Last year Michael Sandel delivered his second Reith Lecture and looked at the relationship between morality and politics, more specifically the interaction between religiously inspired morality and politics. He argued, correctly in my view, that you cannot remove morality from political discourse and so it is far better to have it out in public.
On Friday of this week the spotlight is going to be firmly on the role of religion as Tony Blair supports the motion "Be it resolved religion is a force for good in the world" against Christopher Hitchens in a Munk Debate due to be held in Toronto. In the UK we tend to discourage our politicians from talking about faith, we famously ‘don’t do God.’ Why?I believe that it has long been the case that too many people – particularly those who take a left of centre approach to politics – make the mistake of failing to acknowledge the power of faith in people’s lives.
With debate raging about the rise of the far-right and the failure of the body politic I wonder if it isn’t time for those who espouse the “progressive” agenda to debate just how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy. Too often politicians try and avoid any discussion about religious values altogether – fearful of offending anyone and claiming that politics and religion should never mix.
In 2007, when addressing the 50th anniversary convention of his own denomination, the United Church of Christ, the then Senator Barack Obama, argued that the religious right had “hijacked” faith and divided his country by exploiting issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and school prayer. More interestingly he then went onto praise the people of faith who were using their influence to try to unite Americans against problems like poverty, AIDS, the lack of universal health care, Darfur and the effects of climate change.
Yet surely the reality of all political engagement is that we have to meet people where they are – even if we do not agree with or even approve of where they are. If so called ‘progressive’ politicians are to communicate their hopes and values in a way that is relevant to the lives of others, then they cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.
In my view secularists are wrong when they ask – more often insist – that believers leave their religion at the door before entering into the arena of public debate. The majority of great reformers in British history – from Wilberforce to Keir Hardie – were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. I recognise that democratic engagement will and should make demands of religious believers. It will demand that those who are religiously motivated act to turn their concerns into universal, rather than faith-specific, values. Democratic engagement will also demand that the values espoused by people of faith be subject to argument and debate.
What is needed is a sense of proportion and a willingness – on the part of both believers and non-believers – to engage in public debate openly and fair-mindedly. Many people in Britain today are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion and politics.
This then is the challenge for those who describe themselves as progressive politicians. They too must become more “fair minded” more willing to engage with people of faith so that they might recognise some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of modern Britain.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
Palin takes cheap shot at Michelle Obama
Sarah Palin is the heart throb of the of Tea Party in the US and, no doubt, a few admiring Tory boys and girls here in the UK.
In passages leaked from her new book America by Heart, Palin turns her fire on the First Lady, Michelle Obama.
According to Palin President Obama believes America "is a fundamentally unjust and unequal country." On page 26 Palin writes:
'Certainly his wife expressed this view when she said during the 2008 campaign that she had never felt proud of her country until her husband started winning elections. In retrospect, I guess this shouldn't surprise us, since both of them spent almost two decades in the pews of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church listening to his rants against America and white people.'
Apparently in the same book she reveals that Simon Cowell is one of her heros! Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!
In passages leaked from her new book America by Heart, Palin turns her fire on the First Lady, Michelle Obama.
According to Palin President Obama believes America "is a fundamentally unjust and unequal country." On page 26 Palin writes:
'Certainly his wife expressed this view when she said during the 2008 campaign that she had never felt proud of her country until her husband started winning elections. In retrospect, I guess this shouldn't surprise us, since both of them spent almost two decades in the pews of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church listening to his rants against America and white people.'
Apparently in the same book she reveals that Simon Cowell is one of her heros! Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!
Thursday, November 11, 2010
The act of remembrance and the wearing of a poppy is a very small price to pay
The poppy is a simple, but powerful symbol of remembrance, we do not diminish anyone by wearing it, least of all the veterans. Diminishing the debt we owe our predecessors would be accomplished by resigning ourselves to the notion that we cannot comprehend what happened.
We undermine the notion of Remembrance Day by lack of reflection, not flippantly wearing, or not wearing, a poppy.Focusing on the future is done by reflecting on the past. Wearing the poppy symbolises that one, at the very least, acknowledges the past. A poppy has never been a substitute for action - no symbol ever is - but we must be sure that what the poppy symbolises is not lost on those who seek to build upon our freedoms.
