Praxis
The blog of members of the Joint Public Issues Team: Baptist, Methodist and United Reformed Churches working together to live out the gospel of Christ in Church and Society
Thursday 31 January 2013
Time to stop gambling with our future? First signs of a rethink on dangerous gaming machines
Posted by
James North
at
13:17
A recent Government statement suggests that critics who have been warrning of the normalisation of gambling in the United Kingdom are getting their message across. While the Government has announced no specific measures to reverse the dangerous trends of recent years, it endorses what charities, churches and campaigning groups have been saying: gambling is not just another leisure activity but dangerous in view of the extreme harm that problem gambling can cause individuals and communities.
In 2011 the Methodist Church and its ecumenical colleagues were invited to give written and oral evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee’s enquiry into the implementation of the Gambling Act 2005. The churches were among the few groups to state clearly that the evidence from the Gambling Prevalence Survey in 2010 was worrying. The Act specifically mentioned the need to protect children and vulnerable adults. If the Act was working as it should, problem gambling should have gone down. Instead, not only had it maintained previous levels: it had risen. (Despite a largely unsympathetic response, the Committee asked the Methodist Church for supplementary evidence on key areas, which may be viewed here.)
The Committee’s subsequent report showed little recognition of the seriousness of the situation. One of the Churches’ key concerns was around the clustering of betting shops on high streets, particularly in poorer areas. This is largely because these are allowed to contain up to 4 of the profitable and highly addictive, casino style B2 gaming machines. The Committee recommended that betting shops be allowed to contain more than 4 B2 machines: this would enable the industry to maintain its profits without needing so many betting shops on the high street. But at a time of increasing poverty and inequality, it is unacceptable that the gambling industry should seek to maximise its profits in ways which will impact on vulnerable communities.
It is somewhat encouraging that the Government’s statement says “It would not be right for the Government to consider any liberalisation with regard to category B2 machines until evidence is in place, potential options for harm mitigation are better understood and the industry has demonstrated its capability to manage better the harm its products may cause to some customers”. However the need for caution remains: this suggests that continued liberalisation is basically desirable, even of category B2 machines, as long as the industry makes some improvements in harm mitigation. It also focuses concern on 'some customers', supporting the outdated view that addiction is only a problem of a susceptible minority. But churches and charities argue that research already shows liberalisation has gone too far and too fast and that the Government should return to a default assumption of caution rather than laissez-faire in gambling policy.
Other statements suggest greater awareness that Government policy since 2005 has involved risky liberalisation and that greater regulation is required. The draft legislation requiring all gambling operators selling into the UK market to obtain a license from the Gambling Commission will be introduced as soon as possible. This is necessary to prevent a free for all of unregulated online gambling. Also the Government has retained the right to impose a statutory levy on the gambling industry to provide sufficient funds for research, education and treatment around gambling and problem gambling. This is important as it has not yet been proved that the current system of voluntary donations is sufficient to ensure funds for suitable research.
From 2005 onwards, stakes and prizes on gambling machines have increased, advertising on television and gambling has been legalised and online gaming and advertising has proliferated. The Churches have been among the few groups that have argued the need for caution and public protection. It remains to be seen how the Government will enforce its commitment to ensuring public protection and a balance between the needs of the gambling industry and the bodies that regulate it. This is a small but significant victory for campaigning groups and churches, but those concerned must continue to make their voices heard, locally and nationally.
Monday 28 January 2013
London Launch of Enough Food for Everyone IF
Posted by
Wendy Cooper
at
15:23
The world produces enough food for
everyone, but not everyone has enough food.
Tim Whitby for Getty Images
|
Getting
hundreds of people (myself included) to stand outside for an hour on a very
cold winter’s evening is no mean feat but it happened. Wednesday 23 January saw months of work and planning
come to fruition with events around the country to launch the new campaign
supported by more than 100 NGOs and faith groups, Enough Food for Everyone IF.
