State and church. The welfare factor

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Interesting piece on The slow demise of the welfare state and reliance on the institution of the church of England.
Valuable for consideration while rejoicing in the reduction of church membership IMHO.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/20/conservatives-church-of-england-welfare-tories-state-victorian

[Aruntraveller]

I have no doubt that the Church/es are doing many fine things in combatting some of the worse effects of govt policy, but I can't help feeling that you are positing some kind of false argument here.

Surely we need to ensure that the government steps up and fulfills its obligations to us the voters, rather than quibble about membership v. goodworks.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have no doubt that the Church/es are doing many fine things in combatting some of the worse effects of govt policy, but I can't help feeling that you are positing some kind of false argument here.

Surely we need to ensure that the government steps up and fulfills its obligations to us the voters, rather than quibble about membership v. goodworks.

I think the point being made is that ideally the state should contain a voice of conscience but that has gone with the state hoping that there is still enough meat on the bones, not, of course, to fill the welfare gap but to give the impression of filling it.

The welfare state still exists for billionaires and millionaires.

[ProfessorDavey]

Interesting piece on The slow demise of the welfare state and reliance on the institution of the church of England.
Valuable for consideration while rejoicing in the reduction of church membership IMHO.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/20/conservatives-church-of-england-welfare-tories-state-victorian

I think I've talked about this before on this forum.

I have a real concern over the 'off-loading' of what I see to be a government responsibility to provide an appropriate safety net for the most vulnerable people in our society to voluntary organisations (whether religious or otherwise). This seems to be a deliberate policy from David Cameron's 'Big Society' (remember that) onwards. Now there seems to be a further move - phase 1 seemed to be simply to pass on funding from tax payers to voluntary organisation to deliver services on behalf of the government. Now I have some issues with this as I think there can be conflicts of interest and I'm not sure that people take up the opportunity - it is sometimes difficult enough to get people to access benefits, to access what is perceived as 'charity' is a step further.

Phase 2 now appears to be to remove public money and expect the voluntary organisations to do it without support from the public purse. This really represents the government reneging on its obligations and simply passing them on the vagaries of voluntary support - which is variable and not guaranteed. Moreover many of the communities most in need are, by definition, the ones with the most limited resource (whether money or time) to support the voluntary sector.

Sadly churches and other voluntary groups appear to have been willing collaborators in this off-loading of government responsibilities.

Putting it frankly - we shouldn't have food banks, because we shouldn't need them (and indeed we never used to have them). If churches and other voluntary organisations really want to make a difference they should be pressuring the government of filfill their obligations, not to simply allow themselves to become the provider of last resort when that should be the government. In this respect they could take a tip or two from Marcus Rashford, whose main approach has been to force government to fulfil its obligations to the most vulnerable and not see that as something that ends when term ends (or when a voluntary organisation sets up a food bank).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think I've talked about this before on this forum.

I have a real concern over the 'off-loading' of what I see to be a government responsibility to provide an appropriate safety net for the most vulnerable people in our society to voluntary organisations (whether religious or otherwise). This seems to be a deliberate policy from David Cameron's 'Big Society' (remember that) onwards. Now there seems to be a further move - phase 1 seemed to be simply to pass on funding from tax payers to voluntary organisation to deliver services on behalf of the government. Now I have some issues with this as I think there can be conflicts of interest and I'm not sure that people take up the opportunity - it is sometimes difficult enough to get people to access benefits, to access what is perceived as 'charity' is a step further.

Phase 2 now appears to be to remove public money and expect the voluntary organisations to do it without support from the public purse. This really represents the government reneging on its obligations and simply passing them on the vagaries of voluntary support - which is variable and not guaranteed. Moreover many of the communities most in need are, by definition, the ones with the most limited resource (whether money or time) to support the voluntary sector.

Sadly churches and other voluntary groups appear to have been willing collaborators in this off-loading of government responsibilities.

Putting it frankly - we shouldn't have food banks, because we shouldn't need them (and indeed we never used to have them). If churches and other voluntary organisations really want to make a difference they should be pressuring the government of filfill their obligations, not to simply allow themselves to become the provider of last resort when that should be the government. In this respect they could take a tip or two from Marcus Rashford, whose main approach has been to force government to fulfil its obligations to the most vulnerable and not see that as something that ends when term ends (or when a voluntary organisation sets up a food bank).

I don't see what you are shifting blame on traditional providers. That let's the tories off the hook and exonerates members of a frankly secular society which votes tory with frightening regularity. It is particularly rich when you want to strip out the last vestige of the church from Government because the role of conscience of the state can, according to the secularist,  just as well be provided by trickle down into an entirely secular house of Lords. As we know there are huge problems with trickle down and an increasingly secular Britain seems increasingly comfortable with the Conservative project.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't see what you are shifting blame on traditional providers.

No I'm not - I am placing the blame firmly at the door of the tory government. However I am also pointing out that by, in effect, being willing collaborators in that tory project and policies voluntary organisations (including, but not limited to churches) are enabling that policy.

