Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Muddying the Waters on BoJo’s £130k legal bill – politicalbetting.com

13

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    edited September 2022
    Andy_JS said:

    "Having betrayed Britain, the Tories deserve a 1997-style wipeout
    On every major issue, the Conservatives have let down their own voters. A crushing defeat is the only way they will change
    Nigel Farage"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/having-betrayed-britain-tories-deserve-1997-style-wipeout/

    Of course the fact in 1993 the Canadian Conservatives were overtaken by the populist right Reform Party Farage's current Party shares a name with has nothing to do with his desire for such a result at all!
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    IshmaelZ said:

    ping said:

    Chilling thread on 4Chan/8Chan’s successor, “KiwiFarms” and their hounding of targets.

    https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1565797220531814406

    We’ve got to stop this shit. They’re clearly breaking all sorts of laws. We need to enforce them. It’s not beyond the wit of western security services to find these people and prosecute them for their crimes.

    Huffle, puffle. You know the most basic rule of all, Don't be a c**t? A lot of kiwifarms targets are in breach of it. But anyway what has it got to do with PB?
    Joshua Moon the Kiwifarms guy circulated Brenton Tarrant's manifesto and boasted about it.

    They could grow in significance if Trump runs for US president again. He would need internet strings to his bow that weren't dependent on Facebook and Twitter for sure.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Dynamo said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ping said:

    Chilling thread on 4Chan/8Chan’s successor, “KiwiFarms” and their hounding of targets.

    https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1565797220531814406

    We’ve got to stop this shit. They’re clearly breaking all sorts of laws. We need to enforce them. It’s not beyond the wit of western security services to find these people and prosecute them for their crimes.

    Huffle, puffle. You know the most basic rule of all, Don't be a c**t? A lot of kiwifarms targets are in breach of it. But anyway what has it got to do with PB?
    Joshua Moon the Kiwifarms guy circulated Brenton Tarrant's manifesto and boasted about it.

    They could grow in significance if Trump runs for US president again. He would need internet strings to his bow that weren't dependent on Facebook and Twitter for sure.
    Suboptimal behaviour for sure, but I am not sure why I have to be chilled by it on PB? @ping clearly has the superpowers needed to deal with the situation or he wouldn't be giving it large about Enforcing Ther Law against these awful people. I hope he keeps us updated on progress, say on a quarterly basis
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,955
    edited September 2022
    carnforth said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    I just did a deep dive on a subject I've never explored


    Immigration INTO Ireland. I was unaware that it has exploded in recent years. For the last recorded year, net migration into Ireland was 64,000

    The equivalent number, in Britain, would be 820,000 - heading towards a million people in a year, and more than twice the peak migration we have ever experienced. Extraordinary

    Irexit on the way? Probably not, but I suggest there is big trouble ahead for Ireland if this continues

    Brexiters having second thoughts. Remember those Tory MPs who were assuming they'd have right of residence.
    They do have the right to residence under the CTA. Did you mean the right to a passport? I remember one Tory lord claiming that, I think.

    The CTA does not say anything about residence: it - like Schengen - is merely a mutual agreement not to enforce border controls.
    From gov.uk:

    “UK nationals do not need a visa or residency permit to live, work or study in Ireland. Within the Common Travel Area (CTA), British and Irish citizens can live and work freely in each other’s countries and travel freely between them. Both the UK and Irish governments are committed to protecting the CTA.”

    Seems like “CTA” is common shorthand for the whole set of rights?
    So... the rights of Irish citizens in the UK are not defined by the Common Travel Area treaties, but by the Ireland Act 1949, which defines Irish citizens as non-alien: i.e. that they have (pretty much) all the rights of British citizens in the UK.

    Are we talking at cross purposes? The original “they’d” above refered to a right to residence for English in RoI post-brexit not the other way around. No, this isn’t the CTA. My point is just that my wrong usage appears to be common on gov.uk too…
    You are correct, and I should be paying more attention.
  • Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    EPG said:

    Leon said:

    I just did a deep dive on a subject I've never explored


    Immigration INTO Ireland. I was unaware that it has exploded in recent years. For the last recorded year, net migration into Ireland was 64,000

    The equivalent number, in Britain, would be 820,000 - heading towards a million people in a year, and more than twice the peak migration we have ever experienced. Extraordinary

    Irexit on the way? Probably not, but I suggest there is big trouble ahead for Ireland if this continues

    I imagine the invasion of Ukraine had something to do with that ...
    It's not just Ukraine, it's from all over. Partly - as said below - because the Irish economy is doing well (and good for them), and partly because of the open border with Ulster/UK (the irony!) and partly because of FoM with Europe

    Ireland speaks English. It has many of the attractions of the UK. The influx is so big and fast it brings infrastructure problems, and housing is calamitously expensive
    The housing situation is a disaster. The Irish President made a very spicy speech on this subject.

    The GDP growth is fake, measurement issues with all the mega-corporations based in Dublin. Probably still a good thing though for the Irish.

    The Ireland argument is a very strong one for Yes2, imo. Two options - increase fertility or get immigrants in. Option 1 is tricky, so go for indy.
    I think it's more accurate to say that GDP growth is exaggerated: lots of Irish GDP (such as manufacturing of pharmaceuticals or microprocessors) never gets near the Irish people.

    With that said, median post tax income in Ireland has now snuck ahead of the UK.

    I certainly believe that Ireland has a bit of a problem: it's small, but it's become the centre for a lot of economic activity, and that means a lot of stresses will show quite quickly.

    The problem is that Ireland has prosperity because it was the low-tax, relatively low-regulation, English speaking part of the EU. If you take the EU part away, then it's just a smaller England with a much smaller labour pool to draw from.
    Another issue is that Ireland has practically zero experience of non-white, non-Christian immigration - unlike the UK which has known it for 70 years, at least

    In that, Eire is more like Denmark or Sweden. And it might have the same political impact as in Denmark or Sweden
    Belfast AND Dublin have both had Lord Mayors (or is it Lords Mayor?) of Chinese heritage.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 1,055
    rcs1000 - You may like these two California stories from some years ago: A small firm was established to help NIMBYs -- by finding endangered species in areas where the NIMBYs didn't want new construction. (Insects would be the first place to look, but I think they were also able to find some previously unknown fish.)

    When the Los Angeles area set up new rules for construction, it began taking an average of five years to get approval to build a house. This, of course, wiped out almost all the small builders, who were providing most of the price competition.
  • Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    EPG said:

    Leon said:

    I just did a deep dive on a subject I've never explored


    Immigration INTO Ireland. I was unaware that it has exploded in recent years. For the last recorded year, net migration into Ireland was 64,000

    The equivalent number, in Britain, would be 820,000 - heading towards a million people in a year, and more than twice the peak migration we have ever experienced. Extraordinary

    Irexit on the way? Probably not, but I suggest there is big trouble ahead for Ireland if this continues

    I imagine the invasion of Ukraine had something to do with that ...
    It's not just Ukraine, it's from all over. Partly - as said below - because the Irish economy is doing well (and good for them), and partly because of the open border with Ulster/UK (the irony!) and partly because of FoM with Europe

    Ireland speaks English. It has many of the attractions of the UK. The influx is so big and fast it brings infrastructure problems, and housing is calamitously expensive
    The housing situation is a disaster. The Irish President made a very spicy speech on this subject.

    The GDP growth is fake, measurement issues with all the mega-corporations based in Dublin. Probably still a good thing though for the Irish.

    The Ireland argument is a very strong one for Yes2, imo. Two options - increase fertility or get immigrants in. Option 1 is tricky, so go for indy.
    I think it's more accurate to say that GDP growth is exaggerated: lots of Irish GDP (such as manufacturing of pharmaceuticals or microprocessors) never gets near the Irish people.

    With that said, median post tax income in Ireland has now snuck ahead of the UK.

    I certainly believe that Ireland has a bit of a problem: it's small, but it's become the centre for a lot of economic activity, and that means a lot of stresses will show quite quickly.

    The problem is that Ireland has prosperity because it was the low-tax, relatively low-regulation, English speaking part of the EU. If you take the EU part away, then it's just a smaller England with a much smaller labour pool to draw from.
    Another issue is that Ireland has practically zero experience of non-white, non-Christian immigration - unlike the UK which has known it for 70 years, at least

    In that, Eire is more like Denmark or Sweden. And it might have the same political impact as in Denmark or Sweden
    Belfast AND Dublin have both had Lord Mayors (or is it Lords Mayor?) of Chinese heritage.
    Former Taoiseach Leo is half-Indian.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942

    Is Truss about to get lucky?

    Daniel Kral
    @DanielKral1
    ·
    8h
    Wholesale gas prices in Europe are collapsing (down over 10% today after large falls in previous days) even as Nordstream is under "maintenance" and other pipeline gas flows from Russia continue to be drastically reduced. Russia is no longer the marginal price setter for EU gas.

    https://twitter.com/DanielKral1/status/1565656026921197568

    No.

    What has happened is that Europe was filling up storage plus regular consumption. The storage is now pretty full. So demand for natural gas has suddenly dropped.

    But we are still in the warm months of the year across Europe.

