Why Bishop Packer was wrong in his amendment
By Andrew Carey, CEN
Church of England bishops this week have placed themselves in a difficult position. By leading opposition to the benefits cap of £26,000 they’ve taken a highly divisive position. They risk alienating churchgoers and stand accused of interfering in party politics. It is all very well to hark back to the days when the Church of England was regarded as a more effective opposition than the Labour Party to Margaret Thatcher’s far more modest reforms and cuts.
With news that Britain’s debt stands at one trillion pounds, albeit with public spending beginning to come under control, it is clear that there is much more pain to come for all of us. The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, John Packer, was wrong in tabling this amendment in the first place. It is not just that I disagree with him. A clear case can be made for the fact that the medium- and long-term effect of these changes will be to bring inflationary housing rents down and that the pain felt by some families will be temporary. Yet in reforming welfare, the government also needs to demonstrate to the long-term unemployed that work pays better than benefits.
We do no favours to some families, trapped in welfare dependency, by pretending that living on the dole can be a way of life. It is simply an unsustainable position both for these families and workers who must sometimes wonder whether work really pays.
Bishop Packer was wrong to table this amendment because he has crossed a line from warning about the possible consequences of government policy to interfering in the political process. I do not believe that this is the role of Bishops. The fact is that when they cross this line, they become political leaders, rather than moral leaders.
The onus is now on Bishop Packer to make an economic and social policy argument about where he believes welfare savings can be found and how reform can be accomplished.
Let me add that I do not believe the five bishops in the House of Lords on Monday evening were wrong to vote against the government nor to make a moral argument that children will be the first to suffer from the benefits cap. It is in the active step of opposition by tabling an amendment that Bishop Packer has stepped across the line.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
