16/03/2012 Newsnight

He was the Archbishop who tried to be the uniter, should Rowan

Williams have tried to be someone else. May the peace of God be on

this house and upon this company. For nearly a decade the Archbishop

of Canterbury struggled to pull the Anglican Church together. But

disagreements over women bishops and gay marriage are fundamental

and not going away. We debate on whether the church would be better

spliting apart. Amid rising tensions in Afghanistan,

we return to Kabul to assess the mood and speak to the President.

Your relationship with the United States, is it at the end of the

road? This form of activity, this behaviour, cannot be tolerated.

And is the Chancellor, who says we're all in this together, really

about to cut taxes for the richist in society, or will he stand up --

richest on society, or will he stand up on Budget Day and announce

nothing of the kind. We will look at the odds on George Osborne

ditching the 50p rate of tax, and the political implications. Good

evening. Politicians and religious leaders paid tribute to Rowan

Williams today, after he announced his tenth year as rarpblg Bishop of

Canterbury would be his last. There is no getting round it, the job as

head of the Anglican Church has gotten steadily harder. He may have

challenged the imagination of the country, as the Labour leader, Ed

Milliband, suggested. But when it came to the church itself, his time

in office was spent papering over the cracks, containing but never

healing over a schism. In a moment we will look and see if the effort

was worth it. In the Buckinghamshire parish

church of St Margaret, Virgin and Martyr, they were meeting today to

appoint a new rebgtor. Rector. A choice on a local level,

as hard as the one facing the whole church, obliged to find a successor

to Rowan Williams. Here in the village of Iver Heath, there is

only one question, it will be a man, this church doesn't accept women

priests. St Margaret's, in other words, is a symbol of the kind of

church that Dr Williams, who announced his forth coming

resignation today, has led for nearly ten years. Through the rows

over ordination of women and gay people, he has fought to keep it

intact. He admits that has taken a toll on him. Dr Williams has said

his successor will need the constitution of an ox and the hide

of a wry non-rus. Testament of how hard it is to -- Rhine no sirous,

testament of how hard it is to hold this church together.

Now Rowan Williams is going, some will ask whether it is worth

continuing what may be a hopeless struing.

A struggle overish -- struggle. A struggle over issues that seem to

obsess the church but matter little to people outside. Most people find

it incredible that anyone, let alone those with pretensions to

moral authority would be scrapping over the place of women in society.

It seems extraordinary any serious body will be fighting over. That

someone said they thought we had sorted that 20 or 30 years ago, why

is it the big issue now. When it comes down to gay people, the idea

that gay people are some how children of a lesser God, that some

how they can't have loving, permanent, stable relationships,

strikes many people as, to use a rather awful word, grotesque.

national church, created as part of an arrangement, to allow the

remarriage of Henry VIII, still has arrangements in its blood. That is

why there is a second bishop here today to help choose the new rector,

a flying bishop, appointed separately to support par aishs

that op -- parishs that oppose the ordination of Britain.

Shnt too much time spent on those church that is think things are

important theological and within the church, but not really of

interest to the wider community? think the opposite risk is that the

church ploughs very determinately a particular furrow on one or other

issue and people fall away. You actually lead to a splintering and

weakening of the whole, where as, what we have, potentially, is a way

of having that common commitment to presenting the Christian faith in a

way that is really engaging and lively, and converting, which is

what the country needs. To say, yes we can do this, and within certain

limits we can accommodate difference.

But has the effort to acomdied that internal difference sometimes

distracted the church from engaging clearly in big national debates.

Like many politician, Lord Falconer hugely admired Dr Williams, but

feels he hasn't been able to use his gifts to the full. Imagine an

organisation that could say we strongly disapprove of this or that

aspect of a particular change, for example like a cap on welfare

benefits, and people listening to that, rather than simply treating

it as one voice among many voices, in relation to the issue. It is not

the position now, will it happen in the future? Well, if Rowan Williams,

a man of huge integrity, couldn't provide the cohesion that was

needed in relation to t it is very difficult to imagine anybody else

that could. To avoid schism, Dr Williams has tried to get all the

institute churches of the wider Anglican union, to agree to a

covenant that would stop them ordaining openly gay Clergy without

central consent. But more and more dies sis of England are rejecting

it. That document of Rowan Williams, that was to be his legacy, a new

shape for the Anglican community, is now dead in the water. That

makes it very difficult for Dr Williams to continue as Archbishop

of Canterbury, which many people regard as something of a tragedy.

