Softly, softly

As I argued this morning, the Rowan Williams furore will be sustained if the government over-reacts. So far, so softly from Downing Street: ministers and prominent MPs have been across the airwaves this morning and no one has taken the so-called nuclear option.

As you can see below, the responses have been mild. Paul Goodman observes that this is because the PM ‘doesn’t get too worked up’ about this sort of media conflagration. Here’s a brief selection of what Cameron’s lieutenants have said to counter Dr. Williams’ incandescence:

Matthew Hancock: “It’s just slightly odd that he’s made these arguments which, in some cases, are simply incorrect, when it comes to especially welfare and also on education. He says that the education proposals cause fear. Well, I can tell you that in my constituency in Brandon they were closing a school and we hope that that will stay open because of the Free Schools policy. If there were no Free Schools policy that school would be closing, That policy isn’t creating fear, it’s creating, so long as this goes through, celebration in that community. I think that we’ve got to look much more broadly at what’s happening and, as I say, on what was in the manifesto of the two parties who were voted for by 17.5m people.”

Vince Cable: “The two parties of the coalition got substantially more than half the total vote at the last election and the public knew that we were going to have to embark on very difficult changes, connected with sorting out the massive budget deficit problem. The point which he seemed to be making was that there wasn’t enough debate around health reform, for example, which I don’t understand because there’s a very big debate. My party has triggered it; we’re having a pause, rethinking the reforms. So he’s obviously had his views and it’s welcome that he pitches into political debate but I think he’s actually wrong on the specifics. We don’t worry about this, it’s good that we have a good debate. The Archbishop’s long been an articulate social critic and we welcome debate with him, it’s not a problem.”

Nick Clegg: “One – [we’re trying to] sort out the economy and that remains the most important thing that this Government is seeking to do and we’ve taken some very important steps to make sure the economy does recover strongly and secondly to do that as fairly as we possibly can, and that is something we’re doing as well.”

Iain Duncan Smith: “We’ve got, for example, at the moment, the highest number of workless households, we’ve got over five million people permanently parked on benefits. Taxpayers pay high levels of tax to see people not living constructive lives, you’ve got broken homes, high levels of family breakdown. All of this is going on in a system which is in itself damaging the very people it seeks to serve. And there’s no kindness in that. Trapping somebody on 10 years on benefits and forgetting about them. So it would be nice if we’d seen a little more balance in his commentary, to say, actually the system itself is damaging the very lives it is meant to seek to help. With respect to the Archbishop of Canterbury I have never ever spoken about the deserving or undeserving poor. I don’t believe in that concept. All I say is that the system itself has created an undeserving group, that’s what it has created.”

Roger Gale MP: “He’s wrong on the basis that he believes that we don’t have a mandate. There is a mandate, we’re elected members of Parliament and with respect the Archbishop of Canterbury is not elected, either as a Member of Parliament to the House of Lords or as the Archbishop of Canterbury, he’s appointed.”

And, finally, Boris Johnson: “I would very much would like to invite the Archbishop to come to our beautiful garden, see that there are 35,000 people in London who have been mobilised by this Capital Growth campaign to join in growing things across London, reflect that we’re going to have another 1,000 or more growing spaces by 2012. I’d urge the Archbishop to come and sign up for Team London and join in what we’re doing.”

UPDATE: And here is Cameron himself:

“I think the Archbishop of Canterbury should be entirely free to express political views. I’ve never been one to say that the Church has to fight shy of making political interventions. But what I would say is that I profoundly disagree with many of the views he has expressed. Particularly on issues like debt and on welfare and education.

“I don’t think it’s good or right for people in our country if we give up on paying down our debts and just pass that down to our children. I don’t see anything good or even moral in that approach. I don’t think it’s good or right for us to pay people to stay on welfare, trapped in poverty, when we should be trying to get them a job. I don’t think that is good or right for people, or for our country. And also when it comes to education there’s nothing good or right allowing people to stay trapped in schools that often aren’t giving them a good education whereas the academy programme that we’re driving forward is raising standards and giving people hope for a better future.

“I’m absolutely convinced that our policies are about actually giving people a greater responsibility and a greater chance in their life and I will defend those very vigorously. But of course the Archbishop of Canterbury is quite free to make political points as he chooses and to engage in a debate. And I see also what he said about the Big Society. I would say the Big Society is an enormous opportunity. Not just for the Church of England but for all religious organisations and faith groups to try and make sure they do even more of the wonderful work they do to improve the condition of people in our society. So, by all means, let’s have a robust debate but I can tell you, it will always be a two-sided debate.”