Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Another poll showing almost no change – politicalbetting.com

24

Comments

  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,865
    Swiss? This reads like Theresa May's Chequers deal may be back...

    Time to dust off some old spreadsheets

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d9a5bc5e-6831-11ed-9960-a1f4eb634c35?shareToken=94c98e5a8248a0c1a432f20b7837d1cd

    Historical note: Rishi Sunak voted for Theresa May's brexit deal each time

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_votes_on_Brexit

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1594069046097367040

    It would be very funny if we end up with May's deal after all
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    yes the reason the Cof E is not the Catholic religion is that the SG is NOT the pope but the Monarch . It has very little to do historically with theological differences or even practices but that sole fact of who is the SG - If King Charles is not it then it would revert to the Pope
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,104

    Excellent policy from Keir

    I think we a ripe for change, but what that change should be should be open for discussion. There is no absolute need for two chambers. The primary must be elected. I worry about an elected second house - who would it attract, if the power resides in the House of Commons?
    The point of a second chamber is to balance different constituencies of interest. So, in the US, they have the population-based House of Representatives, and the State-based Senate. In principle this means that legislation requires a double majority to pass - a majority of the population and a majority of the states.

    Hopefully Britain has moved past the stage where the interests of the great magnates of the realm needed to be weighed against those of the commons, so the House of Lords as is should go. Is there some other set of interests that should be set against the population majority (as imperfectly represented in the Commons)?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    yes the reason the Cof E is not the Catholic religion is that the SG is NOT the pope but the Monarch . It has very little to do historically with theological differences or even practices but that sole fact of who is the SG - If King Charles is not it then it would revert to the Pope
    In time the head of our largest Christian denomination almost certainly, though a small liberal C of E would likely remain with the evangelicals becoming Baptist or Pentecostal
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,045

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    yes the reason the Cof E is not the Catholic religion is that the SG is NOT the pope but the Monarch . It has very little to do historically with theological differences or even practices but that sole fact of who is the SG - If King Charles is not it then it would revert to the Pope
    Are you suggesting the Church of England is basically Catholic? If its members want to be Catholics who is the Monarch to stop them?
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,845

    DavidL said:

    I think that both Bishops and hereditaries do a useful job in highlighting the absurdity and pointlessness of the House of Lords as do has been and never was politicians and various donors. It really is ridiculous and it is long past time that this freak show was retired.

    I couldn't agree more and stopping political appointments such as Dorries and Tom Watson should be relatively easy to achieve

    What comes after is of course much more complex
    There is a simple answer. Nothing.

    New Zealand functions perfectly well with unicameralism, as do many other countries.

    We could then use the Lords chamber as a bingo hall or strip club.
    NZ does OK, but the quid pro quo is three years terms which is mitigates against long term planning.

    Keir is an idiot to be making any promises on the HoL, except the most nebulous. He has no guarantee of a large majority, and he would have to expend huge political capital for some Senate of the “Nations and Regions”.

    Keir has a broken economic model and independence sentiment in Scotland to deal with and I’d suggest he focus on that.

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
    in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
    Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.

    There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
    What is the mechanism for Reestablishment of the Papal primacy? Clue - there isn't one
    However many RCs there are the Pope is their head regardless of the State religion.
    Disestablishment enables Papal Supremacy again for the first time in 500 years in English Christianity, only C of E establishment ensures the RC church is not and likely will not be our largest Christian denomination
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,027
    Scott_xP said:

    It would be very funny if we end up with May's deal after all

    And even funnier if this is regarded as a reversal of Brexit by the people who prevented May's deal from going through in the name of reversing Brexit.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    MikeL said:

    The UK is not a religious country and the public does not support the total charade of Bishops in the House of Lords.

    Techne poll earlier this year:

    19% support Bishops in House of Lords
    62% do not support Bishops in House of Lords

    If it is such a good idea, why is Iran the only other country to have places in its Parliament reserved for representatives of religions?

