Let’s be friends

Addressing a group of laypeople and religious leaders, the Pope avoided controversy and emphasised h

Around midday on Friday 17 September, Pope Benedict XVI addressed approximately 100 laypeople and religious leaders, representing Britain's non-Christian faith communities, including Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains.

It was a colourful affair, with Catholic bishops, archbishops and cardinals in full dress sitting alongside white-robed swamis and yellow-cloaked Zen masters who mingled happily among the darker suits of rabbis, imams and turbaned Sikhs. Among this wonderful mosaic of religious dress there was not a secularist in sight.

And, in the absence of secularists, the Pope clearly felt among friends. Introduced by the Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, the Pope listened as the Vatican was commended for its contribution to interfaith understanding. According to the Chief Rabbi, "today is a celebration of difference". The Pope listened carefully and nodded.

A Muslim leader, Dr Khalid Assam, followed and talked about how faith binds creation together. Again, the Pope looked pleased.

So far, so good! It was his turn. He walked to the lectern, appearing tired, like an elderly shepherd, and spoke in a low voice. We all strained to listen.

His words were familiar to people of faith. He was in his comfort zone. No need to condemn secularism here.

Beginning with a discussion on the meaning of life, he depicted God in search of humanity, as much as human beings are in search of God. Our duty as men and women of faith is to live peaceably together and jointly steward God's creation, he said.

In his only mention of Vatican II, he said that the Catholic Church placed a high value on dialogue with other faiths. In turn, the Church expected reciprocity, notably freedom of worship and practice in all countries. The remark was directed at Muslim countries that deny Christians the right to worship or to build churches, and other citizens the right to convert to Christianity.

This was the only point of potential controversy, though in my conversation with Muslims present it was not mentioned.

The Pope completed his short address by calling for face-to-face dialogue, where faiths face one another, creating a shared, but inward-looking bond. He also called for side-by-side dialogue, where faiths stand together but face outwards, unified in a common task.

In these words, he echoed the writings of the Chief Rabbi, focusing not on condemning secularism, but on respect and the need for all faiths to work together.

How he envisaged this happening, he left to another day and probably, I suspect, to another pope.

Dr Edward Kessler is executive director of the Woolf Institute, Cambridge, where he studies relations between Jews, Christians and Muslims. He is contributing a series of posts on interfaith issues raised by the papal visit.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May's U-Turn may have just traded one problem for another

The problems of the policy have been moved, not eradicated. 

That didn’t take long. Theresa May has U-Turned on her plan to make people personally liable for the costs of social care until they have just £100,000 worth of assets, including property, left.

As the average home is valued at £317,000, in practice, that meant that most property owners would have to remortgage their house in order to pay for the cost of their social care. That upwards of 75 per cent of baby boomers – the largest group in the UK, both in terms of raw numbers and their higher tendency to vote – own their homes made the proposal politically toxic.

(The political pain is more acute when you remember that, on the whole, the properties owned by the elderly are worth more than those owned by the young. Why? Because most first-time buyers purchase small flats and most retirees are in large family homes.)

The proposal would have meant that while people who in old age fall foul of long-term degenerative illnesses like Alzheimers would in practice face an inheritance tax threshold of £100,000, people who die suddenly would face one of £1m, ten times higher than that paid by those requiring longer-term care. Small wonder the proposal was swiftly dubbed a “dementia tax”.

The Conservatives are now proposing “an absolute limit on the amount people have to pay for their care costs”. The actual amount is TBD, and will be the subject of a consultation should the Tories win the election. May went further, laying out the following guarantees:

“We are proposing the right funding model for social care.  We will make sure nobody has to sell their family home to pay for care.  We will make sure there’s an absolute limit on what people need to pay. And you will never have to go below £100,000 of your savings, so you will always have something to pass on to your family.”

There are a couple of problems here. The proposed policy already had a cap of sorts –on the amount you were allowed to have left over from meeting your own care costs, ie, under £100,000. Although the system – effectively an inheritance tax by lottery – displeased practically everyone and spooked elderly voters, it was at least progressive, in that the lottery was paid by people with assets above £100,000.

Under the new proposal, the lottery remains in place – if you die quickly or don’t require expensive social care, you get to keep all your assets, large or small – but the losers are the poorest pensioners. (Put simply, if there is a cap on costs at £25,000, then people with assets below that in value will see them swallowed up, but people with assets above that value will have them protected.)  That is compounded still further if home-owners are allowed to retain their homes.

So it’s still a dementia tax – it’s just a regressive dementia tax.

It also means that the Conservatives have traded going into the election’s final weeks facing accusations that they will force people to sell their own homes for going into the election facing questions over what a “reasonable” cap on care costs is, and you don’t have to be very imaginative to see how that could cause them trouble.

They’ve U-Turned alright, but they may simply have swerved away from one collision into another.  

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496