Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?
This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.
If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
I don't think HMQ concerns herself with the internal affairs of any party. If the Opposition table a motion of no confidence in Parliament, and if it is passed, then she might have something to say. Otherwise it falls outside her job description.
Johnson is weak and cornered. The future is bleak. One more throw of the dice could be his only option.
She has the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn.
In this case, she would be warning him that if he doesn't resign, he'll lose a Commons VONC.
Obviously she'd be saying that if she spends a lot of time on here. She might even have a few bob on it. But predicting the outcome of a HoC vote is a tricky business, even for (especially for?) a reigning monarch.
Not in a world where (a) the PCP has no-confidenced him; (b) the Conservative Party has elected a new leader; and quite possibly (c) the new leader has kicked him out of the party for refusing to resign as PM.
It requires a touching faith in the cohesion of the Conservative Party to foresee such a benign outcome. As I said upthread, Johnson is weak and cornered and 'going quietly' doesn't come natural to him. In fact I'd say his personal prospects are pretty bleak either way, but we know he's a gambler and he knows his record.
Sure, maybe we won't reach the world I'm suggesting. But in that world, it's not accurate that the Conservative Party would have no constitutional significance.
On the thread, the Tory mp defence of everyone breached rules is just silly. People forgive the little things, sure, but it isnt hypocritical to expect those in power over us to be held to higher standards.
The funny thing is that excuse may have flown a couple of months ago but its too late now.
Had the initial response to the stories been a humble apology saying that mistakes had been made and apologising for that then that could have ended it rather than denying reality leading to this drip-drip proving the parties happened.
Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.
Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.
Are you claiming that a poster called Sean T ,who is identifiable to others, buys teenagers for sex?!?
Pretty unacceptable comment.
The original candidly admitted it I believe, though always careful to state that they were on or above the age of consent.
Apropos of nothing I've just checked and the Thai age of consent is 15.
Maybe so but I think the use of the word “buying” has more serious connotations than “paying”.
I also feel that it was a pretty unnecessary personal attack on a poster but who knows.
Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?
It would have needed 65-70 to oppose her in the Commons to bring her down if all the other parties had voted against her.
She would be leveraging off the prospect of "lose me, lose my Government" - depending on whether the Govt would have fallen, or the Tories as largest party would get a chance to form a new Government.
Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.
Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.
A belief in God does not somehow endow virtue, any more or any less than a disbelief. An interest in the possibility of a greater power can induce humility. Once again Sean is an exception to this rule.
Sean thinks he's a gift from said God.
The difference between God and SeanT is that God (quite thankfully) does not think he is SeanT
Where does this leave Eric Clapton?
Tricky one. Eric is an anti-vaxxer which is a shame, but I imagine that if God is a guitarist he very much wishes he were Eric Clapton.
Mr. Roberts, aye, if someone thinks God is on their side it can be a pretext to justify anything.
That said, in broader terms, I think political fundamentalists in recent years have been rather less tolerant than the average Christian. Such as this man, who is not vaccinated and is being denied a heart transplant.
Covered earlier. WIth transplants always being more in demand than supply, they always ration them on the basis of behaviour.
To receive a liver transplant, you must cease being an alcoholic (if you were one) To receive a lung transplant, you must cease smoking. To receive ANY transplant, you must be up to date with any and all necessary vaccinations, as your immune system will be shot to hell for a while.
Giving any needed organ to someone who is more likely than most to keel over promptly is seen as a bad use of these limited resources - it could have gone to someone who would have taken more care and lived longer.
People live (and die) with the consequences of their own choices; it is the first freedom of all. He has made his choice and this is a consequence of it.
Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.
Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.
A belief in God does not somehow endow virtue, any more or any less than a disbelief. An interest in the possibility of a greater power can induce humility. Once again Sean is an exception to this rule.
Unfortunately organised religion and the idea that its followers views are the "divine truth" seems to primarily instil dogmatism instead of humility.
Only on the extremes. I was brought up with Roman Catholicism, but from the Irish tradition. It is a lot more pragmatic than many people want to believe.
I was also brought up in the RC tradition - again from the Irish branch. Probably a good thing as it showed me the idiocy of religion at a fairly early age. Being taught by hypocritical sadist nuns tends to open ones eyes to the shortcomings of religion quite quickly.
An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations
He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period
He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence
OTOH as Cyclefree said the other day, it's the details of the law that count. And that point about the legislation possibly not actually applying to No 10 as a royal peculiar wotsit could be a get out of jail free card for all we know. (Politically tin-eared as it would be to deploy that, Mr J could claim with some justice [sic] that an independent court made that decision.)
Not to decry your points, however!
My observation on all of this and discounting those who want Boris gone because of Brexit or are his natural opponents I cannot see Boris having actually been involved in organising any of these events and it does seem that some civil servants are facing very serious allegations which are far beyond a fixed penalty notice which I understand is paid to the local authority and plays no part in anyone's need to declare it at a later date, including any visas applications for travel
It is clear that quite a few of these events have been discounted as of no interest, as the police are not looking into all of them
I believe Boris has been foolish but I am not sure there is a smoking gun, though the court of public opinion is a different matter
In the absence of the smoking gun I expect Boris to be in post for the May elections following which the conservative mps have a decision to make
...and so does the electorate in May. All decent minded Conservatives should stay away, vote for another party or spoil their ballots if Johnson is still leader.
Just as decent minded Conservatives did in May 2019 😉
Sadly many (tho not all) voted for a crypto-fascist party with a leader and founder who has been called out as a racist by people who know him. Best move on from that subject perhaps Phil?
Quite the opposite, thankfully many voted for a protest vote that saw both the Prime Minister ousted and the racist you're referring to expelled from the European Parliament. Win/win.
The point is that when your own party is mired in crap and with a leader you need rid of, the decent thing to do can be to put a peg on your nose in relatively meaningless elections (not Westminster General Elections) and vote for an alternative party instead. Even if you dislike the alternative party - getting your own house in order by clearing it out can be more important.
I would never name names but in 2019 even a Tory Councillor I know well and have campaigned for on many times, who had voted Remain in 2016 incidentally, confided in me that in the privacy of the ballot box he would be voting for the Brexit Party as May had to go and things needed shaking up.
If Boris doesn't go, that same principle should apply this May as it did then. Even if you dislike the other parties, ousting an unfit Prime Minister has to come first.
PS please don't use my real name. I don't want to be doxxed, I'm not using it online at all, please respect that and please call me Bart or anything else even uncivil if you'd prefer.
An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations
He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period
He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence
OTOH as Cyclefree said the other day, it's the details of the law that count. And that point about the legislation possibly not actually applying to No 10 as a royal peculiar wotsit could be a get out of jail free card for all we know. (Politically tin-eared as it would be to deploy that, Mr J could claim with some justice [sic] that an independent court made that decision.)
Not to decry your points, however!
My observation on all of this and discounting those who want Boris gone because of Brexit or are his natural opponents I cannot see Boris having actually been involved in organising any of these events and it does seem that some civil servants are facing very serious allegations which are far beyond a fixed penalty notice which I understand is paid to the local authority and plays no part in anyone's need to declare it at a later date, including any visas applications for travel
It is clear that quite a few of these events have been discounted as of no interest, as the police are not looking into all of them
I believe Boris has been foolish but I am not sure there is a smoking gun, though the court of public opinion is a different matter
In the absence of the smoking gun I expect Boris to be in post for the May elections following which the conservative mps have a decision to make
Boris, and his allies, blaming the staff is unappetising. What is odd, however, is the idea of kicking out Chief of Staff Dan Rosenfield and bringing back Lord Lister. Rosenfield took over from Lister in 2021. The parties came in 2020, as did the wallpaper.
An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations
He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period
He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence
OTOH as Cyclefree said the other day, it's the details of the law that count. And that point about the legislation possibly not actually applying to No 10 as a royal peculiar wotsit could be a get out of jail free card for all we know. (Politically tin-eared as it would be to deploy that, Mr J could claim with some justice [sic] that an independent court made that decision.)
Not to decry your points, however!
My observation on all of this and discounting those who want Boris gone because of Brexit or are his natural opponents I cannot see Boris having actually been involved in organising any of these events and it does seem that some civil servants are facing very serious allegations which are far beyond a fixed penalty notice which I understand is paid to the local authority and plays no part in anyone's need to declare it at a later date, including any visas applications for travel
It is clear that quite a few of these events have been discounted as of no interest, as the police are not looking into all of them
I believe Boris has been foolish but I am not sure there is a smoking gun, though the court of public opinion is a different matter
In the absence of the smoking gun I expect Boris to be in post for the May elections following which the conservative mps have a decision to make
I don't see the May elections looking that newsworthy for Boris - the Tory party will lose seats but don't have many councils where control is at risk of being lost - beyond I think Newcastle-under-Lyme
I would add that post May is a far better time than now as the Russia Ukraine crisis continues, as does the cost of living crisis, which surely will see Boris/Rishi address in a few weeks, and the launch of levelling up proposals
However, matters are just too volatile to be certain even on a daily basis, indeed every time breaking news comes on the tv I am expecting it to be Boris's resignation
With that out of the way - if Boris does step down, who is the election winner who will replace him?
Sunak? A man who has almost no profile other than as a profligate spender (very conservative that!) The vapid Truss? The vacant Raab?? Lord JRM of Hawhaw?
Has the hollowed out shell of the "Conservative" party actually have anyone capable of taking on the job?
Mr. Roberts, aye, if someone thinks God is on their side it can be a pretext to justify anything.
That said, in broader terms, I think political fundamentalists in recent years have been rather less tolerant than the average Christian. Such as this man, who is not vaccinated and is being denied a heart transplant.
Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.
Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.
A belief in God does not somehow endow virtue, any more or any less than a disbelief. An interest in the possibility of a greater power can induce humility. Once again Sean is an exception to this rule.
Unfortunately organised religion and the idea that its followers views are the "divine truth" seems to primarily instil dogmatism instead of humility.
Only on the extremes. I was brought up with Roman Catholicism, but from the Irish tradition. It is a lot more pragmatic than many people want to believe.
I was also brought up in the RC tradition - again from the Irish branch. Probably a good thing as it showed me the idiocy of religion at a fairly early age. Being taught by hypocritical sadist nuns tends to open ones eyes to the shortcomings of religion quite quickly.
I have known people who found it that way. Most of the nuns who taught me at a young age were really very kind. It probably depends on the order. I always recall that some of them seemed to move on rails. It is one of the many reasons (along with the music) as to why I love the Blues Brothers.
Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.
Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.
Are you claiming that a poster called Sean T ,who is identifiable to others, buys teenagers for sex?!?
Pretty unacceptable comment.
The original candidly admitted it I believe, though always careful to state that they were on or above the age of consent.
Apropos of nothing I've just checked and the Thai age of consent is 15.
Maybe so but I think the use of the word “buying” has more serious connotations than “paying”.
