"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
Hitchens also compares the royal families belief that climate change is being caused by human activity to George VIths support of appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s when appeasement was also very popular and supported by most politicians (though George VIth and most of the public changed course soon after). So that makes Piers Corbyn or Lawrence Fox the new Churchill?
Just had a look at my diary for last year and it's now twelve months since news of the Pfizer/Biotech vaccine was released.
What an awesome 12 months that’s been, going from potentially millions of deaths, to something that is now mostly treatable and a minor inconvenience. Well done medical science!
It's been about 20 months since Covid hit developed countries. In that time half a dozen decent vaccines have been approved. More than six billion doses have been administered worldwide. Pfizer and Merck have produced drugs that reduce mortality and hospitalisation from Covid by 90+%.
mRNA vaccines have gone from idea to the most successful weapon in our armoury. And in the next half decade they will revolutionise cancer treatment.
Horse dewormer has been touted as a miracle cure. And debunked. And touted again.
After painful, depressing lockdowns across much of the world, we're now increasingly back to normal.
It's been a triumph for human ingenuity.
I think a bit premature to call it over when we have 8 000 odd in hospital with it and a thousand odd dying of it each week in the UK. Devastating still in some other parts of the world too. Also before the effects on personal and national finances, health systems, logistics and patterns of work are resolved.
This winter is still going to be grim, but yes, we are past the worst of the virus.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
Are there actually any parties in the UK at the moment who agree with him?
Sinn Féin
Sinn Fėin don’t think climate change is caused by human activity? I didn’t know that.
Found this in a recent SF document: 'Climate Justice and a Just Transition We need to confront global warming, and the methods and alternatives we use must be inclusive and democratic. Sinn Féin believes that the transition to ecological sustainability must be framed by principles of social justice and equality. We need a just transition to a carbon-free future. If the process is not fair, neither will the outcome, that is for certain.'
There's quite a lot more and where there's disagreement it's with methods, not principles.
Thanks. So it looks like Peter Hutchins idea that “ the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial” is not really true in the UK, certainly not amongst significant political parties.
Imagine if politics was as effective as medical science.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
Are there actually any parties in the UK at the moment who agree with him?
Sinn Féin
Sinn Fėin don’t think climate change is caused by human activity? I didn’t know that.
Found this in a recent SF document: 'Climate Justice and a Just Transition We need to confront global warming, and the methods and alternatives we use must be inclusive and democratic. Sinn Féin believes that the transition to ecological sustainability must be framed by principles of social justice and equality. We need a just transition to a carbon-free future. If the process is not fair, neither will the outcome, that is for certain.'
There's quite a lot more and where there's disagreement it's with methods, not principles.
Wasn't the point that SF are the only party elected to parliament that wants to be a Republic, not that SF a re climate change denialists?
There are a few of the latter on the right wing, especially in REFUK.
SF want to be in a different country, which happens to be a republic.
REFUK have a handful of local councillors: I’m not sure I would call them a major political party.
The point I am trying to make is that the idea that “the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial” is about as true as the idea that the Earth is round or that evolution produced humans; yes, you can find people who disagree but the overwhelming consensus is against them.
Edit to add: in the UK. This is not the case in some other countries, unfortunately, particularly the USA.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
Are there actually any parties in the UK at the moment who agree with him?
Sinn Féin
Sinn Fėin don’t think climate change is caused by human activity? I didn’t know that.
Found this in a recent SF document: 'Climate Justice and a Just Transition We need to confront global warming, and the methods and alternatives we use must be inclusive and democratic. Sinn Féin believes that the transition to ecological sustainability must be framed by principles of social justice and equality. We need a just transition to a carbon-free future. If the process is not fair, neither will the outcome, that is for certain.'
There's quite a lot more and where there's disagreement it's with methods, not principles.
Thanks. So it looks like Peter Hutchins idea that “ the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial” is not really true in the UK, certainly not amongst significant political parties.
Imagine if politics was as effective as medical science.
We need reform to renew our democracy.
Reform is always proposed by parties not in power and with little hope of gaining it.. You are bleating like the Lib Dems. Sort your Party out, have policies people will vote for...
Mr. Jonathan, fiddling with voting systems is an order of magnitude less important than having a more trustworthy media that focuses more on scrutinising legislation and less on political scalp-hunting.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
Are there actually any parties in the UK at the moment who agree with him?
Sinn Féin
Sinn Fėin don’t think climate change is caused by human activity? I didn’t know that.
Found this in a recent SF document: 'Climate Justice and a Just Transition We need to confront global warming, and the methods and alternatives we use must be inclusive and democratic. Sinn Féin believes that the transition to ecological sustainability must be framed by principles of social justice and equality. We need a just transition to a carbon-free future. If the process is not fair, neither will the outcome, that is for certain.'
There's quite a lot more and where there's disagreement it's with methods, not principles.
Thanks. So it looks like Peter Hutchins idea that “ the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial” is not really true in the UK, certainly not amongst significant political parties.
Imagine if politics was as effective as medical science.
We need reform to renew our democracy.
Reform is always proposed by parties not in power and with little hope of gaining it.. You are bleating like the Lib Dems. Sort your Party out, have policies people will vote for...
Even if that were true, that doesn’t make it wrong. Last week doesn’t suggest that all is well.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
Are there actually any parties in the UK at the moment who agree with him?
Sinn Féin
Sinn Fėin don’t think climate change is caused by human activity? I didn’t know that.
Found this in a recent SF document: 'Climate Justice and a Just Transition We need to confront global warming, and the methods and alternatives we use must be inclusive and democratic. Sinn Féin believes that the transition to ecological sustainability must be framed by principles of social justice and equality. We need a just transition to a carbon-free future. If the process is not fair, neither will the outcome, that is for certain.'
There's quite a lot more and where there's disagreement it's with methods, not principles.
Thanks. So it looks like Peter Hutchins idea that “ the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial” is not really true in the UK, certainly not amongst significant political parties.
Imagine if politics was as effective as medical science.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
I'm not sure Peter gets the whole idea of "monarchy": you know, where you don't get any say in who gets the job?
It's like those idiots who say they support the monarchy but want William to follow HMQ instead of Charles.
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Mr. Jonathan, fiddling with voting systems is an order of magnitude less important than having a more trustworthy media that focuses more on scrutinising legislation and less on political scalp-hunting.
Media reform, electoral reform, constitutional reform and ways to enable good people (not those wanting to be ugly celebs) to become MPs are all needed.
Government withholding stop and search data, apparently to avoid embarrassment over its racist implementation as they prepare to extend its use further in the policing bill.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
Are there actually any parties in the UK at the moment who agree with him?
Sinn Féin
Sinn Fėin don’t think climate change is caused by human activity? I didn’t know that.
Found this in a recent SF document: 'Climate Justice and a Just Transition We need to confront global warming, and the methods and alternatives we use must be inclusive and democratic. Sinn Féin believes that the transition to ecological sustainability must be framed by principles of social justice and equality. We need a just transition to a carbon-free future. If the process is not fair, neither will the outcome, that is for certain.'
There's quite a lot more and where there's disagreement it's with methods, not principles.
Thanks. So it looks like Peter Hutchins idea that “ the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial” is not really true in the UK, certainly not amongst significant political parties.
Imagine if politics was as effective as medical science.
We need reform to renew our democracy.
I am always cautious about such calls, as the idea that liberal democracy was effete and ineffective against the challenges of the modern state was core belief of Twentieth Century Totalitarianism.
That said, modern technology does open up the possibility of much more direct democracy, though we have a long way to go before we have a system that doesn't produce contradictory mandates.
The current government is riddled with cronyism, corruption and incompetence, but does have an 80 seat majority. Nonetheless it did a massive U turn midweek because of the outpouring of public outrage at the Leadsom Amendment. A sort of democracy, even if one without a formal public vote.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
Are there actually any parties in the UK at the moment who agree with him?
Sinn Féin
Sinn Fėin don’t think climate change is caused by human activity? I didn’t know that.
Found this in a recent SF document: 'Climate Justice and a Just Transition We need to confront global warming, and the methods and alternatives we use must be inclusive and democratic. Sinn Féin believes that the transition to ecological sustainability must be framed by principles of social justice and equality. We need a just transition to a carbon-free future. If the process is not fair, neither will the outcome, that is for certain.'
There's quite a lot more and where there's disagreement it's with methods, not principles.
Thanks. So it looks like Peter Hutchins idea that “ the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial” is not really true in the UK, certainly not amongst significant political parties.
Imagine if politics was as effective as medical science.
We need reform to renew our democracy.
Reform is always proposed by parties not in power and with little hope of gaining it.. You are bleating like the Lib Dems. Sort your Party out, have policies people will vote for...
Even if that were true, that doesn’t make it wrong. Last week doesn’t suggest that all is well.
Parliament sorted it out. The debacle happened, the Tories were made to look very bad and it has done a lot of damage to people's view of the Tories.
Mr. Jonathan, fiddling with voting systems is an order of magnitude less important than having a more trustworthy media that focuses more on scrutinising legislation and less on political scalp-hunting.
Media reform, electoral reform, constitutional reform and ways to enable good people (not those wanting to be ugly celebs) to become MPs are all needed.
That last one is the simplest to solve: pay enough to attract good candidates
However, as Von Clausewitz said: “ Everything in war is very simple. But the simplest thing is difficult.” I think the same thing applies to politics.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
Are there actually any parties in the UK at the moment who agree with him?
Sinn Féin
Sinn Fėin don’t think climate change is caused by human activity? I didn’t know that.
Found this in a recent SF document: 'Climate Justice and a Just Transition We need to confront global warming, and the methods and alternatives we use must be inclusive and democratic. Sinn Féin believes that the transition to ecological sustainability must be framed by principles of social justice and equality. We need a just transition to a carbon-free future. If the process is not fair, neither will the outcome, that is for certain.'
There's quite a lot more and where there's disagreement it's with methods, not principles.
Thanks. So it looks like Peter Hutchins idea that “ the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial” is not really true in the UK, certainly not amongst significant political parties.
Imagine if politics was as effective as medical science.
We need reform to renew our democracy.
I am always cautious about such calls, as the idea that liberal democracy was effete and ineffective against the challenges of the modern state was core belief of Twentieth Century Totalitarianism.
That said, modern technology does open up the possibility of much more direct democracy, though we have a long way to go before we have a system that doesn't produce contradictory mandates.
The current government is riddled with cronyism, corruption and incompetence, but does have an 80 seat majority. Nonetheless it did a massive U turn midweek because of the outpouring of public outrage at the Leadsom Amendment. A sort of democracy, even if one without a formal public vote.
C20 democracy required reform. For example, women had only just got the vote when we took on the fascists.
What is the status of the Leadsom amendment? Has it been repealed?
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
I think we can safely say that Leon isn't a dedicated believer in Islam!
From a human point of view, one can look at the huge variety of spiritual belief systems across the world and through the ages of history, and reasonably conclude that if most of them are completely made up then it is very likely that they all have been.
From a religious point of view it always surprises me that so much argument focuses on the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator or supernatural being, and so little on whether, if there is one, it makes any sense to organise societies to worship and pray to it. Who knows what values this being has, what it might be up to, and whether or not it has any concern about individual human lives? Who knows whether it has any active interest in the fate of its creation(s) or whether it actively intervenes in our world? I could write a whole paragraph of scenarios with a creator where no religion as currently constituted makes any sense, but I am sure most PB'ers can do the imaginative legwork for yourselves.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
Are there actually any parties in the UK at the moment who agree with him?
Sinn Féin
Sinn Fėin don’t think climate change is caused by human activity? I didn’t know that.
Found this in a recent SF document: 'Climate Justice and a Just Transition We need to confront global warming, and the methods and alternatives we use must be inclusive and democratic. Sinn Féin believes that the transition to ecological sustainability must be framed by principles of social justice and equality. We need a just transition to a carbon-free future. If the process is not fair, neither will the outcome, that is for certain.'
There's quite a lot more and where there's disagreement it's with methods, not principles.
Thanks. So it looks like Peter Hutchins idea that “ the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial” is not really true in the UK, certainly not amongst significant political parties.
Imagine if politics was as effective as medical science.
We need reform to renew our democracy.
Reform is always proposed by parties not in power and with little hope of gaining it.. You are bleating like the Lib Dems. Sort your Party out, have policies people will vote for...
Even if that were true, that doesn’t make it wrong. Last week doesn’t suggest that all is well.
Parliament sorted it out. The debacle happened, the Tories were made to look very bad and it has done a lot of damage to people's view of the Tories.
And politics in general. What a waste of time. Hardly solving the nation’s problems.
