CiC notes that party membership is down – this is part of a general trend towards association rather than membership, reflected in union and church membership too.

Is it? I ask because the Power Inquiry found that party membership is down as party members feel they have no say in policy-making and are increasingly disaffected. I think Hayden Phillips found that too.

3. I’ve not read every word of the paper, but I couldn’t identify a single power that was going to be relinquished by central government, a regulation that was to be scrapped, a system of control that was earmarked for the recycling centre.

Quite.

4. Do activists really need a government-sponsored forum? I was under the impression that global campaigns (Drop the Debt, Stop the Traffik) were doing okay already. We don’t need more forums, we need the government to listen to what we’re already lobbying about.

Quite. People are disengaging from mainstream politics, which doesn’t give them enough of a say and offers too many policies to commit to. They are increasingly engaging with single-issue or few-issue campaigns and charities and community work.

So they are engaging with things that they either agree with and feel no need to influence and things that they can significantly influence. They are disengaging from things that they feel they can’t influence and they disagree with. It’s all perfectly rational, has been known about for years, yet the Government continues to pretend there isn’t a problem with itself.

Aha – interesting! Good job someone has decided to delve into this White Paper, i plan to be looking through it in more detail, having worked in ‘regeneration’ for the last 4 years, i’m keen to see if it explicitly sets out many of the underlying assumptions held dear in that sector.

I think there are potentially some good things here but some of the terms used area bit vague. What kind of “voluntary and community activities” do they want people to be involved in? What kind of local services are they looking at commissioning from faith groups or voluntary organisations?

I would guess that the voluntary activities we are talking about are things like projects to improve the local environment or give extra help to the elderly or the homeless or mentor schoolchildren, ie things that complement existing services and/or would be beyond the remit or the budget of the local authority. I think that’s fine – leaving aside the questions David raises about people’s motivation to get involved in these things I have no problem with encouraging them. I like the idea of letting people on benefits get paid for community work without being penalised, although if people are getting paid then it’s not exactly “voluntary” is it.

What does concern me is the notion of commissioning services from faith or voluntary groups. Without knowing the kind of services they are talking about it is difficulty to judge exactly but presumably they mean things that the council is currently doing itself or contracting out to the private sector, so they would be entering into a commercial contract with said groups who would then have legal obligations to provide the service to a certain level and have to employ and manage staff (they could hardly rely on volunteers). Surely this would fundamentally alter the nature of such organisations? Why would they want to do it? Would they be qualified? Am I totally misunderstanding the concept?

I suspect this government won’t be commissioning any adoption or fostering services from religious groups any time soon, though one wonders how the case of Haringey and Baby P will play into this debate.

Is it to be expected that faith groups will happily concentrate on recycling schemes at the expense of social protection initiatives in order to maintain a facade of equality?

David, obviously as an Anglican vicar you are going to be positive about the role that religion can play in citizens’ empowerment, so I hope you will also be open-minded enough to recognise the concerns that some of us – whether or not we are personally religious – have about some religious groups which have narrow and excluding agendas.

One way in which the State could sort out the sheep from the goats, as it were, might be to require those religious groups which wish to engage with the State, and particularly to receive public part-funding for projects of one kind or another, to be signed up for the Charter of Compassion which the U.N. is being asked to promote.

Ah yes, I was going to say something about the point you raised. Frankly, I don’t have much trouble with Anglican charities. Its the Hindu, Muslim and Catholic ones that I worry about because many of the ones I’ve come across are driven by more conservative elements that could deny gays or people of other religion services.

How is that being protected against? Is it?

Mike/Sunny: I share your concerns about some religious charities, and recognise that there has to be some kind of accountability. A couple of areas spring to mind where churches have to work by state guidelines, but have delegated responisibility from the state, one is planning permission (the CofE has it’s own system, which is often stricter than local authorities) and the other is church schools, which have the national curriculum, OFSTED etc. to keep them in line.

