So dull I cannot even think of a title...............

I forgot why it was I had not shared the financial results of the British Humanist Association until I read them again tonight. They are pretty unexciting, which says a lot even for annual accounts. The trustees there appear to be models of financial rectitude and the financial stability of the BHA with income just below £1m per annum seems pretty assured for the future. The accounts for 2008 show that around £12ok was spent on the atheist bus campaign although with donations slightly in excess of that, a very public campaign did not blow a hole in their finances. If you are suffering from insomnia the accounts are free to view on the Charities Commission website. Perhaps I have missed something noteworthy based on a quick read through, but I suspect not.

I have recently reflected on the sheer poverty of choice for the British electorate in the forthcoming General Election. Any remaining vestiges of sympathy I might have had for Labour were well and truly blown away with the revelation that former Cabinet Ministers were offering their services (for cash) to lobbying companies. The whole lobbying process feels to me wholly undemocratic and whilst I am not so naive not to realise that this is how business gets done in the Westminster village it is yet another unwelcome reminder as to how far standards have fallen in public life. Still I suppose it gives the Government a decent election slogan: Vote Labour: the Best that Money can buy.

A final parting shot is this. The combination of a determined (zealous) group of anti-religionists, a workable (but not huge) pot of money, some lobbying skills, a friendly media and a group of former Cabinet Ministers for hire may be all it takes to further undermine and marginalise religious life in this country. Nothing in the election campaign thus far suggests that any of the major political parties will do more than stand by and let this trend continue.

And the winner is........

The following excerpt from Wikipedia on the 1992 election makes for interesting reading. I have italicised and boldened a few select passages.

"The United Kingdom general election of 1992 was held on 9 April 1992, and was the fourth consecutive victory for the Conservative Party. This election result was one of the biggest surprises in the 20th Century, as polling leading up to the day of the election showed Labour under leader Neil Kinnock to be consistently, if narrowly, ahead.

John Major had won the leadership election in November 1990 succeeding the outgoing PM Margaret Thatcher.

During his term leading up to the 1992 elections he oversaw the British involvement in the Gulf War, introduced legislation to replace the unpopular Community Charge with Council Tax, and signed the Maastricht treaty. The UK had gone into recession around the time of Major's appointment, along with most of the other industrialised nations. John Major announced the date of the election on 11 March shortly after Chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont had delivered the Budget. It was one of the most dramatic elections in the UK since the end of the Second World War, after the Conservative Party defeated the initial favourites, the Labour Party.

Labour had been ahead of the Tories in the opinion polls since as long ago as 1989, and Thatcher's main reason for her resignation was that she felt that the Tories would stand a better chance of winning the next election if they had a new leader. As 1992 dawned, the recession deepened and the election loomed, most opinion polls suggested that Labour were still favourites to win the election. However, on Election Day, The Sun newspaper ran a front page headline which urged "the last person to leave Britain" to "turn out the lights" if Labour won the election. This headline was widely regarded as the saviour of the Conservative government, and The Sun famously ran a front page headline the next day - It's The Sun Wot Won It - to claim that it had won the election for the Conservatives."

Today's Sunday Telegraph reports the Tory lead in the polls down to a 2-year low. This is in line with the trends reported by other pollsters. Now not all the parallels are the same - not least because the current PM does not appear to attract the same degree of public support and sympathy as John Major. But the scepticism about Mr Cameron does appear to have echoes of the Kinnock leadership.

Overall I do not think one can rule out the potential for a re-run. The prospect of lightening striking twice and an unlikely Labour win strikes me with about as much glee as the Major, "against the odds" victory in '92. But if Mr Brown does pull it off in the face of such hostility to him and his government, no-one can say that he hasn't earned it or that the Conservatives hadn't blown a huge opportunity.

Export Drive

As part of an irregular enquiry into how secularism is being funded I had the good fortune to stumble upon the accounts of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason Ltd. These are filed with Companies House so we can all view them provided we are prepared to pay the princely sum of £1.

My money might have been more wisely spent. All the accounts for the year to 30 April 2009 tell us is that there has been a substantial growth in income up from £81k to £317k. The balance sheet reveals a cash balance of £186k and debtors of £57k. The accounts make it clear that reserves (reflected in the cash and debtors) are being built up to to establish the charity.

Of the donations that have been made, the British Humanist Association got £13k, which will have pleased Stephen Fry. However the biggest item by far is a donation of £102k to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason (US). The US arm of the Dawkins Foundation actually controls its UK equivalent so I guess that having racked up some Gift Aid from UK donations the money goes to support its bigger cousin across the pond.

