He argued, correctly in my view, that you cannot remove morality from political discourse and so it is far better to have it out in public.

In the UK we tend to discourage our politicians from talking about faith, we famously ‘don’t do God.’ Why?

I believe that it has long been the case that too many people – particularly those who take a left of centre approach to politics – make the mistake of failing to acknowledge the power of faith in people’s lives.

With debate raging about the rise of the far-right and the failure of the body politic I wonder if it isn’t time for those who espouse the “progressive” agenda to debate just how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy. Too often politicians try and avoid any discussion about religious values altogether – fearful of offending anyone and claiming that politics and religion should never mix.

In 2007, when addressing the 50th anniversary convention of his own denomination, the United Church of Christ, the then Senator Barack Obama, argued that the religious right had “hijacked” faith and divided his country by exploiting issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and school prayer.

More interestingly he then went onto praise the people of faith who were using their influence to try to unite Americans against problems like poverty, AIDS, the lack of universal health care, Darfur and the effects of climate change.

Yet surely the reality of all political engagement is that we have to meet people where they are – even if we do not agree with or even approve of where they are. If so called ‘progressive’ politicians are to communicate their hopes and values in a way that is relevant to the lives of others, then they cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.

In my view secularists are wrong when they ask – more often insist – that believers leave their religion at the door before entering into the arena of public debate. The majority of great reformers in British history – from Wilberforce to Keir Hardie – were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause.

I recognise that democratic engagement will and should make demands of religious believers. It will demand that those who are religiously motivated act to turn their concerns into universal, rather than faith-specific, values. Democratic engagement will also demand that the values espoused by people of faith be subject to argument and debate.

What is needed is a sense of proportion and a willingness – on the part of both believers and non-believers – to engage in public debate openly and fair-mindedly. Many people in Britain today are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion and politics.

This then is the challenge for those who describe themselves as progressive politicians. They too must become more “fair minded” more willing to engage with people of faith so that they might recognise some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of modern Britain.

One way to begin is to stop simply talking about the symptoms of dissatisfaction and address some of the underlying causes that have resulted in traditional Labour supporters taking refuge in the policies of the far right. The BNP is often successful in so-called “forgotten” white areas where many traditional Labour supporters say they feel alienated from modern political discourse and that no one in the Labour party is listening to them. The BNP often finds support in a context of significant social problems: high unemployment, deprivation, lack of educational achievement, high crime rates, drugs, and people of different ethnic backgrounds living apparently separate lives (which encourages the growth of myths and rumour). A well used BNP tactic is to use this information to focus on people who traditionally have voted Labour and in many cases feel neglected by this government. Many of these people feel that they have only two places they can go. One is not to vote, the other is to vote for the far right. All too often there is a lack of what might be described as a “safe space” for ordinary working people to air their feelings – they often struggle to find the language to say what they want without being thought of or even accused of being a racist. In the likes of Stoke-on-Trent the BNP is developing a network of supporters who are now openly willing to admit to not only voting for a racist and bigoted political party, but are doing so with pride and patriotic fervour.

If Labour is to stage a credible fightback in these areas, then it must not only focus on the needs of the middle classes. Gordon Brown would send out a powerful message to his party’s core supporters if he were to personally throw his weight behind a call for a new “coalition of the willing” that will help to blunt the advance of the far-right in this country by addressing some of the genuine concerns of white working-class voters while at the same time openly challenging those concerns that have no factual or legitimate basis. Brown should back calls for the creation of a multi-racial, multi-faith and cross-party movement that can help unite and lead the great majority of people in Britain who feel repulsed by the rhetoric and actions of the likes of the BNP. Brown should explain that the reasons for Labour openly taking on the bigots and the bullies of the far right are not purely tactical and strategic. He should make it clear that the values that underpin the Labour movement demand that it be done

The American columnist, E.J. Dionne in his book ‘Why Americans Hate Politics‘ argues that one of the main reasons for people being turned off politics is because it (political debate) seems irrelevant to them, they feel that they are being manipulated because they are always being asked to make false choices: you’re either staunchly religious or vehemently secular, pro-business or pro-unions, pro-growth or pro-environment, for civil liberties or against them, a progressive or a dinosaur.

The truth is, of course, that most people don’t think like this, most people don’t live their lives in this way, and most people long for a politics where we have genuine arguments, vigorous disagreements, where we don’t claim to have a monopoly on what is right or wrong, where we don’t demonise our political opponents. Most people want their politicians to engage in what Barack Obama has called a “fair-minded” approach to politics; politics that understands that truth and certainty are not the same thing.

