A prayer from St Martin-in-the-Fields

"Look with grace upon this country.

Bring wisdom in the face of haste
and humility in the context of dispute"

A prayer from St Martin-in-the-Fields reflecting the widespread concern over the nation’s political and constitutional situation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taize - O, Lord Hear My Prayer.

Inequalities of wealth and power

Yesterday's Guardian had some excellent Comment pieces on the extent to which wealth and influence are unequally distributed as a result of the way political and market forces operate in the UK.

Polly Toynbee took on the Government's unthinking and unevidenced mantra that privatisation is always right and always best:

"There is no evidence about how well contracting and privatising work: the best experts can find is 1980s assessments of early contracts for simple local services. At the very least, there should always be a state comparator. NHS contracting is galloping ahead, with no centrally gathered monitoring for comparison. Other privatisations rush on – probation and the court fines collection service – while companies built by cashing in from the state, such as G4S, A4E and Serco, are in disgrace. While Serco is being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office after overcharging on tagging, it emerges that its finance director sold £2.7m shares two months before the share price tanked on a profits warning.

This is the world David Cameron assumes always does better than public service, as a matter of unproven conviction. Laying out his Open Public Services policy, he said everything was up for sale, with "a new presumption" that "public services should be open to a range of providers competing to offer a better service". When he said: "The old narrow, closed state monopoly is dead," he forgot to say that services sold or contracted would become private monopolies making handsome profits at our expense. The dogma driving these privatisations wilfully ignores past experience."

George Monbiot calls Britain the new land of impunity because no matter what the criticisms made or damage done, fat cats and politicians seem able to cling on to the rewards of power and wealth:

"There has seldom, in the democratic era, been a better time to thrive by appeasing wealth and power, or to fail by sticking to your principles. Politicians who twist and turn on behalf of business are immune to attack. Those who resist are excoriated."

These specific and evidenced UK-related accusations are set against the background of debate regarding Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century with its powerful argument about wealth, democracy and why capitalism will always create inequality:

"When the maelstrom surrounding Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century dies down, as all such publicity storms do in the end, its lasting achievement may be to give economics back its sense of proportion. Diligently and unnoticed outside his field, Mr Piketty – together with Emmanuel Saez and Tony Atkinson – spent years mining international tax records to demonstrate how, in Britain and the US, the portion of the national output gobbled up by the richest had first fallen by two-thirds or more in the 60 years after the first world war, but had then, from the 1970s on, more than doubled again. Having settled one century-long story, in the new book the professor moves on from top incomes to (even larger) top wealth and traces this through more than 200 years of data, while discussing how population growth and the march of technology have shaped capital's place in society since antiquity. This long view discourages worry about passing matters such as individual elections, or for that matter recessions."

In one of it's leaders from yesterday, the Guardian suggests:

"Where mainstream culture had precious little to say about inequality during the long years in which the economic gap opened up, post-bust and post-bailout, a different mood has taken hold, and rage against the rich is now part of the zeitgeist. So fashion is playing its part here. But if the fashion is for finally facing up to a maldistribution of resources previously unnoticed, then that is all to the good."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clash - Working For The Clampdown.

What do we really want or need?

The South East, along with the South West, had some of the highest levels of average life satisfaction ratings in England recorded during 2012/13. You may not be aware that the Government now measures National Well-being but that is the case and, in terms of people’s personal well-being, the questions asked are:

1. Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?
2. Overall, to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile?
3. Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday?
4. Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday?

How would you answer those questions? The Government is saying that our sense of well-being comes from our sense of being satisfied, feeling our life has worth, feelings of happiness and low levels of anxiety. Do you agree?

We tend to expect that most people, if asked, will say that money, fame or power are the things that they really want. Here’s a fairly typical statement from one online blogger about this question: "Most people would list money as the most wanted thing in the world … We can't deny the fact that money forms an essential part of our life, and without money, people generally are miserable and live miserably …  The other primary things that humans desire and seek (fame, happiness, success, etc.) also are connected to money and mostly are a direct result of being financially well-off. So, in my opinion, money is the thing people want most in the world."