    When the weather turns, prices will spike again.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992
    HYUFD said:

    carnforth said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    EPG said:

    Leon said:

    I just did a deep dive on a subject I've never explored


    Immigration INTO Ireland. I was unaware that it has exploded in recent years. For the last recorded year, net migration into Ireland was 64,000

    The equivalent number, in Britain, would be 820,000 - heading towards a million people in a year, and more than twice the peak migration we have ever experienced. Extraordinary

    Irexit on the way? Probably not, but I suggest there is big trouble ahead for Ireland if this continues

    I imagine the invasion of Ukraine had something to do with that ...
    It's not just Ukraine, it's from all over. Partly - as said below - because the Irish economy is doing well (and good for them), and partly because of the open border with Ulster/UK (the irony!) and partly because of FoM with Europe

    Ireland speaks English. It has many of the attractions of the UK. The influx is so big and fast it brings infrastructure problems, and housing is calamitously expensive
    The housing situation is a disaster. The Irish President made a very spicy speech on this subject.

    The GDP growth is fake, measurement issues with all the mega-corporations based in Dublin. Probably still a good thing though for the Irish.

    The Ireland argument is a very strong one for Yes2, imo. Two options - increase fertility or get immigrants in. Option 1 is tricky, so go for indy.
    I think it's more accurate to say that GDP growth is exaggerated: lots of Irish GDP (such as manufacturing of pharmaceuticals or microprocessors) never gets near the Irish people.

    With that said, median post tax income in Ireland has now snuck ahead of the UK.

    I certainly believe that Ireland has a bit of a problem: it's small, but it's become the centre for a lot of economic activity, and that means a lot of stresses will show quite quickly.

    The problem is that Ireland has prosperity because it was the low-tax, relatively low-regulation, English speaking part of the EU. If you take the EU part away, then it's just a smaller England with a much smaller labour pool to draw from.
    Another issue is that Ireland has practically zero experience of non-white, non-Christian immigration - unlike the UK which has known it for 70 years, at least

    In that, Eire is more like Denmark or Sweden. And it might have the same political impact as in Denmark or Sweden
    Apart from Ireland is about the only western European nation that does not have a hard right, populist and nationalist right party of any significance. France has RN, Spain has Vox, Germany has the AfD, Italy has Brothers of Italy and Lega Nord, Sweden has the Swedish Democrats, Austria has the Freedom Party, the Netherlands has PVV, even we recently had UKIP and still have RefUK.

    However Ireland just has the socially liberal but economically left Irish nationalist SF, the centre right liberal FG and the centrist Christian Democratic FF and Labour, Greens and some Independents
    Here’s a recent map:


    That’s nothing.
    The Tories got 44% at the last election, and Trump got 47%.
    Le Pen got 41% in May, Meloni is likely to be elected the new Italian PM
    HY your enthusiasm for the extreme right is troubling.

    Just because they are labelled "right" does not make them one nation Conservatives. They are not your friends, or at lease they shouldn't be.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,547
    edited September 2022

    HYUFD said:

    carnforth said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    EPG said:

    Leon said:

    I just did a deep dive on a subject I've never explored


    Immigration INTO Ireland. I was unaware that it has exploded in recent years. For the last recorded year, net migration into Ireland was 64,000

    The equivalent number, in Britain, would be 820,000 - heading towards a million people in a year, and more than twice the peak migration we have ever experienced. Extraordinary

    Irexit on the way? Probably not, but I suggest there is big trouble ahead for Ireland if this continues

    I imagine the invasion of Ukraine had something to do with that ...
    It's not just Ukraine, it's from all over. Partly - as said below - because the Irish economy is doing well (and good for them), and partly because of the open border with Ulster/UK (the irony!) and partly because of FoM with Europe

    Ireland speaks English. It has many of the attractions of the UK. The influx is so big and fast it brings infrastructure problems, and housing is calamitously expensive
    The housing situation is a disaster. The Irish President made a very spicy speech on this subject.

    The GDP growth is fake, measurement issues with all the mega-corporations based in Dublin. Probably still a good thing though for the Irish.

    The Ireland argument is a very strong one for Yes2, imo. Two options - increase fertility or get immigrants in. Option 1 is tricky, so go for indy.
    I think it's more accurate to say that GDP growth is exaggerated: lots of Irish GDP (such as manufacturing of pharmaceuticals or microprocessors) never gets near the Irish people.

    With that said, median post tax income in Ireland has now snuck ahead of the UK.

    I certainly believe that Ireland has a bit of a problem: it's small, but it's become the centre for a lot of economic activity, and that means a lot of stresses will show quite quickly.

    The problem is that Ireland has prosperity because it was the low-tax, relatively low-regulation, English speaking part of the EU. If you take the EU part away, then it's just a smaller England with a much smaller labour pool to draw from.
    Another issue is that Ireland has practically zero experience of non-white, non-Christian immigration - unlike the UK which has known it for 70 years, at least

    In that, Eire is more like Denmark or Sweden. And it might have the same political impact as in Denmark or Sweden
    Apart from Ireland is about the only western European nation that does not have a hard right, populist and nationalist right party of any significance. France has RN, Spain has Vox, Germany has the AfD, Italy has Brothers of Italy and Lega Nord, Sweden has the Swedish Democrats, Austria has the Freedom Party, the Netherlands has PVV, even we recently had UKIP and still have RefUK.

    However Ireland just has the socially liberal but economically left Irish nationalist SF, the centre right liberal FG and the centrist Christian Democratic FF and Labour, Greens and some Independents
    Here’s a recent map:


    That’s nothing.
    The Tories got 44% at the last election, and Trump got 47%.
    Le Pen got 41% in May, Meloni is likely to be elected the new Italian PM
    HY your enthusiasm for the extreme right is troubling.

    Just because they are labelled "right" does not make them one nation Conservatives. They are not your friends, or at lease they shouldn't be.
    The ironic thing is that, come a fascist regime to the UK, the lickspittle HYUFD will be first up against the wall.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,039
    carnforth said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    EPG said:

    Leon said:

    I just did a deep dive on a subject I've never explored


    Immigration INTO Ireland. I was unaware that it has exploded in recent years. For the last recorded year, net migration into Ireland was 64,000

    The equivalent number, in Britain, would be 820,000 - heading towards a million people in a year, and more than twice the peak migration we have ever experienced. Extraordinary

    Irexit on the way? Probably not, but I suggest there is big trouble ahead for Ireland if this continues

    I imagine the invasion of Ukraine had something to do with that ...
    It's not just Ukraine, it's from all over. Partly - as said below - because the Irish economy is doing well (and good for them), and partly because of the open border with Ulster/UK (the irony!) and partly because of FoM with Europe

    Ireland speaks English. It has many of the attractions of the UK. The influx is so big and fast it brings infrastructure problems, and housing is calamitously expensive
    The housing situation is a disaster. The Irish President made a very spicy speech on this subject.

    The GDP growth is fake, measurement issues with all the mega-corporations based in Dublin. Probably still a good thing though for the Irish.

    The Ireland argument is a very strong one for Yes2, imo. Two options - increase fertility or get immigrants in. Option 1 is tricky, so go for indy.
    I think it's more accurate to say that GDP growth is exaggerated: lots of Irish GDP (such as manufacturing of pharmaceuticals or microprocessors) never gets near the Irish people.

    With that said, median post tax income in Ireland has now snuck ahead of the UK.

    I certainly believe that Ireland has a bit of a problem: it's small, but it's become the centre for a lot of economic activity, and that means a lot of stresses will show quite quickly.

    The problem is that Ireland has prosperity because it was the low-tax, relatively low-regulation, English speaking part of the EU. If you take the EU part away, then it's just a smaller England with a much smaller labour pool to draw from.
    Another issue is that Ireland has practically zero experience of non-white, non-Christian immigration - unlike the UK which has known it for 70 years, at least

    In that, Eire is more like Denmark or Sweden. And it might have the same political impact as in Denmark or Sweden
    Apart from Ireland is about the only western European nation that does not have a hard right, populist and nationalist right party of any significance. France has RN, Spain has Vox, Germany has the AfD, Italy has Brothers of Italy and Lega Nord, Sweden has the Swedish Democrats, Austria has the Freedom Party, the Netherlands has PVV, even we recently had UKIP and still have RefUK.

    However Ireland just has the socially liberal but economically left Irish nationalist SF, the centre right liberal FG and the centrist Christian Democratic FF and Labour, Greens and some Independents
    Here’s a recent map:


    One can argue with the details there - I'd call the Polish governing party far-right, but the Danish People's Party has probably evolved enough to drop the "far". Presumably there are nuances in Italy too? In general, extreme parties that scent power chip off some of the hard edges - the worrying thing is if they don't feel they need to.
  • Reminder: at some point, inside information about the count may be leaked.

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.04 Liz Truss 96%
    20 Rishi Sunak 5%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.05 Liz Truss 95%
    20 Rishi Sunak 5%

    A slight move towards Rishi, if anything.

    Reminder: at some point, inside information about the count may be leaked.

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.05 Liz Truss 95%
    18.5 Rishi Sunak 5%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.05 Liz Truss 95%
    18 Rishi Sunak 6%
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,393
    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,484
    Why Labour must never win


    "Marking the victory of the regime that cast Iran into a theocratic abyss and sentenced Salman Rushdie to death is a "happy time" for Yasmine Dar.

    She has just retained her seat on Labour's NEC.

