So still not even a majority ie over 50% clearly want to disestablish the C of E. I would also point out in January 2023 last year a poll for the Times by Yougov found a rather different result with 41% for keeping the C of E as the established church and just 29% for disestablishment. https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/TheTimes_ChurchOfEngland_230130_W.pdf
On the further details in the poll most MPs have already voted to keep Bishops in the Lords and given they rejected the LD amendment for an elected upper house we should continue to keep faith representatives in the fully appointed upper house. The C of E of course receives next to no state funding and arguably should receive more given it has a large percentage of the most historic grade listed buildings in the nation maintained by it. The French government for example gives the RC church funds to maintain its historic churches and cathedrals in France.
Less than half support moving governance of C of E schools to the state either, no wonder given C of E schools tend to get better results than the national average.
Very interesting more voters support the King remaining head of the C of E than not which rather defeats the earlier support for disestablishment anyway given the original reason the C of E was created was so the national church was headed by the King not the Pope at the Reformation.
Note too when the practical consequences of C of E marriages no longer being valid in law are considered by a vast 29% margin voters oppose that too. So again they wish to uphold one of the key principles of having an established church.
So the data largely refutes the headline once you delve into it
You make a set of really quite feeble arguments.
The only (and quite compelling) argument is that it is what it is, does no-one harm, and may do some good, so leave it alone.
No I make perfectly sensible arguments. Our national church being established ensures the Pope does not head our national church again, it provides marriages and funerals by right to Parishioners and in rural areas especially that is very important.
Ideological left liberals like you may disagree but so what
So still not even a majority ie over 50% clearly want to disestablish the C of E. I would also point out in January 2023 last year a poll for the Times by Yougov found a rather different result with 41% for keeping the C of E as the established church and just 29% for disestablishment. https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/TheTimes_ChurchOfEngland_230130_W.pdf
On the further details in the poll most MPs have already voted to keep Bishops in the Lords and given they rejected the LD amendment for an elected upper house we should continue to keep faith representatives in the fully appointed upper house. The C of E of course receives next to no state funding and arguably should receive more given it has a large percentage of the most historic grade listed buildings in the nation maintained by it. The French government for example gives the RC church funds to maintain its historic churches and cathedrals in France.
Less than half support moving governance of C of E schools to the state either, no wonder given C of E schools tend to get better results than the national average.
Very interesting more voters support the King remaining head of the C of E than not which rather defeats the earlier support for disestablishment anyway given the original reason the C of E was created was so the national church was headed by the King not the Pope at the Reformation.
Note too when the practical consequences of C of E marriages no longer being valid in law are considered by a vast 29% margin voters oppose that too. So again they wish to uphold one of the key principles of having an established church.
So the data largely refutes the headline once you delve into it
So let’s just kick the bishops out of the Lords.
Then we can happily return to the floccinaucinihilipilification of the Church of England.
No, as long as we have an unelected upper house we need some Bishops and other faith leaders in it
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
But why is “sending a message to the world” a criteria?
Yes if he really thinks India, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Trump's US will give a toss about the UK abandoning mining and will abandon all oil, gas and coal themselves he is deluded
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
But why is “sending a message to the world” a criteria?
Quite. Who exactly is Ed sending a message to ?
Is it China with their coal mines going gangbusters ? The USA with their new "drill baby drill" president ? The gulf states with oil coming out their earholes ? India who fucked off the commonwealth in favour of BRICS ? Eastern Europe and Germany that still is chugging on coal and in the case of Germany abandoning nuclear ? The French who will keep calm and carry on with their nuclear program no matter what we do ? Russia's satellite "oil and gas" gift from god countries ? Canada with woke Trudeau who nevertheless loves a bit of oil ? Australia with their mahoosive mining industries? Now there are sound economic reasons for solar and wind but "sending a message" to anyone is hilarious given the energy policies of all the majority emitters right now
So still not even a majority ie over 50% clearly want to disestablish the C of E. I would also point out in January 2023 last year a poll for the Times by Yougov found a rather different result with 41% for keeping the C of E as the established church and just 29% for disestablishment. https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/TheTimes_ChurchOfEngland_230130_W.pdf
On the further details in the poll most MPs have already voted to keep Bishops in the Lords and given they rejected the LD amendment for an elected upper house we should continue to keep faith representatives in the fully appointed upper house. The C of E of course receives next to no state funding and arguably should receive more given it has a large percentage of the most historic grade listed buildings in the nation maintained by it. The French government for example gives the RC church funds to maintain its historic churches and cathedrals in France.
Less than half support moving governance of C of E schools to the state either, no wonder given C of E schools tend to get better results than the national average.
Very interesting more voters support the King remaining head of the C of E than not which rather defeats the earlier support for disestablishment anyway given the original reason the C of E was created was so the national church was headed by the King not the Pope at the Reformation.
Note too when the practical consequences of C of E marriages no longer being valid in law are considered by a vast 29% margin voters oppose that too. So again they wish to uphold one of the key principles of having an established church.
So the data largely refutes the headline once you delve into it
You make a set of really quite feeble arguments.
The only (and quite compelling) argument is that it is what it is, does no-one harm, and may do some good, so leave it alone.
No I make perfectly sensible arguments. Our national church being established ensures the Pope does not head our national church again, it provides marriages and funerals by right to Parishioners and in rural areas especially that is very important.
Ideological left liberals like you may disagree but so what
I'm not an ideologist, nor am I of the left. I'm not sure the Pope is any great threat. Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas?
And as to disagreeing you're right - so what. My views are of no matter. It's only of many others share those views that one should take notice. The CoE needs to work out how it wants to respond to that notice being taken.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
There is what looks like a trick question in the survey, the one about state funding of the CoE.
There is no state funding specific to the CoE.
There are a whole series of trick questions in the survey, which either misrepresent or omit information. Or the compiler is a klutz or an ignoramus.
They read like questions written for the status of 20 or 30 years ago.
For example:
Would you would support or oppose each of the following? %
Church of England bishops no longer being given seats in the House of Lords OK Q, if they mean ex-officio. The UK government no longer having any influence over the appointment of senior posts in the Church of England, including bishops The UK Government has had no influence over the appointment of senior posts in the CofE since 2007. The Church of England no longer receiving State funding The CofE receives no State funding as Church of England. It does receive charitable relief on donations, heritage building grants etc. Governance of existing Church of England schools passing to local councils instead OK Question, however CofE schools are in the process of conversion to Academies (1000 already). It is not clear why these are singled out from other academies. The UK monarch no longer being head of the Church of England OK question. The Church of England no longer being required to practice same sex marriages The Church of England is NOT required to practice same sex marriages. Assuming the mangled English actually means perform the ceremonies. Church of England marriages counting only as a religious marriages and requiring a further civil marriage in order to be legally married (for future marriages only, existing Church of England marriages would still be legally binding) Many buildings can be used to register marriages, including churches, synagogues and mosques, and can also aiui provide an Authorised Person as Registrar.
They really haven't much of a clue imo.
On the last point, those marriages in 'many buildings' *are* civil marriages, so you're being a bit unfair there, no?
Mmmm. I don't think so. I checked, because this area is (as we know) a little intricate and overgrown in developing law. I'll be glad for clarifications. I'm not going into Civil Partnerships or same sex marriages, as these seem to have more registrations of buildings involved .
Two types of marriage take place in places of worship or registered buildings for a denomination. A 'religious marriage' is in the eyes of the religion. A 'civil marriage' is in the eyes of the State. The State is not really interested in the religious marriage.
Traditionally, an Anglican Officiant (normally Vicar) in a CofE Church could conduct the religious marriage, and act as legally recognised Registrar for the purposes of registering the civil marriage.
Since 2021, a Place of Worship or Registered Building can provide an Authorised Person (or Additional Authorised People if there are >1) appointed by the building's trustees, who may Register the civil marriage (in my terms above) at the place, and send the forms to the Register Office afterwards.
That means afaics that a civil marriage can be contracted in other places of worship as happens in a CofE church, by a parallel and similar process. The religious wedding, of interest to the religion, is a different thing done at the same time.
(TBH it seems a little too varied and complicated, and in need of some simplifying.)
AP's have been around for ever, not since 2021.
As an independent church, there is a bit of a hassle to get your building registered for religious marriage, and then you have to have a registrar in attendance at any marriages for the 1st year, then you can appoint an AP and it's all plain sailing.
When I got married in a tiny Swindon "Gospel Hall" which my wife attended growing up, they hadn't had a wedding in years, but fortunately were still registered for religious marriage, so we managed to appoint an AP and make it all happen with very little drama.
One of the differences between a CofE marriage and religious marriage in other denominations is that the CofE has its own system for giving notice (Banns), all the others use the civil system where you have to give notice at a registry office.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
The reason I want the C of E to retain its establishment status is that I think it's the best way to preserve its wonderful buildings. Their arcane rituals are a vital part of that preservation
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
But why is “sending a message to the world” a criteria?
Climate change NIMBYism strikes again.
I didn’t say it was a bad thing (you noted the economics in another answer as well as the relative carbon emissions so nothing to add there).
But “sending a message to the world” is a really stupid reason. We should do things because they’re the right thing for the UK. Not because anyone else cares. They don’t
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I'd support that. I often feel unsafe around dogs, particularly after COVID. Our local mini-park is basically unusable for reading in peace or giving children somewhere safe to run about. That's a disaster in an area dominated by tenements and a lack of green space.
These are just normal people voicing concerns that many white people are probably too scared to bring up. Dog owners are noisy opponents.
In national nature reserves they should be banned simply because of the effect they have on ground-nesting birds, seals etc
I feel unsafe around cyclists more than dogs can they be banned to please?
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
So still not even a majority ie over 50% clearly want to disestablish the C of E. I would also point out in January 2023 last year a poll for the Times by Yougov found a rather different result with 41% for keeping the C of E as the established church and just 29% for disestablishment. https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/TheTimes_ChurchOfEngland_230130_W.pdf
On the further details in the poll most MPs have already voted to keep Bishops in the Lords and given they rejected the LD amendment for an elected upper house we should continue to keep faith representatives in the fully appointed upper house. The C of E of course receives next to no state funding and arguably should receive more given it has a large percentage of the most historic grade listed buildings in the nation maintained by it. The French government for example gives the RC church funds to maintain its historic churches and cathedrals in France.
Less than half support moving governance of C of E schools to the state either, no wonder given C of E schools tend to get better results than the national average.
Very interesting more voters support the King remaining head of the C of E than not which rather defeats the earlier support for disestablishment anyway given the original reason the C of E was created was so the national church was headed by the King not the Pope at the Reformation.
Note too when the practical consequences of C of E marriages no longer being valid in law are considered by a vast 29% margin voters oppose that too. So again they wish to uphold one of the key principles of having an established church.
So the data largely refutes the headline once you delve into it
So let’s just kick the bishops out of the Lords.
Then we can happily return to the floccinaucinihilipilification of the Church of England.
No, as long as we have an unelected upper house we need some Bishops and other faith leaders in it
Not automatically, as of right by law. Which is the current silly situation.
There is what looks like a trick question in the survey, the one about state funding of the CoE.
There is no state funding specific to the CoE.
There are a whole series of trick questions in the survey, which either misrepresent or omit information. Or the compiler is a klutz or an ignoramus.
They read like questions written for the status of 20 or 30 years ago.
For example:
Would you would support or oppose each of the following? %
Church of England bishops no longer being given seats in the House of Lords OK Q, if they mean ex-officio. The UK government no longer having any influence over the appointment of senior posts in the Church of England, including bishops The UK Government has had no influence over the appointment of senior posts in the CofE since 2007. The Church of England no longer receiving State funding The CofE receives no State funding as Church of England. It does receive charitable relief on donations, heritage building grants etc. Governance of existing Church of England schools passing to local councils instead OK Question, however CofE schools are in the process of conversion to Academies (1000 already). It is not clear why these are singled out from other academies. The UK monarch no longer being head of the Church of England OK question. The Church of England no longer being required to practice same sex marriages The Church of England is NOT required to practice same sex marriages. Assuming the mangled English actually means perform the ceremonies. Church of England marriages counting only as a religious marriages and requiring a further civil marriage in order to be legally married (for future marriages only, existing Church of England marriages would still be legally binding) Many buildings can be used to register marriages, including churches, synagogues and mosques, and can also aiui provide an Authorised Person as Registrar.