To get state or lottery funding, we usually have to fill in lots of forms with anti-discrimination statements etc., so to an extent what you’re talking about already happens. The Faithworks Charter, a Christian statement of good practice cited by the report, begins:
“1. Serving and respecting all people regardless of their gender, marital status, race, ethnic origin, religion, age, sexual orientation or physical and mental capability.” (see http://www.faithworks.info/Standard.asp?id=7432).

Andrew Adams: a good example of the kind of things being done by faith groups is here: http://www.faithworks.info/uploads/documents/Ethos&Effectiveness.pdf , and it includes employment training, counselling, youth services etc. People have been motivated to do these things by their Christian faith, but the work is also effective and helpful.

There are – and I know this is tricky to get your head round – Christian groups with conservative views on sexuality who provide services equally to people regardless of sexual orientation, religion, or pretty much anything else. In religious language, the fact that people are sinners doesn’t take us by surprise! We’re just about to launch Street Pastors here in Yeovil, which provides a pastoral presence on the streets in the pub and club scene at weekends. The folk who get helped are often drunk, drugged up etc., but they get helped rather than judged. We’re so used to hearing from Christian Voice (or the campaigning secularists who want people to think that all Christians are like Christian Voice) that Christians who just quietly get on with loving people don’t get a mention.

ukliberty: can’t argue with your citations, but I’m speculating that mobility plays a big part. We move around more, so 50 years ago you grew up in, and stayed in, a community, so group membership (union, Working Mens Club, church, workplace etc.) was passed down through the generations, and more traditional towns still have that. Nowadays we move around more, so those social groups have to be chosen and opted into, which makes our connections looser. Round here Clarks Shoes used to be a massive presence in local communities, as a 150 year old employer where grandfather, father, and son all worked in the same factory. Now the factories are retail parks.

Drat, the comment I put in this morning didn’t send. Here we go again….

ukliberty: can’t quibble with the stuff you cite, though I would think that increased mobility will reduce ties to social groups. The days when grandfather, father and son all worked at the same factory, were members of the same union and drank at the same WMC are pretty much over, and increased mobility means that we opt into social groups, rather than inherit them as part of our makeup.

Everyone else: Faithworks are cited in the White Paper, and one of their documents highlights the kind of things faith groups are currently doing. Ethos and Effectiveness (http://www.faithworks.info/uploads/documents/Ethos&Effectiveness.pdf) includes job training, youth services, addiction services and counselling, all done by Christian agencies.

The Faithworks charter ( http://www.faithworks.info/Standard.asp?id=7432) is a Christian statement of good practice in social welfare work, and the opening paragraph reads:
“We will provide an inclusive service to our community by:
1. Serving and respecting all people regardless of their gender, marital status, race, ethnic origin, religion, age, sexual orientation or physical and mental capability.” I would imagine there are groups with conservative views on sexuality who can happily sign up to this. If Christians are helping out addicts, prostitutes, ex-offenders etc. they seem to be able to do that without condoning their lifestyle, but at the same time without it affecting the amount of compassion and help they can offer.

Mike: lots of faith groups already use Lottery funding etc., which requires a statement of inclusion and agreeing to certain strings on how the money is spent. So the state already has some safeguards in place. The main problem for faith groups is that the whole process of getting state funding and help is so lengthy and complicated that it puts them off.

Unfortunately the 2 groups with most airtime at the moment are Christian Voice (enough said) and the National Secular Society (who want everyone to think that all Christians are like Chrisitan Voice).

have been trying to get a comment on here but it’s not appearing. If this one works, I’ll try again!

aha, right, here we go:

ukliberty: can’t quibble with the stuff you cite, though I would think that increased mobility will reduce ties to social groups. The days when grandfather, father and son all worked at the same factory, were members of the same union and drank at the same WMC are pretty much over, and increased mobility means that we opt into social groups, rather than inherit them as part of our makeup.

Everyone else: Faithworks are cited in the White Paper, and one of their documents highlights the kind of things faith groups are currently doing. Ethos and Effectiveness (http://www.faithworks.info/uploads/documents/Ethos&Effectiveness.pdf) includes job training, youth services, addiction services and counselling, all done by Christian agencies.

