Politics and greed: seeking integrity and justice

Politics and greed

In May this year, George Osborne, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and MP for Tatton in Cheshire, will take up a sixth job as editor of the London Evening Standard.

Although it is reportedly common for sitting MPs to hold other jobs, I struggle to see how he can take on this new role with any sense of integrity. Mr Osborne, reportedly, already has four other jobs besides representing his constituency[1]:

He is an advisor to the American fund management firm Blackrock, for which he is reportedly paid £650,000 a year for one day a week’s work;
He is a speaker at the Washington Speaker’s Bureau, through which he apparently earned £800,000 in 15 speaking engagements last year;
He is a fellow at the US think tank, McCain Institute, from which he receives a £120,000 annual stipend;
He is chairman of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership.

Time, money and conflicts of interest

As an ordinary mortal who struggles to fit all my work commitments into the time available, I find it hard to understand how Mr Osborne can possibly do justice to representing his constituency with all those other roles competing for his time. Even if the other roles only take up a small proportion of his time, surely editing a daily newspaper cannot just be fitted into his spare time.

Last week the Economist reported that since being ejected from the treasury in July, Mr Osborne has taken part in just 6 debates in Parliament and has yet to submit a written question.[2]

As MP for Tatton, Mr Osborne represents 85,000 people. As chairman of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, he is meant to be promoting the development and interests of the North of England. In contrast, as editor of a London newspaper, he will have a powerful voice in the capital. It is hard to see how this will not cause any conflict of interest. When called on to vote on parliamentary debates will he vote according to his paper’s position, in the interests of the northern powerhouse, to represent his constituents, following his party’s whip, or will he vote primarily in his own interests?

Which brings us to the sickening greed of someone who can accept remuneration of £12,500 per day as an advisor, or charge an average £53,000 for an after-dinner speech. For the year ending 5 April 2015, median gross earnings for full-time employees in the UK were £27,600. While I support MPs receiving appropriate remuneration for the work they do, and I don’t have a problem with them taking on extra roles if they can manage them without compromising their primary role, I do have concerns about the validity of someone representing their constituency, while earning, in one after-dinner speech, nearly twice what their average constituent will earn in a year.

Seeking integrity: the Green Party’s candidate for West Midlands’ mayor

Reeling from the sickening reality of such obscene payments, it came as a breath of fresh air to read the pledges of the Green Party’s candidate for West Midlands’ mayor, James Burn.

In May this year, the West Midlands will elect its first ever mayor.

James Burn, currently leader of the opposition on Solihull council, and the Green party candidate has pledged, if he is elected, to refuse the majority of the proposed £100,000 salary, accepting instead the average wage of the West Midlands, of £29,000. The remainder he has pledged to donate to charity and local start-ups.

As a local councillor, James has been consistent in standing up for social justice and ethical principles[3]:

He played a key role in Birmingham’s first Living Wage campaign;
He has continued to call for Solihull Council to pay a living wage instead of giving big pay rises to directors;
He is supporting investment in the least well off areas of the West Midlands;
He is an unpaid board member for the Advanced credit union, an ethical community bank covering Solihull and North East Birmingham;
He has served as a volunteer for a wide range of charities.

In addition to his personal pledge in relation to the mayoral salary, James has also pledged to set up a public forum with representatives from across the community to hold the mayor to account. Currently the arrangements include one small committee, chosen by the authority and meeting four times a year.

Integrity in Politics: going for Green not for greed

The contrast between these two politicians couldn’t be starker. And when it comes to our own democracy, whether in Parliament, or in our local combined authority, I would much rather be represented by someone who is clearly committed to social justice, to promoting well-being, to protecting our environment, and who isn’t afraid to live out their principles.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/17/george-osborne-named-new-evening-standard-editor-newspaper

[2] Economist, 23.3.17: http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21719523-thats-not-oddest-part-time-career-mp-others-have-worked-playboy-or

[3] http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/west-midlands-mayor-candidate-james-12568183

March 25, 2017March 25, 2017

25th March: The struggle for peace and justice goes on

25th March 1965

On 25 March 1965, when I was far too young to be aware of it, Martin Luther King led thousands of non-violent demonstrators to the steps of the capitol in Montgomery, Alabama.

52 years on it seems as though the struggle for peace and justice is every bit as needed as it was then.

Images of peace and terror

This past week seems to have thrown up an incredible mix of good and evil: of terror, injustice, violence and greed combined with equally powerful images of peace and reconciliation.