Here is who the bookies say is favourite to be the next head of

the church, the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu. REPORTER: Do you

fancy the job? You can't be serious. Whatever his chances, some already

feel he represents a centralising tendency that may be counter-

productive. A wise new Archbishop will be genuinely collaborative and

work from the bottom up, rather than trying to drive things from

the centre. I don't think Rowan Williams has intended to do that, I

it is more the Archbishop of York associated with that than the

Archbishop of Canterbury, it is a phenomenon that has grown in the

last few years. An inspiring, thoughtful man, in an impossible

job, Rowan Williams will be missed by many, but he has found no

solutions to problems in the church that may be too broad for its own

good. With me are the Right Reverend Stephen Cottrell, the

Bishop of Chelmsford, theeloj can, Dr Robert Beckford, and Canon

Doctor Chris Sugden, from the Campaign Group, Anglican Mainstream.

We have said that Rowan Williams was all about uniting a church,

that was all he was about for the last ten years, did he actually

succeed, has he held the church together? I think he has been an

outstanding Archbishop in many ways, the analysis on which the

conversation is premised is a false one. I don't think he was at all

interested in papering over cracks, what he was interested in doing was

helping us look at our foundations. One of those foundations is, of

course, not the Archbishop of Canterbury, not the Church of

England, but Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ tells you that I can't be a

Christian on my own, my Christian faith brings me into relationships

with others, and often, with people with whom I disagree. And so how we

handle those disagreements, and how we hold together, truth and unity,

are two very important things. Now, the disagreements that we have at

the moment are just the latest disagreements that have littered

church history from the beginning. These are deep disagreements, as I

said, they are not going anywhere, people feel very deeply about them?

That may be how you see it, it is not how many of us see it in the

church. We are very committed to holding ourselves together as one

church, and building those bonds of affection with one another, around

the truths that we have received. And I believe, what Rowan Williams

has offered us, is a way of engaging with each other,

continuing conversation, which has never been easy, but that

conversation continues. Do you agree with this, you have said you

think people who agree with gay priests should leave the church?

I'm not certain when I have said that. There are many priests who

are gay, the issue is behaviour, not orientation.

But the issue is really. Do you think it will be as easy,

regardless of the ins and outs, do you think it will be as easy as the

bishop seems to be suggesting? not suinging it is easy, but I will

let -- suggesting it will be easy. What I have said is I think he has

enabled a conversation to happen and that is continuing. It is a

hard conversation, because loving your neighbour, especially the one

you disagree with, is never easy. Where does the conversation end?

think we have to understand what the Church of England, and the

wider Anglican Communion, we are talking not just about the Church

of England, we are talking about the worldwide communion, of 55

million Anglicans, the issue is not the leader, it is the nature of

leadership, in what is basically a family. A family that has a shared

history, many shared relationships, as a shared faith, as the bishop

has said, in Jesus Christ and his word in the scriptures. What has

changed over Archbishop Williams's ten years has been the nature of

the leadership in the communion, it is a multipolar community, many

different networks and organisations globally. Do you

think that works and is sustain snbl I think it is sustainable and

needs Sustainable? I think it is sustainable, and I would like to

see his successor take seriously the leadership of the churches and

the Primates in Africa and the global south. That is one area that

needs to be improved on. A second area that needs to be improved is

the role and position of the Conservatives in the church should

be taken much more seriously. For example, there is one dies sis, the

Diocese of -- diocese, the Diocese of Southwark, where in the last six

appointments have been from the same revisionist stripe, even

though all the churches in the diocese have been evangelical,

there has been no appointments from such a section. There must be

collaboration with the leadership and taking seriously the global

south, and seriously the control of conservative evangelicals and

anglo-Catholics, who it is said make up 40% of the church right now.

