Protecting our children

I watched the BBC documentary series Protecting our Children with some very mixed feelings about the program..   Why is it even called protecting our children, surely this is the wrong message and sets social workers against parents from the get go?  Isn’t this issue more about how we raise children?

The program stirred in me some very big questions...  Where is the extended family? What friends are helping to support them? Toby is likely to spend his entire childhood in foster care - how is that really better? How does a social worker help struggling parents by giving them a 'plan?'.  What care was there for Tiffany once her children were in care?  Mike clearly has some developmental issues of his own - how was he supported?   Did Tiffany love her children - I think she did..   and if she was making progress (as seemed evident) how can it be that she then 8 months later came to a decision that giving them up was better for them - or indeed for her?  I really hope this was nothing to do with 'CLASS' or 'ECONOMICS!'...  Suzanne's admission is she 'hoped' life would be better for Toby, but what checks are in place to make sure they are? 

It is distressing that there are so many people in our nation who really struggle to care for themselves (basic care) let alone care for others..  As a society and individually don’t we need to take a good hard look at ourselves and ask why that is?    If all we do is get upset, tutt and wonder how this could happen and yet drive past people who are clearly struggling without becoming their friend and coming alongside them, supporting, loving then shame on us.   Let us be better than this.   Social workers do a very difficult job, made more difficult because the rest of us often think caring for others is someone else's job.  They can only do so much, and are limited in what they are 'allowed' to do.  I'm glad they bought him a bed, but couldn't they have ensured it was set up?  Isn’t that something though that a friend could do? Surely, it's practical help and emotional support that people need, and that is often treated with suspicion when offered by social workers because the threat is 'do what I say or lose your kid'..    those without the power to remove kids, people like you and me, need to step up to love the parents, help them learn what to do without making them a mini-project, without talking down or judging them, and without taking over.   Let's use our anger, our distress and our new-found awareness to make a real difference this year to the lives of families, not just children in difficult or dangerous situations. 

Is Newfrontiers abandoning it’s commitment to Male Leadership?

 

In 2008 Mark Driscoll addressed the Newfrontiers leaders conference and commended our movement for holding to the biblical principle of male Eldership. Following the conference a critique of Newfrontiers position by a methodist minister, Dave Warnock suggested that our understanding of scripture on this matter was incorrect and several of our newfrontiersbloggers attempted to clarify and explain the position.

To answer my principle question, I do not believe at this time that there is any credible suggestion that Newfrontiers is abandoning it’s commitment to male leadership, but in my own recent research looking at the media download sections of several UK Newfrontiers churches it is clear that our understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12 differs widely enabling nearly 40% of our churches to [occasionally] permit women to teach when the full congregation is assembled.  (Teaching is assumed to be an eldership function, and as such the preserve of men)

Among my research, I found even  Wendy Virgo addressed an assembled congregation in Horsham on Mothers day (though interestingly CCK in Brighton – until very recently the longtime home for Wendy and Terry - is not one of the congregations that has permitted a woman to take to the pulpit on a Sunday) and in the first minute of her talk she taught that  “we don’t usually make a habit of women preaching on Sunday’s but we do feel that at time’s it’s appropriate”.    I found that this statement was somewhat odd. Either, we have a ‘habit’ [Note: not a biblical principle] that prevents women from exercising their gifting to teach, preach and encourage or we believe that preaching and teaching to a congregation that includes men requires authority that is provided by church government which is exclusively male led.

However I don’t want to get into the discussion that would require greater theological mind(s) than mine to probe questions such as: what exactly is teaching, what  is someone doing when they speak from the assumed pulpit on a Sunday, can women speak formally as long as they don’t teach, is the teaching in 1 Tim 2:12 something that is in reference only to her husband, can single women then be free to teach since they have no ‘head’ in the home, can elders delegate their authority to others, can those that have been delegated to set direction and all such other questions… as these are not the subject of this post… .

The nub of my question is, since a number of our congregations draw the line of where women can teach in different places sufficient to allow some to teach the assembled church, and with many church denominations already opening governmental positions to women, does that mean it’s only a matter of time before one of our congregations elevates someone to the leadership team (beyond children’s or women’s ministry) and enables them to have a directive or authoritive role (rather than a complementarian influential one) in church governance?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those who haven’t seen the vision and values statements or who haven’t been following Terry Virgo’s series on these statements here’s the relevant ones to this topic.

