I reproduce this press release, just published, in full since I share its sentiments:
Four major British Churches have described Chancellor George Osborne's defence of the Government's benefit cuts as ‘deeply disappointing,' following his speech earlier today.
“We are deeply disappointed that Mr Osborne is continuing to use the misguided rhetoric of people on benefits versus ‘hardworking taxpayers'. The Government's own figures show that most people on benefits not only want to work, but many of them are already in work and paying high rates of tax,” said Paul Morrison, Public Issues Policy Adviser, speaking on behalf of the Baptist Union of Great Britain, Methodist Church, United Reformed Church and Church of Scotland.
“We desperately want people to achieve their God-given potential, but that can't happen when the most vulnerable are being made even poorer. The churches are serving their local communities day in and day out. They reflect the breadth of society and are in touch with the needs of the people they serve. We hope to reflect those concerns, and we look forward to the day when myths about poverty are no longer acceptable in public life.
"While nine out of ten working households will benefit from an increased tax allowance, the poorest working households will benefit the least and will be affected most by the benefit cuts introduced this month. It is absolutely clear that the net result of these changes will not be nine out of ten working households better off, as has been widely reported."
The Churches' report, The lies we tell ourselves, says that statistics have been manipulated and misused by politicians across the spectrum, as well as by the media, to support the belief that the poor deserve their poverty, and therefore deserve the cuts.
The Chancellor has been sent a copy of the report.
“This is not a party political issue - sidelining and misrepresenting the poor is unacceptable whoever you are,” added Mr Morrison. “Lies about poverty are the responsibility of us all, whether we tell, share or just tolerate them. It is everyone's duty to ensure that the poor are not misrepresented and that policy matches up to hard facts.
“We invite Mr Osborne to read the report and consider how he might challenge myths about poverty as he seeks to balance Britain's books.”
I hope he does.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I unfortunately had the misfortune of watching on T.V the chancellor addressing a workforce somewhere in the U.K. He again trotted out the slogans about ‘doing the right thing’, those that ‘get up in the morning’ and was flanked by hoardings that praised the hardworking British (i.e. those not on benefits). The use of language is redolent of the grimiest regimes in history and sinks to new lows. I feel physically sick and ashamed of these louts. Worst of all, the company’s boss toadyingly told the workforce they were in for a ‘surprise’ as the personality disordered Osborne arrived and took the stage. They all clapped like automata with, predictably, no dissent – terribly depressing!
Even worse, I was looking into volunteering with my local food bank and after going to the website saw a publicity photo of the Chairman of the Trussel Trust (who run the national foodbank network) cosying up to Cameron! So even they are part of this plot to humour and condescend to the needy without looking at the real causes!
I’m speechless with bilious disgust. I didn’t think it could be as bad as this but it is.
I share that sentiment of feeling sick
Even my sons get that
They know they’re being patronised
But the Morrisons workers interviewed trotted out the line he must be harder on benefits
Don’t they see their own family and themselves as next in line?
Do we live in a theocracy?
No
But churches have a right to comment in a liberal society
What is your problem with that?
I find it odd that those who try to keep religion out of all aspects of public life don’t miss a beat when it suits their ’cause’.
Hypocrisy where is thy sting……
I think we have gathered your views now
But I have to say you seem like a remarkably confused person, in this and other comments
Have these churches been arguing to stay out of public life?
No. Unfortunately we don’t. Instead, we appear to live in plutocracy/kleptocracy.
We have an established church whose representatives sit in the House of Lords and vote on laws which affect the vast majority of us who do not belong to their faith.
We have a few people – several in every generation – who must by law belong to that church, and who are forbidden from marrying members of another (remarkably similar) church, which seems to me like a shocking violation of their freedom of conscience.
Oddly enough, the established church has not complained. It’s the unestablished ones who are pointing out where the government is lying to us and demonising the poor.
And you wonder why I’m a Quaker?
The Quakers were true radicals. The 18th Century Quaker, John Woolman had many insights into economics which he expressed in his diary. He even downsized his own shoemaking business when he felt he was earning enough! He said about slave owners and those that exploit others that ‘if these people were Christians then Christ was a cruel tyrant.’ He felt all business ventures needed high levels of discernment before implementation. The great irony is that Quakers founded Barclays Bank because they were trusted with money. Talk about rolling in graves!! Good to hear you are a Quaker Richard! I am myself – I think they rediscovered the core of the Christian message!
I happen to agree with that last comment. Unsurprisingly
Actually in response to a comment the established church has responded ! you need to keep abreast with the news
Where? Formally, not by joint signatory?
the established church has responded both in the person of the Archbishop and also other bishops and others including the Bishop covering Bradford a while ago and Ian Duncan Smith told them to shut up as they didn’t know what they were talking about.
This should not be an attempt to divide the established and non conformist churches but we should rather recognise that those raising the issues with this Government and the media attacking and demonising those who are poor are actively involved in supporting those people and so speak from real experience and we should spread as widely as possible what they say rather than being sidetracked by those who would like to hide this truth
What worried me about the CoE response was tat only 43 Bishops signed
There are more than 100
William and Catherine Booth set up the Salvation Army.
Were they Catholics? No.
Were they C of E? No.
They were Methodists.
It would be an ever better step if the Churches, and other commentators on the Government’s mishandling of the economy, were also to challenge economic myths, such as the need to balance the budget!
I do!
Yes, exactly you’re doing a great job! …along with Bill Mitchell and his blog http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/ and others in the MMT community, the only group of economists who really seem to get it IMHO.
I find it’s a shame that a lot of well meaning and thoughtful commentators, whether they be religious or humanist commentators, are not sufficiently au fait with macroeconomics (which is not unsurprising given the mainstream neo-liberal domination of economics in academia and economic institutions and its subsequent promulgation of economic myths), and having correctly identified problems, are sometimes off the mark with solutions or are unable to coherently debate economic issues, given the lack or mis-understanding of macroeconomics…
Looks like the ‘debate’ got sidetracked into an attack/defence of churches. The subject is ‘poverty’. It is irrelevant what any of the above think about religion/churches/God. What is relevant is that (a) church folk have as much right as atheists/agnostics to state their views. (b)attacking and demonising the poor is immoral, and totally illogical to boot – which should suit both camps – devout or atheist.
Osborne et al blame the poor for being poor and claim they are too idle to work, but there is no work, or work which pays a living wage. So now we are in a position where one is a skiver, a scumbag, a layabout if one can not do what the government has patently failed to do – create jobs. Go work that one out!
As a Humanist I welcome this report. We may disagree about the existence of god, but I absolutely share the views expressed on the immoral and often cruel policies being inflicted on some of the most vulnerable people in our society.