Mr. Jonathan, fiddling with voting systems is an order of magnitude less important than having a more trustworthy media that focuses more on scrutinising legislation and less on political scalp-hunting.
Media reform, electoral reform, constitutional reform and ways to enable good people (not those wanting to be ugly celebs) to become MPs are all needed.
Yes, as with the most egregious culprits of the expenses scandal, it is worth noting that Owen Paterson had a safe seat. He might not have been quite so inclined to spend most of his time lining his pockets lobbying for pharmaceutical companies had he faced genuine electoral competition for his seat, both because it wouldn't look good and because it should have made his political role into a proper full-time one.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
Are there actually any parties in the UK at the moment who agree with him?
Sinn Féin
Sinn Fėin don’t think climate change is caused by human activity? I didn’t know that.
Found this in a recent SF document: 'Climate Justice and a Just Transition We need to confront global warming, and the methods and alternatives we use must be inclusive and democratic. Sinn Féin believes that the transition to ecological sustainability must be framed by principles of social justice and equality. We need a just transition to a carbon-free future. If the process is not fair, neither will the outcome, that is for certain.'
There's quite a lot more and where there's disagreement it's with methods, not principles.
Thanks. So it looks like Peter Hutchins idea that “ the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial” is not really true in the UK, certainly not amongst significant political parties.
Imagine if politics was as effective as medical science.
We need reform to renew our democracy.
Reform is always proposed by parties not in power and with little hope of gaining it.. You are bleating like the Lib Dems. Sort your Party out, have policies people will vote for...
Even if that were true, that doesn’t make it wrong. Last week doesn’t suggest that all is well.
Parliament sorted it out. The debacle happened, the Tories were made to look very bad and it has done a lot of damage to people's view of the Tories.
And politics in general. What a waste of time. Hardly solving the nation’s problems.
The biggest difference between the right and the left is that those on the left think it is the government’s job to solve the nation’s problems, while those on the right think that it is the government’s job not to be the problem.
The flood gates are opening kids, as every pol journo who has been sitting on a sleaze story heads up to their editor's desk...
Jim Pickard @PickardJE · 32m - wealthy benefactors seem guaranteed peerage if they take on temporary role as Tory party treasurer & increase their donations beyond £3m
- in past 20 years all 16 of the party’s main treasurers (apart from most recent) have been offered seat in Lords
If that is true Boris must not be involved then
Not everything bad is his fault. That doesnt make things better, in fact it's worse as it means problems go deeper.
Can't expect the plebs to understand how the real world works - of course wealthy benefactors should be entitled to peerages. What else are peerages for?
I dont think anyone would be shocked people can still effectively buy peerages. But that the treasurers all get one is taking the piss a bit, to suggest all deserved one for other reasons
If you are going to have then concept of working peers appointed by the political parties why are people surprised that senior party figures get them?
The Treasurer’s role is more about leaning on your friends than giving yourself though
Knew you'd come along to defend this concept.
I’m not particularly defending it.
But you can’t make the direct link to the payment, unlike Blair
When its happened 16 times in a row that's pretty compelling as circumstantial evidence goes though.
If it's not a direct link then it's the most remarkable coincidence.
Isn't the link to being Treasurer rather than the donation per se?
From a religious point of view it always surprises me that so much argument focuses on the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator or supernatural being, and so little on whether, if there is one, it makes any sense to organise societies to worship and pray to it.
The big problem is that some of those who do believe in a supernatural being go on to believe that everybody who doesn't follow their particular sky fairy must either be converted, or killed.
Just checked, and I called (but didn't tip/bet) both poles recently when I guessed after P2. Wondering if I should write pre-qualifying earlier as standard...
The biggest difference between the right and the left is that those on the left think it is the government’s job to solve the nation’s problems, while those on the right think that it is the government’s job not to be the problem.
BoZo and the clown collective are a problem generating machine, which makes their popularity surprising.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
Are there actually any parties in the UK at the moment who agree with him?
Sinn Féin
Sinn Fėin don’t think climate change is caused by human activity? I didn’t know that.
Found this in a recent SF document: 'Climate Justice and a Just Transition We need to confront global warming, and the methods and alternatives we use must be inclusive and democratic. Sinn Féin believes that the transition to ecological sustainability must be framed by principles of social justice and equality. We need a just transition to a carbon-free future. If the process is not fair, neither will the outcome, that is for certain.'
There's quite a lot more and where there's disagreement it's with methods, not principles.
Thanks. So it looks like Peter Hutchins idea that “ the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial” is not really true in the UK, certainly not amongst significant political parties.
Imagine if politics was as effective as medical science.
We need reform to renew our democracy.
Reform is always proposed by parties not in power and with little hope of gaining it.. You are bleating like the Lib Dems. Sort your Party out, have policies people will vote for...
As already pointed out you are just appallingly cynical. Someone who can never accept that some people do things for the right reasons and not for personal gain.
And just to show how ridiculous your statement is you are also therefore justifying dictatorships. After all according to your logic the only people who object to dictatorships are those who can't get into power under the existing system. Bonkers logic. Most object on principle not because they gain from it.
How might we better communicate complex ideas simply to enable intelligent debate so that informed, transparent decisions can be made? How might we encourage a more diverse and talented range of people to participate in politics? How might we keep dirty money out of politics?
Because right now there are incentives to obfuscate political debate, attract oddballs to political office and reward special interests.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
I'm not sure Peter gets the whole idea of "monarchy": you know, where you don't get any say in who gets the job?
It's like those idiots who say they support the monarchy but want William to follow HMQ instead of Charles.
Nothing wrong with the idea of an elective monarchy. Sparta had one.
The biggest difference between the right and the left is that those on the left think it is the government’s job to solve the nation’s problems, while those on the right think that it is the government’s job not to be the problem.
BoZo and the clown collective are a problem generating machine, which makes their popularity surprising.
Mr. Jonathan, almost all of that is caused by a mostly inept media. We've seen this with lack of understanding over debt and deficit, and the innumerate nonsense of the 'gender pay gap' (people doing different jobs earn different wages - gasp!).
More talented people will come with politicians are less under the microscope by a sensationalist, short-term media that just wants to try and claim scalps.
A more objective approach by broadcast media would be very welcome. Rather saddens me I had to stop watching ITV News because both anchor (Tom Bradby) and political editor (Peston) think their opinions are what people tune in for.
The biggest difference between the right and the left is that those on the left think it is the government’s job to solve the nation’s problems, while those on the right think that it is the government’s job not to be the problem.
BoZo and the clown collective are a problem generating machine, which makes their popularity surprising.
Have you never had bosses like that?
Prevent a problem; nobody notices or thanks you. Create a problem, or allow an issue to fester until it is a problem; it makes you important because you're there to solve it.
Think Jim Hacker and the Eurosausage.
(And whilst Dom C is not a reliable witness, didn't he say something similar about BoJo's No 10?)
Mr. Jonathan, almost all of that is caused by a mostly inept media. We've seen this with lack of understanding over debt and deficit, and the innumerate nonsense of the 'gender pay gap' (people doing different jobs earn different wages - gasp!).
More talented people will come with politicians are less under the microscope by a sensationalist, short-term media that just wants to try and claim scalps.
A more objective approach by broadcast media would be very welcome. Rather saddens me I had to stop watching ITV News because both anchor (Tom Bradby) and political editor (Peston) think their opinions are what people tune in for.
The media is part of it. The media didn’t cause last week’s debacle.
The surprise is that even now there are people who believe that Johnson and the Tories are not corrupt. However, they are still likely to win the next election. They have lowered expectations to such an extent that 40% of voters believe that as bad as things are currently, they could be a whole lot worse. The Tories couldn’t have done this without significant, long-term, Labour help.
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
I think we can safely say that Leon isn't a dedicated believer in Islam!
From a human point of view, one can look at the huge variety of spiritual belief systems across the world and through the ages of history, and reasonably conclude that if most of them are completely made up then it is very likely that they all have been.
From a religious point of view it always surprises me that so much argument focuses on the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator or supernatural being, and so little on whether, if there is one, it makes any sense to organise societies to worship and pray to it. Who knows what values this being has, what it might be up to, and whether or not it has any concern about individual human lives? Who knows whether it has any active interest in the fate of its creation(s) or whether it actively intervenes in our world? I could write a whole paragraph of scenarios with a creator where no religion as currently constituted makes any sense, but I am sure most PB'ers can do the imaginative legwork for yourselves.
I would say it is very likely there is a controlling force in the universe (and therefore a "god" ) but its none of the guesses so far and doubt that the real god has much interest in us on planet earth! A bit like the the Queen having a keen interest in some ants in my garden (well maybe Prince Charles does !)
From a religious point of view it always surprises me that so much argument focuses on the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator or supernatural being, and so little on whether, if there is one, it makes any sense to organise societies to worship and pray to it.
The big problem is that some of those who do believe in a supernatural being go on to believe that everybody who doesn't follow their particular sky fairy must either be converted, or killed.
That's a side effect of religion as solution to the "old men start wars, young men die in them" problem.
The problem that old men with power have is how to consolidate and expand their power when they themselves are no longer physically prime, and not inclined to put their own lives on the line by going out and fighting for it?
The answer is to get young men without power to do it on their behalf, and while the powerful have a range of incentives at their disposal, including wealth, fame, preferment, and exploiting the instinctive tendency of young males to fight, for the young there is always the "but I might die?" hurdle to overcome, which is where religion comes in, offering people the myth of a second life and the prospect of heavenly pleasures/drinking and feasting/a harem of virgins, etc., according to which set of myths they choose to proffer.
How might we better communicate complex ideas simply to enable intelligent debate so that informed, transparent decisions can be made? How might we encourage a more diverse and talented range of people to participate in politics? How might we keep dirty money out of politics?
Because right now there are incentives to obfuscate political debate, attract oddballs to political office and reward special interests.
The first of those is actually very hard, if not impossible. It’s bad enough in a classroom where you have a trained teacher and a class that has to be there. Doing the same for a population that will switch off and do something else if it takes more than 30 seconds to explain is not a task I would like.
This is why democracy has been described as the worst form of government (apart from all the others that have ever been tried).
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
This is an excellent example of much of what is wrong with our politics and indeed our society. The contribution to climate change of human activity is not in the slightest “controversial”; it’s simply that Hitchins doesn’t want it to be true. He doesn’t want it to be true because this has implications that he doesn’t like. It impinges on his sense of freedom, it “entitles” governments to nanny him in ways he doesn’t approve of.
What he actually wants is his own facts, tailored to his own prejudices and beliefs. It is a grossly immature way of thinking. Contrary to what he would claim it is the exact opposite of any scientific method. And anyone who disagrees is not only wrong but morally suspect.
In short he’s an idiot, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.
Prevent a problem; nobody notices or thanks you. Create a problem, or allow an issue to fester until it is a problem; it makes you important because you're there to solve it.
Oh yes.
Some people live for the drama.
It baffles me when others are impressed by it though.
Mr. Jonathan, that's true. The PCP deserves much criticism for electing an idiot their leader, particularly when the Labour example of Corbyn (worse, admittedly) was so clear.
Mr. Boy, are black people (in London, for example) disproportionately likely to carry knives?
That sort of information is vital to providing context for any accusations of racism.
No no no, remember that it’s now only outcomes that are important - so it’s irrelevant whether young black men are more likely to be drug dealers or knife carriers, and it’s racist for the police to not spend equal time searching old white women when looking for drugs and weapons.
More seriously, accusations that police are racist have been a problem for decades, and sadly a whole bunch of genuine issues have been identified. Problems in London are definitely not going away, until there’s a wholesale clearout of the top ranks at the Met.
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
I think we can safely say that Leon isn't a dedicated believer in Islam!
From a human point of view, one can look at the huge variety of spiritual belief systems across the world and through the ages of history, and reasonably conclude that if most of them are completely made up then it is very likely that they all have been.
From a religious point of view it always surprises me that so much argument focuses on the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator or supernatural being, and so little on whether, if there is one, it makes any sense to organise societies to worship and pray to it. Who knows what values this being has, what it might be up to, and whether or not it has any concern about individual human lives? Who knows whether it has any active interest in the fate of its creation(s) or whether it actively intervenes in our world? I could write a whole paragraph of scenarios with a creator where no religion as currently constituted makes any sense, but I am sure most PB'ers can do the imaginative legwork for yourselves.
I would say it is very likely there is a controlling force in the universe (and therefore a "god" ) but its none of the guesses so far and doubt that the real god has much interest in us on planet earth! A bit like the the Queen having a keen interest in some ants in my garden (well maybe Prince Charles does !)
