Winter Fuel Payment

Like many people, I am struggling to understand why the new government chose Winter Fuel Payment as an issue to make a stand. The difficult headlines are enduring; opposition to the decision is coming in from the right (more pensioners vote - and more vote Conservative), other opposition parties, many Labour MPs, as well as those to the left. However, the contribution that cutting the fuel payment makes to the budget deficit is relatively small. It will be even smaller if all of the pensioners who are still eligible for it via pension credit actually get the applications in. Why risk it?

One explanation of this I have heard is that the government wants to convey to the financial markets at home and abroad that it is serious about keeping the finances under control and filling in the £22 billion shortfall, which many (but not all) analyses believe is there. The problem for Labour is that it looks like they are making vulnerable people pay rather than those with more capacity to do so.

The problem with universal benefits is obvious. The point about Mick Jagger (or insert the name of any millionaire over retirement age) getting a winter fuel payment is a fair one. There is a significant cohort of pensioners who have good workplace pensions, have paid off their mortgage, and have better disposable incomes than many younger people struggling to buy homes or pay their rent. It is a legitimate question as to whether it is the best use of money to give more affluent retired people a fuel payment at all.

The difficulty in solving this is that means-testing benefits is often complicated and costly, not always saving as much as is hoped. Furthermore, any system that requires an application to be made (and these are always now online) has a number of risks - awareness, a certain stigma attached to applying for help, and not all older people are very confident with online applications.

Here's a suggestion: replace the one-off universal payment with a £300 supplement to the state pension that is in addition to any inflation increases, making it taxable. It doesn't take away all of Mick's £300, but it would at least claw-back money from the better off who will be paying tax on it - and for some that will be at the higher rate. It also uses existing systems, rather than requiring an fresh application to be made. For those without additional means, I think the pension is still below the threshold for income tax, so those with the lowest incomes would continue to receive the full amount with no further paperwork to complete. 

There may be other unforeseen problems with that, but I can't help but feel that it would have been a better and much less unpopular method to transition away from the blanket payment.

Election Reflections

The post-election analysis is now well underway by people better informed than me, but here are a few thoughts from an amateur observer about what we have just been through.

Calling a snap election was a disastrous decision for the Tories

I don't have any inside information on this, but it seems clear from multiple news sources that Rishi Sunak's decision to go for an election on July 4 took nearly everyone by surprise - including many of his own party. The only rationale that makes any sense is that he thought things might be even worse in the autumn, and he might take his opponents unawares. Unfortunately for him, it appears to have wrong-footed his own party at least as much as anyone else. 

Labour won decisively.

I have seen some rather grudging posts online about the votes cast for Labour - especially comparing to their performance under Jeremy Corbyn. Of course, the overall turnout was lower this time around so absolute vote numbers are likely to be down, and tactical voting certainly seems to have played a part.  However, we cannot ignore the fact that this time Labour managed to gain and/or retain votes where they needed to win new seats, rather than consolidating their core vote in safe Labour territory. Winning seats in Wales, despite being the party in power in the Welsh Assembly, and big gains in Scotland also played an important role.

UK general elections are decided by seats won, and recovering from a substantial defeat to an outright win in under 5 years has to be acknowledged as an extraordinary result, whatever our political persuasions. 

Speaking of Scotland

A big story north of the border will be the collapse of the SNP vote. It looks like many Scots were more keen to get rid of the UK Conservative government by voting Labour than voting SNP. Support for independence still seems quite strong, but the SNP can no longer rely on that being decisive in the way people vote for the Westminster government. Recent scandals and the fact the SNP have been in power in Holyrood for a long time probably also played into this. That result looks like putting any further moves to another independence referendum on hold for the foreseeable future.

Canny campaigning

The demise of the Conservative vote was not just down to Labour. The Liberal Democrats were careful in their campaigning to focus most of their resources on winnable seats - the majority of which were where they were polling second to a Conservative candidate. A result of 71 (and probably later today 72) seats must have seemed beyond their wildest dreams at the start of the campaign. Ed Davey's combination of comedy moments and very serious engagement with health and social care certainly seems to have struck a chord. 

On a smaller scale the Green Party succeeded in capturing all 4 seats they regarded as winnable and came second in quite a lot more. Small parties can struggle to depict themselves as electable, so this may help the Greens to establish a more significant presence in parliament

which brings us on to...

Reform and Farage

I am usually reluctant to discuss Farage - after all I believe Oscar Wilde said the only thing worse than being talked about was not being talked about. He certainly managed his public profile deftly - initially saying he wasn't standing, due to a more important election on the other side of the Atlantic, and then stepping in as candidate for Clacton and suddenly becoming leader of Reform. Presumably leadership elections aren't needed for Reform as a limited company. 

It is too simplistic to assume all Reform voters are ex-Tories (many seem to be white working class people who would have been expected to vote Labour at one time), but they clearly had an impact on the Conservative vote. 

Despite Reform candidates using racist and homophobic language and criticising Winston Churchill for fighting the Nazis, the campaign generated some momentum. There is a lot of heat in some part of the media that Reform only got 5 seats from their 4.1 million votes and came second in 98 seats. Will we now see the Daily Express suddenly acquiring an enthusiasm for a proportional voting system? 

It's probably worth noting that UKIP got 3.8 million votes, came second in 120 seats, and won 1 seat (ex-Tory Douglas Carswell in Clacton) in 2015. That would suggest that whilst there is a section of our society voting in that direction, the growth in the support is rather more limited than some headlines would imply. My own amateur hunch is that loss of trust in the system, and a feeling of being left behind or overlooked still motivates a lot of Reform votes.

With the majority they hold, I think Labour would be wise to get on with their agenda, trusting that if peoples lives improve their vote will consolidate. However, the Conservative Party might take a further lurch to the right in an attempt to woo Reform voters, which I suspect will simply deliver them into Farage's hands. That may not serve the long-term interest of democracy

Reverse Logic

"Every heresy contains a grain of truth" is something I have heard quoted a number of times, which led me to think of what our modern equivalents to heresies might be. 

Here's a heresy I named this morning: Charity begins at home.

At face value, that has to be true. We can't show authentic compassion and love to the wider world if we can't even love those closest to us. At best it's inconsistency; at worst it's flagrant hypocrisy. For example, you wouldn't have to dig too far into the news archives to find clergy who seemed perfectly good priests to their parishioners, but who treated their families abysmally and even abusively.

