A couple of glasses of lukewarm fucking chardonnay and propping up a couple of twats when he has an unblemished repputation for disloyalty and not giving a fuck about anybody else? Patz n Pinchers FFS?
Boris is a unique individual, they don't just like him they sympathise with him and forgive him. They recognise his generosity of spirit in contrast to many of the pygmies against him
We're all unique individuals. Well, apart from Le(gi)on
I used to be John Major's biggest defender on here but he's an idiot for saying the membership shouldn't get a vote on the new leader.
Major is a piece of work
He really really is. A duplicitous, nasty, mediocre quisling, he makes Heseltine look honourable and he makes Grieve look, OK no he doesn’t Grieve is vile and obviously so
But still. An important part of growing up as a conservative is realising that John Major is PUKEWORTHY
John Major is probably the nicest and kindest politician I have met.
Yes but that’s like Bernard Matthews saying Heinrich Himmler is the best German chicken farmer around
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
Oh yes. Just look up her Mumsnet interview.
It's the worst thing about her.
It's her main redeeming feature.
She is not a culture warrior for the forces of reaction.
Given you're possibly the Wokest person on here this is the kiss of death for her.
Tony Blair is well to the Right of her on this, and in the middle ground.
Suits me to have her written off. She is the only contender who could get a following with the under 65's, and have a reasonable chance of defending the Blue Wall.
Disagree. I think her stance on 'woke' issues could damn her.
A piece of anecdote. I was at a reunion at my old college, chatting away to a group of other alum, all in Tory seats, all middle class and clearly quite socially liberal when it came to most things. The one thing that got that wound up immensely was how the woke - and specifically the trans - issue was being pushed at school. It's way I don't think the Lib Dems will do well in the GE because once Davey is asked "what's a woman?", he's not going to be able to get past the issue.
You misunderstand. I agree that her being woke will finish her off in the members vote, but that culture warrior reaction is what will cause the Tories to lose the next election. This is not America.
Also those middle classes demonstrated a high degree of hypocrisy over party gate since most likely broke the rules themselves
No they didn't. I thought the rules were grotesque, but I followed them, because everybody else was. There simply wasn't any secret socialising going on in the suburbs.
I think the voters in the redwall know the Southern middle classes are lying about this. Many have told me just as much
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
In that case you shouldn't expect the state to consider you married.
I most certainly will, I signed the register which is quite enough, however I made by marriage vows in the sight of God and the holy ghost not the state
The Holy ghost IS God.
Theology resits for you!
Theologically the Holy Ghost is God yes.
Historically it is probably a narcotic substance. “ When we have the Holy Ghost, we feel love, joy, and peace.”
The Trinity evolved from the drug taking Christians of North Africa, crossed the sea into Italy and Spain before the Council of Nicaea.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
Oh yes. Just look up her Mumsnet interview.
It's the worst thing about her.
It's her main redeeming feature.
She is not a culture warrior for the forces of reaction.
Given you're possibly the Wokest person on here this is the kiss of death for her.
Tony Blair is well to the Right of her on this, and in the middle ground.
I used to be John Major's biggest defender on here but he's an idiot for saying the membership shouldn't get a vote on the new leader.
Major is a piece of work
He really really is. A duplicitous, nasty, mediocre quisling, he makes Heseltine look honourable and he makes Grieve look, OK no he doesn’t Grieve is vile and obviously so
But still. An important part of growing up as a conservative is realising that John Major is PUKEWORTHY
John Major is probably the nicest and kindest politician I have met.
Yes but that’s like Bernard Matthews saying Heinrich Himmler is the best German chicken farmer around
Corks are popping in Brussels and Moscow apparently. What on earth is the Mail smoking?
That’s just true. Eurocrats hated Boris, Putin and Co hate him now he’s so vividly pro-Ukraine
He's hated up and down this country too. The polling is pretty clear. Sorry your man turned out so shit.
But it's also a fair point that some people still really loved Boris. And their votes count as much as anyone else's- maybe more, if they are people who turn out a lot in the right seats.
I can't remember who first articualted the theory that Johnson had a low floor but a high ceiling for his popularity; he'd probably lead the Conservatives to a calamatous defeat, but might just work his magic one more time. Whereas anyone else would steer the Conservatives to a smaller but almost certain defeat (higher floor, lower celing).
Ditching Boris was the right thing to do, and should have happened ages ago. But it isn't cost-free.
Somebody should’ve told the Tory MPs that *before* the garrotting 😄
Yes defeat nailed on under people like Wallace
Can you imagine what they’ll make of Wee Benny in Sedgefield, Ashfield, Workington et al? The mind boggles.
Odds on a Wallace and Tugendhat final 2? Looking stronger tonight. Some of Hunt's 2019 support already going to Tugendhat and I expect most of Boris' supporters will go to Wallace in the end.
Isn't Wallace's appeal basically the same as the winning entry in eurovision ? I'm not sure that's the best basis for a new PM. Sunak's the man for me still x
If Boris has been kicked out in large part because he was fined for partying in lockdown I don't see how the Tories can replace him with Sunak who was also fined for attending the same party as well as facing allegations over his and his wife's tax affairs.
No, the Tories want someone dull as ditchwater, but competent and scandal free like Wallace
I do like the liberated HYUFD, no longer obliged to follow a leader's line and free to comment vigorously on the mood of the party.
Quite. You are paraphrasing what my wife said ten minutes ago.
it’s not like he had to do much to not be a twat, and therefore stay as prime minister
Nobody really minds the affairs, the constant lying is fine, sure go ahead and father a child on your osteopath
All he had to do was not allow parties when the entire country was locked down due to plague. “OK let’s not have a party” . Six words
You seem to be in mourning ! At the end of the day even Tory MPs have a breaking point when it comes to the constant dramas surrounding Johnson .
He got what he deserved and the fact you think constant lying is fine is really your take on things . If the public didn’t mind the lies his approval ratings wouldn’t be in the toilet .
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
Oh yes. Just look up her Mumsnet interview.
It's the worst thing about her.
It's her main redeeming feature.
She is not a culture warrior for the forces of reaction.
Given you're possibly the Wokest person on here this is the kiss of death for her.
Tony Blair is well to the Right of her on this, and in the middle ground.
There is a lot of affection for Johnson in the red wall trust me The daily mail is playing to this constituency I honestly think this could all backfire on the conservatives
Oh I do hope you’re right.
This makes D Ross’s hokey cokey look like a work of genius.
Boris is a unique individual, they don't just like him they sympathise with him and forgive him. They recognise his generosity of spirit in contrast to many of the pygmies against him
Your problem is perhaps that you are a social climber, possibly @Taz in disguise? Like the late lamented Charles otp, Johnson is a lower middle class fuckwit's idea of what a posh person is like.
Shit did I type that out loud? Time for bed. Pinot noir poisoning is a dangerous thing.
There are some people up here who adore Boris. And I mean love him. Not the Conservative Party. Their numbers were grossly exaggerated when he was riding high. They are in danger of being substantially under counted now he's gone. That's all I'm saying.
Yes lots love him in the red wall. These people have been betrayed and they won't forget it
Welcome. More like this please. My FB feed is full of tributes to Boris including a (for me) vomit inducing set of pictures of him at No.10 today with his children, some of them anyway, etc.
The comments are full of regret, anger, and blame for anti-Brexiters.
What you say is absolutely correct in that there are such feelings just I'm not sure to what extent throughout the country.
Simple: get all the ballots done next week, one each day. Then 6 weeks for the members postal vote. Result by first week of September.