They really haven't much of a clue imo.
On the last point, those marriages in 'many buildings' *are* civil marriages, so you're being a bit unfair there, no?
Mmmm. I don't think so. I checked, because this area is (as we know) a little intricate and overgrown in developing law. I'll be glad for clarifications. I'm not going into Civil Partnerships or same sex marriages, as these seem to have more registrations of buildings involved .
Two types of marriage take place in places of worship or registered buildings for a denomination. A 'religious marriage' is in the eyes of the religion. A 'civil marriage' is in the eyes of the State. The State is not really interested in the religious marriage.
Traditionally, an Anglican Officiant (normally Vicar) in a CofE Church could conduct the religious marriage, and act as legally recognised Registrar for the purposes of registering the civil marriage.
Since 2021, a Place of Worship or Registered Building can provide an Authorised Person (or Additional Authorised People if there are >1) appointed by the building's trustees, who may Register the civil marriage (in my terms above) at the place, and send the forms to the Register Office afterwards.
That means afaics that a civil marriage can be contracted in other places of worship as happens in a CofE church, by a parallel and similar process. The religious wedding, of interest to the religion, is a different thing done at the same time.
(TBH it seems a little too varied and complicated, and in need of some simplifying.)
AP's have been around for ever, not since 2021.
As an independent church, there is a bit of a hassle to get your building registered for religious marriage, and then you have to have a registrar in attendance at any marriages for the 1st year, then you can appoint an AP and it's all plain sailing.
When I got married in a tiny Swindon "Gospel Hall" which my wife attended growing up, they hadn't had a wedding in years, but fortunately were still registered for religious marriage, so we managed to appoint an AP and make it all happen with very little drama.
One of the differences between a CofE marriage and religious marriage in other denominations is that the CofE has its own system for giving notice (Banns), all the others use the civil system where you have to give notice at a registry office.
FWIW there are no fewer than 4 ways of giving notice/obtaining a lawful authority to be married in the CoE. Banns, Common licence (issued on behalf of the bishop), Archbishop's licence, and finally through the civil process of the civil registrar (which last is now compulsory in some cases).
I'm pretty sure that most people don't understand the implications of disestablishment. The right to marriage, for example, or rather the obligation in law for the Church to marry heterosexual couples, would end.
Is probably not what the lumpen proletariat wants.
Are heterosexual couples in Scotland, Wales or NI unable to get married? Why are gay couples in England excluded?
They are not unable to get married (gay couples can't marry in the Church of Wales). But they have a legal right to be married. That would disappear. Does it matter? Don't ask me. But it seems to have been important.
The state doesn't tie itself to those other homophobic churches, though. The fact that the state church in England continues to discriminate on the basis of sexuality should surely be an argument for disestablishment, not against it.
Does the state need to marry adulterers too? Even the King and Queen only had a service of blessing in a C of E chapel similar to what same sex couples can get, they were married in Windsor Guildhall
I think it's fair to insist that they do actually provide a universal service if they want to be credited for er, providing a universal service.
A possible compromise might be that CoE churches offer themselves up as venues for civil weddings - but the situation as it stands is inherently discriminatory, and the state should not be allying itself to that.
I‘m shocked to hear that GOP senators are already rationalising their absence of spines.
What I’m hearing privately from a few key GOP senators: yes, they’d prefer to not have a messy fight over Gaetz. Not their favorite. But they also don’t have a lot of energy for pushing back. Trump runs the show, they say. If Gaetz can reassure them, they’re open to backing him. https://x.com/costareports/status/1857047122010398892
"If we surrender now, it will be easier to fight in the future" is so deluded, I'm pretty sure they don't believe their own words.
As I believe I've said here more than once, in the end they always kneel...
Is it early? The time for Republican senators to get off their knees was four years ago at Trump's second impeachment trial. Only 7 out of 50 Republican senators voted guilty.
Though they did just annoy some MAGAs by picking John Thune as senate leader, rather than the MAGA and Musk-backed Rick Scott. Expect some bits of Trump's agenda (tariffs?) to be watered down in the senate.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Sorry you missed out a lot of history there. To help you with your left wing spin:
Wilson closed 253 coal mines - good Heath closed 22 coal mines - bad Callaghan closed 4 coal mines - good Thatcher closed 115 coal mines - bad Major close 55 coal mines - bad (to be fair this was bloody stupid and done purely so Heseltine could appear tough) Blair closed 12 coal mines - good
Wilson closed more coal mines than any other post war PM. Although even good old Clem closed over 100.
Miliband closes 0 coal mines - Actually he just stopped one opening rather than closing it. A stupid decision give it is purely for steel production and the coal will simply be brought in from somewhere else. But then Miliband has never been the brightest persosn in Cabinet. To be honest he is not even the brightest politician called Miliband.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Sorry you missed out a lot of history there. To help you with your left wing spin:
Wilson closed 253 coal mines - good Heath closed 22 coal mines - bad Callaghan closed 4 coal mines - good Thatcher closed 115 coal mines - bad Major close 55 coal mines - bad (to be fair this was bloody stupid and done purely so Heseltine could appear tough) Blair closed 12 coal mines - good
Wilson closed more coal mines than any other post war PM. Although even good old Clem closed over 100.
Miliband closes 0 coal mines - Actually he just stopped one opening rather than closing it. A stupid decision give it is purely for steel production and the coal will simply be brought in from somewhere else. But then Miliband has never been the brightest persosn in Cabinet. To be honest he is not even the brightest politician called Miliband.
Thanks, though I think you're taking my initial post a little too seriously. Left-wing spin indeed!
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Sorry you missed out a lot of history there. To help you with your left wing spin:
Wilson closed 253 coal mines - good Heath closed 22 coal mines - bad Callaghan closed 4 coal mines - good Thatcher closed 115 coal mines - bad Major close 55 coal mines - bad (to be fair this was bloody stupid and done purely so Heseltine could appear tough) Blair closed 12 coal mines - good
Wilson closed more coal mines than any other post war PM. Although even good old Clem closed over 100.
Miliband closes 0 coal mines - Actually he just stopped one opening rather than closing it. A stupid decision give it is purely for steel production and the coal will simply be brought in from somewhere else. But then Miliband has never been the brightest persosn in Cabinet. To be honest he is not even the brightest politician called Miliband.
Thanks, though I think you're taking my initial post a little too seriously. Left-wing spin indeed!
Hey let me have my little illogical rant. I don't do it that often but the mood takes me tonight .
I'm pretty sure that most people don't understand the implications of disestablishment. The right to marriage, for example, or rather the obligation in law for the Church to marry heterosexual couples, would end.
Is probably not what the lumpen proletariat wants.
Are heterosexual couples in Scotland, Wales or NI unable to get married? Why are gay couples in England excluded?
They are not unable to get married (gay couples can't marry in the Church of Wales). But they have a legal right to be married. That would disappear. Does it matter? Don't ask me. But it seems to have been important.
The state doesn't tie itself to those other homophobic churches, though. The fact that the state church in England continues to discriminate on the basis of sexuality should surely be an argument for disestablishment, not against it.
Does the state need to marry adulterers too? Even the King and Queen only had a service of blessing in a C of E chapel similar to what same sex couples can get, they were married in Windsor Guildhall
I think it's fair to insist that they do actually provide a universal service if they want to be credited for er, providing a universal service.
A possible compromise might be that CoE churches offer themselves up as venues for civil weddings - but the situation as it stands is inherently discriminatory, and the state should not be allying itself to that.
They are already a venue for civil weddings. It is just a civil wedding with a bit extra added on. But it is still, at its heart, a civil contract. Thats why you hve to sign the document rather than just doing the God bit.
Have we worked out what's going on in the People's Republic Of Wales with this bizarre "dogs are racist" story? 😂
They are fecking idiots. What more explanation is needed.
Who though?
I've been trying to drill down into whether this is a genuine "thing" and the Welsh government is really considering banning dogs from the Welsh countryside?
Or is it just the Daily Mail getting having an attack of the vapors about nothing, as per... ?
I'm pretty sure that most people don't understand the implications of disestablishment. The right to marriage, for example, or rather the obligation in law for the Church to marry heterosexual couples, would end.
Is probably not what the lumpen proletariat wants.
Are heterosexual couples in Scotland, Wales or NI unable to get married? Why are gay couples in England excluded?
They are not unable to get married (gay couples can't marry in the Church of Wales). But they have a legal right to be married. That would disappear. Does it matter? Don't ask me. But it seems to have been important.
The state doesn't tie itself to those other homophobic churches, though. The fact that the state church in England continues to discriminate on the basis of sexuality should surely be an argument for disestablishment, not against it.
Does the state need to marry adulterers too? Even the King and Queen only had a service of blessing in a C of E chapel similar to what same sex couples can get, they were married in Windsor Guildhall
I think it's fair to insist that they do actually provide a universal service if they want to be credited for er, providing a universal service.
A possible compromise might be that CoE churches offer themselves up as venues for civil weddings - but the situation as it stands is inherently discriminatory, and the state should not be allying itself to that.
There is a genuine difficulty unless you have a system which requires that the church acts and teaches what the state acts and promulgates. That difficulty is so great that it may split church from state, though it is hard to see how this would occur.
In the eyes of the church (to generalise and evade fine points) the question of what marriage is, can't be simply defined by the state. In gay relationships intended to be lifelong there are several possible views in the church, among them:
It is marriage It is not marriage and is not accepted by the church as a relationship It is not marriage but is understood and accepted as an appropriate relationship.
The state has gone for the view that it is marriage but only very recently. But the state does not pretend to consider either the mind of the church or the mind of God, which may be different. The question of 'discrimination' in the bad sense does not arise.
Have we worked out what's going on in the People's Republic Of Wales with this bizarre "dogs are racist" story? 😂
They are fecking idiots. What more explanation is needed.
Who though?
I've been trying to drill down into whether this is a genuine "thing" and the Welsh government is really considering banning dogs from the Welsh countryside?
Or is it just the Daily Mail getting having an attack of the vapors about nothing, as per... ?
I think it's a real government report and a real recommendation, but not really under consideration.
Have we worked out what's going on in the People's Republic Of Wales with this bizarre "dogs are racist" story? 😂
They are fecking idiots. What more explanation is needed.
Who though?
I've been trying to drill down into whether this is a genuine "thing" and the Welsh government is really considering banning dogs from the Welsh countryside?
Or is it just the Daily Mail getting having an attack of the vapors about nothing, as per... ?
Its a series of genuine proposals by a working party but the Government has not set out to do anything about it. In fact from what I can see it is at least two separate proposals which have been conflated by the DM. One was on getting minorities into the countrysie and the other was on the issue of dogs. But I am not sure how much they wre actually linked in the original report.
I'm pretty sure that most people don't understand the implications of disestablishment. The right to marriage, for example, or rather the obligation in law for the Church to marry heterosexual couples, would end.
Is probably not what the lumpen proletariat wants.
You are describing a pretty odd state of affairs here.
I presume the suggestion is that some folk will be upset if they don't get a nice venue where their family got married before, and one motive might be that it is at cut price by wedding industry standards, as @MattW pointed out a while back, I seem to remember (and that's not in itself a bad thing at all, given the hideous pressures to spend). Note that this is irrespective of their true beliefs, albeit not their genders/sexes.
I think that building more layers of law on top or alongside the existing laws in England is that they don't want to spend the time to do the hard work of untangling 500 years of legislation. IMO Cameron rushed far too fast into Same Sex Marriage, and should have taken the time to split the civil registration from the religious / non-religious ceremonies - with the latter being "have it wherever you want and we aren't interested" and the former "send us the witnessed forms". But he chose not to do so.
Rental Law has a similar issue, in that renting in England is affected by around 100 Acts of Parliament, going back to and including a still extant clause in Magna Carta. So they just layer more on top.