I also feel that it was a pretty unnecessary personal attack on a poster but who knows.
I think SeanT and his various identities very much appreciate all responses to their numerous tales of high and low life and sees them as some kind of validation. We're providing a service really..
Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?
This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.
If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
There is no point the incumbent PM not resigning as there would shortly be a confidence vote in the Commons and they would lose. The only point would be if there is some doubt about the state of the House or just bloody mindlessness.
There was speculation around the time Johnson took over that he would be able to ignore a vote of no confidence going against him in the Commons, wait out the two weeks, and force an election in preference to allowing a different PM take over.
That might be the scenario he would suggest in an attempt to keep MPs fearful of losing their seats in line.
An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations
He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period
He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence
OTOH as Cyclefree said the other day, it's the details of the law that count. And that point about the legislation possibly not actually applying to No 10 as a royal peculiar wotsit could be a get out of jail free card for all we know. (Politically tin-eared as it would be to deploy that, Mr J could claim with some justice [sic] that an independent court made that decision.)
Not to decry your points, however!
My observation on all of this and discounting those who want Boris gone because of Brexit or are his natural opponents I cannot see Boris having actually been involved in organising any of these events and it does seem that some civil servants are facing very serious allegations which are far beyond a fixed penalty notice which I understand is paid to the local authority and plays no part in anyone's need to declare it at a later date, including any visas applications for travel
It is clear that quite a few of these events have been discounted as of no interest, as the police are not looking into all of them
I believe Boris has been foolish but I am not sure there is a smoking gun, though the court of public opinion is a different matter
In the absence of the smoking gun I expect Boris to be in post for the May elections following which the conservative mps have a decision to make
Boris, and his allies, blaming the staff is unappetising. What is odd, however, is the idea of kicking out Chief of Staff Dan Rosenfield and bringing back Lord Lister. Rosenfield took over from Lister in 2021. The parties came in 2020, as did the wallpaper.
Sue Gray's report will clarify where blame lies, not Boris or his allies
An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations
He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period
He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence
OTOH as Cyclefree said the other day, it's the details of the law that count. And that point about the legislation possibly not actually applying to No 10 as a royal peculiar wotsit could be a get out of jail free card for all we know. (Politically tin-eared as it would be to deploy that, Mr J could claim with some justice [sic] that an independent court made that decision.)
Not to decry your points, however!
My observation on all of this and discounting those who want Boris gone because of Brexit or are his natural opponents I cannot see Boris having actually been involved in organising any of these events and it does seem that some civil servants are facing very serious allegations which are far beyond a fixed penalty notice which I understand is paid to the local authority and plays no part in anyone's need to declare it at a later date, including any visas applications for travel
It is clear that quite a few of these events have been discounted as of no interest, as the police are not looking into all of them
I believe Boris has been foolish but I am not sure there is a smoking gun, though the court of public opinion is a different matter
In the absence of the smoking gun I expect Boris to be in post for the May elections following which the conservative mps have a decision to make
...and so does the electorate in May. All decent minded Conservatives should stay away, vote for another party or spoil their ballots if Johnson is still leader.
Just as decent minded Conservatives did in May 2019 😉
Sadly many (tho not all) voted for a crypto-fascist party with a leader and founder who has been called out as a racist by people who know him. Best move on from that subject perhaps Phil?
Quite the opposite, thankfully many voted for a protest vote that saw both the Prime Minister ousted and the racist you're referring to expelled from the European Parliament. Win/win.
The point is that when your own party is mired in crap and with a leader you need rid of, the decent thing to do can be to put a peg on your nose in relatively meaningless elections (not Westminster General Elections) and vote for an alternative party instead. Even if you dislike the alternative party - getting your own house in order by clearing it out can be more important.
I would never name names but in 2019 even a Tory Councillor I know well and have campaigned for on many times, who had voted Remain in 2016 incidentally, confided in me that in the privacy of the ballot box he would be voting for the Brexit Party as May had to go and things needed shaking up.
If Boris doesn't go, that same principle should apply this May as it did then. Even if you dislike the other parties, ousting an unfit Prime Minister has to come first.
PS please don't use my real name. I don't want to be doxxed, I'm not using it online at all, please respect that and please call me Bart or anything else even uncivil if you'd prefer.
7m The crucial moment will be Macron's phone call with Putin on Friday morning. Nobody can be sure what the French president will tell Putin about the European position -- as nobody else will be present.
Which means Europe will surrender sometime on Friday Afternoon
We don't call the Cheese-eating French Surrender monkeys without reason - although there may be extra caviar in Paris later this year.
I could foresee a situation where Macron and Putin announce that after their call the Russians will reduce troops or pull back having received guarantees that the French and Germans will continue to work to address the problem with “Russian people in Disputed Ukrainian regions” and the threat to Russia from NATO enlargement and influence.
Macron gets his global leader scout badge, the Germans can carry on doing business and can prevaricate at will over Russian/western relations, the EU core seem reasonable having not “flapped” unlike those panicky war-lingering Anglo Saxons, who aren’t calm statesmen like France and Germany, Putin gets his “respect” but carries on destabilising Ukraine and also gets his “grievances” stamped as official and this justified by having France and Germany acknowledge them.
Putin also gets to drive a nice wedge between EU core and US/UK.
All of the stuff supposedly kept out of the New Testament would make some of the doctrinal elements of the church rather different. Whilst we have plenty of valid historical proof that there was a Jesus preaching and overturning tables that doesn't prove any of the faith elements or fills us in on what he did for the <20 years between being a teenager and saying hi to John the Baptist.
Mr. Roberts, aye, if someone thinks God is on their side it can be a pretext to justify anything.
That said, in broader terms, I think political fundamentalists in recent years have been rather less tolerant than the average Christian. Such as this man, who is not vaccinated and is being denied a heart transplant.
Covered earlier. WIth transplants always being more in demand than supply, they always ration them on the basis of behaviour.
To receive a liver transplant, you must cease being an alcoholic (if you were one) To receive a lung transplant, you must cease smoking. To receive ANY transplant, you must be up to date with any and all necessary vaccinations, as your immune system will be shot to hell for a while.
Giving any needed organ to someone who is more likely than most to keel over promptly is seen as a bad use of these limited resources - it could have gone to someone who would have taken more care and lived longer.
People live (and die) with the consequences of their own choices; it is the first freedom of all. He has made his choice and this is a consequence of it.
Given that there’s reportedly an order of magnitude higher risk of death if the patient has an anesthetic when infected with Covid, it’s surprising that any doctor would want to operate on someone unvaccinated in anything except a grave emergency.
An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations
He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period
He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence
OTOH as Cyclefree said the other day, it's the details of the law that count. And that point about the legislation possibly not actually applying to No 10 as a royal peculiar wotsit could be a get out of jail free card for all we know. (Politically tin-eared as it would be to deploy that, Mr J could claim with some justice [sic] that an independent court made that decision.)
Not to decry your points, however!
My observation on all of this and discounting those who want Boris gone because of Brexit or are his natural opponents I cannot see Boris having actually been involved in organising any of these events and it does seem that some civil servants are facing very serious allegations which are far beyond a fixed penalty notice which I understand is paid to the local authority and plays no part in anyone's need to declare it at a later date, including any visas applications for travel
It is clear that quite a few of these events have been discounted as of no interest, as the police are not looking into all of them
I believe Boris has been foolish but I am not sure there is a smoking gun, though the court of public opinion is a different matter
In the absence of the smoking gun I expect Boris to be in post for the May elections following which the conservative mps have a decision to make
Hmm. Though he took part in them, reportedly. And it is possible that Mrs Johnson organised 1 to n of them. And of course if Mr J introduced a family member (or two) into work meetings ... anyway, we'll see.
Ah, I see the superannuated whiskey salesman has popped up again, saying that the way back to electoral success for the Conservatives is to focus on low taxes and, therefore, service cuts.
That's absolutely right. Keir Starmer has a commanding lead in the polls because the electorate think he will bring them lower taxes than Boris Johnson.
I realise that there are height jokes to be made about Rishi Sunak but David Frost really is a political homunculus.
Rees Mogg appears to have a form of Boris Derangement Syndrome. It is most odd to observe.
On topic and regarding the absence of letter writing assassins, I begin to wonder if the weight of the Party in safe seats have decided they’d rather lose the next election and let Labour deal with the covid bills. Which is holding back the letter writers because they don’t want to risk Boris winning the VONC. The Raabs of this world would rather spend the next two years in a state of over promotion and then be retired by the electorate, than spend the next two years on the backbenches before likely meeting the same fate anyway.
I have known a few Tory MPs over the years, and I have not met a single one who would ever think it was ever a good time to be in opposition
Ah, I see the superannuated whiskey salesman has popped up again, saying that the way back to electoral success for the Conservatives is to focus on low taxes and, therefore, service cuts.
That's absolutely right. Keir Starmer has a commanding lead in the polls because the electorate think he will bring them lower taxes than Boris Johnson.
I realise that there are height jokes to be made about Rishi Sunak but David Frost really is a political homunculus.
I don't think the polling position is recoverable if Boris somehow manages to cling on. People make comparisons with Thatcher recovering strongly from her unpopularity pre-Falklands, and also to Blair in the fuel crisis of 2001. Leaving aside the fact that there's not going to be a second Falklands, and that Boris is no Maggie, and that the fuel crisis was superficial and temporary, such comparisons miss a crucial element: the issue isn't just about voters' view of Boris, it's about the government falling apart. Whatever now happens, the on- and off- the record comments by large numbers of Tory MPs, including notably the small but important Scottish contingent, can't be unsaid or removed from the internet. Everyone now knows that Tory MPs think Boris is a rule-breaking liar and have lost confidence in him. (They should never have placed confidence in him, of course, but that's by the by). How can the government function against that background? It will just keep coming up again and again, and the various rebel factions will be squabbling repeatedly, sucking all the air out of the political space.
That of course is a parallel with Corbyn, who similarly lost the confidence of his MPs. That wasn't quite as damaging, since Labour were in opposition so didn't need to function as a governing party, but it was still a significant element in Labour's travails.
Will another leader be able to recover the situation? Bloody hard, certainly, but at least there's a possibility if it's someone clean and competent, and if (it's a big 'if') the party unites behind him or her.
7m The crucial moment will be Macron's phone call with Putin on Friday morning. Nobody can be sure what the French president will tell Putin about the European position -- as nobody else will be present.
Which means Europe will surrender sometime on Friday Afternoon
We don't call the Cheese-eating French Surrender monkeys without reason - although there may be extra caviar in Paris later this year.
I could foresee a situation where Macron and Putin announce that after their call the Russians will reduce troops or pull back having received guarantees that the French and Germans will continue to work to address the problem with “Russian people in Disputed Ukrainian regions” and the threat to Russia from NATO enlargement and influence.
