Major repairs at Saltaire United Reformed Church (URC) in Yorkshire, a Grade I listed building that sits within Saltaire World Heritage site, will be enabled thanks to a grant of £2million from the National Churches Trust.
Saltire URC is one of 15 historic churches and Quaker meetings houses that will share the funding from the Heritage Stimulus Fund — part of the government’s Culture Recovery Fund.
Holmes Lane,
Rustington,
BN16 2PY
Bridging Political Divides In An Election Year At JPIT we orient our work around six hopes for society, one of which is that politics will be characterised by listening, kindness and truthfulness. While politics has always been a mucky business, the 24 hour media cycle, and the ability to carry the news around in our pockets and commentate on the issues in real time means that now, more than ever, we can’t escape it. Reading the news, watching the theatrical uproar of Prime Ministers Questions, seeing politicians endlessly finger pointing, and watching people shout past each other on social media, this hope can seem like a naïve and completely unrealistic dream. Since the Brexit referendum, latent political and social fractures in the UK have been uncovered in a new light. In the years since the referendum, political debate seems to have become more divisive. It often appears that politicians fan the flames of division for their own political gain. These divisions are further exacerbated by the fact that, despite globalisation and the internet, we exist in ever-narrowing echo chambers. More and more, we spend time with people who think and act like us in the online and the real world. While it is a well-worn truism, we do live in polarised times. With an election coming up sometime in the months ahead, my fear is that the election campaign will play to the worst instincts of politics and society, and see parties and candidates playing off division and fear to win the election. I believe that the challenges that the UK and wider world are facing, from growing inequality, to the climate crisis and international conflicts, are too big and too important for us to give in to fear, paralysis, apathy and blame games. We need robust and searching public debate of the issues and we need creative political solutions. If this all sounds pie in the sky to you, let me just say that I completely understand. My instinct is to hunker down, disengage, make some tea and turn on a TV show. We can’t control what the Government, opposition parties, political pundits and candidates are saying. However, we are responsible for the quality of political debate we engage in, and the conversations we have in our communities, families, friendship groups, workplaces and churches. Having constructive discussions amidst disagreement over the things that matter is not easy. Looking to the church, I often feel that it is at its most gracious and beautiful when it is able to be a space of diversity and unity. It is also clear that fellowship amidst diversity of experience and thought is hard. However, I think this is when the commandments to ‘love your neighbour’ and ‘love your enemy’ are at their most costly and most important. In the run-up to the election, while we should go into discussions aware that they may not be easy, there are many reasons to be hopeful, to believe that constructive disagreement is possible, and maybe even welcome. For starters, the UK is less polarised than we think. In a piece of research that took 18 months and was the product of thousands of interviews with Britons across all political and social spectrums, More In Common and found that there was far greater overlap on political values and issues than expected.[1] There is also hope in that research has shown that polarisation and preconceptions reduce when people spend time with those they disagree with, or create diverse social networks.[2] Moreover, research shows that the vast majority of people in the UK want to try to disagree well and don’t want to give into tribalism. Indeed, 91% of Britons of all political persuasions want to have these conversations and believe that we can disagree and come together.[3] In the midst of a political landscape that feels intractably divided, I find it very hopeful to know that in reality we have more in common than we believe. The challenge we are left with becomes, how do we break out of our echo chambers? How do we have productive conversations when we disagree? How do we find the common ground and how do we use this ground to tackle the immense challenges we are facing today together? This brief resource sets out some pointers to support us in having constructive conversations in the lead up to the election. [1] 0917-mic-uk-britain-s-choice_report_dec01.pdf (britainschoice.uk) [2] Political polarization and its echo chambers: Surprising new, cross-disciplinary perspectives from Princeton [3] Ibid. Source
On 22 April the global military spending figures for the 2023 were released, and perhaps unsurprisingly, spending has increased across the world, with total global military expenditure reaching $2443 billion in 2023.[1] For the first time, all five continents saw an increase in military expenditure, with a 6.8% increase from 2022.[2] Spending in each of the five geographical areas increased: 2.2% in the Americas, 4.4% in Asia and Oceania, 16% in Europe, 9% in the Middle East, 22% in Africa These figures clearly suggest that military expenditure is being prioritised, particularly in most of the wealthiest nations (including the UK), as a response to greater insecurity. It is often claimed that the main responsibility of a Government to keep its people safe and secure, yet this tends to be seen only in terms of ‘national security’, rather than an alternative framing of ‘human security’ or even a ‘sustainable security’ that often accords better with people’s felt needs.[3] So, many governments are choosing to prioritise spending on military and defence in an attempt to bring about security, rather than tackling major systemic issues that also cause huge insecurity nationally and globally, such as poverty, the climate crisis, and inequality. If these issues were tackled, people across the world would experience hugely increased security, and the causes of many conflicts and wars would disappear, and in turn, there would be far less perceived need for military spending. Why is military spending increasing? To put it simply, there is increasing insecurity and conflict across all of these geographical areas, resulting in countries increasing their military spending. According to the UN, a quarter of humanity lives in conflict-affected areas.