What is your take, that somebody can do this job, the successor to

the Archbishop of Canterbury will be able to hold it together?

don't think so, this is a family at war, maybe it is time for the

church to bite the bullet and look at ways to separate and I April

cablely. Separation or -- amble, separation. It may lead to

evangelism and prophetic ministry, churches that engage in the real

issues ordinary people are concerned W I think the discussion

is incredibly myopic, I don't think the average Anglican, who is a

black woman in the global south, who is not concerned about the next

leader, but concerned about what the next leader will deliver.

couldn't be more wrong. The Christian faith requires us to love

our neighbour and be in community with each other. There is no other

choice that we seek unity in Christ and with each other, that is non-

negotiable. In my experience, which I agree is not a huge wurpbgs but

in my experience of travel -- one, but my experience of travelling

overseas, particularly in Kenya, they care very much about the unity

they have with Christians in this country. And we are a global faith,

or we are nothing. It is about faith, it is about

belief. If you were a political party, you could understand why you

might need to do wheeling and dealing, and coming to some kind of

lowest common denominator, that is not what religion is supposed to be.

How can it survive if people inside are fundamentally uncomfortable?

don't see politics or wheeling and dealing, what I do see is

Christians want to go discover. Having fundamental disagreements?

And learning how to live with them rather than split because of them.

And working out what are the legitimate boundaries within which

Christian faith can grow and flourish. We have a concrete

example of it, we had the covenant, that was supposed to be a unifying

document, and yet not even, a large number of diocese in England have

been unable to support it. If not that, what is going to do it?

problem is, that we have got a different style of the three

groupings that make up the Church of England at the moment. You have

the anglo-Catholics, the liberals and the evangelicals, the Church of

England has historically embraced all three within certain boundaries,

what we have had in the last ten years is a much more centralist

approach by some of those groupings. For example, in the United States

you have had people taking out law cases against Clergy, parishs and

congregation, depriving them of their living, pensions and churches,

because they happen to disagree with the ordination of someone in a

same sexual relationship. That is what I call essentialism, they are

pushing people out by their essentialism. They are not willing

to accept that there is a legitimate disagreement and people

can belong. I think again it is a complex issue,

and very painful for Anglicans to have to consider their church being

fractured by this. Do you think it is sapping energy? I think it is

sapping energy. I think it is actually misguided. The real issue

is how can the next Archbishop develop a prophetic ministry, a

ministry that will speak truth to power, that will engage with every

day ordinary people within the country, and actually, more than

anything else, deal with the fact that most people are not interested

in religion in this country. That is the fundamental issue. This is

meant to be a church of the nation. Most people have turned their backs

on the church. The critical issue is how can they renew the church in

such a way that it engages with people. Shows people that faith

matters. We have to wind up in a minute. You have to ask you, you

have to know you are appearing on some of the lists today, do you

have the constitution of an ox and the hide of a Rhino? I take a lead

from Rowan Williams on many things but not on that, I look forward

with joyfulness and gentleness. were 15-1 before this discussion,

who knows afterwards. The relationship between America

and Afghanistan is looking increasingly fractured this week,

as Afghan officials try to get to the bottom of the deadly rampage by

a US officer, which killed 16 civilians. President Hamid Karzai

today lashed out at the US, for failing to co-operate with his

investigation. He's also unhappy that the soldier

responsible, who has just been named as Staff Sergeant Robert

Bales, has been taken to the US for trial.

We have been gauging the mood among Afghans in the capital.

It is graduation day for newly- trained Afghan soldiers. Elated

that good friends go with them, as they head out to their first fight.

They will be fighting alongside US and other NATO forces. But how hard

is that now? What do you think about what

happened in Kandahar, when one American soldier went and killed

some Afghan civilians, do you trust the Americans? No, you don't? Why

don't you? TRANSLATION: No, why did they kill

these innocent Muslims. What did they do wrong? If they work

properly we are ready to work with them. If they don't, we are not.

Off camera, some soldiers were more blunt. Kafirs, infidels, declared

one young guard when I asked him about the Americans, who pick up

most of the tab for his fledgling army.