7. A church where Biblical family life is highly valued, where husband and wife embrace male servant leadership and joyful female submission, where godly parenting is taught and practised and where the special value of singleness and its unique opportunities are affirmed.

8. A church led by male elders (one of whom is clearly understood to be gifted to be lead elder) who are ordained by the Holy Spirit, recognised and confirmed through apostolic ministry. These men are to be helped in fulfilling their calling through ongoing fellowship with trans-local ministries.

Contesting the incontestable: No2AV/Yes2AV debate

 

It is undeniable that the Alternative Vote (AV) system produces a result that is different from first past the post (FPTP) in constituencies where there isn’t a clear favourite among that electorate.   That AV doesn’t favour (nationally) either of the main parties (as FPTP does) is to its credit because it levels the playing field on which parties with broad support can compete.

• Voting to keep FPTP (because you don’t like AV or you would prefer Proportional Representation (PR) is saying to the government that you are not interested in electoral reform and support the current demonstrably unfair system
• FPTP is unfair in a race with more than 2 candidates, because in nearly every election, the winning candidate will only gain the support of around a 1/3rd of the electorate that bothered to turn out. In FPTP a candidate wins with a minority. 

 

According to the Telegraph.. Twenty MPs from the new intake – ten Labour and ten Conservative – have listed ten incontestable objections to the Alternative Vote system.  (Telegraph points in Italics, my response in normal case)

1. AV IS OBSCURE: Only three countries in the world use AV for their national elections: Fiji, Australia, and Papua New Guinea
1. It is correct to say that AV is only in use for national elections by three countries, but even in the UK there are many different forms of alternative voting that take place for different ballots.  In that regard AV is not obscure, but actually favoured for some elections including the election of the conservative leader!
2. The banality of this argument is obvious though… and one of principle, like saying that we shouldn’t have an NHS because other countries don’t.
   
2. AV IS UNFAIR: Supporters of fringe parties can end up having their vote counted five or six times – and potentially decide the outcome of the election – while people who backed the mainstream candidates only get one vote.
1. Alternative votes only come into play if there isn’t a candidate that passes 50% of the turnout in the constituency AND because their first preference is eliminated.
2. I understand that there will be a threshold in which the votes for fringe parties will be reallocated in the event that none of the candidates reaches that 50% in the first place.
3. This position assumes that those who might vote green or UKIP or even BNP would choose to show a preference for any other party than their own… or at least another one that might raise enough support across the constituency…  In the case of extremist politics, I think that’s highly unlikely.
4. In reality everyone’s vote in AV is counted the same amount of times in the constituency until there is a clear winner. What changes is the allocation of the vote preference. (your principle vote for a labour candidate or a conservative one will most likely be counted in every round against your first choice candidate)
5. In relation to the existing system, FPTP national elections are decided by a small number of marginal constituencies. All this proves is that with each proposed system there is some level of unfairness to some, the question is, is AV more fair than what we have now or less?
   
3. AV IS UNEQUAL: AV treats someone’s fifth or sixth choice as having the same importance as someone’s else’s first preference – but there is a big difference between positively wanting one candidate to win and being able to ‘put up with’ another.
1. No, AV treats someone’s second or third choice with a similar importance in the event that no clear winner is determined.
2. The truth is under AV EVERY voter has an equal chance of influencing the result. – This cannot be said about FPTP.
3. In FPTP, everyone who tactically votes is likely to be voting for who there 2^nd ,3^rd , 4^th etc choice.
   