[4] For many NATO states, the war between Russia and Ukraine is the main reason for increased spending, as well as increasing tensions and violence in the Middle East. In Asia, China, which has the second largest military budget, keeps increasing military spending and neighbouring countries are, in turn, increasing their spending in response. Unsurprisingly, increased tensions and war in the Middle East have increased spending in that region, but also globally. In 2023, Israel’s military spending increased by 24%, and it is the second largest spender in the region, after Saudi Arabia. In Central America and the Caribbean, military spending has increased in response to organised crime and greater violence, such as in Haiti and Mexico. Africa saw the biggest increase, and particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where military spending increased by 105% due to the ongoing conflict between the government and non-state armed groups. South Sudan’s miliary spending also increased significantly, by 78%, because of internal violence and the recent civil war. Interestingly, Algeria saw a 76% increase after experiencing increased profits from gas exports , as European countries stopped buying gas from Russia.[5] UK military spending announcement, 23 April In a speech on 23 April, Rishi Sunak announced that UK defence spending would increase to 2.5% of GDP by 2030, to reach £87 billion a year. For context, this is 4.8 times more than the budget for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which is responsible for most of the UK’s international development budget. It is 7.2 times more than the budget of the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero, which is responsible for the Government’s spending on climate action.[6] Sunak announced that this increased military spending would be directed to three areas in particular: Strengthening UK defence, to the rapid production of ‘next generation’ munitions Modernising the Armed Forces Backing Ukraine’s defence, including an additional £500 million this year, and a commitment to continue to support Ukraine. Alternative approaches to defence “In a world that is the most dangerous it has been since the end of the Cold War, we cannot be complacent. As our adversaries align, we must do more to defend our country, our interests, and our values” – Rishi Sunak’s speech, 23 April 2024[7] Rethinking Security The Ammerdown Group (a partnership of NGOs and think tanks) produced the Rethinking Security report, emphasising the need for focusing on the longer term, and tackling the root causes of insecurity. It recognises that the security of each nation is intrinsically connected to the security of other nations, as we can see with the climate crisis, natural disasters and diseases. It emphasises the need for a global approach to security, because it is impossible for individual countries to achieve long-term security if the rest of the world does not. It is crucial to recognise that all people need safety and security in a much wider sense, that of ‘human security’. For a government to truly uphold its responsibility of keeping people safe, it needs to actively protect and act against threats to human security such as poverty, disease, inequality, the climate crisis, financial issues, natural disasters, unstable living conditions, insecure housing or jobs, as well as violence and conflict, not by simply increasing military spending. ‘Sustainable security’ builds on this human security model, and goes further, recognising the need for long term plans and thinking about the future. Another important aspect to rethinking security is to approach it from the perspectives of often excluded and marginalised groups, for example those in poverty, communities of colour, displaced peoples, those experiencing the worst effects of the climate crisis. It is also important to note that often these groups overlap or are the same. It is interesting, and sad, that what many perceive as security, such as increased military spending, tighter borders, policing, more often than not have the opposite impact on these marginalised groups, decreasing their security and safety further. Reducing the insecurity from all these other threats would in turn reduce the threats to national security, as so many conflicts and wars are caused by threats to human security. The report urges that the climate crisis must be at the centre of rethinking security, and move away from military security to sustainable security at the same time as moving away from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Conflict prevention and transformation […]
The Prime Minister’s speech and press release on disability benefits last week was depressingly familiar. The formula of “moral mission”, “unsustainable cost”, “toughen-up testing” followed by a bit of “they are gaming the system” has been used repeatedly over the past decade – a decade in which the benefit system failed to prevent a huge rise in poverty, hunger, foodbank use and destitution. It seems unlikely that the same rhetoric, leading to more extreme versions of the same policies, will lead to different outcomes this time. There has been much criticism of the speech around its “insulting” and “harmful” rhetoric towards those who need support and his use of the unhelpful phrase “sick-note culture”. To me the Prime Minister appeared utterly disconnected from reality when he expressed pride in the benefit system and used the word “generous” to describe “our safety net” when half of Universal Credit claimants regularly skip meals, 1 in 10 British families are food insecure and 3.8 million people experience destitution. However, the premise of the speech has gone almost unnoticed behind the other controversies, and it is worth examining. The stated motivation for the speech was an assertion that post pandemic there are lots of people, especially young people, who are “economically inactive”, mostly because of mental illness – and that this is a substantive cause of our economic problems. That may be the story the Government wants to tell, but it is not a story the evidence supports. Levels of economic inactivity are actually low The UK has a lower rate of absence from work than any major economy bar South Korea, which makes the charge of “sick-note culture” seem odd. You may be surprised to know that economic inactivity levels in the UK are well below average for other major economies. You might also be surprised to learn that the levels of economic activity – usually defined as adults not working (or actively looking for work) – are at historic lows. The graph below is of people aged 16-64 not in work for any reason – from sickness or disability to being in full time education, all the way through to early retirement. There has been larger than usual variations since the pandemic, but the UK remains well below the average for the past 10, 20 or 30 years. In context the current numbers are unusual – not because we have an epidemic of inactivity but for exactly the opposite reason – that they are historically