[ProfessorDavey]

That let's the tories off the hook and exonerates members of a frankly secular society which votes tory with frightening regularity. It is particularly rich when you want to strip out the last vestige of the church from Government because the role of conscience of the state can, according to the secularist,  just as well be provided by trickle down into an entirely secular house of Lords. As we know there are huge problems with trickle down and an increasingly secular Britain seems increasingly comfortable with the Conservative project.

The problem with your argument is that it has been for many years and remains the case that non religious people are less likely to vote tory than the overall population and religious people more likely to.

And as the article is largely about the CofE, people who affiliate as anglican are massively more likely to vote Tory and less likely to vote Labour or Lib-Dem compared to non religious people.

https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/cmsfiles/archive/files/Reports/Voting%20and%20Values%20in%20Britain%2012.pdf

This report has loads of data, but there are plenty of others with exactly the same conclusion. Look at p63 which gives voting intention by religious affiliation.

Anglicans
Tory 43.4%
Labour 36.1%
Lib-Dem 7.5%

Non religious
Tory 27.0%
Labour 45.5%
Lib-Dem 13.9%

So if you want to identify who to blame for the tory party regularly getting elected I think you need to look at christians, particularly christians affiliated to the CofE, not at non religious people.

[ProfessorDavey]

As we know there are huge problems with trickle down and an increasingly secular Britain seems increasingly comfortable with the Conservative project.

Another example with even more terrifying figure on tory voting by christians:

https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/factsheets/how-faith-communities-vote-in-uk-elections/

So in terms of voting tory, by religious affiliation we have:

Jewish - 63%
Anglican - 58%
Catholic - 40%
Other christian denominations - 38%
Non religious - 32%
Muslim - 11%

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Another example with even more terrifying figure on tory voting by christians:

https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/factsheets/how-faith-communities-vote-in-uk-elections/

So in terms of voting tory, by religious affiliation we have:

Jewish - 63%
Anglican - 58%
Catholic - 40%
Other christian denominations - 38%
Non religious - 32%
Muslim - 11%

There have been three elections since the publication of the Theos report.
According to this report there were, 2 elections ago very few anglicans, a number diminishing all the time.......and yet we see the Conservative vote increase particularly amongst the working class.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/04/half-uk-population-has-no-religion-british-social-attitudes-survey.

This would make 7% of adults Tory voting anglicans. How does that account for  a Tory majority of 80?

[ProfessorDavey]

There have been three elections since the publication of the Theos report.
According to this report there were, 2 elections ago very few anglicans, a number diminishing all the time.......and yet we see the Conservative vote increase particularly amongst the working class.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/04/half-uk-population-has-no-religion-british-social-attitudes-survey.

This would make 7% of adults Tory voting anglicans. How does that account for  a Tory majority of 80?

Nice bit of straw clutching Vlad.

The second set of data I've provided were taken during the 2017 election. And there has been a consistent pattern for decades of anglicans being far more likely to vote tory.

And you clearly can't count.

Your link indicates that 15% of adults affiliated as anglican - imagine those people didn't vote 58% tory (as suggested in the survey) but at the same level as non religious people (32%). That would result in a reduction of 4% in the tory vote and an increase of 4% in the vote of other parties. That would have wiped out Boris' majority, probably to hung parliament territory, and it is unlikely that we'd have seen a tory-led government and tory PM in 2010, 2015 and 2017.

Think about that - no austerity, no brexit, no hostile environment for migrants, no need for food banks, no chaotic response to covid etc etc.

Thanks anglicans

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nice bit of straw clutching Vlad.

The second set of data I've provided were taken during the 2017 election. And there has been a consistent pattern for decades of anglicans being far more likely to vote tory.

And you clearly can't count.

Your link indicates that 15% of adults affiliated as anglican - imagine those people didn't vote 58% tory (as suggested in the survey) but at the same level as non religious people (32%). That would result in a reduction of 4% in the tory vote and an increase of 4% in the vote of other parties. That would have wiped out Boris' majority, probably to hung parliament territory, and it is unlikely that we'd have seen a tory-led government and tory PM in 2010, 2015 and 2017.

Think about that - no austerity, no brexit, no hostile environment for migrants, no need for food banks, no chaotic response to covid etc etc.

Thanks anglicans

Are you really suggesting the Anglican vote was more significant than labour voter shift in red wall seats?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50774061

You cannot argue political clout in a community and argue for removal of political influence because of falling numbers imho.

[Aruntraveller]

Are you really suggesting the Anglican vote was more significant than labour voter shift in red wall seats?

Can't speak for Prof - but I would have thought the reason for the shift in votes in the red wall seats is obvious. Brexit. Nothing in this particular instance to do with the religious/non religious divide, which clearly exists in general terms of voting intentions even if it is less of a factor than it used to be.

[Nearly Sane]

Can't speak for Prof - but I would have thought the reason for the shift in votes in the red wall seats is obvious. Brexit. Nothing in this particular instance to do with the religious/non religious divide, which clearly exists in general terms of voting intentions even if it is less of a factor than it used to be.

