I think this letter, originally sent privately in September, from 84 Church of England bishops to the Prime Minister, is to important not to share. It is the Observer this morning. It may appear to be off topic, but this issue is far too important to ignore if anyone is looking at the economics of the real world, and relates in part to my analysis of a forthcoming financial crisis:
Dear prime minister,
Like you, your government and the people of our nation, we are deeply concerned for the refugee crisis that we have to face together. We are grateful to you and your ministers for the conversations they have already held with the archbishop of Canterbury and others around these issues.
We pray for the millions of people fleeing war and violence in one of the largest refugee crises ever recorded, and we remember those who have tragically died seeking sanctuary on European shores: those like Alan Kurdi, the three-year-old boy who heartbreakingly died and was washed up on a beach in Turkey.
It is a command in Judaism to “welcome and love the stranger as you would yourself because you were strangers in the land of Egypt”. Followers of Islam are obliged to provide food, shelter and safety to the traveller. Christ himself and his family were refugees at one point.
We are reminded that in the crypt of Canterbury cathedral there is a 17th-century notice which pays tribute to “the large and liberal spirit of the English church and the glorious asylum which England has in all times given to foreigners flying for refuge against oppression and tyranny”.
Such traditions and prayers must be joined with action. A moral crisis of this magnitude calls each and all of us to play our parts. We recognise and applaud the leadership you and your government are showing in this crisis, both as one of the world's top international donors and in the recent announcement that the government will resettle 20,000 people over the next five years.
We stand ready to play our part as well. We will:
1. Encourage our church members to work alongside the wider community in offering support to all refugees who come.
2. Encourage, where possible and feasible, churches, congregations and individuals to make rental properties and spare housing available for use by resettled refugees.
3. Promote and support foster-caring among churches, congregations and individuals where appropriate to help find the homes needed to care for the increasing number of unaccompanied minors.
4. Pray for, act with and stand alongside your government, to rise to the challenge that this crisis poses to our shared humanity.
From what we see in congregations across the United Kingdom we are confident that the country stands ready and willing to support the government to be even more ambitious as it responds to this historic crisis.
We believe such is this country's great tradition of sanctuary and generosity of spirit that we could feasibly resettle at least 10,000 people a year for the next two years, rising to a minimum of 50,000 in total over the five-year period you foresaw in your announcement. Such a number would bring us into line with comparable commitments made by other countries. It would be a meaningful and substantial response to the scale of human suffering we see daily.
We believe that should a National Welcome and Resettlement Board be established in response to the crisis, drawing together civic, corporate and government leadership to coordinate efforts and mobilise the nation as in times past, such an effort would not be beyond the British people. A senior bishop would gladly serve on such a board on our behalf and at your pleasure.
This letter is written to you privately at present. The College of Bishops meets in Oxford next week and will spend some time considering our practical response. If you were able to respond to me ahead of that date it would help our discussions.
The letter has now been published because as the Observer says:
An extraordinary row between the Church of England and the prime minister has burst into the open as 84 bishops accuse David Cameron of ignoring their offers to help to provide housing, foster care and other support for up to 50,000 refugees.
I acknowledge my own position regarding this letter: I am still an Anglican although I usually worship as a Quaker. That should make it clear that I will always stand with the refugee, the oppressed, and the outsider and against the use of arms whenever and wherever possible.
And that frames my reaction: whilst politicians line up to argue whether we should or should not bomb Syria (and full marks to Nicola Sturgeon for saying no) we cannot find the resources to stage a meaningful response to this crisis for those who are suffering as a result of it.
In its heart this government could find the funding to bomb Syria, as it previously did Libya, but will not meaningfully help those who suffer. In Libya the bombing apparently cost twelve times the amount spent on reconstruction.
There is a sickness in our body politic here that needs to be named as a love of violence that overshadows the human compassion that should guide us.
I applaud the bishops for drawing attention to this sickness.
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:
It’s clear that the Tories (Teresa May at the ghastly Conference) are playing the racist card (albeit under the banner ‘we can’t afford it’) and massaging the fear and anxiety THEY have created via austerian ideology which creates artificial shortages and a sense of insufficiency. The housing issue and the crap jobs issue is a result of ideology paraded as metaphysics. So the Tories are now playing the anti-refugee card as a result of this while pretending its nothing to do with them (like unemployment, housing, benefit issues etc).
Immigration has ALWAYS enriched the cultural life of this country but within the parameters of corporate fascism it will be paraded as a ‘threat’. Can this Government sink lower and become more vile at every juncture?
I think the Econometrist Sir Ian Hendry has pointed out that with an ageing population,immigration is a GOOD thing but only alongside real job creation-which we won’t get from the useless shower we have in power.