That anger goes right up to the palace. Today President Karzai

asked tribunal elders from Kandahar to -- tribal elders to tell him

what happened when 16 people were killed. They spoke with anger and

sadness. This man described how 11 people

died in one house alone. The man who survived that said his

relatives were mutilated, the women were killed. How could this be the

work of one man. The President was clearly moved and

angered by what he heard. When he rose to leave, I called out to him.

REPORTER: Do you accept the official American account that only

one American soldier was involved in these killings? The story of the

village elders in there said is different, he said it is not

possible that one person could do that. In his house four rooms,

women and children were killed, they were all put in one room and

put on fire. That one man cannot do. What do you do next, Sir? It is by

all means the end of the road here. Nobody can afford such luxuries,

any more, if you can call it a luxury. This form of activity, this

behaviour, cannot be tolerated. This week the Afghan parliament,

also declared its patience was running out. But it is one thing to

say it, another to do it. They still need their foreign partners.

Afghanistan cannot survive without the support of international

commune ity. You are in surviving by money given by British and

American tax-payers. If you refuse to finance the Afghan budget, I

would say Mr Karzai, President of Afghanistan, he has not the money

to buy the tea for his office. Despite this dependency, there is a

growing distance. Every time I visit there are new security

barriers. You hardly see any foreigners on the streets now. They

used to buy souvenirs here, today I'm the only one.

I often drop by this cafe to meet young Afghan friends. It is filled

with well dressed, well educated Afghans, who have done well on

salaries paid by the west. Even they find it hard to understand why

it is so difficult to get this relationship right.

My understanding is, the people who are making decisions do not have

this leverage. They are sitting behind closed doors, getting

information from people I have difficulty understanding, of how

they can relay this sort of information to them. That then goes

up and then decisions are based on that. They don't even get to come

out to see the real Kabul, forget the provinces and the villages, how

can you build trust when they can't even come out and we can't go in.

If you go in, you feel you are in a different, I'm sorry, it is my

country, it is a different place. I'm searched to the extent that I

don't want to deal with it. The issue is here, if you want to build

trust, they need to come out and speak to the normal population.

There seems to be battles everywhere. And sometimes it seems

they are not fighting with, but against each other.

And that's dangerous, when it comes to a real battlefield.

This isn't one. These soldiers are being trained to throw grenades.

All the weapons are pretend. This man's gun is a drain pipe, but they

are not faking their desire to fight, and to fight their own way.

They are getting the training of every NATO soldier, the best

training that can be offered here, which you are constantly reminded,

this is an Afghan Muslim army. What do they shout when they hurl those

grenades, Allah hu Akbar, "God it great".

Armies often say they throw away their plans once they meet the

reality of war. The problem here is there is no other plan.

Right now, no-one is clear what to Allah hu Akbar.

50p, or not 50p, it is a question we have spent a surprisingly large

amount of time discussing in the lead up to the budget. You might

think not so surprising, after all, we know the Chancellor thinks high

taxes for wealth creators are bad for business and he would like to

ditch that one. Now there are cuts as far as the eyes can see, real

incomes for most households are falling, and politically the wealth

creators have turned into "fat cats", not a great time to cut them

a break. Before we discuss it, a few facts.

The Treasury estimate there are tax-payers that fall into the 50p

band. Labour says it will raise �2.6 billion in the first year.

Some say it won't raise anything at all, one thing high earners know is

how to avoid tax. Who could tax the rich, there is the Lib Dem idea of

a mansion tax on properties over �2 million, or Warren Buffett's tycoon

tax, forcing the rich to pay a certain share of their income in

tax. Or Mr Osborne could reduce the tax relief on high earners' pension

contributions. I'm joined now by Daniel

Finkelstein from the Times, and Steve Richards from the Independent.

