponents among my interlocutors, for holding to the discipline of getting a strong economy – the only way to build a long-term future for increased wealth, public services, education and business. The cost was consciously tolerated.
Now, why am I remembering this today – especially as I am in Basel on study leave and supposed to be reading theology? Well, this morning a letter was published in the Mirror newspaper, signed by 27 Church of England bishops. The letter drew attention to food poverty in England and called on the government to change its policies that are deemed to be driving people and families into destitution. (This letter follows the RC Archbishop of Westminster's condemnation of the effects of welfare reform as a 'disgrace' and its rebuttal by the Prime Minister in terms of moral purpose. I doubt if the timing is any more than coincidental.) Today the bishops are taking a bit of a bashing.
First, it has been suggested that if only 27 signed the letter, then 74 did not: draw your conclusions. Well, the 74 were probably not approached – not because there was selective ideological bias involved, but simply because in such cases only a number of bishops is usually approached for signature. I was not approached, but would have signed, had I been asked to do so. In similar cases where my signature has been added to a letter, most other bishops weren't approached. Many bishops aren't online most of the time, many are slow to respond to requests, and some refuse to sign anything on principle. No conspiracy here – and probably no fine strategic organisation – but, as usual, a bit random.
Secondly, when asked to sign such a letter you have to look at the general drift and not argue about every word – although I have refused to sign one or two open letters until certain assumptions were checked or details changed. However, agreeing every detail by disparate committee guarantees only that the letter will never be agreed or published. So, signature signals assent to the content whilst recognising that each individual might have preferred to have written it differently.
So, why write this now? And why the stuff about Kazakhstan?
Bishops have better things to do with their time than enter into ideological arguments that serve no purpose other than political point-scoring. To accuse signatory bishops of simplistic or malicious political bias is silly. Whatever their political views – and there is a range of opinion on welfare cuts and their effects – they are in touch with real people in every community of this country. So, when hearing government defences of the 'moral intent' of policies that directly affect the communities the churches and their clergy serve, they cannot remain silent about the realities on the ground. They might respect the moral intent – and even agree with it – whilst seeing the devastating consequences of that policy on the people we meet every day. The proliferation of food banks, coupled with the evidence that many, many poorly-paid working people are having to use them in order to feed their family, is a reality that poses a challenge to the moral effectiveness of the said policy.
Any why Kazakhstan? Well, I am NOT comparing post-independence Kazakhstan with England. The question that this raised in my own mind this morning, however, was whether the open recognition of Kazakh policy in the 1990s is preferable to the muddled attempts to add moral justification to an English policy that the government just don't want to admit is so brutal? Should the government just say clearly: we are determined to get people off welfare dependency and to reduce the tax burden of welfare, so we are prepared for people to starve and become destitute in order to achieve that longer-term goal; they won't take responsibility until forced to do so.
Harsh? Yes, but honest. And at least we would know what we were dealing with. The churches would continue to care as best as possible – and without discrimination – for poor people. And bishops would continue to tell what they see and hear of the human cost of political ideology and question its moral basis from a Christian ethical perspective. And debate would rage on. But, at least it would be clear what was going on.
February 20, 2014 at 3:44 pm
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
Bishop Nick Baines considers the welfare cuts, the letter from 27 Bishops and the reaction to it.
February 20, 2014 at 3:54 pm
Yes, I see your point but to many of us it is only too clear what is going on. What makes it so evil here is that the government is pulling the wool over so many good people’s eyes by their rhetoric. So, you are right, if they said exactly what they were really aiming at, at least those good but hoodwinked folk could wake up and judge for themselves.
February 20, 2014 at 3:55 pm
[…] See the full text here: https://nickbaines.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/bashing-the-bishops/ […]
February 20, 2014 at 4:08 pm
Should the government just say clearly: ‘we are determined to get people off welfare dependency and to reduce the tax burden of welfare, so we are prepared for people to starve and become destitute in order to achieve that longer-term goal; they won’t take responsibility until forced to do so’.
Thanks for this Nick. I have just shown your comments to a lady for whom I signed a Foodbank ticket last week. She said ‘That’s just what it feels like’. Her husband was sanctioned because he turned up for a job seekers interview on Friday when it should have been Wednesday. This was the first interview he has missed; the lady has just come to tell me today that they have refused their appeal against the sanction; the 2 adults will get no Job Seekers Allowance until 13 March; they have 3 children, one of whom is chronically sick. They will live off Foodbank tickets for the next month. Is this the kind of country we want?
February 20, 2014 at 4:13 pm
I wish I could say I agree with you, but that would mean agreement to an assumption, that the following is an actual, thought-out policy proceeding from principle:
“We are determined to get people off welfare dependency and to reduce the tax burden of welfare, so we are prepared for people to starve and become destitute in order to achieve that longer-term goal; they won’t take responsibility until forced to do so.”
