CHRISTIANITY IS DIFFERENT FROM ISLAM!

One of the most common lies of the day is that all faiths are equally true. Or equally false. Or at least equally valid. It’s something I considered on a previous post and may well return to. However, I’d like to here briefly flag up the specific differences between the two great rival faiths of the day: Christianity and Islam. Differences between Christianity and other religions are easier to flag. Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism – Jews simply rejecting the New Testament and the claims of Jesus. Buddhism is essentially atheistic, with no specific god – although still supernaturalistic (reincarnation etc). Hinduism? It gets the best stories and has been essential in giving a nationalistic identity to once disparate tribes; but where, despite the New Atheistic scorn, large numbers of credible scientists, academics and philosophers will argue for the burden of proof favouring Christianity, I’m not aware there is any Hindu equivalent to Professor John Lennox proposing an actual scientific basis for the flying monkeys or elephant headed deities of Hindu scripture. (Sikhism I know very little about so I won’t pretend otherwise).

So then, back to Islam and why it is different. In addressing this I am responding to one of my great heroes – that is my grandfather, who has, at ripe old age of 90, authored a compelling book (currently lost in a minefield of copyright complications) proposing bridges between the three ‘Abrahamic’ faiths. I’ll begin by acknowledging his similarities. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are indeed all looking to the same God – the one who revealed Himself to Abraham. They are all monotheistic and each believe in Heaven, Hell and a similar moral code on Earth.

However, beyond that, I have to disagree that they are at all on the same page (although, let me make clear at the outset, I am very much for ongoing mutual tolerance and respect... just let's not be scared of debate and criticism within that!). Christianity involves following Jesus Christ – hence the title. Christians believe he is the Son of God, and the means by which we can re-enter into relationship with God and become acceptable to Him in our sin. Popular ignorance (and in that I do not include my grandfather!) would have Muhammad as another tribe’s interchangeable Christ figure – their culturally applicable bridge to knowing God. However, if so, they don’t know Muhammad and they don’t know Christ.

Attitudes to Peace: Whatever the conduct of Christians down the years, Jesus was in his lifetime a man of peace. The Jews expected a warrior deliverer to free them from the Romans, but Jesus instead told followers to ‘turn the other cheek’, assuring them that ‘blessed were the peacemakers’. Ultimately, he walked willingly to a sacrificial death, coming ‘not to be served but to serve’. For Muhammad, on the other hand, his revelations quickly put him personally at the head of a conquering army. After he had taken Mecca in 630, his second successor Omar took Egypt, Persia and Palestine. This initial tide was to take Islam right into Europe (and conquest of Spain), only being halted by defeat in France in 732. (The Ottomans would later take up the mantle, conquering the likes of Constantinople and the Balkans until ultimately halted by failure in Vienna, 1683). Now if I point out that Islam lends itself to fighting, I will be quickly directed to the Crusades, in which the Christian Pope launched a ‘holy war’ of his own. However, I’d venture that has little to do with Jesus if we’re here comparing faith founders. The early church was marked and known by peaceful martyrdom right up to the point when Rome got its hands on it and changed absolutely everything. Besides which, as an aside, people often forget that Islam was ultimately successful over Christianity in the Crusades and, in actual fact, it was often Christians who were slaughtered by their own (read about the sacking of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade).

And Muslims? Well I don’t want to misrepresent the many. Thankfully for all, the official policy of Sunni Islam is formed by a Hadith (an official saying of Muhammad outside of the Qu’ran) claiming that military Jihad is secondary to the greater Jihad of winning the personal battle to live a holy life (in fact, Jews and non-conformist Christians living in contested areas welcomed both the first Muslim invaders and the later Ottomans as more tolerant and peaceable governors than either their Byzantine or Catholic rulers). However, there have always been those from inside and outside of Islam willing to question the authenticity of such a proclamation. Some,examining both their holy book and the example of both their founder and the early Caliphs, have periodically returned to a literal interpretation of Jihad. Most pertintently to our world, one such voice was Wahhabi – an 18^th Century figure sponsored by his local Arabic rulers. Their name? The house of Saud – ultimately bound to form Saudi Arabia and strike oil. Calls for Jihad are also more legitimate and commonplace in Shia Islam (15% of the Muslim world) as officially practised in Iran. Again, this is not to implicate the bulk of moderate Muslim – they are in the firing line perhaps more than anyone where extremists are concerned. But the link between Islam and violence is far more legitimate than is any such link in biblical Christianity (George W Bush take note!).

Pharisees: It should be noted that Jesus signed his death warrant when taking on the fussiness of the religious authorities. Much of his anger was directed at the fact their love of legalism had surpassed the principles behind it. We see this throughout the gospels – Jesus is at pains to point out, for example, that Sabbath rest was meant to be a good and beneficial thing. Now he saw the Pharisees wanting to punish those healing on the Sabbath, or even picking up a stick! Similarly, they couldn’t abide or hear those failing to observe their own man-made and elaborate washing rituals. Such rule-checking also gave them great status in the community, something else he criticised.