But all too often the reverse logic heresy starts to cut in, and so instead of the home being a launchpad for compassion and concern for all our neighbours, it becomes a reason to keep it close at hand. I have heard the phrase used in discussions about overseas aid and support where it was clear that the speaker believed that charity should not only begin, but end at home.

The same instinct for heresy seems to have poisoned some minds with regard to people in poverty, foodbanks, and where responsibility lies.

Across the country, many foodbanks and other charities such as CAP are supporting people in poverty, running sessions on budgeting, planning and preparing cheap nutritious meals, and other similar projects. Many people who are struggling appreciate these sessions, and are helped towards making ends meet week by week. Nothing contentious there.

But along comes an MP who takes that grain of truth (sessions on cooking helping people make ends meet) and reverses the logic to conclude that failure to make ends meet must be down to not knowing how or what to cook, or being useless at budgeting. It is a subtle change of words, yet a completely toxic shift in the argument. I gather that the existence of budgeting and cooking sessions is now being cited as proof that this nasty allegation is correct, and those who challenge will doubtless be dismissed as ignorant or lefties or both. After all, it's happened before:

Let's be clear on this, poverty is not caused by the masses having no catering or budgeting skills (ironically if it was, that would still be the government's fault for not including key life skills in the school curriculum, but I digress) Poverty is something that millions are born into and struggle with day by day, using all their wit to make ends meet, keep the lights on, and look after their families. 

Solutions to poverty are complex, and with the cost of living crisis are becoming more acute and necessary, but I see no real sense of purpose in the current government to address that. Instead they talk of tax cuts (having raised a lot of tax!). But basic rate tax cuts only benefit those who actually pay tax, and everyone who pays tax. They don't target those most in need of relief. Restoring the £20 uplift in Universal Credit would seem to me to be a much better use of money, but the chancellor may feel that won't produce as many votes as a basic rate income tax cut. 

Foodbanks, charities, churches and more will carry on doing their brilliant work, but don't hold their clients culpable for their predicaments; ask those with wealth and power why this situation exists in the first place, and what they are going to do to solve it.

[You may also be interested in correspondence I had with my MP a few years ago about comments he made about the local Foodbank. He never apologised for the incorrect statements that he made.]

Voter ID

It is interesting to see how the proposals for compulsory ID are unfolding. On the one hand, the point is made that there were only a tiny handful of cases which it might have prevented at the last election; on the other, it is advocated as a measure to prevent the possibility of widespread fraud at a future election. Other countries (and Northern Ireland within the UK) already require it, so what are the problems?

Not Everyone has ID

I used to be at a church in Morecambe, which is quite an economically deprived area. Local agencies regularly encountered people who found engaging with local services very challenging. Applying for what they were entitled to was a big hurdle - due to physical or mental health issues, lack of confidence with literacy, or just a suspicion of authorities, forms and institutions. No doubt quite a lot of them weren't even registered to vote at all, but even if they were (it is a simple form) getting additional ID would be a challenge.

Clergy have to ID people for weddings and also for DBS checks, and sometimes it was quite difficult for people to get the required documents required, so they will need something else for voting. I remember trying to do a DBS for someone who was married with kids, had lived at their address for some time, but they never had a need for a passport or driving licence. We had to scour through bills and other official correspondence to get the right combination of current paperwork even to do a DBS ID check.

The Cost of ID

The cheapest way to get a UK adult passport is online (which means someone needs access to that). Charities (and the library) in Morecambe provided that for people with none, but inevitably it only benefitted people who were aware of the facility and willing to use it. The cost of the cheapest passport is £75-50. Driving licences are cheaper (and even free for a change of details) but driving costs considerably more!

If an ID card of some kind is to be introduced which can serve as voter ID, the process needs to be simple and free if it isn't going to discriminate against people struggling with money - let alone the challenges I mentioned previously. The Northern Ireland card is free, so that sets a precedent. The potential difficulty there is that free schemes can be harder to secure that ones which involve payment and generate an audit trail.

The Electoral Reform Society estimates that the voter ID proposals could cost up to £20 million to implement, and could affect up to 11 million potential voters. Even if those are exaggerated figures, the impact is highly likely to be significant.

The Impact on Voting Trends

One of the key points made by opponents of the voter ID proposals is that Labour tends to be stronger with precisely the people most likely to be disenfranchised by such a system. There were comparable allegations made in the United States about it favouring Republicans. Even if it were unwitting, the proposal is likely to favour Conservative voting at an election. 

Any proposal that is likely to reduce voter numbers is unwelcome; if it favours certain political interests, it is profoundly unjust.

A thought on the election: the power of 3 words

Quite a few years ago, I went to a training session on communication for churches. In one section, they discussed mission statements. All too often church mission statements on noticeboards are lengthy paragraphs of how the church will worship more faithfully, care more lovingly, serve the community and several more laudable and Christian aims.

The problem with that, according to our speaker is that few remember or even read them to the end. They may be a useful reference document for a church council, but they won't galvanise a vision. What was needed was something more concise, and the examples he gave were perestroika and rainbow nation. In the Soviet Union as it crumbled, and in South Africa emerging from apartheid, very simple phrases or even a single word captured the aspirations of a nation and even entered the language of other countries. Looking back we can analyse and suggest they may not have achieved what they hoped for, but at the time they were very effective.

At the 2016 referendum, the Leave campaign coined "take back control", and in this election Boris Johnson and his cohorts kept saying "get Brexit done". Both phrases beg all kinds of questions, fail to stand up to rigorous intellectual scrutiny, and can get dismissed as empty. The point that was missed by those who mocked was that people remembered 3 words, and they meant that the focus came back again and again to the issue each campaign wanted dead centre, and kept attention away from more awkward questions or more nuanced arguments.

The remain campaign had no such equivalent phrase to counter the brexiters in 2016. In the election campaign, Labour's take on Brexit was complicated and had changed over the previous months, meaning the campaign could only come up with adding the derivative phrase "get Brexit sorted" as part of a much longer explanation.

A three-word phrase can be dismissed as a vacuous slogan, but Dominic Cummings and his team understood that the detail isn't important at impact. You can deal with that later - get the phrase in people's heads and the fewer words the better.

We probably won't have a General Election again  until 2024, but whenever it comes, don't underestimate the power of 3 words.

Politics has gone strange

This week has witnessed some strange goings-on in British politics. Brexit is, of course, dominating the political agenda for the UK government. Rivalries, splits and dissatisfaction have come out into the open and the Prime Minister seems to have held on to her job primarily because no-one really wants to contemplate the alternative.