The different emphasis in church weddings (speaking about CofE) is also about modelling and building a different practice to Western consumerism. It's important that inexpensive weddings are possible, and that (as per CofE understanding that it is for the whole community - yes I know it is not yet there with same sex marriage) they be available to everyone of whatever wealth level.
And the emphasis will be more on a healthy relationship rather than a Big White Wedding, because it is more important. Back in my 20s ie the 1980s, my own church already used to take couples planning marriage on a residential weekend with 3 or 4 married couples ranging from 20s to 70s, to think about what it all meant. There is a movement called Marriage Encounter that does similar.
That is also seen in practices such as if a building project is done, the question of "should we be spending this on our building, when much of the world / our local community is so poor" arises. One way of addressing this (again taking different values) is that a building project may have a built in amount of say 10% or 20% which will be given away to fund something, or to Oxfam or a local project or whatever, or be made simpler to fund that. That's alongside an expectation of personal involvement, as part of a lifestyle.
Similarly, vicars get a stipend - "enough to let you follow your vocation" - not a salary. At times proposals have been made for all ordained Ministers, including the Archbishops, to get the same stipend plus varied expenses - such as travel but also more for being a family or having children.
OTOH, when one has 12,500 listed buildings to maintain, it makes sense to use what one has, and provide services (eg venue for reception or marquee) around weddings, so that if people do want a big ceremony, it can help raise finance to maintain the medieval building. That's just being pragmatic. Ignoring extra appeals, cathedrals (I think), project fundraisers etc, the CofE spends well north of £100m a year on normal maintenance of buildings. And in one (commonly Evangelical, but also others) view that is money that should better go on say a Pastor or Evangelist or Community Worker or Foodbank, not on a medieval building. It's all a balance and a tension.
Have we worked out what's going on in the People's Republic Of Wales with this bizarre "dogs are racist" story? 😂
They are fecking idiots. What more explanation is needed.
Who though?
I've been trying to drill down into whether this is a genuine "thing" and the Welsh government is really considering banning dogs from the Welsh countryside?
Or is it just the Daily Mail getting having an attack of the vapors about nothing, as per... ?
I think it's a real government report and a real recommendation, but not really under consideration.
It is a group of 20 people, not in government or anywhere near it, but who have received some govt funding. Complete hysteria as per usual.
I confess I don't quite get this - if there is a free vote, then it feels like a rare occasion when it is permissable for ministers to say what they think and not toe the line. And an enforced neutrality on the issue would therefore be unfair on them in a free vote, both those in favour and those against, since everyone else gets to argue and debate the points. It's also not neutral to be, well, neutral, when the PM has previously been reported to be in favour.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting is facing pushback from senior Labour figures over his repeated strident interventions against a move to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales.
MPs will have their say on the issue later this month – in what is known as a free vote, where they are not instructed how to vote by their parties.
The government is attempting to maintain a neutral stance.
Cabinet Secretary Simon Case, the UK's most senior civil servant, told ministers last month, they should "exercise discretion and should not take part in the public debate".
I'm pretty sure that most people don't understand the implications of disestablishment. The right to marriage, for example, or rather the obligation in law for the Church to marry heterosexual couples, would end.
Is probably not what the lumpen proletariat wants.
Are heterosexual couples in Scotland, Wales or NI unable to get married? Why are gay couples in England excluded?
They are not unable to get married (gay couples can't marry in the Church of Wales). But they have a legal right to be married. That would disappear. Does it matter? Don't ask me. But it seems to have been important.
The state doesn't tie itself to those other homophobic churches, though. The fact that the state church in England continues to discriminate on the basis of sexuality should surely be an argument for disestablishment, not against it.
Does the state need to marry adulterers too? Even the King and Queen only had a service of blessing in a C of E chapel similar to what same sex couples can get, they were married in Windsor Guildhall
I think it's fair to insist that they do actually provide a universal service if they want to be credited for er, providing a universal service.
A possible compromise might be that CoE churches offer themselves up as venues for civil weddings - but the situation as it stands is inherently discriminatory, and the state should not be allying itself to that.
They are already a venue for civil weddings. It is just a civil wedding with a bit extra added on. But it is still, at its heart, a civil contract. Thats why you hve to sign the document rather than just doing the God bit.
That's true but just as true to say that a CoE marriage is a Christian marriage with the civil bit tacked on. The state as a civil institution is a latecomer to this ceremony which has been around well before registers and all that stuff.
I'm pretty sure that most people don't understand the implications of disestablishment. The right to marriage, for example, or rather the obligation in law for the Church to marry heterosexual couples, would end.
Is probably not what the lumpen proletariat wants.
Are heterosexual couples in Scotland, Wales or NI unable to get married? Why are gay couples in England excluded?
They are not unable to get married (gay couples can't marry in the Church of Wales). But they have a legal right to be married. That would disappear. Does it matter? Don't ask me. But it seems to have been important.
The state doesn't tie itself to those other homophobic churches, though. The fact that the state church in England continues to discriminate on the basis of sexuality should surely be an argument for disestablishment, not against it.
Does the state need to marry adulterers too? Even the King and Queen only had a service of blessing in a C of E chapel similar to what same sex couples can get, they were married in Windsor Guildhall
And God impregnated a woman to whom he wasn't married.
That is a mistranslation.
Is it? What should it have said?
Instead of "born of a virgin" it should be "born of a young woman".
Somewhat less miraculous, admittedly. Who's building a religion around that?
'Ukraine could develop a rudimentary nuclear bomb within months if Donald Trump withdraws US military assistance, according to a briefing paper prepared for the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence.
The country would quickly be able to build a basic device from plutonium with a similar technology to the “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945, the report states. “Creating a simple atomic bomb, as the United States did within the framework of the Manhattan Project, would not be a difficult task 80 years later,” the document reads.' https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Sorry you missed out a lot of history there. To help you with your left wing spin:
Wilson closed 253 coal mines - good Heath closed 22 coal mines - bad Callaghan closed 4 coal mines - good Thatcher closed 115 coal mines - bad Major close 55 coal mines - bad (to be fair this was bloody stupid and done purely so Heseltine could appear tough) Blair closed 12 coal mines - good
Wilson closed more coal mines than any other post war PM. Although even good old Clem closed over 100.
Miliband closes 0 coal mines - Actually he just stopped one opening rather than closing it. A stupid decision give it is purely for steel production and the coal will simply be brought in from somewhere else. But then Miliband has never been the brightest persosn in Cabinet. To be honest he is not even the brightest politician called Miliband.
Am I correct in thinking that with the closure of Port Talbot , to convert to electric arc, coking coal is no longer going to be used to produce steel in Britain?
I'm pretty sure that most people don't understand the implications of disestablishment. The right to marriage, for example, or rather the obligation in law for the Church to marry heterosexual couples, would end.
Is probably not what the lumpen proletariat wants.
You are describing a pretty odd state of affairs here.
I presume the suggestion is that some folk will be upset if they don't get a nice venue where their family got married before, and one motive might be that it is at cut price by wedding industry standards, as @MattW pointed out a while back, I seem to remember (and that's not in itself a bad thing at all, given the hideous pressures to spend). Note that this is irrespective of their true beliefs, albeit not their genders/sexes.
I think that building more layers of law on top or alongside the existing laws in England is that they don't want to spend the time to do the hard work of untangling 500 years of legislation. IMO Cameron rushed far too fast into Same Sex Marriage, and should have taken the time to split the civil registration from the religious / non-religious ceremonies - with the latter being "have it wherever you want and we aren't interested" and the former "send us the witnessed forms". But he chose not to do so.
Rental Law has a similar issue, in that renting in England is affected by around 100 Acts of Parliament, going back to and including a still extant clause in Magna Carta. So they just layer more on top.
The different emphasis in church weddings (speaking about CofE) is also about modelling and building a different practice to Western consumerism. It's important that inexpensive weddings are possible, and that (as per CofE understanding that it is for the whole community - yes I know it is not yet there with same sex marriage) they be available to everyone of whatever wealth level.
And the emphasis will be more on a healthy relationship rather than a Big White Wedding, because it is more important. Back in my 20s ie the 1980s, my own church already used to take couples planning marriage on a residential weekend with 3 or 4 married couples ranging from 20s to 70s, to think about what it all meant. There is a movement called Marriage Encounter that does similar.
That is also seen in practices such as if a building project is done, the question of "should we be spending this on our building, when much of the world / our local community is so poor" arises. One way of addressing this (again taking different values) is that a building project may have a built in amount of say 10% or 20% which will be given away to fund something, or to Oxfam or a local project or whatever, or be made simpler to fund that. That's alongside an expectation of personal involvement, as part of a lifestyle.
Similarly, vicars get a stipend - "enough to let you follow your vocation" - not a salary. At times proposals have been made for all ordained Ministers, including the Archbishops, to get the same stipend plus varied expenses - such as travel but also more for being a family or having children.
OTOH, when one has 12,500 listed buildings to maintain, it makes sense to use what one has, and provide services (eg venue for reception or marquee) around weddings, so that if people do want a big ceremony, it can help raise finance to maintain the medieval building. That's just being pragmatic. Ignoring extra appeals, cathedrals (I think), project fundraisers etc, the CofE spends well north of £100m a year on normal maintenance of buildings. And in one (commonly Evangelical, but also others) view that is money that should better go on say a Pastor or Evangelist or Community Worker or Foodbank, not on a medieval building. It's all a balance and a tension.
That is really in any organisation, practices need to reflect principles which need to reflect values - in this case theological values / reflection.
If they don't, you are sunk anyway. Which of course also takes it back to the struggle to deal with abuse, and the need to own up / confront / change culture and practice - but also to question contemporary culture where that is necessary, and learn from it where *that* is necessary.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
Have we worked out what's going on in the People's Republic Of Wales with this bizarre "dogs are racist" story? 😂
They are fecking idiots. What more explanation is needed.
Who though?
I've been trying to drill down into whether this is a genuine "thing" and the Welsh government is really considering banning dogs from the Welsh countryside?
Or is it just the Daily Mail getting having an attack of the vapors about nothing, as per... ?
Its a series of genuine proposals by a working party but the Government has not set out to do anything about it. In fact from what I can see it is at least two separate proposals which have been conflated by the DM. One was on getting minorities into the countrysie and the other was on the issue of dogs. But I am not sure how much they wre actually linked in the original report.
The Leeanderthal Man is on it, in his usual perspicacious manner
Is your dog racist?
Don't bother going to Wales if it is. Labour run Wales has quite clearly had enough of racist dogs who fail to see the benefits of multiculturalism.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
Being able to manufacture steel, for example.
Yes, in the UK that has become quite niche.
Manufacturing anything in the UK is quite niche.
The UK is the 12th largest maunfacturing nation in the world - effectively neck and neck with Taiwan and a smidgen behind France. Not what it was but not exactly niche.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
Being able to manufacture steel, for example.
Yes, in the UK that has become quite niche.
Manufacturing anything in the UK is quite niche.
The UK is the 12th largest maunfacturing nation in the world - effectively neck and neck with Taiwan and a smidgen behind France. Not what it was but not exactly niche.
Well don't let facts get in the way of my cliched whinge. But I am genuinely astonished that is the case.
I'm pretty sure that most people don't understand the implications of disestablishment. The right to marriage, for example, or rather the obligation in law for the Church to marry heterosexual couples, would end.
Is probably not what the lumpen proletariat wants.
Are heterosexual couples in Scotland, Wales or NI unable to get married? Why are gay couples in England excluded?
They are not unable to get married (gay couples can't marry in the Church of Wales). But they have a legal right to be married. That would disappear. Does it matter? Don't ask me. But it seems to have been important.
The state doesn't tie itself to those other homophobic churches, though. The fact that the state church in England continues to discriminate on the basis of sexuality should surely be an argument for disestablishment, not against it.
Does the state need to marry adulterers too? Even the King and Queen only had a service of blessing in a C of E chapel similar to what same sex couples can get, they were married in Windsor Guildhall
And God impregnated a woman to whom he wasn't married.