    The party remains a joke. A very bad one."

    https://twitter.com/habibi_uk/status/1565650256884375552?s=20&t=cC5DbxaAVdxLC23gk30lKA
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,280

    carnforth said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    EPG said:

    Leon said:

    I just did a deep dive on a subject I've never explored


    Immigration INTO Ireland. I was unaware that it has exploded in recent years. For the last recorded year, net migration into Ireland was 64,000

    The equivalent number, in Britain, would be 820,000 - heading towards a million people in a year, and more than twice the peak migration we have ever experienced. Extraordinary

    Irexit on the way? Probably not, but I suggest there is big trouble ahead for Ireland if this continues

    I imagine the invasion of Ukraine had something to do with that ...
    It's not just Ukraine, it's from all over. Partly - as said below - because the Irish economy is doing well (and good for them), and partly because of the open border with Ulster/UK (the irony!) and partly because of FoM with Europe

    Ireland speaks English. It has many of the attractions of the UK. The influx is so big and fast it brings infrastructure problems, and housing is calamitously expensive
    The housing situation is a disaster. The Irish President made a very spicy speech on this subject.

    The GDP growth is fake, measurement issues with all the mega-corporations based in Dublin. Probably still a good thing though for the Irish.

    The Ireland argument is a very strong one for Yes2, imo. Two options - increase fertility or get immigrants in. Option 1 is tricky, so go for indy.
    I think it's more accurate to say that GDP growth is exaggerated: lots of Irish GDP (such as manufacturing of pharmaceuticals or microprocessors) never gets near the Irish people.

    With that said, median post tax income in Ireland has now snuck ahead of the UK.

    I certainly believe that Ireland has a bit of a problem: it's small, but it's become the centre for a lot of economic activity, and that means a lot of stresses will show quite quickly.

    The problem is that Ireland has prosperity because it was the low-tax, relatively low-regulation, English speaking part of the EU. If you take the EU part away, then it's just a smaller England with a much smaller labour pool to draw from.
    Another issue is that Ireland has practically zero experience of non-white, non-Christian immigration - unlike the UK which has known it for 70 years, at least

    In that, Eire is more like Denmark or Sweden. And it might have the same political impact as in Denmark or Sweden
    Apart from Ireland is about the only western European nation that does not have a hard right, populist and nationalist right party of any significance. France has RN, Spain has Vox, Germany has the AfD, Italy has Brothers of Italy and Lega Nord, Sweden has the Swedish Democrats, Austria has the Freedom Party, the Netherlands has PVV, even we recently had UKIP and still have RefUK.

    However Ireland just has the socially liberal but economically left Irish nationalist SF, the centre right liberal FG and the centrist Christian Democratic FF and Labour, Greens and some Independents
    Here’s a recent map:


    One can argue with the details there - I'd call the Polish governing party far-right, but the Danish People's Party has probably evolved enough to drop the "far". Presumably there are nuances in Italy too? In general, extreme parties that scent power chip off some of the hard edges - the worrying thing is if they don't feel they need to.
    Perhaps traditional parties have to be proven to be extreme whereas new insurgent ones have to prove they are not? Although it's just as easy for insurgents to take over traditional parties - see the USA.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    Andy_JS said:

    "Having betrayed Britain, the Tories deserve a 1997-style wipeout
    On every major issue, the Conservatives have let down their own voters. A crushing defeat is the only way they will change
    Nigel Farage"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/having-betrayed-britain-tories-deserve-1997-style-wipeout/

    Optimistic. Even their repeated crushing defeats of him have never changed Nigel Farage, why should that change now?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    Incidentally, Pearson Edexcel doing what they do best:

    BTec delays: Students still waiting as uni deadline looms
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-62770585

    They’re almost as useless as OFQUAL.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,955
    edited September 2022
    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,175
    ...
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,280
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    There was a radical feminist/marxist view that marriage or even the family was a form of patriarchal oppression. I think the bigger issue for most 'liberals' is the stigmatising of non-traditional family set ups. Hence the lament of people like Charles Murray that such people won't preach what they practice. Their instinct is not to judge.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,280
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    There was a radical feminist/marxist view that marriage or even the family was a form of patriarchal oppression. I think the bigger issue for most 'liberals' is the stigmatising of non-traditional family set ups. Hence the lament of people like Charles Murray that such people won't preach what they practice. Their instinct is not to judge.
    I think that the most destructive thing for families is not liberalism, which is rooted in care and compassion for others, but rather rampant selfishness and individualism.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
  • Scott_xP said:

    ...

    I hope that Mrs O'Leary has a strong private support network. The next 2 years are going to be the worst of her life. On a personal level, I wish her well and hope she comes out the maelstrom reasonably healthy and happy.

    Ditto 68 million more souls.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    I think I'm also right in saying that London is one of the few Anglican dioceses whose membership is growing, although I can't find any very up to date figures.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,175
    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I think the most dangerous and destructive thing for families is when one member develops an obsession with some kind of Internet "site". Suddenly their life revolves around
    this "community". Their family, their job, even their very health is threatened.

    I hope no one here suffers from this affliction.

    Radiohead fan sites are a public nuisance
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732
    edited September 2022
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    There was a radical feminist/marxist view that marriage or even the family was a form of patriarchal oppression. I think the bigger issue for most 'liberals' is the stigmatising of non-traditional family set ups. Hence the lament of people like Charles Murray that such people won't preach what they practice. Their instinct is not to judge.
    I think that the most destructive thing for families is not liberalism, which is rooted in care and compassion for others, but rather rampant selfishness and individualism.
    Personally, I think the most dangerous and destructive thing for families is when one member develops an obsession with some kind of Internet "site". Suddenly their life revolves around
    this "community". Their family, their job, even their very health is threatened.

    I hope no one here suffers from this affliction.
    Well it is true that following politics on social media, news and websites like this is bad for mental health. As is gambling of course!

    https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/10/reading-too-much-political-news-bad-happiness/616651/

    But like a moth to a flame, here we are...
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    EPG said:

    Leon said:

    I just did a deep dive on a subject I've never explored


    Immigration INTO Ireland. I was unaware that it has exploded in recent years. For the last recorded year, net migration into Ireland was 64,000

    The equivalent number, in Britain, would be 820,000 - heading towards a million people in a year, and more than twice the peak migration we have ever experienced. Extraordinary

    Irexit on the way? Probably not, but I suggest there is big trouble ahead for Ireland if this continues

    I imagine the invasion of Ukraine had something to do with that ...
    It's not just Ukraine, it's from all over. Partly - as said below - because the Irish economy is doing well (and good for them), and partly because of the open border with Ulster/UK (the irony!) and partly because of FoM with Europe

    Ireland speaks English. It has many of the attractions of the UK. The influx is so big and fast it brings infrastructure problems, and housing is calamitously expensive
    The housing situation is a disaster. The Irish President made a very spicy speech on this subject.

    The GDP growth is fake, measurement issues with all the mega-corporations based in Dublin. Probably still a good thing though for the Irish.

    The Ireland argument is a very strong one for Yes2, imo. Two options - increase fertility or get immigrants in. Option 1 is tricky, so go for indy.
    I think it's more accurate to say that GDP growth is exaggerated: lots of Irish GDP (such as manufacturing of pharmaceuticals or microprocessors) never gets near the Irish people.

    With that said, median post tax income in Ireland has now snuck ahead of the UK.

    I certainly believe that Ireland has a bit of a problem: it's small, but it's become the centre for a lot of economic activity, and that means a lot of stresses will show quite quickly.

    The problem is that Ireland has prosperity because it was the low-tax, relatively low-regulation, English speaking part of the EU. If you take the EU part away, then it's just a smaller England with a much smaller labour pool to draw from.
    Another issue is that Ireland has practically zero experience of non-white, non-Christian immigration - unlike the UK which has known it for 70 years, at least

    In that, Eire is more like Denmark or Sweden. And it might have the same political impact as in Denmark or Sweden
    Apart from Ireland is about the only western European nation that does not have a hard right, populist and nationalist right party of any significance. France has RN, Spain has Vox, Germany has the AfD, Italy has Brothers of Italy and Lega Nord, Sweden has the Swedish Democrats, Austria has the Freedom Party, the Netherlands has PVV, even we recently had UKIP and still have RefUK.

    However Ireland just has the socially liberal but economically left Irish nationalist SF, the centre right liberal FG and the centrist Christian Democratic FF and Labour, Greens and some Independents
    Aontu are anti-abortion.
    Aontú are a splinter from SF. They’re socially conservative, but left-wing on economic policy. So in some ways they mirror the populist right elsewhere and in other ways they don’t. They do support limiting immigration.

    They’re polling at around 0-4%.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    I know two churchgoing families. My very middle class white neighbours whose kids go to private school.
    Also the cleaner at my work, who is originally from Nigeria I think - church is a big part of her and her families life.
    The Christian faith helps both of them immensely I think
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732
    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Some good Truss is PM reaction gifs in this twitter thread:

    https://twitter.com/LizTruss_MP/status/1565734911067230210?t=PN17VQE6qwoBBSPVtotBFQ&s=19

    Note this is not the real Fizzie Lizzie.
  • Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    +1

    We are very liberal parents, and 3 out of our 4 parents were/are also very liberal. Compassion breeds stability. And successful, lifelong marriages.

    It seems very likely that our children will in their turn be liberal parents. Success breeds success.
  • The Union, a thread.

    George, Andrew, David and Patrick share a flat. All employed and bring money in.
    All four wages are paid into George's bank account. Only George has access to this account.

    https://twitter.com/jockmcleod53/status/1565228232202489856?s=46&t=bzvE4xs8K-hfBIX01_kn-Q
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,280
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,175
    Max Hastings in The Times on what Truss needs to do...

    resolution but also realism on Ukraine; rearmament; NHS funding reform; a charm offensive towards our European neighbours; renewed focus on education; resuscitation of the mechanisms of law and order; support for both households and businesses through an energy crisis that Putin is likely to protract; a commitment to sound money; action to address the workplace skills famine even as 13 per cent of working people draw unemployment benefit; continued engagement with climate change; and finally a return to the appointment of ministers by ability rather than canine loyalty. If Margaret Thatcher could live with clever wets in her cabinet, so should Truss.