In London,
Somerset House with its vast courtyard provided a spectacular setting for the
challenging films and celebrity speeches projected across one wing of the
building. Arriving early with colleagues,
I certainly felt the sense of anticipation that precedes such occasions as people
gathered, young and old, different cultures and backgrounds, all committed to taking
action together to bring an end to the scandal of hunger.
So why a new
campaign this year? The UK assumes the
presidency of the G8 and David Cameron has
committed to hosting a Hunger Summit prior to the G8 Summit in June. It is a crucial opportunity for the UK to show
leadership in tackling the four big IFs:
Aid Enough food for
everyone IF we give enough aid to stop children dying from hunger and help the
poorest families have enough food to live.
Land Enough food for
everyone IF we stop poor farmers being forced off their land, and we grow crops
to feed people not fuel cars.
Tax
Enough food
for everyone IF governments stop big companies dodging tax in poor countries,
so that millions of people can free themselves from hunger.
Transparency
Enough food for everyone IF governments and big companies are open and
honest about the actions that prevent people getting enough food.
IF our leaders
take these steps, it will change the future for millions of people who live
with the day to day struggle of hunger. This year could be the beginning of the
end for global hunger.
Change
happens when motivated individuals persuade others to act with them to tackle
injustice, as evidenced by the campaign to abolish the slave trade (as actor
Bill Nighy reminded us on Wednesday evening), and more recently, Jubilee 2000
and Make Poverty History. But it’s a
long haul. IF is all set to join that
list but this year will only be the start.
The Methodist Church, Methodist
Relief and Development Fund,
the United
Reformed Church and
the URC’s Commitment for Life programme have all signed up to the
campaign and will be helping to resource action and reflection during the year.
There’s an
enormous amount of information already so find out how you, your church and
community can get involved in IF.
Thursday 24 January 2013
Israel's election – rise of moderate centre parties still leaves future negotiations with Palestinians uncertain
Posted by
Steve Hucklesby
at
10:07
In Israel’s election on Tuesday Binyamin Netanyahu’s Likud
Beiteinu polled more than any other party albeit with a substantially reduced
number of seats. The biggest surprise is
the strong showing of the newly formed centrist Yesh Atid party that has
secured 19 Knesset seats. Its leader and
former TV broadcaster Yair Lapid stated before the election that he would only
join a coalition that was seriously
committed to negotiations with the Palestinians[1].
Israel’s system of proportional representation has ensured
that no one party has ever been able to deliver an outright majority in
Government. But yesterday’s election results
were particularly confusing, splitting the Knesset down the middle with 60
seats each for the right wing and Centrist/left blocks. In order to form a government Binyamin
Netanyahu is “reaching across the aisle” to potential centrist coalition
partners such as Yesh Atid.
If, as is likely, Netanyahu succeeds in forming a coalition
involving one or more of the centrist parties, it is doubtful that this would bring
about any significant change of direction on policies towards a peace process.
Firstly we should not attempt to read into the results of
the Tuesday’s election shifts in Israeli public opinion on dealings with the
Palestinians or on policy towards Iran.
While these may be a consideration for voters, domestic issues are the
main priority.
Secondly most in the former right wing coalition had been
looking forward to a clearer policy rejecting any further compromise with
Palestinians and pursuing an assertive and unapologetic policy on illegal settlement
expansion. Netanyahu has a rather
tepid commitment to negotiations with Palestinians but the majority of those on
the Likud Beiteinu Party list do not support negotiations of any form. One Likud Member of the Knesset asserted last
week that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2009 speech calling for a
Palestinian State was no more than a
tactical manoeuvre to placate the world and that the party remains opposed
to the establishment of a Palestinian State.
Yair Lapid has been critical of Netanyahu’s lukewarm approach to
negotiations and supports a near complete withdrawal from the West Bank. But any influence arising from the presence
of centrist parties joining a coalition will be constrained by a mood within
Likud Beiteinu that wants to see the Government to deliver a strong and
punitive response to the Palestinian’s claim for recognition at the UN.