What's going on, how do you read all of the last few weeks

machinations about the 50p? All the debate has taken place in public

because of the budget. Can you read that in it? I can't raet it any

other way, the discussions that take place normally take place in

cabinet. Now he has to discuss it with the Liberal Democrats, that

probably goes a little wider, Nick Clegg has to bring his

parliamentary team in, when you go beyond three or four people you get

leaks. I take very seriously what I read in the paper. I think what we

are seeing now is the game big played as to how this will be

perceived afterwards. So I think, I'm guessing that the Lib Dems were

the source of this story, because they want to make quite clear they

have got what they wanted, which was fair in their view, progressive

tax breaks in terms of raising the threshold for low income earners,

and not paying income tax. But therefore they have conceded ground,

as they would put it, and want to create a distance with the

Conservatives' desire for the top rate of tax to be cut. So I think

the stories are accurate, and they reflect what is going on in

preparation for next Wednesday. Whatever is going to happen, it has

been decided, we have been told it has gone to the office of budget

for responsibility d to the Office of Budget Responsibility, what is

your instinct -- to the Office of Budget Responsibility, what is your

instinct? I would be surprised if that is wrong, there has been

negotiation. There has been a long standing desire from the

Conservatives to reduce marginal rates of tax. At the beginning of

the programme you said will there be cuts for taxes on well off

people? Almost certainly not. We haven't heard any of the other

things in the budget, it would be amazing to me if there weren't

rises for people at the top. could be politically toxic, what

are the risks for George Osborne in this, or does he think there are no

risks because the opposition is nowhere to be seen? No, there are

risks. The phrase that he is most associated with, as far as any

politician is associated with any phrase, is we are all in this

together. So when he, assuming he does this, announces a tax cut for

the most well off, it will take one heck of a lot of explanation. Danny

and others will say there is a valid explanation, but the

political risk is very high, to the extent that I know, people like Ed

Balls, who is an astute, whatever you think of his views, an astute

follower of the politics of tax, because he has been doing it since

1992, didn't think George Osborne would do this for his own political

sake. It looks as if they are going to do it. I think the immediate

political risks are very large, the only way you could do it

politically is if it actual lie works. If you believe -- actually

works. If you believe that cutting the rates work, and it produces

greater growth, then it will be political credit, but in the end

that is how people will make the judgments. Immediately it is hard

to argue with that judgment, that it will be politically very

difficult. How important is it that it hasn'ted very much money? That

will be -- hasn't raised very much money? That will be difficult, to

make the argument that it was right and it raises nothing. If you can

go with that argument. It is premature, George Osborne announced

the review as to whether it raised money, after the first year,

apparently, it will form a policy decision on that basis. That is

pretty difficult. The OBR and other organisation also try to model it,

it will be a very important part of the argument, whether it raises

money. And also the other parts of the argument, which is who else's

tax will be cut, and what other taxes are going to be raised on

well-off people. You have said it won't be a net tax cut for the

wealthy, do you think it has to go with a tax cut for lower income

households? We do definitely know something will happen on this, Nick

Clegg has said so clearly that he wants that cut, in fact, the

Chancellor has committed himself in the first budget to do that each

year that is part of the coalition agreement. We will definitely see

that, it is guess work, you have to think it is unlikely to see

reductions in tax for top rates. It will be about tax rates. You talk

about the political risk of this, if you were George Osborne you

could look at the last week, Labour's big week on the economy

and think it hasn't gone anywhere? I didn't even know it was a big

week, in advance it was meant to be a big week. I think there are

political risks. What is really interesting now about budgets in

general, but this one specifically, it is nearly all about the politics.

As you know better than anyone in the studio, policy announcements on

the economy are made all the time, quanative easing, you know, the

autumn statement and so on. The budget, actually what we are

talking about is about a billion here or there. Do you think this is

a distraction? It is highly political. Do you think some of it

is a distraction from the big picture that the economy is not

doing well? All that matters is what works at the end of the day.

People don't follow the ins and outs of the budgets and follow what

politicians say. The only thing that matters is does it improve

growth. The political signals people pick up from Wednesday, that

is why it is significant and dangerous. Thank you very much.

Before we take a look atom morning's front pages, matter that

is in Glasgow with tonight's review show.

Coming up on the review show, Douglas Adams buys a zoo, we move

from Downing Streeten to to the The story leaked about the budget

for national pay rates for civil servants and maybe other public

sector workers too. Same story in the Guardian about

having regional pay. That's all from Newsnight, on the

eve of what will be another Welsh Grand Slam, probably, we will leave

you with one of their legends, Mervyn Davies, who died today, Merv