    Little of the above will happen.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-pms-first-task-is-to-drop-the-cakeism-93hvp9w97
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
    Well clearly it depends on what you mean by "religious" but if you consider active attendance at communal places of worship, then amongst Britons it is clearly a minority interest. Particularly concentrated amongst various ethnic groups, but also amongst the middle classes.

    As I pointed out there is a strong chicken and egg phenomenon too, as active religiosity is a powerful predictor of upward social mobility. Even more so compounded over generations.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Max Hastings in The Times on what Truss needs to do...

    resolution but also realism on Ukraine; rearmament; NHS funding reform; a charm offensive towards our European neighbours; renewed focus on education; resuscitation of the mechanisms of law and order; support for both households and businesses through an energy crisis that Putin is likely to protract; a commitment to sound money; action to address the workplace skills famine even as 13 per cent of working people draw unemployment benefit; continued engagement with climate change; and finally a return to the appointment of ministers by ability rather than canine loyalty. If Margaret Thatcher could live with clever wets in her cabinet, so should Truss.

    Little of the above will happen.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-pms-first-task-is-to-drop-the-cakeism-93hvp9w97

    A charm offensive towards the neighbours?!?

    The man’s a comedian.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    edited September 2022

    Scott_xP said:

    Max Hastings in The Times on what Truss needs to do...

    resolution but also realism on Ukraine; rearmament; NHS funding reform; a charm offensive towards our European neighbours; renewed focus on education; resuscitation of the mechanisms of law and order; support for both households and businesses through an energy crisis that Putin is likely to protract; a commitment to sound money; action to address the workplace skills famine even as 13 per cent of working people draw unemployment benefit; continued engagement with climate change; and finally a return to the appointment of ministers by ability rather than canine loyalty. If Margaret Thatcher could live with clever wets in her cabinet, so should Truss.

    Little of the above will happen.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-pms-first-task-is-to-drop-the-cakeism-93hvp9w97

    A charm offensive towards the neighbours?!?

    The man’s a comedian.
    Well, he certainly will never make a Scottish nationalist.
  • ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Max Hastings in The Times on what Truss needs to do...

    resolution but also realism on Ukraine; rearmament; NHS funding reform; a charm offensive towards our European neighbours; renewed focus on education; resuscitation of the mechanisms of law and order; support for both households and businesses through an energy crisis that Putin is likely to protract; a commitment to sound money; action to address the workplace skills famine even as 13 per cent of working people draw unemployment benefit; continued engagement with climate change; and finally a return to the appointment of ministers by ability rather than canine loyalty. If Margaret Thatcher could live with clever wets in her cabinet, so should Truss.

    Little of the above will happen.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-pms-first-task-is-to-drop-the-cakeism-93hvp9w97

    To be honest, all of that is a series of clichés. Nobody comes to power promising to shaft our allies, piss off our neighbours, ignore education and oversee the breakdown of law and order. (Of course, they may achieve that, but usually through incompetence rather than intention.)

    What we need is some idea of what she will actually *do* about them.

    So far she seems to have two responses:

    1) No answer

    2) An answer so mad even Cummings has blinked at it.
    The Con leadership hustings were one long exercise in revelling at pissing off the neighbours.

    https://twitter.com/ruth_wishart/status/1554439779999162368?s=46&t=bzvE4xs8K-hfBIX01_kn-Q

    https://twitter.com/phantompower14/status/1565252781958725632?s=46&t=bzvE4xs8K-hfBIX01_kn-Q

    https://twitter.com/petewishart/status/1563092388436127745?s=46&t=bzvE4xs8K-hfBIX01_kn-Q
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,280
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
    Well clearly it depends on what you mean by "religious" but if you consider active attendance at communal places of worship, then amongst Britons it is clearly a minority interest. Particularly concentrated amongst various ethnic groups, but also amongst the middle classes.

    As I pointed out there is a strong chicken and egg phenomenon too, as active religiosity is a powerful predictor of upward social mobility. Even more so compounded over generations.
    I don't doubt that religious belief can have a powerful effect on people and they may end up more purposeful, wealthier and happier in their lives.

    Personally I'm a miserable, single person of no religion who probably spends too much time focused on politics and current affairs. Does that mean I should start believing something that doesn't make sense to me?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779

    The Union, a thread.

    George, Andrew, David and Patrick share a flat. All employed and bring money in.
    All four wages are paid into George's bank account. Only George has access to this account.

    https://twitter.com/jockmcleod53/status/1565228232202489856?s=46&t=bzvE4xs8K-hfBIX01_kn-Q

    Ah, the Mrs T "UK as a Household Budget" approach, extended to the devolution era.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
    Well clearly it depends on what you mean by "religious" but if you consider active attendance at communal places of worship, then amongst Britons it is clearly a minority interest. Particularly concentrated amongst various ethnic groups, but also amongst the middle classes.

    As I pointed out there is a strong chicken and egg phenomenon too, as active religiosity is a powerful predictor of upward social mobility. Even more so compounded over generations.
    I don't doubt that religious belief can have a powerful effect on people and they may end up more purposeful, wealthier and happier in their lives.

    Personally I'm a miserable, single person of no religion who probably spends too much time focused on politics and current affairs. Does that mean I should start believing something that doesn't make sense to me?
    If you're a Conservative supporter you're not going to be given much choice.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779
    edited September 2022
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/03/jacob-rees-mogg-blocking-major-uk-tourism-campaign

    Bit of rabid ferrets in the sack air about this as a new Cabinet looms.

    'But Rees-Mogg, in his role as Brexit opportunities and government efficiencies minister, has refused to sign off the department for culture’s £800,000 budget – part of a cross-Whitehall recovery plan agreed at the last spending review – despite agreeing a separate £4m for VisitBritain campaigns.

    [...]

    A senior government source said: “Jacob Rees-Mogg is totally unsuited to modern governance. His kneejerk ideological stubbornness halted British tourism from being promoted in key international markets, at the very time when many sectors are still on their knees from Covid. He may wrap himself in the union jack at home, but he is unwilling to fly that flag abroad.”'
  • Carnyx said:

    The Union, a thread.

    George, Andrew, David and Patrick share a flat. All employed and bring money in.
    All four wages are paid into George's bank account. Only George has access to this account.

    https://twitter.com/jockmcleod53/status/1565228232202489856?s=46&t=bzvE4xs8K-hfBIX01_kn-Q

    Ah, the Mrs T "UK as a Household Budget" approach, extended to the devolution era.
    George, Andrew, David and Patrick were flatmates even in Maggie’s day. But George had the others bound and gagged in the basement back then.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 483
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
    As I pointed out there is a strong chicken and egg phenomenon too, as active religiosity is a powerful predictor of upward social mobility. Even more so compounded over generations.
    What evidence is there of this claim you've made a couple of times?

    I'd expect the proportion of successful people to be religious to have declined over time in line with wider society, which would suggest the impact is limited and/or incidental.

    And, anecdotally, in my wide group of friends/colleagues who are generally successful in their 30s, almost all are not actively religious.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
    Well clearly it depends on what you mean by "religious" but if you consider active attendance at communal places of worship, then amongst Britons it is clearly a minority interest. Particularly concentrated amongst various ethnic groups, but also amongst the middle classes.

    As I pointed out there is a strong chicken and egg phenomenon too, as active religiosity is a powerful predictor of upward social mobility. Even more so compounded over generations.
    I don't doubt that religious belief can have a powerful effect on people and they may end up more purposeful, wealthier and happier in their lives.

    Personally I'm a miserable, single person of no religion who probably spends too much time focused on politics and current affairs. Does that mean I should start believing something that doesn't make sense to me?
    There are steps to belief, and it is not all or nothing. To most of us faith is like a low wattage light bulb, not visible all the time.

    I was an atheist and anti-clerical in particular until I was 30. It was becoming a father that changed me. I wanted to bring up fox Jr with a sound set of values, and started for the first time in my life to think about the origins of the values that I thought mattered. I read the New Testament for the first time, and it is a good starting point. It wasn't the book that I had expected, and I have been a Christian ever since.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,175
    ydoethur said:

    Nobody comes to power promising to shaft our allies, piss off our neighbours

    Truss is doing exactly that
  • Carnyx said:

    The Union, a thread.

    George, Andrew, David and Patrick share a flat. All employed and bring money in.
    All four wages are paid into George's bank account. Only George has access to this account.

    https://twitter.com/jockmcleod53/status/1565228232202489856?s=46&t=bzvE4xs8K-hfBIX01_kn-Q

    Ah, the Mrs T "UK as a Household Budget" approach, extended to the devolution era.
    George, Andrew, David and Patrick were flatmates even in Maggie’s day. But George had the others bound and gagged in the basement back then.
    Its a crap analogy whether its done by Thatcher or Sturgeon.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732
    Ratters said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
    As I pointed out there is a strong chicken and egg phenomenon too, as active religiosity is a powerful predictor of upward social mobility. Even more so compounded over generations.
    What evidence is there of this claim you've made a couple of times?

    I'd expect the proportion of successful people to be religious to have declined over time in line with wider society, which would suggest the impact is limited and/or incidental.