This has clearly come once more to pass in the ‘Hail Marys’ and candles of Catholicism, but even more so it has come to characterise Islam. Where Muhammad urged only modesty in women (and a lot of the Qu’ran seems to celebrate women), creeping legalism has in some places buried them beneath the burqa. Where he prescribed against worshipping images, presumably concerned that people would end up worshipping depictions of him instead of Allah, we end up with murder over a Danish doodle (and who’s going to worship THAT?!).  It seems that Islam (and some state-sponsored Christianity!) has largely become the very thing Jesus would most rail against. Is this just a man-made error both have wandered into or an integral difference between the two? I believe the latter, because Islam is a meritocracy based on earning salvation through works - thus lending itself to a great fear of rule-breaking. Christians, on the other hand, can do nothing, short of believing, to save themselves. From the start of the Islamic calendar the careful rituals of prayer, eating, fasting and pilgrimage were set in place; whilst in contrast the Christian New Testament fulfils and ends slavery to the minutiae of Jewish law.

And the rest! But ultimately, those are just the two points I wanted to make. Outside of them there are huge numbers of differences between Christianity and Islam. Only the former offers relationship with God, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, resurrection, the guarantee of forgiveness and much more besides. Above all, Jesus dropped that bombshell of being the long-prophesied Son of God, where Muhammad never claimed to be any more than a Prophet. The new tendency to lump the two religions together as the same old problem (usually with images of 9/11 playing onscreen) is lazy and counter-productive. On another occasion I’ll take a historical hammer to the idea that rational reason alone is any more inherently peaceful – the Renaissance-sparked ideas and technologies having ultimately led us to the great and godless wars of the 20^th Century (because the problem is people!). Neither can you get far in the wishful thinking of seeing Christianity and Islam as similar enough to ultimately pull in the same direction (sorry Grandpa). I admire a lot of Muslims in that they have more principle and remain more distinctive than many Christians. I enjoy the flavour they give my local community in Tooting. I know Muslims I like very much (generally the ones willing to discuss this stuff!). But, ultimately, I think they’re mistaken, and I don't think their beliefs are particularly similar to mine. 

WHY I'M (PROBABLY) VOTING CONSERVATIVE. GULP...

‘Private school teacher from Surrey votes Tory’ is hardly likely to make the front pages. However, it will be enough of a shock to most who know me and it will certainly be the first time it’s happened. It will also make me rather unusual even among those few who have voted for all three main parties in general elections (I was always a Labour supporter but voted tactically for the Lib Dems in Epsom & Ewell as the supposed closest opposition) - ‘floating voters’ are traditionally fairly disinterested, which I am clearly not. So why?

1.      Time for a Change: The phrase may be familiar! But it’s true. First and foremost, Brown must go and Labour need a spell out of power. Even if the two lead parties were exactly the same (and, post-Blair, I think we’ll see this as increasingly untrue), it would be worth ditching the incumbent just purely for a change. Anybody retaining power for too long will become corrupted and bloated by it; that’s the repeating story of humanity. New Labour has lost its early reforming zeal and seems to want power for its own sake, doling out daily half-truths to preserve it – change is sometimes a good thing in itself. This country needs a bit of ‘first 100 days’ excitement.  

Furthermore, Brown really doesn’t deserve another term. This is true on his helmsmanship at the Treasury alone. I get angry when he tries to take credit for handling the recession. Truth is, he was the Chancellor who sold our gold and plundered pensions when times were good. Even in those years he borrowed rather than saved and left nothing for a rainy day. He congratulated risk in the City and, even when later bailing out banks, required no commitment that interest cuts be passed on or mortgages made accessible. He is at least partly responsible for the fact our taxes go primarily towards interest payments on debt increasing by £500 million a day.

National not local: I have always spoken well of my local MP Sadiq Khan. He’s done nothing to spoil that as far as I’m concerned (although there is bad press rearing its head as I write regarding a dodgy expenses claim). I’m not alone – he’s been recognised as a fine and devoted Parliamentarian with awards from the Spectator, Guardian, Channel 4 and New Statesman. One of my first posts on this blog was regarding the dilemma faced when wanting to vote for a good local MP, but wanting to remove his party. Well, I’ve done my homework. Well, when faced with national vs. constituency considerations in voting, national has to win. We have local councillors responsible for local issues – potholes, licensing, parking and refuse collection; those are elected separately at local elections.  An MP however is for Westminster – they are primarily foot soldiers for their respective party – ordered by the Whips to toe the line and to vote as instructed from the top. Therefore, despite all the letterbox propaganda, there is a limit to what they can do for us acting as individuals. The party on the slip is more important than the name – an MP’s primary significance lies in them being part of a majority (or minority) party in the House of Commons.