So I will be wearing my poppy this November. Out of pride? No. Out of respect and gratitude? Yes. Why? Because the act of remembrance and the wearing of a poppy is a very small price to pay
We undermine the notion of Remembrance Day by lack of reflection, not flippantly wearing, or not wearing, a poppy.Focusing on the future is done by reflecting on the past. Wearing the poppy symbolises that one, at the very least, acknowledges the past. A poppy has never been a substitute for action - no symbol ever is - but we must be sure that what the poppy symbolises is not lost on those who seek to build upon our freedoms.
So I will be wearing my poppy this November. Out of pride? No. Out of respect and gratitude? Yes. Why? Because the act of remembrance and the wearing of a poppy is a very small price to pay
Saturday, November 06, 2010
Progressive Conservatism is an oxymoron
David Cameron's silly use of the term 'progressive' is a clear illustration that the Tories will do almost anything to try and show that they are the party of the future. The truth about David Cameron's Tories is that they relish soundbites, image and tomorrow's headlines; have a clear sense of what will look good and almost no apparent political convictions. The reforms that Mr Cameron made to his party once he became leader were primarily cosmetic (a new HQ, a new party logo) and shortlived (the party's "A" list of candidates). His new and so-called 'progressive' Conservatives, indeed this can now include many of his coalition front bench partners, are made up of the right kind of people, his people - privately educated and from a background of immense wealth and privilege. Cameron's 'progressive' Tories still believe that the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, their economic, and their social views. Far from being progressive the Tory attitude to politics is archaic and redundant. The modern Tory party is the old Tory party re-packaged. David Cameron's Tories present the electorate with false choices; you have to be pro-business or pro-unions, pro-growth or pro-environment, for civil liberties or against them, in favour of immigration or opposed to it, a progressive or a dinosaur.
David Cameron is fast becoming the Janus of British politics. The truth is that you can be a progressive in politics or you can be a conservative but you cannot be both at the same time
David Cameron is fast becoming the Janus of British politics. The truth is that you can be a progressive in politics or you can be a conservative but you cannot be both at the same time
Monday, November 01, 2010
Selection at 11+ is bad for England - surely all 3 main parties agree on that?
Selective education has no place in a fair, progressive and socially mobile nation. So say the Tories, the Lib Dems and Labour. If the new politics that Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Miliband constantly refer to is to have any substance at all then here is one policy area where all three leaders can find some common ground. The problem is that existing legislation relating to ending selection is complex and deliberately opaque.
The present system allows selective entry into grammar schools to remain unless a majority of local eligible parents vote for it to change or grammar school governing bodies decide to change their admission policies to admit children of all abilities. To date, no governing bodies have done this. Before a ballot can be held, 20% of eligible parents in the areas concerned must sign a petition calling for a ballot. To require all of the 164 grammar schools in England to take children of all abilities would need 48 petitions and ballots.
Crucial to the present legislation is the definition of an eligible parent. This differs depending on whether the ballot would be an area or feeder ballot. Area ballots would be needed to end selection in the 10 local authorities defined by the regulations as fully selective (Bexley, Buckinghamshire, Kent, Lincolnshire, Medway, Slough, Southend, Sutton, Torbay, Trafford). Here, all parents living in the area are eligible to sign a petition and ballot, including those with children below school age or those living outside the area but with children in the schools within the local authority. For the 38 ballots in the other 26 English local authorities with grammar schools, only parents who have children in the feeder schools to the grammar schools would be eligible. Feeder schools are those that have sent a total of five or more pupils to the grammar schools in question in the year the signatures are being gathered and the preceding two years.
The only ballot to be held was in Ripon in 2000, where two thirds of eligible parents who took part voted to keep the status quo. This was a feeder ballot. One success was that it showed up the bizarre effect of the feeder school ballot regulations. Private school parents are over-represented in feeder ballots, as many private schools exist to coach pupils to pass the entry tests to grammar schools. In Ripon, private school parents made up a quarter of the electorate, although a parliamentary question at the time revealed that only 4.6% of primary children in North Yorkshire were in private education (Hansard 2000). In feeder school areas, many local parents, even those sending their children to schools near the grammar schools in question, are ineligible to sign petitions and vote. In Barnet, campaigners trying to collect signatures found that parents of children at a primary school next door to a grammar school were not eligible to sign the petition, as not enough of the children at their school had passed the entry test.