I am left with images of our emergency services fighting to save the life of a man who had just killed four innocent people; of politicians and leaders on both sides of the Northern Ireland conflict gathering to honour Martin McGuinness – a man who had once been a source of terror and violent, but who had become an equally powerful force for peace; of President Trump being forced to back down from his attempt to reverse a policy which has brought better health security and welfare to millions of the least privileged in American society; of EU leaders gathering in Rome to celebrate the anniversary of a union that has, at the very least, been a major contributor to over 60 years of peace in Europe.

All those images leave me marvelling at the crazy, mixed up world in which we live: where so much of Martin Luther King’s dream has been achieved, and yet so much more remains to be done.

The image of five faith leaders standing together in a vigil to remember the victims of the Westminster attack stands alongside that of members of the Jewish community in Victoria, Texas, who handed over the keys of their synagogue to their Muslim brothers and sisters whose mosque was burned down on 28^th January, just hours after Donald Trump announced his plan to ban immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries (Time Magazine, 2.2.17[1]).

“I want in terms of values, to refer to something that seems to me to go deeper, to something that is really at the foundation of our own understanding of what our society is about… That speaks of – at this time of year as we look forward to Holy Week and Easter – of a God who stands with the suffering, and brings justice, and whose resurrection has given to believer and unbeliever the sense that where we do what is right; where we behave properly; where that generosity and extraordinary sense of duty that leads people to treat a terrorist is shown; where that bravery of someone like PC Keith Palmer is demonstrated, that there is a victory for what is right and good; over what is evil, despairing and bad.” – Archbishop Justin Welby, 22.3.17

Terror may continue to shout… but the quiet voice will still be heard

Terror may continue to shout – whether in the form of a radicalized religious fanatic, or through the voices and actions of those from all backgrounds who promote intolerance. But the quiet voice of those who struggle in non-violent ways for peace and justice will still be heard.

[1] http://time.com/4657876/texas-mosque-fire-jewish-christian-communities-help/

March 1, 2017

New Internationalist: Buy into a better story

New Internationalist: a movement for media that brings people together

In a time of ‘alternative facts’, biased journalism, presidential suppression of free speech, and a media dominated by multi-millionaires with their own agenda, this is a really exciting opportunity to support high quality, independent and ethical journalism. Please consider contributing to this crowd funding scheme and be part of something positive.

For the past 44 years, New Internationalist has published stories that make sense of the complex and beautiful world we live in and offer bold, bright ideas for how to change things.

Community share offer: an opportunity to be part of this

Unlike other media businesses that depend on billionaires or corporate advertisers, NI wants their honest, independent journalism to be owned by the people who share their values. They’ve always been reader-powered; now they want to be reader-owned.

They aim to raise a minimum of £500,000 (US$ 625,000) through the world’s biggest-ever media community share offer.

‘In this time of fake news and endless online chatter, it’s more important than ever to have the New Internationalist‘ — Lindsey Hilsum, International Editor, Channel 4 News.

Anyone can invest, from anywhere in the world, as long as they are aged 16 or over. Each share costs £1 and the minimum share holding in £50, the maximum is £100,000. A small shareholder will have just as much power as a large one.

The share capital they raise will be used to increase their audience and impact, and secure their future long-term. It’ll be directed at five key business areas, and they’ll use it to: scale up their digital journalism, relaunch their magazine, boost their publishing arm and expand their Ethical Shop social enterprise and events programme. All offer opportunities to grow and are in line with our historic mission.

You can find out more and pledge to be part of it by clicking on the link below:

Buy into a better story

February 6, 2017

Why I signed a petition against President Trump making a State Visit to the United Kingdom

A letter to my MP

Prevent Donald Trump from making a State Visit to the United Kingdom

Dear Mr Cunningham,

I have recently signed a petition calling on Parliament to consider withdrawing the invitation to President Donald Trump to make a state visit to the United Kingdom. I understand this petition, which to date has over 1.8 million signatures, will be debated in Parliament on 20 February. I would urge you to support this petition.

Since coming to office in January, President Trump has shown himself to be totally unsuitable as a world leader. The policies he has sought to implement through executive actions have been damaging to his own citizens as well as more globally threatening to world security, justice and human rights. In my view these executive actions betray deep-seated attitudes in the President which pay little regard to human rights, respect for all peoples, or care for our global environment.