That’s not to reject the local link altogether- I don’t back PR systems wherein MPs are chosen from a list, abandoning constituency accountability. It is important to have one member of Parliament whom you can approach knowing he’s bound to listen – he has a office here whereas the Prime Minister doesn’t. It’s important to have someone in Westminster lobbying on behalf of your community, and someone with clout flagging up important issues within that community. And that can make a specific difference for an area: I was hearing over lunch yesterday how much Chris Grayling has done to personally lead (and even fund) the campaign to save Epsom Hospital; I mentioned in the last post that Siobhain McDonough used her influence in Westminster to secure two new academy schools for her Mitcham & Morden constituency. Similarly, Sadiq Khan has worked within the Transport Department to expand the Oyster scheme, knowing this is specifically beneficial to those in Tooting. But, his concerns and his work remain primarily national in scope. And, ultimately, his career prospects are dependent on his impressing Brown, not on his representing Tooting residents. A vote for Khan IS a vote for Brown.

Electoral System: I’m not saying there’s anyone offering much better than the Tories in the current mess (there’s a great article on one of the blogs showing ‘Word Clouds’ made of the 3 leaders’ speeches so far – Nick Clegg’s 2 largest words are ‘Labour and ‘Conservative’!), but under a PR system I’d certainly take a look around. However, nationally and locally, Conservatives are the only realistic opposition if I want to be rid of Labour. Therefore it’s them I’ll vote for. I would love it to be the case that my vote counted, whoever I voted for. I’ll love a real debate on Proportional Representation.  People rail about the undesirability of coalition governments, bringing up Italian examples or 1970s scare stories. But it’s worked well in Scotland and Wales. North of the border, where the SNP lead with only 47 of the 129 seats, every policy to pass (and 9 out of 10 do) has found its majority via compromise and tinkering in meetings – an air of consensus results, and even the 2 Green MPs have their day in the sun! (They recently sunk the annual budget due to an unwillingness to drop road expansion schemes!). Meanwhile there has never been a Parliament offering a worse advert for ‘strong’ government than the current UK Labour administration. There’s has been a callous disregard for the wishes of others, the government convinced they know best regardless; be it over human rights, banks or the EU. Bring in PR, and see voter turnout rise through the roof as people are re-enfranchised...

I am becoming more conservative: The truth is this development hasn’t come out of nowhere. I am not a textbook conservative – I’m too keen on multi-culturalism for that - but I have nevertheless become more conservative as I’ve aged. It’s clearly true: I don’t like the nanny state and the desire to regulate anything that moves. I don’t like the idea that wealth is inherently bad and to be penalised with ‘Robin Hood’ economics (although I REALLY don’t like the idea that the wealthy should avoid paying their fair share by lurking in tax havens). I loathe the tide of political correctness that supports affirmative action, penalises Freedom of Speech and calls disagreement hatred. I’m also at a loss as to the destructive behaviour of many unions (and the nonsense my own comes up with) and worried by their growing influence.

Yes I will defend aspects of New Labour – the investment in education has made a difference (although not as much as you’d imagine looking at the staggering spending), waiting lists and crime are genuinely down, Britain has taken a lead in overseas aid, Sure Start is a good idea, as are academies, a good start has been made on constitutional reform... but I’m not sure Labour is any longer my natural home, nor that I’ll return.

So there you go – I’m holding my breath and crossing the Tory box. Unless something happens on the campaign trail and I change my mind again! Either way, you can’t accuse me of failing to think it through! Oh and the picture is of Mark Clarke - a good egg and the actual Tory for whom I will vote in Tooting. I haven't mentioned him yet!

ANDY'S GUIDE TO YOUR LOCAL CONSTITUENCIES

DONE AS A FACEBOOK NOTE, BUT THOUGHT I'D STICK IT UP HERE IN CASE IT'S HELPFUL...

Tooting (inc Balham West of railway & Earlsfield)

CURRENT MP: Sadiq Khan

WHO IS HE? Rising star – as proven by the fact he’s always in shot behind Gordon Brown on TV. Photogenic moderate Muslim, squeaky clean over expenses and always an opponent of the War on Iraq. Formerly a Human Rights lawyer and now 2^nd in the Transport Department. Local boy whose father drove the 44 bus.

OPPOSITION: Conservative Mark Clarke – born in the area and now back living in Tooting Bec, although slated by Khan for being registered to vote in ‘Chelsea’s Millionaire’s Row’. His literature focuses on the NHS – vowing to sort out St George’s Hospital, at which his mother used to work.

CHANCES: This could be a good contest. Some assume Tooting to be a safe Labour seat but, truth is, if the 2005 swing of 2,500ish seats from Labour to Conservative was repeated – it would be very close indeed.