Being “fair-minded” is, it could be argued, a philosophical approach to politics. It is a philosophical approach that ultimately has as its goal the pursuit of the common good. Common good politics is the politics of empowerment; it is the politics that espouses cooperation not competition, the hand up and not just the hand out. The uncomfortable truth is however, that rather than some broad common good philosophy it has been what might be called an “uncommon-good”, a rigid ideological approach to politics that has dominated the political landscape in the US and Europe over the past fifty years.

Ideologues like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher believed that nations were best served by ensuring that the maximum concentration of wealth and power was in the hands of the right people. Whilst those that argued for the common good promoted the need for mutual responsibility, they were opposed by those that believed that in large measure people made their own luck, that there was no such thing as society. The belief that collective endeavour is both a strength and a virtue, that a problem shared is a problem partly solved was countered by often unilateral and isolationist policies – particularly in terms of trade and immigration.

Those who adopt the “fair-minded” and common good approach to politics tend to believe that debate should be dominated by evidence and argument; that it is political philosophers that we need to embrace and political ideologues that we need to be wary of. Having a political philosophy generally pushes you in a certain direction or another and encourages you to engage in discussion and argument, you might even end up making a principled agreement with someone with a different philosophical approach.

However, if you have adapted an ideological approach to politics then you already have your mind made up. You know all the answers, and that makes evidence irrelevant and argument a waste of time, so you tend to resort to vague assertions and personal attacks on your opponents.

Common good politics is at odds with the conservative ideological view that sees society as merely the aggregation of individuals pursuing their own individual needs. In contrast common good politics adopts an approach that recognises that government is an essential tool for helping people to pursue their dreams whilst at the same time providing a solid safety net for those left behind.

The creation of the NHS and of the modern welfare state are classic examples of the triumph of progressive, common good politics.

What is more, the advent of globalisation will virtually demand that future governments pursue policies that both benefit and require sacrifices from all. Perhaps though what we really need are more philosopher politicians who will devise policies that promote equal opportunity, shared responsibility, and inclusive communities. Is it not obvious that in increasingly multi-cultural, multi-faith societies we need an approach to politics that celebrates partisan differences but is humble enough to recognise that adherence to a particular ideology can be both debilitating and divisive?

The idea of the common good offers a clear, optimistic and above all progressive vision for the future. Progressive politics and the pursuit of the common good are not mutually exclusive – if anything, one demands the other.

With debate raging about the Embryology Bill, veils, faith schools and social cohesion, I wonder if it isn’t time for those who espouse the “progressive” agenda to debate just how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

We are not alone in struggling with this issue. In the United States Barack Obama has recently argued that his own party has been reluctant to engage in serious debate about the issue of religion and politics. Speaking back in June last year he said: “At best, we [Democrats] may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that – regardless of our personal beliefs – constitutional principles tie our hands.”

The reality of political engagement is that we have to meet people where they are – even if we do not agree with where they are. If, as a progressive movement, we are to communicate our hopes and values in a way that is relevant to the lives of others, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse. In his speech, Obama argued that secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into public debate.

Indeed, he makes the case that the majority of great reformers in American history – he cites Abraham Lincoln, Dorothy Day and Martin Luther King – were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause.

Democratic engagement makes demands of religious believers. It demands that those who are religiously motivated act to turn their concerns into universal, rather than faith-specific, values. Democratic engagement demands that the values espoused by people of faith be subject to argument and debate. For example, if I am opposed to abortion on religious grounds and would seek to see the time limit for abortions reduced from 24 to say 20 weeks it is not sufficient to simply invoke the teachings of the Catholic Church to support my views.

I will also need to explain why abortion violates some strongly held principle or set of values that are accessible to people of all faiths and none. Politics, and in particular democratic politics, involves the art of compromise, the art of what’s doable, what’s achievable and what’s possible. For some people of faith this is the greatest challenge that living in a democracy raises. For some people having faith is having certainty, what matters is not what can be done given the circumstances, what matters is not pragmatism but principle. Therefore what is needed is a sense of proportion and a willingness to engage openly and fair-mindedly.

During his campaign to become US senator, Barack Obama received an email from a doctor at the University of Chicago medical school that said: “Congratulations on your overwhelming and inspiring primary win. I was happy to vote for you, and I will tell you that I am seriously considering voting for you in the general election. I write to express my concerns that may, in the end, prevent me from supporting you.”

The doctor described himself as a committed Christian who understood his own beliefs to be “totalising”. His faith had led him to a strong opposition to abortion and gay marriage. But the reason the doctor was considering not voting for Obama was not simply the would-be senator’s position on abortion. Rather, it was because he had read an entry that Obama’s campaign had posted on his website, which suggested that he (Obama) would fight “rightwing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose”.

The doctor went on to write: “I sense that you have a strong sense of justice … and I also sense that you are a fair-minded person with a high regard for reason … Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded.”