On the other hand, as settlement expansion continues and the
prospects for a two-state solution appear to retreat further into the distance,
a coalition involving Yesh Atid or others from the centre ground could provide a
government that is more responsive to pressure brought to bear by the
international community. But in essence
it would appear that a confused election result does not provide Netanyahu with
a mandate either for conducting meaningful negotiations or for refusing to
negotiate on the future of the Palestinian territories.
[1] Yair Lapid has also made clear that Israel’s
commitment to “an undivided Jerusalem” is not up for negotiation.
Tuesday 11 December 2012
Discipleship in Berlin
Posted by
Jonathan Barr
at
10:57
Germany is definitely the place to be in Advent. The
Tannenbäume and festive decorations glisten in the cold, freshening air. And
they look even better when it snows. The Weihnachtsmärkte liven up the broad
streets with happy shoppers, brass bands and the scents of Bratwurst and
Gluhwein. Reader, be in no doubt: the Germans do the biggest and best Christmas
celebrations in Europe. So, with this in mind, I took off last Friday for a
weekend in Berlin.
The place was indeed
roughly as outlined above. But although it is now a city of bonhomie and party
fun, Berlin was in rather a different mood in December of 1944.
Germany’s armies were being fought back by British and Americans in the West,
and the Russians in the east. And in Berlin the Nazi government was growing
ever more reliant on violent suppression to maintain its hold.
With my raging appetite for Gluhwein momentarily sated I
took a stroll down Wilhelmstraβe, once the very epicentre of the Nazi regime.
The street contained the central offices of the chief organs of Nazi
administration. Most of the original buildings are long gone, but their former
locations are clearly marked. The German army once held parades down this road
in devotion to the Fűhrer. I soon came to Niederkirchnerstraβe, once known as
Prinz-Albrecht-Straβe, where the Gestapo had its headquarters. There is a museum on there now, Topography of
Terror, which details the history of the SA, SS, the Gestapo and the SD and
their brutal crimes.
Yet the heart of Nazi terror is also a monument to startling
Christian discipleship. Lutheran Theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer was imprisoned
here during the winter of 1944. That Christmas he was allowed to write a letter
to his fiancé, Maria von Wedemeyer. He speaks of his joy at being able to write
to her - with an enthusiasm not dissimilar to Paul’s letters from jail - and
sends her these verses which he called a Christmas greeting. They later became
a popular hymn.
By gracious powers so wonderfully
sheltered,
And confidently waiting come what may,
we know that God is with us night and
morning,
and never fails to greet us each new day.
And when this cup You give is filled to
brimming
With bitter suffering, hard to
understand,
We take it thankfully and without
trembling,
Out of so good and so beloved a hand.
“When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die” as
Bonhoeffer wrote elsewhere. I have sung the hymn in church a thousand times or
more, but I had never quite seen the sheer devotion to God and the absolute and
unquestioning surrender to his designs, until I had understood the context and
location in which they were written.
Bonhoeffer was not one who by instinct campaigned against
the powers that be. Rather, he was a man of books and learning. But he found
that the Nazi regime left him no option. In 1939, already a man marked by the
Nazi government, he left the safe haven of America to return to Germany. Most
were travelling the other way. He was an avowed pacifist, but he joined a
resistance group and got involved in the July bomb plot to kill Hitler. This is
true discipleship in the face power. Bonhoeffer sacrificed his safety, his
instincts, and his plans for the sake of a higher purpose.
Discipleship - a word so easily used in church straplines
and Bible focus groups – is a serious, sometimes life-threatening business. Its
high cost, much more than the festive cheer, is surely a thing to remember in
Advent. And few have understood it as well as Bonhoeffer, locked up in
Prinz-Albrecht-Straβe that Christmas of 1944.