Croydon North (inc. Norbury)

CURRENT MP: Malcolm Wicks, standing again for Labour

WHO IS HE? Been MP there since ’92. Never made it to the Cabinet but has been a Minister for Work & Pensions and then Energy. Has now stepped down and acts as Special Advisor to Brown. Disliked by environmentalists for supporting Oil Drilling in Mornay Firth (alleged risk to dolphins). Pretty good on expenses.

CHANCES: Stuck with him. Even with 4% swing away at last election, still had majority of 14,000. That, friends, is a safe seat.

Battersea (inc rest of Balham and Wandsworth)

CURRENT MP: Martin Linton, standing again for Labour

WHO IS HE? 66 years old and not shown much ambition to be part of government up to now. Content to serve as PPS to a number of ministers. His passion is for Palestine and a 2-state solution.

OPPOSITION: Jane Ellison, a Conservative candidate standing for the first time following 23 years working for John Lewis.

CHANCES: Surely goodbye Mr Linton if there is any kind of pro-Tory swing. His majority was one of the smallest in the country at the last election, winning by only 163 votes. Expect Tory Battersea for first time since ’92.

Streatham

CURRENT MP: Keith Hill, Labour, stepping down. Was formerly PPS to Blair himself, following a ministerial career, and retired to backbenches once Brown took over. Fighting the seat for Labour is instead Chuka Umunna.

WHO IS HE? Umanna is well worth watching and could be a big deal – he has been held up as a potential ‘British Obama’ in the press. He’s written for everyone from The Guardian to the FT, has appeared on Question Time and Daily Politics, has founded an influential online magazine and is a leading member of influential Labour pressure group Compass. The New Statesman reckons he’s ‘One of 10 People Who Could Change the World’. Big voice for change – arguing loudly for a new electoral system etc.

OPPOSITION: Lib Dem Chris Nicholson will be closest opposition based on the last couple of elections. He’s a Streatham chap who campaigned against the closure of the Post Office and Ice Rink. Rahoul Bhansali for the Conservaitves.

CHANCES: Conservatives did hold Streatham back in ’87, but they were 11,500 behind last time so seem out of it. The Liberal Democrats on the other hand will feel they have a shout. As with Tooting above, if they and Labour do the same as last time (Labour lost 3,000, Lib Dems gained 5,000), then they’ll have it.

Mitcham and Morden

CURRENT MP: Siobhain McDonough, Labour

WHO IS SHE?: Controversial. Amazed she’s standing again. Done badly out of expenses, and sacked from the government by Brown after she called for him to go. But apparently a good local MP, winning a specialist unit for St Heliers and 2 big Academies for the area.

OPPOSITION: Melanie Hampton for Conservatives.

CHANCES: Not much. Safe Labour seat with 12,5000 majority.

Sutton and Cheam:

CURRENT MP: Paul Burstow, Liberal Democrat

 WHO IS HE? Big Lib Dem player. Former key member of Shadow Cabinet, but now their Chief Whip. Known for being particularly knowledgable on issues regarding older people.

OPPOSITION: Philippa Stroud of Conservatives – so confident of victory she’s vowed to only engage in positive campaigning! Interesting track record actually – Director of the Cedntre for Social Justice and has formerly spent 18 months working with Triad gang members in Hong Kong!

CHANCES: If Tories are going to win anywhere it’s here. The Lib Dem win in ’97 was a big turn-up, but even in their lean times the Tories have stayed right on their heels, losing by less than 3,000 in ’05.

Wimbledon

CURRENT MP: Stephen Hammond, Conservative

WHO IS HE? A former banker and currently a shadow Transport Minister with special responsibility for London.

OPPOSITION: Andrew Judge, a notable local figure having headed up the local council for 5 years. Long-standing environmental campaigner.

CHANCES: This is a place of proper politics! A real class clash between the estates of Colliers Wood/South Wimbledon and the rich Tory suburbs. In 2001 it just about stayed Labour. In 2005 it just about went Conservative. Surely the way things are going Labour can’t win it back.

Epsom & Ewell

CURRENT MP: Chris Grayling, Conservative

WHO IS HE: Often impressive but strangely gaffe-prone Shadow Home Secretary.

OPPOSITION: None really. Even in the ’97 massacre the Conservatives kept a majority of 11,000!

CHANCES: A seat so safe you could leave you phone and wallet on it and wander off to drink.

Vauxhall (inc. North Clapham)

CURRENT MP: Kate Hoey, Labour

WHO IS SHE: Interestingly controversial and combative backbencher. Has been called “the least gay-friendly MP” by Stonewall and, whilst very much against fox-hunting, has complained about UK gun laws being too harsh! Has voted against her own party on at least 7 key issues, including the Lisbon Treaty, ID Cards, top-up fees and the war in Iraq. WAS Minister for Sport but later campaigned against the London Olympics, saying Paris was more deserving!