and internationally low. While the country faces huge economic challenges, they are not to be found in high levels of inactivity. As for young people, the proportion of 16-24 year-olds not in work is indeed higher than before the pandemic, but if you look at the proportion not in work or education the number is 15%: exactly the same as before the pandemic. It would appear young people are not suffering from a ‘sick-note culture’ but a culture of education and self-improvement. Young adults educating themselves would seem an improbable cause of our economic problems. Benefit claims The speech and much of the commentary has conflated economic inactivity with benefits claims. Economically inactive people often do not qualify for or claim benefits (e.g. homemakers, students or those who have retired early). That means that the economic inactivity numbers are only very loosely related to the benefit claimant numbers. The Government’s assertions about rising benefit claims are hard to disentangle because consistent statistics that enable comparison over time are not available. There are currently two generations of the benefits system co-existing. For the out of work, Employment Support Allowance (ESA) is gradually being replaced by Universal Credit. Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is designed compensate for the additional costs of having a disability regardless of employment status, meaning many claiming this are in work. PIP is in the process of partially replacing the earlier Disability Living Allowance (DLA). A change in the numbers for any of these benefits, separately or combined, may be due to moves between benefits, changes in eligibility criteria between benefits, or an increase in new claims. A further complication is that as the pension age increases, the number of people encompassed by the term “working age” has changed over the past few years. 60- to 66-year-olds are now included in the figures and are much more likely to have a medical condition or disability than younger groups. It is possible to create consistent data so useful comparisons of the long-term trends can be done, but the Government has chosen[1] not to, (although some academics have done their best with the published information). What story fits the data? We can say with confidence that a historically and internationally high proportion of the population is in employment. The Government insists that employment improves both poverty and mental health – however we also know that on a population level that as employment rates went up, so too did poverty, destitution, hunger, and mental health issues – even before the pandemic accelerated the trends. It seems counter intuitive but for the past decade in the UK, higher employment, higher poverty and worse mental health all went hand in hand. That policy makers are not more interested in this is frankly astonishing. We can also say with confidence that mental health issues are increasing, and that this is an important factor in why many people become economically inactive, especially over the long term. This has been the trend for 25 years which the data suggests the pandemic sped it up. The record NHS waiting lists, and the mental and physical health hangover from the pandemic are also likely to be significant factors. The increases in PIP applications referenced by the PM are neither surprising, nor in the context of a nation the size of the UK, particularly large. Tougher tests and less money won’t improve mental health Just as the rhetoric of the Prime Minister’s speech was depressingly familiar, so were the policy prescriptions. The unevidenced accusation that people […]
Senior leaders from the Baptist, Methodist and United Reformed Churches have joined Anglican and Catholic Bishops to express their gratitude for those who work alongside refugees and asylum seekers, in the face of rising hostility and unjust malignment of this support from some quarters in recent weeks. In a joint statement, issued following the passing of the Safety of Rwanda Bill through parliament and news of further lives tragically lost in the English Channel overnight, they voice concern that asylum seekers and refugees have been used as a “political football”. Reiterating the commitment of the churches to caring for the most vulnerable, they pledge to work in good faith with the Home Office on improvements to the asylum system. The full statement reads: “We retain deep misgivings about the Safety of Rwanda Bill, passed in Parliament last night, for the precedent it sets at home and for other countries in how we respond to the most vulnerable. This includes victims of modern slavery and children wrongly assessed as adults, whom we have a duty to protect. As leaders in Christian churches we wish to express our profound gratitude to those who live out Jesus’s call to feed and clothe the poor, and to welcome the stranger, through their work with asylum seekers and refugees, at times in the face of opposition and prejudice. We note with sadness and concern the rise in hostility towards those who come to these islands seeking refuge and the way in which the treatment of the refugee and asylum seeker has been used as a political football. We are disappointed that the kindness and support offered by churches and charities to the people at the heart of this debate – those fleeing war, persecution and violence trying to find a place of safety – has been unjustly maligned by some for political reasons. In their response to the tragic attack in Clapham earlier this year, some former Home Office ministers, MPs and other commentators sought to portray churches and clergy as deliberately facilitating false asylum claims. It was for this reason, at the request of Anglican leaders, that representatives of our Churches met the Home Secretary in February. When asked, neither he nor officials could provide evidence to support the allegations of widespread abuse. Home Office Ministers have since confirmed this in a written parliamentary answer, and on questioning by the Home Affairs Select Committee. Follow-up meetings have since been agreed to promote closer cooperation and co-working between the churches and the Home Office. Like so many in this country, we seek to support a system that shows compassion, justice, transparency and speed in its decisions. We grieve the appalling loss of life in the Channel today. There may be differences between our churches and Government on the means by which our asylum system can be fair, effective and respecting of human dignity, but we do agree that borders must be managed and that vulnerable people need protection from people smugglers. We have pledged to continue to work with the Home Office, and we do so in good faith.” Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell Bishop Paul McAleenan, Lead Bishop for Migrants and Refugees, Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales Bishop of Southwark, Christopher Chessun Revd Lynn Green, General Secretary, The Baptist Union of Great Britain Revd Dr Tessa Henry-Robinson, United Reformed Church General Assembly Moderator Revd Gill Newton, President of the Methodist Conference Source