That is a mistranslation.
Is it? What should it have said?
Instead of "born of a virgin" it should be "born of a young woman".
Somewhat less miraculous, admittedly. Who's building a religion around that?
Quite a few Christians without PhDs in textual exegesis can still spot poetry, legitimation myths, myths, polemic, made up stuff, god made in man's worst image, bad ideas and the works of fallible hands in the Bible. The astonishing thing is how good it is after all that.
Sounds like the dog owners and walkers of "the People's Republic Of Wales" don't have too much to worry about at this stage?
Maybe so, but if it is true, these sorts of things can still be a worry, as sometimes idiot ideas, even misinterpreted, do not stay isolated in barely seen reports or academia or whatever.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Sorry you missed out a lot of history there. To help you with your left wing spin:
Wilson closed 253 coal mines - good Heath closed 22 coal mines - bad Callaghan closed 4 coal mines - good Thatcher closed 115 coal mines - bad Major close 55 coal mines - bad (to be fair this was bloody stupid and done purely so Heseltine could appear tough) Blair closed 12 coal mines - good
Wilson closed more coal mines than any other post war PM. Although even good old Clem closed over 100.
Miliband closes 0 coal mines - Actually he just stopped one opening rather than closing it. A stupid decision give it is purely for steel production and the coal will simply be brought in from somewhere else. But then Miliband has never been the brightest persosn in Cabinet. To be honest he is not even the brightest politician called Miliband.
Am I correct in thinking that with the closure of Port Talbot , to convert to electric arc, coking coal is no longer going to be used to produce steel in Britain?
Not sure. Apparently the coking plants at Scunthorpe and Teeside are going the same way with new electric arc furnaces. But the UK still produced over half a million tons of coke last year so not sure if that is all going.
I'm pretty sure that most people don't understand the implications of disestablishment. The right to marriage, for example, or rather the obligation in law for the Church to marry heterosexual couples, would end.
Is probably not what the lumpen proletariat wants.
Are heterosexual couples in Scotland, Wales or NI unable to get married? Why are gay couples in England excluded?
They are not unable to get married (gay couples can't marry in the Church of Wales). But they have a legal right to be married. That would disappear. Does it matter? Don't ask me. But it seems to have been important.
The state doesn't tie itself to those other homophobic churches, though. The fact that the state church in England continues to discriminate on the basis of sexuality should surely be an argument for disestablishment, not against it.
Does the state need to marry adulterers too? Even the King and Queen only had a service of blessing in a C of E chapel similar to what same sex couples can get, they were married in Windsor Guildhall
I think it's fair to insist that they do actually provide a universal service if they want to be credited for er, providing a universal service.
A possible compromise might be that CoE churches offer themselves up as venues for civil weddings - but the situation as it stands is inherently discriminatory, and the state should not be allying itself to that.
They are already a venue for civil weddings. It is just a civil wedding with a bit extra added on. But it is still, at its heart, a civil contract. Thats why you hve to sign the document rather than just doing the God bit.
That's true but just as true to say that a CoE marriage is a Christian marriage with the civil bit tacked on. The state as a civil institution is a latecomer to this ceremony which has been around well before registers and all that stuff.
I think the other way round. The Church wasn't necessary for marriage in medieval times, indeed it was possible to marry in pub or even bed.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
Being able to manufacture steel, for example.
Yes, in the UK that has become quite niche.
Manufacturing anything in the UK is quite niche.
The UK is the 12th largest maunfacturing nation in the world - effectively neck and neck with Taiwan and a smidgen behind France. Not what it was but not exactly niche.
Well don't let facts get in the way of my cliched whinge. But I am genuinely astonished that is the case.
I was equally surprised three or four years ago when I found out we were 7th. We have dropped quite rapidly in the rankings whilst our manufacturing has continued to increase - just not as fast as other countries.
There is what looks like a trick question in the survey, the one about state funding of the CoE.
There is no state funding specific to the CoE.
There are a whole series of trick questions in the survey, which either misrepresent or omit information. Or the compiler is a klutz or an ignoramus.
They read like questions written for the status of 20 or 30 years ago.
For example:
Would you would support or oppose each of the following? %
Church of England bishops no longer being given seats in the House of Lords OK Q, if they mean ex-officio. The UK government no longer having any influence over the appointment of senior posts in the Church of England, including bishops The UK Government has had no influence over the appointment of senior posts in the CofE since 2007. The Church of England no longer receiving State funding The CofE receives no State funding as Church of England. It does receive charitable relief on donations, heritage building grants etc. Governance of existing Church of England schools passing to local councils instead OK Question, however CofE schools are in the process of conversion to Academies (1000 already). It is not clear why these are singled out from other academies. The UK monarch no longer being head of the Church of England OK question. The Church of England no longer being required to practice same sex marriages The Church of England is NOT required to practice same sex marriages. Assuming the mangled English actually means perform the ceremonies. Church of England marriages counting only as a religious marriages and requiring a further civil marriage in order to be legally married (for future marriages only, existing Church of England marriages would still be legally binding) Many buildings can be used to register marriages, including churches, synagogues and mosques, and can also aiui provide an Authorised Person as Registrar.
They really haven't much of a clue imo.
On the last point, those marriages in 'many buildings' *are* civil marriages, so you're being a bit unfair there, no?
Mmmm. I don't think so. I checked, because this area is (as we know) a little intricate and overgrown in developing law. I'll be glad for clarifications. I'm not going into Civil Partnerships or same sex marriages, as these seem to have more registrations of buildings involved .
Two types of marriage take place in places of worship or registered buildings for a denomination. A 'religious marriage' is in the eyes of the religion. A 'civil marriage' is in the eyes of the State. The State is not really interested in the religious marriage.
Traditionally, an Anglican Officiant (normally Vicar) in a CofE Church could conduct the religious marriage, and act as legally recognised Registrar for the purposes of registering the civil marriage.
Since 2021, a Place of Worship or Registered Building can provide an Authorised Person (or Additional Authorised People if there are >1) appointed by the building's trustees, who may Register the civil marriage (in my terms above) at the place, and send the forms to the Register Office afterwards.
That means afaics that a civil marriage can be contracted in other places of worship as happens in a CofE church, by a parallel and similar process. The religious wedding, of interest to the religion, is a different thing done at the same time.
(TBH it seems a little too varied and complicated, and in need of some simplifying.)
AP's have been around for ever, not since 2021.
As an independent church, there is a bit of a hassle to get your building registered for religious marriage, and then you have to have a registrar in attendance at any marriages for the 1st year, then you can appoint an AP and it's all plain sailing.
When I got married in a tiny Swindon "Gospel Hall" which my wife attended growing up, they hadn't had a wedding in years, but fortunately were still registered for religious marriage, so we managed to appoint an AP and make it all happen with very little drama.
One of the differences between a CofE marriage and religious marriage in other denominations is that the CofE has its own system for giving notice (Banns), all the others use the civil system where you have to give notice at a registry office.
Thank-you. That's interesting.
I have a soft spot for Gospel Halls - I once went toa friend's baptism at one. The baptistry was under the floor like a maintenance pit in a garage, which in some ways is a good analogy.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
Being able to manufacture steel, for example.
Yes, in the UK that has become quite niche.
Manufacturing anything in the UK is quite niche.
The UK is the 12th largest maunfacturing nation in the world - effectively neck and neck with Taiwan and a smidgen behind France. Not what it was but not exactly niche.
Well don't let facts get in the way of my cliched whinge. But I am genuinely astonished that is the case.
I was equally surprised three or four years ago when I found out we were 7th. We have dropped quite rapidly in the rankings whilst our manufacturing has continued to increase - just not as fast as other countries.
I am guessing its by economic value and not by tonnage, and that we produce a fair amount of high value products rather than mountains of tat.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Sorry you missed out a lot of history there. To help you with your left wing spin:
Wilson closed 253 coal mines - good Heath closed 22 coal mines - bad Callaghan closed 4 coal mines - good Thatcher closed 115 coal mines - bad Major close 55 coal mines - bad (to be fair this was bloody stupid and done purely so Heseltine could appear tough) Blair closed 12 coal mines - good
Wilson closed more coal mines than any other post war PM. Although even good old Clem closed over 100.
Miliband closes 0 coal mines - Actually he just stopped one opening rather than closing it. A stupid decision give it is purely for steel production and the coal will simply be brought in from somewhere else. But then Miliband has never been the brightest persosn in Cabinet. To be honest he is not even the brightest politician called Miliband.
Am I correct in thinking that with the closure of Port Talbot , to convert to electric arc, coking coal is no longer going to be used to produce steel in Britain?
Not sure. Apparently the coking plants at Scunthorpe and Teeside are going the same way with new electric arc furnaces. But the UK still produced over half a million tons of coke last year so not sure if that is all going.
Scunny have shut down their coke ovens and now import coke.
I confess I don't quite get this - if there is a free vote, then it feels like a rare occasion when it is permissable for ministers to say what they think and not toe the line. And an enforced neutrality on the issue would therefore be unfair on them in a free vote, both those in favour and those against, since everyone else gets to argue and debate the points. It's also not neutral to be, well, neutral, when the PM has previously been reported to be in favour.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting is facing pushback from senior Labour figures over his repeated strident interventions against a move to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales.
MPs will have their say on the issue later this month – in what is known as a free vote, where they are not instructed how to vote by their parties.
The government is attempting to maintain a neutral stance.
Cabinet Secretary Simon Case, the UK's most senior civil servant, told ministers last month, they should "exercise discretion and should not take part in the public debate".
And to be fair Streeting is probably in a better position than most to actually add factual information to the debate. I would suggest that failing to point out there could be complex difficulties and financial issues for the NHS would be a dereliction of duty.
No point keeping quiet and then saying afterwards "oh, this new policy Parliament has passed, we don't have the money to do it". Particularly when the legislation says it will be a legal requirement to facilitate it.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Isn't it good to have as varied a mix of power/energy sources as possible?
I confess I don't quite get this - if there is a free vote, then it feels like a rare occasion when it is permissable for ministers to say what they think and not toe the line. And an enforced neutrality on the issue would therefore be unfair on them in a free vote, both those in favour and those against, since everyone else gets to argue and debate the points. It's also not neutral to be, well, neutral, when the PM has previously been reported to be in favour.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting is facing pushback from senior Labour figures over his repeated strident interventions against a move to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales.
MPs will have their say on the issue later this month – in what is known as a free vote, where they are not instructed how to vote by their parties.
The government is attempting to maintain a neutral stance.
Cabinet Secretary Simon Case, the UK's most senior civil servant, told ministers last month, they should "exercise discretion and should not take part in the public debate".
Doesn't the problem come if he's using his position in government to campaign in a partisan manner?
It'd be fine for a neutral civil servant in the DoH to create an estimate of the costs involved, or for the HoC Library to produce a report detailing the potential trade-offs based on that. And I think it would also be fine for him, in his capacity as an MP, to refer to that report in the course of debate on the topic.
But, instead, some of his comments risk coming across as a formal warning from the SoS for Health that he will change spending priorities if the bill were to become law. It feels uncomfortably close to setting government policy in such a way as to influence the outcome of the debate - and that shouldn't really be happening in a free vote.
It's a bit woolly because his comments weren't supposed to have been public, but I do think that govt ministers need to be careful not to speak ex cathedra about matters where the government is supposed to be neutral.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Sorry you missed out a lot of history there. To help you with your left wing spin:
Wilson closed 253 coal mines - good Heath closed 22 coal mines - bad Callaghan closed 4 coal mines - good Thatcher closed 115 coal mines - bad Major close 55 coal mines - bad (to be fair this was bloody stupid and done purely so Heseltine could appear tough) Blair closed 12 coal mines - good
Wilson closed more coal mines than any other post war PM. Although even good old Clem closed over 100.
Miliband closes 0 coal mines - Actually he just stopped one opening rather than closing it. A stupid decision give it is purely for steel production and the coal will simply be brought in from somewhere else. But then Miliband has never been the brightest persosn in Cabinet. To be honest he is not even the brightest politician called Miliband.