Abraham Maslow was a psychologist who wanted to understand what really motivates people. He devised a model called the hierarchy of needs which suggests that we are all motivated to achieve certain needs but that our basic needs have to be satisfied before we will be motivated to achieve our higher needs. On his five stage model our most basic needs are physiological i.e. for air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, and sleep. Next come safety needs - protection from the elements, security, order, law, limits, stability, and freedom from fear. After that come social Needs - belongingness, affection and love, - from work group, family, friends, and romantic relationships. Then come esteem needs - achievement, mastery, independence, status, dominance, prestige, self-respect, and respect from others. Finally, come self-actualization needs - realizing our personal potential, self-fulfilment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs gives a broader perspective on the question of what we really want as human beings but it doesn’t fully accord with what we see Jesus saying and doing in today’s Gospel reading which is also an exploration of what we really need, want or think is most important in life.

The temptations Jesus faces in the wilderness are threefold; food, fame and power (or on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs - basic needs and esteem needs). Jesus has been fasting in the wilderness of forty days and forty nights. He is very hungry but he resists the temptation to meet his basic needs by turning stones into bread. He quotes scripture to argue that receiving from God is more fundamental to human well-being than food itself. Jesus keeps his focus on God. Hearing from God is what is most important to him. God’s word is his food, his breath - the thing he needs more than anything else in this world.

Then Jesus is tempted to achieve celebrity or fame by a public act of self-aggrandisement - jumping from the highest point of the Temple and surviving. The result would be that everyone would know how wonderful Jesus is because God would not allow him to die. Jesus responds by quoting again from scripture - "Do not put the Lord your God to the test." He knows who he is and doesn’t need to adulation of other human beings in order to feel confident in his relationship with God.

Finally, he is tempted by power - "all the kingdoms of the world in all their greatness" all to be given to Jesus if he follows the way of the world rather than that of God. Again he quotes from scripture in replying: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve only him!’

This is what is at the heart of the matter for Jesus. In responding to these temptations, he is fulfilling the Law by keeping the greatest and the most important commandment: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind’ (Matthew 22. 37).

The temptations he faces are, as Tom Wright writes in ‘Matthew for Everyone’, all ways of distorting his true vocation: "the vocation to be a truly human being, to be God’s person, to be a servant to the world and to other people". Jesus is "committed to living off God’s word; to trusting God completely, without setting up trick tests to put God on the spot. He is committed to loving and serving God alone. The flesh may scream for satisfaction; the world may beckon seductively; the devil himself may offer undreamed-of power; but Israel’s loving God, the one Jesus knew as father, offered the reality of what is meant to be human, to be a true Israelite, to be Messiah."

"When Jesus refused to go the way of the tempter he was embracing the way of the cross. The enticing whispers that echoed around his head were designed to distract him from his central vocation, the road to which his baptism had committed him, the path of servanthood that would lead to suffering and death. They were meant to stop him from carrying out God’s calling, to redeem Israel and the world.

The temptations we all face, day by day and at critical moments of decision and vocation in our lives, may be very different from those of Jesus, but they have exactly the same point. They are not simply trying to entice us into committing this or that sin. They are trying to distract us, to turn us aside, from the path of servanthood to which our baptism has commissioned us. God has a costly but wonderfully glorious vocation for each one of us. The enemy will do everything possible to distract us and thwart God’s purpose …

But, as God’s children, we are entitled to use the same defence as the son of God himself. Store scripture in your heart, and know how to use it. Keep your eyes on God, and trust him for everything. Remember your calling, to bring God’s light into the world. And say a firm ‘no’ to the voices that lure you back into the darkness."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rosanne Cash - What We Really Want.

Debate about foodbanks and food poverty

A few weeks ago Jack Monroe started a petition to get Parliament to debate hunger in the UK and why there's been a rise in the use of foodbanks. She thought she'd work steadily towards 100,000 signers over a few months and aim for a debate by Spring. She was wrong about that, and explains here how the story developed: 
 

"Within a day more than 60,000 people had signed and the campaign made the frontpage of the Independent. Within two weeks you helped the campaign reach 142,000 signers and on Wednesday we secured our goal of a debate in Parliament.

 

People going hungry in the UK has been a quiet secret for too long now, often only seen by the volunteers dealing with an increasing number of families turning to foodbanks. This petition changed that: #Foodbanks was trending on Twitter, the campaign reached the newspaper frontpages -- and most importantly MPs sat for three hours and heard story after story of what it is like to struggle in modern Britain. 