An open letter, signed by over 250 organisations from across civil society in the UK, including the Baptist, Methodist and United Reformed Churches and the Church of Scotland, has been sent to the Prime Minister following the passing of the Government’s Rwanda Act. The organisations have come together to make a stand against the Government’s Rwanda Plan, which they say breaks international law and “abandons our duty to share in the global responsibility towards those forced to seek safety”. The Rwanda Act is described in the letter as “a shameful and performatively cruel law that will risk people’s lives”, whilst the UK Government is accused of rewriting facts following the UK Supreme Court’s ruling that Rwanda is not a safe country in which to send refugees. The letter has been signed by charities, human rights organisations, organisations supporting children, women, LGBTQ+, and disabled communities, and faith groups. Signatures across the refugee sector include the Refugee Council, JCWI, Jesuit Refugee Service UK, Detention Action, Refugee Action, Freedom from Torture and Care4Calais. Other high profile signatories include Oxfam GB, Human Rights Watch, Children’s Rights Alliance for England and Disability Rights UK. The member Churches of JPIT have been consistently vocal in their opposition to the Rwanda policy since it was announced two years ago. The Baptist Union, Methodist Church and United Reformed Church have been signatories on multiple letters, statements and petitions calling instead for a practice of welcome, hospitality and compassion. Churches have urged the protection of human rights and for more safe routes for asylum seekers. One of JPIT’s Six Hopes for Society is for a society that welcomes the stranger. We believe that all humans are children of God, known by name and loved by God. We believe that all human beings deserve dignity, respect, safety and their human rights. This is why our churches have signed this open letter and previous statements on this issue. You can read previous statements on the Rwanda policy here. Open Letter to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on the Rwanda Bill (23 April 2024) Dear Prime Minister, We write to express our shared outrage at the passage of the misleadingly named ‘Safety of Rwanda Act’. This is a shameful and performatively cruel law that will risk people’s lives and betray who we are as a society. We all want to be safe – and we want that safety for each other, too. As a country, we are proud to uphold our responsibility to support refugees. Given the chance, communities across our country go the extra mile to welcome those in need. The wider public do not support the Rwanda plan.[1] But this law would enable the Government to forcibly expel people seeking asylum – including children and survivors of trafficking and modern slavery – despite concerns they could be put at grave risk of harm and human rights abuses. The Rwanda plan will force people who have fled violence and persecution into detention centres where they may face abuse and mistreatment, with no time limit. They will then be removed to a country to which they have no connection, despite our country’s Supreme Court ruling that it is unsafe for them. Through this law, the Government will put them at grave risk of mental and physical harm, and of being returned to danger in the countries they fled. Despite the clear ruling from the Supreme Court, the Government is rewriting the facts so they can shirk our responsibilities to refugees. In doing so, the Government would break international law and further shatter the UK’s commitment to justice and the rule of law. While this is a targeted attack on refugees and migrants, an attack on one group’s rights is an attack on all of us. Outsourcing our asylum system to other countries is never acceptable. It abandons our duty to share in the global responsibility towards those forced to seek safety. Instead of continuing down this dangerous path, the Government must guarantee that asylum claims will be heard fairly on our shores, and open safe routes so that people are not forced to take dangerous journeys. As organisations working towards a better future for all, we believe in kindness and compassion. The Government must listen to the people, abandon this deplorable deal with Rwanda and similar plans with other countries, and protect those who need sanctuary. Signed by 251 civil society organisations To read the full list of signatories, click here. [1] British Future / Focaldata poll, published 17 March 2024: “Only 24 per cent of the public think the government should try to get the Rwanda Bill through in its current form” (“Less than a quarter of the public back Rwanda Bill in current form, poll finds”, Politics.co.uk, 18 March 2024, available at: https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2024/ 03/18/less-than-a-quarter-of-the-public-back-rwanda-bill-in-current-form-poll-finds) Source
“Mental health culture has gone too far, says Mel Stride” said a headline in the Daily Telegraph two weeks ago. In the article below it the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions outlined his view that a significant factor in the post-pandemic increase in people not at work due to mental ill health was that many were “convincing themselves they have some kind of serious mental health condition as opposed to the normal anxieties of life”. The interview did not mention that later that day the Department was going to announce the sharpest rise in poverty in 30 years, including an extraordinary 7.4 million people who struggle to source sufficient food – an increase of 50% over the previous year. By co-incidence or design the record poverty figures gained little media attention, but the mental health comments continue to fuel much commentary[1]. 