    And, anecdotally, in my wide group of friends/colleagues who are generally successful in their 30s, almost all are not actively religious.
    It certainly seems true historically, perhaps best demonstrated best by the Scottish Reformation and its influence on education and the work ethic, but similar changes were afoot elsewhere in these Isles. It is not a coincidence that Britain's wave of Victorian prosperity occurred at the time of great religious observance.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,918
    Peel, Disraeli, Baldwin, Churchill, Macmillan, Thatcher, Cameron , Truss.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779
    Foxy said:

    Ratters said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
    As I pointed out there is a strong chicken and egg phenomenon too, as active religiosity is a powerful predictor of upward social mobility. Even more so compounded over generations.
    What evidence is there of this claim you've made a couple of times?

    I'd expect the proportion of successful people to be religious to have declined over time in line with wider society, which would suggest the impact is limited and/or incidental.

    And, anecdotally, in my wide group of friends/colleagues who are generally successful in their 30s, almost all are not actively religious.
    It certainly seems true historically, perhaps best demonstrated best by the Scottish Reformation and its influence on education and the work ethic, but similar changes were afoot elsewhere in these Isles. It is not a coincidence that Britain's wave of Victorian prosperity occurred at the time of great religious observance.

    Not coincidental that much of the fundamental work on power, energy, and so on was done by Dissenters and Presbyterians. The SI units reflect this. Kelvin, Watt, Faraday, Joule ...
  • Our problem is not a lack of nationalised energy companies, but a lack of energy. For presiding over this catastrophe, the Tories deserve to be out of power for a generation. Instead, it’s the country that’s running out of power while the Tories prepare for their fourth leader. She won’t have long to fix the mess before she too runs out of road.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/02/lefts-reckless-drive-nationalise-energy-companies-will-not-solve/
  • It does not appear that the Tories can rely on BXP standing down again in any future elections.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,280
    Foxy said:

    Ratters said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
    As I pointed out there is a strong chicken and egg phenomenon too, as active religiosity is a powerful predictor of upward social mobility. Even more so compounded over generations.
    What evidence is there of this claim you've made a couple of times?

    I'd expect the proportion of successful people to be religious to have declined over time in line with wider society, which would suggest the impact is limited and/or incidental.

    And, anecdotally, in my wide group of friends/colleagues who are generally successful in their 30s, almost all are not actively religious.
    It certainly seems true historically, perhaps best demonstrated best by the Scottish Reformation and its influence on education and the work ethic, but similar changes were afoot elsewhere in these Isles. It is not a coincidence that Britain's wave of Victorian prosperity occurred at the time of great religious observance.

    I think that is a debatable point about the Victorians. I'm slightly younger than you and the general consensus in our school history lessons was that Britain peaked around 1850 with the Great Exhibition since when it's been downhill all the way. The Victorians certainly built plenty of infrastructure though.
  • What we know about the mysterious pneumonia in Argentina

    Three people have died this week due to a pneumonia outbreak of unknown origin in the Tucumán province of northwestern Argentina

    “We first suspect[ed] covid and influenza, both influenza A and B, [and] even hantavirus, but through research they have been ruled out,” said Medina Ruiz. “We have more than 30 possible germs with the ability to detect them and they are giving negative results.”

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2336438-what-we-know-about-the-mysterious-pneumonia-in-argentina/
  • Jonathan said:

    Peel, Disraeli, Baldwin, Churchill, Macmillan, Thatcher, Cameron , Truss.

    Will she be the last?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507

    Our problem is not a lack of nationalised energy companies, but a lack of energy. For presiding over this catastrophe, the Tories deserve to be out of power for a generation. Instead, it’s the country that’s running out of power while the Tories prepare for their fourth leader. She won’t have long to fix the mess before she too runs out of road.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/02/lefts-reckless-drive-nationalise-energy-companies-will-not-solve/

    The Tories are not solely to blame. Firstly from 2010 until 2015 the Lib Dems were in formal coalition. Secondly the Labour governments of 1997 to 2010 also failed, notably with nuclear power.

    Ultimately developing energy sources is outside the 4 or 5 year election cycle. No chance to say yes to 5 new nuclear power stations on the Friday after the election and get to cut the ribbon the day before the next.
  • Our problem is not a lack of nationalised energy companies, but a lack of energy. For presiding over this catastrophe, the Tories deserve to be out of power for a generation. Instead, it’s the country that’s running out of power while the Tories prepare for their fourth leader. She won’t have long to fix the mess before she too runs out of road.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/02/lefts-reckless-drive-nationalise-energy-companies-will-not-solve/

    Scotland has plenty of energy.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507

    Foxy said:

    Ratters said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
    As I pointed out there is a strong chicken and egg phenomenon too, as active religiosity is a powerful predictor of upward social mobility. Even more so compounded over generations.
    What evidence is there of this claim you've made a couple of times?

    I'd expect the proportion of successful people to be religious to have declined over time in line with wider society, which would suggest the impact is limited and/or incidental.

    And, anecdotally, in my wide group of friends/colleagues who are generally successful in their 30s, almost all are not actively religious.
    It certainly seems true historically, perhaps best demonstrated best by the Scottish Reformation and its influence on education and the work ethic, but similar changes were afoot elsewhere in these Isles. It is not a coincidence that Britain's wave of Victorian prosperity occurred at the time of great religious observance.

    I think that is a debatable point about the Victorians. I'm slightly younger than you and the general consensus in our school history lessons was that Britain peaked around 1850 with the Great Exhibition since when it's been downhill all the way. The Victorians certainly built plenty of infrastructure though.
    There is also the danger of which victorians are we thinking of. The thin crust of upper and middle class or the huddled masses, driven from the land into the grimy cities to slave for 16 hours a day, 6 days a week.
  • Foxy said:

    Ratters said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
    As I pointed out there is a strong chicken and egg phenomenon too, as active religiosity is a powerful predictor of upward social mobility. Even more so compounded over generations.
    What evidence is there of this claim you've made a couple of times?

    I'd expect the proportion of successful people to be religious to have declined over time in line with wider society, which would suggest the impact is limited and/or incidental.

    And, anecdotally, in my wide group of friends/colleagues who are generally successful in their 30s, almost all are not actively religious.
    It certainly seems true historically, perhaps best demonstrated best by the Scottish Reformation and its influence on education and the work ethic, but similar changes were afoot elsewhere in these Isles. It is not a coincidence that Britain's wave of Victorian prosperity occurred at the time of great religious observance.

    I think that is a debatable point about the Victorians. I'm slightly younger than you and the general consensus in our school history lessons was that Britain peaked around 1850 with the Great Exhibition since when it's been downhill all the way. The Victorians certainly built plenty of infrastructure though.
    England peaked 1850.

    The rest of have our best days ahead of us.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 483
    Foxy said:

    Ratters said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
    As I pointed out there is a strong chicken and egg phenomenon too, as active religiosity is a powerful predictor of upward social mobility. Even more so compounded over generations.
    What evidence is there of this claim you've made a couple of times?

    I'd expect the proportion of successful people to be religious to have declined over time in line with wider society, which would suggest the impact is limited and/or incidental.

    And, anecdotally, in my wide group of friends/colleagues who are generally successful in their 30s, almost all are not actively religious.
    It certainly seems true historically, perhaps best demonstrated best by the Scottish Reformation and its influence on education and the work ethic, but similar changes were afoot elsewhere in these Isles. It is not a coincidence that Britain's wave of Victorian prosperity occurred at the time of great religious observance.

    Okay so to be clear, no evidence just historical anecdote.

    Evidence would be a contemporary study comparing upward mobility with religious adherence, preferably across countries.

    Otherwise you're just stating an opinion as a fact. I could do the opposite and claim religion causes people to be downtrodden and content with what they have, hence the more religious parts of the US and Europe are poorer.

    Which isn't great evidence either, but it's at least as good as something vague about Victorian Britain and the Scottish Reformation.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    .

    Sweet documentary on Simon & Garfunkel on BBC4 at the mo’ centering on Bridge Over Troubled Waters. Had no idea that they were perceived as dangerous commie radicals intent on the destruction of the USA back in the day merely because they were concerned about poverty, racism and structural disadvantage.

    Plus ça change.

    The FBI had a file on the effing Monkees.

    S&G were dangerous subversives in comparison.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FySFvQoapU
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853

    Our problem is not a lack of nationalised energy companies, but a lack of energy. For presiding over this catastrophe, the Tories deserve to be out of power for a generation. Instead, it’s the country that’s running out of power while the Tories prepare for their fourth leader. She won’t have long to fix the mess before she too runs out of road.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/02/lefts-reckless-drive-nationalise-energy-companies-will-not-solve/

    Scotland has plenty of energy.
    I'm surprised Sturgeon is not making more of Scotland's energy advantage. The hypothecated gain completely reverses Barnett next year and going forward Scotland has sufficient watts for its population unlike England. You can't of course print watts
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732

    Foxy said:

    Ratters said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
    As I pointed out there is a strong chicken and egg phenomenon too, as active religiosity is a powerful predictor of upward social mobility. Even more so compounded over generations.
    What evidence is there of this claim you've made a couple of times?

    I'd expect the proportion of successful people to be religious to have declined over time in line with wider society, which would suggest the impact is limited and/or incidental.

    And, anecdotally, in my wide group of friends/colleagues who are generally successful in their 30s, almost all are not actively religious.
    It certainly seems true historically, perhaps best demonstrated best by the Scottish Reformation and its influence on education and the work ethic, but similar changes were afoot elsewhere in these Isles. It is not a coincidence that Britain's wave of Victorian prosperity occurred at the time of great religious observance.