OPPOSITON: Caroline Pidgeon for Lib Dems

CHANCES: Safe Labour seat, even in the 80s.

WHY I CHOOSE TO BE A WEIRDO...

...By which I mean, why do I choose to identify myself as a Christian, let alone one of evangelical persuasion? It’s certainly not credible in the modern age, nor convenient – in terms of the drain on time, money and lifestyle. It’s almost certainly an irritation to my friends... But I happen to believe it’s true and very important. Why? I will attempt to briefly outline the reasoning:

a) I believe we were created. Yunshui once commented on one of my posts saying the choice between an unseen creator or a world grown from nothing out of randomness is a false dichotomy. Nevertheless, there is ultimately either a guiding hand or there isn’t. Neither is ultimately provable, but I look at the existence of the fully formed and functioning DNA code of life emitting from even the first single-cell organism... and I see evidence of intelligence behind it. I look at the knowledge inherent in humanity that there is right, wrong and accountability... and I see external objective morality. I look at the history of cultures, each with the inbuilt urge to worship... and I see an inherent knowledge of something greater than ourselves. I have no beef with evolution, other than that a theory explaining only the drive for survival does not explain to me creativity, musicality, monogamy, altruism or beauty.

Indeed, I feel the real false dichotomy is between those who think and those who sustain faith.  I believe, and I think about it a great deal. I’ve even tried to turn my back on it in the past, but have found the alternative spiritually and logically unsatisfying in the extreme.The fact we’re here does mean something. The fine tuning required to sustain life, or indeed a stable universe, across a wide range of factors is in a probability bracket of a trillion to one and, whilst those odds are theoretically fine within an infinite universe, in no other context would we treat such reasoning as remotely convincing. Dawkins says there is only matter and energy, asking Who made God? To which I reply Who made your matter and energy? In short, I believe in God. 

b) The above remains the majority view globally. Many will stop there. But I’m a Christian, not merely a theist. I think it’s unsatisfactory to believe in God but then assume he wants nothing in return or has no intention of communicating with His creation. Why did he bother? Does he care if we completely ignore Him? Having studied it a fair bit, I find convincing answers in the Bible. I’m not obsessively literal about it all – I’m not going to spend my time arguing for a literal 6-day creation or a literally global flood – but I think the Jews lived up to their special billing; this semi-nomadic Middle Eastern tribe having survived and thrived to the present day despite the targeted persecution of Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Muslims and Nazis for starters.  I believe we are indeed in a fallen world – people capable of greatness but generally wreaking a storyline of destruction and dissatisfaction repeating.

Above all, I think that the historical figure of Jesus Christ – God pitching up in human history to offer a solution, as repeatedly foretold in the Old Testament, lives up to the hype. His preaching and parables are sheer genius, his credibility was sufficient for 2 years of preaching to spark a worldwide movement, the early church who followed him were willing to travel far and wide for his sake, ultimately embracing martyr deaths and, crucially, those who would have loved to nip all this in the bud were unable to produce Jesus’ corpse or powerfully claim his non-existence following his all-important death in our place and subsequent re-appearance amidst once demoralised followers. He was cited in Roman and Jewish sources, and presented fully in the gospels; accounts written within the lifetimes of eye-witnesses by men of exceptional character, willing to depict their own weaknesses and write things that would get them persecuted. I recognise in his model a way of living that works and in his preaching a true description of my dilemma – that I’m a sinner needing saving but thereafter capable of living a productive and changed life. In short, I follow Jesus.

c) And then there’s the intangible results of faith... I’m not arrogant enough to present my own personal experiences as intellectually compelling to another. Yet it’s what we go through as individuals that ultimately seal the deal. I am intellectually convinced by Christianity – I hope you believe as much, even though the few words above only hint at the arguments contained. However, it is the change in myself and others, the unexplainables I have witnessed, the answered prayers and the fact it works... you could explain away each one and that’s OK – but here, living in my own skin, I choose to trust my senses and, several years in, I wouldn’t want to turn my back on Christianity for all the world. Not even following a year bringing with it a life-altering brain tumour for the person I love most.

Yes I know many Christians are hypocrites or ignorant (as of course are many atheists, Muslims, pagans or agnostics!). Yes I know George W Bush made it hard to be on the side of the Bible-bashers. Yes I know various Kings, Emperors and everymen have used and twisted the Bible to suit their own purposes throughout history. No, I don’t claim to have every answer for everything (and I’m a lot less know-all and intolerant, although no less convinced, than I was a couple of years back – life will that do that to you). Neither am I better than anyone else – true Christianity begins with the admission of rubbishness, although that’s no excuse to carry on that way.

But I am a Christian, and I will remain so. So feel free to ask me more if bemused, angered or fascinated... I reckon it’s worth thinking about – better a Dawkins than an ostrich!

