Timmy elsewhereFebruary 19, 2015 Tim WorstallTimmy Elsewhere16 CommentsAt the ASI. I like that Church of England report on economics rather more than many others. previousThe Guardian is wrongnextAt The Guardian 16 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere” The Meissen Bison February 19, 2015 at 10:20 am Yes, but that’s a bit like congratulating a Richard Murphy post in which he doesn’t bang on about tax but instead describes half way accurately how to assemble an Ikea cupboard. They can no longer do their own subject, faith, properly, so they venture onto territory where they have little experience or business. Who needs a bishop to instruct us on the nuclear deterrent or payday lending? Ironman February 19, 2015 at 10:52 am As I said on the ASI website, to hear an effete, workshy git, clad in purple, bemoan that we are defined as consumers rather than producers gets my goat. Maybe as a Catholic I should just keep quiet and wait for the next witty soundbite from our shiny, new, media-savvy pope. Jim February 19, 2015 at 11:27 am One wonders exactly how much ‘stuff’ the Church think people should have. Not enough (in comparison to everyone else) and they are in ‘poverty’, too much and they are conspicuously consuming. Indeed the entire argument suggests that if the conspicuous consumers take the Bish’s advice and rein their consumption in then there will be less people in poverty, by mere fact of reduction in relative poverty. Or is the Church now arguing for an absolute measurement of poverty? Bloke in North Dorset February 19, 2015 at 1:26 pm O/T but I’ve just seen a heartening Sky news piece on the latest “isn’t childcare expensive” story. When they cut away to interview a load of mums at a nursery I almost walked away expecting the usual me, me, me drivel but instead without fail they all said the yes, of course they’d like free money but it was their choice to have children and go back to work. Of course I don’t expect to see that sort of attitude on BBC news. bloke (not) in spain February 19, 2015 at 4:33 pm Maybe someone upstairs had a word in someone’s ear. I mean, they’re always going on about prayers being answered. Perhaps sometimes the big guy likes to impart his opinion unasked. Runcie Balspune February 19, 2015 at 10:00 pm The church knows all about Smith and cartels. Consider the “market” in having children, simply imply people need a (marriage) license to do it, then monopolise the distribution of said licenses. john77 February 19, 2015 at 10:25 pm @ Tim It is not a report on economics but a call to exercise one’s democratic duty. A little commenton economics in passing. @ TMB “Who needs a bishop to instruct us on the nuclear deterrent or payday lending?” You obviously do if you don’t take their comments as a statement of the obvious @ Jim “One wonders exactly how much ‘stuff’ the Church think people should have.” Enough to live decently – para 113 says “sufficient for a full time worker to live decently.” but (which it doesn’t say in the letter) not so much that the person is preoccupied with material possessions. Anglican doctrine does not even consider the spurious concept of “relative poverty” Surreptitious Evil February 19, 2015 at 11:04 pm My response to Keith’s comment, “the Church of England cannot yet take into account is that we are a deeply rank-ordering species,” seems not to have got through. It was something like: Keith, you kidder! The lady that runs the flower rota. Archbishop of Canterbury Archbishop of York The Lords Spiritual Other Diocesan Bishops Suffragan Bishops Various flavours of Deans Canons Priests Lay Electors Deacons Permanent Deacons The organist The choir master (these two may be reversed in certain churches but the distinct level will be well established) Lay Readers Clerks in Minor Holy Orders Most people Gay people Gay priests This one is a new addition since this morning And you suggest the CoE doesn’t get hierarchy? PF February 19, 2015 at 11:12 pm “Ironman, stop encouraging him!” … “Andrew K, I couldn’t help it.” The penny drops – I missed this link. Jim February 20, 2015 at 12:23 am @john77: “Anglican doctrine does not even consider the spurious concept of “relative poverty”” Really? So why are they always banging on about poverty in the UK then? No-one in the UK is poor, on the definition of enough to eat and a roof over their heads, provided for free for millions of people. And as for ‘sufficient for a full time worker to live decently’, what about those that don’t work, and have no intention of doing so? Does the Church preach the Biblical principle of ‘he that does not work neither shall he eat’? Or do they prefer the socialist one of ‘tax the man that does work so the layabout can eat for free’? Martin Davies February 20, 2015 at 1:18 am Jim – there are some homeless people around. As in no roof over their head. Bush perhaps, maybe even contents of a skip when they burrow into the skip contents. Does anyone know what the amount sufficient for a full time worker to live decently? I was under the impression that was the national minimum wage based on the fact millions do indeed live on that. How decently is somewhat subjective surely? I want to buy the new Game of Thrones DVD tomorrow, don’t earn as much as minimum wage for a full time worker. john77 February 20, 2015 at 10:45 am @ Jim As Martin Davies points out,there*are* homeless people in the UK. When we lived in London my wife and I volunteered one evening a week at a drop-in centre for those living on the street run by a neighbouring parish: one thing which left a deep impression was that most of the clients felt the opportunity to get clean was more important than the free food. But you are just utterly wrong when you say: “So why are they always banging on about poverty in the UK then?” I can’t recall when I last heard a sermon on that topic. However almost every year one or more teenagers from our congregation (supported by parents and sponsors from the congregation) spends a gap year in a “Third World” country giving practical help to the poor. Jim February 20, 2015 at 2:10 pm @john77: the Anglican church doesn’t believe in relative poverty eh? http://www.cuf.org.uk/sites/default/files/PDFs/Research/Web-of-Poverty_0.pdf john77 February 21, 2015 at 2:06 am @ Jim Try reading the accounts. The Church Urban Fund employs 17 people in all and three-quarters of its activities comprise one programme which is majority-funded by DCLG. So it’s little more than one-millionth of the CofE UK membership dealing with a government grant. It is so tiny that I had forgotten its existence. That a tiny group of 17 people have a website that talks about relative poverty does not justify your uninformed claim that the CofE is “always banging on about poverty in the UK”. Jim February 21, 2015 at 7:50 pm Wriggle all you want – the CoE is cut from the same lefty cloth as the Guardian, the BBC and the whole NGO sector. All it ever does is demand more government spending and more taxes. When did the Archbishop last make a speech demanding lower taxes and lower government spending? Answer never, as they are all the usual bleeding heart liberals. john77 February 21, 2015 at 10:59 pm I am *not* wriggling. Jim is doing the Murphy trick of making things up and then being offensive to anyone who points out his errors. And his latest lie is just that – a lie: the CofE does many things but demanding more taxes is not one of them. Nor does it usurp the prerogative of the elected government by demanding lower taxes. “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s “. Its sermons are concerned primarily with the spiritual health of its flock and of the nation and the material good that it asks itself to do to others is a consequence thereof. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.