For the first time that I can remember, supporters of Brexit on the right of politics started openly talking about the need for government spending to increase to prepare for a possible hard Brexit or even no deal. This was noteworthy for two reasons:

(a) Brexit was portrayed by its advocates as financially beneficial to the UK during the referendum and its aftermath. We know the £350 million per week was bogus, but there has been a continued narrative that Brexit would be good for Britain. However, it was already starting to look costly, as the devaluation of the pound had its impact on the costs of procurement for the NHS and the MoD. Now there is an admission that it will cost.

(b) Those on the political right are not usually very keen on increasing public spending. Indeed they are usually looking for cuts in spending to fund tax cuts. But in this case, even people like John Redwood were ready to spend big, and complaining that Hammond wasn't.

Meanwhile the Chancellor of the Exchequer was sticking to the cautious Treasury financial forecasts and stated his reluctance to spend on resources that shouldn't be necessary, were a tariff-free deal successfully negotiated.

This had a remarkable effect. The right-wing Brexit supporting tabloid press and the right of the Conservative party openly criticised their own Chancellor of the Exchequer for not being prepared to spend more public money. This was fuelled, of course, by the fact the Hammond was a strong supporter of remaining in the EU in the referendum, and they suspect he's still wanting to be a saboteur. For those of us who are not Conservatives, it's a bewildering and extraordinary spectacle.

It's obviously left Mr Hammond somewhat rattled. He's reported today as referring to EU negotiators as "the enemy", but later tweeted that it was a poor choice of words and was much more conciliatory.

None of this has been very edifying, and the clock continues to tick towards March 2019. As I have openly said all along, I would much prefer that we stayed in the EU, and that is what I would vote for again, given the opportunity. However, if we must leave, then chaos helps no-one. The poorest and most vulnerable members of our society need the best deal we can get in the circumstances, for they will pay the price if it all goes badly wrong. The signs are not promising. I hope I'm mistaken.

The Rector, The MP and the Foodbank

David Morris MP has now replied to my second letter about his remarks concerning Morecambe Bay Foodbank. As a lot of people have shown an interest in this matter, I thought a final blog post was in order.

In his reply, Mr Morris made no reference to his comments in the Visitor, but rather asserted that he stands by his statement on his website (which is not easy to find) and has no intention of changing his position. He alleges that the Foodbank is politicised and that he has raised concerns about that with the Trussell Trust. He ended the letter saying that this concludes the correspondence he will engage with on this matter.

This leaves me with a few questions. Since Mr Morris won't engage with this further, I simply put them out there.

1) Why didn't David Morris address my specific challenge to his statement that the Foodbank was "started and run by the Labour Party"?

It is entirely plausible that the Foodbank has volunteers who are politically active, including ones aligned with the Labour Party. When I visited there was no discussion of political affiliation, but on enquiring, I understood there to be a range.

The Foodbank can't be held responsible for the political affiliation of those prepared to commit time for volunteering; the question is whether he can demonstrate that the Foodbank has been politically biased in its recruitment of volunteers.

Even if there is a disproportionate representation for Labour in the volunteer team, there is a great deal of difference between that being true and the Foodbank being started and run by the Labour Party. And what (or who) does he mean by "the Labour Party" in his allegation?

2) Why won't David Morris visit the Foodbank?

As an MP representing a political party which purports to encourage volunteering and charitable activity, I find it very strange that he hasn't visited long ago. He has said he now fears being ambushed by a political stunt: "they want me to walk through that door, take a picture of me and shout at me". Potentially any public appearance by an MP can turn into a shouting match. It suggests a lack of political courage that he isn't prepared to go and defend his corner. Much as I disliked their policies, I can't imagine that Norman Tebbitt or Mrs Thatcher would have been deterred.

It also demonstrates a lack of faith in the hand of fellowship the Methodist minister offered him in his most recent invitation. I am confident that any minister would do all they could to show hospitality, even if they disagreed profoundly. In the Visitor David Morris said he will go with national Trussell Trust and Social Services staff, so I hope he sees that through and pro-actively seeks to arrange to do so.

Another mystery about this is that in parliament on 17 Dec 2014 Mr Morris said "I have never been invited to a food bank in my constituency, although I would love to go..." (see the full text here). He also questions the levels of take up stated by the Trussell Trust. Morecambe Bay Foodbank say that 3 invitations were issued, along with a 4th indirect approach. Furthermore, the church minister also wrote to invite him. It's bewildering why he would deny this.

3) What data does Mr Morris actually want?

As stated above, Mr Morris suggested in his comments on 17 Dec 2014 that the data for Foodbanks was unclear. I have seen data being entered into the system at Morecambe Bay Foodbank, I have seen the referral forms which have to be signed by professional in the area, and I have seen the stock taking and record keeping taking place. I am sure that if Mr Morris mustered the courage to visit and explained exactly what stats he required, they could be called up for him there and then.

4) If Morecambe Bay Foodbank is really so politicised, why hasn't he taken action much sooner to get its charitable status withdrawn or reviewed?

Many individuals and organisations are supporting and donating to Morecambe Bay Foodbank in good faith that it is a legitimate charity, operating within the rules and parameters for a charity. My own parish has donated some money and we have also sent other assistance. If an organisation is not operating legitimately as a charity in the local area, but is pretending that all is well, we need to know about it and be protected from it. Surely Mr Morris has a duty of care to us all if he has compelling evidence that the Foodbank is masquerading as something that it isn't. The fact that he has not done so after so many months leads me to conclude that he doesn't possess such evidence.

If, as Mr Morris implies, Morecambe Bay Foodbank were a covert organ of the Labour Party, it's been very subtle in its methods. There is, of course, uncomfortable evidence for the government in foodbank data, but I have seen no promotion of any of the opposition parties in any of the literature I have seen, or in conversations I have held.

Related articles

• Follow Up letter to David Morris MP

Follow Up letter to David Morris MP

I thought I'd publish the text of my follow-up letter to our MP concerning Morecambe Bay Foodbank

Dear Mr Morris,

You may recall that on 21^st May of this year I emailed a letter to you with regard to your reported comments about Morecambe Bay Foodbank – specifically that it was “set up and run by the Labour Party”. This concerned me, as I knew it was not true, and I was concerned that if that rumour gained traction, it could discourage people of other political persuasions from donating and volunteering. I am a Trustee of West End Impact, another charity addressing some of social needs in the most deprived areas of our town, and I know how key the goodwill of the public is in supporting our work.