    It's beyond comical and there is overwhelming support for ending this total nonsense.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1599924/Justin-Welby-poll-bishops-woke-news-welby

    Bishops are less than 5% of the Lords, as long as we have appointed Lords then they must remain. Though if Starmer does create an elected upper house the C of E must still remain our established church even if they leave the upper house to prevent reversal of the Reformation
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    yes the reason the Cof E is not the Catholic religion is that the SG is NOT the pope but the Monarch . It has very little to do historically with theological differences or even practices but that sole fact of who is the SG - If King Charles is not it then it would revert to the Pope
    Are you suggesting the Church of England is basically Catholic? If its members want to be Catholics who is the Monarch to stop them?
    The C of E is a Protestant Church in the Catholic tradition with 3 wings, Anglo Catholic, Liberal and Evangelical
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415

    DavidL said:

    I think that both Bishops and hereditaries do a useful job in highlighting the absurdity and pointlessness of the House of Lords as do has been and never was politicians and various donors. It really is ridiculous and it is long past time that this freak show was retired.

    I couldn't agree more and stopping political appointments such as Dorries and Tom Watson should be relatively easy to achieve

    What comes after is of course much more complex
    There is a simple answer. Nothing.

    New Zealand functions perfectly well with unicameralism, as do many other countries.

    We could then use the Lords chamber as a bingo hall or strip club.
    Or shelter for the homeless.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,581
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    Nobody is going to force you to become a Papist. It was your Prod forebears who went in for the old religious persecution malarkey against the left-footers.

    And us atheists didn't have an easy time of it either.

    So you are safe to carry on with the happy-clappy or whatever misguided version of Christianity floats your boat. Your church won't be burnt down. Your vicar won't have to hide in the airing cupboard. And the archbish can still talk about poverty while swerving any questions regarding the wealth of the church or indeed theology.
  • Options
    TresTres Posts: 2,208
    HYUFD said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
    in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
    Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.

    There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
    far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    But if the Monarch wasn't supreme governor it would be the Archbishop of Cantebury I assume? It's not going to be the Pope surely?
    Without the Monarch as SG of the C of E it ceases to be the national church, leaving the way open for the Vatican to reverse the Reformation and restore the Pope as head of our largest church
  • Options
    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
    in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
    religion and spirituality has more relevance today in these dark times i woudl argue
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    MikeL said:

    The UK is not a religious country and the public does not support the total charade of Bishops in the House of Lords.

    Techne poll earlier this year:

    19% support Bishops in House of Lords
    62% do not support Bishops in House of Lords

    If it is such a good idea, why is Iran the only other country to have places in its Parliament reserved for representatives of religions?

    It's beyond comical and there is overwhelming support for ending this total nonsense.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1599924/Justin-Welby-poll-bishops-woke-news-welby

    Bishops are less than 5% of the Lords, as long as we have appointed Lords then they must remain. Though if Starmer does create an elected upper house the C of E must still remain our established church even if they leave the upper house to prevent reversal of the Reformation
    Not 100% sure the legacy of Martin Luther hangs by that fine a thread, TBH.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
    in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
    Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.

    There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
    far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
    Depends, in Africa the majority of Christians will go to church tomorrow and every Sunday and Africa has the fastest population growth of any continent while Europe is in population decline even if most of it is now secular (with a few exceptions like Italy and Poland)
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943

    HYUFD said:

    MikeL said:

    The UK is not a religious country and the public does not support the total charade of Bishops in the House of Lords.

    Techne poll earlier this year:

    19% support Bishops in House of Lords
    62% do not support Bishops in House of Lords

    If it is such a good idea, why is Iran the only other country to have places in its Parliament reserved for representatives of religions?