72% of foodbank guests report mental health issues[2] People like “Lucy” rarely feature in newspaper opinion columns – and certainly don’t get to write them. I met Lucy, whose name I have changed to protect her identity, in a spacious glass-fronted church vestibule which was set out as a welcoming café. Lucy had just had a conversation with one of the Trussell Trust foodbank volunteers and now she was waiting, coffee in hand, for her and her disabled mum’s 3-day supply of food. She told me a little about her mental health problems but that was not the focus of our conversation (we spent much too long talking about my recent birthday and her calling me old) – but it was part of her story. An unsurprising part of her story given the huge stresses and difficulties she dealt with every day. These were magnified by a large amount of unjustified guilt about needing to use the foodbank as well as shame about what she saw as not being able to cope. From the outside I saw her coping magnificently. Lucy is unique and wonderful – but I have met a lot of Lucys in church halls around the country. Coping with difficult circumstances, mental health issues and shame is an all-too-common thread. But just as importantly there is a thread of humour, mutual support, and finding the energy to carry on. Poverty, hunger and poor mental health are linked Let’s start with the obvious: poverty and mental health issues are linked. Children from the poorest fifth of households by the age of 11 are four times more likely to have a serious mental health condition that the wealthiest. Adults in the most deprived areas have a 50% greater chance of depression than those in non-deprived areas, and suicide rates amongst the middle aged in those same deprived areas are more than double those in the least deprived. I could go on quoting study after study but put simply, if there are more people in Lucy’s position struggling to make ends meet, there will inevitably be more problems with mental health.[3] As the Secretary of State spoke about “mental health culture” – referring to a rise of 150,000 people out of work due to mental illness – he knew that his department was about to announce that more than 1 in 10 of the British population were living in families which were unsure that they would have enough to eat, an increase of 2.5 million in a single year. Given these numbers, it is a testament to people’s resilience, rather than an out of control “mental health culture”, that the number held back by mental health issues is not greater. Shifting responsibility onto those who are suffering However, I fear what the Minister said was not a carefully considered position but instead it was just defensive politics. The economic inactivity numbers are not good, and the poverty numbers were about to be atrocious, so half-baked thoughts about a “mental health culture”, that play well in the Daily Telegraph were most likely a useful way of getting out of a hole. However, by equating mental health issues with not being able to cope with the normal anxieties of life the Minister both diminishes the level of suffering being experienced and asserts that the situations people find themselves in are normal and cope-able with. It is a self-serving assertion that shifts responsibility firmly away from government or society more broadly and onto the shoulders of those who are doing the suffering. These assertions also have the advantage of being impossible to conclusively prove or disprove. Reinforcing blame and shame The thing that most angered me about Mel Stride’s statement was not that it played into inaccurate prejudices that the public have about people struggling with mental health problems (which it absolutely does). What angered me most was that it played into the unjustified prejudices that people who have mental health problems often have about themselves. I will never forget speaking with a man in Glasgow who had been sanctioned – had his benefits removed – for 9 months. He began his story of hunger, followed by homelessness and understandable long-term mental health issues with the phrase “I was a bit stupid”. What he had done to be sanctioned was not attend an interview because, as a tribunal later confirmed, he hadn’t been told about it – yet just like Lucy, he still he instinctively found fault in himself. Giving mental health a context When I meet people like Lucy, who are experiencing real and understandable mental distress, I feel that the way that we talk about mental health leads us to inadvertently strip away important context. We rightly want to relieve any person’s distress with whatever tools we have – including medical treatment. But that process also encourages us to see the person as ill, and not see the ordinary person who has been damaged by difficult circumstances. It is truly perverse that while someone like Lucy will have no difficulty getting regular antidepressant pills, it is a distant pipedream that her damaging context might be improved by […]
The new government statistics on UK poverty make for horrendous reading. The median UK household got poorer by 1.5% after housing costs. However, behind that average hides a story of those with the most getting more, and those with the least having even less. This is a familiar pattern, however because so many people have so little room in their budgets, reductions in income translate much more quickly into hardship and hunger. For instance, while the number assessed as experiencing “absolute poverty” rose by around 0.6 million, the number of people at risk of not affording enough food jumped 2.5 million, from 4.7 to 7.2 million, in a single year. Some headlines: 14.3 million people experiencing relative poverty 4.3 million children in relative poverty – the highest ever 3.6 million children in “absolute” poverty – up 300,000 in a year 7.2 million people living in “food insecure” households – up over 50% in year 2.2 million children living in “food insecure” households These numbers in context: 14.3 million people experiencing poverty, including 4.3 million children, should be shocking enough. But to make sense of them we need to look at how poverty in the UK has developed over recent years. Average household incomes have grown slowly over the past decade – even relative to average prices. The median family with an average shopping basket is slightly better off than a decade ago. However, the prices of things the least well off must spend their money on, such as food and energy, have risen more than the average. On top of that, many on low or no incomes rely on benefits, which have been subject to huge reductions. As is well documented by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, this means that benefits do not provide enough for many families to avoid destitution. In this context incomes fell, and the safety net of the benefits system was unable to catch struggling families. For me the two most striking things from these statistics are how quickly income loss leads to hardship, and how already marginalised families are bearing the brunt of increasing poverty. Hunger has moved closer A decade ago, there was an unspoken assumption that if a person was supported well, destitution could be avoided for all but a very few. The dangers of being pushed into poverty lay in not accessing support, and over the medium and long term as future health and life chances were eroded. This was especially true for children. These numbers tell a different story – one that is now familiar to church foodbanks and community projects. Families experience a fall