Hypocrisy From The Bishops
Nick de Bois point out the hypocrisy of the Bishops when it comes to their own "poverty stricken" vicars.
24 Jan 2012, 07:30
Bishops in the House of Lords
So, if Bishops vote down welfare reforms to cap benefits at £26,000 unless child benefit is given over and above this figure, then how is there not a stench of hypocrisy about their decision given their own vicars earn considerably less?
Iain Duncan Smith pointed out in the Commons today that he had an e-mail from a vicar who wondered why the Bishops fail to recognise that he, the vicar, is paid only £22,000 a year. I can understand how in his situation he would be confused about the Bishops getting excited about £26,000 being a 'poverty-level' figure. Inevitably such observations on my Twitter account provoked angry criticisms that I was forgetting the stipend received from the church of England did not include a home and phone bills. Okay then, let’s not forget that the Vicar pays tax, the £26,000 cap is a gross salary equivalent of about £34,000, and of course that same vicar works 7 days a week.
As tempting as it is to dwell on this point, the Bishops inconsistency between the relative income of a beneficiary of capped welfare payments and that of a vocationally driven man of faith is not their real failure. Those that voted down the welfare cap have demonstrated a moral failing in condemning those out of employment to the prospect of earning £50,000 before being able to make work pay. That is the effect of their alternative proposal. How reasonable an expectation is it for those in these circumstances to turn their lives around? Let me be clear that all that has happened yesterday is that the House of Lords, and the Bishops in particular, have shown determination to continue
a“ feed-and-forget“ welfare state.
Iain Duncan-Smith and his excellent team of ministers want to transform years of failed attempts to deal with poverty by zeroing in on the long term causes of unemployment like family breakdown and structural barriers in the benefits system. Clearly this approach involves reducing benefits, because the Government recognise the pitfalls of imprisoning individuals in both low income and benefit dependency through a lack of incentives
. Further, the public back this approach to the degree that 72% of the public thinks that ‘politicians need to do more to reduce the amount of money paid out in benefits’. Many of my constituents, where salaries match the national average of £26000, work long hours for a better lot in life. They pay their fair share back into society, raising families and struggle to make ends meet and they will also struggle to understand the decision of the House of Lords last night. As Iain Duncan Smith said in an interview with the Times yesterday, "Why over all these years, have they (the Bishops) sat back and watched people being placed in houses they cannot afford? It’s not a kindness. I would like to see their concerns about ordinary people, who are working hard, paying their tax and commuting long hours, who don’t have as much money as they would otherwise because they’re paying tax for all of this. Where is the bishops’ concern for them?”
I suppose if the Church leaders will not answer that question, then maybe they will at least give their clergy a pay rise. Perhaps.
Comments (7)
Subscribe to this posts's comments feed
Isn't Christian charity supposed to involve transferring your own resources to the needy, not forcing other people to provide theirs to people you deem needy (but others may not)?
24/01/2012 08:57Classic politician's response. Instead of arguing the merits of a policy, it's all about how much of the public supposedly supports the policy.
I'd rather have the merits of policies explained to me, just be told how many people who don't really understand much about the economy may think about it, thanks.
And I'm glad you're happy to point out the hypocrisy in others, without checking the size of the plank in your own eye.
You who supports this team of "excellent" ministers who set about distinguishing themselves from all the waste of the last government, only to lavish money on the Olympics, and by the back door start announcing various spending projects.
Only a slight stench of hypocrisy there then.
24/01/2012 09:22Oh and Salmondnet, Christian values involve not judging people who happen to be in a situation where they claim benefits in the manner befitting a Daily Mail journalist, as somehow subhuman.
24/01/2012 09:24James Reade criticises others for making judgements and then makes judgements himself! Classic...
(The Olympic Budget was set in stone about 4 years ago BTW: not a judgement .. a fact . It was approved by the past Government. As anyone with any semblance of knowledge of the subject would know).
The Bishops are doing what their collective consciences think best. Whether right or wrong, at least they are sticking to their principles : which for the C of E is that the State will always provide.. Given that any substantive reform of our antiquated Constitution will flush their privileged position away, they might as well enjoy it when they can.
Their policy on most issues of the day is a good weathervane: oppose them and you'll be correct.
24/01/2012 10:12A headline Justice longs for…
“MP’s Expenses and Wage Reform plans are not designed to "punish"…
"I simply make the point to them that the purpose of this is not to punish people but it is to give fairness to people who are paying tax, who are commuting large distances
because they can only afford to live on their Salary of a mere £72,000 and the EXPENSES that they have chosen," “But the basic principle that the cap the expenses at £500 so that you can’t on MPs Expenses earn more than you would if you actually went out and worked - I think that’s got to be a simple principle that most people would subscribe to.”
The fiscal argument here – that the Expenses bill is climbing further beyond affordability – is not even the strongest part of the case. It is a simple moral point, grasped by the vast bulk of the population: paying people expenses who earn more than three times the average wage is insidious. It is unfair to taxpayers, who would (once the effects of income tax and National Insurance are taken into account) have to work far, far harder in order to take home just One Third of the same sum. Expenses encourage a dependency as a lifestyle; and it condemns countless thousands of people to life among the Feral Elite class.
Source: The Daily Truth.
“All in IT Together?”
The current annual salary for an MP is £65,738.
MPs’ salaries should be boosted with flat-rate allowances worth tens of thousands of pounds a year to fund second homes and travel, a MPs’ committee has suggested.
MPs can currently claim up to £19,900 a year for renting second homes in London and paying household bills.
Those with constituencies in the capital - or who opt to use their own property - get
a flat-rate supplement of £3,760, or £5,090 for inner London.
Many whose seats are a significant distance from Westminster spend more than £10,000 annually on travel.
If the government really cared about these issues they would be introducing a living wage and a rent cap.
24/01/2012 15:14James Reade: There is no judgement express or implied of people claiming benefits in my comment. Try looking up the meaning of the word "may".
My criticism was of the morality of people who wish to be generous with other peoples money without their assent. That is what the Bishops voted for. If the churches were to provide additional benefits to the unemployed from their own funds or by collections from their congregations that would be a different matter.
In passing, your reference to the Daily Mail is classically, if routinely, bigoted.
24/01/2012 20:53With all the hand-wringing from the Guardian reading Bishops, we should be able to generate enough power to heat every vicarage in the country.
16/02/2012 22:48