This had a profound effect on Obama. Re-reading the doctor’s letter he felt a pang of shame. He wrote back to the doctor thanked him for his advice and the next day he changed the language on his website to state in clear but simple terms, his pro-choice position. According to Obama it is people like the doctor who emailed him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion and politics.

The doctor represents many (possibly a majority) who may not change their positions on issues such as abortion, the death penalty or gay rights, but are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in fair-minded words.

This then is the challenge for those who describe themselves as progressive politicians. They too must become more “fair minded” more willing to engage with people of faith so that they might recognise some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of modern Britain.

* Related: Paul Linford – Liberal Conspiracy and God
Our Man in Newscastle – More God Stuff

———————–
This is a guest post. Mike Ion was Labour PPC for Shrewsbury in 2005.
He blog is http://mike-ion.blogspot.com and for Comment is free.

So if we have to have school results published (sadly I think this is a Genie that is well and truly out of the bottle) can we at least agree on the format in which these results should be published. At present the DCFS publishes GCSE results in three different ways: raw results, value-added results and contextual value-added results (CVA). Confused?

Well you might well be if, as a parent, you were trying to judge whether school X is successful, complacent or under-achieving.

Let’s take a take the example of the fictitious St Helpusall Academy. The raw results put the school it in the top 25% of all secondary schools in the country but when you apply CVA data analysis it is in the bottom quartile. Which ‘table’ provides you with the most accurate picture? Which data set is most useful in evaluating the overall effectiveness of the school?

For me the answer is simple. If we have to have school results published nationally and therefore if we have to have league tables of schools let us use one main data set and let it be CVA. Why? Because raw results tell you little about how good a school is at its core function: teaching and learning.

Raw results simply tell you about the prior attainment of the kids on entry. In contrast CVA looks at the progress that the pupils make whilst in the school, in other words it tells you the difference the school has made to the life chances of a particular cohort of children. There are obviously challenges with such a proposal – not least being that such a move would be unlikely to attract ‘positive’ media attention. One way round the problem might be to publish each measure separately at different times of the year. That way, they would not be competing in the media for attention at the same time.

The truth is that a second set of league tables, showing the CVA results for the school would be a much better indication of teaching quality in a school than the old-fashioned league table of 5+ GCSE higher passes, a measure that will almost always have schools in the leafy suburbs at the top and the complex inner-city ones at the bottom.

The challenge then, over a period of time, would be to persuade parents and the general public that this was the case, that what makes a school a ‘good’ school must be linked to the quality of the teaching and learning and its impact on pupil outcomes. Now is the time to take on that challenge.

————-
This is a guest post. Mike Ion blogs here and at CIF.
He was Labour’s PPC for Shrewsbury in 2005.

A study in Canada cited by Alan Johnson when Education Secretary found that the introduction of tighter provincial restrictions on leaving school between 1920 and 1990 had helped in raising both average attainment and average incomes. The study found that students compelled to attend an extra year of school experienced an average increase in annual income of about 12%. It also found that compulsory schooling is closely associated with significant benefits in terms of other socio-economic outcome measures ranging from bi-lingual abilities, employment and poverty status.

It concluded that the personal costs of dropping out of full time education aged 16 were high. The study estimated that the earnings foregone as a result of leaving school early ranged from about one to two times the average dropout’s lifetime peak annual wage or three to six times the earnings forgone by staying in school.

What is not in doubt is that the longer a young person stays in education the greater the chance that he/she will acquire additional skills and significantly more opportunities in life as a whole. It has been shown many times that those who have stayed on in education longer often find it easier to find work and that they are much more likely to find that work satisfying. Similarly, the level of education among the population can have a positive effect on the economy as a whole as they can be more efficient workers.

As the Ontario study has shown, the impact of extra years of education on earnings and economic productivity is also disproportionately heavy at the lower end – that is, two more years at school for a 16 year old will make a much greater percentage difference to their later economic worth than two years of graduate work for a 22 year old.

The raising of what should really be called the “education leaving age” would, in my view, be a positive move that would help to promote greater equality. More importantly parents who left school young are more likely to have children who leave school early. Forcing all children to stay in school longer could break this cycle of disadvantage. Increasing the education leaving age is, I believe, crucial to the long-term investment in the talents and abilities of our nation.

For example it is worth noting that in many countries a very large majority of young people voluntarily stay in education beyond the end of compulsory schooling (e.g. France, Germany and Japan). If these countries can already bear the extra cost without economic collapse, it should be possible for nations like our own to cope as well. Raising the education leaving age to 18 is a progressive, bold and socially just policy – we should be pleased that it will be introduced by a Labour government.

—————–
This is a guest post. Mike Ion was Labour’s PPC for Shrewsbury in 2005.
Mike Ion’s weblog is at http://mike-ion.blogspot.com. He also blogs for Comment is free.