I know the remarks attributed to you to be incorrect, because my wife, Debbie, when working as County Ecumenical Officer for Churches Together in Lancashire hosted a lunch here at the Rectory. People present included Rev Peter Brown - the minister of Brookhouse Methodist Church, Rev Stephen Poxon – then District Chair for the North Lancashire District of the Methodist Church, and Deacon Eunice Attwood – the 2010 Vice President of Methodist Conference (the national governing body for the Methodist Church in Britain).

At that lunch, Peter shared his vision for starting up a foodbank at the old Central Methodist Church, and how they were negotiating with the Trussell Trust in taking that forward. I remember the conversation well, as I encouraged him to build links with others doing similar work, such as West End Impact and Morecambe Homeless Action.

The text of my original letter is included for your reference. I made it an open letter, posted on my blog, as I wanted as many people as possible to be reassured that Morecambe Bay Foodbank is not an organ of the local Labour Party. Indeed a local minister thanked me, as they have some Conservative voting members in their church who are very active charitably and regularly take food to the Foodbank. They had been rather alarmed by what you said, and were only reassured when they were able to read my reply.

My reasons for writing now are two-fold. First of all, I am disappointed that you haven’t yet replied to my original letter and that you haven’t issued a public correction for the remarks attributed to you by The Visitor. The second is that I gather a new piece on the issue has appeared this week in Private Eye. The only contact I have initiated with the media about this issue was a follow-up letter in the Visitor, summarising what I said and pointing people to my blog. I was also aware that the Church Times showed a brief interest in the story. The unexpected reappearance of the story in the ‘Eye’ has prompted me to contact you again.

Can I encourage you to resolve this matter by meeting with the Foodbank team? I visited soon after I sent you the first letter, and I have seen the hard work they do, the painstaking records they keep, and have also spent time chatting to clients, including an ex-para with acute PTSD. I have also seen a copy of the letter Rev Peter Brown sent you, inviting you to visit, and would strongly encourage you to accept.

Responding to the needs in front of our noses and at our doors is central to the work of these charities and volunteers, and I’m proud that churches are at the forefront of this in Morecambe.  As our MP, I would have hoped that you might want to celebrate and affirm constituents who freely give their time and energy. Working in this area also means that we have questions and uncomfortable truths for the politicians who set policy, which arise from our work. However, that doesn’t necessitate you treating the foodbank as hostile. As Robert Key, Conservative MP for Salisbury 1983-2010, and trustee of the Trussell Trust wrote recently “The … task for some in Government is to stop pretending that food banks are left-wing, anti-government troublemakers” *. I think his advice is worth listening to.

Yours Sincerely

Mike Peatman

* Robert Key: Six ways the Government can tackle poverty and work with food banks. Published on Conservative Home website http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2015/07/robert-key-six-ways-the-government-can-tackle-poverty-and-work-with-food-banks.html

Politicians and Prayers

I heard a discussion on the BBC Radio 4 Sunday programme today about the new Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron, and his Christian faith.

You can listen or download it here

Tim was a colleague of mine at St Martin's College in Lancaster (now Uni of Cumbria) where he worked as a senior administrator in one of the faculties. He sometimes attended our midweek chapel worship when he was on campus, so we had a few conversations. I do remember him talking to me about his decision to go into politics. He's well-liked in his nearby constituency, and the testimony to that is that he held on to his seat in the midst of the demise of the Liberal Democrats at the last General Election.

As far as I am aware, Tim has never made any secret of his Christian faith. It's no surprise that being a Christian means you believe in God, and prayer is one of the fundamental activities. It would be quite weird, therefore, to exclude a whole area of one's life from ever being mentioned in one's own prayers. So it logically follows that a politician who is a practising Christian (or indeed of any other theistic faith) is going to bring their work into their prayers.

What's interesting is that this seemed to disconcert John Humphrys and Polly Toynbee. Polly Toynbee seemed to be saying today that he should avoid giving the impression of consulting God, and that thinking God is there is a private matter. What she didn't seem to understand was that it's not really feasible. Christian prayer is about bringing the whole of yourself to God with all your concerns, fears, hopes, dreams, brokenness, thanksgiving, etc. We don't recognise the notion that there are bits of ourselves we can't pray about.
NB It's worth noting that Tim Farron talked about prayer in response to a question on the subject from John Humphrys..

Of course, the fear that lies behind Polly Toynbee's concerns is that a politician with a religious faith might claim that God is 'on their side'. Many people in faith communities will recognise the issues that can arise if someone moves along the spectrum from saying they have prayed about something (which leaves open the answer, and retains some humility about the result) and saying that God has told them to do something. We sometimes see it in over-controlling church leaders, and it has had tragic results in politics and conflicts. I quite agree that such people are terrifying both for those with religious beliefs and those with none. However, that is not a fair description of MPs who have a faith and practise it. In fact, Christians In Parliament is a cross-party association, which indicates that the most active Christian MPs clearly don't think that God inhabits only their party, or is solely 'on their side'.

The whole discussion struck me as quite amusing this morning at our services today, as we prayed for those who govern and those who represent us. If the established church routinely prays for those who carry political responsibility, then I can't see why politicians shouldn't be free to pray for themselves without criticism.

No doubt Tim Farron will face much more scrutiny as he begins the unenviable task of reviving the fortunes of the Lib Dems. I hope the discussion moves on from where it is now, to the direction he wants to take party policy, and how he might make his party electable again. I don't envy him that job, and I reckon he will need all the prayers he can get.

The Budget: a few thoughts in the aftermath

I don't judge budgets by the "what's in it for me?" criterion that most commentators tend to apply. There's this rather worthy-sounding streak in me that says they should be judged on what they do for the nation, and especially those in most need. It's also quite complex to assess the impact as it's being delivered.

George Osborne's latest budget has left us with plenty to think about. Beforehand, he passed on the cost of the free TV licence for over-75s to the BBC. That was a welfare top-up by Gordon Brown to win favour with pensioners At the time, the money would arguably have been better spent on more targeted help for those who really needed it. As my (now 87 yr old) dad said, it was very nice, but he could afford his licence quite easily. Now the cost is carried by the BBC, and by implication licence fee payers. Any attempt to remove or reduce the benefit will now generate ill-feeling for the BBC, not George Osborne. He has effectively delegated a liability and potential blame.

