And bless them all, but a small number of people funding and maintaining churches for a much larger group of very occasional worshippers is a tough ask. Christianity sometimes is about tough asks, but there are limits.
It's a similar dynamic to pubs, corner shops and all the other things in communities. If we don't use them regularly then we can't be too shocked if they become unviable.
The uk would be mad to effectively destroy the vast rich of historical , architectural and cultural treasure in churches . They are simply unique in the world . Then again I think the Uk is mad at the moment (chagos WTF!) so I doubt will have a plan to really support church buildings
I do not think anyone is proposing to "effectively destroy" churches, but there are many which are barely used, and often of little architectural or historical interest.
It is hard to see why a largely secular public should fund them.
I'm not sure that's quite right.
Plenty of the largely secular public don't want to see historic churches go to rack and ruin, and heritage is popular.
From the front page of iWeekend. I think it’s a BMG poll.
» Labour under Burnham would win 20 per cent of votes at the next election - two points more than under Starmer, but still three behind Reform, » Labour supporters appear less keen to oust Starmer, with those wanting him replaced falling five points to 37 per cent, while support for him staying rose two points to 48 per cent.
Does anyone know the full details?
Burnham surge faded before he's even got to the start line? Given the cry was for a strong decisive leader with a purpose and a plan that is no surprise but i'd expected him to make it into no 10 before being sussed as a massive disappointment. Money on Ed M as the only one with a plan and strong sense of purpose or Starmer to see off a deflated Burnham?
Since Makerfield was called, the narrative for Labour seems to "you don't know what you're doing" - regardless of who leads them.
They must be really grateful that Farage is hiding from the £5m bung story - and Reform have picked a complete dog of a candidate. But winning with Burnham doesn't appear much of a win at all.
And then there's the Ghost of Labour Past, with the undead Blair to rattle some chains.
I don't think anyone knows what is going to happen.
We can see from the extraordinary promotion of Restore that Labour are spending extraordinary amounts of money on their campaign.
I find a difficulty with Burnham which other posters don't seem to have. He is very much a Londoner's view of a Northerner. Up here in Cumbria Manchester is no more northern to us than Birmingham. It is very much the South as far as we can see and tainted with being near Liverpool. But setting that aside his harsh Scouse accent makes most people in the whole of the north west look at his Mancunian credentials and ask "Who are you kidding, apart from the London journalists ?"
The analogy with Derek Hatton is a good one but at least he never denied he was a Scouser. The word "git" is not a nice one but it is a true north-west word to describe a particular person and for me it fits Hatton and Burnham to a tee. If Starmer has fallen to the Monkees classic "I'm a Believer" then Burnham must beware of their Third No. 1, sold in this country as "Alternate Title" because the true American name was deemed unacceptable in the UK, Randy Scouse Git, referencing I believe John Lennon.
No, it was Tony Booth. The writer, Mickey Dolenz IIRC, was watching Til Death do us Part, and it’s a reference to Alf calling Tony Booths character out for the useless dole bludger who was dating his daughter that he was.
The daughter being played by Una Stubbs of the famous Urban Myth.
Channel 4 News challenges Nicola Sturgeon at the Hay Festival over claims she shut down concerns about her estranged husband Peter Murrell embezzling more than £400,000 from the SNP.
Elsewhere I saw she has now admitted that keeping him in his job when she became leader was a mistake.
Interesting to note 8% of NEETs are aged 16-17. I certainly remember when I was in local Government a lot of time and effort went into ensuring EVERY 16-17 age old was either in education, employment and training. Have Councils been able to continue this work given spending pressures elsewhere?
It's also worth noting a quarter of NEETs are not seeking work due to sickness and disability so again the myth about a generation of "malingers" or "scroungers" fails to survive contact with reality (along with a series of other crass generalisations).
Yes but Labour ducked the welfare reforms needed to try and get those on sickness benefit and capable of some work into the workplace
Though that depends on what they are doing. The more interesting/alarming people are the ones not on benefits- those who (as OKC suggested) are very probably doing odd cash-in-hand work/side hustles but basically not engaging with the system at all. Macroscopic system stuff like changing benefits rules or the minimum wage, aren't going to affect them, because they're not engaging with the system.
It's lazy to think that the issue is one that is solved by Whitehall or Westminster changing numbers. It's probably almost as lazy to think that changing numbers the other way is causing much harm. It's much deeper-rooted than that;
Looking at that chart, it's not about Starmer Labour. It's not about the Conservatives, either. Or Blair/Brown Labour. It's something that has been filed as "too difficult" for ages.
People not claiming benefits are not a problem for the taxpayer, those who are should be helped to find some work, even if on sickness benefits unless paralysed or with with a terminal illness then claimants should be assisted to find work they can do
Fat chance when they get more in benefits than they ever would working.