They dont need 6 weeks for the members. 4 weeks is plenty with a couple of televised hustings/debates. Let Labour bore everyone with everlasting leadership battles
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
Oh yes. Just look up her Mumsnet interview.
It's the worst thing about her.
It's her main redeeming feature.
She is not a culture warrior for the forces of reaction.
Given you're possibly the Wokest person on here this is the kiss of death for her.
Tony Blair is well to the Right of her on this, and in the middle ground.
I am considerably wokier than Foxy.
The truly woke disown their own families if they don't measure up:
Jessica Mason Pieklo - @Hegemommy Honestly if you’re a white person who says they’re committed to racial justice and you’re in good standing with most your family I have *questions* for you and they are definitely pointed
Full disclosure I’m in contact with exactly three members of my birth and extended family for this specific reason
That first question is how committed are you, really
Even the good white families are a *scosh* racist when you scratch the surface
Quite. You are paraphrasing what my wife said ten minutes ago.
it’s not like he had to do much to not be a twat, and therefore stay as prime minister
Nobody really minds the affairs, the constant lying is fine, sure go ahead and father a child on your osteopath
All he had to do was not allow parties when the entire country was locked down due to plague. “OK let’s not have a party” . Six words
It is worse than that.
Positively Shakespearean.
His character flaw that led to tragedy is he cannot admit responsibility or accept blame or say sorry.
If he had said there were some lockdown incidents at No 10 that started as work events and then became something else and I am sorry from day one he would still be leader.
There is a lot of affection for Johnson in the red wall trust me The daily mail is playing to this constituency I honestly think this could all backfire on the conservatives
Oh I do hope you’re right.
This makes D Ross’s hokey cokey look like a work of genius.
Quite. You are paraphrasing what my wife said ten minutes ago.
it’s not like he had to do much to not be a twat, and therefore stay as prime minister
Nobody really minds the affairs, the constant lying is fine, sure go ahead and father a child on your osteopath All he had to do was not allow parties when the entire country was locked down due to plague. “OK let’s not have a party” . Six words
To be fair many were hardly parties anyway. People in the red wall recognised that. Middle class liberals in the southeast went into sanctimonious virtue signalling mode however
Which is why Wakefield has a Tory MP today.
Thats the cost of living which is hurting people in the red wall, trust me they couldn't care less about the parties, that's for the hypocritical southern middle class
A couple of glasses of lukewarm fucking chardonnay and propping up a couple of twats when he has an unblemished repputation for disloyalty and not giving a fuck about anybody else? Patz n Pinchers FFS?
Quite!
It’s weird. Like, he could have fucked his way through Westminster and been fine - it was priced in, that’s Boris, he likes the girls, show him a cleavage, oops, hahaha - we all loved it, or tolerated it, or didn’t care, or sighed and tutted and did nothing. He’s a character, that’s what you get. People shrugged
But he fell because…. He refused to tell his underlings to rein in the plaguetime karaoke? He was unable to say No maybe we won’t have some creepy dude as Chief Whip
Simple answer- because then he wouldn't have been Boris.
Slightly longer answer. Alex Johnson got a first at Oxford, was a witty, respectable hack at The Times- Matthew Parris with more jokes, became a Conservative MP, was Arts Minister under David Cameron. A sort of upmarket Gyles Brandreth. The End.
The shittiness and thuggery took Boris to the top, certainly further than he would have got otherwise. But, like a racing driver taking corners too fast, it's a winning strategy until you crash.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
Oh yes. Just look up her Mumsnet interview.
It's the worst thing about her.
It's her main redeeming feature.
She is not a culture warrior for the forces of reaction.
Given you're possibly the Wokest person on here this is the kiss of death for her.
Tony Blair is well to the Right of her on this, and in the middle ground.
I am considerably wokier than Foxy.
Can we have a woke-off? Who has done the wokiest thing? I am sure I can win this BTW.
People.in the Red Wall are exactly.the same as everywhere else. Just on average older and much more poorly paid. They are no more or less woke than anywhere else when those are factored in. The non existent difference was grotesquely overplayed at Boris' zenith. At his nadir it's being ignored. I keep saying this. Folk want well paying jobs for their kids better than their own They aren't getting them. They don't even know what woke means. And care less.
Odds on a Wallace and Tugendhat final 2? Looking stronger tonight. Some of Hunt's 2019 support already going to Tugendhat and I expect most of Boris' supporters will go to Wallace in the end.
Both decent, scandal free, ex military men
No suggestion of either of them taking it up the arse, what? Unheard of in the Armed Forces, or among married men.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
In that case you shouldn't expect the state to consider you married.
I most certainly will, I signed the register which is quite enough, however I made by marriage vows in the sight of God and the holy ghost not the state
The Holy ghost IS God.
Theology resits for you!
Theologically the Holy Ghost is God yes.
Historically it is probably a narcotic substance. “ When we have the Holy Ghost, we feel love, joy, and peace.”
The Trinity evolved from the drug taking Christians of North Africa, crossed the sea into Italy and Spain before the Council of Nicaea.
Holy Ghost is really the divine feminine the Patriarchy decided it didn't want infesting the plebs with ideas
I am going to have a go @StuartDickson's challenge on Tory MSPs. Four without googling - Douglas Ross (easy first one), Murdo Fraser, Annie Wells and Oliver Mundell :-)
Also those middle classes demonstrated a high degree of hypocrisy over party gate since most likely broke the rules themselves
No they didn't. I thought the rules were grotesque, but I followed them, because everybody else was. There simply wasn't any secret socialising going on in the suburbs.
I think the voters in the redwall know the Southern middle classes are lying about this. Many have told me just as much
Well I live in Southern middle class Surrey and I don't know anyone who broke the rules.
There are some people up here who adore Boris. And I mean love him. Not the Conservative Party. Their numbers were grossly exaggerated when he was riding high. They are in danger of being substantially under counted now he's gone. That's all I'm saying.
Yes lots love him in the red wall. These people have been betrayed and they won't forget it
Welcome. More like this please. My FB feed is full of tributes to Boris including a (for me) vomit inducing set of pictures of him at No.10 today with his children, some of them anyway, etc.
The comments are full of regret, anger, and blame for anti-Brexiters.
What you say is absolutely correct in that there are such feelings just I'm not sure to what extent throughout the country.
Yes I agree that in the south many turned against Boris but I would say many tory voters in the red wall still love him
A couple of glasses of lukewarm fucking chardonnay and propping up a couple of twats when he has an unblemished repputation for disloyalty and not giving a fuck about anybody else? Patz n Pinchers FFS?
Quite!
It’s weird. Like, he could have fucked his way through Westminster and been fine - it was priced in, that’s Boris, he likes the girls, show him a cleavage, oops, hahaha - we all loved it, or tolerated it, or didn’t care, or sighed and tutted and did nothing. He’s a character, that’s what you get. People shrugged
But he fell because…. He refused to tell his underlings to rein in the plaguetime karaoke? He was unable to say No maybe we won’t have some creepy dude as Chief Whip
He just needed one good advisor
The crime was far more the cover up and the lying that the actual events.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
Oh yes. Just look up her Mumsnet interview.
It's the worst thing about her.
It's her main redeeming feature.
She is not a culture warrior for the forces of reaction.
Given you're possibly the Wokest person on here this is the kiss of death for her.
Tony Blair is well to the Right of her on this, and in the middle ground.
There are some people up here who adore Boris. And I mean love him. Not the Conservative Party. Their numbers were grossly exaggerated when he was riding high. They are in danger of being substantially under counted now he's gone. That's all I'm saying.