Though in terms of the Brexit vote itself then those identifying as CoE voted substantially for Leave as opposed to those of no religion who voted strongly to Remain

http://www.brin.ac.uk/how-religious-groups-voted-at-the-2016-referendum-on-britains-eu-membership/

[ProfessorDavey]

Are you really suggesting the Anglican vote was more significant than labour voter shift in red wall seats?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50774061

You cannot argue political clout in a community and argue for removal of political influence because of falling numbers imho.

But this discussion is about state and church, on the christian topic - so discussion about labour vote shift in red wall seats isn't really relevant.

However a couple of observations:

1. Had anglican voters voted in the same manner as non religious voters than many of those red wall seats would have been retained by Labour.
2. The 2019 shift in vote from labour to tory in the red-wall seats is seen as just that, a shift, and likely wont be repeated as it was largely related to Brexit and those voters don't seem particularly enamoured with the current administration. By contrast anglicans have been disproportionately voting tory for decades, with no indication that is going to change.

So perhaps the CofE should adopt the following 'strapline'

'The Church of England - doing its level best to ensure tory governments are elected since 1945'

[ProfessorDavey]

Though in terms of the Brexit vote itself then those identifying as CoE voted substantially for Leave as opposed to those of no religion who voted strongly to Remain

http://www.brin.ac.uk/how-religious-groups-voted-at-the-2016-referendum-on-britains-eu-membership/

So using Vlad's link which suggested 15% of the population affiliate as anglican, imagine those people didn't vote 60% brexit (as suggested in the survey) but at the same level as non religious people (43%). That would result in a reduction of about 3% in the brexit vote and a corresponding 3% increase in the remain vote. Result Leave 49%;  Remain 51%.

Thanks anglicans

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So using Vlad's link which suggested 15% of the population affiliate as anglican, imagine those people didn't vote 60% brexit (as suggested in the survey) but at the same level as non religious people (40%). That would result in a reduction of about 3% in the brexit vote and a corresponding 3% increase in the remain vote. Result Leave 49%;  Remain 51%.

Thanks anglicans

How large was the non religious brexit vote?

[ProfessorDavey]

How large was the non religious brexit vote?

14% smaller than the remain vote amongst non religious people.

[ProfessorDavey]

Are you really suggesting the Anglican vote was more significant than labour voter shift in red wall seats?

Done a little bit of digging around this.

Imagine anglicans didn't vote 58% tory (as suggested in the survey) but at the same level as non religious people (32%). That would result in a reduction of 4% in the tory vote and an increase of 4% in the vote of other parties. So that means that any seat where the tories won by less than 8% would quite likely have been lost.

So the tories gained 58 seats at the 2019 election, many of those from Labour in the 'red wall'. However in 36 the winning margin was small enough that had anglicans voted as non religious people did then they would not have been won by the tories.

So that takes the tory majority down from 80 to just 8. Ah you say, still a tory majority, albeit a tiny one.

But of course you need to go further - there were some seats which the tories retained with a small majority (often in more 'remains' areas) which they would have lost with a reduction of their vote share of 4%, balanced by gains by other parties. Good examples being:

Wimbledon (retained by the tories with just 628 majority)
Cheltenham (retained by the tories with just 981 majority)
Winchester (retained by the tories with just 985 majority)
Chipping Barnet (retained by the tories with just 1212 majority)

Failing to retain just those four and majority is gone - and there are a fair few others that would likely not have been retained had anglicans not voted 58% tory, but 32% tory as per non religious people.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Done a little bit of digging around this.

Imagine anglicans didn't vote 58% tory (as suggested in the survey) but at the same level as non religious people (32%). That would result in a reduction of 4% in the tory vote and an increase of 4% in the vote of other parties. So that means that any seat where the tories won by less than 8% would quite likely have been lost.

So the tories gained 58 seats at the 2019 election, many of those from Labour in the 'red wall'. However in 36 the winning margin was small enough that had anglicans voted as non religious people did then they would not have been won by the tories.

So that takes the tory majority down from 80 to just 8. Ah you say, still a tory majority, albeit a tiny one.

But of course you need to go further - there were some seats which the tories retained with a small majority (often in more 'remains' areas) which they would have lost with a reduction of their vote share of 4%, balanced by gains by other parties. Good examples being:

Wimbledon (retained by the tories with just 628 majority)ttack on providers
Cheltenham (retained by the tories with just 981 majority)
Winchester (retained by the tories with just 985 majority)
Chipping Barnet (retained by the tories with just 1212 majority)

Failing to retain just those four and majority is gone - and there are a fair few others that would likely not have been retained had anglicans not voted 58% tory, but 32% tory as per non religious people.

Yes, unfortunately though the churches do provide support. How are things in terms of charity with the non religious?

[ProfessorDavey]

How are things in terms of charity with the non religious?

Exactly the same as for the religious.

You will certainly be aware (as I've posted about this many times) that non-religious people are just as likely to be involved in formal or informal voluntary work as religious people. And in terms of charitable given, once we strip out church-goers giving to their church to, err, enable them to attend church services (from which they gain direct benefit), there is no difference in charitable giving between non-religious people and christians.