 

Over 60 Labour MPs requested to speak at the debate and they took turns to tell the stories of their constituents. We heard about the ex-serviceman who turned to a foodbank while waiting for four weeks for Atos to deal with his appeal. The story of two hungry young boys who came to ask for one packet of cereal and one packet of drinking chocolate as a treat. And we heard of the man whose benefits were sanctioned when he couldn't attend an assessment interview because he was in hospital with his wife who was seriously ill with cancer. 

 

Unfortunately Government ministers held their party line. Esther McVey said: "it is right to say that more people are visiting foodbanks, as we would expect.” And while Iain Duncan Smith turned up for the debate -- a victory in itself -- he chose not to stick around and snuck out half way through. 

We should be proud of what we achieved through this petition. MPs were reminded of the people that they are there to represent. And while some of them might try to drown out the stories with jeers and laughter -- these stories are now out in the open for all to see. They are on the official Hansard record and can't be ignored any longer. 

 

This debate is just the start - we'll be back in the New Year fighting food poverty - because hunger isn't going to go away. If your MP is one of the shameful 296 who voted against the motion to investigate foodbank use - why not invite them to go along with you to visit a Trussell Trust foodbank in the new year.  

 

There are lots of other ways you can get involved to help foodbanks in your area -- check out The Mirror who have been backing this campaign for more details."

 

The Observer reports today that "Iain Duncan Smith, the embattled work and pensions secretary, is refusing to meet leaders of the rapidly expanding Christian charity that has set up more than 400 food banks across the UK, claiming it is "scaremongering" and has a clear political agenda.

 

The news will fuel a growing row over food poverty, as church leaders and the Labour party accuse ministers of failing to recognise the growing crisis hitting hundreds of thousands of families whose incomes are being squeezed, while food prices soar."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thea Gilmore - Midwinter Toast.

Legacy of marketisation, privatisation, economic stratification and social dislocation

In considering the continuing divisive effect of Margaret Thatcher's legacy and funeral, it is worth reminding ourselves of what was said about Britain in the Faith in the City report published by the Church of England during Margaret Thatcher's second term of office.

As is noted on the Church of England's website, the Commission which produced this report met during what was the first half of Margaret Thatcher's second term of office as Prime Minister:

"There had been little explicit policy change during her first term in office regarding urban regeneration. What the report designated as 'Urban Priority Areas' did however feel the harsh impact of other policies as unemployment increased, public spending and taxation were reduced and a change in approach to the welfare state was initiated. The policies which put the market to the fore were beginning to take effect: it was claimed that the 'slump years' were over as inflation was reduced and privatisation caught the public imagination. Many of the problems highlighted stemmed from changes in society which could be associated with the demise of traditional industry. Other factors identified included estate design; institutional racism; poor quality housing; and lack of investment in educational and social services."

What the report says was actually far more damning than the above sounds:

"We have to report that we have been deeply disturbed by what we have seen and heard. We have been confronted with the human consequences of unemployment, which in some urban areas may be over 50 per cent of the labour force, and which occasionally reaches a level as high as 80 per cent - consequences which may be compounded by the effects of racial discrimination. We have seen physical decay, whether of Victorian terraced housing or of inferior system-built blocks of flats, which has in places created an environment so degrading that some people have set fire to their own homes rather than be condemned to living in them indefinitely. Social disintegration has reached a point in some areas that shop windows are boarded up, cars cannot be left on the street, residents are afraid either to go out themselves or to ask others in, and there is a pervading sense of powerlessness and despair ... It is our considered view that the nation is confronted by a grave and fundamental injustice in the UPAs. The facts are officially recognised, but the situation continues to deteriorate and requires urgent action. No adequate response is being made by government, nation or Church. There is barely even widespread public discussion."

As Gary Younge notes in today's Guardian, Margaret Thatcher's "is a living legacy of marketisation, privatisation, economic stratification and social dislocation." Her policies caused "a grave and fundamental injustice" in society at the time and continue to do so today.