So God is possibly that teapot between the Earth and Mars orbits?
How might we better communicate complex ideas simply to enable intelligent debate so that informed, transparent decisions can be made? How might we encourage a more diverse and talented range of people to participate in politics? How might we keep dirty money out of politics?
Because right now there are incentives to obfuscate political debate, attract oddballs to political office and reward special interests.
The first of those is actually very hard, if not impossible. It’s bad enough in a classroom where you have a trained teacher and a class that has to be there. Doing the same for a population that will switch off and do something else if it takes more than 30 seconds to explain is not a task I would like.
This is why democracy has been described as the worst form of government (apart from all the others that have ever been tried).
Well quite. It’s a hard, but essential task. FWIW this one reason I dislike the technocratic EU, which is very good at generating reams of documentation nobody can read. That’s not democracy. We should be heavily investing in ensuring a flow of reliable, accurate and digestible information.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
Are there actually any parties in the UK at the moment who agree with him?
Sinn Féin
Sinn Fėin don’t think climate change is caused by human activity? I didn’t know that.
Found this in a recent SF document: 'Climate Justice and a Just Transition We need to confront global warming, and the methods and alternatives we use must be inclusive and democratic. Sinn Féin believes that the transition to ecological sustainability must be framed by principles of social justice and equality. We need a just transition to a carbon-free future. If the process is not fair, neither will the outcome, that is for certain.'
There's quite a lot more and where there's disagreement it's with methods, not principles.
Thanks. So it looks like Peter Hutchins idea that “ the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial” is not really true in the UK, certainly not amongst significant political parties.
Imagine if politics was as effective as medical science.
We need reform to renew our democracy.
Reform is always proposed by parties not in power and with little hope of gaining it.. You are bleating like the Lib Dems. Sort your Party out, have policies people will vote for...
Even if that were true, that doesn’t make it wrong. Last week doesn’t suggest that all is well.
Parliament sorted it out. The debacle happened, the Tories were made to look very bad and it has done a lot of damage to people's view of the Tories.
I think that understates it. Cameron and Corbyn and to a lesser extent May did a lot for the image of the Tory Party. This is the Tories Ratner moment all over again in agonising slow motion.. It reminds voters what they were beginning to forget.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
This is an excellent example of much of what is wrong with our politics and indeed our society. The contribution to climate change of human activity is not in the slightest “controversial”; it’s simply that Hitchins doesn’t want it to be true. He doesn’t want it to be true because this has implications that he doesn’t like. It impinges on his sense of freedom, it “entitles” governments to nanny him in ways he doesn’t approve of.
What he actually wants is his own facts, tailored to his own prejudices and beliefs. It is a grossly immature way of thinking. Contrary to what he would claim it is the exact opposite of any scientific method. And anyone who disagrees is not only wrong but morally suspect.
In short he’s an idiot, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.
He is not an idiot of course. He is a contrarian and entitled to state his views without being abused. I dont get annoyed by the royal family getting involved in climate change but do get annoyed by their slight lecturing given they per capita are probably the worse culprits with mutltiple houses and private travel etc . Ditto many politicians frankly . Its why I like Greta as she seems determined not to indulge in travel for its own sake and certianly air travel . i shall watch closely if she sticks to this as she grows older .
Peter Hitchins will say things I do not like but think his view on covid -19 restrictions was right in that he was pro vaccination but anti restrictions especially facemasks etc . But it is not good form to accuse people of being idiots when you dont agree with them
The biggest difference between the right and the left is that those on the left think it is the government’s job to solve the nation’s problems, while those on the right think that it is the government’s job not to be the problem.
BoZo and the clown collective are a problem generating machine, which makes their popularity surprising.
Have you never had bosses like that?
Prevent a problem; nobody notices or thanks you. Create a problem, or allow an issue to fester until it is a problem; it makes you important because you're there to solve it.
Think Jim Hacker and the Eurosausage.
(And whilst Dom C is not a reliable witness, didn't he say something similar about BoJo's No 10?)
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
I think we can safely say that Leon isn't a dedicated believer in Islam!
From a human point of view, one can look at the huge variety of spiritual belief systems across the world and through the ages of history, and reasonably conclude that if most of them are completely made up then it is very likely that they all have been.
From a religious point of view it always surprises me that so much argument focuses on the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator or supernatural being, and so little on whether, if there is one, it makes any sense to organise societies to worship and pray to it. Who knows what values this being has, what it might be up to, and whether or not it has any concern about individual human lives? Who knows whether it has any active interest in the fate of its creation(s) or whether it actively intervenes in our world? I could write a whole paragraph of scenarios with a creator where no religion as currently constituted makes any sense, but I am sure most PB'ers can do the imaginative legwork for yourselves.
I would say it is very likely there is a controlling force in the universe (and therefore a "god" ) but its none of the guesses so far and doubt that the real god has much interest in us on planet earth! A bit like the the Queen having a keen interest in some ants in my garden (well maybe Prince Charles does !)
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
I think we can safely say that Leon isn't a dedicated believer in Islam!
From a human point of view, one can look at the huge variety of spiritual belief systems across the world and through the ages of history, and reasonably conclude that if most of them are completely made up then it is very likely that they all have been.
From a religious point of view it always surprises me that so much argument focuses on the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator or supernatural being, and so little on whether, if there is one, it makes any sense to organise societies to worship and pray to it. Who knows what values this being has, what it might be up to, and whether or not it has any concern about individual human lives? Who knows whether it has any active interest in the fate of its creation(s) or whether it actively intervenes in our world? I could write a whole paragraph of scenarios with a creator where no religion as currently constituted makes any sense, but I am sure most PB'ers can do the imaginative legwork for yourselves.
I would say it is very likely there is a controlling force in the universe (and therefore a "god" ) but its none of the guesses so far and doubt that the real god has much interest in us on planet earth! A bit like the the Queen having a keen interest in some ants in my garden (well maybe Prince Charles does !)
So God is possibly that teapot between the Earth and Mars orbits?
Or s/he's away in his shed knocking up the next universe, and left his teapot behind by mistake?
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
Yes, quite. I can't help being surprised and a tad disappointed to learn that Leon believes in a god. But then again, he admits to catching it "whilst on acid and speed in Regent's Park aged 22" which at least is true to form.
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
I think we can safely say that Leon isn't a dedicated believer in Islam!
From a human point of view, one can look at the huge variety of spiritual belief systems across the world and through the ages of history, and reasonably conclude that if most of them are completely made up then it is very likely that they all have been.
From a religious point of view it always surprises me that so much argument focuses on the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator or supernatural being, and so little on whether, if there is one, it makes any sense to organise societies to worship and pray to it. Who knows what values this being has, what it might be up to, and whether or not it has any concern about individual human lives? Who knows whether it has any active interest in the fate of its creation(s) or whether it actively intervenes in our world? I could write a whole paragraph of scenarios with a creator where no religion as currently constituted makes any sense, but I am sure most PB'ers can do the imaginative legwork for yourselves.
I would say it is very likely there is a controlling force in the universe (and therefore a "god" ) but its none of the guesses so far and doubt that the real god has much interest in us on planet earth! A bit like the the Queen having a keen interest in some ants in my garden (well maybe Prince Charles does !)
So God is possibly that teapot between the Earth and Mars orbits?
If the universe is infinite (as many scientists dont discount) then there will be that teapot between Earth and Mars (or at least planets that are exactly like Earth and Mars )
How might we better communicate complex ideas simply to enable intelligent debate so that informed, transparent decisions can be made? How might we encourage a more diverse and talented range of people to participate in politics? How might we keep dirty money out of politics?
Because right now there are incentives to obfuscate political debate, attract oddballs to political office and reward special interests.
The first of those is actually very hard, if not impossible. It’s bad enough in a classroom where you have a trained teacher and a class that has to be there. Doing the same for a population that will switch off and do something else if it takes more than 30 seconds to explain is not a task I would like.
This is why democracy has been described as the worst form of government (apart from all the others that have ever been tried).
Well quite. It’s a hard, but essential task. FWIW this one reason I dislike the technocratic EU, which is very good at generating reams of documentation nobody can read. That’s not democracy. We should be heavily investing in ensuring a flow of reliable, accurate and digestible information.
If an essential task is impossible then we have a problem.
Reliable, accurate and digestible information is hard enough to arrange for something like Physics, where there are few disagreements. Doing the same for politics would be impossible I fear; the choices made as to which information is important helps to define the terms of the debate.
How might we better communicate complex ideas simply to enable intelligent debate so that informed, transparent decisions can be made? How might we encourage a more diverse and talented range of people to participate in politics? How might we keep dirty money out of politics?
Because right now there are incentives to obfuscate political debate, attract oddballs to political office and reward special interests.
The first of those is actually very hard, if not impossible. It’s bad enough in a classroom where you have a trained teacher and a class that has to be there. Doing the same for a population that will switch off and do something else if it takes more than 30 seconds to explain is not a task I would like.
This is why democracy has been described as the worst form of government (apart from all the others that have ever been tried).
Well quite. It’s a hard, but essential task. FWIW this one reason I dislike the technocratic EU, which is very good at generating reams of documentation nobody can read. That’s not democracy. We should be heavily investing in ensuring a flow of reliable, accurate and digestible information.
If an essential task is impossible then we have a problem.
Reliable, accurate and digestible information is hard enough to arrange for something like Physics, where there are few disagreements. Doing the same for politics would be impossible I fear; the choices made as to which information is important helps to define the terms of the debate.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
Are there actually any parties in the UK at the moment who agree with him?
Sinn Féin
Sinn Fėin don’t think climate change is caused by human activity? I didn’t know that.
Found this in a recent SF document: 'Climate Justice and a Just Transition We need to confront global warming, and the methods and alternatives we use must be inclusive and democratic. Sinn Féin believes that the transition to ecological sustainability must be framed by principles of social justice and equality. We need a just transition to a carbon-free future. If the process is not fair, neither will the outcome, that is for certain.'
There's quite a lot more and where there's disagreement it's with methods, not principles.
Thanks. So it looks like Peter Hutchins idea that “ the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial” is not really true in the UK, certainly not amongst significant political parties.
Imagine if politics was as effective as medical science.
We need reform to renew our democracy.
Reform is always proposed by parties not in power and with little hope of gaining it.. You are bleating like the Lib Dems. Sort your Party out, have policies people will vote for...
As already pointed out you are just appallingly cynical. Someone who can never accept that some people do things for the right reasons and not for personal gain.
And just to show how ridiculous your statement is you are also therefore justifying dictatorships. After all according to your logic the only people who object to dictatorships are those who can't get into power under the existing system. Bonkers logic. Most object on principle not because they gain from it.
I dont know why you have chosen to be on my case all the time but so be it.
Its not cynical, its statement of facts and how politics works. BLAIR hung out the possibility of electoral reform until Labour won and then hung the Lib Dens out to dry as there was never any intention of enacting such a policy.
Mr. Boy, are black people (in London, for example) disproportionately likely to carry knives?
That sort of information is vital to providing context for any accusations of racism.
No no no, remember that it’s now only outcomes that are important - so it’s irrelevant whether young black men are more likely to be drug dealers or knife carriers, and it’s racist for the police to not spend equal time searching old white women when looking for drugs and weapons.
More seriously, accusations that police are racist have been a problem for decades, and sadly a whole bunch of genuine issues have been identified. Problems in London are definitely not going away, until there’s a wholesale clearout of the top ranks at the Met.
It certainly seems that misogyny is quite common in sectors of the police, so it wouldn't really be a surprise to find that racism and other forms of prejudice exist too. Just look at Yorkshire CC to see how overt racism gets dismissed as banter.
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
Yes, quite. I can't help being surprised and a tad disappointed to learn that Leon believes in a god. But then again, he admits to catching it "whilst on acid and speed in Regent's Park aged 22" which at least is true to form.
I would the have the reverse view on that - it confirms my view that he can have instinctive depth at times.
Talking of flying teapots, god, and acid trips, this was a cult item in the 1970's :
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
This is an excellent example of much of what is wrong with our politics and indeed our society. The contribution to climate change of human activity is not in the slightest “controversial”; it’s simply that Hitchins doesn’t want it to be true. He doesn’t want it to be true because this has implications that he doesn’t like. It impinges on his sense of freedom, it “entitles” governments to nanny him in ways he doesn’t approve of.
What he actually wants is his own facts, tailored to his own prejudices and beliefs. It is a grossly immature way of thinking. Contrary to what he would claim it is the exact opposite of any scientific method. And anyone who disagrees is not only wrong but morally suspect.
In short he’s an idiot, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.