“Real job creation” – that would imply investment either in substantive companies or infrastructure. But the Tories want the private sector to cover both areas & the private sector don’t (want to do that – unless at a significant price – 7.5% – for Hinkley).
There is nothing more damaging to a partnership or union than the knowledge that one member is refusing to take up their share of the work, when all are faced by a common challenge, so that the other members must take on greater burdens when the unwilling one refuses.
That is a sickness which can be excised and left to fester in isolation.
Over 100,000 British people have said they would house a Syrian refugee in an online petition. All it needs is for the laws to be reworked for them to be allowed to ( under the rule of law, identification and criminality checks of course ).
Yet the Bishops want to restrict our freedoms as people to be as compassionate or not as we wish to. They want government approved rates of compassion and immigration and at lower levels than people are freely willing to provide if only they could. I just don’t get it.
I am bored by the drivel you write
This is typical neoliberal hypocrisy
My patience with your nonsense has expired
You should presume you will be deleted in future
The government are busy fawning over China so no time for compassion.
Can I recommend Paul Collier’s book on migration – Exodus – Immigration and Multiculturalism in the 21st Century. (Sorry about the Amazon link – you don’t have to buy it here!):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Exodus-Immigration-Multiculturalism-21st-Century-ebook/dp/B00ELXQYM0/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445187546&sr=1-4&keywords=exodus
What is clear according to Collier, is that the effects of migration on an indigenous population, and on the home country of the migrant, are nuanced and dependent on a number of variables, especially the numbers, and rate of immigration. Interestingly, the economic effects appear to be of little marginal interest; it is the social and cultural effects that are more important to understand.
What is also clear to me is that the current crisis is not one of immigration per se, but of refugees fleeing conditions for which we are in part responsible.
In this present case, it is not a question of economics, or culture, but of morality. These people need our help, and many of us are prepared to give it; but this most cynical and uncaring of governments is not listening.
I will have to try the book. I am it usually a fan of Paul Collier, but I agree with your conclusion
As I have been reading it, and trying to evaluate his arguments with my layperson’s hat on, I have found myself wondering “What would Richard Murphy think of this….?” It is certainly thought provoking for those of us on the left, but gives no comfort to those on the right.
That’s flattering, I think
And worrying: you opinion counts as much as mine
Let me know when you have finished it
There’s a video of a good interview with Paul Collier by Mehdi Hassan of Al Jazeera. Can’t remember much about it now but it’s worth seeing :
Here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_8VlXx-4us
It is hardly surprising that the Bishops have taken this step.
The country is in the grip of a classic divide and conquer ruse by the Tories.
They set the electorate at each others throats – the English against the Scots; private sector versus public sector worker; the working age against the retired – I could go on and on.
All because of the political tactic based on marketing (segmentation). Aiming policies at particular open sores or unhealed wounds in the fabric of society that are wating to exploited. It is shamefully cynical. They create inequality and then use it as a weapon against the very people have they have made unequal.
For example, why are we encouraged to dislike the migrants but not the companies that employ (exploit) them on lower wages?!!! We constantly have our attention diverted away from the real source of the problem.
We are so nasty to each other these days now (my partner who is a teacher found herself being berated by a total stranger at a social event for having too many holidays – apparently!!). Given that said partner is part-time and still does 37+ hours a week is just gnored!!
And at the same time I heard on the radio the other day that the NHS is recruiting again from abroad!! What sort of reception will thees people get?
In the context of the initial post I advance these words of wisdom from a recently, and justifiably, garlanded Brit:
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/economic-development-requires-effective-governments-by-angus-deaton
Thanks
Neil Wilson mashup (proof of MMT):
Government spends from its cash buffer. It gets some of it back as taxes. The rest it gets back when it issues bonds for reserves.
Spending only increases reserves in the commercial sector temporarily on an intra-day basis because the debt management office is constantly shuffling them back by issuing Gilts to refill the buffer.
So spending causes an increase in Gilt holdings – but only because of the institutional framework that is in place. You have a small amount of reserves that just bounces around the place as a buffer. What you really spend is Gilts.
This is just basic Treasury operations that you do with ANY financial institutions. Similarly in commercial banks they make loans and then backfill the funding by issuing bonds and shares or accepting deposits. But you know what your cash buffer has to target because loans take *weeks* to complete and in aggregate you know roughly how many will complete on average and therefore you can project your funding requirement really quite accurately for weeks in advance.
It’s the same with government.
Ultimately all this talk is a lot of hot air.
The entire conclusion put forward follows from the premise that the bond markets can decide things.
However if it is clear to the markets that the government believes it ultimately controls the Bank of England and the understanding is that the Bank of England will prevent yields from rising, then they will not rise.
Any bond that drops below par can be purchased by the Bank of England and cancelled. That means that the private sector gets less back than it paid out for the bond.