Yes lots love him in the red wall. These people have been betrayed and they won't forget it
Welcome. More like this please. My FB feed is full of tributes to Boris including a (for me) vomit inducing set of pictures of him at No.10 today with his children, some of them anyway, etc.
The comments are full of regret, anger, and blame for anti-Brexiters.
What you say is absolutely correct in that there are such feelings just I'm not sure to what extent throughout the country.
Yes I agree that in the south many turned against Boris but I would say many tory voters in the red wall still love him
Could you tell us what you think about red wall voters? Perhaps something of their opinion on Boris? I'd quite like to hear your thoughts.
A couple of glasses of lukewarm fucking chardonnay and propping up a couple of twats when he has an unblemished repputation for disloyalty and not giving a fuck about anybody else? Patz n Pinchers FFS?
Quite!
It’s weird. Like, he could have fucked his way through Westminster and been fine - it was priced in, that’s Boris, he likes the girls, show him a cleavage, oops, hahaha - we all loved it, or tolerated it, or didn’t care, or sighed and tutted and did nothing. He’s a character, that’s what you get. People shrugged
But he fell because…. He refused to tell his underlings to rein in the plaguetime karaoke? He was unable to say No maybe we won’t have some creepy dude as Chief Whip
He just needed one good advisor
It doesn’t matter who was advising him . Johnson was never going to change.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
In that case you shouldn't expect the state to consider you married.
I most certainly will, I signed the register which is quite enough, however I made by marriage vows in the sight of God and the holy ghost not the state
The Holy ghost IS God.
Theology resits for you!
The holy spirit is given to those who trust in God and Christ, it is the Spirit of God not God alone. Hence 'Father, Son and Holy Ghost'
I used to be John Major's biggest defender on here but he's an idiot for saying the membership shouldn't get a vote on the new leader.
Major is a piece of work
He really really is. A duplicitous, nasty, mediocre quisling, he makes Heseltine look honourable and he makes Grieve look, OK no he doesn’t Grieve is vile and obviously so
But still. An important part of growing up as a conservative is realising that John Major is PUKEWORTHY
John Major is probably the nicest and kindest politician I have met.
Yes but that’s like Bernard Matthews saying Heinrich Himmler is the best German chicken farmer around
Sort of
OK I HAD HOMEMADE WINE WITH RATKO
Ratko Mladic? Why am I not surprised.
And yet John Major is apparently beyond the pale.
I guess fascists are gonna fasch.
You fat fucking dorkus of the porkus morkus. I had a drink with the guy who owns my riverside cabin, Ratko. He fed me homemade wide and told me of his service in the Yugoslav war - as a private. Quite harrowing, but then we talked about LIFE and all was good
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
Oh yes. Just look up her Mumsnet interview.
It's the worst thing about her.
It's her main redeeming feature.
She is not a culture warrior for the forces of reaction.
Given you're possibly the Wokest person on here this is the kiss of death for her.
Tony Blair is well to the Right of her on this, and in the middle ground.
I am considerably wokier than Foxy.
The truly woke disown their own families if they don't measure up:
Jessica Mason Pieklo - @Hegemommy Honestly if you’re a white person who says they’re committed to racial justice and you’re in good standing with most your family I have *questions* for you and they are definitely pointed
Full disclosure I’m in contact with exactly three members of my birth and extended family for this specific reason
That first question is how committed are you, really
Even the good white families are a *scosh* racist when you scratch the surface
I don't even understand what any of that means but I get the impression she needs to see a therapist.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
In that case you shouldn't expect the state to consider you married.
I most certainly will, I signed the register which is quite enough, however I made by marriage vows in the sight of God and the holy ghost not the state
The Holy ghost IS God.
Theology resits for you!
The holy spirit is given to those who trust in God and Christ, it is the Spirit of God not God alone. Hence 'Father, Son and Holy Ghost'
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
Oh yes. Just look up her Mumsnet interview.
It's the worst thing about her.
It's her main redeeming feature.
She is not a culture warrior for the forces of reaction.
Given you're possibly the Wokest person on here this is the kiss of death for her.
Tony Blair is well to the Right of her on this, and in the middle ground.
I am considerably wokier than Foxy.
Can we have a woke-off? Who has done the wokiest thing? I am sure I can win this BTW.
"I love being ‘woke’. It’s much nicer than being an ignorant f**king twat." - Kathy Burke
There are some people up here who adore Boris. And I mean love him. Not the Conservative Party. Their numbers were grossly exaggerated when he was riding high. They are in danger of being substantially under counted now he's gone. That's all I'm saying.
Yes lots love him in the red wall. These people have been betrayed and they won't forget it
BJ was seen as an anti-politician to many. He broke the rules that said you had to do x in politics.
When many talk about the need to follow the correct standards and procedures, they conveniently omit that the rules are made by the likes of Hunt and co for the benefit of....the likes of Hunt and co. Many voters realise this and liked someone who felt they didn't have to play by those rules.
D'accord. Don't know what it was like back in dear Old Blighty (or Scotty or Taffy or Micky) back in the day, but when I was taking Civics during my schooldays, the teachers, kids and just about everybody I knew had a basic faith in the American democratic system.
Those days are gone in America, many still have retained faith and even more hope, if not always much charity (left, right and center) but many have not. Increasing alienation has led to rise of populism of various stripes, but generally tending to the right, along with politicos capable of tapping this, again with varying degrees of talent and success.
Personally think that key reason 21st-century political populism is skewing rightward, is because across much of Europe and North America, and parts of other continents as well (excepting Antarctica) folks are LESS worried about getting their fair share of whatever, and MORE concerned about keeping with little (or great) they've already got.
Back in 1930s in Louisiana, Huey Long galvanized the majority of voters (mostly White but some Blacks could vote in Pelican State esp. in New Orleans) behind his populist, anti-establishment message. A message that was LEFTWING in orientation, not socially but economically. And even as he became increasingly dictatorial withing Louisiana, genuine support for his policies AND methods held firm. When he was at last cut down by the bullet of his assassin (or more likely the fusillade of his bodyguards) Huey was challenging FDR from the left, in lead-up to 1936 election.
Way back when, most Louisiana's (of whatever skin tone) were lucky to have a pot to piss in. Hence the leftward tilt of Huey, FDR and American populism in the 1930s. Though there was also a significant amount of rightwing populism as well, most notably Father Coughlin.
Also those middle classes demonstrated a high degree of hypocrisy over party gate since most likely broke the rules themselves
No they didn't. I thought the rules were grotesque, but I followed them, because everybody else was. There simply wasn't any secret socialising going on in the suburbs.
I think the voters in the redwall know the Southern middle classes are lying about this. Many have told me just as much
Well I live in Southern middle class Surrey and I don't know anyone who broke the rules.
KevinB is a one-man Northern secessionist front. The forthcoming tank battle between him and HYUFD for control of Watford Gap Services is going to be LIT
There are some people up here who adore Boris. And I mean love him. Not the Conservative Party. Their numbers were grossly exaggerated when he was riding high. They are in danger of being substantially under counted now he's gone. That's all I'm saying.
Yes lots love him in the red wall. These people have been betrayed and they won't forget it
Welcome. More like this please. My FB feed is full of tributes to Boris including a (for me) vomit inducing set of pictures of him at No.10 today with his children, some of them anyway, etc.
The comments are full of regret, anger, and blame for anti-Brexiters.
What you say is absolutely correct in that there are such feelings just I'm not sure to what extent throughout the country.