He is not an idiot of course. He is a contrarian and entitled to state his views without being abused. I dont get annoyed by the royal family getting involved in climate change but do get annoyed by their slight lecturing given they per capita are probably the worse culprits with mutltiple houses and private travel etc . Ditto many politicians frankly . Its why I like Greta as she seems determined not to indulge in travel for its own sake and certianly air travel . i shall watch closely if she sticks to this as she grows older .
Peter Hitchins will say things I do not like but think his view on covid -19 restrictions was right in that he was pro vaccination but anti restrictions especially facemasks etc . But it is not good form to accuse people of being idiots when you dont agree with them
I respectfully disagree. There are issues on which the facts are uncertain. Using your example, were our lockdowns a good idea or not once we had vaccinations available? There are legitimate views in either direction and there still are with those seeking to insist that plan B is necessary, although the weight of evidence is against them and increasingly so.
It is also an indisputable fact that the way the Royal family live and operate is incompatible with their supposedly deep belief in conservation. He is more than entitled to his views about whether they are well placed to make a contribution to the debate and indeed whether such a contribution is consistent with their position.
But this right to be a controversialist does not entitle you to argue about basic facts, nor does pointing out the hypocrisy of our ruling class allow you to elide their implications. You still have to deal with the facts. At best it is a form of whataboutery, at worst simply another form of hypocrisy.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
Are there actually any parties in the UK at the moment who agree with him?
Sinn Féin
Sinn Fėin don’t think climate change is caused by human activity? I didn’t know that.
Found this in a recent SF document: 'Climate Justice and a Just Transition We need to confront global warming, and the methods and alternatives we use must be inclusive and democratic. Sinn Féin believes that the transition to ecological sustainability must be framed by principles of social justice and equality. We need a just transition to a carbon-free future. If the process is not fair, neither will the outcome, that is for certain.'
There's quite a lot more and where there's disagreement it's with methods, not principles.
Thanks. So it looks like Peter Hutchins idea that “ the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial” is not really true in the UK, certainly not amongst significant political parties.
Imagine if politics was as effective as medical science.
We need reform to renew our democracy.
I am always cautious about such calls, as the idea that liberal democracy was effete and ineffective against the challenges of the modern state was core belief of Twentieth Century Totalitarianism.
That said, modern technology does open up the possibility of much more direct democracy, though we have a long way to go before we have a system that doesn't produce contradictory mandates.
The current government is riddled with cronyism, corruption and incompetence, but does have an 80 seat majority. Nonetheless it did a massive U turn midweek because of the outpouring of public outrage at the Leadsom Amendment. A sort of democracy, even if one without a formal public vote.
C20 democracy required reform. For example, women had only just got the vote when we took on the fascists.
What is the status of the Leadsom amendment? Has it been repealed?
Yes, I wonder that. Can the ammendment simply be dumped by the government, or does it require another vote?
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
I think we can safely say that Leon isn't a dedicated believer in Islam!
From a human point of view, one can look at the huge variety of spiritual belief systems across the world and through the ages of history, and reasonably conclude that if most of them are completely made up then it is very likely that they all have been.
From a religious point of view it always surprises me that so much argument focuses on the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator or supernatural being, and so little on whether, if there is one, it makes any sense to organise societies to worship and pray to it. Who knows what values this being has, what it might be up to, and whether or not it has any concern about individual human lives? Who knows whether it has any active interest in the fate of its creation(s) or whether it actively intervenes in our world? I could write a whole paragraph of scenarios with a creator where no religion as currently constituted makes any sense, but I am sure most PB'ers can do the imaginative legwork for yourselves.
I would say it is very likely there is a controlling force in the universe (and therefore a "god" ) but its none of the guesses so far and doubt that the real god has much interest in us on planet earth! A bit like the the Queen having a keen interest in some ants in my garden (well maybe Prince Charles does !)
So God is possibly that teapot between the Earth and Mars orbits?
Certainly sounds more useful than a Spaghetti monster although the physics of both receiving and consuming a nice cup of tea in space are somewhat problematic.
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
I think we can safely say that Leon isn't a dedicated believer in Islam!
From a human point of view, one can look at the huge variety of spiritual belief systems across the world and through the ages of history, and reasonably conclude that if most of them are completely made up then it is very likely that they all have been.
From a religious point of view it always surprises me that so much argument focuses on the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator or supernatural being, and so little on whether, if there is one, it makes any sense to organise societies to worship and pray to it. Who knows what values this being has, what it might be up to, and whether or not it has any concern about individual human lives? Who knows whether it has any active interest in the fate of its creation(s) or whether it actively intervenes in our world? I could write a whole paragraph of scenarios with a creator where no religion as currently constituted makes any sense, but I am sure most PB'ers can do the imaginative legwork for yourselves.
Yes, the belief in an all-good god is as logically incoherent as a belief in an all-bad one.
The flood gates are opening kids, as every pol journo who has been sitting on a sleaze story heads up to their editor's desk...
Jim Pickard @PickardJE · 32m - wealthy benefactors seem guaranteed peerage if they take on temporary role as Tory party treasurer & increase their donations beyond £3m
- in past 20 years all 16 of the party’s main treasurers (apart from most recent) have been offered seat in Lords
If that is true Boris must not be involved then
Not everything bad is his fault. That doesnt make things better, in fact it's worse as it means problems go deeper.
Can't expect the plebs to understand how the real world works - of course wealthy benefactors should be entitled to peerages. What else are peerages for?
I dont think anyone would be shocked people can still effectively buy peerages. But that the treasurers all get one is taking the piss a bit, to suggest all deserved one for other reasons
If you are going to have then concept of working peers appointed by the political parties why are people surprised that senior party figures get them?
The Treasurer’s role is more about leaning on your friends than giving yourself though
Knew you'd come along to defend this concept.
I’m not particularly defending it.
But you can’t make the direct link to the payment, unlike Blair
When its happened 16 times in a row that's pretty compelling as circumstantial evidence goes though.
If it's not a direct link then it's the most remarkable coincidence.
Isn't the link to being Treasurer rather than the donation per se?
Another week of 24 hour shifts. Life's a bitch eh?
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
Yes, quite. I can't help being surprised and a tad disappointed to learn that Leon believes in a god. But then again, he admits to catching it "whilst on acid and speed in Regent's Park aged 22" which at least is true to form.
I would the have the reverse view on that - it confirms my view that he can have instinctive depth at times.
Talking of flying teapots, god, and acid trips, this was a cult item in the 1970's :
The surprise is that even now there are people who believe that Johnson and the Tories are not corrupt. However, they are still likely to win the next election. They have lowered expectations to such an extent that 40% of voters believe that as bad as things are currently, they could be a whole lot worse. The Tories couldn’t have done this without significant, long-term, Labour help.
So we are told on this very forum, there is no proof.
It is a coincidence that a string of party donors receive a peerage in short order It is a coincidence that party donors have contentious planning decisions made in their favour It is a coincidence that party donors find themselves awarded 9-figure NHS contracts without tender, especially when they have zero track record in this area to justify the award It is a coincidence that donor money paid for the Number 10 refurb or for holidays or for jets and none of it properly declared.
It is an Outrage to suggest that the Conservative Party is openly, shamelessly and brazenly corrupt. Look how much propriety there is on show!
Your point about polls seems to be the cover. "Yes we're corrupt. But nobody cares. So we can carry on being corrupt". I truly cannot think of any modern government that decided to set aside basic principles of good governance, legality and honesty because "we can". And when previous PMs point this out, the corrupt try and dismiss their arguments because they are "remoaners". As if Brexit is forcing the Tory Party to award £107m PPE contracts to its friends.
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
I think we can safely say that Leon isn't a dedicated believer in Islam!
From a human point of view, one can look at the huge variety of spiritual belief systems across the world and through the ages of history, and reasonably conclude that if most of them are completely made up then it is very likely that they all have been.
From a religious point of view it always surprises me that so much argument focuses on the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator or supernatural being, and so little on whether, if there is one, it makes any sense to organise societies to worship and pray to it. Who knows what values this being has, what it might be up to, and whether or not it has any concern about individual human lives? Who knows whether it has any active interest in the fate of its creation(s) or whether it actively intervenes in our world? I could write a whole paragraph of scenarios with a creator where no religion as currently constituted makes any sense, but I am sure most PB'ers can do the imaginative legwork for yourselves.
I would say it is very likely there is a controlling force in the universe (and therefore a "god" ) but its none of the guesses so far and doubt that the real god has much interest in us on planet earth! A bit like the the Queen having a keen interest in some ants in my garden (well maybe Prince Charles does !)
So God is possibly that teapot between the Earth and Mars orbits?
Certainly sounds more useful than a Spaghetti monster although the physics of both receiving and consuming a nice cup of tea in space are somewhat problematic.
Loose leaf or teabags?
If the former I agree it would be straining matters...
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
I think that you exaggerate how exclusive various religions are, there being a long history of interfaith co operation. Often there is a recognition that other faiths have an imperfect understanding, but any honest believer knows that their own understanding is imperfect too.
Jesus did after all strongly emphasise deeds over professions of faith, and did praise various heretics such as the Good Samaritan, and the Roman Centurion.
To me Christianity is much more about how we act on earth than about the afterlife, and I don't expect the afterlife to be populated solely by members of my own sect. I do rather like the emphasis on practical acts of the Sikhs and engaged Bhuddists for example. Differences of doctrine and text are just notions in comparison.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
This is an excellent example of much of what is wrong with our politics and indeed our society. The contribution to climate change of human activity is not in the slightest “controversial”; it’s simply that Hitchins doesn’t want it to be true. He doesn’t want it to be true because this has implications that he doesn’t like. It impinges on his sense of freedom, it “entitles” governments to nanny him in ways he doesn’t approve of.
What he actually wants is his own facts, tailored to his own prejudices and beliefs. It is a grossly immature way of thinking. Contrary to what he would claim it is the exact opposite of any scientific method. And anyone who disagrees is not only wrong but morally suspect.
In short he’s an idiot, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.
Apart from signifying he has a column to write every week.
The flood gates are opening kids, as every pol journo who has been sitting on a sleaze story heads up to their editor's desk...
Jim Pickard @PickardJE · 32m - wealthy benefactors seem guaranteed peerage if they take on temporary role as Tory party treasurer & increase their donations beyond £3m
- in past 20 years all 16 of the party’s main treasurers (apart from most recent) have been offered seat in Lords
If that is true Boris must not be involved then
Not everything bad is his fault. That doesnt make things better, in fact it's worse as it means problems go deeper.
Can't expect the plebs to understand how the real world works - of course wealthy benefactors should be entitled to peerages. What else are peerages for?
I dont think anyone would be shocked people can still effectively buy peerages. But that the treasurers all get one is taking the piss a bit, to suggest all deserved one for other reasons
If you are going to have then concept of working peers appointed by the political parties why are people surprised that senior party figures get them?
The Treasurer’s role is more about leaning on your friends than giving yourself though
Knew you'd come along to defend this concept.
I’m not particularly defending it.
But you can’t make the direct link to the payment, unlike Blair
When its happened 16 times in a row that's pretty compelling as circumstantial evidence goes though.
If it's not a direct link then it's the most remarkable coincidence.
There’s a direct link between being Treasurer/party chief executive and getting a peerage.
Treasurers tend to be wealthy individuals who have given a lot of money over time
But you can’t prove the link that “give a lot of money” = “get a peerage”
Oh please. If in practice it is clear 'be our treasurer and you are guaranteed a peerage, and you can be treasurer by giving us 3 million' and it's clear as day.
I did say it is still circumstantial, but when it's that strong that can be enough - you dont need to see brown envelopes changing hands in every case. Your very narrow approach means any kind of step by step approach to buying influence is not a thing, that it must be exchange X for y, as if middlemen were not a thing.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
Are there actually any parties in the UK at the moment who agree with him?
Sinn Féin
Sinn Fėin don’t think climate change is caused by human activity? I didn’t know that.
Found this in a recent SF document: 'Climate Justice and a Just Transition We need to confront global warming, and the methods and alternatives we use must be inclusive and democratic. Sinn Féin believes that the transition to ecological sustainability must be framed by principles of social justice and equality. We need a just transition to a carbon-free future. If the process is not fair, neither will the outcome, that is for certain.'
There's quite a lot more and where there's disagreement it's with methods, not principles.
Thanks. So it looks like Peter Hutchins idea that “ the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial” is not really true in the UK, certainly not amongst significant political parties.
Imagine if politics was as effective as medical science.
We need reform to renew our democracy.
Reform is always proposed by parties not in power and with little hope of gaining it.. You are bleating like the Lib Dems. Sort your Party out, have policies people will vote for...