My father, Phil Evens, was in ordained ministry during this part of this period setting up The Voice of the People Trust to sponsor Christian ministry in Urban Priority Areas through community work projects linked to parishes and the Aston and Newtown Community Youth Project which was particularly successful in reaching out to young people on the streets and steering them away from criminal and anti-social activities towards further education, training, employment and faith. His third book, Despair and Hope in the City, published in this period explored the relevance of community work to urban ministry. 

What follows is an account of a dream that my father had in the early morning after the 1987 General Election:

 

After watching the early election results, I went to bed at 3.00 a.m. and had the following dream ...

 

I dreamt that an elderly but important relative had died. In my dream I found myself outside the house they had lived in. It was quite small. All its furniture and possessions had been brought out lining the nearby streets and overflowing into a large warehouse type building. There was an amazing amount of furniture, bric-a-brac and general family possessions, from such a small house.

 

Many well dressed, upright looking relatives and, any people who had any conceivable connection with the family, had come from everywhere. They were moving around the furniture, lining the streets, pulling out drawers and taking anything they fancied. When I came near anyone they all looked as though they were politely looking on. As I went around, in my dream, I became increasingly concerned and bewildered at what was happening. No one seemed to be around to control or stop this.

 

In the warehouse type building the furniture and possessions were stacked on raised walkways. Here, some people, mainly young people, rushed off when they saw me coming and hid. One fell off the edge in the rush and I managed to reach out and draw him back to safety.

 

As I moved around this enormous collection of family possessions I found thrust into my hands a large glass container, beautifully made, into which had been put a few valuable family treasures - some small pieces of silver and a number of flat packs of what seemed like old one pound notes. I felt an increasing sense of distress at what was happening.

 

On waking up the dream remained vivid and the following thoughts immediately came to mind ...

 

The old relative who had died was the nation of Great Britain, and the small house was the United Kingdom. The nation's real wealth and assets, that had been a vital part of this small house and its family life, had been plundered by the well-dressed, polite and, in appearance, respectable people who, inside, had been rapacious and greedy. This wealth had now been dissipated and was no longer available for the home or its family life. I felt a deep sense of sadness and loss.

 

The interpretation of the dream was concluded by a picture of the Monarchy and the Royal Family. They were the only possession that the patriotic poor, the deprived, the dispossessed, now had that linked them into the life of the nation. Everything else of worth had been taken away from them and now belonged to the rich and powerful.

 

The final thought that came to me, was that I wouldn't wish to be in the shoes of Margaret Thatcher or her cabinet members for 'all the tea in China'. She, and her Government, had been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elvis Costello - Tramp The Dirt Down.

Government’s proposal for a three-year relaxation of planning rules on extending homes

As Chair of the Seven Kings & Newbury Park Resident's Association I have sent the following letter to our local MPs (Mike Gapes and Lee Scott) today:

I write to voice the significant concerns held by members of the Seven Kings & Newbury Park Resident’s Association at the Government’s proposal for a three-year relaxation of planning rules on extending homes and business premises.

Current planning regulations are currently circumvented on a regular basis by unscrupulous home and business owners determined to extend their properties without regard to neighbours legitimate concerns about issues such as light and noise levels, being overlooked, party walls, impact of building works on the sustainability of neighbouring properties etc. Often such extensions are then used to house additional people at the property, sometimes on an unauthorised rental basis, and generally in inadequate facilities. Current planning regulations are generally circumvented by retrospective planning applications which, from our perspective seem generally to be allowed, masking the problem as a national issue.

We think that this proposal will therefore be a disaster for local communities because it will allow such unscrupulous home and business owners to build what they like where they like without regard for the legitimate concerns of those in neighbouring properties. We view this prospect and the resulting breakdown in neighbourhood relations with real fear and trepidation. We note that the head of planning at Redbridge Council has already joined fellow Liberal Democrat councillors to condemn the proposed relaxation of planning regulations. We support their stance and that of other local Associations such as the Aldborough Hatch Defence Association in opposing this proposal which, while intending to stimulate growth, will divide communities and set neighbour against neighbour.

We ask you to convey our concerns to the Minister responsible for the consideration of this proposal and call on you to support local residents in opposing this divisive and unnecessary proposal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Style Council - Come To Milton Keynes.