    I think that is a debatable point about the Victorians. I'm slightly younger than you and the general consensus in our school history lessons was that Britain peaked around 1850 with the Great Exhibition since when it's been downhill all the way. The Victorians certainly built plenty of infrastructure though.
    Yes, the Great Evangelical revival was an early nineteenth century phenomenon, peaking about 1830.

    Foxy said:

    Ratters said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
    As I pointed out there is a strong chicken and egg phenomenon too, as active religiosity is a powerful predictor of upward social mobility. Even more so compounded over generations.
    What evidence is there of this claim you've made a couple of times?

    I'd expect the proportion of successful people to be religious to have declined over time in line with wider society, which would suggest the impact is limited and/or incidental.

    And, anecdotally, in my wide group of friends/colleagues who are generally successful in their 30s, almost all are not actively religious.
    It certainly seems true historically, perhaps best demonstrated best by the Scottish Reformation and its influence on education and the work ethic, but similar changes were afoot elsewhere in these Isles. It is not a coincidence that Britain's wave of Victorian prosperity occurred at the time of great religious observance.

    I think that is a debatable point about the Victorians. I'm slightly younger than you and the general consensus in our school history lessons was that Britain peaked around 1850 with the Great Exhibition since when it's been downhill all the way. The Victorians certainly built plenty of infrastructure though.
    There is also the danger of which victorians are we thinking of. The thin crust of upper and middle class or the huddled masses, driven from the land into the grimy cities to slave for 16 hours a day, 6 days a week.
    Hence the division in England and Wales of Church and Chapel, with the working classes in Wales, the Midlands and Cornwall being strong on the self improvement of Methodists, Baptists and other Non-conformists, rather than the patrician established church.

    We live in a very secular country (and I am very happy with that as religion should be voluntary and self sought) so do misunderstand both other countries and our own past by underestimating how much religion has mattered to other people's and times.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,175
    Ratters said:

    Otherwise you're just stating an opinion as a fact. I could do the opposite and claim religion causes people to be downtrodden and content with what they have, hence the more religious parts of the US and Europe are poorer.

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-ex-churchgoers-flocked-to-trump/

    And herein lies the best, deepest explanation of “how we got Trump.” Trump’s improbable likeness to a mega-church preacher allowed him to capture the love of a huge swath of the electorate that previously tuned out or voted for Democrats. The people who came to Trump, especially early in the primaries, weren’t really joining the GOP and they weren’t primarily seeking policies. They didn’t even necessarily believe Trump would bring back their jobs. Many of Trump’s earliest and most dedicated supporters were seeking a deeper fulfilment.

    They came to Trump seeking what they had lost because they had lost church.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    Carnyx said:

    The Union, a thread.

    George, Andrew, David and Patrick share a flat. All employed and bring money in.
    All four wages are paid into George's bank account. Only George has access to this account.

    https://twitter.com/jockmcleod53/status/1565228232202489856?s=46&t=bzvE4xs8K-hfBIX01_kn-Q

    Ah, the Mrs T "UK as a Household Budget" approach, extended to the devolution era.
    As analogies go, it’s not quite as piss poor as Leon’s pregnancy Brexit rubbish, but good effort.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042

    Our problem is not a lack of nationalised energy companies, but a lack of energy. For presiding over this catastrophe, the Tories deserve to be out of power for a generation. Instead, it’s the country that’s running out of power while the Tories prepare for their fourth leader. She won’t have long to fix the mess before she too runs out of road.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/02/lefts-reckless-drive-nationalise-energy-companies-will-not-solve/

    The Tories are not solely to blame. Firstly from 2010 until 2015 the Lib Dems were in formal coalition. Secondly the Labour governments of 1997 to 2010 also failed, notably with nuclear power.

    Ultimately developing energy sources is outside the 4 or 5 year election cycle. No chance to say yes to 5 new nuclear power stations on the Friday after the election and get to cut the ribbon the day before the next.
    Or even before 2010.
    In any event, I can certainly recall discussions/complaints here about Cameron’s failure to take decisions on nuclear etc - repeated regularly since.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    For those that are flowing, ORYX has been keeping track of verifiable losses of equipment in the war, for both sides. Its now up to 998 Russian tanks (all classes, and likely will be pass 1000 with in the next 24 hours. is there an appropriate way to mark this occasion?

    Link here: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    BigRich said:

    For those that are flowing, ORYX has been keeping track of verifiable losses of equipment in the war, for both sides. Its now up to 998 Russian tanks (all classes, and likely will be pass 1000 with in the next 24 hours. is there an appropriate way to mark this occasion?

    Link here: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

    When the latest batch of reports to be processed came in, I believe his comment was “FML”.
  • The Pannick advice is odd because, as others have mentioned, proceedings in Parliament are not subject to judicial review. Still, nice work if you can get it, I guess, but Boris could have come to me, I'd have been a lot cheaper!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    Scott_xP said:

    Ratters said:

    Otherwise you're just stating an opinion as a fact. I could do the opposite and claim religion causes people to be downtrodden and content with what they have, hence the more religious parts of the US and Europe are poorer.

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-ex-churchgoers-flocked-to-trump/

    And herein lies the best, deepest explanation of “how we got Trump.” Trump’s improbable likeness to a mega-church preacher allowed him to capture the love of a huge swath of the electorate that previously tuned out or voted for Democrats. The people who came to Trump, especially early in the primaries, weren’t really joining the GOP and they weren’t primarily seeking policies. They didn’t even necessarily believe Trump would bring back their jobs. Many of Trump’s earliest and most dedicated supporters were seeking a deeper fulfilment.

    They came to Trump seeking what they had lost because they had lost church.
    Not keen on this. Sounds a stretch and a half.

    If we're going for a Deep Psych take I prefer the one about it being a backlash against a black man in the WH.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,256
    edited September 2022
    Religion tends to increase with age because the young tend to be more cynical, but agnosticism tended to be the default. In many ways, as a scientist, I can understand being an agnostic. There are some aphorisms that are true. For instance. never try to prove a negative. And sometimes lack of evidence isn't the same as evidence of lack.

    Religion can be described as ascientific. Being an older scientist, I've never approved of some of the more imaginative theories about the nature of the world. Because they aren't testable and probably never will. Modern theoretical Physics can be ascientific too. String Theory may be 'elegant' but it's untestable, and relies on faith. just as much as religion.

    We naturally seek our position in the world. What are we here for? Religion is thus an optimistic view in that life has a purpose. Atheism is the religion of the pessimsts, even the scientific ones. Why does this happen? It just happens is their response, along with a little self-aggrandisement. If I don't know, it's obviously not important, and can be ignored, is the response of others. Some assume science will give the answer eventually. Why then, are they happy with untestable theories? Because they can't be tested and therefore aren't real science.

    I had a soft spot for the phlogiston theory because it could be tested. It may have been rubbish, but it was scientific.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,061

    What we know about the mysterious pneumonia in Argentina

    Three people have died this week due to a pneumonia outbreak of unknown origin in the Tucumán province of northwestern Argentina

    “We first suspect[ed] covid and influenza, both influenza A and B, [and] even hantavirus, but through research they have been ruled out,” said Medina Ruiz. “We have more than 30 possible germs with the ability to detect them and they are giving negative results.”

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2336438-what-we-know-about-the-mysterious-pneumonia-in-argentina/

    If this is an infectious disease, and if the official information is accurate, it behaves very strangely.

    It seems nine symptomatic cases developed between 18 and 26 August, but none have been detected later than that (with the possible exception of one more announced last night without information about when the symptoms started). And they state that none of the close contacts of the cases have been affected (presumably meaning contacts who don't work at the affected medical facility).
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
    Well clearly it depends on what you mean by "religious" but if you consider active attendance at communal places of worship, then amongst Britons it is clearly a minority interest. Particularly concentrated amongst various ethnic groups, but also amongst the middle classes.

    As I pointed out there is a strong chicken and egg phenomenon too, as active religiosity is a powerful predictor of upward social mobility. Even more so compounded over generations.
    I have an American friend who is a conservative evangelical Christian (7th day adventist). He says that among his community (working class Southern whites) religion helps to regulate behaviour and prevent poor choices over things like drink, drugs, sex and gambling. Basically, it is an external substitute, or perhaps prop, for self control.
    I think a lot of successful middle class people brought up in a stable environment where they learn to make good choices and defer gratification don't need that kind of support - I certainly don't. But religion clearly helps some people to lead a better, more disciplined and productive life.
    The problems come when they try to force it on other people.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    Biden Gambles That ‘We the People’ Still Exist
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/democracy-biden-speech-trump-maga/671325/

    A necessary gamble, I think.
  • Our problem is not a lack of nationalised energy companies, but a lack of energy. For presiding over this catastrophe, the Tories deserve to be out of power for a generation. Instead, it’s the country that’s running out of power while the Tories prepare for their fourth leader. She won’t have long to fix the mess before she too runs out of road.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/02/lefts-reckless-drive-nationalise-energy-companies-will-not-solve/

    The Tories are not solely to blame. Firstly from 2010 until 2015 the Lib Dems were in formal coalition. Secondly the Labour governments of 1997 to 2010 also failed, notably with nuclear power.