In particular, his executive order of 27 January temporarily barring people from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the USA, along with an indefinite ban on Syrians from entering, appears ill-conceived and inflammatory, and his response to a judicial ruling on the order betrays an attitude of disrespect for due processes of law. Similarly, his executive orders on building a wall along the border with Mexico, and withdrawing funding for sanctuary cities could seriously contravene the basic rights to free movement of many people.

His presidential memoranda approving the construction of two oil pipelines shows a disrespect for the rights of his own indigenous populations, along with his recognised denial of the impact on the environment of the continued use of fossil fuels.

Furthermore, his statement that he considers the use of torture acceptable is a blatant contradiction of the Geneva Conventions and a serious threat to human rights.

It seems to me that these and other executive actions are not isolated aberrations, but betray deep-seated attitudes that were apparent both during the election campaign and since taking office: attitudes of disrespect for women, foreign nationals, those of other religions, and indigenous peoples. I, along with many other people in this country and around the world – including his own citizens in the USA – find such attitudes deeply offensive, divisive and potentially dangerous in a world leader.

While I recognise that, as Head of State of the USA, it is important that our government works with President Trump and with his government, I am deeply concerned that he is being invited to visit the UK on a state visit. Such a visit, hosted by our Queen, who has been a true world leader for human rights and respect for all peoples, would in my view be totally inappropriate. It would place Her Majesty in a compromising position, and would appear to endorse and lend approval to President Trump’s policies and to the underlying discriminatory attitudes.

I hope therefore that you will lend your support to this petition and urge the Prime Minister to withdraw the invitation.

Yours sincerely

Dr Peter Sidebotham

January 26, 2017

The leader of the free world?

Last week a reporter on the BBC news referred to the President of the United States as ‘the leader of the free world.’ The phrase was used somewhat derisively, but nevertheless, to my mind, betrays some fundamentally flawed assumptions that date back to its first use in the years following World War II, and, I suspect, remain quite widely held assumptions in many democratic, capitalist societies.

Assumption 1: Leadership is something conferred by virtue of position

I accept that the president of the United States, by virtue of his position, holds some leadership responsibilities within the United States. There are some things which only the incumbent of the White House can do. However, holding such responsibilities does not necessarily make that person a leader, and it certainly does not confer any leadership status beyond the United States. True leadership is earned, not conferred.

A leader is only a leader if others follow. And to achieve that the leader needs to be a person of integrity, vision, courage, compassion, and humility. To the extent that the president of the United States demonstrates any of those qualities, I would be prepared to attribute some leadership to them. Without such qualities, no matter what he, or anyone else, claims, he is not my leader nor a leader beyond those in his own country who have chosen to follow him.

Not the cry, but the flight of a wild duck, leads the flock to fly and follow. —Chinese Proverb

The same would apply to whoever sits in the Oval Office, as indeed to any other head of state or other prominent person. Unless and until other nations, heads of state and individual citizens of the so called free world choose to follow the US president, he is not, and never can be, ‘the leader of the free world.’

Assumption 2: Leadership is conferred by size, power and wealth

While the issues around assumption 1 have been thrown into sharp relief by the character of the current incumbent of the White House, this assumption is far more subtle, and I suspect more widespread.

According to the World Bank, the United States of America has a population of just over 320 million, exceeded only, but quite substantially, by China and India. Its Gross Domestic Product is 18 trillion US dollars, over 60% larger than the next highest country (China), and greater than the whole of the European Union put together. In terms of military strength, the USA has 1,381,250 military personnel, again only exceeded by China and India, but closely followed by North Korea and the Russian Federation. According to the Arms Control Association (www.armscontrol.org) the USA has 6,800 nuclear warheads, 45% of the world total and only exceeded by Russia.

So on population, wealth and military strength, the United States ranks within the top 3 countries of the world, and far exceeds all other countries in terms of its GDP.

But does that make it the leader of the free world?

Are size, wealth and military might really the values to which we look for our leadership?

Or, to put it another way, domination, greed and brutality?

It seems to me that, without even recognising it, we have bought into a mentality that assumes that might is right, whether that is in size, wealth or strength. And in doing so, we legitimize bullying and a disregard for the rights of others.

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth – Jesus Christ

Assumption 3: We (those purportedly in the ‘free world’) determine who is and is not part of the ‘free world’

As far as I can tell, the concept of ‘the free world’ was introduced during the Second World War to refer to those countries fighting against the fascist ‘Axis’ powers (Germany, Italy and Japan). During the Cold War, the term shifted to refer to non-communist countries. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, the free world refers to ‘those countries whose governments have been chosen in free and fair elections and whose people have full human rights.’

