The turbulent priest intervenes

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

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.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The Manchester attack will define this election: Broadcasters have a careful line to tread

It's right that the government should be given a chance to respond, but they must not be allowed to use it to campaign.

Every election campaign has its story, its place in the political history of this country. 2017 will forever be known for Manchester and the horror of the attack on Britain's young; and fighting terrorism will be a theme, overt or underlying, of what we see and hear between now and polling day.

The broadcasters have covered the events comprehensively yet sensitively. But they are aware that we're in an election campaign too; and when other news drives aside the carefully-balanced campaign formats, ministerial appearances give them a dilemma.

The fact is that what the Prime Minister and Home Secretary are doing in response to Manchester is newsworthy. It was Theresa May's duty to implement the recommendations of her security advisers on the elevation of the terror alert, and it would have been unthinkable for the news channels not to broadcast her various statements.

But it is also true that, if the bomb hadn't been detonated, Tuesday would have been a day in which the PM would have been under relentless damaging scrutiny for her u-turn on social care. All the opposition parties would have been in full cry across the airwaves. Yet in the tragic circumstances we found ourselves, nobody could argue that Downing Street appearances on the terror attack should prompt equal airtime for everyone from Labour to Plaid Cymru.

There are precedents for ministers needing to step out of their party roles during a campaign, and not be counted against the stopwatch balance of coverage. Irish terrorism was a factor in previous elections and the PM or Northern Ireland secretary were able to speak on behalf of the UK government. It applied to the foot and mouth epidemic that was occupying ministers' time in 2001. Prime ministers have gone to foreign meetings before, too. Mrs Thatcher went to an economic summit in photogenic Venice with her soulmate Ronald Reagan three days before the 1987 election, to the irritation of Neil Kinnock.

There are plenty of critics who will be vigilant about any quest for party advantage in the way that Theresa May and Amber Rudd now make their TV and radio appearances; and it’s inevitable that a party arguing that it offers strength and stability will not object to being judged against these criteria in extreme and distressing times.

So it's necessary for both broadcasters and politicians to be careful, and there are some fine judgements to be made. For instance, it was completely justifiable to interview Amber Rudd about the latest information from Manchester and her annoyance with American intelligence leaks. I was less comfortable with her being asked in the same interview about the Prevent strategy, and with her response that actions would follow "after June", which edges into party territory and would be a legitimate area to seek an opposition response.

When the campaigning resumes, these challenges become even greater. Deciding when the Prime Minister is speaking for the government and nation, or when she is leader of the Conservative Party, will never be black and white. But I would expect to see the broadcast bulletins trying to draw clearer lines about what is a political report and what is the latest from Manchester or from G7. They must also resist any efforts to time ministerial pronouncements with what's convenient for the party strategists' campaign grid.

There might also usefully be more effort to report straight what the parties are saying in the final days, with less spin and tactical analysis from the correspondents. The narrative of this election has been changed by tragedy, and the best response is to let the politicians and the public engage as directly as possible in deciding what direction the nation should now take.

Roger Mosey is the Master of Selwyn College, Cambridge. He was formerly editorial director and the director of London 2012 at the BBC.

0800 7318496