This tendency to offload things went through the Budget itself. Costs were passed on to businesses, and the big surprise was a new living wage (in fact a rebrand of the minimum wage, set below the level of what was previously known as the living wage) This passes on responsibility for lifting people out of poverty from government to business. At one level, that seems entirely reasonable. The tax credit regime may well have enabled businesses to get away with low levels of pay. But this budget sought to offload the responsibility for what will become about £4bn relief to business, whilst £12bn was cut from welfare (including 'in-work' benefits) not necessarily from people who would benefit from a minimum wage increase.

That brings us to the tax credit cuts. They seem to have had a peculiarly adverse effect on clergy. One friend of mine has 3 school-age children, and his wife has chosen not to take paid employment in order to give voluntary time in the community. He took advice and found he will lose £207 per month. That's a lot to readjust your domestic budget for. Other colleagues report annual cuts of £1700, £1500 and £1300. According to the BBC online calculator, we'll lose about £890. The changes in minimum wage won't make any difference and the changes in tax threshold are already taken into account.

Now it's true that the majority of clergy don't go into the ministry for the money - you'd be a mug to do so, and most of us accept that a call to ministry means sacrifice. But clergy don't run the risk of being made homeless, as the house is provided (although that's a problem at retirement!). For most of us, it will mean being a bit more careful with the heating, using comparison sites for every major purchase or utility, shopping around at budget stores and supermarkets and taking more modest holidays. Clergy are also fortunate enough to have some charitable grants we can apply for to help with finance in times of need. It all makes things a bit harder work, and bit more austere, but we won't be homeless.

What really worries me is that if it's bad for clergy, then what are the proposed cuts going to do to others who are struggling to pay their mortgages and other bills. These changes could mean families losing their homes, and all the problems of homelessness that follow. If the calculations are right, then some of the poorer families will be absolutely clobbered by this budget. Foodbanks have already seen a surge in demand in the cuts so far; I fear we will see much more in the weeks and months to come.

So is it really worth putting people's homes at risk to enable £1,000,000 to be left in a will, tax free? Were there no alternatives? Were the money markets really so worried that we had to cut back so quickly? Is it really such a pressing necessity to get a budget surplus? It hasn't been for most of the last century.

So thanks, Mr Osborne. I'm sure I'll find ways to save £75 per month from our domestic budget - we will cope, but don't try to fool us that we will be better off as a result of your budget. We won't.

An Open Letter to David Morris MP

An Open letter to David Morris MP

Dear Mr Morris,

This week’s Visitor newspaper reported you as saying the following about Morecambe Foodbank: “The foodbank is set up and run by the Labour party”. I am very conscious that the media are not always accurate in their descriptions of what someone has said, so if it is not what you said, I hope that you will soon be issuing a correction. If it is accurate, then I must respond as follows:

First of all, I have to challenge your account of the origins of the foodbank. When Central Methodist Church on Green Street in Morecambe closed for worship, Brookhouse Methodist Church took on the challenge of finding alternative uses for the building and to create a new project there. After an initial phase of using the building for youth and children’s work, they negotiated with the Trussell Trust to set up a foodbank. I know this because the minister of Brookhouse Methodist Church, the Methodist District Chair for North Lancashire and others sat in my dining room and shared their plans some time before it even opened. It was not set up by the Labour Party. It may well be that some who are most closely involved with running the foodbank have that political allegiance, but your implication that it was a party project from the start is wrong.

Furthermore, if I understand the rules correctly, it would be a contravention of charity law for the foodbank to be aligned with one political party. Charitable activity can have a political dimension with regard to the furtherance of its aims. However, my understanding is that an alignment with a single party would not be permissible. If you believe that Labour are running Morecambe Foodbank, then it seems to me that it is your duty to submit the evidence to the relevant authorities for investigation. If you do not have the evidence, then you should not make the accusation.

I am not involved directly with Morecambe Foodbank, but I am a trustee of West End Impact, another charity in Morecambe working with some of the neediest people in our community. We work alongside other agencies so that every day of the week there is a location in our town where people can get a drink and a bite to eat. People in need can receive personal and emotional support, obtain advice on housing and benefits, receive some emergency food and much more. Many of these centres are church based, and we all see it as an important contribution to the well-being of our community. Your comments about the foodbank affect us all, especially as your assertion of a political agenda may well deter people from supporting, donating or volunteering at Morecambe Foodbank or, by association, at other centres such as West End Impact.

You have been elected as MP for our constituency, and you therefore represent us all, not simply those who voted for you. Many people across a wide political spectrum donate, volunteer and support the centres helping the most vulnerable members of our community. I believe the onus is on you to reach out to and build relationships with the organisations which are contributing so positively in our area, even where you feel that politically you may not have a great deal in common. It is your duty to find out how to best serve the people you represent.

I hope you do visit Morecambe Foodbank, and that you also go to West End Impact, Morecambe Homeless Action, Grace Ministries, the Salvation Army and more. I believe you could learn a lot about your constituents by doing so. You would hear about their needs – their lack of food, their financial problems, housing issues, benefits sanctions, mental health challenges, struggles with addictions and more. You would also encounter and be impressed by your constituents who give great amounts of time and energy into these centres, and you will find that they are not all in the pocket of Labour or any other political party.

Yours Sincerely

Mike Peatman


I received no reply, so here's the link to my second letter. Finally, I did receive a letter, which concluded saying that was the end of the correspondence. I sent a final reply as a receipt for his letter, itemising the concerns which remained unanswered.

At no point in his correspondence with me was a retraction made or an apology offered. However, I understand a private visit to the Foodbank was arranged. One can only hope it conveyed some truths about the work of the Foodbank and the needs it addresses.

Some Electoral Statistical Anomalies

There is a lot of election post-mortem around at the moment. Did Labour lose because of policy or the personality of their leader? What will happen with the SNP? Why did no-one notice the Tories dividing and conquering their opponents and then nicking all the Lib Dem seats?

What's been more interesting is the resurgence of calls for electoral reform. The fact that UKIP got around 4 million votes but only one seat is probably a relief to many of us, but like it or not, it doesn't seem just. Likewise the SNP got just about half the Scottish votes cast, but nearly all of the seats.

It's not a new problem. Back in 1983 the SDP/Liberal Alliance got over 25% of the popular vote and only 23 seats. There's a classic John Cleese election broadcast all about it and PR 

The current election result would certainly look better for UKIP, the Greens and even the Lib Dems under a PR system, although the SNP might not be so keen! You can see an example result for 2015 here.