Macron gets his global leader scout badge, the Germans can carry on doing business and can prevaricate at will over Russian/western relations, the EU core seem reasonable having not “flapped” unlike those panicky war-lingering Anglo Saxons, who aren’t calm statesmen like France and Germany, Putin gets his “respect” but carries on destabilising Ukraine and also gets his “grievances” stamped as official and this justified by having France and Germany acknowledge them.
Putin also gets to drive a nice wedge between EU core and US/UK.
Trebles all round.
Shit, you might well be right. Or he might end up in a feisty argument with Putin as he's become wont to do with Johnson recently. The big question is whether he has coordinated what he says with Germany beforehand, or is going solo.
Ah, I see the superannuated whiskey salesman has popped up again, saying that the way back to electoral success for the Conservatives is to focus on low taxes and, therefore, service cuts.
That's absolutely right. Keir Starmer has a commanding lead in the polls because the electorate think he will bring them lower taxes than Boris Johnson.
I realise that there are height jokes to be made about Rishi Sunak but David Frost really is a political homunculus.
The other way of phrasing it is Starmer has a lead in the polls because those who could be Conservative supporters don't think that taxes will be lower under Boris Johnson.
An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations
He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period
He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence
OTOH as Cyclefree said the other day, it's the details of the law that count. And that point about the legislation possibly not actually applying to No 10 as a royal peculiar wotsit could be a get out of jail free card for all we know. (Politically tin-eared as it would be to deploy that, Mr J could claim with some justice [sic] that an independent court made that decision.)
Not to decry your points, however!
My observation on all of this and discounting those who want Boris gone because of Brexit or are his natural opponents I cannot see Boris having actually been involved in organising any of these events and it does seem that some civil servants are facing very serious allegations which are far beyond a fixed penalty notice which I understand is paid to the local authority and plays no part in anyone's need to declare it at a later date, including any visas applications for travel
It is clear that quite a few of these events have been discounted as of no interest, as the police are not looking into all of them
I believe Boris has been foolish but I am not sure there is a smoking gun, though the court of public opinion is a different matter
In the absence of the smoking gun I expect Boris to be in post for the May elections following which the conservative mps have a decision to make
Boris, and his allies, blaming the staff is unappetising. What is odd, however, is the idea of kicking out Chief of Staff Dan Rosenfield and bringing back Lord Lister. Rosenfield took over from Lister in 2021. The parties came in 2020, as did the wallpaper.
Sue Gray's report will clarify where blame lies, not Boris or his allies
I put little store in Sue Gray's report. These inquiries, from Denning to Franks to Butler, tend to lay out facts which are, by and large, already in the public domain, then, in Jim Callaghan's words, throw a bucket of whitewash over them.
Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.
Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.
A belief in God does not somehow endow virtue, any more or any less than a disbelief. An interest in the possibility of a greater power can induce humility. Once again Sean is an exception to this rule.
Unfortunately organised religion and the idea that its followers views are the "divine truth" seems to primarily instil dogmatism instead of humility.
Only on the extremes. I was brought up with Roman Catholicism, but from the Irish tradition. It is a lot more pragmatic than many people want to believe.
You can't get more pragmatic than saying sorry and then returning to your naughty business...
7m The crucial moment will be Macron's phone call with Putin on Friday morning. Nobody can be sure what the French president will tell Putin about the European position -- as nobody else will be present.
Which means Europe will surrender sometime on Friday Afternoon
We don't call the Cheese-eating French Surrender monkeys without reason - although there may be extra caviar in Paris later this year.
I could foresee a situation where Macron and Putin announce that after their call the Russians will reduce troops or pull back having received guarantees that the French and Germans will continue to work to address the problem with “Russian people in Disputed Ukrainian regions” and the threat to Russia from NATO enlargement and influence.
Macron gets his global leader scout badge, the Germans can carry on doing business and can prevaricate at will over Russian/western relations, the EU core seem reasonable having not “flapped” unlike those panicky war-lingering Anglo Saxons, who aren’t calm statesmen like France and Germany, Putin gets his “respect” but carries on destabilising Ukraine and also gets his “grievances” stamped as official and this justified by having France and Germany acknowledge them.
Putin also gets to drive a nice wedge between EU core and US/UK.
Trebles all round.
The wedge would perhaps rather be between 4 of the early EU 6 (Fr De Lu Be, excluding NL and perhaps IT), and the rest of the EU.
The Scandies, Eastern Countries, plus much of the Med countries have been more strongly opposed to Russia's invasion and occupation of Ukraine. Many of them are under threat by Russia, and know what it means, and have been strongly supportive.
I have not seen the positions taken by eg IE, Po and Malta.
If Macron gets Russia to withdraw their forces / support from Donbas, and withdraw their occupation of Crimea, then I'll toast him with a bottle of champagne.
Inferring faith to be a "fairy tale" is quite frankly extremely childish and very simplistic.
It's an acceptable attempt at humour, I think, where I took the target to be "abstinence", rather than faith, or fairy tales. Also, calling the virgin birth story a fairy tale isn't really inaccurate. Also, you are insulting fairy tales.
Inferring faith to be a "fairy tale" is quite frankly extremely childish and very simplistic.
I didn't read it that way. And the whole immaculate conception thing is a bit iffy anyway. Joseph is engaged to Mary but they haven't yet got jiggy. Then Mary says that she is Borised and says that God is the father. He is ready to send her on her way when he also gets a visitation who tells him "no seriously, God is the father" so he marries her anyway.
Hmmm. The insistence that Mary be a virgin feels a bit impositiony of others moral standards. The Son of God was a Man, born of woman. There is no need for the sperm implanting into Mary's egg to be a miraculous one.
7m The crucial moment will be Macron's phone call with Putin on Friday morning. Nobody can be sure what the French president will tell Putin about the European position -- as nobody else will be present.
Which means Europe will surrender sometime on Friday Afternoon
We don't call the Cheese-eating French Surrender monkeys without reason - although there may be extra caviar in Paris later this year.
I could foresee a situation where Macron and Putin announce that after their call the Russians will reduce troops or pull back having received guarantees that the French and Germans will continue to work to address the problem with “Russian people in Disputed Ukrainian regions” and the threat to Russia from NATO enlargement and influence.
Macron gets his global leader scout badge, the Germans can carry on doing business and can prevaricate at will over Russian/western relations, the EU core seem reasonable having not “flapped” unlike those panicky war-lingering Anglo Saxons, who aren’t calm statesmen like France and Germany, Putin gets his “respect” but carries on destabilising Ukraine and also gets his “grievances” stamped as official and this justified by having France and Germany acknowledge them.
Putin also gets to drive a nice wedge between EU core and US/UK.
Trebles all round.
If Macron gets Russia to withdraw their forces / support from Donbas, and withdraw their occupation of Crimea, then I'll toast him with a bottle of champagne.
That would be an achievement.
And I’ll have a bacon sarnie from that flying pig…
My moral compass is founded on two simple rules, one from religion and the other from Alcoholics Anonymous!
Golden Rule - Treat others as you want to be treated yourself (in nearly all religions) AA - Accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, and Wisdom to know the difference
FUDHY spending the last two years systematically trying to put people off from voting Conservative has been a wonder to behold. He is now clearly attempting to do the same thing for the Church of England.
I’m beginning to wonder whether HYUFD is another very carefully crafted SeanT alter ego.
You’re not the first to suggest it. Someone else wondered the same on the previous thread.
Rees Mogg appears to have a form of Boris Derangement Syndrome. It is most odd to observe.
On topic and regarding the absence of letter writing assassins, I begin to wonder if the weight of the Party in safe seats have decided they’d rather lose the next election and let Labour deal with the covid bills. Which is holding back the letter writers because they don’t want to risk Boris winning the VONC. The Raabs of this world would rather spend the next two years in a state of over promotion and then be retired by the electorate, than spend the next two years on the backbenches before likely meeting the same fate anyway.
His comment that changing leader would require a general election could come back to bite the Tories if they change leader and don't subsequently call an election. I wonder about his strange attachment to Johnson. Is this simply because nobody else would be daft enough to have him in Cabinet, or does it have some origin in their time at Eton? Perhaps some kind of fagging or digestive related activity? Maybe one of the PB public school boys could offer some insight, if they're not too busy slagging off Comprehensive schools.
RM is 5 years younger. They wouldn't have overlapped.
- “Looking at politics today I wonder whether the collapse of the Tory poll lead over the past few months has been driven by the growing dislike of Boris Johnson. His leader ratings have been in free-fall and has almost certainly become an electoral liability. If current events do force an exit could we see Tory poll leads once again?”
No doubt whatsoever that BJ is dragging down his party. However, there is no guarantee that once the pressure is removed the rubber duck will bob back up to the surface ( @kinabalu - is that the analogy?)
The longer this goes on, the harder it will be to disinfect the Tory brand. If the Con MPs now act promptly I could see consistent Con poll leads again by early 2023. If they prevaricate then I think Starmer’s got this in the bag. The defection was exquisite timing.
Davey, Starmer and Sturgeon need the Tory circus to continue its farewell tour til the very final show.
Yep exactly. They might or might not get a bounce if they tell Johnson to duck off - and there's only one way to find out.
7m The crucial moment will be Macron's phone call with Putin on Friday morning. Nobody can be sure what the French president will tell Putin about the European position -- as nobody else will be present.
Which means Europe will surrender sometime on Friday Afternoon
We don't call the Cheese-eating French Surrender monkeys without reason - although there may be extra caviar in Paris later this year.
I could foresee a situation where Macron and Putin announce that after their call the Russians will reduce troops or pull back having received guarantees that the French and Germans will continue to work to address the problem with “Russian people in Disputed Ukrainian regions” and the threat to Russia from NATO enlargement and influence.
Macron gets his global leader scout badge, the Germans can carry on doing business and can prevaricate at will over Russian/western relations, the EU core seem reasonable having not “flapped” unlike those panicky war-lingering Anglo Saxons, who aren’t calm statesmen like France and Germany, Putin gets his “respect” but carries on destabilising Ukraine and also gets his “grievances” stamped as official and this justified by having France and Germany acknowledge them.
Putin also gets to drive a nice wedge between EU core and US/UK.
Trebles all round.
The wedge would perhaps rather be between 4 of the early EU 6 (Fr De Lu Be, excluding NL and perhaps IT), and the rest of the EU.
The Scandies, Eastern Countries, plus much of the Med countries have been more strongly opposed to Russia's invasion and occupation of Ukraine. Many of them are under threat by Russia, and know what it means, and have been strongly supportive.
I have not seen the positions taken by eg IE, Po and Malta.
If Macron gets Russia to withdraw their forces / support from Donbas, and withdraw their occupation of Crimea, then I'll toast him with a bottle of champagne.
I don’t think Macron could get Putin to withdraw from Crimea and Donbas but what I wrote - should it be the outcome - would be spun as a huge victory by Macron/EU. “Peace in our time” maybe even……
As for the split in the EU I think that if Germany and France got this sort of outcome they wouldn’t give a monkey’s what the rest of the EU thought about it (as Germany clearly doesn’t now) and their own self interest would trump EU interests as ever.