So next step is to see what is on the record for the Foundation over there.

A Party Political Broadcast...........

Two interesting pieces in the papers about the place of Christianity and the church in everyday life. The first from Nigel Farndale in the Sunday Telegraph argues that national life without the Church of England would be much diminished, a curious conclusion, perhaps, coming as it does from an atheist. Whilst I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the piece it strikes me as a plea for the preservation of the faith as heritage asset: Morning Prayer as an event that overseas tourists would queue up to watch; the sort of institution that John Major was conjuring up when he talked about warm beer, cricket on the village green and old maids cycling to evensong. Nostalgic certainly, beguiling perhaps, but ultimately irrevelant.

The second from Frank Skinner in last week's Times takes a rather different, Christian perspective. As far as persuading me is concerned, he was pushing at an open door. And his comment that whilst there are relatively few people in church these days, they are at least there because they want to be there struck a particular chord. Whilst I do not believe Frank's tongue was entirely absent from his cheek I think there is some truth in the idea that persecution (even it is of the "Oi, you, God-botherer" variety) is the natural condition for the average Christian.

A General Election is weeks away. Thus far, the choices put in front of the electorate have been lamentable. A government as tired as this one ought to be looking at meltdown on polling day. Thanks to David Cameron and the Tories "New" Labour is now believing a hung parliament may be a realistic outcome. And not forgetting the Liberal Democrats, challenging though that is. The remarkable thing missing from all three political parties is leadership, a sense that they have what it takes to see this country through the depths of a recession, are able to take the tough decisions on the economy and at the same time, take us with them.

The most compelling pitch in the forthcoming election debate I have seen thus far is Choosing the Common Good, not bad considering it was written by Catholic Bishops in England and Wales. Of course they do not have votes to win but it is perhaps that very factor that allows them to write with conviction; and to spell out an agenda which seems to me to argue persuasively that our growth as individuals is in large measure about the things we do and the care we take of those around us. This is not the church as quaint relic or as beleaguered and oppressed pariah struggling for survival in a secular world; this is the church with a relevant message for the world today. If only I could given them my vote...........oh, I just have.

Schism!

Are we seeing history in the making? It seems to me that a great institution, one that seeks to shape people's everyday lives, is now tearing itself apart. Differences of opinion are being expressed in very strong terms and it may be that it is too late for reconciliation. Perhaps there will just have to be a parting of the ways with one camp staying put and the other moving off in a new direction. This of course is a reference to the unholy row that has blown up among members of the Richard Dawkins foundation. This article in yesterday's Times tells the whole story.

I have from time to time ventured onto an atheist discussion forum to offer a Christian perspective. Whilst some of the exchanges have been extremely cordial I have nevertheless suffered the proverbial hairdryer treatment at the hands of the more fundamentalist factions of the atheist community. It now seems that they are turning the hairdryers on one another and even on their leader. Poor Professor Dawkins: how he must be suffering for his faith.

Its not often that I sign petitions but this one which I read about on Fr. Ivan's excellent blog got my early and unqualified support. There is a fair bit of dust being kicked up by the NSS and others about the fact some of the costs of the visit are being picked up by the taxpayer. Why shouldn't they? The fact that some people do not necessarily wish to engage in a particular activity does not mean that those who do should have their views or aspirations trashed. Nor is it without parallel that State visits (or in this case one with equivalent status) are supported with public funds. So, since the secularists have a petition I think its terrific idea that we fight fire with fire and have one of our own.

I think its worth comparing the scale of taxpayer support for the Pope's visit with the money that we are being asked to find for the 2012 Olympics. Because there is one certain parallel between the two and that is whilst everyone may not support a visit from the head of the Roman Catholic church there are plenty who are equally unenthused by the Olympics. Now the costs of the former according to an NSS article is £20m. I would suggest this compares extremely favourably with the £9bn+ that is being spent on the Olympics (or, for every £1 for spent on the Holy Father, that's £450 for the Olympics). The Olympics investment of course is in part about legacy and the laudable plans for the regeneration of areas of East London . So I suggest that the Pope's visit may leave another legacy, the regeneration of Christian faith in parts of the country. Now that, as they say, would be priceless.

A fair challenge (Part 2 with all the right bits in)

Last week I reflected that in spite of its high media profile, it was not that easy to discover much about the National Secular Society. I was wrong. Having ascertained the NSS was not a registered charity I found it why: as a lobbying organisation it does not pass the public benefit test that would enable it to acquire charitable status.