As already pointed out you are just appallingly cynical. Someone who can never accept that some people do things for the right reasons and not for personal gain.
And just to show how ridiculous your statement is you are also therefore justifying dictatorships. After all according to your logic the only people who object to dictatorships are those who can't get into power under the existing system. Bonkers logic. Most object on principle not because they gain from it.
I dont know why you have chosen to be on my case all the time but so be it.
Its not cynical, its statement of facts and how politics works. BLAIR hung out the possibility of electoral reform until Labour won and then hung the Lib Dens out to dry as there was never any intention of enacting such a policy.
Now that is cynical behaviour.
Yes that case was cynical, but you haven't actually answered my points. If you believe what you believe then why not support a dictatorship? Same rules apply. Some of us actually object to stuff because we believe is it wrong, not because we gain from it. Why do you assume we are all so cynical.
Why am I on your case (as you know I am not alone)? Because you seem a very angry bitter individual who sees the worst in everyone. You never post anything constructive or humourous. You just post bile. It is very sad.
The surprise is that even now there are people who believe that Johnson and the Tories are not corrupt. However, they are still likely to win the next election. They have lowered expectations to such an extent that 40% of voters believe that as bad as things are currently, they could be a whole lot worse. The Tories couldn’t have done this without significant, long-term, Labour help.
So we are told on this very forum, there is no proof.
It is a coincidence that a string of party donors receive a peerage in short order It is a coincidence that party donors have contentious planning decisions made in their favour It is a coincidence that party donors find themselves awarded 9-figure NHS contracts without tender, especially when they have zero track record in this area to justify the award It is a coincidence that donor money paid for the Number 10 refurb or for holidays or for jets and none of it properly declared.
It is an Outrage to suggest that the Conservative Party is openly, shamelessly and brazenly corrupt. Look how much propriety there is on show!
Your point about polls seems to be the cover. "Yes we're corrupt. But nobody cares. So we can carry on being corrupt". I truly cannot think of any modern government that decided to set aside basic principles of good governance, legality and honesty because "we can". And when previous PMs point this out, the corrupt try and dismiss their arguments because they are "remoaners". As if Brexit is forcing the Tory Party to award £107m PPE contracts to its friends.
There are none so blind as those that cannot see. Just look at Blairs govt ridden with lies that led to an.illegal war.
Blair's name was regularly misspelled for a reason.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
I'm not sure Peter gets the whole idea of "monarchy": you know, where you don't get any say in who gets the job?
It's like those idiots who say they support the monarchy but want William to follow HMQ instead of Charles.
Nothing wrong with the idea of an elective monarchy. Sparta had one.
I’m assuming those elected rulers were drawn from a fairly limited pool and their selection would be based largely on their perceived martial ability? For us that would probably mean Harry or Andrew..
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
Yes, quite. I can't help being surprised and a tad disappointed to learn that Leon believes in a god. But then again, he admits to catching it "whilst on acid and speed in Regent's Park aged 22" which at least is true to form.
I would the have the reverse view on that - it confirms my view that he can have instinctive depth at times.
Talking of flying teapots, god, and acid trips, this was a cult item in the 1970's :
I have to say I'm more fond of the way Russell campaigned so passionately on social and political issues - although not necessarily all his end views - than what to me are his somewhat one-eyed views on the possibilities of god. Still, the image of a teapot suspended in the solar system is a nice one for atheists and cosmic hippies to argue over - in fact Daevid Allen, the founder of the group above, was an educated enough hippy that he might even have had Russell's question in mind himself when he created the song.
Mr. Jonathan, fiddling with voting systems is an order of magnitude less important than having a more trustworthy media that focuses more on scrutinising legislation and less on political scalp-hunting.
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
I think we can safely say that Leon isn't a dedicated believer in Islam!
From a human point of view, one can look at the huge variety of spiritual belief systems across the world and through the ages of history, and reasonably conclude that if most of them are completely made up then it is very likely that they all have been.
From a religious point of view it always surprises me that so much argument focuses on the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator or supernatural being, and so little on whether, if there is one, it makes any sense to organise societies to worship and pray to it. Who knows what values this being has, what it might be up to, and whether or not it has any concern about individual human lives? Who knows whether it has any active interest in the fate of its creation(s) or whether it actively intervenes in our world? I could write a whole paragraph of scenarios with a creator where no religion as currently constituted makes any sense, but I am sure most PB'ers can do the imaginative legwork for yourselves.
I would say it is very likely there is a controlling force in the universe (and therefore a "god" ) but its none of the guesses so far and doubt that the real god has much interest in us on planet earth! A bit like the the Queen having a keen interest in some ants in my garden (well maybe Prince Charles does !)
So God is possibly that teapot between the Earth and Mars orbits?
If the universe is infinite (as many scientists dont discount) then there will be that teapot between Earth and Mars (or at least planets that are exactly like Earth and Mars )
That doesn't follow. Because there are infinite things doesn't mean that a particular thing is among them.
There are an infinite number of even numbers. Not one of them is odd.
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
I think we can safely say that Leon isn't a dedicated believer in Islam!
From a human point of view, one can look at the huge variety of spiritual belief systems across the world and through the ages of history, and reasonably conclude that if most of them are completely made up then it is very likely that they all have been.
From a religious point of view it always surprises me that so much argument focuses on the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator or supernatural being, and so little on whether, if there is one, it makes any sense to organise societies to worship and pray to it. Who knows what values this being has, what it might be up to, and whether or not it has any concern about individual human lives? Who knows whether it has any active interest in the fate of its creation(s) or whether it actively intervenes in our world? I could write a whole paragraph of scenarios with a creator where no religion as currently constituted makes any sense, but I am sure most PB'ers can do the imaginative legwork for yourselves.
Yes, the belief in an all-good god is as logically incoherent as a belief in an all-bad one.
and what is good and bad anyway. We generally define good as not doing harm to humans but are perfectly happy to harm and kill animals (ie lesser beings) . Effectively Gods or higher beings decide good and bad dont they ? Even nations do it - nations never think they are the baddies do they?
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
I'm not sure Peter gets the whole idea of "monarchy": you know, where you don't get any say in who gets the job?
It's like those idiots who say they support the monarchy but want William to follow HMQ instead of Charles.
Nothing wrong with the idea of an elective monarchy. Sparta had one.
I’m assuming those elected rulers were drawn from a fairly limited pool and their selection would be based largely on their perceived martial ability? For us that would probably mean Harry or Andrew..
Actually we don't have a wholly hereditary monarchy, succession is controlled by Parliament, as the Act of Settlement and Edward VIII (who needed an Act of Parliament to abdicate) demonstrate.
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
I think we can safely say that Leon isn't a dedicated believer in Islam!
From a human point of view, one can look at the huge variety of spiritual belief systems across the world and through the ages of history, and reasonably conclude that if most of them are completely made up then it is very likely that they all have been.
From a religious point of view it always surprises me that so much argument focuses on the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator or supernatural being, and so little on whether, if there is one, it makes any sense to organise societies to worship and pray to it. Who knows what values this being has, what it might be up to, and whether or not it has any concern about individual human lives? Who knows whether it has any active interest in the fate of its creation(s) or whether it actively intervenes in our world? I could write a whole paragraph of scenarios with a creator where no religion as currently constituted makes any sense, but I am sure most PB'ers can do the imaginative legwork for yourselves.
I would say it is very likely there is a controlling force in the universe (and therefore a "god" ) but its none of the guesses so far and doubt that the real god has much interest in us on planet earth! A bit like the the Queen having a keen interest in some ants in my garden (well maybe Prince Charles does !)
So God is possibly that teapot between the Earth and Mars orbits?
If the universe is infinite (as many scientists dont discount) then there will be that teapot between Earth and Mars (or at least planets that are exactly like Earth and Mars )
That doesn't follow. Because there are infinite things doesn't mean that a particular thing is among them.
There are an infinite number of even numbers. Not one of them is odd.
but surely odd numbers cannot be in a set of even numbers by definition. A teapot though (or its atomic makeup) is in the universe so must happen in a infinite universe where all possible arrangement of atoms will happen?
Mr. kle4, those advocating electoral reform have a tendency to do so because they believe it will deliver political outcomes of which they approve.
FPTP is far from perfect but it does make parties broader, avoids fragmentation, and allows electorates to fairly judge whether a manifesto has been implemented or not. Endless coalitions courtesy of PR make the promises of a party to the electorate into bargaining chips to be bartered away to one another, shifting the authority of forming a government from the hands of the people to the political class.
Regarding the debate over the adequacy of renewables to satisfy energy demand, someone has crunched the global numbers..
Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power worldwide https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z If future net-zero emissions energy systems rely heavily on solar and wind resources, spatial and temporal mismatches between resource availability and electricity demand may challenge system reliability. Using 39 years of hourly reanalysis data (1980–2018), we analyze the ability of solar and wind resources to meet electricity demand in 42 countries, varying the hypothetical scale and mix of renewable generation as well as energy storage capacity. Assuming perfect transmission and annual generation equal to annual demand, but no energy storage, we find the most reliable renewable electricity systems are wind-heavy and satisfy countries’ electricity demand in 72–91% of hours (83–94% by adding 12 h of storage). Yet even in systems which meet >90% of demand, hundreds of hours of unmet demand may occur annually. Our analysis helps quantify the power, energy, and utilization rates of additional energy storage, demand management, or curtailment, as well as the benefits of regional aggregation.
If only there was some kind of molecule that burned very cleanly, was abundant, required low capital costs to build generating facilities, can be relatively easily stored, and which can be bought from diverse geographically locations. If such a thing existed, it could easily provide 10-20% of all electrical power, at limited cost.
Well of course there is, and fossil fuels will continue to be burned for some time - but that doesn’t really respond to the article, which is really quite interesting in setting out the theoretical constraints on wind/solar. (Also having 10% of capacity in gas doesn’t really address the intermittency problem, where there might be a 60% shortfall for an entire week.)
Their baseline cases don’t assume huge amounts of storage, or excess generating capacity - or even supply interconnects between continents (at least two of which are already planned and seeking investment). Even so quite large parts of the globe would have little or no problem with intermittency.
But of course the reality is that both generating capacity and storage are going to increase quite rapidly, not least because electric vehicles will bring that about. That is no longer a question for governments - worldwide the car industry has decided it will happen, and all their investment is now based on that.
Over the next thirty years the world will have to replace its entire power infrastructure anyway. It will probably end up being more cost effective to do so with renewables.
The PPE contract of PPE contracts surely is Uniserve.
A £243m turnover logistics company awarded a £473m transport contract without tender. Followed by a further £300m of contracts. Uniserve find themselves in the happy position of being asked to source and buy PPE which they do at inflated prices, and then transport it.Turns out the expensive PPE is useless. Gets stored. A very large number of shipping containers. Guess who gets the contract to store the Uniserve-procured and Uniserve-transported PPE that was expensive and unfit?
Thats right - Uniserve! £104m of storage fees in just 3 months this year! Remember that the VIP lane - which secured these contracts - was repeatedly denied to exist by Tory ministers.
And yet people suggest that there should be no enquiry and there is nothing to see here.
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
I think we can safely say that Leon isn't a dedicated believer in Islam!
From a human point of view, one can look at the huge variety of spiritual belief systems across the world and through the ages of history, and reasonably conclude that if most of them are completely made up then it is very likely that they all have been.
From a religious point of view it always surprises me that so much argument focuses on the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator or supernatural being, and so little on whether, if there is one, it makes any sense to organise societies to worship and pray to it. Who knows what values this being has, what it might be up to, and whether or not it has any concern about individual human lives? Who knows whether it has any active interest in the fate of its creation(s) or whether it actively intervenes in our world? I could write a whole paragraph of scenarios with a creator where no religion as currently constituted makes any sense, but I am sure most PB'ers can do the imaginative legwork for yourselves.
I would say it is very likely there is a controlling force in the universe (and therefore a "god" ) but its none of the guesses so far and doubt that the real god has much interest in us on planet earth! A bit like the the Queen having a keen interest in some ants in my garden (well maybe Prince Charles does !)
So God is possibly that teapot between the Earth and Mars orbits?
If the universe is infinite (as many scientists dont discount) then there will be that teapot between Earth and Mars (or at least planets that are exactly like Earth and Mars )
That doesn't follow. Because there are infinite things doesn't mean that a particular thing is among them.
There are an infinite number of even numbers. Not one of them is odd.
but surely odd numbers cannot be in a set of even numbers by definition. A teapot though (or its atomic makeup) is in the universe so must happen in a infinite universe where all possible arrangement of atoms will happen?