    It's beyond comical and there is overwhelming support for ending this total nonsense.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1599924/Justin-Welby-poll-bishops-woke-news-welby

    Bishops are less than 5% of the Lords, as long as we have appointed Lords then they must remain. Though if Starmer does create an elected upper house the C of E must still remain our established church even if they leave the upper house to prevent reversal of the Reformation
    Not 100% sure the legacy of Martin Luther hangs by that fine a thread, TBH.
    The English Reformation does
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,045
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    yes the reason the Cof E is not the Catholic religion is that the SG is NOT the pope but the Monarch . It has very little to do historically with theological differences or even practices but that sole fact of who is the SG - If King Charles is not it then it would revert to the Pope
    Are you suggesting the Church of England is basically Catholic? If its members want to be Catholics who is the Monarch to stop them?
    The C of E is a Protestant Church in the Catholic tradition with 3 wings, Anglo Catholic, Liberal and Evangelical
    Removing the Monarch as Supreme Governor is not going to make the Pope head of the C of E. You see people are capable of going forward rather than backwards. Anyway shouldn't the C of E be allowed to have the supreme governor it wants?
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    edited November 2022

    On topic. I don’t believe the polling saying the dial was not moved by this budget, my hunch is stick to PB delayed reaction rule, where political events take a week or so to show in polling, making mugs of anyone who think it’s already there - though we have from evidence identified delayed reaction phenomenon exists, it is still largely unexplained as to why or how. I think we will be able to say this budget moved things one way or other after about two weeks of polling.

    To add to the header on Opinium polling putting Truss Con just five behind Labour - all the year under the misdemeanours of Boris the Opinium gap was rarely larger than 4, in the 33-39 range.

    I would disagree Sunak is safe as houses in number 10 - the only thing that could make Sunak safe is Party discipline on basis that despite differences the Party can still support him his chancellor and budget, and the jury has to be out on that. We already see public opposition from those who fundamentally disagree so can’t remain silent or publicly continue support, but are they just a clique or are there great swathes of the party who feel this way?

    Someone giving it a like has merely encouraged me, to answer my own question.

    I don’t believe the current budget rebels are just a clique, or even just an ERG or right wing clique, I think they speak for the more silent majority of the Conservative party - however, that doesn’t even matter today. Imagine the Truss argument against what Sunak and Hunt have done but in the hands of better, more able communicators, arguing for growth instead of austerity, arguing there were other options and this budget was a political choice not a necessity, arguing this against a backdrop of Hunt and Sunak’s plan apparently failing, and, not argued by just one person, but from a whole range voices across the party. In that scenario even if it’s just a niche view now, it can certainly gain support into majority view. This is why I wouldn’t have Sunak safe as houses at any point in his brief turn as PM.
    No one gave that follow up a like, but I’m in full flow now, and more on topic than the rest of you.

    Think of the argument put forward by these budget rebels - it’s not fringe or bonkers at all is it?

    Sunak’s budget, hailed as being the grown ups in the room when Sunak is probably the most unready PM and most politically immature we have ever had, is merely continuation of the same policies of the Treasury and Bank of England going back 25 years, nearly my entire lifetime. Those siding with Hunt and Sunak saying this is fine budget in the circumstance, have to answer for where this whole two decade approach and thinking has brought our country and economy, to the edge of the abyss we are now staring in -

    Since 2010 State spending has grown from seven hundred billion pounds to one trillion pounds today whilst we pay £🧟‍♂️🧟‍♂️bn on our borrowing costs, and have an insane housing market, negative real interest rates, double digit inflation, exponential spending on one of the worst performing health service in Europe, £2.4 trillion of debt, lower wages than we had in 2008. And forget all those socialist/communist UK governments of the sixties and seventies, twelve years of the Conservatives in the 21st century has delivered the highest tax burden ever for UK.

    Whilst this is the hopelessly lost Tory Ethos is it not: to give power and responsibility back to people, to restore to individuals and families the sense and feeling of independence. Quite clearly, during this period, with these sort of budgets, the Tory party has lost its soul.

    So tough on this budget, it’s time to be tough on the real causes of this budget - is what the budget rebels are saying.

    Why isn’t every Conservative in the country on their side and agreeing?
  • Options

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    yes the reason the Cof E is not the Catholic religion is that the SG is NOT the pope but the Monarch . It has very little to do historically with theological differences or even practices but that sole fact of who is the SG - If King Charles is not it then it would revert to the Pope
    Are you suggesting the Church of England is basically Catholic? If its members want to be Catholics who is the Monarch to stop them?
    the CofE is Christian (as of course is Catholic church) - the only difference fundamentally (little practices have evolved differently over the years) is who is the SG - i would rather it be the Monarch and therefore British than the Pope
  • Options
    Nurse! Nurse! HYUFD's up and having one of his funny turns again.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,642

    DavidL said:

    I think that both Bishops and hereditaries do a useful job in highlighting the absurdity and pointlessness of the House of Lords as do has been and never was politicians and various donors. It really is ridiculous and it is long past time that this freak show was retired.

