Rowan Williams and the Non-Existent Fear

One of the greatest, and most important, political concepts of all time is the idea of the seperation of church and state. While we haven't quite managed it completely in this country, you'd think that we could be spared having to hear about the political preferences of the Archbishop of Canterbury. But clearly he wouldn't agree.

His New Statesman article is the sort of toss that continually gets printed by that magazine. And Rowan Williams has been comprehensively shredded just about everywhere this morning - particularly since he, as an unelected, unaccountable public figure, is really taking the piss when he criticises the democratic credentials of the coalition. One of the biggest problems, though, is that his whole article is predicated on the shakiest of grounds. Take a look at this paragraph on the much-maligned concept of the Big Society:

Government badly needs to hear just how much plain fear there is around such questions at present. It isn't enough to respond with what sounds like a mixture of, "This is the last government's legacy," and, "We'd like to do more, but just wait until the economy recovers a bit." To acknowledge the reality of fear is not necessarily to collude with it. But not to recognise how pervasive it is risks making it worse. Equally, the task of opposition is not to collude in it, either, but to define some achievable alternatives. And, for that to happen, we need sharp-edged statements of where the disagreements lie.

First up, it may not be enough to respond with things like "this is the last government's legacy", but it is still important to stress that. Labour were in power for 13 years - the situation the coalition inherited is Labour's fault. In fact, I'm amazed that the coalition doesn't spend more time pointing this out. If I was Cameron or Clegg, I'd be saying something like "this is all your fucking fault" every time Ed Miliband opened his stupid mouth. Likewise, the economy does restrict what the coalition can do. Labour could afford to do far more because the national bank account hadn't (yet) been ransacked. The Con-Dems were always going to be far more restricted as the money has been spent.

He's right, of course, when he says that the point of opposition is to offer some sort of tangible alternative to the government. But he's wrong when he talks about it coming from the left. The left (or at least the mainstream left) has become inherently conservative. That's the point of Blue Labour, that's why the Labour party in opposition can offer nothing more than "we'd do the same, but more slowly and with sad looks on our faces".

Indeed, as far as I can see radical alternatives will come from outside of the right-left political spectrum. Likewise, radical change does not - as Williams seems to believe it should - involve maintaining the current level of state power. There are radical alternatives to the status quo; these challenge that size and scope of the state in modern Britain. They dare to say that the answer to everything may not be state intervention and that the government both should not and cannot be held responsible for all aspects of national life. Take child poverty. The last Labour administration threw vast amounts of money at ending child poverty and nothing happened. It is time to consider other options and other institutions in society that might be able to help deal with and maybe end this problem. And it is striking that the head of one of those potential institutions is so utterly caught up in the statist myth.

But the biggest problem with the Archbish's article is that it is, as seems to be the case with many people writing for The New Statesman, based on unsubstantiated assertions of nothing more than the author's opinions. Williams writes about "plain fear". What fear? I have not come across anyone afraid of the coalition's policies. Sure, some people are angry and resentful about the coalition's approach, but no-one I've come across is afraid. As a result, the whole article comes across as a case based on a false assumption, and that is a fatal flaw. It isn't enough for anyone - even the Archbishop of Canterbury - to effectively say "it is true because I say it is". I doubt I am alone on demanding a little more proof of the fear that is the foundation of this article before I can treat Williams' views with the credibility that he seems to believe they deserve.