Yes I agree that in the south many turned against Boris but I would say many tory voters in the red wall still love him
Could you tell us what you think about red wall voters? Perhaps something of their opinion on Boris? I'd quite like to hear your thoughts.
Truly many in the red wall saw Boris as someone to rip the cosy Westminster consensus apart. He failed in this I agree.I think ultimately as the economy declines they may turn to more extreme options like a right wing British nationalist party
Remember those who hate Johnson were middle classes in the South and South East. Those people may return to the tories but won't gain them many seats
Well yes.
The Conservatives had two choices:
(1) Double down on Boris, and accept that he is electoral poison to a lot of middle class, middle aged, social liberals in the South and South East, and who voted for him in 2019 mostly because Corbyn scared the living daylights out of them.
or
(2) Let him go, and find someone more palatable to this group. But, of course, accept that this makes it much harder to reach people in the former Red Wall.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
In that case you shouldn't expect the state to consider you married.
I most certainly will, I signed the register which is quite enough, however I made by marriage vows in the sight of God and the holy ghost not the state
The Holy ghost IS God.
Theology resits for you!
The holy spirit is given to those who trust in God and Christ, it is the Spirit of God not God alone. Hence 'Father, Son and Holy Ghost'
Why doesn't your first "holy spirit" get capitalised?
Simple: get all the ballots done next week, one each day. Then 6 weeks for the members postal vote. Result by first week of September.
They dont need 6 weeks for the members. 4 weeks is plenty with a couple of televised hustings/debates. Let Labour bore everyone with everlasting leadership battles
Feck it. Give the old dearies in Tory membership exactly 48 hours to make their hazy minds up and find a first class stamp (which costs the price of half a bottle of gin these days) and get it in the post or they are disenfranchised.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
Oh yes. Just look up her Mumsnet interview.
It's the worst thing about her.
It's her main redeeming feature.
She is not a culture warrior for the forces of reaction.
Given you're possibly the Wokest person on here this is the kiss of death for her.
Tony Blair is well to the Right of her on this, and in the middle ground.
I am considerably wokier than Foxy.
Can we have a woke-off? Who has done the wokiest thing? I am sure I can win this BTW.
"I love being ‘woke’. It’s much nicer than being an ignorant f**king twat." - Kathy Burke
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
In that case you shouldn't expect the state to consider you married.
I most certainly will, I signed the register which is quite enough, however I made by marriage vows in the sight of God and the holy ghost not the state
The Holy ghost IS God.
Theology resits for you!
Theologically the Holy Ghost is God yes.
Historically it is probably a narcotic substance. “ When we have the Holy Ghost, we feel love, joy, and peace.”
The Trinity evolved from the drug taking Christians of North Africa, crossed the sea into Italy and Spain before the Council of Nicaea.
Well quite
I do bloody loathe lightweight "Christians" like HYUFD. For starters I have read the New Testament and I can guarantee he bloody hasn't, at best he has flipped through a translation into Latin or worse still a modern vernacular. And it is entirely clear to me that what Our Lord was about, was psilocybin mushrooms, and sitting on John's cock.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
Oh yes. Just look up her Mumsnet interview.
It's the worst thing about her.
It’s not a problem with me. But what is it anyway, packed under woke umbrella? Can you really get away with everything from ain’t alf hot mum to trans gender rights in sport, offensive statues to he she and they without accepting your doing nothing but Wallace trying to hold a door like knut held the tide? Everything single one of those things are considered on merit not blanket labelled - where’s your faith gone that each considered on merit we will find the happy medium on each, where is all your lily livened fears coming from? Do they burst forth like Zeus when you get your first fuddyduddy birthday card?
Moaning about “woke” is a lack of faith in the human spirit will get things right.
Leave Penny alone on woke 😠
I've faith humans would find the right balance. But they're not being allowed to. The state is shoehorning people down the hyper woke route - as any visit to a secondary school will attest. If we could simply stop doing so and let what needs to happen, happen, there wouldn't be so much resistance.
I want someone who will put up sensible political resistance to this, and force common sense.
Liz Truss has done this. Kemi Badenoch has done this. JK Rowling has done this. Rosie Duffield has done this. Tony Blair has done this. Sarah Champion has done this.
Penny Mordaunt will not do this, and indeed may fuel it further, and given how strongly I detest identity politics and how it's pulling us apart into an intersectional hierarchy, that's a red line for me.
If Boris was a "Brexity Hezza" then Penny Mordaunt is a "Brexity Stella Creasy".
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
Oh yes. Just look up her Mumsnet interview.
It's the worst thing about her.
It's her main redeeming feature.
She is not a culture warrior for the forces of reaction.
Given you're possibly the Wokest person on here this is the kiss of death for her.
Tony Blair is well to the Right of her on this, and in the middle ground.
I am considerably wokier than Foxy.
Can we have a woke-off? Who has done the wokiest thing? I am sure I can win this BTW.
"I love being ‘woke’. It’s much nicer than being an ignorant f**king twat." - Kathy Burke
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
Oh yes. Just look up her Mumsnet interview.
It's the worst thing about her.
It's her main redeeming feature.
She is not a culture warrior for the forces of reaction.
Given you're possibly the Wokest person on here this is the kiss of death for her.
Tony Blair is well to the Right of her on this, and in the middle ground.
I am considerably wokier than Foxy.
I'm possibly more woke than yow.
I used to get up in the morning and campaign against the feds for four hours before my vegan breakfast, then work all day down t'social services giving grants to drag queens before going home to a slavery reparations rally.
A couple of glasses of lukewarm fucking chardonnay and propping up a couple of twats when he has an unblemished repputation for disloyalty and not giving a fuck about anybody else? Patz n Pinchers FFS?
Quite!
It’s weird. Like, he could have fucked his way through Westminster and been fine - it was priced in, that’s Boris, he likes the girls, show him a cleavage, oops, hahaha - we all loved it, or tolerated it, or didn’t care, or sighed and tutted and did nothing. He’s a character, that’s what you get. People shrugged
But he fell because…. He refused to tell his underlings to rein in the plaguetime karaoke? He was unable to say No maybe we won’t have some creepy dude as Chief Whip
He just needed one good advisor
Unfortunately. They would have told him what he didn't want to hear. And that was unacceptable because he's Boris Johnson.
There are some people up here who adore Boris. And I mean love him. Not the Conservative Party. Their numbers were grossly exaggerated when he was riding high. They are in danger of being substantially under counted now he's gone. That's all I'm saying.
Yes lots love him in the red wall. These people have been betrayed and they won't forget it
Welcome. More like this please. My FB feed is full of tributes to Boris including a (for me) vomit inducing set of pictures of him at No.10 today with his children, some of them anyway, etc.
The comments are full of regret, anger, and blame for anti-Brexiters.
What you say is absolutely correct in that there are such feelings just I'm not sure to what extent throughout the country.
Yes I agree that in the south many turned against Boris but I would say many tory voters in the red wall still love him
Could you tell us what you think about red wall voters? Perhaps something of their opinion on Boris? I'd quite like to hear your thoughts.
Truly many in the red wall saw Boris as someone to rip the cosy Westminster consensus apart. He failed in this I agree.I think ultimately as the economy declines they may turn to more extreme options like a right wing British nationalist party
But I'm more interested in what you think red wall voters think about Boris. Would you say that some of them love him?
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
In that case you shouldn't expect the state to consider you married.
I most certainly will, I signed the register which is quite enough, however I made by marriage vows in the sight of God and the holy ghost not the state
The Holy ghost IS God.
Theology resits for you!
