Friday, March 07, 2008

Lottery Balls


Saturday's in Richmond, North Yorkshire - always a joy and tomorrow its the Diocesan Synod when top of the agenda is a debate on the National Lottery, and whether the diocese should discourage churches from applying to it for money for their buildings. I have to confess, in preparing the press release and doing the research, Ive changed my mind.

Last month General Synod debated gambling and in particular Casinos… speaker after speaker got up to talk about the harm done by gambling, the disastrous effects for families, marriages, and lives. There was a general feeling that this government with its apparent desire to open up gambling as a normal part of everyday life had got it badly wrong – all the more surprising as this is the Labour party, founded on Methodist principles.

However it it took a fellow Communications Officer, and member of General Syod, Jan McFarlane from Norwich to get to the heart of the problem for our communications.. “The question I most dread the Eastern Daily Press asking me tomorrow” she said to Synod “ is – isn’t it hypocritical of the CofE to take a moral stance against gambling when so many churches and indeed cathedrals have taken advantage of the Heritage Lottery Fund? I for one would like us to be on firmer ground”.

So that's what we'll be debating - the heart of the issue and lottery funding. And if we stick to our present policy couldn’t I be facing questions about hypocricy tomorrow morning if we vote against this motion? Is there any justification?

Well, I think Ive changed my mind - and am coming round to the view that there are good arguments for allowing churches to carry on using 'tainted money' from the Lottery...

Firstly the lottery itself - is it, as a form of gambling, in the same league as the so called hard gambling of Casinos, betting shops, spread betting, gaming machines? – Not according to the Churches Ethical Investment Advisory Group – who in their paper on gambling, describe the lottery as a soft form of gambling along with things like raffles and football pools.

It’s a form of gambling which 73 per cent of the population regularly take part in, but it could be argued that the very fact that after 14 years still only 15 % of the population gamble on horses or greyhounds and only 4 per cent visit casinos shows that it doesn’t and hasn’t led to a huge rise in gambling addiction in the form of hard gambling that many of us feared. In fact in a recent You Gov poll most people, 54% were against the opening of supercasinos, for example. The Salvation Army, who you’d expect to be as opposed to the Lottery as anyone, have actually been working closely with Camelot which runs the lottery, to minimise the negative impact it might have on the most vulnerable in society…The’ve looked at whether increased sales of lottery tickets will lessen a commitment to social responsibility and concludes, on the Camelot website that “It is pleased that Camelot is working with voluntary sector organisations to make sure this does not happen”.

The Salvation Army also recognises that while the National Lottery is the third biggest Lottery in the world in revenue terms, it is only the 47th in the world in terms of amount spent per capita – less than £2.90 per head per week, and that that is spread across all socio economic groups.. It may be described as a tax on the poor to give to the rich , but the statistic show that its actually C1s who spend most money on the lottery .. D’s and E’s spend around £2.32 per head per week.. So the statistics indicate that for the vast majority, when they hear the voice of the balls, Deadly Deddicoate on a Saturday night, there’s a bit of a frisson, its entertainment, it’s a harmless bit of participation in an event which someone is going to win..and it could be them but the vast majority recognise that with odds of 14 million to 1, it probably won’t be.

Perhaps more importantly is the argument about the system. Rightly or wrongly – and wrongly in the view of many – the government has set in place a system by which more or less all of its Heritage Funding for many church buildings can only be paid through the Heritage Lottery Fund. Furthermore, as Jan McFarlane has told me this week in an email, after her words at Synod, she writes: “..I was reliably informed that it is almost impossible to get funding from other sources if you haven't applied to the National Lottery Fund. It's the biggest pot of money so other sources won't let go of their funding unless you've been refused a NLF grant. So we're locked in by "the system" ..Some separate money is available through English Heritage but this is much less and much more restricted.

THAT’S why the United Reformed Church which has been totally opposed to lottery funding for its churches since 1995, had this same debate at its National July assembly a year ago and went the opposite way – it reversed its opposition now allows indeed encourages churches to apply for lottery funding for listed buildings and restoration.