Here are some more anomalies. In 2015, the Conservative Party got 36.9% of the popular vote from a 66.1% turnout. That means 24.3% of the electorate gave them an overall majority. In 1979, the Labour Party got 36.9% of the popular vote (yes - the same figure) from a 76% turnout. That's 28% of the available voters. Yet the first is a victory with an overall majority, and the second was a defeat that put Labour in the political wilderness for years. Funny how times change, eh? The effect of other parties has shifted the level of support you need to win, and likely boundary changes will make it even easier for the Tories to stay in power.

Finally, the Daily Mirror came up with a fun statistic, although I think they took it a bit more seriously than I did. Apparently 901 Conservative votes switching to Labour in the seats with the smallest majorities would have stopped an overall majority. Doesn't prove anything other than votes really count in marginals, but not nearly as much in 'safe' seats (although 'safe' became a rather slippery term this election.)

Will we see PR for a UK general election. I doubt it. But politics is changing, and perhaps there will come a time when our electoral system needs review in order to reflect that properly.

A Bit of Political Incorrectness

The General election is nearly here, and the political conversations are littered with the phrase "hard working families". This describes in vague terms a sector of society who exemplify what politicians across quite a wide political spectrum gear their policies towards affirming and encouraging. Cameron and Miliband both litter their speeches with references to them. It's become what is sometimes known as a glittering generality.

I suspect that if we unpacked what they meant, it would be somewhat different. My hunch would be that Cameron would define them as the opposite of so-called benefit scroungers or work-shy, whereas Miliband would probably see it more as way of talking about the employed working class without sounding like a leftie and scaring the Daily Mail et al more than he already does.

My heretical thought is this: what is virtuous about being a "hard working family" anyway? What's wrong with being a working family, who earn enough to meet their bills and still have time and energy for other things? What about families where no-one can work, due to illness, disability or a lack of available jobs? What about people (hard working or not) who haven't got a family, or at least don't live in a family-type household? 

The problem with current rhetoric is that it implies that anyone not fitting the "hard working family" template is somehow less than ideal. Policy is being geared to this heroic group of people rather than the isolated, unemployed or marginalised. We already live in times where benefits sanctions are readily applied to anyone not able to comply with demanding conditions, sometimes in cases where good reasons prevented people from doing what was required. In such a punitive context, when all assessment of budgets and policy seems to be based on "what's in it for me", public opinion could very easily be tipped towards even greater restrictions on the support and help we give to the vulnerable of our society from the taxes of those the politicians charm with their hard-working rhetoric.

I Don't Understand Economics Pt. 4

A few years ago, I posted parts 1, 2 and 3, so I thought it was time for another, as the news has had quite a bit to say about the deficit recently.

The Tories accused Labour of having £21 billion of plans that were not funded. Labour responded by saying the Tories were misrepresenting their commitments and doing the sums on the wrong basis. That's all the usual party political mud-slinging that we expect as an election approaches. Likewise, the Tories have planned tax cuts for the better-off, which are 'funded' from other savings. That left Labour asking the question as to why that money can't be used for the whole of society, rather than benefiting the few.

Putting the debate another way, the Tory attack reveals an assumption that there is a pot of government money, and when it's used up, that's it. The Labour reply is based on the same 'pot' assumption, but that there is enough money in the pot after all. Both parties show that they have a particular view of the deficit.

They both need to be challenged by the fact that there is no 'pot' of money fixed by any absolute standards. Governments have to manage the gap between their income and their spending, and in the majority of recent years, the UK has spent more than it got in (a deficit). In other words, governments nearly always have to borrow to supplement what gets put in the national piggy bank from tax etc. (Incidentally, a lot of recent borrowing has been done quite cheaply by historic standards.) The running total of all these debts (and occasional surpluses) is the national debt.

This makes sense. We know that if our government said it would only spend what it got in during 2015, many essential services would collapse, and the economy would plunge into deep recession, putting many more out of work and doing untold damage to society and the economy. It's also true that if the government didn't address the deficit at all, then confidence would be lost, and it would have a very bad effect on the pound and also our country's ability to borrow money.

Somewhere between those two extremes there is a significant amount of room for manoeuvre. In other words, the amount of money in the government's 'pot' is a set of decisions, not an absolute figure defined by some unassailable authority sitting somewhere else.

It's the result of a series of judgments, such as:

• how much tax can be gathered, and where from?
• how much should be spent, and on what?
• how big a deficit is the system prepared to take?

And, of course, even when you have done all the calculations and plans, sometimes things work out worse than forecast (as they have for George Osborn) or sometimes better than forecast (as they did for Gordon Brown in some of his years at 11, Downing Street).

So it seems to me that the kinds of questions we should be asking over the next few weeks are these:

• why have you decided on cutting/increasing/freezing _________ tax (fill in the blank)
• why have you decided on cutting/increasing/freezing spending on _____________?
• why have you decided that our country can/can't afford more/less deficit in this tax year?

It's actually quite disappointing that there are few significant voices challenging the current assumptions. Labour are committed to cuts as well, albeit a bit gentler than the Tories. Obviously the deficit needs to come down, but I wish more were asking whether our society's present needs don't justify taking a longer view, and giving more time for balance to be achieved.

What became of compassion?

This ought to start with a political disclaimer. All my political inclinations are to the left of centre, so I start with a bias. I consistently (and to no avail) voted against Mrs Thatcher through the 80s, and have never voted Conservative in a general election.

Having said that, I have met and know people who are generous, good-spirited, charitable and hospitable people who support all the mainstream political parties. Just because someone holds a particular political viewpoint doesn't automatically make them a nice or nasty person.

But Wednesday's debate in the Commons on foodbanks left me feeling very angry. Several agencies reported that Ian Duncan-Smith quietly left the debate early, the Daily Mirror even posting the footage on its website. What was even more depressing was to read of MPs on the government side laughing and jeering as opposition MPs described situations that their constituents had been through. It's one thing to have a good old political jousting match about policy and even whose fault the recession actually is, but it's quite another to treat real people's distress and pain with derision. What does it say about our politics that such serious issues end up being treated this way? What has it done to people to make them behave in that way?

