God, poverty and the government


Watch: Iain Duncan Smith thinks fixing the welfare system is a moral imperative as well as a financial one

Related Stories

Who has the more Christian reaction to poverty - Iain Duncan Smith or the Archbishop of Canterbury? It wasn't the question I expected to be debating on Newsnight last night.

But Rowan Williams' diatribe in this week's New Statesman sparked an unusually sharp reaction from the government, and when I interviewed Iain Duncan Smith it was clear why.

Like his former chief of staff, Tim Montgomery, the work and pensions secretary is a devout Christian who worked in opposition to strengthen ties between the Conservative party and the church.

As he sees it, fixing the welfare system is a moral imperative as well as a financial one, and - as my interview rapidly demonstrated - he deeply resents the suggestion that the first is taking a back seat to the second in the government's approach to the benefit system.

Put simply, he doesn't think poverty is the root problem: the root problem is a benefit system that "traps" families into generations of dependency. Long-term, you don't break that cycle by doling out more cash.

By not focusing on that bigger question, the minister had the temerity to suggest, the Archbishop was ignoring the real moral imperative. Quite an accusation.

Child poverty

Ben Bradshaw, a former Labour minister and practising Christian who appeared later on the programme, sees it more like the Archbishop.

Even if the likes of Iain Duncan Smith have good intentions, these critics point out that the benefit cuts will have the practical impact of punishing families with children - and putting more of those children into poverty.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams Mr Williams is concerned about morals driving benefit reform.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies, for example, estimates that child poverty will rise by about 200,000 over the next four years as a direct result of the government's tax and benefit changes. That doesn't sound very Christian.

In our interview, the secretary of state admitted that some of the government's policies - notably the £500 cap on benefits for unemployed families - might end up punishing families who were "playing by the rules". For example, as written, the change could mean a single earner on the average wage with four kids who gets laid off could find his family's benefits are cut by more than £200 a week.

In places like outer London, where rents are more than £300 a week, that family has to find a new job, fast, in a weak economy, or move hundreds of miles away to cheaper accommodation, and an even weaker local jobs market. That or try to live on £3-£4 per person, per day.

Mr Duncan Smith told me he was working to get rid of some of these kind of "unfortunate" side effects, and had previously discussed all of this with the Archbishop. But he did not shy away from the idea that his new system would make families face financial consequences for the choices they make in life.

One choice, he would argue, is whether to actively seek work. Another, almost as consequential in the new system, would be whether to have children.

He denied that this marked a return - in Rowan Williams' words - to notions of the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor. But others will disagree. Certainly, there is a moral compass at work, and it's pointing the minister in a different direction than the leader of the Church of England.

Religious faith

I asked Mr Duncan Smith whether he saw an irony here: that the government thinks it's putting morality back into the benefit system, while the Archbishop of Canterbury wants to take it out. Surprise surprise, he didn't think it was that simple.

You might wonder why an economist should engage with all this. But of course, this is all about economics too. When it comes to welfare reform, questions of religious faith, political theory, economics and behavioural psychology all converge on the same basic issue.

That is because when you give help to people in bad circumstances, you are likely to change their behaviour as well as their income, with possibly long-term consequences for society as well as the economy. The debate is over how - and how much - to take those consequences into account in providing that initial support.

Who came out best from yesterday's argument - the Archbishop or the government? I leave that to you to judge. But the interview is well worth watching.

Stephanie Flanders Article written by Stephanie Flanders Stephanie Flanders Former economics editor

So it's goodbye from me

After 11 years at the BBC, I'm leaving for a new role in the City.

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 307.

    As soon as any politicians starts trying to claim religious or moral high ground my warning bells start ringing as it is almost always a way to disguise mean-spirited policies by wrapping them in religious language.

    Same is true when they start referencing patriotism.

    We should not allow dodgy appeals to emotion to disguise the damage the Tories are causing for ideological reasons.

  • rate this

    Comment number 306.

    If we reformed tax and benefits simply things might become simpler.
    a) A flat rate benefit paid - at all times - to everyone legally here. Even if you are taking 10 million for running a bank.
    b) A flat rate tax on all income - whether thats a company car, cash, bonus or shares.
    If you are laid off and have 20 kids and no savings find a job fast. The economy will be better which will help

  • rate this

    Comment number 305.

    re #299
    It's a fantastic story. When you examine it closely, it speaks to not just the whole of life but even specific activities, such as relationships between men and women, life and death (topical after BBC documentary) and, even, banking!

  • rate this

    Comment number 304.

    re #282
    I had the grass roots in mind (and a church slightly wider than the CoE) but don't forget, Faith in the City was fired at a Conservative government by an Archbishop of Canterbury ...

  • rate this

    Comment number 303.

    TS Eliot wrote "Christ the tiger" meaning Christ the revolutionary.

    Or the words of the magnificat: "He hath put down the mighty from their seats,the rich he hath sent empty away.

    Or the huge redistribution of wealth and income from poor to rich since 1980.

    Christ fed the multitude,he washed the beggar`s feet. Christ the tiger.

    If the church is not in the world,what`s the use of it?


Comments 5 of 307



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.