Am I correct in thinking that with the closure of Port Talbot , to convert to electric arc, coking coal is no longer going to be used to produce steel in Britain?
Not sure. Apparently the coking plants at Scunthorpe and Teeside are going the same way with new electric arc furnaces. But the UK still produced over half a million tons of coke last year so not sure if that is all going.
Scunny have shut down their coke ovens and now import coke.
No blast furnaces on Teesside any more.
No but the new owners of British Steel have proposed building one of their Electric Arc furnaces there.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Sorry you missed out a lot of history there. To help you with your left wing spin:
Wilson closed 253 coal mines - good Heath closed 22 coal mines - bad Callaghan closed 4 coal mines - good Thatcher closed 115 coal mines - bad Major close 55 coal mines - bad (to be fair this was bloody stupid and done purely so Heseltine could appear tough) Blair closed 12 coal mines - good
Wilson closed more coal mines than any other post war PM. Although even good old Clem closed over 100.
Miliband closes 0 coal mines - Actually he just stopped one opening rather than closing it. A stupid decision give it is purely for steel production and the coal will simply be brought in from somewhere else. But then Miliband has never been the brightest persosn in Cabinet. To be honest he is not even the brightest politician called Miliband.
Am I correct in thinking that with the closure of Port Talbot , to convert to electric arc, coking coal is no longer going to be used to produce steel in Britain?
Not sure. Apparently the coking plants at Scunthorpe and Teeside are going the same way with new electric arc furnaces. But the UK still produced over half a million tons of coke last year so not sure if that is all going.
Interestingly one of the other industries using metallurgical coal, which we rarely hear about, is the production of mineral insulation.
It struggled against synthetic competition until the Grenfell Tower fire. Since then it has had a massive renaissance thanks to its fire-proof properties.
Each factory is traditionally a miniature coal-fired volcano of molten basalt and a giant candy floss machine that spins it up into rock wool. Even with coal fired volcanoes the net emissions contribution from mineral insulation is negative. Now Rockwool are building a second UK factory in the midlands powered by electricity:
I'm pretty sure that most people don't understand the implications of disestablishment. The right to marriage, for example, or rather the obligation in law for the Church to marry heterosexual couples, would end.
Is probably not what the lumpen proletariat wants.
Are heterosexual couples in Scotland, Wales or NI unable to get married? Why are gay couples in England excluded?
They are not unable to get married (gay couples can't marry in the Church of Wales). But they have a legal right to be married. That would disappear. Does it matter? Don't ask me. But it seems to have been important.
The state doesn't tie itself to those other homophobic churches, though. The fact that the state church in England continues to discriminate on the basis of sexuality should surely be an argument for disestablishment, not against it.
Does the state need to marry adulterers too? Even the King and Queen only had a service of blessing in a C of E chapel similar to what same sex couples can get, they were married in Windsor Guildhall
I think it's fair to insist that they do actually provide a universal service if they want to be credited for er, providing a universal service.
A possible compromise might be that CoE churches offer themselves up as venues for civil weddings - but the situation as it stands is inherently discriminatory, and the state should not be allying itself to that.
They are already a venue for civil weddings. It is just a civil wedding with a bit extra added on. But it is still, at its heart, a civil contract. Thats why you hve to sign the document rather than just doing the God bit.
That's true but just as true to say that a CoE marriage is a Christian marriage with the civil bit tacked on. The state as a civil institution is a latecomer to this ceremony which has been around well before registers and all that stuff.
I think the other way round. The Church wasn't necessary for marriage in medieval times, indeed it was possible to marry in pub or even bed.
The Clandestine Marriages Act put a stop to that, requiring reading of the banns in church or the obtaining of a licence. That lasted until 1836 and its repeal shortly after when registry offices were set up
There is what looks like a trick question in the survey, the one about state funding of the CoE.
There is no state funding specific to the CoE.
There are a whole series of trick questions in the survey, which either misrepresent or omit information. Or the compiler is a klutz or an ignoramus.
They read like questions written for the status of 20 or 30 years ago.
For example:
Would you would support or oppose each of the following? %
Church of England bishops no longer being given seats in the House of Lords OK Q, if they mean ex-officio. The UK government no longer having any influence over the appointment of senior posts in the Church of England, including bishops The UK Government has had no influence over the appointment of senior posts in the CofE since 2007. The Church of England no longer receiving State funding The CofE receives no State funding as Church of England. It does receive charitable relief on donations, heritage building grants etc. Governance of existing Church of England schools passing to local councils instead OK Question, however CofE schools are in the process of conversion to Academies (1000 already). It is not clear why these are singled out from other academies. The UK monarch no longer being head of the Church of England OK question. The Church of England no longer being required to practice same sex marriages The Church of England is NOT required to practice same sex marriages. Assuming the mangled English actually means perform the ceremonies. Church of England marriages counting only as a religious marriages and requiring a further civil marriage in order to be legally married (for future marriages only, existing Church of England marriages would still be legally binding) Many buildings can be used to register marriages, including churches, synagogues and mosques, and can also aiui provide an Authorised Person as Registrar.
They really haven't much of a clue imo.
On the last point, those marriages in 'many buildings' *are* civil marriages, so you're being a bit unfair there, no?
Mmmm. I don't think so. I checked, because this area is (as we know) a little intricate and overgrown in developing law. I'll be glad for clarifications. I'm not going into Civil Partnerships or same sex marriages, as these seem to have more registrations of buildings involved .
Two types of marriage take place in places of worship or registered buildings for a denomination. A 'religious marriage' is in the eyes of the religion. A 'civil marriage' is in the eyes of the State. The State is not really interested in the religious marriage.
Traditionally, an Anglican Officiant (normally Vicar) in a CofE Church could conduct the religious marriage, and act as legally recognised Registrar for the purposes of registering the civil marriage.
Since 2021, a Place of Worship or Registered Building can provide an Authorised Person (or Additional Authorised People if there are >1) appointed by the building's trustees, who may Register the civil marriage (in my terms above) at the place, and send the forms to the Register Office afterwards.
That means afaics that a civil marriage can be contracted in other places of worship as happens in a CofE church, by a parallel and similar process. The religious wedding, of interest to the religion, is a different thing done at the same time.
(TBH it seems a little too varied and complicated, and in need of some simplifying.)
AP's have been around for ever, not since 2021.
As an independent church, there is a bit of a hassle to get your building registered for religious marriage, and then you have to have a registrar in attendance at any marriages for the 1st year, then you can appoint an AP and it's all plain sailing.
When I got married in a tiny Swindon "Gospel Hall" which my wife attended growing up, they hadn't had a wedding in years, but fortunately were still registered for religious marriage, so we managed to appoint an AP and make it all happen with very little drama.
One of the differences between a CofE marriage and religious marriage in other denominations is that the CofE has its own system for giving notice (Banns), all the others use the civil system where you have to give notice at a registry office.
FWIW there are no fewer than 4 ways of giving notice/obtaining a lawful authority to be married in the CoE. Banns, Common licence (issued on behalf of the bishop), Archbishop's licence, and finally through the civil process of the civil registrar (which last is now compulsory in some cases).
If Mrs S. and I ever decide to get married yet again I'd settle for nothing less than an Archbishop's licence. But the quickie we had at Finsbury Town Hall (I'm referring to the ceremony, incidentally) 40-odd years ago seems to have lasted longer than either of us expected at the time.
I confess I don't quite get this - if there is a free vote, then it feels like a rare occasion when it is permissable for ministers to say what they think and not toe the line. And an enforced neutrality on the issue would therefore be unfair on them in a free vote, both those in favour and those against, since everyone else gets to argue and debate the points. It's also not neutral to be, well, neutral, when the PM has previously been reported to be in favour.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting is facing pushback from senior Labour figures over his repeated strident interventions against a move to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales.
MPs will have their say on the issue later this month – in what is known as a free vote, where they are not instructed how to vote by their parties.
The government is attempting to maintain a neutral stance.
Cabinet Secretary Simon Case, the UK's most senior civil servant, told ministers last month, they should "exercise discretion and should not take part in the public debate".
Doesn't the problem come if he's using his position in government to campaign in a partisan manner?
It'd be fine for a neutral civil servant in the DoH to create an estimate of the costs involved, or for the HoC Library to produce a report detailing the potential trade-offs based on that. And I think it would also be fine for him, in his capacity as an MP, to refer to that report in the course of debate on the topic.
But, instead, some of his comments risk coming across as a formal warning from the SoS for Health that he will change spending priorities if the bill were to become law. It feels uncomfortably close to setting government policy in such a way as to effect the outcome of the debate - and that shouldn't really be happening in a free vote.
It's a bit woolly because his comments weren't supposed to have been public, but I do think that govt ministers need to be careful not to speak ex cathedra about matters where the government is supposed to be neutral.
Legally he will have to change spending priorities. I am not sure there are that many things that the NHS is legally bound to provide - which is what this new legislation says must be done.
I'm pretty sure that most people don't understand the implications of disestablishment. The right to marriage, for example, or rather the obligation in law for the Church to marry heterosexual couples, would end.
Is probably not what the lumpen proletariat wants.
Are heterosexual couples in Scotland, Wales or NI unable to get married? Why are gay couples in England excluded?
They are not unable to get married (gay couples can't marry in the Church of Wales). But they have a legal right to be married. That would disappear. Does it matter? Don't ask me. But it seems to have been important.
The state doesn't tie itself to those other homophobic churches, though. The fact that the state church in England continues to discriminate on the basis of sexuality should surely be an argument for disestablishment, not against it.
Does the state need to marry adulterers too? Even the King and Queen only had a service of blessing in a C of E chapel similar to what same sex couples can get, they were married in Windsor Guildhall
And God impregnated a woman to whom he wasn't married.
So still not even a majority ie over 50% clearly want to disestablish the C of E. I would also point out in January 2023 last year a poll for the Times by Yougov found a rather different result with 41% for keeping the C of E as the established church and just 29% for disestablishment. https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/TheTimes_ChurchOfEngland_230130_W.pdf
On the further details in the poll most MPs have already voted to keep Bishops in the Lords and given they rejected the LD amendment for an elected upper house we should continue to keep faith representatives in the fully appointed upper house. The C of E of course receives next to no state funding and arguably should receive more given it has a large percentage of the most historic grade listed buildings in the nation maintained by it. The French government for example gives the RC church funds to maintain its historic churches and cathedrals in France.
Less than half support moving governance of C of E schools to the state either, no wonder given C of E schools tend to get better results than the national average.
Very interesting more voters support the King remaining head of the C of E than not which rather defeats the earlier support for disestablishment anyway given the original reason the C of E was created was so the national church was headed by the King not the Pope at the Reformation.
Note too when the practical consequences of C of E marriages no longer being valid in law are considered by a vast 29% margin voters oppose that too. So again they wish to uphold one of the key principles of having an established church.
So the data largely refutes the headline once you delve into it
So let’s just kick the bishops out of the Lords.
Then we can happily return to the floccinaucinihilipilification of the Church of England.
No, as long as we have an unelected upper house we need some Bishops and other faith leaders in it
Not automatically, as of right by law. Which is the current silly situation.
And why do they have to be bishops ?
Yes automatically and as they are the senior leaders in the church
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Sorry you missed out a lot of history there. To help you with your left wing spin:
Wilson closed 253 coal mines - good Heath closed 22 coal mines - bad Callaghan closed 4 coal mines - good Thatcher closed 115 coal mines - bad Major close 55 coal mines - bad (to be fair this was bloody stupid and done purely so Heseltine could appear tough) Blair closed 12 coal mines - good
Wilson closed more coal mines than any other post war PM. Although even good old Clem closed over 100.
Miliband closes 0 coal mines - Actually he just stopped one opening rather than closing it. A stupid decision give it is purely for steel production and the coal will simply be brought in from somewhere else. But then Miliband has never been the brightest persosn in Cabinet. To be honest he is not even the brightest politician called Miliband.