And that's not all. Esther McVey (IDS's deputy) claimed "The UK has a population of 63 million and 60,000 people are visiting food banks according to the Trussell Trust." (Hansard) The Trussell Trust reported a figure of 346,992 as being helped by foodbanks for their reporting period 2012/13 and that it was rising. Oxfam and Church Action on Poverty estimate the current figure to be over 500,000. None of that takes into account the additional help being given out at community centres, homelessness projects, churches etc. In Morecambe we have a Trussell trust foodbank, but several other centres (including West End Impact, Morecambe Homeless Action, and the Salvation Army) are giving assistance through the week as well.

Surely it's not too much to ask for a minister to get her facts right about the need and usage in a debate that has had some build-up and preparation? Her best defence was that foodbanks started under the last Labour administration. That's true, but it hardly addresses the issue in the present. The recent massive growth in demand should be a major concern for anyone with her portfolio.

"Hardworking families" is the catchphrase of this government - just listen to the next TV/radio interview. They get it into debates on benefits, immigration, tax and anything else they possibly can. What this misses is that many visiting foodbanks are in work - they just can't make ends meet, and those out of work are often struggling to find jobs. You can't just make the simplistic assumption that a job is the solution..

The final issue is that I sense a rise in the view of the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor. There is a view around that people use foodbanks and other support to 'subsidise' addictions to drugs or alcohol or to enable them to maintain 'luxuries' like a mobile phone. I am sure that may be true in a small minority of cases. But even if were justifiable to talk about deserving poor, how would a voluntary agency staffed mainly by volunteers start to make that assessment. Doing so would also fundamentally change the nature of the relationship between the agency and the client to one of suspicion and investigation, rather than support and reassurance.

Let's imagine for a minute a very successful young business man. He has a big salary, a top car to keep up with his mates, a maxed-out credit card to keep up with the fashions and trends and a lovely house, using a mortgage at the very limits of what he can afford. One day it all goes wrong, the job ends, the car is repossessed, the house is sold etc. If he turns up at a foodbank, it would be very easy to say that he doesn't deserve the help. After all, he should have been more prudent, saved for a rainy day, been less materialistic, etc. We can think of all kinds of criticisms to offer - no doubt in addition to the ones that he is already heaping upon himself.

But rest assured that if he does turn up, a good support agency won't judge, won't condemn and the humiliation he has already had to accept won't be rubbed in his face. He should find a welcome, some food to get by, hopefully some advice on what he is entitled to and maybe an offer of help on budgeting and also support in trying to find a job.

In other words, he'll find some people with compassion. That's a quality our world is desperately short of, and one which shames those who laughed and jeered at tales of pain and need.

Overseas Aid

In the middle of government cutbacks and a Budget just about to happen, I've seen quite a few comments asking why the overseas aid budget is protected. I very much hope that George Osborne has the courage to resist the pressures to cut it back. My first letter to an MP about that issue was back in the 1989s, when Chris Patton had the overseas development brief. My MP, Jim Lester, was very interested and concerned in the matter, took it up with him, and I have a signed letter from Chris Patton explaining the government's position, which at that time was losing ground on achieving the 0.7% of gross national income as an aid budget target.

No doubt some aid goes astray. Some will find its way to corrupt officials, and certainly some aid has been mis-spent on infrastructure projects that nobody wanted except the western contractors that built them. However, mistakes can be learned from, and errors don't mean the system is wrong in principle.

What concerns me is that the budget is vulnerable to a lot of pressure groups, ranging from "charity begins at home", through free market arguments that it's best to let the market decide, through to a kind of anti-foreign standpoint. They are likely to be populist (as indicated by some polling) but I think they are wrong.

The first reason is that the international community has a commitment to this target via the UN. Only a few countries meet it, and some are shamefully short of it. However, abandoning this would be an acceptance that the richest nations of the world (and we are one) have no obligation to the poorest (some of whom supply the raw materials we rely on for our prosperity). If the UK abandons its commitment, it effectively gives permission for other nations to do likewise.

Second, a commitment to aid is what some have called "enlightened self-interest". It's not a very selfless principle morally, but the argument is essentially as follows. Failure to provide aid to acute needs will lead to conflicts, mass movements of people and huge refugee camps. Sooner or later [expensive] intervention will be required to stop this spilling over borders and spreading instability, potentially to the developed world's frontiers. Aid therefore can be a relatively cheap way of heading off disasters, which would otherwise cost us more in the long run. Aid can also benefit the economies of developing countries. As they grow and develop, they will become new markets for products manufactured or developed in the west, so it's good for business and exports too.

But for me as a Christian, it's just a lot simpler than that. Responsibility to neighbour isn't just about the people you can see around you; it's an obligation to all who are in need. We have lots of challenges ahead in our own country - that's a certainty. But if we abandon those in even greater and profound need around the world, something has gone acutely wrong. Comic Relief raised well over £70 million this year, split between UK and African causes. I think that's enough evidence to show that when faced with the issues and needs, there is enough charity at home to help people in need far away.

Time for an out-of-context quote from Mrs Thatcher for the Chancellor "don't go wobbly, George".

Related articles

• You: Economists urge George Osborne to maintain aid spending in budget
• Britons wary of overseas aid costs

Election Reflection

The dust is starting to settle, and it now seems clear that the Lib Dems have lost badly, the SNP have exceeded even their wildest dreams, Labour have had a patchy performance, and the Tories have done much better than they must have feared. And Northern Ireland has yet to declare. The BBC's Nick Robinson notes in his blog that elections are certainly exciting again.

The most obvious thing is that the public are punishing the Liberal Democrats for their role in the coalition. No doubt, LD stalwarts will point to the concessions they managed to squeeze out of the Conservatives, but there is a public anger over Nick Clegg's seemingly happy acceptance of things he previously ruled out. His apparently fresh approach that won him so many points in the TV debates have proved to have little substance. His party has gone from seeming centre-left (and at times to the left of New Labour) to supporting the political right. A more distant operating agreement might not have had the same consequences, but the cosiness of the last year has come back to haunt him.

With tonight's result, electoral reform will be off the agenda for many years, so it's back to negative and tactical voting for many. Good job I now live in a marginal. Part of the problem was that we never really had a proper electoral reform debate. We were offered one new option, rather than a fuller consideration, and I suspect the No vote is so emphatic, not just because of the ludicrous scare stories from the political right and its press, but also because it was seen as a way of kicking Clegg. He was also on record describing AV as a "shabby compromise" - Lib Dems have long been committed to a proportional system.