The NSS is a company limited by guarantee (status that would not of itself prevent it from registering as a charity with the Charity Commissioners). By virtue of its operating size (well below £0.5m per annum income) it can properly be exempted from some of the onerous reporting and disclosure requirements placed on larger incorporated bodies.

That is not say there is nothing about them. Our Companies legislation still places a duty of disclosure, albeit it at more manageable levels. So for example it is possible to see the Memorandum and Articles of Association: broadly statements of why the company exists and its governance arrangements. A lot of this is fairly standard stuff but the principles o which it is founded bear repeating here:

• The National Secular Society affirms that this life is theonly one of which we have any knowledge and human effort should be directed towards its improvement. It assets that supernaturalism is based upon ignorance and assails it as the historic enemy of progress;
• The National Secular Society affirms that progress is possible only on the basis of equal freedom of speech and publication; that the free criticism of institutions and ideas is essential to a civilised state;
• Affirming that morality is social in origin and application the National Secular Society aims to promote the happiness and well-being of humanity;
• The National Secular Society demands the complete separation of Church and State and the abolition of all privileges granted to religious organisations
• It seeks to spread education, to promote the friendship of all peoples as a means of advancing universal peace, to further common cultural interests and to develop the freedom and dignity of humantiy

As for the objects these are:

To uphold and propagate the principles in Clause 3

To stimulate freedom of thought and inquiry in all matters relating to secularist principles

To promote a secular system of education

To maintain and assert the same right of propaganda for opinions and ideas which conflict with existing or traditional creeds and beliefs as is now exercisable in favour of such creeds and beliefs

To publish and distribute, either gratuitously or otherwise, books, pamphlets and periodicals designed to promote these objects or any of them

To originate, to watch over or to petition Parliament in relation to measures pertaining to the principles and objects of the Society

To initiate, organise and participate in campaigns for such reforms as, in the view of the Society, would promote human welfare and enhance the quality of life

To purchase or otherwise acquire, either wholly or in part, and to print, publish and sell any newspaper, journal, magazine, periodical, leaflet or book for the purpose of circulating information on all matters relating to the principles and objects of the Society and for that purpose to carry on the business of newspaper proprietors and of newspaper and general printers and publishers, booksellers, advertisers and advertising agents and contractors

This represents the latest version of these documents - I cannot say how they differ from earlier versions. In terms of substance I doubt whether it is much.

The last accounts for 2008/09 have been lodged. This confirms the picture of a very modestly sized operation. Income appears split between mainstream income and donations; and more substantial donations and legacies (defined as £2500 or more). The nature of substantial donations is not explained further - without them though the NSS could not sustain operations at the level suggested in the accounts. Finally the NSS holds investments valued at well over £1m as a way of generating income for future operations. In the current economic climate it may be that these are not performing as well as hoped.

As far as expenditure is concerned, naturally this is dominated by staff salaries (around 1/3 of income). Equally predictable the next highest expense is stationery and information dissemination at just over £40k. Oh and the auditors resigned in 2009 - probably not too much of a surprise as they did their inspection for free. Even accountants have to eat!

Where does all this lead? Just one reflection for now. Here is an organisation that is barely the size of two or three church parishes able to leverage significant thought leadership through the national media, with an agenda that is pretty unambiguous. None of this would be too serious if this was just another lobbying group. But the target is religion or, as they call it, supernaturalism. As a Christian, I am not sure I should sit idly by and do nothing.

How does it add up?

The last few days the National Secular Society has been getting a considerable amount of national media coverage - Cherie Blair's act of judicial mercy, the cost of the Pope's visit and so on.... That suggests an extremely effective lobbying group, one that has now become the media's sound-bite of choice when they are looking for a counter to a "religious" news story. A visit to their website similarly suggests a well-organised operation.

It says on their website that NSS is reliant entirely on donations for its continued survival. I visited the link to see how one could make a donation. To my surprise there was no opportunity to Gift Aid one's donation. Well, that put paid to one assumption: that the NSS is a registered charity, a view which seemed to be confirmed when a search of the Charities Commission website also drew a blank. If that is the case, fair play to them as it would be incompatible with their principles if they were able to use the tax advantages used by charities to supplement donations.

But it raises another question: how does the NSS survive financially? If anyone is reading perhaps they could let me know: my search capability does not extend much beyond the NSS website or Google. Better still if anyone has a set of their last financial statements (or knows where to get them) I would be very grateful.