Theologically the Holy Ghost is God yes.
Historically it is probably a narcotic substance. “ When we have the Holy Ghost, we feel love, joy, and peace.”
The Trinity evolved from the drug taking Christians of North Africa, crossed the sea into Italy and Spain before the Council of Nicaea.
Well quite
I do bloody loathe lightweight "Christians" like HYUFD. For starters I have read the New Testament and I can guarantee he bloody hasn't, at best he has flipped through a translation into Latin or worse still a modern vernacular. And it is entirely clear to me that what Our Lord was about, was psilocybin mushrooms, and sitting on John's cock.
Have you ever considered having a drink of an evening? I think you’d like it. You’ll find it disinhibiting, in a nice way, and it might allow you to freely vent some opinions
There are some people up here who adore Boris. And I mean love him. Not the Conservative Party. Their numbers were grossly exaggerated when he was riding high. They are in danger of being substantially under counted now he's gone. That's all I'm saying.
Yes lots love him in the red wall. These people have been betrayed and they won't forget it
Welcome. More like this please. My FB feed is full of tributes to Boris including a (for me) vomit inducing set of pictures of him at No.10 today with his children, some of them anyway, etc.
The comments are full of regret, anger, and blame for anti-Brexiters.
What you say is absolutely correct in that there are such feelings just I'm not sure to what extent throughout the country.
Yes I agree that in the south many turned against Boris but I would say many tory voters in the red wall still love him
My theory is that voters in the South think North is getting all the love and money. You can have a run down school in Tiverton, and they think the red wall is getting the money to fix it instead of them on a ratio like 99 red wall schools to 1 in Devon.
I havn’t seen psephology build this into how well the Lib Dems are doing in blue wall yet, but I anticipate it. You sense this from the TV vox pops in the by election coverage. Sure, the Lib Dem success is made up of many factors, Remainia anger, Boris taking the **** etc, but just how potent is the anger at the red wall stealing the money that could have fixed the school years ago if dished out fairly, in flipping votes?
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
The right of medical staff to refuse participation in abortion because they have a conscientious objection to the procedure is enshrined within the 1967 Abortion Act.
Liberalism to my mind is about accepting that people can have different views on topics. Not expecting everyone to have the same opinion, which is what it too often turns into.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
In that case you shouldn't expect the state to consider you married.
I most certainly will, I signed the register which is quite enough, however I made by marriage vows in the sight of God and the holy ghost not the state
The Holy ghost IS God.
Theology resits for you!
The holy spirit is given to those who trust in God and Christ, it is the Spirit of God not God alone. Hence 'Father, Son and Holy Ghost'
But how do address the virtually unanswerable case that calling John "the one whom Jesus loved" means precisely what it says?
Isn't Wallace's appeal basically the same as the winning entry in eurovision ? I'm not sure that's the best basis for a new PM. Sunak's the man for me still x
If Boris has been kicked out in large part because he was fined for partying in lockdown I don't see how the Tories can replace him with Sunak who was also fined for attending the same party as well as facing allegations over his and his wife's tax affairs.
No, the Tories want someone dull as ditchwater, but competent and scandal free like Wallace
Also those middle classes demonstrated a high degree of hypocrisy over party gate since most likely broke the rules themselves
No they didn't. I thought the rules were grotesque, but I followed them, because everybody else was. There simply wasn't any secret socialising going on in the suburbs.
I think the voters in the redwall know the Southern middle classes are lying about this. Many have told me just as much
Look, Buster, I would have had few qualms about breaking the rules if I could have found anyone to socialise with. But it just wasn't happening. And please don't call me a) a liar or b) a southerner.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
In that case you shouldn't expect the state to consider you married.
I most certainly will, I signed the register which is quite enough, however I made by marriage vows in the sight of God and the holy ghost not the state
The Holy ghost IS God.
Theology resits for you!
The holy spirit is given to those who trust in God and Christ, it is the Spirit of God not God alone. Hence 'Father, Son and Holy Ghost'
Yes. But that's just you. I have sympathy. But my religion isn't any bugger else's. There's a difference.
Also those middle classes demonstrated a high degree of hypocrisy over party gate since most likely broke the rules themselves
No they didn't. I thought the rules were grotesque, but I followed them, because everybody else was. There simply wasn't any secret socialising going on in the suburbs.
I think the voters in the redwall know the Southern middle classes are lying about this. Many have told me just as much
Well I live in Southern middle class Surrey and I don't know anyone who broke the rules.
Point proved. Guarantee most of them will be lying to you...the old middle class hypocrisy you see
A couple of glasses of lukewarm fucking chardonnay and propping up a couple of twats when he has an unblemished repputation for disloyalty and not giving a fuck about anybody else? Patz n Pinchers FFS?
Quite!
It’s weird. Like, he could have fucked his way through Westminster and been fine - it was priced in, that’s Boris, he likes the girls, show him a cleavage, oops, hahaha - we all loved it, or tolerated it, or didn’t care, or sighed and tutted and did nothing. He’s a character, that’s what you get. People shrugged
But he fell because…. He refused to tell his underlings to rein in the plaguetime karaoke? He was unable to say No maybe we won’t have some creepy dude as Chief Whip
He just needed one good advisor
Don't you think that Boris Johnson loves - or at least is strongly attracted - to living on the edge? Breaking the rules in ways that he can quite easily justify, and getting away with it 99.46% of the time, including when he gets let off with a stern lecture and a 50-pound note for good luck. With enough sense of humor to appreciate the absurdity of the joke, esp. as it always has - or at least did - work well for him not just as a gage, but as a gig.
Remember those who hate Johnson were middle classes in the South and South East. Those people may return to the tories but won't gain them many seats
Well yes.
The Conservatives had two choices:
(1) Double down on Boris, and accept that he is electoral poison to a lot of middle class, middle aged, social liberals in the South and South East, and who voted for him in 2019 mostly because Corbyn scared the living daylights out of them.
or
(2) Let him go, and find someone more palatable to this group. But, of course, accept that this makes it much harder to reach people in the former Red Wall.
Neither are great options, tbh.
And that Red Wall/Blue Wall alliance worked, dammit. First big Conservative majority in 30 years. But it depended on a sleight of hand that needed Johnson to pull it off and probably only once.
There are some people up here who adore Boris. And I mean love him. Not the Conservative Party. Their numbers were grossly exaggerated when he was riding high. They are in danger of being substantially under counted now he's gone. That's all I'm saying.
Yes lots love him in the red wall. These people have been betrayed and they won't forget it
Welcome. More like this please. My FB feed is full of tributes to Boris including a (for me) vomit inducing set of pictures of him at No.10 today with his children, some of them anyway, etc.
The comments are full of regret, anger, and blame for anti-Brexiters.
What you say is absolutely correct in that there are such feelings just I'm not sure to what extent throughout the country.
Yes I agree that in the south many turned against Boris but I would say many tory voters in the red wall still love him
My theory is that voters in the South think North is getting all the love and money. You can have a run down school in Tiverton, and they think the red wall is getting the money to fix it instead of them on a ratio like 99 red wall schools to 1 in Devon.
I havn’t seen psephology build this into how well the Lib Dems are doing in blue wall yet, but I anticipate it. You sense this from the TV vox pops in the by election coverage. Sure, the Lib Dem success is made up of many factors, Remainia anger, Boris taking the **** etc, but just how potent is the anger at the red wall stealing the money that could have fixed the school years ago if dished out fairly, in flipping votes?