in income, and even with all the support available, rapidly come face to face with impossible decisions about how to maintain the very basics of life including food. In the UK today 7.2 million households face food insecurity, this is a jump of over 50% from the previous year, with families with children seeing the most rapid rise. In non-technical language this means they sometimes can’t afford enough food. Sitting and chatting with people visiting foodbanks will tell you that “sometimes” not being able to feed your child translates into “always” worrying and struggling to keep food on the table. Poverty has been focused on already marginalised groups It is important to recognise that the UK is a wealthy country, and that wealth is increasing. Incomes and wealth have grown over the past decade. However large numbers of people are locked out of these gains. We know that wage progression from low paying jobs is becoming rarer and more difficult. Just as importantly the large increases in wealth we see are not generated by more saving, but existing assets, especially property and shares, increasing in value – that means those that already have assets get more while those without see asset prices moving further and further out of reach. This means that those with least are being locked out of the gains in national wealth. Benefit cuts compounded this, by focussing losses on communities with low incomes and especially their children. Totemic of this is the fact that the majority (51%) of Black, African or Caribbean children in the UK now experience poverty. How have we allowed this to happen? Let’s End Poverty A series of political and policy choices have resulted in this situation, where the wealthiest have got wealthier and poverty has increased among our least well-off children, so much so that 17% no longer live in families that are food secure. That situation is not inevitable. Different choices can be made. The Let’s End Poverty campaign is premised on the belief that with political will we can turn the tide on poverty in the UK. The £10Bn spent on National Insurance cuts in the recent Budget could bring poverty down to below pre-pandemic levels, or take us half the way to ensuring destitution and hunger are eradicated. These numbers show why every politician in every party going into the next election needs to be able to explain how they will tackle poverty in the UK. <!– –> Source
Our churches recently issued prayers for Myanmar to mark three years since the 2021 Myanmar coup. For the people of Myanmar, this marks three years of living under repressive military rule. Three years of civil war. Three years of civilians being targeted, injured and brutally killed. Three years of civilians being forced to flee their homes. Three years of churches and houses being burnt to the ground. Three years of severe economic hardship. After these three years, the future continues to look uncertain. The civil war continues to wreak death and destruction in Myanmar, and yet there is almost no international attention – let alone outcry- for the innocent caught up in the conflict. While the conflict feels far away, our ecumenical partners continue to be in touch with our sisters and brothers in Myanmar and as JPIT we want to call you into prayer and to join us in calling our government to action. If, like me, you feel woefully uninformed here’s a potted history of the coup and the past three years. On 1st February 2021, the Myanmar military seized power during a coup against the democratically elected government. The military rounded up and jailed government officials including Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, declared a national emergency, grounded all domestic and international flights and shut down the internet, telephones and banks. The military’s stated justification for the coup was that the 2020 election result- which was due to be ratified on the morning of 1st February-was illegitimate due to widespread voter fraud. The claim of widespread voter fraud, in an election where Aung San Suu Kyi’s party won a landslide victory with a massive 85% of the vote, has been firmly refuted by domestic and international election monitors. However, the coup was not unprecedented. In 1962 the military took power in a coup and ruled through decades of civil unrest. Total military rule continued until 2007, when a period of mass unrest prompted the military to begin a gradual, and imperfect, transition towards democracy. The military embedded their power in the new democratic constitution through a clause colloquially known as the ‘coup clause’. In spite of the inherent flaws in Myanmar’s democratic transition, the country held its first ever free and fair elections in 2015,resulting in the election of Aung San Suu Kyi. From 2015 to 2021, the democratically elected government’s relationship with the military continued to be strained. Unhappy with the result of the 2020 election, the military broke the fragile relationship, activating the ‘coup clause’, declaring an emergency and seizing power. The military coup d’état was followed by weeks of largely peaceful civil disobedience and mass protests, as hundreds of thousands turned out against the military junta. On 20th February the military killed two unarmed civilians, sparking a general strike by millions of citizens. However, any hope that the mass pressure would force the military to stand down was swiftly crushed. The military and police responded with brutal force, firing live rounds into crowds of unarmed protestors, and rounding up and jailing thousands of civilians including opposition leaders and journalists. The violent repression by the military junta forced thousands of citizens to seek refuge in neighbouring countries, and sparked violent, organised resistance that evolved into the civil war that continues today. It is very difficult to estimate the number of people who have been killed and injured. However there are estimates that 2.3 million people have been displaced[i] and 8,000 civilians have been killed. The population of Myanmar has been scattered and divided; son fighting father, and brother fighting brother. The past three years have been characterized by ill-equipped and ill-experienced pro-democracy groups joining together with other more experienced ethnic rebel groups to fight against the military junta. The rebel forces have been operating from the jungles and mountains. The military Junta’s response has been incredibly violent and fraught with accounts of systemic war crimes including allegations rape, executions, torture and the targeting of civilians[ii]. It is estimated that 88% of civilian deaths in this war are the result of the military junta troops. There are hundreds of harrowing accounts of military troops carrying out mass executions, villages being razed to the ground, schools, funerals being targeted in bombing and more.