Government cowardice could be the death of us all

Last week, Alan Johnson's retreat over faith schools was as depressing as it was dangerous; he was forced to eat wise words still hot from his mouth. He should have stood his ground over obliging new faith schools to take 25% non-faith pupils in exchange for lavish state funding.

The public is way ahead of him: for years polls show that the majority have opposed faith schools altogether.

The "popularity" of Christian schools in this heathen country has been proved in study after study to be all about selection: faith schools screen out chaotic families who don't go to church, doubling the number of difficult children in next-door schools - and thus doubling the difference between them.

Even while falling on their knees to get a place, parents still overwhelmingly oppose religious schools - by 64% in a Guardian/ICM poll.

Parents faking Christianity is relatively harmless; far more alarming are the extreme faith schools for children of fanatical believers. Their leaders came out last week refusing to admit outsiders because they aim "to create the total Muslim personality" or because "the Jewish community needs to maintain its distinct identity and ethos, and has no interest in spreading its message to others".

Catholics led the charge, with "Three days to save our faith schools" blazoned across the Catholic Herald. Every frocked and bearded man of faith rallied to the cause of absolute segregation, the Church of England moderates giving respectable cover to zealots.

Standing firm would have struck a blow against all religious extremism: what could be more extreme than demanding that children of one faith and culture are kept in strict apartheid from all others? Some were even railing against the new 14-19 vocational diplomas that will mix schools for some classes.

Refusing angry Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus equally would have sent a clear message about the secular state, but by giving way time after time on religious "rights", the pusillanimous government sets dangerous precedents.

Frightened MPs

Alan Johnson was hung out to dry: the prime minister wouldn't have it; nor would some 50 frightened Labour MPs in marginal seats, terrified by priests in the pulpit organising local campaigns.

Psephologists never found a single seat won or lost where Catholics tried to use the pulpit on issues such as abortion; the faithful still voted according to politics, not faith. But no one panics like a Labour MP in fear of their seat, though most are neither God-botherers nor genuine supporters of religious separatism.

So Lord Baker's amendment in the Lords last week, calling for a 25% school quota of non-believers, never had a prayer: his own Tories and the Lib Dems joined Labour chicken-hearts to vote for faith separation.

Treasury rebuff

With Johnson's face-saver of a "voluntary" agreement on admissions to new schools, the progressive cause of abolition was thoroughly demolished. Patricia Hewitt's blindingly commonsense call for higher taxes on alcohol received a statutory Treasury rebuff. But the UK and Denmark are the only countries where drinking is on the rise.

Its effects cost the NHS o1.7bn a year - o500m in A&E, with 80,000 drink-driven violent incidents a month. Drink consumption is highly price-sensitive, especially among the youngest pocket-money drinkers, yet alcohol now costs 54% less in real terms than it did in 1980.

Drink sales fall in recessions: 10 years of unbroken growth means the chancellor has a duty to correct the alcoholic effect of his own success. Will he bravely raise the price enough to make a difference? Now, how about gambling? Again, public opinion is crystal clear; there is no popular demand for huge new casinos, let alone a supercasino.

A million people in the UK now gamble online, and the number of addicts is rising, yet Tessa Jowell is beckoning foreign companies to come and register here to make us the offshore gambling den of the world. America has just banned online gambling by stopping credit-card firms processing payments to gambling firms. Why can't Britain do that too? So why don't the spineless backbenchers just say no?

A boozing, gambling nation politically intimidated by faith minorities may be a confusing moral legacy for Labour, but the real test of Labour's nerve is yet to come.

This time Labour (and the husky-hugging Tories) need to hit back hard at Britain's know-nothing press; it could be the death of us all if it persuades voters that there is no problem, or that nothing can be done, or that no one need pay a penny more, or that tackling climate change is unfair to the poor.

Now taking the press by the throat really would take nerve after 10 years of lily-livered, jittery subservience.

www.guardian.co.uk