Not all possible arrangements of atoms have to happen in an infinite universe. There may be an infinite number of atoms or some configurations may repeat an infinite number of times and others never appear etc.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
I'm not sure Peter gets the whole idea of "monarchy": you know, where you don't get any say in who gets the job?
It's like those idiots who say they support the monarchy but want William to follow HMQ instead of Charles.
People have been saying that for decades (I recall it mentioned in Notes from a Small Island). I doubt those who think it actually want a system where a ritual council or something selects a candidate, like we're the Saudis or convening a witenamegot
The surprise is that even now there are people who believe that Johnson and the Tories are not corrupt. However, they are still likely to win the next election. They have lowered expectations to such an extent that 40% of voters believe that as bad as things are currently, they could be a whole lot worse. The Tories couldn’t have done this without significant, long-term, Labour help.
So we are told on this very forum, there is no proof.
It is a coincidence that a string of party donors receive a peerage in short order It is a coincidence that party donors have contentious planning decisions made in their favour It is a coincidence that party donors find themselves awarded 9-figure NHS contracts without tender, especially when they have zero track record in this area to justify the award It is a coincidence that donor money paid for the Number 10 refurb or for holidays or for jets and none of it properly declared.
It is an Outrage to suggest that the Conservative Party is openly, shamelessly and brazenly corrupt. Look how much propriety there is on show!
Your point about polls seems to be the cover. "Yes we're corrupt. But nobody cares. So we can carry on being corrupt". I truly cannot think of any modern government that decided to set aside basic principles of good governance, legality and honesty because "we can". And when previous PMs point this out, the corrupt try and dismiss their arguments because they are "remoaners". As if Brexit is forcing the Tory Party to award £107m PPE contracts to its friends.
There are none so blind as those that cannot see. Just look at Blairs govt ridden with lies that led to an.illegal war.
Blair's name was regularly misspelled for a reason.
Its a wonderful attempt at deflection and whataboutery. I am with you on Iraq - went on the march against the war and everything. But there is no equivalence at all between the Blair government and the Johnson government. None.
The party you support is corrupt. Openly. Brazenly. Shamelessly. Because they know you and people like you will still find excuses for them as they trouser your money.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
Are there actually any parties in the UK at the moment who agree with him?
Sinn Féin
Sinn Fėin don’t think climate change is caused by human activity? I didn’t know that.
Found this in a recent SF document: 'Climate Justice and a Just Transition We need to confront global warming, and the methods and alternatives we use must be inclusive and democratic. Sinn Féin believes that the transition to ecological sustainability must be framed by principles of social justice and equality. We need a just transition to a carbon-free future. If the process is not fair, neither will the outcome, that is for certain.'
There's quite a lot more and where there's disagreement it's with methods, not principles.
Thanks. So it looks like Peter Hutchins idea that “ the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial” is not really true in the UK, certainly not amongst significant political parties.
Imagine if politics was as effective as medical science.
We need reform to renew our democracy.
Reform is always proposed by parties not in power and with little hope of gaining it.. You are bleating like the Lib Dems. Sort your Party out, have policies people will vote for...
As already pointed out you are just appallingly cynical. Someone who can never accept that some people do things for the right reasons and not for personal gain.
And just to show how ridiculous your statement is you are also therefore justifying dictatorships. After all according to your logic the only people who object to dictatorships are those who can't get into power under the existing system. Bonkers logic. Most object on principle not because they gain from it.
I dont know why you have chosen to be on my case all the time but so be it.
Its not cynical, its statement of facts and how politics works. BLAIR hung out the possibility of electoral reform until Labour won and then hung the Lib Dens out to dry as there was never any intention of enacting such a policy.
Now that is cynical behaviour.
Yes that case was cynical, but you haven't actually answered my points. If you believe what you believe then why not support a dictatorship? Same rules apply. Some of us actually object to stuff because we believe is it wrong, not because we gain from it. Why do you assume we are all so cynical.
Why am I on your case (as you know I am not alone)? Because you seem a very angry bitter individual who sees the worst in everyone. You never post anything constructive or humourous. You just post bile. It is very sad.
I have every right to be cynical. Politics is a cynical business. You are obviously young.. wait till you get to 70...... and I just look at politcs from a different angle to you. Bevaise I dont go with the general view and join in with all the filthy and nasty comments on here i am accused of posting bile. That's bollocks.
Mr. kle4, those advocating electoral reform have a tendency to do so because they believe it will deliver political outcomes of which they approve.
FPTP is far from perfect but it does make parties broader, avoids fragmentation, and allows electorates to fairly judge whether a manifesto has been implemented or not. Endless coalitions courtesy of PR make the promises of a party to the electorate into bargaining chips to be bartered away to one another, shifting the authority of forming a government from the hands of the people to the political class.
Who reads the manifestos? I doubt all MPs or ministers do.
Perhaps there should be a test of having read and understood the manifestos before one is allowed to vote.
The surprise is that even now there are people who believe that Johnson and the Tories are not corrupt. However, they are still likely to win the next election. They have lowered expectations to such an extent that 40% of voters believe that as bad as things are currently, they could be a whole lot worse. The Tories couldn’t have done this without significant, long-term, Labour help.
So we are told on this very forum, there is no proof.
It is a coincidence that a string of party donors receive a peerage in short order It is a coincidence that party donors have contentious planning decisions made in their favour It is a coincidence that party donors find themselves awarded 9-figure NHS contracts without tender, especially when they have zero track record in this area to justify the award It is a coincidence that donor money paid for the Number 10 refurb or for holidays or for jets and none of it properly declared.
It is an Outrage to suggest that the Conservative Party is openly, shamelessly and brazenly corrupt. Look how much propriety there is on show!
Your point about polls seems to be the cover. "Yes we're corrupt. But nobody cares. So we can carry on being corrupt". I truly cannot think of any modern government that decided to set aside basic principles of good governance, legality and honesty because "we can". And when previous PMs point this out, the corrupt try and dismiss their arguments because they are "remoaners". As if Brexit is forcing the Tory Party to award £107m PPE contracts to its friends.
There are none so blind as those that cannot see. Just look at Blairs govt ridden with lies that led to an.illegal war.
Blair's name was regularly misspelled for a reason.
Its a wonderful attempt at deflection and whataboutery. I am with you on Iraq - went on the march against the war and everything. But there is no equivalence at all between the Blair government and the Johnson government. None.
The party you support is corrupt. Openly. Brazenly. Shamelessly. Because they know you and people like you will still find excuses for them as they trouser your money.
Quite. A key part of the difference and extent is in attitude and intention.
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
I think we can safely say that Leon isn't a dedicated believer in Islam!
From a human point of view, one can look at the huge variety of spiritual belief systems across the world and through the ages of history, and reasonably conclude that if most of them are completely made up then it is very likely that they all have been.
From a religious point of view it always surprises me that so much argument focuses on the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator or supernatural being, and so little on whether, if there is one, it makes any sense to organise societies to worship and pray to it. Who knows what values this being has, what it might be up to, and whether or not it has any concern about individual human lives? Who knows whether it has any active interest in the fate of its creation(s) or whether it actively intervenes in our world? I could write a whole paragraph of scenarios with a creator where no religion as currently constituted makes any sense, but I am sure most PB'ers can do the imaginative legwork for yourselves.
I would say it is very likely there is a controlling force in the universe (and therefore a "god" ) but its none of the guesses so far and doubt that the real god has much interest in us on planet earth! A bit like the the Queen having a keen interest in some ants in my garden (well maybe Prince Charles does !)
So God is possibly that teapot between the Earth and Mars orbits?
If the universe is infinite (as many scientists dont discount) then there will be that teapot between Earth and Mars (or at least planets that are exactly like Earth and Mars )
That doesn't follow. Because there are infinite things doesn't mean that a particular thing is among them.
There are an infinite number of even numbers. Not one of them is odd.
I nearly ventured into the discussion on finite/infinite universe discussion but decided not to after my comment on pre determination yesterday quoting Laplace while others were referring to Quantum physics. I felt like a stone age man discussing the merits of a wheel while others are talking about differentials.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
Are there actually any parties in the UK at the moment who agree with him?
Sinn Féin
Sinn Fėin don’t think climate change is caused by human activity? I didn’t know that.
Found this in a recent SF document: 'Climate Justice and a Just Transition We need to confront global warming, and the methods and alternatives we use must be inclusive and democratic. Sinn Féin believes that the transition to ecological sustainability must be framed by principles of social justice and equality. We need a just transition to a carbon-free future. If the process is not fair, neither will the outcome, that is for certain.'
There's quite a lot more and where there's disagreement it's with methods, not principles.
Thanks. So it looks like Peter Hutchins idea that “ the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial” is not really true in the UK, certainly not amongst significant political parties.
Imagine if politics was as effective as medical science.
We need reform to renew our democracy.
Reform is always proposed by parties not in power and with little hope of gaining it.. You are bleating like the Lib Dems. Sort your Party out, have policies people will vote for...
As already pointed out you are just appallingly cynical. Someone who can never accept that some people do things for the right reasons and not for personal gain.
And just to show how ridiculous your statement is you are also therefore justifying dictatorships. After all according to your logic the only people who object to dictatorships are those who can't get into power under the existing system. Bonkers logic. Most object on principle not because they gain from it.
I dont know why you have chosen to be on my case all the time but so be it.
Its not cynical, its statement of facts and how politics works. BLAIR hung out the possibility of electoral reform until Labour won and then hung the Lib Dens out to dry as there was never any intention of enacting such a policy.
Now that is cynical behaviour.
Yes that case was cynical, but you haven't actually answered my points. If you believe what you believe then why not support a dictatorship? Same rules apply. Some of us actually object to stuff because we believe is it wrong, not because we gain from it. Why do you assume we are all so cynical.
Why am I on your case (as you know I am not alone)? Because you seem a very angry bitter individual who sees the worst in everyone. You never post anything constructive or humourous. You just post bile. It is very sad.
I have every right to be cynical. Politics is a cynical business. You are obviously young.. wait till you get to 70....
For a cynic, you waste a lot of your energy defending the indefensible.
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
I think we can safely say that Leon isn't a dedicated believer in Islam!
From a human point of view, one can look at the huge variety of spiritual belief systems across the world and through the ages of history, and reasonably conclude that if most of them are completely made up then it is very likely that they all have been.
From a religious point of view it always surprises me that so much argument focuses on the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator or supernatural being, and so little on whether, if there is one, it makes any sense to organise societies to worship and pray to it. Who knows what values this being has, what it might be up to, and whether or not it has any concern about individual human lives? Who knows whether it has any active interest in the fate of its creation(s) or whether it actively intervenes in our world? I could write a whole paragraph of scenarios with a creator where no religion as currently constituted makes any sense, but I am sure most PB'ers can do the imaginative legwork for yourselves.
I would say it is very likely there is a controlling force in the universe (and therefore a "god" ) but its none of the guesses so far and doubt that the real god has much interest in us on planet earth! A bit like the the Queen having a keen interest in some ants in my garden (well maybe Prince Charles does !)
So God is possibly that teapot between the Earth and Mars orbits?
If the universe is infinite (as many scientists dont discount) then there will be that teapot between Earth and Mars (or at least planets that are exactly like Earth and Mars )
That doesn't follow. Because there are infinite things doesn't mean that a particular thing is among them.
There are an infinite number of even numbers. Not one of them is odd.
but surely odd numbers cannot be in a set of even numbers by definition. A teapot though (or its atomic makeup) is in the universe so must happen in a infinite universe where all possible arrangement of atoms will happen?
Not all possible arrangements of atoms have to happen in an infinite universe. There may be an infinite number of atoms or some configurations may repeat an infinite number of times and others never appear etc.
but wouldnt that require a definite rule that atoms cannot make up a certain order (like odd numbers cannot be even ones?) and a teapot can definitlely be made in the universe because well many kitchens will show the proof of that (not my one btw as can never be arsed in faffing about like that!)
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
I think we can safely say that Leon isn't a dedicated believer in Islam!
From a human point of view, one can look at the huge variety of spiritual belief systems across the world and through the ages of history, and reasonably conclude that if most of them are completely made up then it is very likely that they all have been.
From a religious point of view it always surprises me that so much argument focuses on the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator or supernatural being, and so little on whether, if there is one, it makes any sense to organise societies to worship and pray to it. Who knows what values this being has, what it might be up to, and whether or not it has any concern about individual human lives? Who knows whether it has any active interest in the fate of its creation(s) or whether it actively intervenes in our world? I could write a whole paragraph of scenarios with a creator where no religion as currently constituted makes any sense, but I am sure most PB'ers can do the imaginative legwork for yourselves.