And that is a tax. Show me a financial person that will voluntarily queue up to pay a tax and I’ll show you a unicorn.
So it matters not what the bond market thinks. It matters whether the government decides to voluntarily tie its hands.
The control function that stops you spending as much as you want is the bank stopping your cheque. Nobody will stop a government cheque because they have neither the authority, nor the bottle to do so.
The government always has money in the account to spend and the cheques will not bounce. Ergo it can always buy anything in Sterling.
That really is the end of the matter, unless you can find any holes in the logic.
I have to say that on tax Neil gets a great deal wrong
The bishops should get on with their job and stay out of politics. We have elections and the people chose who they want to run the country. I fail to see what the church have to do with anything in this regard.
The only sympathy I have is that we have an outdated electoral system which results in the rulers having 37% of the vote.
Let’s move to PR and then the church can get back in its box.
The only reason for faith is to effect change
Bishops who do not seek that are not doing their jobs
Bishops are not more important than the will of the people at the ballot box?
Have you heard of free speech?
Are you saying it should not be expressed, by bishops or anyone else?
Is it your view that a single election win means there should be no opposition?
Have you not noticed that democracy depends upon their being on opposition?
Or did you skip that bit?
@ John
Frankly, comments like this totally p*** me off! “Put the church back in a box” and “get on with their job and stay out of politics”!!!
As Archbishop Desmond Tutu said of people who criticised his involvement in anri-Apartheid politics (in the destruction of which, he, and the Church, played a powerful role), “What Bible are they reading? People who say the Church should stay out of politics must be reading a different Bible from the real one”, which is PASSIONATELY concerned with justice and liberation.
Christianity (and, indeed, Judaism from which it sprang, and Islam that grew out of both; and Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism and all religions) are dedicated to the TOTAL TRANSFORMATION of society, from its present unredeemed state, to one of full justice, equity and community. If that isn’t political, I don’t know what is, but that MOST ASSUREDLY is the church’s “job”, and not that of simpering at thecedges, doling out cups of tea, cucumber sandwiches, and anodyne litle beaux mots and saccharine comments that the Establishment can laugh at while patting the church on the head and telling it what a good boy it is!
And, of course, such criticisms ALWAYS have a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” double-edge, with criticism when the hearer doesn’t like what the Church says, and equally criticism if the Church stands by and says nothing, when the hearer think the Church should comment.
So, the Church’s job is to be true to its commission to seek total transformation of society, and it has as much right as ANY other group of citizens to express its opinions, and set out its objectives – CERTAINLY as much right as the Taxpayers’ Alliance, the Institute of Directors, the Adam Smith Institute, or the Institute of Economic Affairs – ALL of which I would gladly see confined to silence, and kept in their “box”, except that I recognise the right of those malign organisations to contribute to the debate, and so also assert the Church’s right also so to do.
Sorry, should have directed this to @Jim, not @John. My annoyance caused me to rush ahead. Can’t say my anger in any the less for having misaddressed my Jeremiad.
I felt annoyed with myself for not saying something like that this morning Andrew, but time was not on my side
I am delighted you have said what I felt
Thank you
I believe we have an elected body to provide opposition. It’s the other MPs who aren’t Tories.
People can get as flustered as they like about this fact, but the Church need to understand that they carry no more weight than me shouting on a street corner or someone writing an article in a newspaper.
Actually, that’s not true
As a body of millions it has a very big voice
People are allowed to organise in democracies
Bit of a red herring this, is it not? Better to give Funds to Turkey where it’s 2.5 million refugees is it not?
You ignore the fact that these p[eople do not want to live in Turkey where there are no chances for them
“We recognise and applaud the leadership you and your government are showing in this crisis, both as one of the world’s top international donors and in the recent announcement that the government will resettle 20,000 people over the next five years.”
The CoE says 50, 000; the government says 20, 000. If that is all they are arguing about, it doesn’t look like much of a disagreement to me. And the government’s policy on Syria is almost exactly what Paul Collier recommends — ie generously funding refugee camps in adjacent countries. PC, as a development economist, is rightly concerned that a mass exodus from Syria will cripple that unhappy country’s recovery. Meanwhile, Germany – which always acts ruthlessly in its own economic interests – has no such scruples, seeing the Syrian exodus as an opportunity to address its own demographic crisis.
By the way, ‘The Times’ has published reports that the father of the drowned little boy was himself a people smuggler. Apparently, having ruthlessly exploited others, he decided to take his family to Europe – with tragic results.
PS Richard, I’m a quaker who became an anglican, though I still have much time for the Friends.
Roger
I do not think Paul Collier is a guide: I have said before I generally do not share his views
I am not sure the bishops are doing enough
But I am certain the government is not
And I do not think the German approach in any way cynical
But Friends can disagree
Richard