    I couldn't agree more and stopping political appointments such as Dorries and Tom Watson should be relatively easy to achieve

    What comes after is of course much more complex
    There is a simple answer. Nothing.

    New Zealand functions perfectly well with unicameralism, as do many other countries.

    We could then use the Lords chamber as a bingo hall or strip club.
    NZ does OK, but the quid pro quo is three years terms which is mitigates against long term planning.

    Keir is an idiot to be making any promises on the HoL, except the most nebulous. He has no guarantee of a large majority, and he would have to expend huge political capital for some Senate of the “Nations and Regions”.

    Keir has a broken economic model and independence sentiment in Scotland to deal with and I’d suggest he focus on that.

    His Lord's promise looks pretty nebulous to me. The details would need such working out it might never happen, like Trudeau and PR.
  • Options
    wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,913
    edited November 2022
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    But if the Monarch wasn't supreme governor it would be the Archbishop of Cantebury I assume? It's not going to be the Pope surely?
    Without the Monarch as SG of the C of E it ceases to be the national church, leaving the way open for the Vatican to reverse the Reformation and restore the Pope as head of our largest church
    The Pope is already head of all Catholics in the UK. The status of the C of E is irrelevant to that fact. There aren't warrior priests awaiting to emerge from Priest Holes and convert or massacre the masses on disestablishment
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,642
    Scott_xP said:

    Swiss? This reads like Theresa May's Chequers deal may be back...

    Time to dust off some old spreadsheets

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d9a5bc5e-6831-11ed-9960-a1f4eb634c35?shareToken=94c98e5a8248a0c1a432f20b7837d1cd

    Historical note: Rishi Sunak voted for Theresa May's brexit deal each time

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_votes_on_Brexit

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1594069046097367040

    It would be very funny if we end up with May's deal after all

    And why not indeed. Boris and JRM both voted for it in the end as acceptable even if undesirable.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,576
    edited November 2022
    Fascinating read:

    Every political party has to make a bet on what coalition of people in society can push it to victory. Parties, of course, have ideologies. They cannot be a million different people from one day to the next. But they do need to adapt to the electorate if they want to survive, at least in functioning democratic societies.

    The reigning champions of this exercise for the past few centuries have been the UK’s Conservative Party. They have morphed from a pro-Restoration, anti-Parliament faction in the 17th century; to a half-century minority chafing at Whiggish corruption; to an all-conquering embodiment of Burkean resistance to revolution; to harried defenders of a restricted franchise and aristocratic privilege; to opportunistic advocates of expanding the franchise and One Nation imperialism; to small-state protectionists; to defenders of the cosy post-war welfare state / free-trade consensus; to free-market fundamentalists; to managerialists; to hoodie-huggers; to Brexit realists; to Brexit surrealists; to libertarian self-immolation; and finally to tech-hoodie fiscal conservatism. It’s been some ride.


    https://benansell.substack.com/p/are-the-conservatives-in-a-death
  • Options
    state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,417
    edited November 2022
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    yes the reason the Cof E is not the Catholic religion is that the SG is NOT the pope but the Monarch . It has very little to do historically with theological differences or even practices but that sole fact of who is the SG - If King Charles is not it then it would revert to the Pope
    In time the head of our largest Christian denomination almost certainly, though a small liberal C of E would likely remain with the evangelicals becoming Baptist or Pentecostal
    yes it would certainly split the CofE into evangelicals and non evangelicals - not a good idea . The Cof E is fundamentally a pragmatic organisation that moves with the mood of modernity but still offers something different to pure politicians in terms of hope, comfort , community and guidance
  • Options
    MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,286
    We don't need a national church any more than we need a national tiddlywinks society or a national pop group.

    If people want to go to a church they are free to do so and they can choose their own leader, just like the members of any other club.