It's worth noting here that Labour failed to deliver their 1997 manifesto commitment about electoral reform - the Jenkins Commission having recommended AV+. In the end it was too great a risk for the new government. Ed Milliband supported AV, but that won't do any enduring damage to him - all eyes are on Nick Clegg. More worrying for Labour is that they don't appear to have picked up all the fleeing LD voters - they seem to have done OK in England and Wales, but the SNP got them in Scotland. That means an independence vote, which could yet go any way, and will pose Westminster some tricky issues whatever the outcome.

Another mystery is why the Conservative Party hasn't also received the wrath of the voters - as things stand, they have actually gained councillors and councils. After all, the cuts programme is primarily their initiative, and they are the major governing party for the UK. It all goes to show that being the larger coalition partner is an advantage. To a lesser degree, Plaid Cymru have had a parallel experience in Wales. Being in government with Labour in Wales made it harder to campaign effectively against them, and they seem to have underperformed.

Perhaps the greatest irony is this: the SNP have an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament and Labour almost won the Welsh assembly. Both are elected by a partially proportional system, whereas FPTP gave us the coalition. Ain't life strange?

Related articles

• Lib Dems have taken 'big knocks', says Clegg (guardian.co.uk)
• Ed Miliband: Voters have withdrawn permission for Clegg to back Tory policies - The Guardian (news.google.com)

Why I'm voting Yes for AV

Let's be clear to start with. No voting system is perfect, as it's always possible to work out scenarios where a system fails in some way or other. The question on Thursday is whether alternative vote (AV) is preferable to the current first past the post system (FPTP) for General Elections. It's tempting for those who want to get at Nick Clegg to vote 'No' anyway and for those who want to give David Cameron a problem to vote 'Yes', but our referendum vote ought to be about the system, not political personalities.

Likewise some are judging the vote on the systems on the basis of which party(ies) they think it would favour. The truth is we don't know how people would vote with a new system, but clearly parties would need to be mindful of having some appeal to people beyond their core support. If some parties fear AV more than others, that would seem to be a party issue, not a voting system question.

I'm voting 'Yes" because:

1. AV eliminates the need for tactical voting. In several recent general elections, people have found themselves voting for a party/candidate they don't want because they want to try and stop the candidate they really don't want from getting in. 
2. Campaign leaflets often talk about 'wasted' votes for candidates who are deemed likely to be 3rd or 4th. AV eliminates this. You can put your genuine first choice first and then rank the others, according to their relative merits in your eyes.
3. Many voters are not neatly defined in one political box. They do have relative preferences. AV enables a consensus to be established as to who is the most acceptable candidate to most of the electorate.
4. In a genuine 2 horse race, FPTP works fine. However, in constituencies where 3 (or even 4) parties do quite well, it's possible to be elected by FPTP with 30% or less of the votes. AV helps to sort out who is the best candidate to represent the interests of the majority.

The General Election of 1983 showed that FPTP produces results substantially at odds with actual votes cast (25.4% of the votes produced 3.5% of the seats for the Lib/SDP Alliance). However, the proponents of FPTP point to it avoiding the coalitions and instability of a proportional system. It must be acknowledged that AV isn't a proportional system, it retains the structure of a constituency with an MP, but it does give us as voters more say in establishing who is best to represent the majority of the electors.

Here's a mathematical take on it all.

Related articles

• Electoral reform has been central to Labour's mission for 100 years (guardian.co.uk)
• Leader: Imperfect it may be, but AV is the start of an essential journey (newstatesman.com)

Electoral Reform

Ever since I've been old enough to vote (and possibly before) I have believed that the First Past The Post (FPTP) system of voting for Parliament was deeply flawed. In days gone by when essentially 2 parties fought general elections, it was probably not too unjust, but the 1983 election showed the flaws. The SDP-Lib alliance got over a quarter of the votes, but 3.5% of the seats on offer. It's an election usually referred to as a Conservative landslide, but in fact the two main opposition parties got 11% more of the popular vote.

The problem is what you change to. The Jenkins Commission recommended "AV+" in 1998, but the promised referendum never came. It was a system that aimed for greater proportionality, but would have required massive constituency changes and a second type of MP. The more complex STV system is said to provide a better proportional result but again requires change to multi-member constituencies.

So Alternative Vote (AV) is the only practicable choice from FPTP. It isn't perfect (what system is?) but I think it has some features that commend it. In constituencies where one party is unlikely to win, under FPTP a party's supporters are faced with tactical voting or staying at home in despair. Under AV at least they can vote for the party they actually believe in as their first preference. And candidates would need an eye on the 2nd preferences, so negative campaigning would be less effective - which would be welcome.

Oddly, one of David Cameron's points against AV was its disproportionality. In fact it's an unknown what effect it would have, as we don't really know how people's voting would be shaped by a new system. It would probably exaggerate a landslide situation, but would certainly not permit government by a party which didn't have some consensus of popular support. If Cameron really wants a proportional system, I would welcome him introducing a bill to achieve just that, but I suspect his enthusiasm would fade pretty quickly!

One factor may be that the current Conservative administration thinks it would be disadvantaged by AV, but that's not necessarily true. It all depends on the political climate at the time. In the 1980s, 2nd preferences would almost certainly have gone Lab to Lib/SDP and vice versa, but we can't guarantee that now. The 2nd preferences of LD voters may go different ways depending on whether it's a LD-Lab or LD-Con fight (and you can work out the other permutations). It seems to me that no party has necessarily anything to fear from AV; however they will need to present their case and campaign in a different way.

The main objection to other voting systems is that they are indecisive and produce unstable government. I think the most recent general election proves that nothing is certain whatever the system, so why not go for one which might actually more accurately reflect the overall preferences of the people?

A Very Quiet Protest

The cuts in public spending pose threats to many aspects of life at the moment. Today will be a day of action to protest against the possibility that up to 400 libraries might close. It's all very polite - as you would expect from the library service. Read-ins, storytelling sessions, and a library where everyone has been asked to turn up and borrow their maximum allowance to empty the shelves are some of the eye-catchingly discreet protests.

In the midst of the flashmob book-reading and other protests, there's a serious point. Libraries have had to change as technology, access to information and culture moves on. But libraries give people access to a huge resource, and they are places where people find new possibilities. There is strong evidence that children, in particular, benefit greatly from access to public libraries.

Whisper it, if you must, but save our libraries.

Related articles

• The fight against library closures: will you be protesting? (guardian.co.uk)
• Save Our Libraries day: map your protest via Twitter (guardian.co.uk)
• Libraries protest day to be held (bbc.co.uk)