Ah, I see the superannuated whiskey salesman has popped up again, saying that the way back to electoral success for the Conservatives is to focus on low taxes and, therefore, service cuts.
That's absolutely right. Keir Starmer has a commanding lead in the polls because the electorate think he will bring them lower taxes than Boris Johnson.
I realise that there are height jokes to be made about Rishi Sunak but David Frost really is a political homunculus.
The other way of phrasing it is Starmer has a lead in the polls because those who could be Conservative supporters don't think that taxes will be lower under Boris Johnson.
He really isn't. Only 10% of the electorate think that tax is one of the three most important issues facing the country. People are content with the current tax levels, and you could argue that there's room to manoeuvre to increase them.
Yes but in November 1990 all the polls showed a Major or Heseltine led Conservatives leading Kinnock Labour again, even as Thatcher's Tories trailed Labour.
Not a single hypothetical poll now has a Sunak led Tories leading Starmer Labour, even if it gets a bit closer and a Truss or Hunt or Gove or Patel led Tories does even worse than a Boris led Tories.
In 1990 there was also a major policy difference between Thatcher and Major, with Major dumping the poll tax, which played a big part in his bounce. Similarly Boris got a bounce in 2019 due to his differences with May over Brexit.
Where is the major policy difference between Sunak and Boris? Sunak even apparently attended the birthday cake offering to Boris, even if like the PM it was 'sprung' on him by Carrie.
Changes of PM without major policy changes to follow eg Blair to Brown in 2007 or Cameron to May in 2016 rarely see sustained poll bounces and subsequent general election wins
I don't think the polling position is recoverable if Boris somehow manages to cling on. People make comparisons with Thatcher recovering strongly from her unpopularity pre-Falklands, and also to Blair in the fuel crisis of 2001. Leaving aside the fact that there's not going to be a second Falklands, and that Boris is no Maggie, and that the fuel crisis was superficial and temporary, such comparisons miss a crucial element: the issue isn't just about voters' view of Boris, it's about the government falling apart. Whatever now happens, the on- and off- the record comments by large numbers of Tory MPs, including notably the small but important Scottish contingent, can't be unsaid or removed from the internet. Everyone now knows that Tory MPs think Boris is a rule-breaking liar and have lost confidence in him. (They should never have placed confidence in him, of course, but that's by the by). How can the government function against that background? It will just keep coming up again and again, and the various rebel factions will be squabbling repeatedly, sucking all the air out of the political space.
That of course is a parallel with Corbyn, who similarly lost the confidence of his MPs. That wasn't quite as damaging, since Labour were in opposition so didn't need to function as a governing party, but it was still a significant element in Labour's travails.
Will another leader be able to recover the situation? Bloody hard, certainly, but at least there's a possibility if it's someone clean and competent, and if (it's a big 'if') the party unites behind him or her.
There's also a parallell with the press. The Mail has already gone all out against him, for instance, in the expectation of an imminent farewell, and printed exhaustive articles detailing his dishonesties over his entire career, even including things like the proroguing of parliament and lying to the queen, which it never sought to cover before. These things have permanent effects on the public's views of him , which can't be easily undone.
An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations
He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period
He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence
OTOH as Cyclefree said the other day, it's the details of the law that count. And that point about the legislation possibly not actually applying to No 10 as a royal peculiar wotsit could be a get out of jail free card for all we know. (Politically tin-eared as it would be to deploy that, Mr J could claim with some justice [sic] that an independent court made that decision.)
Not to decry your points, however!
My observation on all of this and discounting those who want Boris gone because of Brexit or are his natural opponents I cannot see Boris having actually been involved in organising any of these events and it does seem that some civil servants are facing very serious allegations which are far beyond a fixed penalty notice which I understand is paid to the local authority and plays no part in anyone's need to declare it at a later date, including any visas applications for travel
It is clear that quite a few of these events have been discounted as of no interest, as the police are not looking into all of them
I believe Boris has been foolish but I am not sure there is a smoking gun, though the court of public opinion is a different matter
In the absence of the smoking gun I expect Boris to be in post for the May elections following which the conservative mps have a decision to make
I don't see the May elections looking that newsworthy for Boris - the Tory party will lose seats but don't have many councils where control is at risk of being lost - beyond I think Newcastle-under-Lyme
Still much uncertainty but fwiw am told by WH sources that Gray report will “100%” be handed over today. Also told that Gray has already briefed No10 on contents and that “it’s not good news.”
Doesn’t mean we’ll see it today, of course, nor exactly what we’ll see when we do.
Christ was very socially liberal for his day and age. All his stories are from a liberal perspective. There's nothing conservative he had to say - and the fact that you pretend to believe in Christ while clearly wilfully not understanding him at all doesn't change that.
Yes. The only political interpretation of Christianity that has ever made sense to me is liberation theology. As a not very good Anglican I'm always very aware that I'm too weak to live up to its tenets. But I have no doubt that it's the purest expression of what Christ would want for our world.
Generally as a Labour MP I found I had lots in common with local churches, including some quite fundamentalist ones, on the basis that we'd set aside whether we thought that the story of Easter, resurrection, divine intervention and so on was factually true, which we all agreed none of us could in the end prove one way or the other.
On everything from helping people on low incomes to foreign aid to the environment, we were absolutely on the same page, and the great thing about them was that they actually cared, unlike some constituents who really didn't give a toss about anything outside their front door. In a marginal seat you need to talk with those too, but the churches were much easier going, for the reasons you both cite.
7m The crucial moment will be Macron's phone call with Putin on Friday morning. Nobody can be sure what the French president will tell Putin about the European position -- as nobody else will be present.
Which means Europe will surrender sometime on Friday Afternoon
We don't call the Cheese-eating French Surrender monkeys without reason - although there may be extra caviar in Paris later this year.
I could foresee a situation where Macron and Putin announce that after their call the Russians will reduce troops or pull back having received guarantees that the French and Germans will continue to work to address the problem with “Russian people in Disputed Ukrainian regions” and the threat to Russia from NATO enlargement and influence.
Macron gets his global leader scout badge, the Germans can carry on doing business and can prevaricate at will over Russian/western relations, the EU core seem reasonable having not “flapped” unlike those panicky war-lingering Anglo Saxons, who aren’t calm statesmen like France and Germany, Putin gets his “respect” but carries on destabilising Ukraine and also gets his “grievances” stamped as official and this justified by having France and Germany acknowledge them.
Putin also gets to drive a nice wedge between EU core and US/UK.
Trebles all round.
Doubt that's enough for Putin. He at least needs gas to start to flow through Nordstream 2 so that he can cut gas supplies to and through Ukraine, and keep the EU dependent on Russian gas.
Even that might not be enough to prevent Ukraine from being stronger militarily in the future than it is today.
Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.
I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.
I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.
I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.
You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.
I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
Dawkins and others haven't helped in creating a climate of quite often aggressive and proud ignorance about religion, I would say. Religious fundamentalists of all stripes haven't helped either, naturally.
Dawkins is an unpleasant evangelical atheist with no more ability to prove there is no deity than anyone can prove otherwise. He enjoys mocking those with with religious conviction, which just underlines he is a tosser.
Dawkins is yes just a fundamentalist militant atheist.
Most of the global population are religious, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist, most of them are not as fundamentally religious however as Dawkins is fundamentally atheist
Inferring faith to be a "fairy tale" is quite frankly extremely childish and very simplistic.
A stern reaction to a piece of light comedy.
And others suggest who gets to decide what faith or faiths that what labels? Folk beliefs, cults, religions, mythologies, fairy tales - they may not all be the same, but non adherents are hardly required to use preferred nomenclature, particularly for a gentle gag.
7m The crucial moment will be Macron's phone call with Putin on Friday morning. Nobody can be sure what the French president will tell Putin about the European position -- as nobody else will be present.
Which means Europe will surrender sometime on Friday Afternoon
We don't call the Cheese-eating French Surrender monkeys without reason - although there may be extra caviar in Paris later this year.
I could foresee a situation where Macron and Putin announce that after their call the Russians will reduce troops or pull back having received guarantees that the French and Germans will continue to work to address the problem with “Russian people in Disputed Ukrainian regions” and the threat to Russia from NATO enlargement and influence.
Macron gets his global leader scout badge, the Germans can carry on doing business and can prevaricate at will over Russian/western relations, the EU core seem reasonable having not “flapped” unlike those panicky war-lingering Anglo Saxons, who aren’t calm statesmen like France and Germany, Putin gets his “respect” but carries on destabilising Ukraine and also gets his “grievances” stamped as official and this justified by having France and Germany acknowledge them.
Putin also gets to drive a nice wedge between EU core and US/UK.
Trebles all round.
This is a pretty good prediction but I don't know if Macron has it in him or it would be enough for Putin.
Macron is probably best placed of the Western leaders to do this as Russia has had a cultural inferiority complex toward France since the time of Pyotr Perviy. France's opinion matters to Russia.
I'd love to know Putin's candid thoughts about Johnson.
7m The crucial moment will be Macron's phone call with Putin on Friday morning. Nobody can be sure what the French president will tell Putin about the European position -- as nobody else will be present.
Which means Europe will surrender sometime on Friday Afternoon
We don't call the Cheese-eating French Surrender monkeys without reason - although there may be extra caviar in Paris later this year.
I could foresee a situation where Macron and Putin announce that after their call the Russians will reduce troops or pull back having received guarantees that the French and Germans will continue to work to address the problem with “Russian people in Disputed Ukrainian regions” and the threat to Russia from NATO enlargement and influence.
Macron gets his global leader scout badge, the Germans can carry on doing business and can prevaricate at will over Russian/western relations, the EU core seem reasonable having not “flapped” unlike those panicky war-lingering Anglo Saxons, who aren’t calm statesmen like France and Germany, Putin gets his “respect” but carries on destabilising Ukraine and also gets his “grievances” stamped as official and this justified by having France and Germany acknowledge them.
Putin also gets to drive a nice wedge between EU core and US/UK.
Trebles all round.
The wedge would perhaps rather be between 4 of the early EU 6 (Fr De Lu Be, excluding NL and perhaps IT), and the rest of the EU.
The Scandies, Eastern Countries, plus much of the Med countries have been more strongly opposed to Russia's invasion and occupation of Ukraine. Many of them are under threat by Russia, and know what it means, and have been strongly supportive.
I have not seen the positions taken by eg IE, Po and Malta.
If Macron gets Russia to withdraw their forces / support from Donbas, and withdraw their occupation of Crimea, then I'll toast him with a bottle of champagne.
I don’t think Macron could get Putin to withdraw from Crimea and Donbas but what I wrote - should it be the outcome - would be spun as a huge victory by Macron/EU. “Peace in our time” maybe even……
As for the split in the EU I think that if Germany and France got this sort of outcome they wouldn’t give a monkey’s what the rest of the EU thought about it (as Germany clearly doesn’t now) and their own self interest would trump EU interests as ever.