4. AV IS ‘EVEN LESS PROPORTIONAL’ THAN THE CURRENT SYSTEM: So concluded the independent Royal Commission chaired by the senior Liberal Democrat Roy Jenkins in 1998.
1. Though the Jenkins report suggested that AV could produce IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES even less proportional results than the current system, the recommendation was that the best system for Britain was AV+ where 80-85% of constituency members would be elected ordinarily through AV whilst the remaining 15-20% would be elected on a corrective top-up basis. But regardless, the general point is moot because neither AV nor FPTP claim to be proportional.
2. AV isn’t proportional representation, nor does it claim to be.  It is simply a method of enabling more people’s vote to be ‘FOR’ a candidate or candidates, reducing the amount of wasted votes and enabling more people to be engaged with politics, and the result.
3. The reality is that the result will reflect the choices people actually make.  In recent history the most likely outcome is more seats for Liberal Democrats. (if you consider the actual share of the vote nationally)
   
5. AV IS ‘DISTURBINGLY UNPREDICTABLE’ – another warning from Roy Jenkins. Elections fought under AV would either wildly increase the majority of the winning party (e.g. Labour in 1997, the Tories in the 1980s) or create hung parliaments by giving the balance of power to the third party.
1. This is nonsense.  With FPTP with more than 2 parties and electoral constituencies with massaged boundaries the only predictable thing about FPTP is that the result won’t reflect the will of the majority of the UK.
2. The reality is that democracy, when allowed to be truly democratic, is unpredictable. I think that is a good thing, because it will return politics to issues.
   
6. AV IS NOT WANTED – EVEN BY THE YES CAMPAIGN: Before the general election, Nick Clegg described AV as “a miserable little compromise” and the Electoral Reform Society said they did “not regard it as suitable for the election of a representative body, e.g. a parliament”.
1. What is not wanted is AV to be the system that endures, but nearly all see AV as a stepping stone towards PR.   The likelihood is that if we don’t vote against FPTP by voting for AV, you will not get another chance to change the electoral system in the UK.
2. If AV is not wanted, then that is what the outcome of the referendum should decide.  But I want it (over FPTP) and so do lots of others. So the general statement is not only incorrect, it is also premature.
   
7. AV IS NO-ONE’S FIRST CHOICE: AV was not in the manifestos of either the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats. Many people who want voting reform have spent years campaigning for proportional representation – which AV is not.
1. The Liberals would prefer PR to be on the ballot paper. It isn’t.  Given that the only options are FPTP and AV, AV is the first choice.
2. NO ONE voted for the coalition manifesto. That doesn’t mean the same as No one wants electoral reform 
3. The referendum is on which is BETTER, not which one is perfect.  I can’t see that FPTP is better than AV.. though I can certainly see faults with both.
   
8. AV IS COMPLEX: The Government will have to spend millions of pounds explaining to voters how AV works to prevent a fall in turnout at elections. In Australia, the only reason they have high turnout is because they made voting compulsory.
1. This is a nonsense too.  In Australia after AV was introduced the turnout rose.. This was BEFORE they introduced compulsory voting.
2. Anyone who can count to three can vote in AV. It takes no explaining.  Rank your preference 1^st choice, 2^nd, 3^rd.
3. I agree that voting should be compulsory (even if people only spoil their paper)  but with turnout being voluntary no-one really knows if it will increase or decrease.. wouldn’t it be interesting to try?
4. My own view is that anything that rewards peoples action to vote is likely to encourage voting.
   
9. AV IS EXPENSIVE: Under AV we won’t be able to count ballot papers by hand on election night if we want a quick, decisive election result. Local councils will have to purchase electronic counting machines that are very expensive and prone to malfunction.
1. This has already been refuted.  Manual counting is not just possible, but possible in similar time. 
2. Where there is a clear winner, the count will be exactly the same
3. In the event of reallocation of votes, the second and third rounds will take much less time because only some votes are being reallocated.
4. The benefit of electronic means of recording or counting the vote is a separate issue to be addressed whichever system of voting is used.
   
10. AV IS NOT THE REFORM WE NEED: There are lots of genuine reforms which would go some way to restoring people’s trust in politics – but changing our voting system to AV is not one of them. That’s why it’s a shame that we’re about to spend £90 million and five months debating a system that nobody really wants.
1. I agree that other reforms are needed. But that doesn’t mean this one isn’t needed, and this is the one before us on May 5^th.
2. Do you think it is likely that the Government will offer further reforms if we don’t turn out to vote?

Why I‘m voting YES to AV on May 5th

 

There are several reasons why I’m voting Yes to the Alternative Vote (AV) on May 5th 2011 that I’d like to share with you.