Prediction: who ever takes over will abandon Red Wall with a view to shoring up the Blue Wall and losing with a loss that is recoverable within a single term.
Isn't Wallace's appeal basically the same as the winning entry in eurovision ? I'm not sure that's the best basis for a new PM. Sunak's the man for me still x
If Boris has been kicked out in large part because he was fined for partying in lockdown I don't see how the Tories can replace him with Sunak who was also fined for attending the same party as well as facing allegations over his and his wife's tax affairs.
No, the Tories want someone dull as ditchwater, but competent and scandal free like Wallace
I do like the liberated HYUFD, no longer obliged to follow a leader's line and free to comment vigorously on the mood of the party.
Free to think for himself, Mr Palmer? Indeed yes. Sooner or later, he will ask himself, what sort of country do I want us to be? And then he will define his objectives and go from there to the party which is most likely to achieve them. Almost certainly, this will be the Lib Dems.
Up until now, he has worked the other way round. The answer is always the Conservatives - and then young HY has to adjust the facts to make them fit the answer. I don't think this has been very comfortable for him.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
In that case you shouldn't expect the state to consider you married.
I most certainly will, I signed the register which is quite enough, however I made by marriage vows in the sight of God and the holy ghost not the state
The Holy ghost IS God.
Theology resits for you!
Theologically the Holy Ghost is God yes.
Historically it is probably a narcotic substance. “ When we have the Holy Ghost, we feel love, joy, and peace.”
The Trinity evolved from the drug taking Christians of North Africa, crossed the sea into Italy and Spain before the Council of Nicaea.
Well quite
I do bloody loathe lightweight "Christians" like HYUFD. For starters I have read the New Testament and I can guarantee he bloody hasn't, at best he has flipped through a translation into Latin or worse still a modern vernacular. And it is entirely clear to me that what Our Lord was about, was psilocybin mushrooms, and sitting on John's cock.
Have you ever considered having a drink of an evening? I think you’d like it. You’ll find it disinhibiting, in a nice way, and it might allow you to freely vent some opinions
Also those middle classes demonstrated a high degree of hypocrisy over party gate since most likely broke the rules themselves
No they didn't. I thought the rules were grotesque, but I followed them, because everybody else was. There simply wasn't any secret socialising going on in the suburbs.
I think the voters in the redwall know the Southern middle classes are lying about this. Many have told me just as much
Well I live in Southern middle class Surrey and I don't know anyone who broke the rules.
Point proved. Guarantee most of them will be lying to you...the old middle class hypocrisy you see
You are a prick and won't be here for much longer, but you are wrong. People stuck to the rules.
There are some people up here who adore Boris. And I mean love him. Not the Conservative Party. Their numbers were grossly exaggerated when he was riding high. They are in danger of being substantially under counted now he's gone. That's all I'm saying.
Yes lots love him in the red wall. These people have been betrayed and they won't forget it
They might be happy to have an incompetent liar running the country but most of us aren't so tough.
You're not related to MickTrain by any chance are you?
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
In that case you shouldn't expect the state to consider you married.
I most certainly will, I signed the register which is quite enough, however I made by marriage vows in the sight of God and the holy ghost not the state
The Holy ghost IS God.
Theology resits for you!
Theologically the Holy Ghost is God yes.
Historically it is probably a narcotic substance. “ When we have the Holy Ghost, we feel love, joy, and peace.”
The Trinity evolved from the drug taking Christians of North Africa, crossed the sea into Italy and Spain before the Council of Nicaea.
Well quite
I do bloody loathe lightweight "Christians" like HYUFD. For starters I have read the New Testament and I can guarantee he bloody hasn't, at best he has flipped through a translation into Latin or worse still a modern vernacular. And it is entirely clear to me that what Our Lord was about, was psilocybin mushrooms, and sitting on John's cock.
Have you ever considered having a drink of an evening? I think you’d like it. You’ll find it disinhibiting, in a nice way, and it might allow you to freely vent some opinions
There are some people up here who adore Boris. And I mean love him. Not the Conservative Party. Their numbers were grossly exaggerated when he was riding high. They are in danger of being substantially under counted now he's gone. That's all I'm saying.
Yes lots love him in the red wall. These people have been betrayed and they won't forget it
Welcome. More like this please. My FB feed is full of tributes to Boris including a (for me) vomit inducing set of pictures of him at No.10 today with his children, some of them anyway, etc.
The comments are full of regret, anger, and blame for anti-Brexiters.
What you say is absolutely correct in that there are such feelings just I'm not sure to what extent throughout the country.
Yes I agree that in the south many turned against Boris but I would say many tory voters in the red wall still love him
My theory is that voters in the South think North is getting all the love and money. You can have a run down school in Tiverton, and they think the red wall is getting the money to fix it instead of them on a ratio like 99 red wall schools to 1 in Devon.
I havn’t seen psephology build this into how well the Lib Dems are doing in blue wall yet, but I anticipate it. You sense this from the TV vox pops in the by election coverage. Sure, the Lib Dem success is made up of many factors, Remainia anger, Boris taking the **** etc, but just how potent is the anger at the red wall stealing the money that could have fixed the school years ago if dished out fairly, in flipping votes?
Maybe with all the money floating around in the southern shires they could have dipped into their own pockets to help lol
And on the train today I met some charming people from Hull. A family, pissed up swigging gin and tonic out of cans.
They were full of poor Boris what a shame, etc.
Edit: they were actually charming, just drunk and loud.
Pretty lightweight to get pissed on tinned G&T, it's about 3% ABV
True.
On the shame thing is some senses they are right it is a shame. He has so many abilities as a politician and yet he allowed his personal flaws to bring himself down. No one else did. Not the BBC or the Guardian or left wing judges. He destroyed his own premiership singlehanded.
Also those middle classes demonstrated a high degree of hypocrisy over party gate since most likely broke the rules themselves
No they didn't. I thought the rules were grotesque, but I followed them, because everybody else was. There simply wasn't any secret socialising going on in the suburbs.
I think the voters in the redwall know the Southern middle classes are lying about this. Many have told me just as much
Well I live in Southern middle class Surrey and I don't know anyone who broke the rules.
Point proved. Guarantee most of them will be lying to you...the old middle class hypocrisy you see
That doesn't 'prove' the point, except in the old fashioned sense of the word (i.e. 'tests', as in 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating', from which sense 'disproves', as in 'the exception which proves the rule')
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
In that case you shouldn't expect the state to consider you married.
I most certainly will, I signed the register which is quite enough, however I made by marriage vows in the sight of God and the holy ghost not the state
The Holy ghost IS God.
Theology resits for you!
Theologically the Holy Ghost is God yes.
Historically it is probably a narcotic substance. “ When we have the Holy Ghost, we feel love, joy, and peace.”
The Trinity evolved from the drug taking Christians of North Africa, crossed the sea into Italy and Spain before the Council of Nicaea.
Well quite
I do bloody loathe lightweight "Christians" like HYUFD. For starters I have read the New Testament and I can guarantee he bloody hasn't, at best he has flipped through a translation into Latin or worse still a modern vernacular. And it is entirely clear to me that what Our Lord was about, was psilocybin mushrooms, and sitting on John's cock.
Have you ever considered having a drink of an evening? I think you’d like it. You’ll find it disinhibiting, in a nice way, and it might allow you to freely vent some opinions
Toyed with the idea, but seen too many good men go down to it. Soda water, and the truth, is what I have to offer, sorta like Kenny Rogers.