Which is one reason why it won't happen. The worst thing that Putin could do is been seen to have lost.
Fascinating to see everyone on the side of refusal. COVID-19 can kill the young but it's pretty damned unusual. The Black Death this is not. A man lacking the flu jab would not be denied a heart transplant.
Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.
I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.
I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.
I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.
You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.
I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
Exactly. Whether you believe or not Christianity has literally shaped the world around it.
Still chuckling at Rev HY's suggestion that Jesus Christ was a social conservative: Overturned money lender tables in the temple Told the elders of his religion they were completely wrong Told the established client state of Rome that their everything was wrong Founded a revolutionary movement which overthrew the pagan Roman state and created one with his teachings at its heart
A social conservative would have said the money lenders were fine and fellow Jews should listen to their Rabbis and not challenge the paganistic Roman power that dominated the known world.
No, a social conservative is someone who believes in traditional marriage, is sceptical of divorce and opposes abortion and arguably wants controls on immigration.
You can be a socialist economically and still be a social conservative, in fact many working class Labour voters often were in that category, though some of them voted for May and Boris.
You can also on the other side be rightwing economically but socially liberal.
Jesus may have been open to immigrants but he was also certainly pro traditional marriage and anti divorce except for adultery:
As he says in Matthew 'The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”
7 The proud religious law-keepers said to Jesus, “Then why did the Law of Moses allow a man to divorce his wife if he put it down in writing and gave it to her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Because of your hard hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. It was not like that from the beginning. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. Whoever marries her that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.”
10 His followers said to Him, “If that is the way of a man with his wife, it is better not to be married.” 11 But Jesus said to them, “Not all men are able to do this, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some men who from birth will never be able to have children. There are some men who have been made so by men. There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven. The one who is able to do this, let him do it.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 19:1-12&version=NLV
Many also believe when Jesus says 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself', that should also apply to the fetus when it comes to abortion
Fascinating to see everyone on the side of refusal. COVID-19 can kill the young but it's pretty damned unusual. The Black Death this is not. A man lacking the flu jab would not be denied a heart transplant.
It seems to have been a decision made on clinical grounds. Covid-19 (apparently) can easily kill someone who has just had a transplant, and there is a lot of it around at the moment.
Any evidence that the decision was made for any other reason than that the patient has a reduced chance of surviving the transplant?
Fascinating to see everyone on the side of refusal. COVID-19 can kill the young but it's pretty damned unusual. The Black Death this is not. A man lacking the flu jab would not be denied a heart transplant.
Covid-19 can kill those with heavily impaired immune systems. Should you have a transplant, your immune system will be heavily impaired.
Influenza is not rampant at the moment and in any case has a far lesser IFR than covid. Covid is indeed rampant at the moment and he would shoot straight to a category of Clinically Extremely Vulnerable.
He would also be refused a transplant if he refused blood transfusion, or use of antibiotics, or any other medical intervention that was made a condition of the transplant.
I don't think the polling position is recoverable if Boris somehow manages to cling on. People make comparisons with Thatcher recovering strongly from her unpopularity pre-Falklands, and also to Blair in the fuel crisis of 2001. Leaving aside the fact that there's not going to be a second Falklands, and that Boris is no Maggie, and that the fuel crisis was superficial and temporary, such comparisons miss a crucial element: the issue isn't just about voters' view of Boris, it's about the government falling apart. Whatever now happens, the on- and off- the record comments by large numbers of Tory MPs, including notably the small but important Scottish contingent, can't be unsaid or removed from the internet. Everyone now knows that Tory MPs think Boris is a rule-breaking liar and have lost confidence in him. (They should never have placed confidence in him, of course, but that's by the by). How can the government function against that background? It will just keep coming up again and again, and the various rebel factions will be squabbling repeatedly, sucking all the air out of the political space.
That of course is a parallel with Corbyn, who similarly lost the confidence of his MPs. That wasn't quite as damaging, since Labour were in opposition so didn't need to function as a governing party, but it was still a significant element in Labour's travails.
Will another leader be able to recover the situation? Bloody hard, certainly, but at least there's a possibility if it's someone clean and competent, and if (it's a big 'if') the party unites behind him or her.
There's also a parallell with the press. The Mail has already gone all out against him, for instance, in the expectation of an imminent farewell, and printed exhaustive articles detailing his dishonesties over his entire career, even including things like the proroguing of parliament and lying to the queen, which it never sought to cover before. These things have permanent effects on the public's views of him , which can't be easily undone.
Ah, I see the superannuated whiskey salesman has popped up again, saying that the way back to electoral success for the Conservatives is to focus on low taxes and, therefore, service cuts.
That's absolutely right. Keir Starmer has a commanding lead in the polls because the electorate think he will bring them lower taxes than Boris Johnson.
I realise that there are height jokes to be made about Rishi Sunak but David Frost really is a political homunculus.
The other way of phrasing it is Starmer has a lead in the polls because those who could be Conservative supporters don't think that taxes will be lower under Boris Johnson.
He really isn't. Only 10% of the electorate think that tax is one of the three most important issues facing the country. People are content with the current tax levels, and you could argue that there's room to manoeuvre to increase them.
As I've said to HYUFD before if the Tories lose 10% of the electorate, they lose the election.
Plus you're making the same mistake as (with all due respect) OGH and others kept making pre 2016 in saying that Europe wasn't polling high as an issue so voters didn't care about Europe.
Yes but in November 1990 all the polls showed a Major or Heseltine led Conservatives leading Kinnock Labour again, even as Thatcher's Tories trailed Labour.
Not a single hypothetical poll now has a Sunak led Tories leading Starmer Labour, even if it gets a bit closer and a Truss or Hunt or Gove or Patel led Tories does even worse than a Boris led Tories.
In 1990 there was also a major policy difference between Thatcher and Major, with Major dumping the poll tax, which played a big part in his bounce. Similarly Boris got a bounce in 2019 due to his differences with May over Brexit.
Where is the major policy difference between Sunak and Boris? Sunak even apparently attended the birthday cake offering to Boris, even if like the PM it was 'sprung' on him by Carrie.
Changes of PM without major policy changes to follow eg Blair to Brown in 2007 or Cameron to May in 2016 rarely see sustained poll bounces and subsequent general election wins
7m The crucial moment will be Macron's phone call with Putin on Friday morning. Nobody can be sure what the French president will tell Putin about the European position -- as nobody else will be present.
Which means Europe will surrender sometime on Friday Afternoon
We don't call the Cheese-eating French Surrender monkeys without reason - although there may be extra caviar in Paris later this year.
I could foresee a situation where Macron and Putin announce that after their call the Russians will reduce troops or pull back having received guarantees that the French and Germans will continue to work to address the problem with “Russian people in Disputed Ukrainian regions” and the threat to Russia from NATO enlargement and influence.
Macron gets his global leader scout badge, the Germans can carry on doing business and can prevaricate at will over Russian/western relations, the EU core seem reasonable having not “flapped” unlike those panicky war-lingering Anglo Saxons, who aren’t calm statesmen like France and Germany, Putin gets his “respect” but carries on destabilising Ukraine and also gets his “grievances” stamped as official and this justified by having France and Germany acknowledge them.
Putin also gets to drive a nice wedge between EU core and US/UK.
Trebles all round.
This is a pretty good prediction but I don't know if Macron has it in him or it would be enough for Putin.
Macron is probably best placed of the Western leaders to do this as Russia has had a cultural inferiority complex toward France since the time of Pyotr Perviy. France's opinion matters to Russia.
I'd love to know Putin's candid thoughts about Johnson.
I don’t think Macron could help himself if he thought it would make him the “go to” global statesman and Putin would love it if he had split “the West” and dealt only with Germany and France and ignored US/UK….
As for Putin’s candid thoughts re Boris? I reckon whenever he thinks of Boris he just sees Boris Yeltsin riding a tiny circus bike bashing cymbals together….
A key doctrine of the Catholic Church is that what you do is the key determinant of whether you are saved or not. The focus. therefore, is on people's behaviour. It can also lead to greater acceptance, in some cases, of people's choices.
For a lot of the Protestant Church, their roots like with Calvinism whose (probably) key element is - in a nutshell - it doesn't matter what you do on Earth because it has been predetermined that God has already saved you. In my experience, that can make them less tolerant because their view is you either get it (and so you are saved) or you don't (and therefore you are damned, so not worth bothering with).
The CoE encompasses both wings so you are likely to get a range of views within its congregation.
Here endeth the lesson.
OTOH, that aspect has been heavily downgraded in recent years AIUI. It's also the Presbyterian (at least) teaching that (a) it is a sin to assume that any particular person is damned; and (b) that it is nevertheless your duty to behave as a full Christian; "by their fruits shall they be known".
Presbyterianism also regards the conflation of Church and State, as seen in the Anglican Catholic Church, with horror. "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him."
I don't think there has ever been much official Calvinism in the CofE. Even the Westminster Confession - drawn up in 16xx under iirc Presbyterian tutelage - never made it as official doctrine/policy.
Though of course elements can be found.
Though today it is still a key primary or secondary document for many Denominations - from the Church of Scotland (with a few bits redacted) to the church in NI founded by Ian Paisley.
On a minor point of order - "Anglican Catholic Church" is a "continuing" Anglican denomination, ie one of those that split off a few decades ago (1977) over issues such as gay marriage, but have a far wider cultural critique rooted in traditionalism. They have a few 10s of thousands of members. Perhaps you mean normal CofE integration into the state in some ways.
Still much uncertainty but fwiw am told by WH sources that Gray report will “100%” be handed over today. Also told that Gray has already briefed No10 on contents and that “it’s not good news.”
Doesn’t mean we’ll see it today, of course, nor exactly what we’ll see when we do.
Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.
I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.
I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.
I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.
You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.
I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
Exactly. Whether you believe or not Christianity has literally shaped the world around it.
Still chuckling at Rev HY's suggestion that Jesus Christ was a social conservative: Overturned money lender tables in the temple Told the elders of his religion they were completely wrong Told the established client state of Rome that their everything was wrong Founded a revolutionary movement which overthrew the pagan Roman state and created one with his teachings at its heart
A social conservative would have said the money lenders were fine and fellow Jews should listen to their Rabbis and not challenge the paganistic Roman power that dominated the known world.
No, a social conservative is someone who believes in traditional marriage, is sceptical of divorce and opposes abortion and arguably wants controls on immigration.
You can be a socialist economically and still be a social conservative, in fact many working class Labour voters often were in that category, though some of them voted for May and Boris.
You can also on the other side be rightwing economically but socially liberal.
Jesus may have been open to immigrants but he was also certainly pro traditional marriage and anti divorce except for adultery:
As he says in Matthew 'The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”
7 The proud religious law-keepers said to Jesus, “Then why did the Law of Moses allow a man to divorce his wife if he put it down in writing and gave it to her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Because of your hard hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. It was not like that from the beginning. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. Whoever marries her that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.”
