The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

The turbulent priest intervenes

Rowan Williams calls for a Tobin tax and other measures to address the protesters' "moral agenda".

By George Eaton Published 02 November 2011 10:41

The turbulent priest is back to cause more trouble for the government. In his initial statement on the St Paul's protest, Rowan Williams pointedly noted that "the urgent larger issues raised by the protesters ... remain very much on the table". His thoughtful article in today's Financial Times is an attempt to address them.

Lamenting that there has been "little visible change in banking practices" since the crisis, the Archbishop calls for a Tobin tax on financial transactions as a part of a series of measures to reflect "the moral agenda" of the protesters. It is a welcome and long overdue recognition that, whether or not one agrees with their tactics, the protesters' cause is just. As Williams writes, their protest has been welcomed "by an unexpectedly large number of people as the expression of a widespread and deep exasperation with the financial establishment that shows no sign of diminishing". At the same time, he concedes that many of their demands are "vague", insisting: "it is time we tried to be more specific".

With this mind, he sets out a three-point programme, largely based, in an act of ecumenicism, on the document published by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Williams calls for "early government action" to separate retail and investment banking, for the creation of an obligation for banks to "help reinvigorate the real economy" and, most strikingly, for a "Robin Hood Tax" on financial transactions. His intervention is significant not least because, as City AM reveals today, George Osborne, despite his protestations to the contrary, is minded to oppose a Tobin tax even if it is applied globally. In a private letter to bank chiefs, the Chancellor wrote: "I agree there would need to be further discussions about whether any FTT model offers an efficient mechanism to raise revenue."

It is not, you sense, a view that Williams has any sympathy with. He writes:

The objections made by some who claim it would mean a substantial drop in employment and in the economy generally seem to rest on exaggerated and sharply challenged projections - and, more important, ignore the potential of such a tax to stabilise currency markets in a way to boost rather than damage the real economy.

Williams's article, like his coruscating New Statesman leader earlier this year, will trouble some conservatives. But it would be absurd for the leader of the Anglican communion not to respond to a protest that raises urgent questions of fairness and social justice. As it has before, with the 1985 publication of Faith In The City, an excoriating critique of Thatcherism, the Church should lead the debate. Williams's article is an admirable attempt to do so.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Rowan Williams

More from George Eaton

14 comments

Wed, 2011-11-02 20:06 — Flashbuck (not verified)

@Nixon is Lord

"Why should "the church lead the way" in a secular country?"

The UK is not a secular country. At the last census more than 76% freely stated that they identify themselves as Christians. Fact!

Moreover, the question they answered was optional!!!

Church attendance is neither here nor there. What counts is their sel;f identification, their values and traditions, and the way see themselves in contrast to others, etc. As I say 76% say they see themselves as Christian.

Thus, the UK is not a secular country - Deal with it.

Thu, 2011-11-03 16:30 — Broga

Barely 3% of the population attend church yet we are supposedly a christian country. This seems an extremely weak indication of faith. However, on the basis of no practical manifestation of faith we are lumbered with unelected bishops in the House of Lords often influencing legislation and expressing anachronistic views irrelevant to the rest of us.

The BBC often seems like the PR arm of the church and particularly the Vatican.

In any real sense we are a secular country. Any claim to "christian" is no more a statement of convenience and not of faith.

Thu, 2011-11-03 00:09 — Mrs Nobody

I find it laughable that the Archbishop is presented as a leader with his finger on the pulse of the nation. What his words highlight is how few of the political establishment have been prepared to put their heads above the parapet and denounce the banks and their deeds. The ruling elite are wilfully ignoring the voice of the people.

Meanwhile the mainstream media do their usual trick of blandly reporting the words of government with little or no analysis of the meaning behind the words.

There are an awful lot of people who are sick to the back teeth with the status quo and they don't need the Church to tell them what's wrong with society because they are living through it first hand.

Thu, 2011-11-03 01:45 — David Lindsay

Which other Privy Councillors and Members of Parliament are supposed to keep out of politics?

As for the Holy See’s call for a global authority to keep the money men in check, I think we can all see what that authority ought to be.

Fri, 2011-11-04 17:23 — Keir

There appears to be something more fundamental than taxing the rich here. If the democratic process has to take shelter on religious property in order to avoid getting itself beaten up by police, the rich have already won a significant 'argument', which is that civilised argument is no longer applicable. Parliament must take action to prosecute senior police officers who fail to obey the law. And if law is insufficient to preserve democracy, law must be made fit for that purpose.

The alternative is anarchy for which there will be not enough force of law to contain.