In Canada we had a (personally rich) Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, who, while a true central-state left liberal, soft-communist, said with a shrug, “The poor? They will always be with us.”. While this might be true, that there will always be a lower level of socio-economic success based on circumstance, personal difficulties and lower level skill sets, it demonstrates that our Governors accept a certain level of poverty as unavoidable and, indeed, unremarkable. The only argument one could use with them is the particular level.
I don’t think the Elite really care too much about the bottom end. In part it is because they really don’t understand the hardscrabble lives these people live. The change in numbers is just a statistic, even a sign that increases resulting from policies may simply reflect a real-world consequence of allowing “nature” back in the picture, i.e. economic capitalism disguised as eat-what-you-kill Darwinian reality made effective through loss of social subsidies.
The crass over-indulgence of the economic and political elite reflect not just their ability to over-indulge in food, drink, pleasure and consumption, not just their narcissistic belief that they DESERVE to do so (being at the top is such hard work), but that there is nothing inherently wrong in one small group acquiring such a disproportionately large part of what – after all, this is how an economy works – is the net result of EVERYBODY working.
The moral duty of theologically driven individuals is difficult to state in a pragmatic world. Theology should, through identified principles, tell the people what is truly good and truly bad. Knowledge not acted upon is fine in its own way, but in a world of people and things and people who do things that have negative or at least limited results, the morally enlightened have some duty to bring this truth to the public eye. One could hope that our political leaders are also morally enlightened, but my experience says they are not, at least not to the point of acting upon it. Expediency and the drive to power to do some things achievable and suitable for a statue in their image I would say are the forces they respect.
Our governing elite aren’t governing for all of us. That’s the sad truth.
February 20, 2014 at 4:31 pm
So do you agree that thousands of families should receive more in benefit than the average wage?
February 20, 2014 at 4:39 pm
Kudos to those Bishops and clergy who signed this letter: it needs saying and could do with repeating – pity it’ll be out of the news headlines in 24 hours.
Sad to say but I think you may be right about this government’s attitude to welfare. Me, I’d rather pay more taxes and see an effective safety net in place; and talking of safety nets, may I share a link? 5 Quid for Life: a mental health safety net. It’s a project I and a group of friends set up to provide financial help for people with mental health problems affected by changes to the benefits system: all shares much appreciated.
February 20, 2014 at 5:03 pm
Thanks Nick, perceptive as always. I’m trying hard not to make this sound like a gripe, because it’s not meant to be, but it would have been good if it had been more widely acknowledged that it wasn’t just 27 bishops but also a number of Methodist Chairs of District and URC and Quaker leaders as well.
It was one of the occasions when churches acted together and that would have been good to note.
February 20, 2014 at 7:41 pm
Gareth, I did think about that. But, had I responded as you suggest, I would have had comments and emails telling me I cannot speak for Methodists and Quakers, etc. Sorry.
February 20, 2014 at 7:42 pm
Paul Homewood, is that really the option?
February 20, 2014 at 7:42 pm
Steve Davie, I hope you will tell that (anonymised) story to the press.
February 21, 2014 at 8:09 am
I follow, but I’m not sure government dependence is the long-term solution to a poverty spirit. Let’s face it, people don’t starve due to lack of a certain about of resources. If that were it, Africa could be irrigated, but the truth is that people die for lack of knowledge. Knowledge of how to farm or what they enjoy or excel at that can benefit them entrepreneurially. I should be clear that I follow and agree with the sentiment and spirit of this blog. I completely support the betterment of the church, government, and society holistically and do not think sacrificing lives is ok for long-term benefits. I just think there are long-term and short-term solutions. I suppose the main statement I disagree with is “The proliferation of food banks, coupled with the evidence that many, many poorly-paid working people are having to use them in order to feed their family, is a reality that poses a challenge to the moral effectiveness of the said policy.” The proliferation of food banks is excellent, something the church should participate in and take more responsibility for rather than pushing the secular government to do so. Whether the world does or doesn’t fix a problem, we should. Having to use them is not excellent, but circumstances being what they are, the ability and willingness to use them should be invited, not scoffed at. I’m not middle class or above, but privately organized food banks constitute a wonderful short-term and long-term economical solution, because it is voluntary charity rather than misspending.
February 21, 2014 at 8:15 am
I understand this will sound harsh to some, but I am absolutely NOT referring to the children, disabled, or elderly of the country when I say this, only the able-bodied but unwilling. “If anyone WILL not work, neither will he eat” is practical advice for any culture. Ability to work is a highly under-addressed subject in UK politics. “We’re not being given enough” is a reason to innovate and work, not to starve. “There aren’t enough jobs” didn’t seem to be acceptable in Paul’s day, who made things with his hands to support himself.