But who are we to determine which countries truly are or are not part of that ‘free’ world? Would that include a country with a democratically-elected communist government? Does it exclude countries where religious prerogatives determine the course of government?

Perhaps, though, one of the biggest difficulties with this assumption is the implication that all peoples living in our self-determined ‘free world’ are free and enjoy full human rights.

I wonder how many of those now to be denied health insurance would say they enjoy free and full human rights, or those 2 million or more incarcerated in US prisons, or the residents of the Standing Rock Sioux reservation?

And perhaps there is an even deeper, more subtle assumption here. Even without flagrant disregard for human rights, am I, in my country, surrounded by advertising, my choices controlled by corporate giants, constrained by a culture that values wealth and aggressive ambition, also truly free?

An alternative view of leadership

In an interesting twist of words in different contexts, the BBC made a policy decision to refer to the group that calls itself Islamic State as ‘So called Islamic State’. In a similar vein, perhaps the president of the United States could be referred to as the ‘so called leader of the so called free world.’

But rather than acquiesce even that far to these flawed assumptions, I would much rather see all of us thinking in terms of the whole world and all humanity, not just our own little, self-defined corner of it. And I want to be someone who helps create an alternative view of leadership: one that respects all those who truly embody values of integrity, compassion, justice and humility.

So how about a movement to identify those values we truly want to promote that will lead to all people being free? And how about starting with recognising and affirming those people in whom we do see those values?

January 26, 2017January 26, 2017

I am going to start living like an artist

Art is not

just an expression of beauty:

soft, green pastels

watercolour meadows on misty hills

leading me to lie down by peaceful waters

and rest.

It is an expression of truth

in its brutal reality,

cruel brutality.

The darkness that surrounds

the anguished cry of a mother separated

from her child;

the screams of a young man on a waterboard;

the groans of our mother

earth ravished, exploited.

My pen and my brush

longing for justice

when there is none.

December 29, 2016December 31, 2016

Rebellions are built on hope

Rogue One

Earlier this week I went to see Rogue One, the new Star Wars movie, with two of Lois’ grandchildren. It is a great movie and fills in one of the crucial gaps in the whole Star Wars nonet (although perhaps it should now be a decet?)

How did the Rebel Alliance get hold of the plans for the death star in the first place?

The audacity of hope

The overriding theme of the movie is one of hope: Rebellions are built on hope. It is hope that keeps the rebels fighting for what they know to be right. In spite of the seeming futility of their task; In spite of the overwhelming odds of failure that the droid K2-SO keeps reminding them of – they keep striving to overcome.

Hope is audacious.

And yet, the characters in the movie cling to that hope, ultimately sacrificing themselves for it.

A crucial turn in the narrative occurs when the Council of the Rebel Alliance votes on the course of action they must take. The options before them seem bleak: they can rally arms against their invincible foe, using violence to combat violence; or they can submit to the Empire’s dominion, each person looking out for themselves and hoping to stay under the radar enough for some sort of oppressed existence.

A third way

Or they can trust the audacious testimony of one young woman, Jyn Erso, who claims to have been given a message of hope. That third way will inevitably lead to sacrifice with no guarantee of success.

In the end, the Council rejects Jyn’s third way and each chooses to go their own way: to fight or to submit.

Except for a small group of rebels who have the audacity to hope.

Hope in a post-2016 world

I wonder whether – in our post-2016 world – we, too, have similar choices ahead of us. The violence and greed that has seemed to dominate our global culture threatens to overwhelm us all. Democracy seems to have failed and our politicians have let us down. Fundamentalist beliefs continue to rise, exacerbating the terror, injustice and oppression.

In the face of all that we can respond with yet more violence and greed: individuals protecting their own; nations responding with an escalation of violence, a renewed arms race that promises yet more destruction. Or we can accept the status quo, believe the myth that there is nothing we can do, and live within the prevailing culture, each one of us making sure that we are ok, and never minding everyone else.

A non-violent rebellion built on hope

But as we go into 2017, perhaps there is a third way: the way of rebellion built on hope.

And maybe that is what the Christmas story brings: the unbelievable testimony of a young woman who had a vision; of insignificant shepherds who heard an angel’s message of peace and goodwill; of a vulnerable baby who became a vulnerable man, proclaiming a message of non-violent resistance – neither submitting to the oppressive culture of his day, nor responding to it with yet more violence, but bringing instead a gift of hope.