Wed, 2011-11-02 10:56 — Des Demona (not verified)

Waiting for first right wing nut job post in 3....2.....1

Wed, 2011-11-02 10:57 — Marshy

Time for a bigger debate on these issues - hopefully with the Church getting involved now (perhaps purely down to the location of the Occupy camp which was not planned) the Government might actually appreciate they need to do something to placate the public rather than just hope it goes away and sweep it under the table - as Boris has tried to do this week.

Wed, 2011-11-02 11:08 — ang (not verified)

The debt, or as the Tories like to put it, 'the mess that Labour left', is being used as an excuse to hammer the poor, weak and unfortunate, into the ground.
Tories naturally hate poor people, regardless of their reasons for being poor. They are a waste of space and they cost too much money, but the fact is that they didn't cause a global financial crisis, it was the greedy bankers.
The bankers should hand back their bonus's and right off the government debt, rather than stand by and watch the Tories destroy our people and our economy, but they won't, cause they're all in it together!
I am not religious, but the men of the church are speaking up for the people and that is extremely admirable and inspiring.

Wed, 2011-11-02 12:33 — swatantra nandanwar

ABC Williams is to be commended for standing up to the Bankers. in many ways he has been a pretty radical priest. But I fear that a lot are out to get him and the next ABC will be a lot more conventional and a lot less mouthy and controversial. Its a pity he doesn't have the powers to excommunicate all bankers.

Wed, 2011-11-02 16:27 — Nixon is Lord (not verified)

Why should "the church lead the way" in a secular country? If barely 3% of the population bothers with church, how does this many have any more moral authority than anyone else?

Wed, 2011-11-02 16:14 — S Hall (not verified)

Once again, liberal radicals get it wrong.

Robin Hood stole from an oppressive government to give to the poor.

Wed, 2011-11-02 17:12 — historybuff

Perhaps Williams should lead by example and subject the Church of England to full taxation. Currently, despite being one of the wealthiest institutions in Britain, with huge land, poroperty and commercial holdings, it pays no income tax and is exempt for the taxation that its commercial competitors face. In fact, the Church Commissioners is itself a huge financial institution with its own army of lawyers and accountants who are used to fight any attempt to tax it.
The Church's property provides free education of the clergy's children at many of Britain's most expensive private schools and it's priests live in the most desirable properties in their parish and are exempt from taxes.
Williams himself receives a very generous salary and lives rent free and tax free in two palaces, Lambeth Palace and another in Canterbury.
Furthermore, Williams continues to oppose equal rights for gay & lesbian people both within the church and society as whole. He has also supported the introduction and enforecement of Islamic Sharia Law in the UK and its system of discrimination against Christians despite being suposedly being the leader of Christians.
He is merely trying to pander to certain groups to justify the contued privileges and discrimination within his own organisation.

Wed, 2011-11-02 17:30 — swatantra nandanwar

If the Queen is expected to pay her taxes then surely the Church should as well. Surely the income it recieves from its investments and rents and shareholdings etc is taxed?
the livings come with the job rather like tied cottages I suppose, so nothing can be done about that.
Unfortunately the Church Administration runs itself rather like the Civil Service no matter who is at the head, and there are just too many vested interests in it to overthrow, he'd have a hard job taking that lot on, and failing. Williams doesn't go all the way with Sharia Law and stops where it definitely conflicts with English Law.

Wed, 2011-11-02 18:23 — historybuff

swatantra,
Your raising the comparison with the Queen (or Crown Estates to be exact) is spot on. They are intertwined and owe their place and wealth to the Settlement that goes back to the 16th century.
The Crown Estates and the Church of England estates occupy unique places in British law and the vast majority of their holdings, rents and other income are NOT subject to taxation.
The Queen herself has only quite recently given the go ahead to herself and the Crown Estates paying SOME tax, purely for public consumption and approval, but it is not on the same basis as other property portolios. The Church is probably the 3rd or 4th biggest landowner in England (its holdings were confiscated from all the pre-Reformation holdings of the monastic orders and the existing (Catholic) Church. It has held this property ever since; on these lands and the rents they derive from them, the C of E pays no tax; the money is used to provide salaries to priests, free housing, free private eductaion for their children, and maintaining church buildings. Other religious organisations enjoy charitable status but the C of E is vastly more wealthy than any other church in the UK. (In addition, it exerts political power through seats in the House of Lords occupied by its bishops, a unique privilege.)
This situation gives them an unfair advantage vis a vis their commercial competitors in the property market and other financial areas.
Despite this, the ABC is supporting the Tobin tax on banks, knowing that the Church will be exempt.
Williams is trying portray the CHurch as a progessive institution when it is not. It uses every legal and accounting trick to maintain its privileges. At the same time, it continues to oppose equal rights for gay and lesbian people within the Church and society.