    Ultimately developing energy sources is outside the 4 or 5 year election cycle. No chance to say yes to 5 new nuclear power stations on the Friday after the election and get to cut the ribbon the day before the next.
    But Brown gave the go ahead to build 10 of them http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8349715.stm

    Which was then kyboshed by the Forgemasters loan cancellation and austerity.
  • CD13 said:

    Religion tends to increase with age because the young tend to be more cynical, but agnosticism tended to be the default. In many ways, as a scientist, I can understand being an agnostic. There are some aphorisms that are true. For instance. never try to prove a negative. And sometimes lack of evidence isn't the same as evidence of lack.

    Religion can be described as ascientific. Being an older scientist, I've never approved of some of the more imaginative theories about the nature of the world. Because they aren't testable and probably never will. Theoretical Physic can be ascientific too. String Theory may be 'elegant' but it's untestable, and relies on faith. just as much as religion.

    We naturally seek our position in the world. What are we here for? Religion is thus an optimistic view in that life has a purpose. Atheism is the religion of the pessimsts, even the scientific ones. Why does this happen? It just happens is their response, along with a little self-aggrandisement. If I don't know, it's obviously not important, and can be ignored, is the repsonse of some. Others assume science will give the answer eventually. Why then, are they happy with untestable theories? Because they can't be tested and aren't real science.

    I had a soft spot for the phlogiston theory because it could be tested. It may have been rubbish, but it was scientific.

    There are so many layers to religion.

    Is there any realistic chance that any specific religion is correct in detail? No
    Can they still serve a purpose in bringing people together in life? Definitely, but with massive dangers as well
    Might they still be broadly right in spirit or intent even if they have the details wrong? Possible, chance unknown
    Is there an after life? Possible, chance unknown
    Are there gods or creators? Probable? but chance unknown

    Based on the above agnosticism with a healthy sceptical view of organised religions, especially when they venture into the political realm, seems good to me.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    Unpopular said:

    The Pannick advice is odd because, as others have mentioned, proceedings in Parliament are not subject to judicial review. Still, nice work if you can get it, I guess, but Boris could have come to me, I'd have been a lot cheaper!

    Reviewable or not if there is unfairness it's good to know that.

    However, whilst some of the points seem reasonable its really nothing more in some parts than a complainant's typical wailing in histrionic fashion, only they've gotten a top lawyer to write it, since the point has been well made that parts at least are grounded on mistaken assessment.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042

    Our problem is not a lack of nationalised energy companies, but a lack of energy. For presiding over this catastrophe, the Tories deserve to be out of power for a generation. Instead, it’s the country that’s running out of power while the Tories prepare for their fourth leader. She won’t have long to fix the mess before she too runs out of road.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/02/lefts-reckless-drive-nationalise-energy-companies-will-not-solve/

    The Tories are not solely to blame. Firstly from 2010 until 2015 the Lib Dems were in formal coalition. Secondly the Labour governments of 1997 to 2010 also failed, notably with nuclear power.

    Ultimately developing energy sources is outside the 4 or 5 year election cycle. No chance to say yes to 5 new nuclear power stations on the Friday after the election and get to cut the ribbon the day before the next.
    But Brown gave the go ahead to build 10 of them http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8349715.stm

    Which was then kyboshed by the Forgemasters loan cancellation and austerity.
    That was just a preliminary approval of possible sites.
    To describe it as ‘gave the go ahead for ten of them’ is seriously inaccurate.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,112

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
    Well clearly it depends on what you mean by "religious" but if you consider active attendance at communal places of worship, then amongst Britons it is clearly a minority interest. Particularly concentrated amongst various ethnic groups, but also amongst the middle classes.

    As I pointed out there is a strong chicken and egg phenomenon too, as active religiosity is a powerful predictor of upward social mobility. Even more so compounded over generations.
    I have an American friend who is a conservative evangelical Christian (7th day adventist). He says that among his community (working class Southern whites) religion helps to regulate behaviour and prevent poor choices over things like drink, drugs, sex and gambling. Basically, it is an external substitute, or perhaps prop, for self control.
    I think a lot of successful middle class people brought up in a stable environment where they learn to make good choices and defer gratification don't need that kind of support - I certainly don't. But religion clearly helps some people to lead a better, more disciplined and productive life.
    The problems come when they try to force it on other people.
    There are many positives to religion. I'm sure I'd live a better and more productive life if I lived it thinking some higher authority watching and judging me. But the whole lot just seems improbable beyond belief and I can't make myself believe something even if it would improve my life to do so.
    Also, 95% of hymns are shit, and of the 5% which are good, at least half are hard to sing.
    It always struck me when forced to sing hymns at school that if any higher power really was listening to this he'd have to be a very twisted one to he impressed by this sort of fawning.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
    Well clearly it depends on what you mean by "religious" but if you consider active attendance at communal places of worship, then amongst Britons it is clearly a minority interest. Particularly concentrated amongst various ethnic groups, but also amongst the middle classes.

    As I pointed out there is a strong chicken and egg phenomenon too, as active religiosity is a powerful predictor of upward social mobility. Even more so compounded over generations.
    I have an American friend who is a conservative evangelical Christian (7th day adventist). He says that among his community (working class Southern whites) religion helps to regulate behaviour and prevent poor choices over things like drink, drugs, sex and gambling. Basically, it is an external substitute, or perhaps prop, for self control.
    I think a lot of successful middle class people brought up in a stable environment where they learn to make good choices and defer gratification don't need that kind of support - I certainly don't. But religion clearly helps some people to lead a better, more disciplined and productive life.
    The problems come when they try to force it on other people.
    Yes, guides to living a better life are helpful. Even those of no faith can benefit from the examples provided by the morals and lessons.

    Its churches and hierarchies that seem more problematic, even the ones ostensibly less obsessed with institutionalism.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,061
    edited September 2022
    kle4 said:

    Unpopular said:

    The Pannick advice is odd because, as others have mentioned, proceedings in Parliament are not subject to judicial review. Still, nice work if you can get it, I guess, but Boris could have come to me, I'd have been a lot cheaper!

    Reviewable or not if there is unfairness it's good to know that.
    Surely the only kind of unfairness on which a lawyer can pronounce authoritatively is the kind that has a legal basis.

    If there's no applicable legal basis for what he's saying, how is his opinion about whether it's fair worth any more than anyone's you could stop in the street - let alone £130,000 more, to be paid for by the public?
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,891
    CD13 said:

    Religion tends to increase with age because the young tend to be more cynical, but agnosticism tended to be the default. In many ways, as a scientist, I can understand being an agnostic. There are some aphorisms that are true. For instance. never try to prove a negative. And sometimes lack of evidence isn't the same as evidence of lack.

    Religion can be described as ascientific. Being an older scientist, I've never approved of some of the more imaginative theories about the nature of the world. Because they aren't testable and probably never will. Modern theoretical Physics can be ascientific too. String Theory may be 'elegant' but it's untestable, and relies on faith. just as much as religion.

    We naturally seek our position in the world. What are we here for? Religion is thus an optimistic view in that life has a purpose. Atheism is the religion of the pessimsts, even the scientific ones. Why does this happen? It just happens is their response, along with a little self-aggrandisement. If I don't know, it's obviously not important, and can be ignored, is the response of others. Some assume science will give the answer eventually. Why then, are they happy with untestable theories? Because they can't be tested and therefore aren't real science.

    I had a soft spot for the phlogiston theory because it could be tested. It may have been rubbish, but it was scientific.

    There are still remnants of phlogiston-type thinking in the language we use. In german there is Sauerstoff and Wasserstoff for oxygen and hydrogen reflecting mistaken old ideas about oxygen rather than hydrogen being a necessary component of acids. But we shouldn't be too smug, it is the same in English, just hidden in the Greek made-up words, oxygen and hydrogen.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279
    Unpopular said:

    The Pannick advice is odd because, as others have mentioned, proceedings in Parliament are not subject to judicial review. Still, nice work if you can get it, I guess, but Boris could have come to me, I'd have been a lot cheaper!

    Would you have said the same things though? Given him the answer he wanted rather than the answer he should have had.

    And good morning one and all!
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,256
    Mr Cookie,

    "Fawning" is an interesting word. It can seen appropriate in our modern age, but 'Islam' can be interpreted as 'submission' and that's difficult for many. Pride was always seen as a stumbling block, even in the old days.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
    Well clearly it depends on what you mean by "religious" but if you consider active attendance at communal places of worship, then amongst Britons it is clearly a minority interest. Particularly concentrated amongst various ethnic groups, but also amongst the middle classes.

    As I pointed out there is a strong chicken and egg phenomenon too, as active religiosity is a powerful predictor of upward social mobility. Even more so compounded over generations.
    I have an American friend who is a conservative evangelical Christian (7th day adventist). He says that among his community (working class Southern whites) religion helps to regulate behaviour and prevent poor choices over things like drink, drugs, sex and gambling. Basically, it is an external substitute, or perhaps prop, for self control.
    I think a lot of successful middle class people brought up in a stable environment where they learn to make good choices and defer gratification don't need that kind of support - I certainly don't. But religion clearly helps some people to lead a better, more disciplined and productive life.
    The problems come when they try to force it on other people.
    I'm not blanket down on religion. Belief in something both benign and above the fray - 'god' if you like - would make this one and only life we lead a little bit easier. Furthermore you will never be disappointed since it's impossible to discover after death that you were wrong. So although it's irrational imo to find religious faith, it's deeply rational to seek it. Which is where, as a relatively rational person, I am. I seek and I do not find.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    kle4 said:

    Unpopular said:

    The Pannick advice is odd because, as others have mentioned, proceedings in Parliament are not subject to judicial review. Still, nice work if you can get it, I guess, but Boris could have come to me, I'd have been a lot cheaper!