The analysis of Christianity is one I would sort of stand by, though
There are some people up here who adore Boris. And I mean love him. Not the Conservative Party. Their numbers were grossly exaggerated when he was riding high. They are in danger of being substantially under counted now he's gone. That's all I'm saying.
Yes lots love him in the red wall. These people have been betrayed and they won't forget it
BJ was seen as an anti-politician to many. He broke the rules that said you had to do x in politics.
When many talk about the need to follow the correct standards and procedures, they conveniently omit that the rules are made by the likes of Hunt and co for the benefit of....the likes of Hunt and co. Many voters realise this and liked someone who felt they didn't have to play by those rules.
D'accord. Don't know what it was like back in dear Old Blighty (or Scotty or Taffy or Micky) back in the day, but when I was taking Civics during my schooldays, the teachers, kids and just about everybody I knew had a basic faith in the American democratic system.
Those days are gone in America, many still have retained faith and even more hope, if not always much charity (left, right and center) but many have not. Increasing alienation has led to rise of populism of various stripes, but generally tending to the right, along with politicos capable of tapping this, again with varying degrees of talent and success.
Personally think that key reason 21st-century political populism is skewing rightward, is because across much of Europe and North America, and parts of other continents as well (excepting Antarctica) folks are LESS worried about getting their fair share of whatever, and MORE concerned about keeping with little (or great) they've already got.
Back in 1930s in Louisiana, Huey Long galvanized the majority of voters (mostly White but some Blacks could vote in Pelican State esp. in New Orleans) behind his populist, anti-establishment message. A message that was LEFTWING in orientation, not socially but economically. And even as he became increasingly dictatorial withing Louisiana, genuine support for his policies AND methods held firm. When he was at last cut down by the bullet of his assassin (or more likely the fusillade of his bodyguards) Huey was challenging FDR from the left, in lead-up to 1936 election.
Way back when, most Louisiana's (of whatever skin tone) were lucky to have a pot to piss in. Hence the leftward tilt of Huey, FDR and American populism in the 1930s. Though there was also a significant amount of rightwing populism as well, most notably Father Coughlin.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
In that case you shouldn't expect the state to consider you married.
I most certainly will, I signed the register which is quite enough, however I made by marriage vows in the sight of God and the holy ghost not the state
The Holy ghost IS God.
Theology resits for you!
Theologically the Holy Ghost is God yes.
Historically it is probably a narcotic substance. “ When we have the Holy Ghost, we feel love, joy, and peace.”
The Trinity evolved from the drug taking Christians of North Africa, crossed the sea into Italy and Spain before the Council of Nicaea.
Well quite
I do bloody loathe lightweight "Christians" like HYUFD. For starters I have read the New Testament and I can guarantee he bloody hasn't, at best he has flipped through a translation into Latin or worse still a modern vernacular. And it is entirely clear to me that what Our Lord was about, was psilocybin mushrooms, and sitting on John's cock.
Replace the mocking of Christ and the Bible in that paragraph with a mocking of Muhammad and the Koran and you would be facing a Fatwa on you!
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
In that case you shouldn't expect the state to consider you married.
I most certainly will, I signed the register which is quite enough, however I made by marriage vows in the sight of God and the holy ghost not the state
The Holy ghost IS God.
Theology resits for you!
Theologically the Holy Ghost is God yes.
Historically it is probably a narcotic substance. “ When we have the Holy Ghost, we feel love, joy, and peace.”
The Trinity evolved from the drug taking Christians of North Africa, crossed the sea into Italy and Spain before the Council of Nicaea.
Well quite
I do bloody loathe lightweight "Christians" like HYUFD. For starters I have read the New Testament and I can guarantee he bloody hasn't, at best he has flipped through a translation into Latin or worse still a modern vernacular. And it is entirely clear to me that what Our Lord was about, was psilocybin mushrooms, and sitting on John's cock.
I was off school when they done languages. 😕. I do wonder when I am reading Russian books and Zola books if I am getting the original. Back to the bible, Susannah And The Elders makes no sense lost in translation, as getting the trees wrong proved they were lying.
Ahhhhh red wall talk. Again worth pointing out the red wall thing in 2019 was more due to voters abandoning Labour than Cons gaining votes - they gained more between 2015 and 2017 here. If the Labour deserters dont return then the Tories will retain some of their red wall gains even drifting down a bit. The labour fall in vote in the red wall 2019 was much bigger than the Tory gain in vote in 2019 in the red wall
There are some people up here who adore Boris. And I mean love him. Not the Conservative Party. Their numbers were grossly exaggerated when he was riding high. They are in danger of being substantially under counted now he's gone. That's all I'm saying.
Yes lots love him in the red wall. These people have been betrayed and they won't forget it
They might be happy to have an incompetent liar running the country but most of us aren't so tough.
You're not related to MickTrain by any chance are you?
Trump is loved by some to the point they would agree to spend 20 years in jail for armed insurrection. Not sure that is a thing to be emulated.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
Oh yes. Just look up her Mumsnet interview.
It's the worst thing about her.
It's her main redeeming feature.
She is not a culture warrior for the forces of reaction.
Given you're possibly the Wokest person on here this is the kiss of death for her.
Tony Blair is well to the Right of her on this, and in the middle ground.
I am considerably wokier than Foxy.
Can we have a woke-off? Who has done the wokiest thing? I am sure I can win this BTW.
"I love being ‘woke’. It’s much nicer than being an ignorant f**king twat." - Kathy Burke
Does Penny Mordaunt have some strange fixation with violence? For example, on her website profile the word fight, or one of its a derivatives, appears fourteen times.
Remember those who hate Johnson were middle classes in the South and South East. Those people may return to the tories but won't gain them many seats
Well yes.
The Conservatives had two choices:
(1) Double down on Boris, and accept that he is electoral poison to a lot of middle class, middle aged, social liberals in the South and South East, and who voted for him in 2019 mostly because Corbyn scared the living daylights out of them.
or
(2) Let him go, and find someone more palatable to this group. But, of course, accept that this makes it much harder to reach people in the former Red Wall.
Neither are great options, tbh.
And that Red Wall/Blue Wall alliance worked, dammit. First big Conservative majority in 30 years. But it depended on a sleight of hand that needed Johnson to pull it off and probably only once.
Now it's back to the drawing board.
Yes only Johnson could deliver that and now hes gone...
There are some people up here who adore Boris. And I mean love him. Not the Conservative Party. Their numbers were grossly exaggerated when he was riding high. They are in danger of being substantially under counted now he's gone. That's all I'm saying.
Yes lots love him in the red wall. These people have been betrayed and they won't forget it
BJ was seen as an anti-politician to many. He broke the rules that said you had to do x in politics.
When many talk about the need to follow the correct standards and procedures, they conveniently omit that the rules are made by the likes of Hunt and co for the benefit of....the likes of Hunt and co. Many voters realise this and liked someone who felt they didn't have to play by those rules.
D'accord. Don't know what it was like back in dear Old Blighty (or Scotty or Taffy or Micky) back in the day, but when I was taking Civics during my schooldays, the teachers, kids and just about everybody I knew had a basic faith in the American democratic system.
Those days are gone in America, many still have retained faith and even more hope, if not always much charity (left, right and center) but many have not. Increasing alienation has led to rise of populism of various stripes, but generally tending to the right, along with politicos capable of tapping this, again with varying degrees of talent and success.
Personally think that key reason 21st-century political populism is skewing rightward, is because across much of Europe and North America, and parts of other continents as well (excepting Antarctica) folks are LESS worried about getting their fair share of whatever, and MORE concerned about keeping with little (or great) they've already got.