PS I’ll balance this out with a post on football next!

POVERTY SUCKS!

A relative quicky here (Note: With the benefit of hindsight it really didn’t turn out to be that quick!). Just to say that poverty sucks and I’m feeling well justified middle class Western guilt about it. I have had a very comfortable life and I teach kids whose lives are more comfortable still. Even our poorest here in the UK often suffer within the parameters of satellite TV and mobile phones, although there are exceptions; particularly within the demonised asylum-seeking class. (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23811988-the-dispossessed-mother-living-in-limbo-with-no-job-no-benefits-and-no-cash.do)


It is perhaps because we can’t truly envisage poverty that we do so little to alleviate it. Our pastor, a rather alpha male type, caused many to think long and hard when he talked this Sunday of having cried hard in front of his children earlier in the week at the Blue Peter footage of an 8-year old Peruvian orphan forced to scavenge for a living on a rubbish heap in order to survive. He just couldn’t help but make the comparison to his own 8-year old son.

Now I’m unhealthily emotionally stunted with the best of them, truly I am. I’m well aware that I approach the 1-year anniversary of the last time I genuinely cried – the aftershock of a truly horrendous morning watching my wife suddenly suffering convulsions whilst in intensive care following major brain surgery… But there really is plenty to get upset about outside of my metaphorical windows, and perhaps I should force myself to look at it and engage with it more. Then maybe I’d force myself to spend more money and time in doing something about it. Strangely, in addition to the incident above, I’m writing prompted by a story 230 years old. It jars because it’s in my city, it’s heartening because we have moved on as a society, but it’s shameful because it’s still happening elsewhere… and the bit that really challenges me is that it has a happy ending – a reminder that a little bit of care and investment really does make a difference. Please read it, it’s quite something:

http://www.georgianlondon.com/a-morning-walk-in-the-metropolis

Now there’s a lot in life to feel happy about – perhaps I should blog about that too one of these days, but it’s wrong that we cocoon ourselves entirely in smug satisfaction as a direct result of our taking far more than our share of what the planet has to offer. Just as wrong as it would be to sit and bemoan poverty whilst giving next to nothing towards its alleviation (and yes I do give, in case you wondered whether this was an absolutely empty gesture of an article!). I’d also like to acknowledge, as I’ve tried to in various ways in several of my posts, that deprivation is not just measurable by income. It’s about education, self-respect, opportunity and much else besides. But I’m sure a lot of that stuff only really starts to matter once you have enough to eat. And me? I currently have a bad stomach because I’ve over-eaten sugary snacks and meat these past few days. It’s a poor show really isn’t it? I wouldn’t always call it a blessing – because much of our societal excess directly feeds in to our spiritual funk, our lack of social cohesion and our worsening mental health issues (my gassy stomach acting as convenient metaphor). But it certainly carries with it responsibility… So for the sake of ourselves and others LET’S BE GENEROUS!!

PS: If you’re feeling clever, read the following – one of the world’s cleverest explaining that poverty is not just measurable in financial terms. Easier to follow in the second half than the first… but then I’m not all that clever:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/mar/23/social-justice-philosophy-freedom

WHY DON'T WE MAKE THINGS ANYMORE??

I have the rare pleasure of teaching the Industrial Revolution next term. I have taken advantage of the virtual curricular autonomy I seem to have at the Castle to ditch the Civil War project, hurry through the Stuarts with Year 8 and leave lots of time open to look at inventions, cholera, slavery, protest and factory conditions (not necessarily in that order) next term. I’m looking forward to planning the lessons for the first time, but I’m already asking the question – where did it all go? What do we make and export to the world now? Yes there are things that maintain our world presence – finance, culture or entertainment for example – but not Sheffield steel, Stoke pottery or ships banged together in Govan. No more is the ready association made between Wales and coal, Hull and fish or Liverpool and its docks. And what’s replaced these hundreds of thousands of jobs? We are now a ‘service economy’ – dominated by its tertiary sector as opposed to primary (extracting a product from the ground/sea) or secondary (turning that product into something via industrial process). We are indeed a ‘nation of shopkeepers’, and indeed of call centre operatives, bankers, IT consultants, estate agents and public sector drones. It’s not all bad – but it results in a great many jobs offering limited satisfaction, it does little to bind or define a community and it means there is little scope for providing new jobs en masse when people are wary at splashing out on non-essentials.