Interesting to note 8% of NEETs are aged 16-17. I certainly remember when I was in local Government a lot of time and effort went into ensuring EVERY 16-17 age old was either in education, employment and training. Have Councils been able to continue this work given spending pressures elsewhere?
It's also worth noting a quarter of NEETs are not seeking work due to sickness and disability so again the myth about a generation of "malingers" or "scroungers" fails to survive contact with reality (along with a series of other crass generalisations).
Yes but Labour ducked the welfare reforms needed to try and get those on sickness benefit and capable of some work into the workplace
Though that depends on what they are doing. The more interesting/alarming people are the ones not on benefits- those who (as OKC suggested) are very probably doing odd cash-in-hand work/side hustles but basically not engaging with the system at all. Macroscopic system stuff like changing benefits rules or the minimum wage, aren't going to affect them, because they're not engaging with the system.
It's lazy to think that the issue is one that is solved by Whitehall or Westminster changing numbers. It's probably almost as lazy to think that changing numbers the other way is causing much harm. It's much deeper-rooted than that;
Looking at that chart, it's not about Starmer Labour. It's not about the Conservatives, either. Or Blair/Brown Labour. It's something that has been filed as "too difficult" for ages.
People not claiming benefits are not a problem for the taxpayer, those who are should be helped to find some work, even if on sickness benefits unless paralysed or with with a terminal illness then claimants should be assisted to find work they can do
Fat chance when they get more in benefits than they ever would working.
Interesting to note 8% of NEETs are aged 16-17. I certainly remember when I was in local Government a lot of time and effort went into ensuring EVERY 16-17 age old was either in education, employment and training. Have Councils been able to continue this work given spending pressures elsewhere?
It's also worth noting a quarter of NEETs are not seeking work due to sickness and disability so again the myth about a generation of "malingers" or "scroungers" fails to survive contact with reality (along with a series of other crass generalisations).
Yes but Labour ducked the welfare reforms needed to try and get those on sickness benefit and capable of some work into the workplace
Though that depends on what they are doing. The more interesting/alarming people are the ones not on benefits- those who (as OKC suggested) are very probably doing odd cash-in-hand work/side hustles but basically not engaging with the system at all. Macroscopic system stuff like changing benefits rules or the minimum wage, aren't going to affect them, because they're not engaging with the system.
It's lazy to think that the issue is one that is solved by Whitehall or Westminster changing numbers. It's probably almost as lazy to think that changing numbers the other way is causing much harm. It's much deeper-rooted than that;
Looking at that chart, it's not about Starmer Labour. It's not about the Conservatives, either. Or Blair/Brown Labour. It's something that has been filed as "too difficult" for ages.
People not claiming benefits are not a problem for the taxpayer, those who are should be helped to find some work, even if on sickness benefits unless paralysed or with with a terminal illness then claimants should be assisted to find work they can do
Fat chance when they get more in benefits than they ever would working.
The problem was created by stories, exacerbated by Tories, thrown in to the long grass.
Now Labour left wingers need to show some common sense, Tories need to hang their heads in shame, shut the fuck up and show some humility.
The uk would be mad to effectively destroy the vast rich of historical , architectural and cultural treasure in churches . They are simply unique in the world . Then again I think the Uk is mad at the moment (chagos WTF!) so I doubt will have a plan to really support church buildings
The Tories, LDs and Reform have all committed to restore VAT relief on church repairs. In France the state helps fund Roman Catholic grade listed churches
The CofE is cash poor but asset massively rich.
Maybe the new Archbishop should visit number 11 Downing Street, gift to the nation large swathes of prime house building land and negotiate a commission back to instigate a regeneration of Churches in return and praise God for his ingenuity
The uk would be mad to effectively destroy the vast rich of historical , architectural and cultural treasure in churches . They are simply unique in the world . Then again I think the Uk is mad at the moment (chagos WTF!) so I doubt will have a plan to really support church buildings
The Tories, LDs and Reform have all committed to restore VAT relief on church repairs. In France the state helps fund Roman Catholic grade listed churches
The CofE is cash poor but asset massively rich.
Maybe the new Archbishop should visit number 11 Downing Street, gift to the nation large swathes of prime house building land and negotiate a commission back to instigate a regeneration of Churches in return and praise God for his ingenuity
Comments
https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/factsheets/christianity-in-britain-factsheet/
It helps both are in walking distance.
Plenty of the largely secular public don't want to see historic churches go to rack and ruin, and heritage is popular.
The daughter being played by Una Stubbs of the famous Urban Myth.
Now Labour left wingers need to show some common sense, Tories need to hang their heads in shame, shut the fuck up and show some humility.
Fat chance with rent a gob in charge.
Maybe the new Archbishop should visit number 11 Downing Street, gift to the nation large swathes of prime house building land and negotiate a commission back to instigate a regeneration of Churches in return and praise God for his ingenuity