I would say it is very likely there is a controlling force in the universe (and therefore a "god" ) but its none of the guesses so far and doubt that the real god has much interest in us on planet earth! A bit like the the Queen having a keen interest in some ants in my garden (well maybe Prince Charles does !)
So God is possibly that teapot between the Earth and Mars orbits?
If the universe is infinite (as many scientists dont discount) then there will be that teapot between Earth and Mars (or at least planets that are exactly like Earth and Mars )
That doesn't follow. Because there are infinite things doesn't mean that a particular thing is among them.
There are an infinite number of even numbers. Not one of them is odd.
Not true. The theory that everything possible must exist in an infinite universe is pretty respectable. If you have an infinite amount of matter, positing that nowhere does it arrange itself as a flying teapot is like positing that a tossed coin will never come up heads.
The surprise is that even now there are people who believe that Johnson and the Tories are not corrupt. However, they are still likely to win the next election. They have lowered expectations to such an extent that 40% of voters believe that as bad as things are currently, they could be a whole lot worse. The Tories couldn’t have done this without significant, long-term, Labour help.
So we are told on this very forum, there is no proof.
It is a coincidence that a string of party donors receive a peerage in short order It is a coincidence that party donors have contentious planning decisions made in their favour It is a coincidence that party donors find themselves awarded 9-figure NHS contracts without tender, especially when they have zero track record in this area to justify the award It is a coincidence that donor money paid for the Number 10 refurb or for holidays or for jets and none of it properly declared.
It is an Outrage to suggest that the Conservative Party is openly, shamelessly and brazenly corrupt. Look how much propriety there is on show!
Your point about polls seems to be the cover. "Yes we're corrupt. But nobody cares. So we can carry on being corrupt". I truly cannot think of any modern government that decided to set aside basic principles of good governance, legality and honesty because "we can". And when previous PMs point this out, the corrupt try and dismiss their arguments because they are "remoaners". As if Brexit is forcing the Tory Party to award £107m PPE contracts to its friends.
There are none so blind as those that cannot see. Just look at Blairs govt ridden with lies that led to an.illegal war.
Blair's name was regularly misspelled for a reason.
Blair's name was misspelled because it could be! And, he wasn't doing so badly, truth-wise, until Iraq.
I'm not sure whether it's because we've more 'investigative journalists' now, or because we've got more social media forums, or what, but over my life time the level of honesty in Parliament seems to have declined.
Could be, of course, just me looking back! There were giants in those days! Or something
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
I think we can safely say that Leon isn't a dedicated believer in Islam!
From a human point of view, one can look at the huge variety of spiritual belief systems across the world and through the ages of history, and reasonably conclude that if most of them are completely made up then it is very likely that they all have been.
From a religious point of view it always surprises me that so much argument focuses on the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator or supernatural being, and so little on whether, if there is one, it makes any sense to organise societies to worship and pray to it. Who knows what values this being has, what it might be up to, and whether or not it has any concern about individual human lives? Who knows whether it has any active interest in the fate of its creation(s) or whether it actively intervenes in our world? I could write a whole paragraph of scenarios with a creator where no religion as currently constituted makes any sense, but I am sure most PB'ers can do the imaginative legwork for yourselves.
I would say it is very likely there is a controlling force in the universe (and therefore a "god" ) but its none of the guesses so far and doubt that the real god has much interest in us on planet earth! A bit like the the Queen having a keen interest in some ants in my garden (well maybe Prince Charles does !)
So God is possibly that teapot between the Earth and Mars orbits?
If the universe is infinite (as many scientists dont discount) then there will be that teapot between Earth and Mars (or at least planets that are exactly like Earth and Mars )
That doesn't follow. Because there are infinite things doesn't mean that a particular thing is among them.
There are an infinite number of even numbers. Not one of them is odd.
but surely odd numbers cannot be in a set of even numbers by definition. A teapot though (or its atomic makeup) is in the universe so must happen in a infinite universe where all possible arrangement of atoms will happen?
The universe may be infinite but all possible arrangements don't necessarily happen.
Mr. Boy, are black people (in London, for example) disproportionately likely to carry knives?
That sort of information is vital to providing context for any accusations of racism.
No no no, remember that it’s now only outcomes that are important - so it’s irrelevant whether young black men are more likely to be drug dealers or knife carriers, and it’s racist for the police to not spend equal time searching old white women when looking for drugs and weapons.
More seriously, accusations that police are racist have been a problem for decades, and sadly a whole bunch of genuine issues have been identified. Problems in London are definitely not going away, until there’s a wholesale clearout of the top ranks at the Met.
Policing needs to be by consent, and this applies strongly to stop and search. Nobody is suggesting that stop and search should be 'equal opportunities'; obviously the police are most likely to stop young people, especially those out and about on the streets.
If young black men are roughly 10 times more likely to be stopped and searched than their white equivalents, there would have to be good reason for it. And it is up to the police to demonstrate that good reason through providing data that shows not just who was stopped, but if anything was found. Their reluctance to provide such data is disappointing. Personally, I suspect socio-economic status is in there as well as race, but that data is harder to collect.
So to return to policing by consent. If young black men feel they are being picked on by the police, which they do, that leads to distrust. And such distrust was a key catalyst for the inner-city riots of the 1980s. For the police to be trusted, they have to be open and transparent with the evidence behind their decisions. But they aren't.
On @Leon ‘s narrow definition, I guess I’m an agnostic (along with Professor Richard Dawkins, the paramount evolutionary biologist of our time).
I don’t KNOW there is no higher power - indeed I hope there is, and that she’s a good person, albeit clearly imperfect, just like the rest of us.
I just think, on balance, it’s very unlikely.
You also don't "know" that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. Except you kinda do.
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair. And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
Yes, quite. I can't help being surprised and a tad disappointed to learn that Leon believes in a god. But then again, he admits to catching it "whilst on acid and speed in Regent's Park aged 22" which at least is true to form.
I would the have the reverse view on that - it confirms my view that he can have instinctive depth at times.
Talking of flying teapots, god, and acid trips, this was a cult item in the 1970's :
Have you ever heard the Russell-Copleston debate? I think you and others would enjoy it.
I think my favourite moment is where Russell says, 'I don't wish to sound arrogant but I find myself perfectly capable of imagining things you say are unimaginable.'
It seems that the so called Spartans in the conservative party who drove Brexit and include JRM and Paterson are under threat from the red wall intake who are furious about last weeks debacle and are organising themselves to take on the increasingly unpopular hard line Brexiteers
Anyway, setting aside open brazen corruption for a moment, I note that Javed is out telling people we need a 3rd Covid vaccine to "save Christmas". In other words when they have to impose restrictions again it is our fault not his.
They will struggle with boosters. There appears to be a real problem in getting the system to administer them even when people want them. And why would people want them? They've been told vaxxed = safe. Passports weren't intruduced formally in England but they have been informally. You need to show your vax status. Double vaxxed? You're safe, in you come.
So if you are safe, and anyway we all know people who still catch Covid having been double-jabbed - then why do we need a booster to "save Christmas"?
Mr. kle4, those advocating electoral reform have a tendency to do so because they believe it will deliver political outcomes of which they approve.
FPTP is far from perfect but it does make parties broader, avoids fragmentation, and allows electorates to fairly judge whether a manifesto has been implemented or not. Endless coalitions courtesy of PR make the promises of a party to the electorate into bargaining chips to be bartered away to one another, shifting the authority of forming a government from the hands of the people to the political class.
Most electoral reform is and has been promoted by people who think it will benefit themselves. You just don't get even positive change without decision makers thinking they will benefit, not very often.
So yes, that is clearly a driver for some, and in practice they a fair weather supporters of reform, see Justin Trudeau, whose premiership has been saved several times by not reforming as he said he would.
No system is perfect and has upsides and downsides, and PR would not solve all our problems and would create some new ones. Genuine supporters know that bit think on balance its better. Just as genuine FPTP supporters know its not perfect.
The key, as ever, is to ignore anyone selling utopian solutions.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
Are there actually any parties in the UK at the moment who agree with him?
Sinn Féin
Sinn Fėin don’t think climate change is caused by human activity? I didn’t know that.
Found this in a recent SF document: 'Climate Justice and a Just Transition We need to confront global warming, and the methods and alternatives we use must be inclusive and democratic. Sinn Féin believes that the transition to ecological sustainability must be framed by principles of social justice and equality. We need a just transition to a carbon-free future. If the process is not fair, neither will the outcome, that is for certain.'
There's quite a lot more and where there's disagreement it's with methods, not principles.
Thanks. So it looks like Peter Hutchins idea that “ the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial” is not really true in the UK, certainly not amongst significant political parties.
Imagine if politics was as effective as medical science.
We need reform to renew our democracy.
Reform is always proposed by parties not in power and with little hope of gaining it.. You are bleating like the Lib Dems. Sort your Party out, have policies people will vote for...
As already pointed out you are just appallingly cynical. Someone who can never accept that some people do things for the right reasons and not for personal gain.
And just to show how ridiculous your statement is you are also therefore justifying dictatorships. After all according to your logic the only people who object to dictatorships are those who can't get into power under the existing system. Bonkers logic. Most object on principle not because they gain from it.
I dont know why you have chosen to be on my case all the time but so be it.
Its not cynical, its statement of facts and how politics works. BLAIR hung out the possibility of electoral reform until Labour won and then hung the Lib Dens out to dry as there was never any intention of enacting such a policy.
Now that is cynical behaviour.
Yes that case was cynical, but you haven't actually answered my points. If you believe what you believe then why not support a dictatorship? Same rules apply. Some of us actually object to stuff because we believe is it wrong, not because we gain from it. Why do you assume we are all so cynical.
Why am I on your case (as you know I am not alone)? Because you seem a very angry bitter individual who sees the worst in everyone. You never post anything constructive or humourous. You just post bile. It is very sad.
I have every right to be cynical. Politics is a cynical business. You are obviously young.. wait till you get to 70....
You twit. We have already been here (a couple of days ago) where you flatteringly thought I was young and I corrected you.
I am 67 as you would know if you read my posts.
It's just I am not an angry bitter old man like you.
"I have just stopped supporting the monarchy. I can’t do it any more. I am not a republican, or anything silly like that. I would like a proper monarchy. But the House of Windsor’s total mass conversion to Green orthodoxy has destroyed the case for this particular Royal Family.
The whole point of the Crown is that it does not take sides in politics. Yet in the past few days, three generations of Royals have given their support to one of the most contentious causes in human history.
Of course you would barely know it now, because so many other institutions have collapsed into conformity in the past year or so, but the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial. "
Are there actually any parties in the UK at the moment who agree with him?
Sinn Féin
Sinn Fėin don’t think climate change is caused by human activity? I didn’t know that.
Found this in a recent SF document: 'Climate Justice and a Just Transition We need to confront global warming, and the methods and alternatives we use must be inclusive and democratic. Sinn Féin believes that the transition to ecological sustainability must be framed by principles of social justice and equality. We need a just transition to a carbon-free future. If the process is not fair, neither will the outcome, that is for certain.'
There's quite a lot more and where there's disagreement it's with methods, not principles.
Thanks. So it looks like Peter Hutchins idea that “ the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial” is not really true in the UK, certainly not amongst significant political parties.
Imagine if politics was as effective as medical science.
We need reform to renew our democracy.
Reform is always proposed by parties not in power and with little hope of gaining it.. You are bleating like the Lib Dems. Sort your Party out, have policies people will vote for...
As already pointed out you are just appallingly cynical. Someone who can never accept that some people do things for the right reasons and not for personal gain.
And just to show how ridiculous your statement is you are also therefore justifying dictatorships. After all according to your logic the only people who object to dictatorships are those who can't get into power under the existing system. Bonkers logic. Most object on principle not because they gain from it.
I dont know why you have chosen to be on my case all the time but so be it.
Its not cynical, its statement of facts and how politics works. BLAIR hung out the possibility of electoral reform until Labour won and then hung the Lib Dens out to dry as there was never any intention of enacting such a policy.
Now that is cynical behaviour.
Yes that case was cynical, but you haven't actually answered my points. If you believe what you believe then why not support a dictatorship? Same rules apply. Some of us actually object to stuff because we believe is it wrong, not because we gain from it. Why do you assume we are all so cynical.
Why am I on your case (as you know I am not alone)? Because you seem a very angry bitter individual who sees the worst in everyone. You never post anything constructive or humourous. You just post bile. It is very sad.
I have every right to be cynical. Politics is a cynical business. You are obviously young.. wait till you get to 70....
You twit. We have already been here (a couple of days ago) where you flatteringly thought I was young and I corrected you. I am 67.