Saturday 1 December 2012
Daily Mail Welfare Story - Untrue and Dangerously Misleading
Posted by
Paul Morrison
at
23:59
If I blogged every time
the Daily Mail printed an untruth about people on benefits I wouldn't get away from my laptop very often. But today’s untruth is designed to soften up public opinion for benefit
cuts to be announced on Wednesday – and as such it deserves some examination.
The argument from Government
which is supported by this erroneous article is that the UK cannot afford the
current welfare system and that its costs have spiralled out of control. Affordability
is a value judgement – is the benefit of our Welfare system worth the price.
The price however is a matter of fact. A useful understanding of the price is can
be informed by data and is all too easily misinformed by distortions and
untruths.
The key line in the
article is “In 1948 spending on benefits
accounted for 10.4% of Britain’s total income, against 24.2% this year.” This
is under no circumstances true.
National Income is a term that
generally refers to the Gross National Product* (GNP). “Benefits” is a
difficult term to define but to illustrate I have produced a graph showing both
the Office of National Statistics and the Department of Work and Pensions
figures at their very largest. They include, in size order, pensions (over half
of total spending), sickness and disability, Tax credits (ONS only) income
support, unemployment (under 5% of total spending) and various other money
transfers. It is a graph of Welfare spending as a proportion of GDP over time
from 1979 to 2012/13. These are the numbers I have to hand – but the point is clear – Welfare spending is a lot less than 24.2%
Graph of Welfare spending as a proportion of GDP data available Data |
You may notice something
else – that using the very sensible measure of Welfare spending as
proportion of GDP welfare spending is still lower than the mid-1990s.
Not something you will hear Government spokespeople saying. Indeed the article
quotes an increase in 60% of benefits under Labour – I am sure there is a way
of defining the terms such that this is true – I am equally certain it is at
best a small fraction of the truth.
Other points made in the
article are that the state pension has trebled since 1948 and unemployment
benefit has doubled. I wouldn’t take the numbers at face value as the make up
of the benefits has changed markedly eg. Pension credit, contributory pension,
housing benefit, winter fuel allowance and other transfers may or may not be
included in the comparison. It is important to realise that neither the state pension
nor unemployment benefits have kept pace with the average wage for over 30 years.
Recipients of only these basic benefits are in reality a great deal poorer than
the 1980s.
Can we afford the current Welfare Budget?
In cash terms and real
terms (where the numbers are adjusted for inflation) Welfare expenditure has
increased – a great deal. Our personal incomes and national income has also
increased a great deal – in recent years faster than the welfare budget.
The question is do we
think the old, the sick and the vulnerable (who make up the vast majority of
welfare recipients) should share in our increased national wealth? The
alternative is that these groups become increasingly disadvantaged relative to
the rest of the population. If, as I do, you think these people should not be
gradually disadvantaged the comparison of national income to welfare spending
is the most important measure to use. In which case we have afforded greater
than the current welfare levels in the past and should not accept the argument that
we are unable to afford it now.
Link to the data – workbook include graphs of the groups receiving
benefits over time, essentially working age families decreasing as a proportion
of spending and retired age families increasing.
*The term “total income”
might mean the UK Govt’s tax take but that doesn't get to
24.2%. My best guess is that the number is derived from the ONS welfare expenditure, which is the largest measure available, and projected to be 24.17% of the Total Govt's managed expenditure in 2013/14 - nothing like "Britians Total Income".
Thursday 29 November 2012
Palestinian statehood and need for continued reform
Posted by
Steve Hucklesby
at
23:17
News has just come through on the vote at the UN recognising Palestine as a “non-member State” and Palestinians are celebrating the streets. Several European states decided in the past few days not to oppose the vote that President Mahmoud Abbas has described as issuing "a birth certificate for the State of Palestine".
