LONDON, 1 November 2006 — How brave is the UK government? The Cabinet may need an Asterix potion of fortitude before it gets serious on climate change, judging by its recent chronic lack of bottle on anything difficult (except, of course, for Blair’s war). Small but ferocious lobbies blow the government over at the first puff of controversy, even when public opinion is firmly on Labour’s side.
Last week, Education Secretary Alan Johnson’s retreat over faith schools was as depressing as it was dangerous; he was forced to eat wise words still hot from his mouth. He should have stood his ground over obliging new faith schools to take 25 percent non-faith pupils in exchange for lavish state funding. The public is way ahead of him: For years polls show that the majority have opposed faith schools altogether.
The “popularity” of Christian schools in this heathen country has been proved in study after study to be all about selection: Faith schools screen out chaotic families who don’t go to church, doubling the number of difficult children in next-door schools — and thus doubling the difference between them. Even while falling on their knees to get a place, parents still overwhelmingly oppose religious schools — by 64 percent in a Guardian ICM poll.
Parents faking Christianity is relatively harmless; far more alarming are the extreme faith schools for children of fanatical believers. Their leaders came out last week refusing to admit outsiders because they aim “to create the total Muslim personality” or because “the Jewish community needs to maintain its distinct identity and ethos, and has no interest in spreading its message to others.” Catholics led the charge, with “Three days to save our faith schools” blazoned across the Catholic Herald. Every frocked and bearded man of faith rallied to the cause of absolute segregation, the Church of England moderates giving respectable cover to zealots.
Standing firm would have struck a blow against all religious extremism: What could be more extreme than demanding that children of one faith and culture are kept in strict apartheid from all others? Some were even railing against the new 14-19 vocational diplomas that will mix schools for some classes. Refusing angry Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus equally would have sent a clear message about the secular state, but by giving way time after time on religious “rights,” the pusillanimous government sets dangerous precedents.
Alan Johnson was hung out to dry: The prime minister wouldn’t have it; nor would some 50 frightened Labour MPs in marginal seats, terrified by priests in the pulpit organizing local campaigns. Psephologists never found a single seat won or lost where Catholics tried to use the pulpit on issues such as abortion; the faithful still voted according to politics, not faith. But no one panics like a Labour MP in fear of their seat, though most are neither God- botherers nor genuine supporters of religious separatism.
So Lord Baker’s amendment in the UK House of Lords Monday, calling for a 25 percent school quota of non-believers, never had a prayer: His own Tories and the Lib Dems joined Labour chicken-hearts to vote for faith separation. With Johnson’s face-saver of a “voluntary” agreement on admissions to new schools, the progressive cause of abolition was thoroughly demolished. So here we are with religion as the greatest danger to the world after climate change, yet all three main political parties in the UK turn tail at the first whiff of incense.
How about drink? Will the UK government get any braver on that? Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt’s blindingly commonsense call for higher taxes on alcohol received a statutory Treasury rebuff. But the UK and Denmark are the only countries where drinking is on the rise. Its effects cost the UK’s state-funded National Health Service (NHS) £1.7 billion a year — £500 million in hospital accident and emergency departments, with 80,000 drink-driven violent incidents a month. Drink consumption is highly price-sensitive, especially among the youngest pocket-money drinkers, yet alcohol now costs 54 percent less in real terms than it did in 1980. Drink sales fall in recessions: 10 years of unbroken growth means the UK finance minister has a duty to correct the alcoholic effect of his own success. Will he bravely raise the price enough to make a difference?
Now, how about gambling? Again, public opinion is crystal clear; there is no popular demand for huge new casinos, let alone a supercasino. A million people in the UK now gamble online, and the number of addicts is rising, yet the UK Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell is beckoning foreign companies to come and register here to make Britain the offshore gambling den of the world. America has just banned online gambling by stopping credit-card firms processing payments to gambling firms. Why can’t Britain do that too? Instead Jowell has been sharply critical of the US law. Yet it’s rare to find a Labour MP who doesn’t roll their eyes in disbelief at this Blair Jowell infatuation with gambling, apart from those whose local councils are suckered by the myth of casinos as instruments for “regeneration” rather than degeneration.
So why don’t the spineless backbenchers just say no? A boozing, gambling nation politically intimidated by faith minorities may be a confusing moral legacy for Labour, but the real test of Labour’s nerve is yet to come.
Will the same wimpish timidity prevail over climate change, despite the Stern report? For 10 years Tony Blair and the UK Finance Minister Gordon Brown have all but ignored it, so will they really find the nerve to make tough decisions now? Brown proposes that the EU cuts emissions by 30 percent by 2020 — but that has to start right here to carry any persuasive weight.
Monday’s mad-dog press was frothing at the mouth before the report was even published: the London Sun newspaper proclaimed Blair’s intention as “I’m saving the world ... you lot are paying.” The Daily Telegraph said the state can’t protect the environment.
The Daily Mail put up Melanie Phillips to stand at the last post against science: “The Royal Society, the government’s chief scientific adviser Sir David King and a host of other ... grand panjandrums all claim there is no longer any scientific debate about whether man-made global warming is happening ... Phooey.”
This time Labour (and the husky-hugging Tories) need to hit back hard at Britain’s know-nothing press; it could be the death of us all if it persuades voters that there is no problem, or that nothing can be done, or that no one need pay a penny more, or that tackling climate change is unfair to the poor. (Watch how useful the poor suddenly become in debates over green taxes.)
Now, taking the press by the throat really would take nerve after 10 years of lily-livered, jittery subservience.