The second largest group of the Ripon electorate after private-school parents were parents of children in a school 10 miles away, while some Ripon parents were ineligible. So the promise in Labour's 1997 manifesto - "Any changes in the admission policies of grammar schools will be decided by local parents" - was never fulfilled.
What can be done? There are several options that the present coalition government might pursue in order to make the present system fairer and more transparent.
If ballots have to remain:
• Make all ballots area ballots (remove the option for feeder ballots).
• Reduce the 20% threshold figure to 10%
• Allow people to sign up for petitions electronically (similar to the ePetitions on the Downing Street website)
• Reduce the time period for the collection of signatures for petitions.
Other options that the government might consider include:
• A requirement for governors of selective schools to vote regularly on proposals to end academic selection as a criterion for admission to the school.
• The extension of Para 3.17 of the 2003 school admissions code of practice (pdf) ("Academic selection should never be used to decide entry into primary education"). to include entry into secondary education.
• Commission a report that looks into the impact of academic selection on standards and social inclusion.
The time is now right to review the arrangements to allow local people a greater say in the shape of secondary-school provision in their area. One would hope that any review would be pushing at an open door; after all, there is cross-party agreement that academic selection is a bad thing, isn't there?
The present system allows selective entry into grammar schools to remain unless a majority of local eligible parents vote for it to change or grammar school governing bodies decide to change their admission policies to admit children of all abilities. To date, no governing bodies have done this. Before a ballot can be held, 20% of eligible parents in the areas concerned must sign a petition calling for a ballot. To require all of the 164 grammar schools in England to take children of all abilities would need 48 petitions and ballots.
Crucial to the present legislation is the definition of an eligible parent. This differs depending on whether the ballot would be an area or feeder ballot. Area ballots would be needed to end selection in the 10 local authorities defined by the regulations as fully selective (Bexley, Buckinghamshire, Kent, Lincolnshire, Medway, Slough, Southend, Sutton, Torbay, Trafford). Here, all parents living in the area are eligible to sign a petition and ballot, including those with children below school age or those living outside the area but with children in the schools within the local authority. For the 38 ballots in the other 26 English local authorities with grammar schools, only parents who have children in the feeder schools to the grammar schools would be eligible. Feeder schools are those that have sent a total of five or more pupils to the grammar schools in question in the year the signatures are being gathered and the preceding two years.
The only ballot to be held was in Ripon in 2000, where two thirds of eligible parents who took part voted to keep the status quo. This was a feeder ballot. One success was that it showed up the bizarre effect of the feeder school ballot regulations. Private school parents are over-represented in feeder ballots, as many private schools exist to coach pupils to pass the entry tests to grammar schools. In Ripon, private school parents made up a quarter of the electorate, although a parliamentary question at the time revealed that only 4.6% of primary children in North Yorkshire were in private education (Hansard 2000). In feeder school areas, many local parents, even those sending their children to schools near the grammar schools in question, are ineligible to sign petitions and vote. In Barnet, campaigners trying to collect signatures found that parents of children at a primary school next door to a grammar school were not eligible to sign the petition, as not enough of the children at their school had passed the entry test.
The second largest group of the Ripon electorate after private-school parents were parents of children in a school 10 miles away, while some Ripon parents were ineligible. So the promise in Labour's 1997 manifesto - "Any changes in the admission policies of grammar schools will be decided by local parents" - was never fulfilled.
What can be done? There are several options that the present coalition government might pursue in order to make the present system fairer and more transparent.
If ballots have to remain:
• Make all ballots area ballots (remove the option for feeder ballots).
• Reduce the 20% threshold figure to 10%
• Allow people to sign up for petitions electronically (similar to the ePetitions on the Downing Street website)
• Reduce the time period for the collection of signatures for petitions.
Other options that the government might consider include:
• A requirement for governors of selective schools to vote regularly on proposals to end academic selection as a criterion for admission to the school.
• The extension of Para 3.17 of the 2003 school admissions code of practice (pdf) ("Academic selection should never be used to decide entry into primary education"). to include entry into secondary education.
• Commission a report that looks into the impact of academic selection on standards and social inclusion.
The time is now right to review the arrangements to allow local people a greater say in the shape of secondary-school provision in their area. One would hope that any review would be pushing at an open door; after all, there is cross-party agreement that academic selection is a bad thing, isn't there?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)