I’m REALLY tired of politicians being elected by less than a third of the people who turned out to vote.    This major factor means that nearly everyone can complain they haven’t got who or what they voted for, and gives cause for them to disengage with the political process and opt out of responsibility.

Here’s the results table for Cannock Chase 2010

Name	Party	Votes	%	+/- 2005
Aidan Burley	Conservative	18,271	40%	10.1%
Susan Woodward	Labour	15,076	33%	-17.9%
Jon Hunt	Liberal Democrat	7,732	17%	3%
Various	Other Parties	4,480	10%	5%

In Cannock Chase District, in 2005 Labour won with 51% of the vote. Under AV that result would stand without a second round. In 2010 Conservatives were elected with 40.1% of the vote, leaving 33% voting for Labour and 17% voting for Liberal (on a 61% turnout).  The voting majority of Cannock Chase (nearly 60%) did not appear to want a Tory MP as their first choice but that is what they got which to my mind is clearly unfair.  First past the post (the current electoral system) works really well in a 2 horse race, but with the vote as fragmented as it is between more political parties it just doesn’t make sense to use a system that can elect a person/party without a true majority of support.

AV is all about MAJORITY PREFERENCE. Under AV, If there is a clear winner (50% of any vote) that person is elected straight away with no second round count.  This means that it is as easy as ever to remove a dodgy MP, but it’s also as easy as ever to ELECT a person we think might do our county good. But because a prospective MP (or returning MP) has to get 50% of the vote to avoid second round counting, they have to work hard for us for more than the 6 weeks before an election.  They cannot just rely on their party affiliated supporters to see them through, they must win over floating voters and those from other parties by their actions.   That to me seems a jolly good.

If you only want ONE vote to be counted against your candidate, then you can choose to ONLY mark ONE box on the form. There is no compulsion for you to vote for more people than you want.  So if you can determine that the values and policies of only one politician are ones that you can support then you can continue to exercise your vote in the way you do now.  In the last election, I found that I was most in agreement with one party, somewhat in agreement with another, and definitely opposed to the policies of another.  It would have been likely under AV that I would have exercised my first and second choice only.    In the 2010 result, if I had voted for either Conservative OR liberal, then given the coalition government that was formed I should feel that my vote really made a difference in who is running the country.

However, I think one of the greatest benefits of AV is that for the first time in a long while you can actually vote for who/what you want, not for what you don’t want.  Your first choice will count towards the first round just like now. If you however have also indicated that you would be happy if another parties candidates policies were successful  then if there was not 50% of the vote, your primary vote can be reallocated to a second round candidate.

We have no way of truly knowing what might have happened In Cannock Chase but given that 60% didn’t want a conservative candidate where could the remaining votes have gone? Would there have been enough residual support for Labour to elect them in the second round once they had a bloody nose from the first?  Would Liberals have captured a popularist surge from people who would normally vote Conservative or Labour (because they had more chance of winning) but feel more comfortable with Liberal policies? Or would the Conservatives have won over those who were making protest votes with minority parties in the first round but would feel comfortable that Conservatives had a workable plan to put us on a path to recovery?    We can debate that forever and a day, and we will never really know.. but I would have liked to have found out.

Certainly AV is a change in how we vote now.  How we approach change in our lives is really important.  Often we approach it with a mixture of fear, nervousness and sometimes excitement. There may be many questions you have about what AV is and what it isn’t, and you may think that there are some things you don’t want to have happen that will force you to vote against AV.  One of those thoughts is that AV could allow the BNP to be elected, but let me ask you, just how likely is that? Remember, they would have to get 50% of the population believing that their policies are helpful sufficient to get 1st, 2nd or third round votes allocated to them.  In the last election only 2,168 people in Cannock Chase voted for the BNP, so how likely is it that another 20,612 people would be convinced enough to add them as a second or third choice sufficient for 50% of the vote from those who turned out?  I don’t think very likely at all, even as a protest vote.

I have given you some reasons for voting for AV you can find out more from the Yes2AV campaign. The No2AV campaign will provide several reasons for you to fear the Alternative Vote system, what I would ask you to think about is, what is it you want, rather than what you don’t want.