Tim Montgomerie was until recently the editor of Tory blog Conservative Home, He’s recently been appointed as Comment Editor for The Times.
In The Times of 1st April he writes an Op Ed piece with the headline “Christians must put families first, not politics.” In order to read the article you either need to buy the newspaper or have a subscription to the web site. As it happens I do both but unfortunately The Times won’t allow links to articles on the web site to Facebook for example. So I’ll précis his article.
I don’t know whether Tim Montgomerie is a Christian but if not, he clearly knows his quotable Christian writers with an opening quote from Tony Campolo and a closing reference to Philip Yancey. The Campolo quote is the old chestnut of the Campolo lecturing his congregation on the importance of giving:
"I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."
It’s a good story. But what relevance it has to Tim Mongomerie’s dubious argument remains to be seen.
Montgomerie firstly criticises Lord Carey’s recent claim that David Cameron was “overseeing an age in which Christians feel persecuted.” Montgomerie (rightly) says that persecution of Christians is a huge problem in the Middle East but is hardly so here. Then Montgomerie says how the Torys have shown support for Christian schools and have continued giving aid to developing countries. Instead says Montgomerie we had another moan from Lord Carey about gay marriage. And this only goes to reinforce the view held by many younger people that the church simply doesn’t understand the modern world.
Personally, as I have blogged before, I’m in two minds over the gay marriage issue. And I don’t need to discuss that again here. But Mr. Montgomerie neatly side steps a couple of points. 1. That many Conservatives are opposed to gay marriage and 2. Most denominations do feel let down by the way the Government has pushed this through.
Sorry Anglican friends, but to me Lord Carey speaks for the Tory party at prayer wing of the Anglican Church so I’m not too excited about what he has to say. And I can take Tim Montgomerie having a swipe at the noble Lord.
But what made my blood boil this morning was the second part of Montgomerie’s article. And here I quote:
“Lord Carey is not the only leading Christian who has lost touch with modern realities. Yesterday, on Easter Sunday, four leading churches signed a joint letter questioning the government’s welfare cuts. Churches that were silent when youth unemployment soared under Labour have suddenly found their voice when a Conservative led government fights to ensure that more people look for a job rather than to the state for their income.”
I’ve had a quick look on the internet and from some statistics I’ve found that yes youth unemployment did grow in the last years of the Brown government and has continues to grow ever since. But the growth ties in with the general down turn in the economy. And must people agree this was caused by the banks – and the churches have said much about them.
Montgomerie then says more focus should be on the family. And apparently churches don’t say enough about families. This is of course utter nonsense as Tim Montgomerie has clearly never heard of the work of Christian charities such as “Care for the family” and charities such as “Action for children” with Christian values. There is a lot of work Christians do with families.
Tim Montgomerie says:
“If you want my theory why the West is in trouble I’d nominate the collapse of the family as a major cause.”
That may be a factor Tim. But what about the greed values instilled by your pin up girl Margaret Thatcher for example? How damaging have they been?
According to Montgomerie:
“Strong families are better carers of the young, the sick, the old and the disabled than the State.”
They are also essential to education and apparently produce the best nurses too. And no doubt Mr. Montgomerie would argue strong families are able to leap tall buildings with a single bound, not just stop locomotives but lay the tracks they run on too.
Actually, strong families are important to Society, I believe that. And I believe that strong families which are based on a religious ethos have much to offer. But the inference from Tom Montgomerie’s article is that strong families aren’t dependent on welfare but are wholly self-sufficient. And consequently families on benefits aren't strong families.
Well he is wrong. There can be strong families who do need welfare support. And the point of the Poverty & Lies report produced by the Methodist Church, Baptist Church, United Reformed Church and the Church of Scotland is to scotch the myths – no lies – that are peddled about people on benefits. Some people receiving benefits do so because they are low paid.
Tim Montgomerie concludes his piece by quoting another Christian writer Philip Yancey and his book “What’s so amazing about grace?” A favourite book of mine. Montgomerie cites Yancey’s retelling of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. What relation this has to his piece is questionable other than proving a connection with family.
“No civilization can be built without family and its celebration should be the Church’s primary social proclamation.”
No! The Church’s primary proclamation is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ and bring in the Kingdom. And that means values of justice and peace love and compassion. Values for families and everyone.
"Churches that were silent when youth unemployment soared under Labour have suddenly found their voice when a Conservative led government fights to ensure that more people look for a job rather than to the state for their income."
ReplyDeleteYour piece deals with the first part of the passage – the rise in youth unemployment likely relates more to wider economic factors than the policy of the then government. The churches were far from silent throughout about the issues arising though this period.
"Conservative led government" - actually, I thought it was a coalition, though it's not surprising that Montgomerie would wish to ascribe the credit for policies he clearly agrees with to the party he supports.
I resent the implication that the churches' intervention is motivated by party or political allegiance. Rather than confronting the churches' arguments, Montgomerie implicitly asserts, in line with the prevailing political spin, that the churches' intervention is part of a left wing conspiracy. As you say, David, the churches work from the Gospel imperative to social justice, not a political standpoint. If the churches were working from political standpoint, they would be in danger of stepping outside their charitable objectives. The churches have members from across the political parties.
"fights to ensure that more people look for a job rather than to the state for their income" – yet the political spin being put on these policies is that this is about making society fairer by cutting welfare expenditure for which "ordinary hard-working taxpayers" must pay, continuing the damaging "us and them" rhetoric, and ignoring the number of in-work families on benefits.
The outgoing benefits system already required everyone of working age who was not precluded from working by disability or other responsibilities (as a carer or lone parent of a young child) actively to seek work as a condition of receiving benefit.
Montgomerie assumes sanctions are an effective part of welfare policy. I would expect research testing whether sanctions for those who failed to keep to their Jobseekers' Agreement were an effective tool in getting people into employment to find sanctions are not commonly imposed, leaving them weakly effective at best and an idle threat in many cases.
The main reasons behind unemployment may well be lack of jobs, lack of relevant skills for the available jobs, responsibilities limiting the ability to relocate for work or the hours available to work, or because taking available work would result in losing money. These reforms attempt to address the last of these factors. The remaining factors require effective support for business and education, not payment by results contracts with private providers (the Work Programme), and "work trials" (Work Experience) where employers controversially can keep taking benefits claimants rather than paying staff minimum wage to do the work.
Payment by results encourages private providers to take a commercial view towards the Work Programme. Efforts will be focused on those who need minimal help to find employment, such as recent graduates, who tend to be young, fit and mobile. The success fees available cannot justify expensive, heroic and potentially futile efforts to change the ways of the small proportion of claimants determined to obstruct steps to move them into work.
I suspect very few lack of motivation to seek work because it is easier to sit on benefit. Who would deliberately choose a life where your choices are severely limited by lack of money, it can be hard to keep yourself warm, clothed and fed, and there is little you can do to change your circumstances other than find work. Are those demotivated in their search for work not more likely to be demotivated by the growing sense of futility each time they unsuccessfully apply for a job?