    Reviewable or not if there is unfairness it's good to know that.

    However, whilst some of the points seem reasonable its really nothing more in some parts than a complainant's typical wailing in histrionic fashion, only they've gotten a top lawyer to write it, since the point has been well made that parts at least are grounded on mistaken assessment.
    It’s a seriously poor piece of legal reasoning, but rather more importantly, it ought not to have been commissioned by the Cabinet Office at all. If Boris had wanted to waste his money on it, then it would matter far less.

    The Committee on Privileges should summon officials, and Pannick, to explain how that happened. And particularly why it was briefed to newspapers before being published (again something that would have mattered far less had Boris paid for it).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    Nigelb said:

    Biden Gambles That ‘We the People’ Still Exist
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/democracy-biden-speech-trump-maga/671325/

    A necessary gamble, I think.

    He seems to be an optimist at heart. I seem to recall him getting some snark from some democrat supporters in the media during the 2020 election for not seeming angry enough, for making comments about how America is not like
    this or that bad thing.

    He seems like a politician from another age in some ways, good and bad.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Unpopular said:

    The Pannick advice is odd because, as others have mentioned, proceedings in Parliament are not subject to judicial review. Still, nice work if you can get it, I guess, but Boris could have come to me, I'd have been a lot cheaper!

    Reviewable or not if there is unfairness it's good to know that.

    However, whilst some of the points seem reasonable its really nothing more in some parts than a complainant's typical wailing in histrionic fashion, only they've gotten a top lawyer to write it, since the point has been well made that parts at least are grounded on mistaken assessment.
    It’s a seriously poor piece of legal reasoning, but rather more importantly, it ought not to have been commissioned by the Cabinet Office at all. If Boris had wanted to waste his money on it, then it would matter far less.

    The Committee on Privileges should summon officials, and Pannick, to explain how that happened. And particularly why it was briefed to newspapers before being published (again something that would have mattered far less had Boris paid for it).
    It does seem untoward for the government to spend money on the legal defence of an individual regarding internal parliamentary processes. Regardless of him being PM at the time it's his personal conduct as an MP in question.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    edited September 2022
    Cookie said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
    Well clearly it depends on what you mean by "religious" but if you consider active attendance at communal places of worship, then amongst Britons it is clearly a minority interest. Particularly concentrated amongst various ethnic groups, but also amongst the middle classes.

    As I pointed out there is a strong chicken and egg phenomenon too, as active religiosity is a powerful predictor of upward social mobility. Even more so compounded over generations.
    I have an American friend who is a conservative evangelical Christian (7th day adventist). He says that among his community (working class Southern whites) religion helps to regulate behaviour and prevent poor choices over things like drink, drugs, sex and gambling. Basically, it is an external substitute, or perhaps prop, for self control.
    I think a lot of successful middle class people brought up in a stable environment where they learn to make good choices and defer gratification don't need that kind of support - I certainly don't. But religion clearly helps some people to lead a better, more disciplined and productive life.
    The problems come when they try to force it on other people.
    There are many positives to religion. I'm sure I'd live a better and more productive life if I lived it thinking some higher authority watching and judging me. But the whole lot just seems improbable beyond belief and I can't make myself believe something even if it would improve my life to do so.
    Also, 95% of hymns are shit, and of the 5% which are good, at least half are hard to sing.
    It always struck me when forced to sing hymns at school that if any higher power really was listening to this he'd have to be a very twisted one to he impressed by this sort of fawning.
    Cookie said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
    Well clearly it depends on what you mean by "religious" but if you consider active attendance at communal places of worship, then amongst Britons it is clearly a minority interest. Particularly concentrated amongst various ethnic groups, but also amongst the middle classes.

    As I pointed out there is a strong chicken and egg phenomenon too, as active religiosity is a powerful predictor of upward social mobility. Even more so compounded over generations.
    I have an American friend who is a conservative evangelical Christian (7th day adventist). He says that among his community (working class Southern whites) religion helps to regulate behaviour and prevent poor choices over things like drink, drugs, sex and gambling. Basically, it is an external substitute, or perhaps prop, for self control.
    I think a lot of successful middle class people brought up in a stable environment where they learn to make good choices and defer gratification don't need that kind of support - I certainly don't. But religion clearly helps some people to lead a better, more disciplined and productive life.
    The problems come when they try to force it on other people.
    There are many positives to religion. I'm sure I'd live a better and more productive life if I lived it thinking some higher authority watching and judging me. But the whole lot just seems improbable beyond belief and I can't make myself believe something even if it would improve my life to do so.
    Also, 95% of hymns are shit, and of the 5% which are good, at least half are hard to sing.
    It always struck me when forced to sing hymns at school that if any higher power really was listening to this he'd have to be a very twisted one to he impressed by this sort of fawning.
    I could never really square the idea of omnipotence, and compassion, with an obsession over tiny details like eating the right foods, having sex the right way, and performing banal rituals in the correct way, along with the need for constant praise or you're screwed forever. That seems like a holdover from gods who had far smaller and more limited concerns who needed placating or bribing to make the rain fall or something, not a master of all cosmos.

    At least it makes more sense than when some are supposedly born damned or saved.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,545
    Leon said:

    Why Labour must never win


    "Marking the victory of the regime that cast Iran into a theocratic abyss and sentenced Salman Rushdie to death is a "happy time" for Yasmine Dar.

    She has just retained her seat on Labour's NEC.

    The party remains a joke. A very bad one."

    https://twitter.com/habibi_uk/status/1565650256884375552?s=20&t=cC5DbxaAVdxLC23gk30lKA

    Yet Jacob Rees-Mogg, despite being warned, spoke at a 2018 dinner given by ‘Traditional Britain’, hosted by a man who advocates the repatriation of "non-indigenous" Britons, but the Tories remain the better choice for government? Okay then.
  • This looks plausible;

    There is expected to be more state support for vulnerable people and pensioners, with one person involved in policy discussions saying Truss is likely to abandon her campaign pledge on handouts to effectively cover the increase in energy bills for the poorest. One plan discussed this week looked at increasing existing discounts for households that Sunak lined up for this winter when he was chancellor under Johnson, according to people familiar.

    Even so, one supporter said that MPs are worried that the sums being considered aren’t enough to help millions of lower- and middle- earning Britons who will struggle to pay their bills. Another predicted Truss would have to announce a second package because the first would be met with a public outcry...

    One Tory minister said the story of the contest was that Sunak’s campaign had been blown up in the first week by the perception that he had betrayed Johnson, but he was objectively the more credible candidate with the better economic plan.

    The minister voted for Truss anyway, but is having second thoughts about staying on to serve in her government.


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-09-03/even-liz-truss-supporters-worry-she-could-wreak-havoc-for-the-uk
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    The young are now more likely to pray than over 55s. Perhaps in part because there are more ethnic minorities amongst the young and ethnic minorities tend to be more religious

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58681075
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    New Statesman article that may not be popular with many of its readers.

    "Liberals should lament the breakdown of the family
    It’s not conservative to want better outcomes for your children.
    Frank Young" (£)

    https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/09/liberals-breakdown-of-the-family

    It's a little bit of a strawman, no?

    Are liberals *actually* in favour of the breakdown of the family?

    Indeed, are liberals more likely that conservatives to have affairs, get divorced, etc?

    (I'm reminded of the great gag by Mitt Romney in a debate back in 2008, where he said "the only man here with only one marriage is the Mormon".)
    Indeed it is the very opposite. As I pointed out the other day, it is middle class liberals who have stable marriages and families. Rates of break up, both married and cohabitation increase massively down the SE scale.

    It is a great paradox that liberal professionals are both more likely to be married and to be religious. We are the true "social conservatives" who value order and compassion in society.

    More religious? I haven't seen the evidence for that.
    "London is the most religious area of the country, mainly because of its large Muslim and migrant communities. The least religious areas are the south-east of England, Scotland and Wales. People identifying as non-religious are typically young, white and male – and increasingly working class."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs

    There are very few working class churchgoers now. Obviously age is a big predictor of active attendance, but evangelical churches tend to have active thriving congregations of younger middle class people.

    There is a chicken and egg phenomenon in that the culture of self improvement that churches encourage turns people middle class over time.
    Nothing there tells me that the middle class or liberals are more religious than average. And whilst churchgoing may be middle class a lot of the religious are obviously staying at home.
    Well clearly it depends on what you mean by "religious" but if you consider active attendance at communal places of worship, then amongst Britons it is clearly a minority interest. Particularly concentrated amongst various ethnic groups, but also amongst the middle classes.

    As I pointed out there is a strong chicken and egg phenomenon too, as active religiosity is a powerful predictor of upward social mobility. Even more so compounded over generations.
    I have an American friend who is a conservative evangelical Christian (7th day adventist). He says that among his community (working class Southern whites) religion helps to regulate behaviour and prevent poor choices over things like drink, drugs, sex and gambling. Basically, it is an external substitute, or perhaps prop, for self control.
    I think a lot of successful middle class people brought up in a stable environment where they learn to make good choices and defer gratification don't need that kind of support - I certainly don't. But religion clearly helps some people to lead a better, more disciplined and productive life.
    The problems come when they try to force it on other people.
    Yes, guides to living a better life are helpful. Even those of no faith can benefit from the examples provided by the morals and lessons.

    Its churches and hierarchies that seem more problematic, even the ones ostensibly less obsessed with institutionalism.
    It is churches that help bind communities together, especially in rural areas
  • New thread.
This discussion has been closed.