February 21, 2014 at 9:04 am
Brutal? Destitution?
Just hyperbole.
I am bored and tired of these silly attacks that attempt to emotionalise complex debates with silly language.
Benefits have not been “cut” unless you were receiving more than the average wage – are those on the average wage destitute?
Yes, benefits did not increase by as much as inflation, but an increase is not a cut, and the same was true for just about everybody who was working.
And foodbanks area terrible thing, but explain why not everybody who is on benefits has to use them.
As for the heartrending individual stories – yes, sad etc etc but we don’t make welfare policies based on single cases, nor do we extrapolate to millions of people from single cases.
You want the poor to be less poor? Then let’s have jobs, education and wealth creation – but of course for many of you that’s just all to capitlaist isn’t it?
February 21, 2014 at 11:18 am
Tim, I get weary of commentators who miss the point. Observing the reality on the ground and asking for some cognisance to be taken of this reality is not the same as saying that we should run a ‘benefits state’. False alternatives and ‘anti-capitalist’ charges are just lame.
February 21, 2014 at 10:33 pm
@Tim No unfortunately jobs and education (and therefore wealth creation for those without existing wealth) are not capitalist. In an ideal capitalist system there would be no workers at all and no taxes to pay for universal education.
And you’re right, it’s not just people on benefits (most of whom remember are in work) that should be up in arms but the low paid as well. It’s disgraceful we allowed wages to drop to such a level that it’s more economic to be on benefits.
But as Nick says, all of that is irrelevant. The question that needs answering is: several independent sources have noticed X (increase in poverty) what is the government’s plan?
We know the answer would be “nothing”, but at least be honest that that is the result of your chosen ideology and let people vote for it with all the facts available. Don’t pretend that by sanctioning someone for several weeks for a simple mistake that you are “teaching them a lesson” or even that that is an effective way to teach them a lesson.
February 22, 2014 at 7:05 am
Honest question, why exactly are food banks terrible? Am I missing something ominous about them?
February 22, 2014 at 11:27 am
David, they are not terrible. They are a life-saver for many people – and evidence that some people in this country still care for their neighbours. The problem is that they are necessary and what they tell us about what is happening in our country to poor people.
February 22, 2014 at 11:37 am
Thanks for this excellent article. The thing that depresses me about the current debate over welfare is the way politicians of all colours seem unable to recognise certain basic realities.
Firstly, there must always be some form of welfare safety net – because without one, society is only ever one recession away from either mass starvation or revolution. Simply allowing millions to starve might be possible somewhere like post-Soviet Kazakhstan, where the state and the economy have collapsed and the population has never experienced real affluence, but not in the UK.
Secondly, if you have a welfare safety net – however stingy – there will always be a few people who try to exploit it because they are determined not to work; and others who are just basically incapable of coping with life, no matter how much help they are given. The welfare state did not create such people, they existed long before it (Dickens’ novels are full of them). After all, workhouses were introduced because some people thought the previous system of parish-based poor relief was too generous and was encouraging dependency. You can try to discourage ‘sponging’, but beyond a certain point, measures to do so end up punishing the merely unlucky – and are likely to cost more than they save in any case. Current policy seems to be directed more at satisfying a popular mood of righteous anger at ‘scroungers’ – stoked by the media – than at actually creating a more effective welfare system.
The thing that bothers me about the current government is that when anyone taxes them with the human consequences of their welfare policies, they are prone to say glibly that the solution to poverty is to get people into work. They can’t or won’t acknowledge that permanent full employment is not possible in a free-market economy. There will always be those who, through no fault of their own, are left unemployed – or are unable to find a job that gives them a decent living. In a recession, their numbers will increase. Mass unemployment was certainly not unknown in 19th Century Europe, when welfare systems were far less generous than they are now.
March 5, 2014 at 7:59 am
I respect the article and everybody’s desire for better society, but I think the statement “The problem is that they are necessary and what they tell us about what is happening in our country to poor people” sums up a poor economical thought process. If it’s a shame food banks are necessary (a private solution), is it any less of a shame that welfare is necessary (a public solution) full stop? Poverty in general is a shame. A public solution being relied on is a good sign of generosity, not a sign of failure. One riff between conservative and liberal, at least among Christians I know, is the misunderstanding that those who don’t want the government responsible for caring for widows, orphans, the elderly, and the disable don’t want anybody to do it or the misunderstanding that a blanket centralized governmental system is better or represents a more generous country. Local, private solutions have far more pros and far better represent generosity, so up with food banks and down with welfare. If done gradually and thoughtfully, it can be a great economic move. The myth about needing a safety net in case of economic collapse also make a false assumption, that in a time of economic collapse, the government has resources that the people don’t have. Not if the government hasn’t been building a surplus, and any seeming advantage government has over individuals is false and/or unhealthy.