It seems more and more that our politicians are bowing down to the environmentalists. It is bad enough when politicians try and run the country themselves, but when they start listening to environmentalists the whole situation gets much worse.
In making these claims I must point out that I am accusing all the political parties, so this covers the present government and it's predecessors.
At various climate summits our politicians have signed us up to reductions in CO2 emissions which are not achievable. This is just like a salesman saying his product will do things it clearly does not. Before agreeing these reductions perhaps our representatives should have taken expert advice on what can and cannot be done!
The same climate summits see other countries agreeing to far less severe reductions in CO2, with some such as China even suggesting they cannot reduce CO2 but are likely to increase.
This leads to unsustainable plans for wind farms, solar farms and so on to produce a fraction of the reduction we are committed to.
So the government attack the issue in different ways by trying to force us out of our cars and make us install ever greater levels of insulation in our homes.
The latest scheme however has to take the biscuit, whereby if you wish to carry out certain changes to your home you will be inspected and presented with a list of other work to be carried out - at your own expense - if you wish to go ahead. Don't worry though as they will offer you a loan so that any possible savings will be lost when you repay this.
Two examples quoted so far have been boiler replacement and building a conservatory (and perhaps any type of extension).
The first will affect me, and many others. as boilers have a finite life. My house was built in accordance with the building regulations and insulation standards of the time, but would now fall short and I have no doubt I would be expected to top up the loft insulation at the very least. My loft insulation is the depth of the joists so in some areas I have boarded the loft for storage space. This will presumably have to be taken up and more insulation added such that I can no longer use the loft for storage unless I raise the floor in some areas.
Perhaps I should just leave my old boiler in place longer, OK it is less efficient than a more modern boiler but the savings from the boiler are already hard to justify against the cost of installing it, let alone when it comes to the additional expense.
Madness!
What about people in older properties, particularly those with solid walls? Their insulation factors may well be low. Do they get forced to insulate the inside of the walls and make the rooms smaller and lose the character of the building, or perhaps insulate the outside, again losing the character.
The lunatics really are taking over the asylum.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
The Church, Listed Buildings and VAT
I read in the news today that the Church of England fears renovation projects could be scrapped because of planned changes to VAT in the budget.
This will mean that VAT will be charged on approved alterations to listed buildings, previously exempt.
There are a number of issues to be dealt with here I think.
The first of these is that it is not targeted on churches but will affect ALL owners of listed buildings. This will impact upon private individuals and also the likes of the National Trust and English Heritage who between them must have a large number of properties that fall into this category and will also suffer.
Secondly the wording is that it is for alterations. Repairs of the fabric of the buildings to allow them to continue to be used should not be affected. Additions of new shops and cafes will be. That is different from the needs of simply keeping these buildings open as a place of worship.
Finally, the church is not a poor organisation. A quick glance at the accounts will show that is asset rich and has many commercial investments. As such it should be prepared to bite the bullet and contribute to the nations coffers with everyone else. Claims of lack of funds are not acceptable. If it were essential repairs that were being taxed then maybe they have a point, but it is in fact improvements.
What really annoys me however is the fact that the Treasury has reported that church projects will not be cancelled as there will be provision from the Listed Places of Worship Scheme whereby we the taxpayer will seemingly make up any extra costs! I have said before and will say again, Church and State should be separate. What the Church wants, it should fund from it's own significant income.
This will mean that VAT will be charged on approved alterations to listed buildings, previously exempt.
There are a number of issues to be dealt with here I think.
The first of these is that it is not targeted on churches but will affect ALL owners of listed buildings. This will impact upon private individuals and also the likes of the National Trust and English Heritage who between them must have a large number of properties that fall into this category and will also suffer.
Secondly the wording is that it is for alterations. Repairs of the fabric of the buildings to allow them to continue to be used should not be affected. Additions of new shops and cafes will be. That is different from the needs of simply keeping these buildings open as a place of worship.
Finally, the church is not a poor organisation. A quick glance at the accounts will show that is asset rich and has many commercial investments. As such it should be prepared to bite the bullet and contribute to the nations coffers with everyone else. Claims of lack of funds are not acceptable. If it were essential repairs that were being taxed then maybe they have a point, but it is in fact improvements.
What really annoys me however is the fact that the Treasury has reported that church projects will not be cancelled as there will be provision from the Listed Places of Worship Scheme whereby we the taxpayer will seemingly make up any extra costs! I have said before and will say again, Church and State should be separate. What the Church wants, it should fund from it's own significant income.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Religion and the State
Here in the UK our Prime Minister, David Cameron, held a meeting before Easter with church leaders during which he made a number of rather worrying comments.
As surveys and doubtless the 2011 census are showing, the number of people who feel they have a religion is falling. As an element of this so is the number of those who claim to be Christians. A recent survey commissioned by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science showed that of those who identified themselves as Christians many just did so because it was their parents religion. Interestingly, amongst the Christians many feel as I do that the Church and State should be separate.