    No need for anyone else to get involved.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,573
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    But if the Monarch wasn't supreme governor it would be the Archbishop of Cantebury I assume? It's not going to be the Pope surely?
    Without the Monarch as SG of the C of E it ceases to be the national church, leaving the way open for the Vatican to reverse the Reformation and restore the Pope as head of our largest church
    How? Are the Swiss Guard going to take Eurostar and invade the UK.

    Or

    Actually nothing happens as most of us don't give a toss.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,131

    So, a question for MSPs and those who support the government’s gender reforms: is Dolatowski a “predatory male” or a “trans woman”? Or is she actually both of these things? And if she is both, what are the implications of that status?

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fc90146c-6813-11ed-bcd8-599592d95f22?shareToken=ce5a93cacf684cb8af27de9a2cc11565

    Utterly horrifying article. This is so dangerous and will do so much harm as a result of blind dogma.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,045

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    yes the reason the Cof E is not the Catholic religion is that the SG is NOT the pope but the Monarch . It has very little to do historically with theological differences or even practices but that sole fact of who is the SG - If King Charles is not it then it would revert to the Pope
    Are you suggesting the Church of England is basically Catholic? If its members want to be Catholics who is the Monarch to stop them?
    the CofE is Christian (as of course is Catholic church) - the only difference fundamentally (little practices have evolved differently over the years) is who is the SG - i would rather it be the Monarch and therefore British than the Pope
    Though Hyufd has just advised of all the differences between the C of E and the Catholic Church which we need to be very afraid of.
  • Options
    I kind of hope the Catholics do come over, as I've always wanted a definitive answer to the age old question "does a Pope sh1t in the woods?" and this allows us to monitor the situation.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,129
    Musk is running a Twitter poll on whether to bring back Trump. Currently it's a narrow lead for Yes and I don't have to tell you the exact split. Yep, the devil's number.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,313

    On topic. I don’t believe the polling saying the dial was not moved by this budget, my hunch is stick to PB delayed reaction rule, where political events take a week or so to show in polling, making mugs of anyone who think it’s already there - though we have from evidence identified delayed reaction phenomenon exists, it is still largely unexplained as to why or how. I think we will be able to say this budget moved things one way or other after about two weeks of polling.

    To add to the header on Opinium polling putting Truss Con just five behind Labour - all the year under the misdemeanours of Boris the Opinium gap was rarely larger than 4, in the 33-39 range.

    I would disagree Sunak is safe as houses in number 10 - the only thing that could make Sunak safe is Party discipline on basis that despite differences the Party can still support him his chancellor and budget, and the jury has to be out on that. We already see public opposition from those who fundamentally disagree so can’t remain silent or publicly continue support, but are they just a clique or are there great swathes of the party who feel this way?

    Someone giving it a like has merely encouraged me, to answer my own question.

    I don’t believe the current budget rebels are just a clique, or even just an ERG or right wing clique, I think they speak for the more silent majority of the Conservative party - however, that doesn’t even matter today. Imagine the Truss argument against what Sunak and Hunt have done but in the hands of better, more able communicators, arguing for growth instead of austerity, arguing there were other options and this budget was a political choice not a necessity, arguing this against a backdrop of Hunt and Sunak’s plan apparently failing, and, not argued by just one person, but from a whole range voices across the party. In that scenario even if it’s just a niche view now, it can certainly gain support into majority view. This is why I wouldn’t have Sunak safe as houses at any point in his brief turn as PM.
    No one gave that follow up a like, but I’m in full flow now, and more on topic than the rest of you.

    Think of the argument put forward by these budget rebels - it’s not fringe or bonkers at all is it?