Why is this the case? We still drive, dwell in and use numerous solid structures… but the truth is they’re manufactured elsewhere. It’s cheaper and more efficient for corporations to set up plants in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia than it is to maintain a presence on Teesside. Are they wrong? Certainly not from their perspective. Our minimum wage, pension/National Insurance contributions, workplace regulations and limited working hours make a large scale UK presence massively expensive. Overseas it can all be bypassed and a product produced for far less – why wouldn’t they do so? I’m not necessarily talking ‘sweat shop’ conditions here – a company can in good conscience set up in Eastern Europe paying lower wages quite appropriate to the housing/service costs of that locality and thus mistreating no-one. In an age of increasingly global companies, there is no special obligation to subsidise the UK workforce or economy. We Brits figure as consumers and vendors rather than producers in the eyes of most I’m sure. We’re caught between two stalls in a frustrating incarnation of the mixed economy – we’ve got just enough socialism from Europe to ensure bountiful regulation, but allied to enough free marketeering to ensure no-one has to stick around and abide by it!

So how do we compete? Well, as ever, I’m no expert, but I see the key possibilities, to be considered in turn, as 1) Go the libertarian route, freeing up UK working conditions to beat developing economies at their own game 2) the opposite – embrace enhanced state control 3) Play the global game – be prepared to emigrate 4) Focus on niche markets or 5) Provide here the skills and quality that others can’t…

1. This is surely the most controversial of the suggestions. You never hear anyone suggesting we scrap the minimum wage and free employers to treat their workers worse in order that they might base production here rather than in China. Rather you hear of the need for better paid paternity leave. Had it always been thus, the Industrial Revolution would never have taken off! Plus this does rather rely upon an assumption that the material benefits of enhanced wages/conditions are more conducive to happiness than is the sureness that comes from identity within a working class community – one low paid perhaps, but with job security and communal bonds to compensate. Wages might be lower and life tough, but the fact everyone is in the same boat may lead to low-cost services and houses provided in order to tap the market – perhaps by the employer companies themselves investing in the area. It appeals because so much seems to have been lost in areas deprived of their industrial life-blood, no longer able to relate to the Labour Party and without identity as the phrase ‘working class’ becomes anachronistic. However, I’m well aware it’s untenable (and ultimately undesirable) for the following key reasons:
• The unions would never hear of it! Rightly so if they’re doing their jobs – just look at the way Unite are taking on (unfairly crippling?) British Airways for relatively minor crimes.
• Every city will attract its high earners, if only for exploitation purposes, and they will help drive prices up and beyond those paid ‘free market wages’ in the vicinity.
• It’s probably all nonsense anyway – this noble working class myth. Many living it out were probably hungry and miserable half the time, even if they could play football in the cobbled streets! Maybe on reflection many miners are happier and safer above ground, despite the negative community impact? The standard of living has demonstrably improved almost everywhere since the 70s, let alone the 19th Century!
2. There is also REAL socialism to consider – the idea that, rather than just insist upon fair pay and Health & Safety, the government actually go the whole hog and run the factories and mines themselves, thus ensuring they stay open. British Steel was always going to be based in Britain! To a lesser degree they could subsidise industry in order to incentivise companies sticking around – much as they have the banks. This prospect has reared its head in the accusation that they should have kept the Corus plant in Redcar running until a buyer was found. Again however it is dangerous – the USSR was eventually scuppered over a lack of modernisation and productivity – why bother changing and progressing if you can keep doing things exactly as you are without threat of being closed down or rendered obsolete?
3. Speeding up now –emigration should perhaps be thought about far more. A basic British closed-mindedness and lack of languages means we only ever see the new EU-sanctioned freedom to work overseas as an immigration issue. In fact, why not do as the Poles do? Why not take our skills to the markets where they’re required and remunerated appropriately within the local economy? That is surely an option for the workers of Redcar and, indeed, why stick to Europe? What demands must there be within the burgeoning economies of Brazil, India or China? I’m not saying I’m personally tempted but I think I’d rather that than the dole?
4. I well remember the time when anyone with basic computer programming skills could name their wage and walk into a job – after all, every single company suddenly had to have an IT network and online presence. Hence the fact my university housemate could drink his way to a Third and quickly make himself better paid than the rest of us! Is there an ongoing opportunity for clever people to identify in advance niche or boom markets and for Britain to be taking particular advantage in some area of its own? A random example springs to mind – when in corporate sales I would always call Israel for the bioscience companies! What’s our niche, and could it involve manufacturing something new or different?
5. Finally – let’s look at the positives. Maybe, whilst Corus couldn’t keep up in the modern world, we should realise that Britain DOES still make things – eg Rolls Royce in Derby, Mercedes in Northampton. Nissan in Sunderland is apparently Europe’s most efficient car plant! In these cases there is something keeping them here and it’s not sentimentality – perhaps a brand, a reputation, an expert workforce or just a really well-run enterprise. The problem is that none of the above employ huge numbers of people – I guess we have to accept that modern technology has cut down on the sheer numbers of workers required. Nonetheless it is a reminder that quality and skills will out. Maybe we could drop the obsession with our nation’s children reaching university, even if ill-suited, because we value graduation (whatever the debts) more than we value skills and practical expertise. That’s why we needed all the Polish plumbers in the first place! Apprenticeships should surely be designed and offered in order to reflect the needs and opportunities of industry? And a profitable business is always appealing...