10 His followers said to Him, “If that is the way of a man with his wife, it is better not to be married.” 11 But Jesus said to them, “Not all men are able to do this, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some men who from birth will never be able to have children. There are some men who have been made so by men. There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven. The one who is able to do this, let him do it.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 19:1-12&version=NLV
Many also believe when Jesus says 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself', that should also apply to the fetus when it comes to abortion
Fascinating to see everyone on the side of refusal. COVID-19 can kill the young but it's pretty damned unusual. The Black Death this is not. A man lacking the flu jab would not be denied a heart transplant.
It's not unusual for Covid to kill those with comorbidies or immunocompromised which those undergoing transplants are.
If as a preset criteria you need to be up to date on all vaccinations, then refusing the flu jab would be valid grounds to refuse to put someone on the list surely?
There are sound medical grounds for requiring the vaccine. If an idiot refuses it then the heart can go to the next patient on the list, not the bin.
Along with “it’s not like he robbed a bank” and “everyone was breaking the rules”, today’s Mail front page isn’t quite the defence that those making it think it is - presumably, “This is all your fault, voters” was considered a too on the nose. https://twitter.com/skynewsniall/status/1486301179806363656/photo/1
7m The crucial moment will be Macron's phone call with Putin on Friday morning. Nobody can be sure what the French president will tell Putin about the European position -- as nobody else will be present.
Which means Europe will surrender sometime on Friday Afternoon
We don't call the Cheese-eating French Surrender monkeys without reason - although there may be extra caviar in Paris later this year.
I could foresee a situation where Macron and Putin announce that after their call the Russians will reduce troops or pull back having received guarantees that the French and Germans will continue to work to address the problem with “Russian people in Disputed Ukrainian regions” and the threat to Russia from NATO enlargement and influence.
Macron gets his global leader scout badge, the Germans can carry on doing business and can prevaricate at will over Russian/western relations, the EU core seem reasonable having not “flapped” unlike those panicky war-lingering Anglo Saxons, who aren’t calm statesmen like France and Germany, Putin gets his “respect” but carries on destabilising Ukraine and also gets his “grievances” stamped as official and this justified by having France and Germany acknowledge them.
Putin also gets to drive a nice wedge between EU core and US/UK.
Trebles all round.
This is a pretty good prediction but I don't know if Macron has it in him or it would be enough for Putin.
Macron is probably best placed of the Western leaders to do this as Russia has had a cultural inferiority complex toward France since the time of Pyotr Perviy. France's opinion matters to Russia.
I'd love to know Putin's candid thoughts about Johnson.
I'd probably find it easier to accept the clinical line if so many weren't pushing for the wretchedness of vaccine passports. Or even the use of masks when they have sod all effect (until recently the case in schools here) as a 'signal'.
An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations
He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period
He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence
OTOH as Cyclefree said the other day, it's the details of the law that count. And that point about the legislation possibly not actually applying to No 10 as a royal peculiar wotsit could be a get out of jail free card for all we know. (Politically tin-eared as it would be to deploy that, Mr J could claim with some justice [sic] that an independent court made that decision.)
Not to decry your points, however!
My observation on all of this and discounting those who want Boris gone because of Brexit or are his natural opponents I cannot see Boris having actually been involved in organising any of these events and it does seem that some civil servants are facing very serious allegations which are far beyond a fixed penalty notice which I understand is paid to the local authority and plays no part in anyone's need to declare it at a later date, including any visas applications for travel
It is clear that quite a few of these events have been discounted as of no interest, as the police are not looking into all of them
I believe Boris has been foolish but I am not sure there is a smoking gun, though the court of public opinion is a different matter
In the absence of the smoking gun I expect Boris to be in post for the May elections following which the conservative mps have a decision to make
I don't see the May elections looking that newsworthy for Boris - the Tory party will lose seats but don't have many councils where control is at risk of being lost - beyond I think Newcastle-under-Lyme
Wandsworth and Barnet also at risk
They might also lose control of Somerset to the Lib Dems and Solihull to a Green led rainbow alliance.
I don't know if they will lose much more than 200 seats overall though.
It's even possible the Tories could gain a few seats net in Scotland because they will stand more candidates in the multimember wards in places like Aberdeenshire where they under nominated last time.
7m The crucial moment will be Macron's phone call with Putin on Friday morning. Nobody can be sure what the French president will tell Putin about the European position -- as nobody else will be present.
Which means Europe will surrender sometime on Friday Afternoon
We don't call the Cheese-eating French Surrender monkeys without reason - although there may be extra caviar in Paris later this year.
I could foresee a situation where Macron and Putin announce that after their call the Russians will reduce troops or pull back having received guarantees that the French and Germans will continue to work to address the problem with “Russian people in Disputed Ukrainian regions” and the threat to Russia from NATO enlargement and influence.
Macron gets his global leader scout badge, the Germans can carry on doing business and can prevaricate at will over Russian/western relations, the EU core seem reasonable having not “flapped” unlike those panicky war-lingering Anglo Saxons, who aren’t calm statesmen like France and Germany, Putin gets his “respect” but carries on destabilising Ukraine and also gets his “grievances” stamped as official and this justified by having France and Germany acknowledge them.
Putin also gets to drive a nice wedge between EU core and US/UK.
Trebles all round.
The wedge would perhaps rather be between 4 of the early EU 6 (Fr De Lu Be, excluding NL and perhaps IT), and the rest of the EU.
The Scandies, Eastern Countries, plus much of the Med countries have been more strongly opposed to Russia's invasion and occupation of Ukraine. Many of them are under threat by Russia, and know what it means, and have been strongly supportive.
I have not seen the positions taken by eg IE, Po and Malta.
If Macron gets Russia to withdraw their forces / support from Donbas, and withdraw their occupation of Crimea, then I'll toast him with a bottle of champagne.
I don’t think Macron could get Putin to withdraw from Crimea and Donbas but what I wrote - should it be the outcome - would be spun as a huge victory by Macron/EU. “Peace in our time” maybe even……
As for the split in the EU I think that if Germany and France got this sort of outcome they wouldn’t give a monkey’s what the rest of the EU thought about it (as Germany clearly doesn’t now) and their own self interest would trump EU interests as ever.
Which is one reason why it won't happen. The worst thing that Putin could do is been seen to have lost.
Even worse, lost without trying.
Yes, no chance Putin will withdraw from Crimea. Realistically, there could be more or a less a return to the status quo before the latest Russian build-up. Sure both Putin and Macron could claim victory there.
Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?
This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.
If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
There is no point the incumbent PM not resigning as there would shortly be a confidence vote in the Commons and they would lose. The only point would be if there is some doubt about the state of the House or just bloody mindlessness.
There was speculation around the time Johnson took over that he would be able to ignore a vote of no confidence going against him in the Commons, wait out the two weeks, and force an election in preference to allowing a different PM take over.
That might be the scenario he would suggest in an attempt to keep MPs fearful of losing their seats in line.
That appears to be what happens under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. It isn't a mechanism to force the PM to resign and it's unclear whether the result of codifying the form of confidence motion has been to make it impossible for the house to indicate its support for a successor (they can only stave off an election 14 days after a no confidence vote by voting confidence in HM Government, not a notional alternative government - so the previous government has to have resigned first).
Ah, I see the superannuated whiskey salesman has popped up again, saying that the way back to electoral success for the Conservatives is to focus on low taxes and, therefore, service cuts.
That's absolutely right. Keir Starmer has a commanding lead in the polls because the electorate think he will bring them lower taxes than Boris Johnson.
I realise that there are height jokes to be made about Rishi Sunak but David Frost really is a political homunculus.
The other way of phrasing it is Starmer has a lead in the polls because those who could be Conservative supporters don't think that taxes will be lower under Boris Johnson.
He really isn't. Only 10% of the electorate think that tax is one of the three most important issues facing the country. People are content with the current tax levels, and you could argue that there's room to manoeuvre to increase them.
As I've said to HYUFD before if the Tories lose 10% of the electorate, they lose the election.
Plus you're making the same mistake as (with all due respect) OGH and others kept making pre 2016 in saying that Europe wasn't polling high as an issue so voters didn't care about Europe.
I don't think they did care about Europe to be honest. They cared about having controls over their own lives, and the Leave brigade very cleverly convinced them that this was because of Europe.
Maybe Frosty can pull the same trick with taxes. It works in America, I guess.
Still much uncertainty but fwiw am told by WH sources that Gray report will “100%” be handed over today. Also told that Gray has already briefed No10 on contents and that “it’s not good news.”
Doesn’t mean we’ll see it today, of course, nor exactly what we’ll see when we do.
I can’t help wonder in what dimension a report detailing parties that happened that we already know happened would present “good news.”
Forget whether parties happened, Johnson lives or dies by whether he knew enough about them that his shock and disgust post-Allegra amounted to misleading the House
What should Starmer's approach be today ? He has a number of options, ; an embarassment of riches, even.
I'd go on Ukraine. Say "I've done all I can to get rid of the PM, now it's up to the Tories." Then look grown-up and ask about Ukraine.
Hold on... we are in unprecedented times where the police are actively engaged in investigating alleged criminal acts by central members of the government, potentially including the prime minister himself. This is worthy of mention at PMQs.
I'd probably find it easier to accept the clinical line if so many weren't pushing for the wretchedness of vaccine passports. Or even the use of masks when they have sod all effect (until recently the case in schools here) as a 'signal'.
It's in the US rather than here, for a start.
And the statement from the hospital is: “Like many other transplant programs in the United States – the Covid-19 vaccine is one of several vaccines and lifestyle behaviors required for transplant candidates in the Mass General Brigham system in order to create both the best chance for a successful operation and also the patient’s survival after transplantation.”
It's simply that the covid-19 vaccine has been added to an existing list of required vaccinations and he has decided to refuse it. If it's against his principles (as he has stated), for all we know, he may have refused other required vaccines as well.
Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.
I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.
I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.
I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.
You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.
I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
Exactly. Whether you believe or not Christianity has literally shaped the world around it.
Still chuckling at Rev HY's suggestion that Jesus Christ was a social conservative: Overturned money lender tables in the temple Told the elders of his religion they were completely wrong Told the established client state of Rome that their everything was wrong Founded a revolutionary movement which overthrew the pagan Roman state and created one with his teachings at its heart
A social conservative would have said the money lenders were fine and fellow Jews should listen to their Rabbis and not challenge the paganistic Roman power that dominated the known world.
No, a social conservative is someone who believes in traditional marriage, is sceptical of divorce and opposes abortion and arguably wants controls on immigration.
You can be a socialist economically and still be a social conservative, in fact many working class Labour voters often were in that category, though some of them voted for May and Boris.
You can also on the other side be rightwing economically but socially liberal.