This third way is a way of sacrifice, of going against the status quo, but I believe it is the only way of hope.

It is the way of people like Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, the Dalai Lama, Aung San Suu Kyi, Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

It is a non-violent rebellion built on hope.

December 8, 2016December 8, 2016

The Beatitudes: The promise and the praxis of hope

Re-reading the Beatitudes

Last week I read again the Beatitudes – Jesus’ famous pronouncements of blessings in his Sermon on the Mount. I’m not sure why I had failed to see it before, but this time it was staring me in the face: The Beatitudes fall into two very disparate groups.

When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him. Then he began to speak, and taught them, saying:

‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

‘Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

‘Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

‘Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

‘Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.

‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

‘Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

(Matthew 5: 1-10)

The smaller group (Beatitudes 1, 2 and 8) offers a promise of hope to those who are victims – of suffering, violence and greed. The other five present, instead, a challenge to all of us to take on attitudes that counter our dominant cultures of violence and greed and to become part of the solution rather than the problem.

Seeing the Beatitudes in this light seems to me to address one of the fundamental problems thrown up by these sayings – that they just don’t seem to be true. The reality is that those who are poor in spirit, those who mourn, and those who are persecuted just aren’t blessed in any of the usual senses of the word. And even those who are meek, merciful, pure in heart, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness (justice), and the peacemakers far too often seem to be trampled on or taken advantage of rather than blessed.

But if we see the Beatitudes as holding out a very real promise of hope for victims, and a very pragmatic challenge for the rest of us, they start to carry a very different meaning.

The promise of hope

In speaking to those who are poor in spirit, those who mourn, and those who are persecuted, Jesus seems to be speaking directly to those who are the victims of suffering, violence and greed:

Blessed are the poor in spirit: those who are broken, crushed, weighed down; the victims of abuse, those who have had their spirits trampled on, who have been fed the lie that they are worthless, unloved and unlovable; those suffering with mental illness, depression or fatigue; those who are lonely, hurt by broken relationships; the disabled, the homeless, those with addictions; those rejected by society as somehow unworthy.
Blessed are those who mourn: the grieving, those who have lost loved ones; those who mourn the loss of their own innocence; those suffering from physical illness; those who have lost their homes or possessions; those made redundant or who have lost a sense of their own purpose or significance in life.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness (justice) sake: the innocent victims of violence and war; the displaced, refugees; those who are unjustly exploited or oppressed; the victims of racism or other prejudices.

And, in Luke’s version of the Beatitudes, Jesus seems to go even more directly to the point, pronouncing blessings on those who are the victims of inequity, exploitation and injustice:

Blessed are you who are poor
Blessed are you who are hungry now
Blessed are you who weep now (Luke 6: 20.21)

And to all of these, Jesus seems to proclaim the promise of a future hope: that their present lot is not the last word: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven; they will be comforted; they will be filled; they will laugh. Jesus offers the hope of something far better to come – of a time when there truly will be ‘no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.’ (Revelation 21: 4)

The Praxis of hope

Which brings us then to the second group of blessings – those which challenge us to a new way of living, the praxis of hope – in which we adopt attitudes of non-violence, sacrifice and humility, attitudes which counter the suffering, violence and greed of our world.

And so Jesus challenges us to be meek – to stand up, non-violently for truth; to hunger and thirst for justice and righteousness, to speak out on behalf of the oppressed, to challenge the injustices of our society; to be merciful not judgemental; to be pure in heart, not hypocritical or duplicitous; and to be peacemakers.

By creating and maintaining our cultures of individualism, consumerism, fear and blame, we all (me included) carry responsibility for those who are harmed by or cannot cope with the inequalities and pressures they create.

None of that is easy – I know that I am so bound up in our culture that I too contribute to the ongoing injustices of our world and exploitation of the earth’s resources, that I enjoy the blessings and privileges of education, wealth and power, while others go hungry, are displaced and exploited. But the alternatives seem to be either that I continue to buy in to our individualistic, consumerist mentality, and remain a part of the problem, or I strive, continually to live Jesus’ way of non-violence (Satyagraha) and become a blessing to others – part of the solution, the praxis of hope.

It may be a hard path to take, but it is the only way that we can see the kingdom of heaven, that we can be filled, to see God in other people and in our world, to receive mercy and for all of us to become children of God.