Am I correct in thinking that with the closure of Port Talbot , to convert to electric arc, coking coal is no longer going to be used to produce steel in Britain?
Not sure. Apparently the coking plants at Scunthorpe and Teeside are going the same way with new electric arc furnaces. But the UK still produced over half a million tons of coke last year so not sure if that is all going.
Scunny have shut down their coke ovens and now import coke.
No blast furnaces on Teesside any more.
Thank heaven the foul philosophies that lead to those things are going into retreat globally.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
Blast furnaces, cement kilns and, most importantly, steam trains.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Isn't it good to have as varied a mix of power/energy sources as possible?
We don’t need coal for power. It makes no sense when we have a wide range of cleaner, cheaper and more flexible alternatives, including natural gas.
In any case this is a decision about mining for Met coal, not burning of thermal coal (which we have already stopped).
The “send a message” comment will doubtless be laughed at, but it would be typical British negative exceptionalism to suggest that a country of our scale and industrial heritage phasing out a pollutant like this has no global impact.
So still not even a majority ie over 50% clearly want to disestablish the C of E. I would also point out in January 2023 last year a poll for the Times by Yougov found a rather different result with 41% for keeping the C of E as the established church and just 29% for disestablishment. https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/TheTimes_ChurchOfEngland_230130_W.pdf
On the further details in the poll most MPs have already voted to keep Bishops in the Lords and given they rejected the LD amendment for an elected upper house we should continue to keep faith representatives in the fully appointed upper house. The C of E of course receives next to no state funding and arguably should receive more given it has a large percentage of the most historic grade listed buildings in the nation maintained by it. The French government for example gives the RC church funds to maintain its historic churches and cathedrals in France.
Less than half support moving governance of C of E schools to the state either, no wonder given C of E schools tend to get better results than the national average.
Very interesting more voters support the King remaining head of the C of E than not which rather defeats the earlier support for disestablishment anyway given the original reason the C of E was created was so the national church was headed by the King not the Pope at the Reformation.
Note too when the practical consequences of C of E marriages no longer being valid in law are considered by a vast 29% margin voters oppose that too. So again they wish to uphold one of the key principles of having an established church.
So the data largely refutes the headline once you delve into it
You make a set of really quite feeble arguments.
The only (and quite compelling) argument is that it is what it is, does no-one harm, and may do some good, so leave it alone.
No I make perfectly sensible arguments. Our national church being established ensures the Pope does not head our national church again, it provides marriages and funerals by right to Parishioners and in rural areas especially that is very important.
Ideological left liberals like you may disagree but so what
I'm not an ideologist, nor am I of the left. I'm not sure the Pope is any great threat. Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas?
And as to disagreeing you're right - so what. My views are of no matter. It's only of many others share those views that one should take notice. The CoE needs to work out how it wants to respond to that notice being taken.
'Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas? 'Yet further evidence of the urban left liberal elite's dismissal of our rural communities and farmers will take that message to London next week. Churches are often the biggest community buildings in rural afters, followed by church or village halls, a clear focus of life and community event.
As I posted out before even most respondants to that yougov poll want to keep the C of E providing legal marriages
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Sorry you missed out a lot of history there. To help you with your left wing spin:
Wilson closed 253 coal mines - good Heath closed 22 coal mines - bad Callaghan closed 4 coal mines - good Thatcher closed 115 coal mines - bad Major close 55 coal mines - bad (to be fair this was bloody stupid and done purely so Heseltine could appear tough) Blair closed 12 coal mines - good
Wilson closed more coal mines than any other post war PM. Although even good old Clem closed over 100.
Miliband closes 0 coal mines - Actually he just stopped one opening rather than closing it. A stupid decision give it is purely for steel production and the coal will simply be brought in from somewhere else. But then Miliband has never been the brightest persosn in Cabinet. To be honest he is not even the brightest politician called Miliband.
Am I correct in thinking that with the closure of Port Talbot , to convert to electric arc, coking coal is no longer going to be used to produce steel in Britain?
Not sure. Apparently the coking plants at Scunthorpe and Teeside are going the same way with new electric arc furnaces. But the UK still produced over half a million tons of coke last year so not sure if that is all going.
Scunny have shut down their coke ovens and now import coke.
No blast furnaces on Teesside any more.
Thank heaven the foul philosophies that lead to those things are going into retreat globally.
Come back to this point in a decade and you may be disappointed by the global stats.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Sorry you missed out a lot of history there. To help you with your left wing spin:
Wilson closed 253 coal mines - good Heath closed 22 coal mines - bad Callaghan closed 4 coal mines - good Thatcher closed 115 coal mines - bad Major close 55 coal mines - bad (to be fair this was bloody stupid and done purely so Heseltine could appear tough) Blair closed 12 coal mines - good
Wilson closed more coal mines than any other post war PM. Although even good old Clem closed over 100.
Miliband closes 0 coal mines - Actually he just stopped one opening rather than closing it. A stupid decision give it is purely for steel production and the coal will simply be brought in from somewhere else. But then Miliband has never been the brightest persosn in Cabinet. To be honest he is not even the brightest politician called Miliband.
Am I correct in thinking that with the closure of Port Talbot , to convert to electric arc, coking coal is no longer going to be used to produce steel in Britain?
Not sure. Apparently the coking plants at Scunthorpe and Teeside are going the same way with new electric arc furnaces. But the UK still produced over half a million tons of coke last year so not sure if that is all going.
Interestingly one of the other industries using metallurgical coal, which we rarely hear about, is the production of mineral insulation.
It struggled against synthetic competition until the Grenfell Tower fire. Since then it has had a massive renaissance thanks to its fire-proof properties.
Each factory is traditionally a miniature coal-fired volcano of molten basalt and a giant candy floss machine that spins it up into rock wool. Even with coal fired volcanoes the net emissions contribution from mineral insulation is negative. Now Rockwool are building a second UK factory in the midlands powered by electricity:
I'm pretty sure that most people don't understand the implications of disestablishment. The right to marriage, for example, or rather the obligation in law for the Church to marry heterosexual couples, would end.
Is probably not what the lumpen proletariat wants.
Are heterosexual couples in Scotland, Wales or NI unable to get married? Why are gay couples in England excluded?
They are not unable to get married (gay couples can't marry in the Church of Wales). But they have a legal right to be married. That would disappear. Does it matter? Don't ask me. But it seems to have been important.
The state doesn't tie itself to those other homophobic churches, though. The fact that the state church in England continues to discriminate on the basis of sexuality should surely be an argument for disestablishment, not against it.
Does the state need to marry adulterers too? Even the King and Queen only had a service of blessing in a C of E chapel similar to what same sex couples can get, they were married in Windsor Guildhall
I think it's fair to insist that they do actually provide a universal service if they want to be credited for er, providing a universal service.
A possible compromise might be that CoE churches offer themselves up as venues for civil weddings - but the situation as it stands is inherently discriminatory, and the state should not be allying itself to that.
Why? At the end of the day it is established Christian church, not established registry office
I confess I don't quite get this - if there is a free vote, then it feels like a rare occasion when it is permissable for ministers to say what they think and not toe the line. And an enforced neutrality on the issue would therefore be unfair on them in a free vote, both those in favour and those against, since everyone else gets to argue and debate the points. It's also not neutral to be, well, neutral, when the PM has previously been reported to be in favour.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting is facing pushback from senior Labour figures over his repeated strident interventions against a move to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales.
MPs will have their say on the issue later this month – in what is known as a free vote, where they are not instructed how to vote by their parties.
The government is attempting to maintain a neutral stance.
Cabinet Secretary Simon Case, the UK's most senior civil servant, told ministers last month, they should "exercise discretion and should not take part in the public debate".
So still not even a majority ie over 50% clearly want to disestablish the C of E. I would also point out in January 2023 last year a poll for the Times by Yougov found a rather different result with 41% for keeping the C of E as the established church and just 29% for disestablishment. https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/TheTimes_ChurchOfEngland_230130_W.pdf
On the further details in the poll most MPs have already voted to keep Bishops in the Lords and given they rejected the LD amendment for an elected upper house we should continue to keep faith representatives in the fully appointed upper house. The C of E of course receives next to no state funding and arguably should receive more given it has a large percentage of the most historic grade listed buildings in the nation maintained by it. The French government for example gives the RC church funds to maintain its historic churches and cathedrals in France.
Less than half support moving governance of C of E schools to the state either, no wonder given C of E schools tend to get better results than the national average.
Very interesting more voters support the King remaining head of the C of E than not which rather defeats the earlier support for disestablishment anyway given the original reason the C of E was created was so the national church was headed by the King not the Pope at the Reformation.
Note too when the practical consequences of C of E marriages no longer being valid in law are considered by a vast 29% margin voters oppose that too. So again they wish to uphold one of the key principles of having an established church.
So the data largely refutes the headline once you delve into it
You make a set of really quite feeble arguments.
The only (and quite compelling) argument is that it is what it is, does no-one harm, and may do some good, so leave it alone.
No I make perfectly sensible arguments. Our national church being established ensures the Pope does not head our national church again, it provides marriages and funerals by right to Parishioners and in rural areas especially that is very important.
Ideological left liberals like you may disagree but so what
I'm not an ideologist, nor am I of the left. I'm not sure the Pope is any great threat. Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas?
And as to disagreeing you're right - so what. My views are of no matter. It's only of many others share those views that one should take notice. The CoE needs to work out how it wants to respond to that notice being taken.
'Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas? 'Yet further evidence of the urban left liberal elite's dismissal of our rural communities and farmers will take that message to London next week. Churches are often the biggest community buildings in rural afters, followed by church or village halls, a clear focus of life and community event.
As I posted out before even most respondants to that yougov poll want to keep the C of E providing legal marriages
Maybe for god botherers like yourself.
In the rural communities I'm familiar with pubs are more lively focuses of community life than churches.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
Blast furnaces, cement kilns and, most importantly, steam trains.
I’ve occasionally wondered, while sitting in a heritage railway chuffing slowly through the countryside, if they could run on charcoal. Granted the smell would be different but the whole smoky thing would still be there. And you could cook some brisket or pulled pork at the same time.
So still not even a majority ie over 50% clearly want to disestablish the C of E. I would also point out in January 2023 last year a poll for the Times by Yougov found a rather different result with 41% for keeping the C of E as the established church and just 29% for disestablishment. https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/TheTimes_ChurchOfEngland_230130_W.pdf
On the further details in the poll most MPs have already voted to keep Bishops in the Lords and given they rejected the LD amendment for an elected upper house we should continue to keep faith representatives in the fully appointed upper house. The C of E of course receives next to no state funding and arguably should receive more given it has a large percentage of the most historic grade listed buildings in the nation maintained by it. The French government for example gives the RC church funds to maintain its historic churches and cathedrals in France.
Less than half support moving governance of C of E schools to the state either, no wonder given C of E schools tend to get better results than the national average.
Very interesting more voters support the King remaining head of the C of E than not which rather defeats the earlier support for disestablishment anyway given the original reason the C of E was created was so the national church was headed by the King not the Pope at the Reformation.
Note too when the practical consequences of C of E marriages no longer being valid in law are considered by a vast 29% margin voters oppose that too. So again they wish to uphold one of the key principles of having an established church.
So the data largely refutes the headline once you delve into it
You make a set of really quite feeble arguments.
The only (and quite compelling) argument is that it is what it is, does no-one harm, and may do some good, so leave it alone.
No I make perfectly sensible arguments. Our national church being established ensures the Pope does not head our national church again, it provides marriages and funerals by right to Parishioners and in rural areas especially that is very important.
Ideological left liberals like you may disagree but so what
I'm not an ideologist, nor am I of the left. I'm not sure the Pope is any great threat. Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas?
And as to disagreeing you're right - so what. My views are of no matter. It's only of many others share those views that one should take notice. The CoE needs to work out how it wants to respond to that notice being taken.
'Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas? 'Yet further evidence of the urban left liberal elite's dismissal of our rural communities and farmers will take that message to London next week. Churches are often the biggest community buildings in rural afters, followed by church or village halls, a clear focus of life and community event.