A lot there and a violation of my ‘3-digit word count’ rule, meaning probably no-one will read. But I’ve enjoyed thinking it through, and I hope we do remain a country that makes things… even if I myself remain a DIY-phobic who merely writes about it. It’s not just nostalgia – more a belief that a nation’s history imprints upon it and that we Brits are happiest when producing THINGS of our own.

PEOPLE NEED PEOPLE!

Teaching, as I do so often, Nazi Germany to at least two different year groups here at the Castle; I have been struck by Hitler’s use of community spirit. It is a yearly source of wonder and mystery to the lads; how this deranged and murderous oddball could possibly have inspired such widespread devotion. The assumption I have to pick away at is simply that they were coerced into doing so, whether by fear or violence. There is a presumption that if they didn’t wave flags, joyously salute and fight to the death for the Fuhrer, they’d be at once picked off by an SS sniper on the roof (or perhaps by the Gestapo agent under their bed).


Neither is true. Yes, it was wise to be seen playing ball lest you be reported by a zealous neighbour or your own Hitler Youth-attending spawn. But, as my Head of Department mentioned just this week – Hitler would have retained power with a vast approval rating had he held an election in 1938. It wasn’t everyone – of course not – but there’s every sign of him having been carried along on a wave of genuine public enthusiasm as the country’s fortunes and standards of living demonstrably improved (at least for those among the ‘Volk’) and the world began to fear them once more.

There are plenty of reasons for this – the nation’s history had seen them far more used to dictatorship and militarism than to the alternative, there was shame at the outcome of WW1 and fear at the experiences of the Great Depression, Hitler was even able to tap an already prevalent seam of anti-Semitism… However, perhaps above all (and I’m aware I say this without footnotes or credible backing) Hitler tapped a human need to belong. Throughout a German’s upbringing in the 1930s they would be told they were part of an exclusive club – racially and nationally. Evenings were filled with rallies, films, hikes, meetings… for children but also for adults in the world of work; kept happy with the like of ‘Beer and Sausage Evenings’ within the ‘Strength Through Joy’ programme. It was perhaps part of the appeal that others were not allowed to participate (Jews, gypsies, asocials, Communists, the mentally ‘defective’), thus serving to further affirm those on the inside, as well as giving them a common opponent and scapegoat. All school subjects and all public pronouncements made great use of the message that Germany and its people were special, chosen, destined for greatness – deserving of land and vengeance.

So what of it? Well I think this need exists still. People want to belong and they crave contact. There has been a horrible dismantling of organic bonds within society via the abandonment of church, unions, political parties or working men’s clubs. I’m not sure anything has truly replaced them – even football clubs have been taken, at the top level, beyond the reach of those who love them, leaving only the wealthy able to attend. Rather, social groupings happen online – where people compete for ‘friends’ they have often never met. This is unsatisfactory and demeaning of our humanity. Where for most of our history entertainment meant, by definition, a coming together of people, it is now fed through tubes into televisions and computer screens, devoured by isolated people cut off from each other by walls. I’m positive it’s partly responsible for the general mental health issues written about in the likes of ‘Affluenza’. It’s also dangerous. If someone in our age appears promising a community and acceptance within it on the basis of a crass and lowest-common denominator (Nick Griffin is a sort of rubbish dry run of the theory), it will surely seem hugely appealing to many.

There are positive instances of community still. Whatever you think of Christianity, hang around my church for a bit and you’ll see a bunch of people holding each other to high standards, looking out for one another and seeking to help out the wider community. I personally will never forget that whilst my wife was undergoing brain surgery, people were (without me asking) bringing round meals they’d cooked me, or taking my bike in to get the brakes fixed. I’m sure this mutual support is part of the reason why disconnected youngsters get sucked into the more fundamentalist forms of religion too, but it can be a very good thing – promoting charity, good parenting, moral behaviour. I’m not sure there are currently a great many alternative sources of such guidance; Harriet Harman threatening to arrest anyone who expresses a view suggesting ‘inequality’ doesn’t count! And it doesn’t have to be faith-based. I’ll never forget the glorious birth of AFC Wimbledon – a football club owned and formed by fans to replace the one bought by business sharks and literally taken from their community after 100-odd years in favour of Milton Keynes. It was clear that, with the early football at little more than parks standard in those early days, the thousands present craved above all a place to drink, sing and vent together – enjoying being a part of something that mattered to so many.

However, many seem to drift from communities once they leave school and university. Many in cities are lonely and thus susceptible to the politics of hate. It is to Britain’s credit that it never held much truck with extremes, whether Fascist or Communist. But, in troubled times, people still love a scapegoat and we need to give people a positive reason to belong. Social disconnection is prime fodder for the next budding Adolf!