Jesus may have been open to immigrants but he was also certainly pro traditional marriage and anti divorce except for adultery:
As he says in Matthew 'The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”
7 The proud religious law-keepers said to Jesus, “Then why did the Law of Moses allow a man to divorce his wife if he put it down in writing and gave it to her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Because of your hard hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. It was not like that from the beginning. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. Whoever marries her that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.”
10 His followers said to Him, “If that is the way of a man with his wife, it is better not to be married.” 11 But Jesus said to them, “Not all men are able to do this, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some men who from birth will never be able to have children. There are some men who have been made so by men. There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven. The one who is able to do this, let him do it.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 19:1-12&version=NLV
Many also believe when Jesus says 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself', that should also apply to the fetus when it comes to abortion
Prannock. You are applying your morals of today and trying to retrofit them to Judea back then.
Have you read Luke 15:3 yet you massive hypocrite? And understood it? And repented?
No? Best to can it then before your Massive Plank gets even longer in your eye.
Inferring faith to be a "fairy tale" is quite frankly extremely childish and very simplistic.
I didn't read it that way. And the whole immaculate conception thing is a bit iffy anyway. Joseph is engaged to Mary but they haven't yet got jiggy. Then Mary says that she is Borised and says that God is the father. He is ready to send her on her way when he also gets a visitation who tells him "no seriously, God is the father" so he marries her anyway.
Hmmm. The insistence that Mary be a virgin feels a bit impositiony of others moral standards. The Son of God was a Man, born of woman. There is no need for the sperm implanting into Mary's egg to be a miraculous one.
I don't disagree with your points. I have what most fundamentalists would view as an extremely heretical view of God/Supreme being or whatever you might call him/her/it/they. Nonetheless, when atheists refer to religious belief as "fairy tale" in the belief that it is some kind of patronising wit, I think it exposes them for their lack of intellectual curiosity, as well as a kind of unpleasant rudeness. Doesn't mean that there shouldn't be humour about religion. I probably know the lines from "The Life of Brian" as well as any, but then again, we are all individuals. I'm not.
What should Starmer's approach be today ? He has a number of options, ; an embarassment of riches, even.
I'd go on Ukraine. Say "I've done all I can to get rid of the PM, now it's up to the Tories." Then look grown-up and ask about Ukraine.
Hold on... we are in unprecedented times where the police are actively engaged in investigating alleged criminal acts by central members of the government, potentially including the prime minister himself. This is worthy of mention at PMQs.
For sure, mention it before the first question, but I think it might be worth returning to the here and now. PMQs is getting quite a lot of attention at the moment, so this is a chance for Starmer to show the voters that he is no Jeremy Corbyn when it comes to being tough on Russia.
An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations
He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period
He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence
OTOH as Cyclefree said the other day, it's the details of the law that count. And that point about the legislation possibly not actually applying to No 10 as a royal peculiar wotsit could be a get out of jail free card for all we know. (Politically tin-eared as it would be to deploy that, Mr J could claim with some justice [sic] that an independent court made that decision.)
Not to decry your points, however!
My observation on all of this and discounting those who want Boris gone because of Brexit or are his natural opponents I cannot see Boris having actually been involved in organising any of these events and it does seem that some civil servants are facing very serious allegations which are far beyond a fixed penalty notice which I understand is paid to the local authority and plays no part in anyone's need to declare it at a later date, including any visas applications for travel
It is clear that quite a few of these events have been discounted as of no interest, as the police are not looking into all of them
I believe Boris has been foolish but I am not sure there is a smoking gun, though the court of public opinion is a different matter
In the absence of the smoking gun I expect Boris to be in post for the May elections following which the conservative mps have a decision to make
I don't see the May elections looking that newsworthy for Boris - the Tory party will lose seats but don't have many councils where control is at risk of being lost - beyond I think Newcastle-under-Lyme
Wandsworth and Barnet also at risk
They might also lose control of Somerset to the Lib Dems and Solihull to a Green led rainbow alliance.
I don't know if they will lose much more than 200 seats overall though.
It's even possible the Tories could gain a few seats net in Scotland because they will stand more candidates in the multimember wards in places like Aberdeenshire where they under nominated last time.
Whatever happens the Tories will not do as badly as they did under May in May 2019 when they lost over 1,000 councillors and got just 28% of the vote.
However Labour is likely to have its best local elections since 2012 as most Tory losses in 2019 were to the LDs, Greens and Independents not Labour and Labour is polling much better than it was in 2019 now Starmer has replaced Corbyn. Councils in London and Wales are also up unlike 2019 and offer Labour better chances for gains
Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.
I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.
I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.
I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.
You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.
I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
Exactly. Whether you believe or not Christianity has literally shaped the world around it.
Still chuckling at Rev HY's suggestion that Jesus Christ was a social conservative: Overturned money lender tables in the temple Told the elders of his religion they were completely wrong Told the established client state of Rome that their everything was wrong Founded a revolutionary movement which overthrew the pagan Roman state and created one with his teachings at its heart
A social conservative would have said the money lenders were fine and fellow Jews should listen to their Rabbis and not challenge the paganistic Roman power that dominated the known world.
No, a social conservative is someone who believes in traditional marriage, is sceptical of divorce and opposes abortion and arguably wants controls on immigration.
You can be a socialist economically and still be a social conservative, in fact many working class Labour voters often were in that category, though some of them voted for May and Boris.
You can also on the other side be rightwing economically but socially liberal.
Jesus may have been open to immigrants but he was also certainly pro traditional marriage and anti divorce except for adultery:
As he says in Matthew 'The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”
7 The proud religious law-keepers said to Jesus, “Then why did the Law of Moses allow a man to divorce his wife if he put it down in writing and gave it to her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Because of your hard hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. It was not like that from the beginning. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. Whoever marries her that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.”
10 His followers said to Him, “If that is the way of a man with his wife, it is better not to be married.” 11 But Jesus said to them, “Not all men are able to do this, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some men who from birth will never be able to have children. There are some men who have been made so by men. There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven. The one who is able to do this, let him do it.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 19:1-12&version=NLV
Many also believe when Jesus says 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself', that should also apply to the fetus when it comes to abortion
I cannot say I've ever come across that last one. Seems like there are much stronger moral and religious arguments in support of the position without bringing in a parable about loving neighbor's.
On the social front I'm a little sceptical of people going a bit far on the social liberalism of a 1st century rabbi, but am no Jesus expert, but equally you cannot just self define a term for a group so it only means what you want it to mean eg social conservative.
Who decides when the report is published and how redacted it is?
Sky just now... Sue Gray decides when it's released, the PM decides how redacted it is. Potentially the latter impacting why the former has not occurred.
7m The crucial moment will be Macron's phone call with Putin on Friday morning. Nobody can be sure what the French president will tell Putin about the European position -- as nobody else will be present.
Which means Europe will surrender sometime on Friday Afternoon
We don't call the Cheese-eating French Surrender monkeys without reason - although there may be extra caviar in Paris later this year.
I’m sure Macron will avoid showing off the fur coat, caviar and vodka in public, at least until after the election.
There has been a lot of commentary on Germany and weapons to Russia.
It has been generally not noted that France had a 1.7bn Euro contract for a pair of 26k tonne Mistral Class amphibious assault ships that they had to pull in the end. Largest Western arms contract to Russia since WW2.
I don't think the polling position is recoverable if Boris somehow manages to cling on. People make comparisons with Thatcher recovering strongly from her unpopularity pre-Falklands, and also to Blair in the fuel crisis of 2001. Leaving aside the fact that there's not going to be a second Falklands, and that Boris is no Maggie, and that the fuel crisis was superficial and temporary, such comparisons miss a crucial element: the issue isn't just about voters' view of Boris, it's about the government falling apart. Whatever now happens, the on- and off- the record comments by large numbers of Tory MPs, including notably the small but important Scottish contingent, can't be unsaid or removed from the internet. Everyone now knows that Tory MPs think Boris is a rule-breaking liar and have lost confidence in him. (They should never have placed confidence in him, of course, but that's by the by). How can the government function against that background? It will just keep coming up again and again, and the various rebel factions will be squabbling repeatedly, sucking all the air out of the political space.
That of course is a parallel with Corbyn, who similarly lost the confidence of his MPs. That wasn't quite as damaging, since Labour were in opposition so didn't need to function as a governing party, but it was still a significant element in Labour's travails.
Will another leader be able to recover the situation? Bloody hard, certainly, but at least there's a possibility if it's someone clean and competent, and if (it's a big 'if') the party unites behind him or her.
This seems spot on. Imagine someone like Douglas Ross in Scotland having to campaign for the re-election of a Cons Govt led by Boris. As it happens, I don't think the Scottish Tories will suffer a wipe-out in the May local elections. They are protected by the AV system, the fact that they under-nominated last time and missed some wins, and the distance Ross has managed to put between the Scottish party and Westminster. A general election is a very different matter though.
One of many reasons why I don't expect Boris to fight the next GE, even if he manages a reprieve now.
Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.
I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.
I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.
I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.
You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.
I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
Exactly. Whether you believe or not Christianity has literally shaped the world around it.
Still chuckling at Rev HY's suggestion that Jesus Christ was a social conservative: Overturned money lender tables in the temple Told the elders of his religion they were completely wrong Told the established client state of Rome that their everything was wrong Founded a revolutionary movement which overthrew the pagan Roman state and created one with his teachings at its heart
A social conservative would have said the money lenders were fine and fellow Jews should listen to their Rabbis and not challenge the paganistic Roman power that dominated the known world.
No, a social conservative is someone who believes in traditional marriage, is sceptical of divorce and opposes abortion and arguably wants controls on immigration.
You can be a socialist economically and still be a social conservative, in fact many working class Labour voters often were in that category, though some of them voted for May and Boris.
You can also on the other side be rightwing economically but socially liberal.
Jesus may have been open to immigrants but he was also certainly pro traditional marriage and anti divorce except for adultery:
As he says in Matthew 'The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”
7 The proud religious law-keepers said to Jesus, “Then why did the Law of Moses allow a man to divorce his wife if he put it down in writing and gave it to her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Because of your hard hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. It was not like that from the beginning. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. Whoever marries her that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.”
10 His followers said to Him, “If that is the way of a man with his wife, it is better not to be married.” 11 But Jesus said to them, “Not all men are able to do this, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some men who from birth will never be able to have children. There are some men who have been made so by men. There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven. The one who is able to do this, let him do it.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 19:1-12&version=NLV
Many also believe when Jesus says 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself', that should also apply to the fetus when it comes to abortion
Oh, no, you've started the fecking abortion debate again. I sometimes think you are a glutton for punishment. Treat him kindly please folks!
Comments
Had the initial response to the stories been a humble apology saying that mistakes had been made and apologising for that then that could have ended it rather than denying reality leading to this drip-drip proving the parties happened.
They are never anything except angry with the world.
I also feel that it was a pretty unnecessary personal attack on a poster but who knows.