As I posted out before even most respondants to that yougov poll want to keep the C of E providing legal marriages
Maybe for god botherers like yourself.
In the rural communities I'm familiar with pubs are more lively focuses of community life than churches.
You are an urban resident of Warrington, round my way most of the hamlets including our own and even some of the villages have no pub anymore but they all still have churches. The old pub here is now a private house but we still have a church used for worship and concerts
Will Jennings @drjennings.bsky.social Some people cannot comprehend that the exodus from X is not 'liberal flight' but a lot of people deciding that the content on the platform - hate/extremism, disinformation, violent/nsfw content, low quality ads, lax responses to user reports, suppression of content - just can't be ignored any more. 14 November 2024 at 14:59 https://bsky.app/profile/drjennings.bsky.social/post/3law4sz4bps24
So still not even a majority ie over 50% clearly want to disestablish the C of E. I would also point out in January 2023 last year a poll for the Times by Yougov found a rather different result with 41% for keeping the C of E as the established church and just 29% for disestablishment. https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/TheTimes_ChurchOfEngland_230130_W.pdf
On the further details in the poll most MPs have already voted to keep Bishops in the Lords and given they rejected the LD amendment for an elected upper house we should continue to keep faith representatives in the fully appointed upper house. The C of E of course receives next to no state funding and arguably should receive more given it has a large percentage of the most historic grade listed buildings in the nation maintained by it. The French government for example gives the RC church funds to maintain its historic churches and cathedrals in France.
Less than half support moving governance of C of E schools to the state either, no wonder given C of E schools tend to get better results than the national average.
Very interesting more voters support the King remaining head of the C of E than not which rather defeats the earlier support for disestablishment anyway given the original reason the C of E was created was so the national church was headed by the King not the Pope at the Reformation.
Note too when the practical consequences of C of E marriages no longer being valid in law are considered by a vast 29% margin voters oppose that too. So again they wish to uphold one of the key principles of having an established church.
So the data largely refutes the headline once you delve into it
You make a set of really quite feeble arguments.
The only (and quite compelling) argument is that it is what it is, does no-one harm, and may do some good, so leave it alone.
No I make perfectly sensible arguments. Our national church being established ensures the Pope does not head our national church again, it provides marriages and funerals by right to Parishioners and in rural areas especially that is very important.
Ideological left liberals like you may disagree but so what
I'm not an ideologist, nor am I of the left. I'm not sure the Pope is any great threat. Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas?
And as to disagreeing you're right - so what. My views are of no matter. It's only of many others share those views that one should take notice. The CoE needs to work out how it wants to respond to that notice being taken.
'Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas? 'Yet further evidence of the urban left liberal elite's dismissal of our rural communities and farmers will take that message to London next week. Churches are often the biggest community buildings in rural afters, followed by church or village halls, a clear focus of life and community event.
As I posted out before even most respondants to that yougov poll want to keep the C of E providing legal marriages
Maybe for god botherers like yourself.
In the rural communities I'm familiar with pubs are more lively focuses of community life than churches.
Pub and Church (and pubs are under tremendous pressure) , are often all that there is, in places like rural Devon. The shops are gone, and the schools amalgamated.
Will Jennings @drjennings.bsky.social Some people cannot comprehend that the exodus from X is not 'liberal flight' but a lot of people deciding that the content on the platform - hate/extremism, disinformation, violent/nsfw content, low quality ads, lax responses to user reports, suppression of content - just can't be ignored any more. 14 November 2024 at 14:59 https://bsky.app/profile/drjennings.bsky.social/post/3law4sz4bps24
It’s still the best option available. Blue Sky isn’t there yet, and it’s rather a crude copy. I’m sticking with TwiX for now. But how much longer that remains the case is questionable. These things have a tendency to move in one direction.
It’s a shame that we’re probably slowly losing the only really politically heterogeneous debating platform of its kind. Somewhere that people with very different views argued loudly with each other. Slowly but surely X will become the right wing and Bluesky the left wing echo chamber.
So still not even a majority ie over 50% clearly want to disestablish the C of E. I would also point out in January 2023 last year a poll for the Times by Yougov found a rather different result with 41% for keeping the C of E as the established church and just 29% for disestablishment. https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/TheTimes_ChurchOfEngland_230130_W.pdf
On the further details in the poll most MPs have already voted to keep Bishops in the Lords and given they rejected the LD amendment for an elected upper house we should continue to keep faith representatives in the fully appointed upper house. The C of E of course receives next to no state funding and arguably should receive more given it has a large percentage of the most historic grade listed buildings in the nation maintained by it. The French government for example gives the RC church funds to maintain its historic churches and cathedrals in France.
Less than half support moving governance of C of E schools to the state either, no wonder given C of E schools tend to get better results than the national average.
Very interesting more voters support the King remaining head of the C of E than not which rather defeats the earlier support for disestablishment anyway given the original reason the C of E was created was so the national church was headed by the King not the Pope at the Reformation.
Note too when the practical consequences of C of E marriages no longer being valid in law are considered by a vast 29% margin voters oppose that too. So again they wish to uphold one of the key principles of having an established church.
So the data largely refutes the headline once you delve into it
You make a set of really quite feeble arguments.
The only (and quite compelling) argument is that it is what it is, does no-one harm, and may do some good, so leave it alone.
No I make perfectly sensible arguments. Our national church being established ensures the Pope does not head our national church again, it provides marriages and funerals by right to Parishioners and in rural areas especially that is very important.
Ideological left liberals like you may disagree but so what
I'm not an ideologist, nor am I of the left. I'm not sure the Pope is any great threat. Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas?
And as to disagreeing you're right - so what. My views are of no matter. It's only of many others share those views that one should take notice. The CoE needs to work out how it wants to respond to that notice being taken.
'Providing marriages? Weird. Where are these strange rural areas? 'Yet further evidence of the urban left liberal elite's dismissal of our rural communities and farmers will take that message to London next week. Churches are often the biggest community buildings in rural afters, followed by church or village halls, a clear focus of life and community event.
As I posted out before even most respondants to that yougov poll want to keep the C of E providing legal marriages
Maybe for god botherers like yourself.
In the rural communities I'm familiar with pubs are more lively focuses of community life than churches.
Pub and Church (and pubs are under tremendous pressure) , are often all that there is, in places like rural Devon. The shops are gone, and the schools amalgamated.
Yes if you live in a large village and are lucky you will still have a village shop and post office, primary school, pub and church.
For most villages and hamlets though there is no shop now and many no longer have a primary school either so it is just a pub and church. For some though, especially hamlets, there is no pub either now but more often than not still a church
I'm pretty sure that most people don't understand the implications of disestablishment. The right to marriage, for example, or rather the obligation in law for the Church to marry heterosexual couples, would end.
Is probably not what the lumpen proletariat wants.
Are heterosexual couples in Scotland, Wales or NI unable to get married? Why are gay couples in England excluded?
They are not unable to get married (gay couples can't marry in the Church of Wales). But they have a legal right to be married. That would disappear. Does it matter? Don't ask me. But it seems to have been important.
The state doesn't tie itself to those other homophobic churches, though. The fact that the state church in England continues to discriminate on the basis of sexuality should surely be an argument for disestablishment, not against it.
Does the state need to marry adulterers too? Even the King and Queen only had a service of blessing in a C of E chapel similar to what same sex couples can get, they were married in Windsor Guildhall
And God impregnated a woman to whom he wasn't married.
That is a mistranslation.
Is it? What should it have said?
Instead of "born of a virgin" it should be "born of a young woman".
I'm pretty sure that most people don't understand the implications of disestablishment. The right to marriage, for example, or rather the obligation in law for the Church to marry heterosexual couples, would end.
Is probably not what the lumpen proletariat wants.
Are heterosexual couples in Scotland, Wales or NI unable to get married? Why are gay couples in England excluded?
They are not unable to get married (gay couples can't marry in the Church of Wales). But they have a legal right to be married. That would disappear. Does it matter? Don't ask me. But it seems to have been important.
The state doesn't tie itself to those other homophobic churches, though. The fact that the state church in England continues to discriminate on the basis of sexuality should surely be an argument for disestablishment, not against it.
Does the state need to marry adulterers too? Even the King and Queen only had a service of blessing in a C of E chapel similar to what same sex couples can get, they were married in Windsor Guildhall
And God impregnated a woman to whom he wasn't married.
That is a mistranslation.
Is it? What should it have said?
Instead of "born of a virgin" it should be "born of a young woman".
How does that change the claim that God impregnated a woman to whom he wasn't married?
Will Jennings @drjennings.bsky.social Some people cannot comprehend that the exodus from X is not 'liberal flight' but a lot of people deciding that the content on the platform - hate/extremism, disinformation, violent/nsfw content, low quality ads, lax responses to user reports, suppression of content - just can't be ignored any more. 14 November 2024 at 14:59 https://bsky.app/profile/drjennings.bsky.social/post/3law4sz4bps24
It’s still the best option available. Blue Sky isn’t there yet, and it’s rather a crude copy. I’m sticking with TwiX for now. But how much longer that remains the case is questionable. These things have a tendency to move in one direction.
It’s a shame that we’re probably slowly losing the only really politically heterogeneous debating platform of its kind. Somewhere that people with very different views argued loudly with each other. Slowly but surely X will become the right wing and Bluesky the left wing echo chamber.
Going to cause a dilemma for journalists, 2 platforms to follow and copy posts from...
It's amazing just how many jobs where people have said "Trump wouldn't really give them the job" have been answered with "oh yes he would!"
America is screwed.
Not just America. Witness how ideas over there, no matter how outlandish, make their way across the Atlantic to our shores. Once they’re part of the binary partisan world of American politics we Brits feel the need to entertain them seriously.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Sorry you missed out a lot of history there. To help you with your left wing spin:
Wilson closed 253 coal mines - good Heath closed 22 coal mines - bad Callaghan closed 4 coal mines - good Thatcher closed 115 coal mines - bad Major close 55 coal mines - bad (to be fair this was bloody stupid and done purely so Heseltine could appear tough) Blair closed 12 coal mines - good
Wilson closed more coal mines than any other post war PM. Although even good old Clem closed over 100.
Miliband closes 0 coal mines - Actually he just stopped one opening rather than closing it. A stupid decision give it is purely for steel production and the coal will simply be brought in from somewhere else. But then Miliband has never been the brightest persosn in Cabinet. To be honest he is not even the brightest politician called Miliband.
The best way to stop coal mines being closed in the future is to stop any from being opened. Miliband has played a blinder, guaranteed no more pit closures!
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
Blast furnaces, cement kilns and, most importantly, steam trains.
I’ve occasionally wondered, while sitting in a heritage railway chuffing slowly through the countryside, if they could run on charcoal. Granted the smell would be different but the whole smoky thing would still be there. And you could cook some brisket or pulled pork at the same time.
They can run on anything that burns. Lots use wood, so charcoal would be no issue at all.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
Blast furnaces, cement kilns and, most importantly, steam trains.
I’ve occasionally wondered, while sitting in a heritage railway chuffing slowly through the countryside, if they could run on charcoal. Granted the smell would be different but the whole smoky thing would still be there. And you could cook some brisket or pulled pork at the same time.
There have been a number of trials with various formulations of coal substitute. As far as I know, none quite as good as coal.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
We certainly don't need coal for electricity. I think it is still marginally used for other niche purposes though.
Blast furnaces, cement kilns and, most importantly, steam trains.
I’ve occasionally wondered, while sitting in a heritage railway chuffing slowly through the countryside, if they could run on charcoal. Granted the smell would be different but the whole smoky thing would still be there. And you could cook some brisket or pulled pork at the same time.
There have been a number of trials with various formulations of coal substitute. As far as I know, none quite as good as coal.
So much for Labour still being the party of the miners.
'Ed Miliband has said that he will ban new coalmines in Britain, sounding the final death knell for a proposed site in Cumbria.
The energy secretary, who was in Baku this week for the Cop29 UN climate change conference, said he was sending a “clear signal” to the world that coalmining had no long-term future in the UK.