It's just I am not an angry bitter old man like you.
yes but those years between 67 and 70 are known to change even the most optimistic to the most cynical. just you see
Comments
This winter is still going to be grim, but yes, we are past the worst of the virus.
We need reform to renew our democracy.
REFUK have a handful of local councillors: I’m not sure I would call them a major political party.
The point I am trying to make is that the idea that “the view that climate change is caused by human activity remains controversial” is about as true as the idea that the Earth is round or that evolution produced humans; yes, you can find people who disagree but the overwhelming consensus is against them.
Edit to add: in the UK. This is not the case in some other countries, unfortunately, particularly the USA.
Sort your Party out, have policies people will vote for...
The requirement imposed by idiots like Leon on being certain about there being no God really don't apply, and you are under no requirement at all to meet them. As soon as a religious person makes a specific and falsifiable claim that can be tested by experiment (while staying alive), then we're in business.
And in actual fact, Leon agrees. Unless he is a dedicated believer in Islam, and Buddhism, and Shintō, and Zoroastrianism, and the Roman pantheon, and animism, and the hundreds of other barking-mad religions out there, then he shares almost everything in common with atheists. He only differs on one single point, that THIS one, whatever brand of mumbo jumbo he happens to have stumbled across at an impressionable age, THAT'S the one that's true. It's weapons-grade nonsense.
I know that Jesus was not the son of God. I know that Mohammad was not Allah's prophet. I know that Izanagi and Izanami didn't descend to Earth and beget kami. I know that it's not my ancestors in the flames. I know there isn't a divine yogi sitting on top of Mount Kailash with a serpent round his neck and the River Ganges flowing from his hair.
And almost everyone in the whole world agrees with most of that paragraph, knows multiple of those statements to be true.
Happy Sunday, everyone.
Government withholding stop and search data, apparently to avoid embarrassment over its racist implementation as they prepare to extend its use further in the policing bill.
That said, modern technology does open up the possibility of much more direct democracy, though we have a long way to go before we have a system that doesn't produce contradictory mandates.
The current government is riddled with cronyism, corruption and incompetence, but does have an 80 seat majority. Nonetheless it did a massive U turn midweek because of the outpouring of public outrage at the Leadsom Amendment. A sort of democracy, even if one without a formal public vote.
However, as Von Clausewitz said: “ Everything in war is very simple. But the simplest thing is difficult.” I think the same thing applies to politics.
That sort of information is vital to providing context for any accusations of racism.
What is the status of the Leadsom amendment? Has it been repealed?
From a human point of view, one can look at the huge variety of spiritual belief systems across the world and through the ages of history, and reasonably conclude that if most of them are completely made up then it is very likely that they all have been.
From a religious point of view it always surprises me that so much argument focuses on the question of the existence or otherwise of a creator or supernatural being, and so little on whether, if there is one, it makes any sense to organise societies to worship and pray to it. Who knows what values this being has, what it might be up to, and whether or not it has any concern about individual human lives? Who knows whether it has any active interest in the fate of its creation(s) or whether it actively intervenes in our world? I could write a whole paragraph of scenarios with a creator where no religion as currently constituted makes any sense, but I am sure most PB'ers can do the imaginative legwork for yourselves.
Edit to add: so neither were happy last week.
And just to show how ridiculous your statement is you are also therefore justifying dictatorships. After all according to your logic the only people who object to dictatorships are those who can't get into power under the existing system. Bonkers logic. Most object on principle not because they gain from it.
How might we better communicate complex ideas simply to enable intelligent debate so that informed, transparent decisions can be made?
How might we encourage a more diverse and talented range of people to participate in politics?
How might we keep dirty money out of politics?
Because right now there are incentives to obfuscate political debate, attract oddballs to political office and reward special interests.
More talented people will come with politicians are less under the microscope by a sensationalist, short-term media that just wants to try and claim scalps.
A more objective approach by broadcast media would be very welcome. Rather saddens me I had to stop watching ITV News because both anchor (Tom Bradby) and political editor (Peston) think their opinions are what people tune in for.
Prevent a problem; nobody notices or thanks you.
Create a problem, or allow an issue to fester until it is a problem; it makes you important because you're there to solve it.
Think Jim Hacker and the Eurosausage.
(And whilst Dom C is not a reliable witness, didn't he say something similar about BoJo's No 10?)
The problem that old men with power have is how to consolidate and expand their power when they themselves are no longer physically prime, and not inclined to put their own lives on the line by going out and fighting for it?
The answer is to get young men without power to do it on their behalf, and while the powerful have a range of incentives at their disposal, including wealth, fame, preferment, and exploiting the instinctive tendency of young males to fight, for the young there is always the "but I might die?" hurdle to overcome, which is where religion comes in, offering people the myth of a second life and the prospect of heavenly pleasures/drinking and feasting/a harem of virgins, etc., according to which set of myths they choose to proffer.
This is why democracy has been described as the worst form of government (apart from all the others that have ever been tried).
What he actually wants is his own facts, tailored to his own prejudices and beliefs. It is a grossly immature way of thinking. Contrary to what he would claim it is the exact opposite of any scientific method. And anyone who disagrees is not only wrong but morally suspect.
In short he’s an idiot, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.
Some people live for the drama.
It baffles me when others are impressed by it though.
More seriously, accusations that police are racist have been a problem for decades, and sadly a whole bunch of genuine issues have been identified. Problems in London are definitely not going away, until there’s a wholesale clearout of the top ranks at the Met.
I think that understates it. Cameron and Corbyn and to a lesser extent May did a lot for the image of the Tory Party. This is the Tories Ratner moment all over again in agonising slow motion.. It reminds voters what they were beginning to forget.
Peter Hitchins will say things I do not like but think his view on covid -19 restrictions was right in that he was pro vaccination but anti restrictions especially facemasks etc . But it is not good form to accuse people of being idiots when you dont agree with them
Reliable, accurate and digestible information is hard enough to arrange for something like Physics, where there are few disagreements. Doing the same for politics would be impossible I fear; the choices made as to which information is important helps to define the terms of the debate.
Its not cynical, its statement of facts and how politics works. BLAIR hung out the possibility of electoral reform until Labour won and then hung the Lib Dens out to dry as there was never any intention of enacting such a policy.
Now that is cynical behaviour.
Talking of flying teapots, god, and acid trips, this was a cult item in the 1970's :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIgzP4Rj0Ns
It is also an indisputable fact that the way the Royal family live and operate is incompatible with their supposedly deep belief in conservation. He is more than entitled to his views about whether they are well placed to make a contribution to the debate and indeed whether such a contribution is consistent with their position.
But this right to be a controversialist does not entitle you to argue about basic facts, nor does pointing out the hypocrisy of our ruling class allow you to elide their implications. You still have to deal with the facts. At best it is a form of whataboutery, at worst simply another form of hypocrisy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
It is a coincidence that a string of party donors receive a peerage in short order
It is a coincidence that party donors have contentious planning decisions made in their favour
It is a coincidence that party donors find themselves awarded 9-figure NHS contracts without tender, especially when they have zero track record in this area to justify the award
It is a coincidence that donor money paid for the Number 10 refurb or for holidays or for jets and none of it properly declared.
It is an Outrage to suggest that the Conservative Party is openly, shamelessly and brazenly corrupt. Look how much propriety there is on show!
Your point about polls seems to be the cover. "Yes we're corrupt. But nobody cares. So we can carry on being corrupt". I truly cannot think of any modern government that decided to set aside basic principles of good governance, legality and honesty because "we can". And when previous PMs point this out, the corrupt try and dismiss their arguments because they are "remoaners". As if Brexit is forcing the Tory Party to award £107m PPE contracts to its friends.
If the former I agree it would be straining matters...
Jesus did after all strongly emphasise deeds over professions of faith, and did praise various heretics such as the Good Samaritan, and the Roman Centurion.
To me Christianity is much more about how we act on earth than about the afterlife, and I don't expect the afterlife to be populated solely by members of my own sect. I do rather like the emphasis on practical acts of the Sikhs and engaged Bhuddists for example. Differences of doctrine and text are just notions in comparison.
Betting PostF1: backed Haas to have one or two non-classified drivers at 2.75:
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2021/11/mexico-pre-race-2021.html
I did say it is still circumstantial, but when it's that strong that can be enough - you dont need to see brown envelopes changing hands in every case. Your very narrow approach means any kind of step by step approach to buying influence is not a thing, that it must be exchange X for y, as if middlemen were not a thing.
Why am I on your case (as you know I am not alone)? Because you seem a very angry bitter individual who sees the worst in everyone. You never post anything constructive or humourous. You just post bile. It is very sad.
Blair's name was regularly misspelled for a reason.
For us that would probably mean Harry or Andrew..
There are an infinite number of even numbers. Not one of them is odd.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10172959/Camilla-stopped-talking-hearing-President-break-wind-chat-Cop26-summit.html
FPTP is far from perfect but it does make parties broader, avoids fragmentation, and allows electorates to fairly judge whether a manifesto has been implemented or not. Endless coalitions courtesy of PR make the promises of a party to the electorate into bargaining chips to be bartered away to one another, shifting the authority of forming a government from the hands of the people to the political class.
(Also having 10% of capacity in gas doesn’t really address the intermittency problem, where there might be a 60% shortfall for an entire week.)
Their baseline cases don’t assume huge amounts of storage, or excess generating capacity - or even supply interconnects between continents (at least two of which are already planned and seeking investment).
Even so quite large parts of the globe would have little or no problem with intermittency.
But of course the reality is that both generating capacity and storage are going to increase quite rapidly, not least because electric vehicles will bring that about. That is no longer a question for governments - worldwide the car industry has decided it will happen, and all their investment is now based on that.
Over the next thirty years the world will have to replace its entire power infrastructure anyway. It will probably end up being more cost effective to do so with renewables.
A £243m turnover logistics company awarded a £473m transport contract without tender. Followed by a further £300m of contracts. Uniserve find themselves in the happy position of being asked to source and buy PPE which they do at inflated prices, and then transport it.Turns out the expensive PPE is useless. Gets stored. A very large number of shipping containers. Guess who gets the contract to store the Uniserve-procured and Uniserve-transported PPE that was expensive and unfit?
Thats right - Uniserve! £104m of storage fees in just 3 months this year! Remember that the VIP lane - which secured these contracts - was repeatedly denied to exist by Tory ministers.
And yet people suggest that there should be no enquiry and there is nothing to see here.
The party you support is corrupt. Openly. Brazenly. Shamelessly. Because they know you and people like you will still find excuses for them as they trouser your money.
Perhaps there should be a test of having read and understood the manifestos before one is allowed to vote.
I'm not sure whether it's because we've more 'investigative journalists' now, or because we've got more social media forums, or what, but over my life time the level of honesty in Parliament seems to have declined.
Could be, of course, just me looking back! There were giants in those days! Or something
If young black men are roughly 10 times more likely to be stopped and searched than their white equivalents, there would have to be good reason for it. And it is up to the police to demonstrate that good reason through providing data that shows not just who was stopped, but if anything was found. Their reluctance to provide such data is disappointing. Personally, I suspect socio-economic status is in there as well as race, but that data is harder to collect.
So to return to policing by consent. If young black men feel they are being picked on by the police, which they do, that leads to distrust. And such distrust was a key catalyst for the inner-city riots of the 1980s. For the police to be trusted, they have to be open and transparent with the evidence behind their decisions. But they aren't.
I think my favourite moment is where Russell says, 'I don't wish to sound arrogant but I find myself perfectly capable of imagining things you say are unimaginable.'
It seems that the so called Spartans in the conservative party who drove Brexit and include JRM and Paterson are under threat from the red wall intake who are furious about last weeks debacle and are organising themselves to take on the increasingly unpopular hard line Brexiteers
Interesting and I wish them well
They will struggle with boosters. There appears to be a real problem in getting the system to administer them even when people want them. And why would people want them? They've been told vaxxed = safe. Passports weren't intruduced formally in England but they have been informally. You need to show your vax status. Double vaxxed? You're safe, in you come.
So if you are safe, and anyway we all know people who still catch Covid having been double-jabbed - then why do we need a booster to "save Christmas"?
So yes, that is clearly a driver for some, and in practice they a fair weather supporters of reform, see Justin Trudeau, whose premiership has been saved several times by not reforming as he said he would.
No system is perfect and has upsides and downsides, and PR would not solve all our problems and would create some new ones. Genuine supporters know that bit think on balance its better. Just as genuine FPTP supporters know its not perfect.
The key, as ever, is to ignore anyone selling utopian solutions.
I am 67 as you would know if you read my posts.
It's just I am not an angry bitter old man like you.