One of its arguments, interestingly, is that Heritage Fund money is effectively the result of a tax like any other – a tax on the lottery - the 25 p of every pound at the newsagents which goes to good causes. … is as much a tax on gambling as other taxes on alcohol and tobacco.

But also both they and the Methodist church argue that if it was hypocritical for Christians to apply for Heritage Lottery funding – it is arguably just as hypocritical to visit a theatre, museum or art gallery or attend the 2012 Olympics. Things have moved on—the Lottery is now a part of national life. And I have changed my mind.,..15 years ago I too was adamantly opposed to it, but the goalposts have been moved, the arguments have changed.

It should be an interesting debate and its as important for those who have applied or think they will but are a bit unsure about the moral justification, as for those who oppose it.

Labels: , , , , , ,

posted by John Carter @ 4:15 pm 0 comments

Saturday, December 15, 2007

That was the week that was

This may not be the best blog posting I’ve ever done.. a tiring day after a tiring week so a few random and unconnected observations, though all germaine, one hopes, to the overall raison d’etre of this electronic diary..

1) Last Sunday, the Archbishop of York’s Press Officer’s phone suddenly started ringing as journalists called asking for more details about the boss's dramatic TV coup. Arun Arora told me in church that evening that the phone hadn’t stopped since John Sentamu had cut up his dog collar on the Andrew Marr show. Not only was this piece of television drama covered on bulletins and in every major newspaper throughout the following week, but clearly has caught the popular imagination too, if the conversations I’ve been having since are any indication. Apparently the Archbishop had been having trouble sleeping the night before the programme and felt God prompting him to think about the people of Zimbabwe, suffering under the Mugabe regime. He hadn’t actually warned Arun before the broadcast that he was carrying a pair of scissors in his pocket, but when he pulled them out and decimated his collar there was cheering in the Gallery, and not surprising. It was both dramatic and heartfelt and reminded me of the sort of spontaneous acts of the Old testament Prophets. He’s promised not to put the collar back on until Mugabe is deposed. Let’s hope it’s not too long.

2) So do we need press officers at all? It’s a question asked this week on Radio 4’s The Message (listen again) which wondered why politicians, for example needed spin doctors and couldn’t speak (Sentamu style) direct to the public. It was a question which was raised by Tim Livesey, the Lambeth Palace head of external communications as he told us about changes to the Press Office in the New Year, last week. A more accessible Archbishop of Canterbury, and more emphasis on direct communication with the public using new technology, less of the ‘old fashioned’ communication mediated by the middle men and women called journalists. And one less press officer! Well, let’s watch this space. My own feeling is that we need and will continue to need a mixed economy of communication methods. Just as announcements of the death of popular television could be premature (see previous posting) so too the view that press releases and press officers are ‘old fashioned’. After all, it was precisely the direct approach of the Archbishop which ruined m’ colleagues day off as he answered the phone and put out statements.


3) However…. The issue of more direct communication with the public, via new technology and the internet is something I recognise I need to spend more time on , especially as we start work on a new Ripon and Leeds website and look at the potential for generating video news, podcasts, and effectively TV and Radio on the web. Are we starting our own Christian broadcasting? Across the CofE communicators network, it has long been the strategy not to try and develop religious tv and radio but get the message across through the existing secular channels. But as the communications landscape rapidly shifts, that position is looking increasingly anachronistic – and when is a Christian video podcast not a broadcast? It’s an attractive thought to believe that we no longer need to rely on the hit and miss approach of relying on the vagaries of the newsroom to mediate our message – but is it realistic? Lots of questions and plenty to think about..



4) I managed to get together a programme of Communications training for Spring of 2008 at last – phew! Working with Bradford and Wakefield dioceses we’ll be making use of Trinity and All Saints College as well as an evening session with TV producer Andrew Graystone who is also Director of the Churches’ Media Council. Senior clergy will hopefully be learning how to handle television interviews, using the excellent facilities at the Horsforth college, as well as Geoff Druett, the genial Yorkshire TV presenter. So, hopefully if we do need to continue relying on journalists (of the TV variety), at least we’ll hopefully not make too much of a mess of it. (Geoff Druett pictured right)

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

posted by John Carter @ 5:34 pm 0 comments