Because we don’t need them. The UK deposits are financially only marginally viable (something Thatcher recognised way back in the early 80s). They emit more carbon per unit of energy than almost any other fuel. They burn dirty and emit sulphate and particulates that poison peoples lungs.
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Sorry you missed out a lot of history there. To help you with your left wing spin:
Wilson closed 253 coal mines - good Heath closed 22 coal mines - bad Callaghan closed 4 coal mines - good Thatcher closed 115 coal mines - bad Major close 55 coal mines - bad (to be fair this was bloody stupid and done purely so Heseltine could appear tough) Blair closed 12 coal mines - good
Wilson closed more coal mines than any other post war PM. Although even good old Clem closed over 100.
Miliband closes 0 coal mines - Actually he just stopped one opening rather than closing it. A stupid decision give it is purely for steel production and the coal will simply be brought in from somewhere else. But then Miliband has never been the brightest persosn in Cabinet. To be honest he is not even the brightest politician called Miliband.
Am I correct in thinking that with the closure of Port Talbot , to convert to electric arc, coking coal is no longer going to be used to produce steel in Britain?
Not sure. Apparently the coking plants at Scunthorpe and Teeside are going the same way with new electric arc furnaces. But the UK still produced over half a million tons of coke last year so not sure if that is all going.
Scunny have shut down their coke ovens and now import coke.
No blast furnaces on Teesside any more.
Thank heaven the foul philosophies that lead to those things are going into retreat globally.
Come back to this point in a decade and you may be disappointed by the global stats.
When we're both posting in 10 years, I shall be far too polite to mention the sensitive souls who were gripped by the global warming panic.
Comments
Ideological left liberals like you may disagree but so what
Named, and a bit more circs, but nothing major.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd6vw5nz961o
Have we worked out what's going on in the People's Republic Of Wales with this bizarre "dogs are racist" story? 😂
Funny how people are suddenly so concerned about the future of British coal mining. I don’t recall such attachment back in the 80s.
Is it China with their coal mines going gangbusters ?
The USA with their new "drill baby drill" president ?
The gulf states with oil coming out their earholes ?
India who fucked off the commonwealth in favour of BRICS ?
Eastern Europe and Germany that still is chugging on coal and in the case of Germany abandoning nuclear ?
The French who will keep calm and carry on with their nuclear program no matter what we do ?
Russia's satellite "oil and gas" gift from god countries ?
Canada with woke Trudeau who nevertheless loves a bit of oil ?
Australia with their mahoosive mining industries?
Now there are sound economic reasons for solar and wind but "sending a message" to anyone is hilarious given the energy policies of all the majority emitters right now
And as to disagreeing you're right - so what. My views are of no matter. It's only of many others share those views that one should take notice. The CoE needs to work out how it wants to respond to that notice being taken.
Thatcher closes coal mines = good.
Miliband closes coal mines = bad.
As an independent church, there is a bit of a hassle to get your building registered for religious marriage, and then you have to have a registrar in attendance at any marriages for the 1st year, then you can appoint an AP and it's all plain sailing.
When I got married in a tiny Swindon "Gospel Hall" which my wife attended growing up, they hadn't had a wedding in years, but fortunately were still registered for religious marriage, so we managed to appoint an AP and make it all happen with very little drama.
One of the differences between a CofE marriage and religious marriage in other denominations is that the CofE has its own system for giving notice (Banns), all the others use the civil system where you have to give notice at a registry office.
It says my "handle is too long"
Mrs BJ says she hasn't told them
But “sending a message to the world” is a really stupid reason. We should do things because they’re the right thing for the UK. Not because anyone else cares. They don’t
Blair closes coal mines = ignored
Wilson closes coal mines = ignored
MacMillan closes coal mines = ignored
From memory, the only post-nationalisation PM who did not close many mines (before Brown...) was Callaghan.
Some interesting charts:
https://ourworldindata.org/death-uk-coal
Which is the current silly situation.
And why do they have to be bishops ?
A possible compromise might be that CoE churches offer themselves up as venues for civil weddings - but the situation as it stands is inherently discriminatory, and the state should not be allying itself to that.
Though they did just annoy some MAGAs by picking John Thune as senate leader, rather than the MAGA and Musk-backed Rick Scott. Expect some bits of Trump's agenda (tariffs?) to be watered down in the senate.
Wilson closed 253 coal mines - good
Heath closed 22 coal mines - bad
Callaghan closed 4 coal mines - good
Thatcher closed 115 coal mines - bad
Major close 55 coal mines - bad (to be fair this was bloody stupid and done purely so Heseltine could appear tough)
Blair closed 12 coal mines - good
Wilson closed more coal mines than any other post war PM. Although even good old Clem closed over 100.
Miliband closes 0 coal mines - Actually he just stopped one opening rather than closing it. A stupid decision give it is purely for steel production and the coal will simply be brought in from somewhere else. But then Miliband has never been the brightest persosn in Cabinet. To be honest he is not even the brightest politician called Miliband.
I've been trying to drill down into whether this is a genuine "thing" and the Welsh government is really considering banning dogs from the Welsh countryside?
Or is it just the Daily Mail getting having an attack of the vapors about nothing, as per... ?
That difficulty is so great that it may split church from state, though it is hard to see how this would occur.
In the eyes of the church (to generalise and evade fine points) the question of what marriage is, can't be simply defined by the state. In gay relationships intended to be lifelong there are several possible views in the church, among them:
It is marriage
It is not marriage and is not accepted by the church as a relationship
It is not marriage but is understood and accepted as an appropriate relationship.
The state has gone for the view that it is marriage but only very recently. But the state does not pretend to consider either the mind of the church or the mind of God, which may be different. The question of 'discrimination' in the bad sense does not arise.
Rental Law has a similar issue, in that renting in England is affected by around 100 Acts of Parliament, going back to and including a still extant clause in Magna Carta. So they just layer more on top.
The different emphasis in church weddings (speaking about CofE) is also about modelling and building a different practice to Western consumerism. It's important that inexpensive weddings are possible, and that (as per CofE understanding that it is for the whole community - yes I know it is not yet there with same sex marriage) they be available to everyone of whatever wealth level.
And the emphasis will be more on a healthy relationship rather than a Big White Wedding, because it is more important. Back in my 20s ie the 1980s, my own church already used to take couples planning marriage on a residential weekend with 3 or 4 married couples ranging from 20s to 70s, to think about what it all meant. There is a movement called Marriage Encounter that does similar.
That is also seen in practices such as if a building project is done, the question of "should we be spending this on our building, when much of the world / our local community is so poor" arises. One way of addressing this (again taking different values) is that a building project may have a built in amount of say 10% or 20% which will be given away to fund something, or to Oxfam or a local project or whatever, or be made simpler to fund that. That's alongside an expectation of personal involvement, as part of a lifestyle.
Similarly, vicars get a stipend - "enough to let you follow your vocation" - not a salary. At times proposals have been made for all ordained Ministers, including the Archbishops, to get the same stipend plus varied expenses - such as travel but also more for being a family or having children.
OTOH, when one has 12,500 listed buildings to maintain, it makes sense to use what one has, and provide services (eg venue for reception or marquee) around weddings, so that if people do want a big ceremony, it can help raise finance to maintain the medieval building. That's just being pragmatic. Ignoring extra appeals, cathedrals (I think), project fundraisers etc, the CofE spends well north of £100m a year on normal maintenance of buildings. And in one (commonly Evangelical, but also others) view that is money that should better go on say a Pastor or Evangelist or Community Worker or Foodbank, not on a medieval building. It's all a balance and a tension.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting is facing pushback from senior Labour figures over his repeated strident interventions against a move to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales.
MPs will have their say on the issue later this month – in what is known as a free vote, where they are not instructed how to vote by their parties.
The government is attempting to maintain a neutral stance.
Cabinet Secretary Simon Case, the UK's most senior civil servant, told ministers last month, they should "exercise discretion and should not take part in the public debate".
But Streeting’s view became public after he told a large, notionally private, meeting of Labour MPs what he thought.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpqdy9ndrndo
The country would quickly be able to build a basic device from plutonium with a similar technology to the “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945, the report states. “Creating a simple atomic bomb, as the United States did within the framework of the Manhattan Project, would not be a difficult task 80 years later,” the document reads.'
https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw
If they don't, you are sunk anyway. Which of course also takes it back to the struggle to deal with abuse, and the need to own up / confront / change culture and practice - but also to question contemporary culture where that is necessary, and learn from it where *that* is necessary.
Is your dog racist?
Don't bother going to Wales if it is. Labour run Wales has quite clearly had enough of racist dogs who fail to see the benefits of multiculturalism.
They are barking mad 🐩🐕🦺🐶🦮🐕
https://x.com/LeeAndersonMP_/status/1857046566776754377
Sounds like the dog owners and walkers of "the People's Republic Of Wales" don't have too much to worry about at this stage?
https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/love-and-marriage-in-medieval-england/
I have a soft spot for Gospel Halls - I once went toa friend's baptism at one. The baptistry was under the floor like a maintenance pit in a garage, which in some ways is a good analogy.
No blast furnaces on Teesside any more.
No point keeping quiet and then saying afterwards "oh, this new policy Parliament has passed, we don't have the money to do it". Particularly when the legislation says it will be a legal requirement to facilitate it.
It'd be fine for a neutral civil servant in the DoH to create an estimate of the costs involved, or for the HoC Library to produce a report detailing the potential trade-offs based on that. And I think it would also be fine for him, in his capacity as an MP, to refer to that report in the course of debate on the topic.
But, instead, some of his comments risk coming across as a formal warning from the SoS for Health that he will change spending priorities if the bill were to become law. It feels uncomfortably close to setting government policy in such a way as to influence the outcome of the debate - and that shouldn't really be happening in a free vote.
It's a bit woolly because his comments weren't supposed to have been public, but I do think that govt ministers need to be careful not to speak ex cathedra about matters where the government is supposed to be neutral.
It struggled against synthetic competition until the Grenfell Tower fire. Since then it has had a massive renaissance thanks to its fire-proof properties.
Each factory is traditionally a miniature coal-fired volcano of molten basalt and a giant candy floss machine that spins it up into rock wool. Even with coal fired volcanoes the net emissions contribution from mineral insulation is negative. Now Rockwool are building a second UK factory in the midlands powered by electricity:
https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2024/11/06/rockwool-plans-new-factory-to-ramp-up-output/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_Marriages_Act_1753
In any case this is a decision about mining for Met coal, not burning of thermal coal (which we have already stopped).
The “send a message” comment will doubtless be laughed at, but it would be typical British negative exceptionalism to suggest that a country of our scale and industrial heritage phasing out a pollutant like this has no global impact.
As I posted out before even most respondants to that yougov poll want to keep the C of E providing legal marriages
In the rural communities I'm familiar with pubs are more lively focuses of community life than churches.
Some people cannot comprehend that the exodus from X is not 'liberal flight' but a lot of people deciding that the content on the platform - hate/extremism, disinformation, violent/nsfw content, low quality ads, lax responses to user reports, suppression of content - just can't be ignored any more.
14 November 2024 at 14:59
https://bsky.app/profile/drjennings.bsky.social/post/3law4sz4bps24
It’s a shame that we’re probably slowly losing the only really politically heterogeneous debating platform of its kind. Somewhere that people with very different views argued loudly with each other. Slowly but surely X will become the right wing and Bluesky the left wing echo chamber.
For most villages and hamlets though there is no shop now and many no longer have a primary school either so it is just a pub and church. For some though, especially hamlets, there is no pub either now but more often than not still a church
Trump expected to select Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead HHS
The choice will roil many public health experts after his years of touting debunked claims that vaccines cause autism.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/14/robert-f-kennedy-jr-trump-hhs-secretary-pick-00188617
Tulsi Gabbard to security, RFK to health etc is a much less entertaining version of opposite day being extended to the Cabinet it seems.
America is screwed.
Spectator's Morten Morland a couple of weeks ago
Gaetz was offensive.
This is completely bonkers.
But, you know what, don't mess with doctors, they are well organised, wealthy and loved.