Spiritual Life column

Here is my latest 'Spiritual Life' column in today's Ilford Recorder:

In a memorable phrase Desmond Tutu spoke of post-apartheid South Africa as being “the rainbow people of God.” That phrase can and should be applied also to the Christian Church in the diversity of those who come together within it to form the Body of Christ.

For the Church to be seen as a rainbow people of God, the full range of its diversity of views and voices need to be heard. Specifically, in the current debate over the definition of marriage, it essential that the Church, as well as hearing the views and voices of those opposed to the Government’s current legislative proposals, also hear the views and voices of Christians in favour.

I am thinking of those who see a strong Biblical case for arguing that definitions of marriage are socially determined and not divinely ordained. Those who see Jesus as being the ultimate scapegoat signalling, by his death, the folly and fallacy of all scapegoating of those different from ourselves. Those who see a key aspect of Jesus’ ministry as being to include in the kingdom of God those excluded from the religious structures of his day, with inclusion and equality then being a central facet of Christianity. The voices and views of those who see the institution of marriage being broadened and strengthened by its expansion to include people who value the institution and wish to marry but are currently excluded from doing so.

The Biblical picture of God’s people is of difference and diversity united by our common commitment to Christ. We are not and will not be united by our particular theologies, traditions, or views on particular topics. In this current debate, as in all such debates, we need to hear and respect different perspectives while recognising that our particular views will only divide if they are prioritised. It is only when, acknowledging our differences, we recognise that, despite our differences, we are united by Christ that the Christian Church holds together as the rainbow people of God who, therefore, become the Body of Christ in the world today.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gungor - Let There Be.

The myth of greater private-sector efficiency (2)

Seamus Milne is the latest Guardian columnist to take on busting the myth of privatisation - vital action now that the Government has effectively privatised the NHS: 

"Central to the corporate-driven ideology that dominates this government and public debate is a myth: that the risk-taking, entrepreneurial private sector drives technological innovation and industrial advance, while attempts by state bureaucracies to "pick winners" are a recipe for disaster.

That myth is exploded by Sussex University economist Mariana Mazzucato in her book The Entrepreneurial State. Even in the US, heartland of "free enterprise", the public sector has taken the risk to invest in one cutting edge sector after another: from aviation, nuclear energy and computers to the internet, biotechnology and nanotechnology.

The private sector has come in later – and usually reaped the reward. So the algorithms that underpinned Google's success were funded by the public sector. The technology in the Apple iPhone was invented in the public sector. In both the US and Britain it was the state, not big pharma, that funded most groundbreaking "new molecular entity" drugs, with the private sector then developing slight variations. And in Finland, it was the public sector that funded the early development of Nokia – and made a return on its investment.

The lessons should be clear. States such as Germany, South Korea and China are now spending far higher proportions of national income on research and development into green technologies. Even some Tory ministers understand that only state intervention can drive the new motors of growth – but dare not say so publicly.

That's hardly surprising. But the government's economic strategy isn't working. If Britain is going to rebuild a broken economy, its political class is going to have to learn to turn its back on three decades of clapped-out myths and bankrupt ideology."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get the Blessing - So It Goes / Yes I Said Yes I Will Yes. 

The myth of greater private-sector efficiency

On the basis of my experiences in the Civil Service prior to ordination, I am fully with Aditya Chakrabortty who writes in today's Guardian "that the myth of greater private-sector efficiency in doing public works is just that: a myth":

"There is one problem. Time after time, these public-private partnerships (PPPs) have turned out to be a great deal for the companies, but a terrible bargain for the taxpayer. And on occasion, as with what happened on London's tube network just four years back, they can lead to outright collapse of the services involved.

How could it be anything but a bad deal for the British taxpayer? The private sector can't raise money more cheaply or easily than the government. According to an FT analysis done towards the end of last year, paying for PPPs with private-sector cash costs taxpayers well over £20bn extra. The public sector calculated this as "the equivalent of more than 40 sizeable new hospitals".

Or is there some magic private-sector dust that means whatever company executives do is just far more efficient than those Soviet realists in public service? Not a bit of it. The typical PPP experience is of a multiplication of middlemen and transactions designed to benefit the private sector."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quantic - Ticket To Know Where feat. Ohmega Watts