[iii] In recent months the conflict has intensified and rebel groups have achieved unexpected military success, gaining control of 34 towns. However, the intensification of the conflict has been accompanied by increased violence against civilians by the military. The recent gains by rebel forces, and the ongoing economic strain facing Myanmar is placing growing pressure on the military junta and the leader of the junta, General Min Aung Hlaing, in particular. In response to this, at the end of February 2024 the Military Junta started enforcing a military conscription law; forcing all young people (men aged between 18-35 and women aged 18-27) to serve at least two years in the military. This is yet another blow to the freedom and human rights of the people of Myanmar. Thousands are desperately seeking to flee and escape the draft; to avoid fighting for a cause they oppose and a government that has perpetrated harm against its people. For the citizens of Myanmar, the future is bleak and the hope of an end to the violence and restoration of peace and democracy seem far off. Tragically, 2023 was a particularly deadly year, and was accompanied by a deepening of the humanitarian crisis in Myanmar. The UN is currently trying to raise $1 billion to provide humanitarian aid to those in need in Myanmar. As the civil war drags into its fourth year, our church leaders report that 85% of congregations are in the most dangerous regions; that the bombing continues to force church members to flee into forests and over the border, and that there is fear about food scarcity due to a poor rice harvest. How do we live out the love of God in the midst of a suffering world? How do we reach out […]
The headline measure in the Budget was a 2p cut in National Insurance. This gives the bottom fifth of earners around £350m a year, however the top fifth of earners will receive over 10 times more – more than £4Bn. This tax cut costs £10Bn a year and is the largest financial decision in the budget by a huge margin. It also represents a long-term choice to target resources on the wealthiest households rather than those with the least. While churches are seeing the consequences of rising and deepening poverty in communities across the country. that is the wrong choice. Poverty, what poverty? The word poverty was only mentioned once in the Chancellor’s Speech (and not at all by the Leader of the Opposition). The Chancellor told us that poverty was falling. This is correct if you choose to look at only one, increasingly outdated, measure[1]. If the Chancellor had instead heeded the National Statistician’s repeated warnings, he would have looked at the many other measures the Government collects and found that poverty is rising in every single other one. Using one carefully selected and flawed statistic the Chancellor dismissed the fact that relative poverty has risen to 14.4 million people; that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that 3.8 million individuals are now living in destitution, up from one million a decade ago; that Trussell Trust foodbanks provide a food parcel every 8 seconds; that Citizens Advice had found that 5 million people are now in “negative budget” where they must go deeper into debt simply to afford the very basics. I could go on. Perhaps the most damning figure is that one million children experience destitution each year – unthinkable a decade ago – but this did not warrant a mention in the Budget. Local church, charity and community leaders are crying out that they are seeing increasing poverty, and we can see it as we walk through our towns and cities. Denial is not credible, but it is convenient. Choices around household incomes The biggest choice the Chancellor made – which was supported by the Opposition – was to cut employee National Insurance contributions by 2p. This costs around £10Bn, 42% of which will go to the wealthiest fifth of households, while only 3% will go to the least well-off fifth. Today five out of every six households receiving Universal Credit are going without essentials. The six-month extension of the Household Support Fund, which provides funds to councils to help families struggling to meet their basic needs, is welcome, but it is a temporary measure that barely touches the sides of the problem. A decent social security system would at the very least ensure that everyone was able to afford the essentials. For context, another choice could be to invest half of the NI cut, £5Bn, in raising the Universal Credit standard allowance. This would instead focus money on the lower end of the income spectrum and move around 350,000 people out of poverty. Even a quarter of that amount, £2.5Bn, could cover the costs of ending the two-child rule, which denies some benefits to the third and later children in a family, and would lift 490,000 children out of poverty. The other large tax cuts, the fuel duty (£3Bn) and especially the increase in child benefit payments to families where someone earns £50,000 to £80,000 (£0.5Bn) also focus money on those higher up the income spectrum. It is important to recognise that once ‘fiscal headroom’ – i.e. more money – is found in the Budget, it is a choice how to spend it. However, if the premise is that poverty is not growing, and it is not a political priority, then the choices made will not address poverty. If poverty is to be addressed, we need to make it a priority that politicians of no party can ignore. Choices around public services In real terms spending on public services per person is set to fall by around 7%. For the protected departments (including health and social care) spending stays flat – a challenge given an ageing society alongside rapidly increasing mental health needs. For non-protected departments the cut is around 18%. These are figures on a par with the cuts made in the austerity years of 2010 to 2015, but this time the cuts will be applied to public services that have been though one round of austerity followed by a pandemic. This is the context of the Chancellor’s announcement of an “efficiency drive”. It may work, and certainly support for modernisation will be useful, but past attempts at increasing efficiency suggests some scepticism is warranted. It is worth noting that the two lines of spending to boost efficiency are: speeding up disability reassessments starting in April, with savings predicted because it is expected this will mean claimants’ benefit entitlements are reduced or lost more quickly NHS modernisation, where spending does not commence for at least another year and after the next election Cuts to services do not directly cause an increase in the poverty statistics. However it is important to recognise that reduced public services disproportionately affect the least well off, both because services are often needed most by the least well off, and also because those with money can afford to buy services like healthcare or education. A work of fiction Every Budget is accompanied by a report by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the government’s independent financial watchdog. One of its main functions is to demonstrate that the government will meet its fiscal rules. However, the OBR is legally obliged to use the Government’s published public spending plans, which are barely sketched out beyond 2025. As a result, in January the head of the OBR said: “Some people call [the OBR projections] a work of fiction, but that is probably being generous when someone has bothered to write a work of fiction and the government hasn’t even bothered to write down what its departmental spending plans are underpinning the plans for public […]