The Faithworks charter ( http://www.faithworks.info/Standard.asp?id=7432) is a Christian statement of good practice in social welfare work, and the opening paragraph reads:
“We will provide an inclusive service to our community by:
1. Serving and respecting all people regardless of their gender, marital status, race, ethnic origin, religion, age, sexual orientation or physical and mental capability.” I would imagine there are groups with conservative views on sexuality who can happily sign up to this. If Christians are helping out addicts, prostitutes, ex-offenders etc. they seem to be able to do that without condoning their lifestyle, but at the same time without it affecting the amount of compassion and help they can offer.

Mike: lots of faith groups already use Lottery funding etc., which requires a statement of inclusion and agreeing to certain strings on how the money is spent. So the state already has some safeguards in place. The main problem for faith groups is that the whole process of getting state funding and help is so lengthy and complicated that it puts them off.

Unfortunately the 2 groups with most airtime at the moment are Christian Voice (enough said) and the National Secular Society (who want everyone to think that all Christians are like Chrisitan Voice).

ukliberty: can’t quibble with the stuff you cite, though I would think that increased mobility will reduce ties to social groups. The days when grandfather, father and son all worked at the same factory, were members of the same union and drank at the same WMC are pretty much over, and increased mobility means that we opt into social groups, rather than inherit them as part of our makeup.

Mike: lots of faith groups already use Lottery funding etc., which requires a statement of inclusion and agreeing to certain strings on how the money is spent. So the state already has some safeguards in place. The main problem for faith groups is that the whole process of getting state funding and help is so lengthy and complicated that it puts them off.

part 2 follows…

…
Everyone else: Faithworks are cited in the White Paper, and one of their documents highlights the kind of things faith groups are currently doing. Ethos and Effectiveness (http://www.faithworks.info/uploads/documents/Ethos&Effectiveness.pdf) describes job training, youth services, addiction services and counselling, all done by Christian agencies. These might be the things the Paper has in mind.

The Faithworks charter ( http://www.faithworks.info/Standard.asp?id=7432) is a Christian statement of good practice in social welfare work, and the opening paragraph reads:

“We will provide an inclusive service to our community by:
1. Serving and respecting all people regardless of their gender, marital status, race, ethnic origin, religion, age, sexual orientation or physical and mental capability.”

I would imagine there are groups with conservative views on sexuality who can happily sign up to this. Christians help out all sorts of people whose lifestyles they don’t endorse, without it affecting the amount of compassion and help they can offer.

Unfortunately the 2 groups with most airtime at the moment are Christian Voice (enough said) and the National Secular Society (who want everyone to think that all Christians are like Christian Voice). The ones doing the good work tend to be too busy to play at media tarts.

Everyone else: Faithworks are cited in the White Paper, and one of their documents highlights the kind of things faith groups are currently doing. Ethos and Effectiveness (available via the Faithworks website) includes job training, youth services, addiction services and counselling, all done by Christian agencies.

The Faithworks charter is a Christian statement of good practice in social welfare work, and the opening paragraph reads:

“We will provide an inclusive service to our community by:
1. Serving and respecting all people regardless of their gender, marital status, race, ethnic origin, religion, age, sexual orientation or physical and mental capability.”

I would imagine there are groups with conservative views on sexuality who can happily sign up to this. If Christians are helping out addicts, prostitutes, ex-offenders etc. they seem to be able to do that without condoning their lifestyle, but at the same time without it affecting the amount of compassion and help they can offer.

Unfortunately the 2 groups with most airtime at the moment are Christian Voice (enough said) and the National Secular Society (who want everyone to think that all Christians are like Christian Voice). Those doing the good work are normally too busy to play at being rentaquote.

David,

Yes, I think that the work that Faithworks does is very valuable and if the white paper means that such organisations get more encouragement, support and assistance from local authorities, and help with funding, then that’s a good thing. That strikes me though as being different from local authorities “commissioning services” from faith groups – I read that as councils using faith groups to provide front-line services, which I’m not conviced is such a good idea. Or am I just misunderstanding the proposal?