Leaders within the Palestinian Authority need to use this moment to press ahead with reconciliation and reform. The Palestinian Authority is restricted in its ability to
govern by the Israeli occupation and cannot be said to be truly sovereign even
within the West Bank. However even within the constraints imposed by occupation it must demonstrate its competence to represent diverse Palestinian interests well. Over the
past decade the Palestinian Authority has developed from a dysfunctional body with no popular mandate to
an administration that shows an increasing capacity to deliver essential
services, albeit highly dependent on outside donors and the willingness of the Government of Israel to pass aid funds on. Currently corruption within the Palestinian Authority still
remains a significant problem although some progress has been made.
If the people of Palestine are to capitalise on their non-member State observer status at the UN, the Palestinian Authority must walk the walk that even UN “non-membership”
implies and demonstrate to the world it is ready
to move to full sovereignty. The
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights documents the abuse of basic rights in both the
West Bank and Gaza. These include;
police violence (beatings etc), the use of torture by security services, the
constraint on press freedom (particularly with respect to articles supportive of
either Hamas or Fatah in the West Bank and in Gaza respectively) and the use of
military courts without due legal process.
To be in compliance with the core values of the UN, Hamas must be
unequivocal in its renouncement of attacks against civilians and show greater
willingness to promote the path of non-violence.
There have been positive developments. In October local elections were held in 92 of353 municipalities in the West Bank for the first time for 6 years. But they were boycotted by Hamas who alleged
threats, intimidation and arrests of potential candidates.
At the UN, President Abbas is first and foremost
asserting the rights of all Palestinians to self-determination but he is also
appealing for the Palestinian Authority to be recognised as a body capable of
managing the internal affairs of a future sovereign Palestinian state. For this appeal to be taken seriously Fatah
and Hamas must work on implementing the reconciliation agreement of May 2011
(and subsequent agreements since), achieve progress on human rights,
accountability and transparency, and conduct free and fair elections. This would, no doubt, result in further
pressure on Israel to end the occupation.
Labels:
Abbas,
Fatah,
Hamas,
Israel,
non-member,
Palestine,
Palestinian Authority,
UN,
UNGA
Wednesday 28 November 2012
Government consultation on the price of alcohol in England and Wales
Posted by
James North
at
12:52
At long last, the Government's alcohol strategy consultation is out. The alcohol strategy, published in March 2012, includes a commitment to introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol and to consult on the appropriate price. This applies to England and Wales. The Scottish Parliament has already approved legislation for a minimum unit price of 50p, but the Scotch Whisky Association made a court challenge in July, and Bulgaria has indicated that it intends to make a similar challenge under EU competition law. Minimum pricing is already under considation in Northern Ireland. The consultation invites responses on various other proposals, including a ban on multi-buy discounts and making health a licensing objective for responsible authorities.
Medical research has concluded that minimum pricing is the most effective policy to reduce alcohol misuse which is causing serious and rising health problems and strongly implicated in many social problems like domestic violence and child neglect.
Methodist, Baptist and United Reformed Churches joined with other churches and charities and wrote to the Prime Minister in January 2012, calling on him to ensure that the Government implements minimum pricing without delay. David Cameron supports this policy, but the Cabinet is divided. The initial objective of the Churches' Measure for Measure campaign - to make the case for minimum pricing - was successful, but it is vital that Government act resolutely in the face of strong industry pressure and implement it at an effective price.
Unfortunately, it is a policy that often confuses people. This makes it easy for those with contrary political or economic interests to repeat half-truths or even errors, such as that it is a 'tax', that it will penalise moderate drinkers or that there is no proof it will work. In 2011 our churches produced this FAQ document which answers the most common objections.
With Scotland looking to introduce a 50p minimum price, it would make little sense for England and Wales to set theirs lower. Initial Goverment figures quoted 40p and it is likely that 45p will be the assumed figure in the debate during the consultation period. A unified 50p unit price would spread the health benefits to the whole UK and has been identified as the optimal price for limiting the worst effects of excessively cheap, strong alcohol. It would also remove the incentive to illicit cross-border trade.
We will give further updates when our Churches publish their official response. But if you are concerned about the harm caused by problem drinking, please do take a moment to complete the online consultation form - the deadline is 6 February 2013.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)