She would be leveraging off the prospect of "lose me, lose my Government" - depending on whether the Govt would have fallen, or the Tories as largest party would get a chance to form a new Government.
WIth transplants always being more in demand than supply, they always ration them on the basis of behaviour.
To receive a liver transplant, you must cease being an alcoholic (if you were one)
To receive a lung transplant, you must cease smoking.
To receive ANY transplant, you must be up to date with any and all necessary vaccinations, as your immune system will be shot to hell for a while.
Giving any needed organ to someone who is more likely than most to keel over promptly is seen as a bad use of these limited resources - it could have gone to someone who would have taken more care and lived longer.
People live (and die) with the consequences of their own choices; it is the first freedom of all. He has made his choice and this is a consequence of it.
The point is that when your own party is mired in crap and with a leader you need rid of, the decent thing to do can be to put a peg on your nose in relatively meaningless elections (not Westminster General Elections) and vote for an alternative party instead. Even if you dislike the alternative party - getting your own house in order by clearing it out can be more important.
I would never name names but in 2019 even a Tory Councillor I know well and have campaigned for on many times, who had voted Remain in 2016 incidentally, confided in me that in the privacy of the ballot box he would be voting for the Brexit Party as May had to go and things needed shaking up.
If Boris doesn't go, that same principle should apply this May as it did then. Even if you dislike the other parties, ousting an unfit Prime Minister has to come first.
PS please don't use my real name. I don't want to be doxxed, I'm not using it online at all, please respect that and please call me Bart or anything else even uncivil if you'd prefer.
However, matters are just too volatile to be certain even on a daily basis, indeed every time breaking news comes on the tv I am expecting it to be Boris's resignation
Maybe that in itself tells us something
With that out of the way - if Boris does step down, who is the election winner who will replace him?
Sunak? A man who has almost no profile other than as a profligate spender (very conservative that!)
The vapid Truss?
The vacant Raab??
Lord JRM of Hawhaw?
Has the hollowed out shell of the "Conservative" party actually have anyone capable of taking on the job?
That might be the scenario he would suggest in an attempt to keep MPs fearful of losing their seats in line.
Macron gets his global leader scout badge, the Germans can carry on doing business and can prevaricate at will over Russian/western relations, the EU core seem reasonable having not “flapped” unlike those panicky war-lingering Anglo Saxons, who aren’t calm statesmen like France and Germany, Putin gets his “respect” but carries on destabilising Ukraine and also gets his “grievances” stamped as official and this justified by having France and Germany acknowledge them.
Putin also gets to drive a nice wedge between EU core and US/UK.
Trebles all round.
That's absolutely right. Keir Starmer has a commanding lead in the polls because the electorate think he will bring them lower taxes than Boris Johnson.
I realise that there are height jokes to be made about Rishi Sunak but David Frost really is a political homunculus.
https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1486097452780376064
That of course is a parallel with Corbyn, who similarly lost the confidence of his MPs. That wasn't quite as damaging, since Labour were in opposition so didn't need to function as a governing party, but it was still a significant element in Labour's travails.
Will another leader be able to recover the situation? Bloody hard, certainly, but at least there's a possibility if it's someone clean and competent, and if (it's a big 'if') the party unites behind him or her.
The other way of phrasing it is Starmer has a lead in the polls because those who could be Conservative supporters don't think that taxes will be lower under Boris Johnson.
The Scandies, Eastern Countries, plus much of the Med countries have been more strongly opposed to Russia's invasion and occupation of Ukraine. Many of them are under threat by Russia, and know what it means, and have been strongly supportive.
I have not seen the positions taken by eg IE, Po and Malta.
If Macron gets Russia to withdraw their forces / support from Donbas, and withdraw their occupation of Crimea, then I'll toast him with a bottle of champagne.
Hmmm. The insistence that Mary be a virgin feels a bit impositiony of others moral standards. The Son of God was a Man, born of woman. There is no need for the sperm implanting into Mary's egg to be a miraculous one.
And I’ll have a bacon sarnie from that flying pig…
Golden Rule - Treat others as you want to be treated yourself (in nearly all religions)
AA - Accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, and Wisdom to know the difference
Jeremy Corbyn: please start a new party
@corbyn_project
@jeremycorbyn
#LabourIsDead
https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1486276849718099969?s=20
As for the split in the EU I think that if Germany and France got this sort of outcome they wouldn’t give a monkey’s what the rest of the EU thought about it (as Germany clearly doesn’t now) and their own self interest would trump EU interests as ever.
We live in a complicated, fascinating world of which we understand little. No god needed.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country
Not a single hypothetical poll now has a Sunak led Tories leading Starmer Labour, even if it gets a bit closer and a Truss or Hunt or Gove or Patel led Tories does even worse than a Boris led Tories.
In 1990 there was also a major policy difference between Thatcher and Major, with Major dumping the poll tax, which played a big part in his bounce. Similarly Boris got a bounce in 2019 due to his differences with May over Brexit.
Where is the major policy difference between Sunak and Boris? Sunak even apparently attended the birthday cake offering to Boris, even if like the PM it was 'sprung' on him by Carrie.
Changes of PM without major policy changes to follow eg Blair to Brown in 2007 or Cameron to May in 2016 rarely see sustained poll bounces and subsequent general election wins
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/1486298098867519489?s=20
On everything from helping people on low incomes to foreign aid to the environment, we were absolutely on the same page, and the great thing about them was that they actually cared, unlike some constituents who really didn't give a toss about anything outside their front door. In a marginal seat you need to talk with those too, but the churches were much easier going, for the reasons you both cite.
Even that might not be enough to prevent Ukraine from being stronger militarily in the future than it is today.
Most of the global population are religious, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist, most of them are not as fundamentally religious however as Dawkins is fundamentally atheist
And others suggest who gets to decide what faith or faiths that what labels? Folk beliefs, cults, religions, mythologies, fairy tales - they may not all be the same, but non adherents are hardly required to use preferred nomenclature, particularly for a gentle gag.
Macron is probably best placed of the Western leaders to do this as Russia has had a cultural inferiority complex toward France since the time of Pyotr Perviy. France's opinion matters to Russia.
I'd love to know Putin's candid thoughts about Johnson.
Even worse, lost without trying.
Fascinating to see everyone on the side of refusal. COVID-19 can kill the young but it's pretty damned unusual. The Black Death this is not. A man lacking the flu jab would not be denied a heart transplant.
You can be a socialist economically and still be a social conservative, in fact many working class Labour voters often were in that category, though some of them voted for May and Boris.
You can also on the other side be rightwing economically but socially liberal.
Jesus may have been open to immigrants but he was also certainly pro traditional marriage and anti divorce except for adultery:
As he says in Matthew 'The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”
7 The proud religious law-keepers said to Jesus, “Then why did the Law of Moses allow a man to divorce his wife if he put it down in writing and gave it to her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Because of your hard hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. It was not like that from the beginning. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. Whoever marries her that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.”
10 His followers said to Him, “If that is the way of a man with his wife, it is better not to be married.” 11 But Jesus said to them, “Not all men are able to do this, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some men who from birth will never be able to have children. There are some men who have been made so by men. There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven. The one who is able to do this, let him do it.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 19:1-12&version=NLV
Many also believe when Jesus says 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself', that should also apply to the fetus when it comes to abortion
Any evidence that the decision was made for any other reason than that the patient has a reduced chance of surviving the transplant?
Should you have a transplant, your immune system will be heavily impaired.
Influenza is not rampant at the moment and in any case has a far lesser IFR than covid. Covid is indeed rampant at the moment and he would shoot straight to a category of Clinically Extremely Vulnerable.
He would also be refused a transplant if he refused blood transfusion, or use of antibiotics, or any other medical intervention that was made a condition of the transplant.
Plus you're making the same mistake as (with all due respect) OGH and others kept making pre 2016 in saying that Europe wasn't polling high as an issue so voters didn't care about Europe.
Cameron: no to Brexit
May: get Brexit done
As for Putin’s candid thoughts re Boris? I reckon whenever he thinks of Boris he just sees Boris Yeltsin riding a tiny circus bike bashing cymbals together….
Though of course elements can be found.
Though today it is still a key primary or secondary document for many Denominations - from the Church of Scotland (with a few bits redacted) to the church in NI founded by Ian Paisley.
On a minor point of order - "Anglican Catholic Church" is a "continuing" Anglican denomination, ie one of those that split off a few decades ago (1977) over issues such as gay marriage, but have a far wider cultural critique rooted in traditionalism. They have a few 10s of thousands of members. Perhaps you mean normal CofE integration into the state in some ways.
If as a preset criteria you need to be up to date on all vaccinations, then refusing the flu jab would be valid grounds to refuse to put someone on the list surely?
There are sound medical grounds for requiring the vaccine. If an idiot refuses it then the heart can go to the next patient on the list, not the bin.
I'd probably find it easier to accept the clinical line if so many weren't pushing for the wretchedness of vaccine passports. Or even the use of masks when they have sod all effect (until recently the case in schools here) as a 'signal'.
I don't know if they will lose much more than 200 seats overall though.
It's even possible the Tories could gain a few seats net in Scotland because they will stand more candidates in the multimember wards in places like Aberdeenshire where they under nominated last time.
Maybe Frosty can pull the same trick with taxes. It works in America, I guess.
Who decides when the report is published and how redacted it is?
And the statement from the hospital is:
“Like many other transplant programs in the United States – the Covid-19 vaccine is one of several vaccines and lifestyle behaviors required for transplant candidates in the Mass General Brigham system in order to create both the best chance for a successful operation and also the patient’s survival after transplantation.”
It's simply that the covid-19 vaccine has been added to an existing list of required vaccinations and he has decided to refuse it. If it's against his principles (as he has stated), for all we know, he may have refused other required vaccines as well.
This isn't a new thing.
Have you read Luke 15:3 yet you massive hypocrite? And understood it? And repented?
No? Best to can it then before your Massive Plank gets even longer in your eye.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60137428
However Labour is likely to have its best local elections since 2012 as most Tory losses in 2019 were to the LDs, Greens and Independents not Labour and Labour is polling much better than it was in 2019 now Starmer has replaced Corbyn. Councils in London and Wales are also up unlike 2019 and offer Labour better chances for gains
On the social front I'm a little sceptical of people going a bit far on the social liberalism of a 1st century rabbi, but am no Jesus expert, but equally you cannot just self define a term for a group so it only means what you want it to mean eg social conservative.
It has been generally not noted that France had a 1.7bn Euro contract for a pair of 26k tonne Mistral Class amphibious assault ships that they had to pull in the end. Largest Western arms contract to Russia since WW2.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-france-almost-sold-russia-two-powerful-aircraft-carriers-77241
Though they also transferred the technology for Russia to build more.
The ones they had already built ended up being sold to Egypt.
Relevant?
Have the time wasters and oxygen thieves in the PCP found their quills yet?
One of many reasons why I don't expect Boris to fight the next GE, even if he manages a reprieve now.