Having read the reports of this meeting, it seems that not only is Mr Cameron unaware of this, but that he is actively trying to fight against it (democracy?).
I felt driven to write to him about my concerns with his viewpoints and will update this post if I hear back, either from him or from one of his staff.
In essence he made a number of points as follows:
He believes that Christian values would create a happier and better society for everyone. I will look at some of these below but for now I need to point out that Christians do not have exclusivity on morals and ethics and indeed these existed before Christianity. Atheists also have morals and ethics and whilst any group will have 'bad apples' there is no reason to put Christians on a pedestal for their values.
He then went on to discuss the values of the Bible - this includes the Christian values he chooses to omit such as violence, explicit sexual references, child abuse, objectivisation and dehumanisation of women, aggressively genocidal racism, explicit animal cruelty and incitement to commit murder and hate crimes (my thanks to Rosa Rubicondior at http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/what-warning-would-you-put-in-gideon.html for the succinct list).
Many of these so called 'values' are clearly unacceptable in a civilised society, so perhaps Christians need to bring the Bible up to date.
Mr Cameron is also very keen to promote the teaching of religion within schools. If this were objective then perhaps we should not worry because pupils would be taught about the various religions, the fact that many are atheists and agnostics, and then encouraged to think for themselves about what they believe. This is not the case however, schools teach their own doctrine thus a Church of England school teaches their own brand of Christianity with little or no reference to the alternatives. I have seen examples of this with my own nephew and niece - though they stood up and thought for themselves. Read more at http://scepticalcurmudgeon.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/religious-indoctrination.html
Finally, he talks of suppression of Christian rights. The issue that annoys me most here is prayers as part of council meetings. These were recently declared illegal, however the PM has decided to change the law so they can be made legal again. We have a very varied society and many council members will not be of the Christian faith, yet Christian prayers are to be imposed upon them. This is unacceptable. What is wrong with allowing a period before the meeting and separate from it in which those who wish to do so may pray or have a time of personal reflection - this should be acceptable to all as those who do not wish to partake simply arrive later for the actual meeting which constitutes the business of the council.
I feel that Christianity is being forced upon the country, whether we like it or not. I doubt my letter to David Cameron will have any effect, but by that means and through this blog I am trying to show that we do not all agree with Christianity, or in my case any religion.
As surveys and doubtless the 2011 census are showing, the number of people who feel they have a religion is falling. As an element of this so is the number of those who claim to be Christians. A recent survey commissioned by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science showed that of those who identified themselves as Christians many just did so because it was their parents religion. Interestingly, amongst the Christians many feel as I do that the Church and State should be separate.
Having read the reports of this meeting, it seems that not only is Mr Cameron unaware of this, but that he is actively trying to fight against it (democracy?).
I felt driven to write to him about my concerns with his viewpoints and will update this post if I hear back, either from him or from one of his staff.
In essence he made a number of points as follows:
He believes that Christian values would create a happier and better society for everyone. I will look at some of these below but for now I need to point out that Christians do not have exclusivity on morals and ethics and indeed these existed before Christianity. Atheists also have morals and ethics and whilst any group will have 'bad apples' there is no reason to put Christians on a pedestal for their values.
He then went on to discuss the values of the Bible - this includes the Christian values he chooses to omit such as violence, explicit sexual references, child abuse, objectivisation and dehumanisation of women, aggressively genocidal racism, explicit animal cruelty and incitement to commit murder and hate crimes (my thanks to Rosa Rubicondior at http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/what-warning-would-you-put-in-gideon.html for the succinct list).
Many of these so called 'values' are clearly unacceptable in a civilised society, so perhaps Christians need to bring the Bible up to date.
Mr Cameron is also very keen to promote the teaching of religion within schools. If this were objective then perhaps we should not worry because pupils would be taught about the various religions, the fact that many are atheists and agnostics, and then encouraged to think for themselves about what they believe. This is not the case however, schools teach their own doctrine thus a Church of England school teaches their own brand of Christianity with little or no reference to the alternatives. I have seen examples of this with my own nephew and niece - though they stood up and thought for themselves. Read more at http://scepticalcurmudgeon.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/religious-indoctrination.html
Finally, he talks of suppression of Christian rights. The issue that annoys me most here is prayers as part of council meetings. These were recently declared illegal, however the PM has decided to change the law so they can be made legal again. We have a very varied society and many council members will not be of the Christian faith, yet Christian prayers are to be imposed upon them. This is unacceptable. What is wrong with allowing a period before the meeting and separate from it in which those who wish to do so may pray or have a time of personal reflection - this should be acceptable to all as those who do not wish to partake simply arrive later for the actual meeting which constitutes the business of the council.
I feel that Christianity is being forced upon the country, whether we like it or not. I doubt my letter to David Cameron will have any effect, but by that means and through this blog I am trying to show that we do not all agree with Christianity, or in my case any religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)