Back in 1930s in Louisiana, Huey Long galvanized the majority of voters (mostly White but some Blacks could vote in Pelican State esp. in New Orleans) behind his populist, anti-establishment message. A message that was LEFTWING in orientation, not socially but economically. And even as he became increasingly dictatorial withing Louisiana, genuine support for his policies AND methods held firm. When he was at last cut down by the bullet of his assassin (or more likely the fusillade of his bodyguards) Huey was challenging FDR from the left, in lead-up to 1936 election.
Way back when, most Louisiana's (of whatever skin tone) were lucky to have a pot to piss in. Hence the leftward tilt of Huey, FDR and American populism in the 1930s. Though there was also a significant amount of rightwing populism as well, most notably Father Coughlin.
Odds on a Wallace and Tugendhat final 2? Looking stronger tonight. Some of Hunt's 2019 support already going to Tugendhat and I expect most of Boris' supporters will go to Wallace in the end.
Both decent, scandal free, ex military men
No suggestion of either of them taking it up the arse, what? Unheard of in the Armed Forces, or among married men.
Comments
A couple of glasses of lukewarm fucking chardonnay and propping up a couple of twats when he has an unblemished repputation for disloyalty and not giving a fuck about anybody else? Patz n Pinchers FFS?
Kevin B / Nadine is simply creating a fantasy to try to excuse Boris’s misbehaviour.
Well, apart from Le(gi)on
Historically it is probably a narcotic substance. “ When we have the Holy Ghost, we feel love, joy, and peace.”
The Trinity evolved from the drug taking Christians of North Africa, crossed the sea into Italy and Spain before the Council of Nicaea.
But it should be
I guess fascists are gonna fasch.
Both decent, scandal free, ex military men
He got what he deserved and the fact you think constant lying is fine is really your take on things . If the public didn’t mind the lies his approval ratings wouldn’t be in the toilet .
Shit did I type that out loud? Time for bed. Pinot noir poisoning is a dangerous thing.
The comments are full of regret, anger, and blame for anti-Brexiters.
What you say is absolutely correct in that there are such feelings just I'm not sure to what extent throughout the country.
Let Labour bore everyone with everlasting leadership battles
https://twitter.com/Hegemommy/status/1544871467535327232
Jessica Mason Pieklo - @Hegemommy
Honestly if you’re a white person who says they’re committed to racial justice and you’re in good standing with most your family I have *questions* for you and they are definitely pointed
Full disclosure I’m in contact with exactly three members of my birth and extended family for this specific reason
That first question is how committed are you, really
Even the good white families are a *scosh* racist when you scratch the surface
Positively Shakespearean.
His character flaw that led to tragedy is he cannot admit responsibility or accept blame or say sorry.
If he had said there were some lockdown incidents at No 10 that started as work events and then became something else and I am sorry from day one he would still be leader.
It’s weird. Like, he could have fucked his way through Westminster and been fine - it was priced in, that’s Boris, he likes the girls, show him a cleavage, oops, hahaha - we all loved it, or tolerated it, or didn’t care, or sighed and tutted and did nothing. He’s a character, that’s what you get. People shrugged
But he fell because…. He refused to tell his underlings to rein in the plaguetime karaoke? He was unable to say No maybe we won’t have some creepy dude as Chief Whip
He just needed one good advisor
Slightly longer answer. Alex Johnson got a first at Oxford, was a witty, respectable hack at The Times- Matthew Parris with more jokes, became a Conservative MP, was Arts Minister under David Cameron. A sort of upmarket Gyles Brandreth. The End.
The shittiness and thuggery took Boris to the top, certainly further than he would have got otherwise. But, like a racing driver taking corners too fast, it's a winning strategy until you crash.
They were full of poor Boris what a shame, etc.
Edit: they were actually charming, just drunk and loud.
Just on average older and much more poorly paid. They are no more or less woke than anywhere else when those are factored in.
The non existent difference was grotesquely overplayed at Boris' zenith. At his nadir it's being ignored.
I keep saying this. Folk want well paying jobs for their kids better than their own They aren't getting them. They don't even know what woke means. And care less.
- Kathy Burke
https://twitter.com/KathyBurke/status/1502941939427074050
Those days are gone in America, many still have retained faith and even more hope, if not always much charity (left, right and center) but many have not. Increasing alienation has led to rise of populism of various stripes, but generally tending to the right, along with politicos capable of tapping this, again with varying degrees of talent and success.
Personally think that key reason 21st-century political populism is skewing rightward, is because across much of Europe and North America, and parts of other continents as well (excepting Antarctica) folks are LESS worried about getting their fair share of whatever, and MORE concerned about keeping with little (or great) they've already got.
Back in 1930s in Louisiana, Huey Long galvanized the majority of voters (mostly White but some Blacks could vote in Pelican State esp. in New Orleans) behind his populist, anti-establishment message. A message that was LEFTWING in orientation, not socially but economically. And even as he became increasingly dictatorial withing Louisiana, genuine support for his policies AND methods held firm. When he was at last cut down by the bullet of his assassin (or more likely the fusillade of his bodyguards) Huey was challenging FDR from the left, in lead-up to 1936 election.
Way back when, most Louisiana's (of whatever skin tone) were lucky to have a pot to piss in. Hence the leftward tilt of Huey, FDR and American populism in the 1930s. Though there was also a significant amount of rightwing populism as well, most notably Father Coughlin.
Night all.
The Conservatives had two choices:
(1) Double down on Boris, and accept that he is electoral poison to a lot of middle class, middle aged, social liberals in the South and South East, and who voted for him in 2019 mostly because Corbyn scared the living daylights out of them.
or
(2) Let him go, and find someone more palatable to this group. But, of course, accept that this makes it much harder to reach people in the former Red Wall.
Neither are great options, tbh.
I do bloody loathe lightweight "Christians" like HYUFD. For starters I have read the New Testament and I can guarantee he bloody hasn't, at best he has flipped through a translation into Latin or worse still a modern vernacular. And it is entirely clear to me that what Our Lord was about, was psilocybin mushrooms, and sitting on John's cock.
And that was unacceptable because he's Boris Johnson.
I havn’t seen psephology build this into how well the Lib Dems are doing in blue wall yet, but I anticipate it. You sense this from the TV vox pops in the by election coverage. Sure, the Lib Dem success is made up of many factors, Remainia anger, Boris taking the **** etc, but just how potent is the anger at the red wall stealing the money that could have fixed the school years ago if dished out fairly, in flipping votes?
Liberalism to my mind is about accepting that people can have different views on topics. Not expecting everyone to have the same opinion, which is what it too often turns into.
There's a difference.
Now it's back to the drawing board.
Up until now, he has worked the other way round. The answer is always the Conservatives - and then young HY has to adjust the facts to make them fit the answer. I don't think this has been very comfortable for him.
https://twitter.com/MichelBarnier/status/1545015642176233472?s=20&t=thLFRbA43EjhFeuZfqnmIw
You're not related to MickTrain by any chance are you?
Boris was an obstacle to a sustainable Brexit.
On the shame thing is some senses they are right it is a shame. He has so many abilities as a politician and yet he allowed his personal flaws to bring himself down. No one else did. Not the BBC or the Guardian or left wing judges. He destroyed his own premiership singlehanded.
The analysis of Christianity is one I would sort of stand by, though
The labour fall in vote in the red wall 2019 was much bigger than the Tory gain in vote in 2019 in the red wall
Written by leftwingers for rightwing audience. AND visa versa alternate episodes!
https://www.pennymordaunt.com/fighting-for-our-future/