The ecclesiastical establishment and the election: 3

When the Church of Scotland magazine, Life & Work, published the thoughts of the Rt. Rev. William Hewitt and the Rev. Ian Galloway, they also spoke to four other figures who might be described as part of the ecclesiastical establishment. For the sake of completeness, I will report their comments, and give my brief thoughts thereon.

1. The Rev. Iain McLarty, Moderator of the Church of Scotland's Youth Assembly:

“It may be a cliché that youth and idealism go together but youth involvement in politics always seems to peak when there are large moral issues to be dealt with such as civil rights and opposition to war.
“The Obama campaign was successful in gaining the support of young people because it gave them a vision of radical change to support. Politicians need to be aware of these issues that energise young people because they are often the big issues which are given political lip service in manifestos before getting lost among the smaller battles fought every day.
“While nobody would deny that this election is primarily about the economy, we need to make sure that issues such as climate change and global poverty are not ignored, both adversely affected by the economic downturn and needing urgent action if their effects are not to become irreversible.
"These are also issues where the churches are particularly vocal. Perhaps this concurrence is unsurprising given the idealistic message of the Christian faith but it is worth bearing in mind when thinking about how we as a church can
influence the political agenda.”

Much of this is basically praise of idealism - which is good, as long as one remembers that in the political realm idealism is often naive and sometimes seriously misguided. In terms of policy, there is a realisation that the economy is the main issue in the election, but a desire that climate change and global poverty should be further up the agenda of the parties.

2. Betty Dunn, National Convenor, Church of Scotland Guild:

"The Guild’s current Theme is “Called to Act Justly”, and its major concerns have been issues of justice, including human trafficking, prostitution, domestic abuse, conflict and poverty - all issues where faith engages with politics.
Speaking personally, I’d highlight several key areas for which all parties must have clear strategies as we approach the election.
The global financial crisis will have long-term consequences for our children as well as us. As families struggle with debt and unemployment here, we’re also conscious of world debt and the need for fairness for the poorest countries.
Social issues like health care, elderly care, and support for families are priorities in both building a healthy society and addressing the violence and callousness often driven by alcohol and drug abuse. A better way must be found for housing immigrants to our country and quicker processes developed to establish their legal status. Overcrowded detention centres and prisons aren’t helping towards a more just and safe society. And Afghanistan, with its tragic losses, must be a foreign policy priority. Sadly of late, many politicians have been found to be lacking in honesty and integrity in public life and perhaps total transparency in government will be a significant factor as people go to the polls."

A lot of issues covered there, none in any great detail.

3. The Rev Kathy Galloway, Head of Christian Aid Scotland:

“Christian Aid Scotland is asking people to Vote Global, that is to do all they can to make this General Election count for the world’s poor. These are the questions we’d like to hear answers to. Tax dodging by unscrupulous multinational companies denies poor countries at least $160 billion a year. This is more than one and a half times the amount poor countries receive in aid. With greater transparency in companies financial reporting, developing countries could claw back this money for health, education, and fighting poverty. In line with our Tax Justice Campaign, we’ll be asking ‘What would you do to tackle the tax havens and make sure that everyone pays the taxes they owe, so all countries can continue to invest in vital public services?
A ‘Robin Hood Tax’ of just 0.05% on International Financial Transactions could raise billions to tackle climate change and poverty. Do you back this idea?”
And, along with all organisations concerned with global poverty, we’ll be asking the climate question: Climate change kills 300,000 people every year, mostly in poorer countries. What would your party do to stop further climate change and ensure sufficient funding to help developing countries cope."

This is much more specific. Climate change is a crucial issue, and we are told that it kills 300,000 people every year. Something in me is just instantly sceptical about such a claim, and it turns out that I am not the only one. Mrs. Galloway quotes this statistic as if it is proven fact. Does she know that it is merely a questionable guestimate?

Her other interest is tax. She wants some businesses to pay more. Now, I'm completely opposed to people and businesses using dishonesty to avoid paying taxes. But can I actually believe the facts that she quotes?

And more to the point, the assumption in her argument is that it is better for money to be in the hands of governments (and, in particular, politicians in developing countries) rather than in the hands of employees and shareholders. (After all, where else do profits of multinational companies go?) I think that this assumption is very questionable.

I'm very interested in her use of the term "Robin Hood Tax", by the way. It seems like an admission that such a tax is basically a form of theft.

4. Lynne Paterson, Tearfund Scotland:

"Around a fifth of voters in marginal seats - and many of our campaigning supporters and churches - include climate change in their top priority issues ahead of the General Election. some 85% of the UK population support the use of renewable energy. No party can ignore this when close political battlegrounds will go to the wire on myriad issues - all competing for coverage. In presents an opportunity for UK environmental and development charities to ensure that the demand for tough action on climate change is heard on doorsteps by prospective candidates. We are urging people to ask them the climate question.
Tearfund, as part of the Ask the Climate Question coalition, has been central to campaigning at UK and international levels for the reduction of carbon emissions. Working together with our church partner organisations worldwide we see the effects of catastrophic climate change on the poorest communities.
We can also do our bit to limit the emissions through lifestyle changes. Moreover, when it matters to us that climate change is urgent and candidates of all parties need to prioritise it, it matters considerably more to the 500 million people globally that are currently at risk from climate related disasters.
This isn’t about telling people how to vote. It’s about ensuring that votes count for the urgent issues and that no party avoids the climate question. Make sure you ask it."

So, for Tearfund Scotland, there is basically only one issue at the election: climate change. What can one say? Is Lynne Paterson oblivious to the fact that the science is not actually settled? Is she unaware that a high proportion of the British electorate are sceptical about anthropogenic climate change? Has she followed the debate? Has she read A W Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion?

In fact Tearfund knows very well that this is a matter for debate. However, it has decided that it knows what the truth is, and has put together a briefing to help supporters respond to the sceptics. In other words, Tearfund is not just in the business of providing development aid and disaster relief, it is also in the business of propaga education. Sadly, many aid agencies seem to take a similar line. It is one thing for Tearfund to believe that anthropogenic climate change is taking place. It is another for it to take upon itself the role of propagandist for that view.

Summary: So that's six voices from the ecclesiastical establishment on the subject of the General Election. Compared to the leaflet produced by the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, it's really quite disappointing. Much of what is said is vague, and when specific comments are made, they are often tendentious. The CBCEW leaflet is, by contrast, carefully worded and well thought out - even if I don't agree with all of it. One gets the impression that the Catholic bishops take the General Election more seriously.

And do you notice what's left out? None of the six said anything at all about liberty or freedom. They didn't even hint at it. They either have not noticed the erosion of freedom of speech in modern Britain, or it doesn't concern them at all. The bishops, even though they did not use the words 'liberty' or 'freedom' showed an awareness that there is a problem.