Leaders from across the Baptist, Methodist and United Reformed Churches have responded to the Chancellor’s announcements made in the Budget on 6 March. They have highlighted the lack of acknowledgement of people struggling against poverty in our communities, and the lack of difference announcements will make to the communities they live and work alongside. Paul Morrison, Policy Advisor for the Joint Public Issues Team, said: A 2p cut in National Insurance offers the bottom fifth of households around £350m a year, but the top fifth of households will receive over 10 times more – more than £4Bn. This cut represents a long-term choice to target resources on those with the most rather than those with the least. In the context of a country where 14.4 million people are held back by poverty and where one million children are growing up experiencing destitution – a form of very deep poverty we had all but eradicated in the UK – the choice to focus money on the best-off households is the wrong one. Today five out of every six households receiving Universal Credit (the main benefit designed to support low-income families), are going without essentials. The six-month extension of the Household Support Fund, which provides funds to councils to help families struggling to meet their basic needs, is welcome, but it is a temporary measure that will barely touch the sides of the problem. A decent welfare system would at the very least ensure that everyone is able to afford the essentials. The Churches are supporting the Let’s End Poverty movement, because with political we can turn the tide on rising poverty in the UK. The movement is bringing together voices from across society to demand that our political leaders take poverty seriously and set out their long-term plans to address it as an election approaches. The reality of deepening poverty did not feature in either the Chancellor’s Budget speech or the Leader of the Opposition’s response – next time, it must be central. Community responses Church and community leaders who work alongside low-income communities also offered their first reflections on the budget announcements: Revd Neil Johnson, Pioneer minister at the Methodist Church’s Street Banquet in Birmingham said: “I work alongside the street community, particularly those in Birmingham City Centre – those living with the daily injustice of homelessness. This includes rough sleepers, hostels and house of multiple occupancy (HMO) residents and tenants in insecure and inadequate housing. These are people, many of whom are receiving benefits, but also those who are working in poorly paid work and receiving very low incomes. This budget has done those people no favour at all. In fact, quite the opposite. Jeremy Hunt said that his budget was a budget for long-term growth. And yet we’re living in a society where many, many people are in immediate need. The future was already bleak for the street community but now, after this budget, it seems even bleaker. The budget makes the richer, better off while poverty increases. Cuts to public services will have a devastating impact on the poorest and most marginalized of communities. This budget was not meant for the members of the street community, people who already feel disenfranchised because they have been disowned by society. So what will make a difference? A truly just tax system, solving the housing crisis and long-term investment in public services.” Winnie Baffoe, Director of Engagement and Influence at South London Mission said: “The budget refers to fiscal drag, a recovery of finances, but not to people’s lives. The negative accumulative effects of inadequate housing, the lack of investment in mental health and reduced funding in education is not spoken openly about. We cannot recoup the loss of time and the impact that has had on people’s lives. What we need is a budget that tells the story of the social contracts of housing, education, and health. Children and young people are heirs of the past 10 years, the suffering children of the present and makers of the future. What does this budget tell us that they have to build on?” Deacon Jenny Jones, based at Methodist Central Hall Manchester, said: “This budget makes no additional provision for refugees and asylum seekers, and actually blames them for the problems the countries are having. In recent months, the Government has improved the speed with which applications are processed for those who are looking for right to remain. And that’s good news in some ways. But I don’t think we’ve really talked about how once leave to remain is granted, their benefits anything they have like their accommodation all stops within a few days. I think this budget should have been addressing that, because these people are becoming homeless, their mental health is being destroyed. These people become dependent on food banks, clothing, banks, warm spaces, the places that churches provide. But this government and this budget have forgotten that these are real people with real emotions. The people that I have met are wonderful people who would love to contribute to this country. But they’re being held back by the systems. And this government doesn’t seem to care.” Helen Pearce, Social Justice Enabler, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Methodist District, said: “For many in Cornwall, the Budget told no good news, especially those who struggle to find accommodation to live in. For the 28,000 people waiting on the home choice list there has been no announcements of a plan to enable people to be able to access long term homes and accommodation for so many families and children. A long term plan is required. A home is something that everyone needs and has a right to live in, in order to build a better life.” Vicky Longbone is a Church Related Community Worker in the United Reformed Church, based in Derby. She said: “I’m working in one of the most deprived areas of Derby, where there’s a spiral of low income, low aspirations, low education. So the difference that […]