    Sunak’s budget, hailed as being the grown ups in the room when Sunak is probably the most unready PM and most politically immature we have ever had, is merely continuation of the same policies of the Treasury and Bank of England going back 25 years, nearly my entire lifetime. Those siding with Hunt and Sunak saying this is fine budget in the circumstance, have to answer for where this whole two decade approach and thinking has brought our country and economy, to the edge of the abyss we are now staring in -

    Since 2010 State spending has grown from seven hundred billion pounds to one trillion pounds today whilst we pay £🧟‍♂️🧟‍♂️bn on our borrowing costs, and have an insane housing market, negative real interest rates, double digit inflation, exponential spending on one of the worst performing health service in Europe, £2.4 trillion of debt, lower wages than we had in 2008. And forget all those socialist/communist UK governments of the sixties and seventies, twelve years of the Conservatives in the 21st century has delivered the highest tax burden ever for UK.

    Whilst this is the hopelessly lost Tory Ethos is it not: to give power and responsibility back to people, to restore to individuals and families the sense and feeling of independence. Quite clearly, during this period, with these sort of budgets, the Tory party has lost its soul.

    So tough on this budget, it’s time to be tough on the real causes of this budget - is what the budget rebels are saying.

    Why isn’t every Conservative in the country on their side and agreeing?
    Some of them are weak, cowed and scared. That's why.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    edited November 2022
    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
    in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
    Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.

    There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
    far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
    I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,592

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    We are, if you believe HYUFD. The Anglican church *is* Catholic, just Brexited, or more correctly Engexited.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,865
    🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨
    Labour lead is twenty six points in latest results from Deltapoll for The Mail on Sunday.
    Con 25% (-2)
    Lab 51% (+1)
    Lib Dem 9% (+3)
    Other 15% (-2)
    Fieldwork: 17th - 19th November 2022
    Sample: 1,604 GB adults
    (Changes from 10th - 14th November 2022) https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1594096410617593863/photo/1
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Jonathan said:

    Lordy Lordy. This is interesting.

    Smart idea. He's finally getting the hang of this politics lark. Now he has a significant lead he can start eating away at the edges.

    Get some intense market research done and find out what the public want. Then start molding the party accordingly. Not vote changers in themselves but getting with the zeitgeist of the voters.

    I'm sure another beached gravy train will be pretty well received particularly if Rees Mogg and Mad Nad have a place reserved.

    It's all straight out of the TB playbook. Blair's research guru was of course on the payroll and was integral to their success
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,573

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
    in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
    Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.

    There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
    far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
    I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
    Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    We are, if you believe HYUFD. The Anglican church *is* Catholic, just Brexited, or more correctly Engexited.
    I used to go to a C of E Church many years ago where the vicar defected to the Catholics. He was always a bells and smells merchant, so no great shocks. Made sure he got married first, though, the old horn-dog.
  • Options

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    yes the reason the Cof E is not the Catholic religion is that the SG is NOT the pope but the Monarch . It has very little to do historically with theological differences or even practices but that sole fact of who is the SG - If King Charles is not it then it would revert to the Pope
    In time the head of our largest Christian denomination almost certainly, though a small liberal C of E would likely remain with the evangelicals becoming Baptist or Pentecostal
    yes it would certainly split the CofE into evangelicals and non evangelicals - not a good idea . The Cof E is fundamentally a pragmatic organisation that moves with the mood of modernity but still offers something different to pure politicians in terms of hope, comfort , community and guidance
    So what? That is like saying that Boots the chemist offers something fundamentally different from Texaco petrol stations.

    Christianity is flagrant nonsense, and the saving grace of the C of E is that it recognises that. KC may be a big enough ninny to believe in God, but Welby certainly isn't, and a good thing too. The RCs take this shit seriously and are the greatest force for evil on the planet, with the no contraception rules.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,865
    Sunday TIMES: “Britain mulls Swiss-style ties with Brussels” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1594097169782358017/photo/1
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,592

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    We are, if you believe HYUFD. The Anglican church *is* Catholic, just Brexited, or more correctly Engexited.
    I used to go to a C of E Church many years ago where the vicar defected to the Catholics. He was always a bells and smells merchant, so no great shocks. Made sure he got married first, though, the old horn-dog.
    Doesn't surprise me - I encountered some High Anglicans when visiting my Oxonian friends. But what I want to know is, did he have to send Mrs Rev to a nunnery or what?
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,313

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    We are, if you believe HYUFD. The Anglican church *is* Catholic, just Brexited, or more correctly Engexited.
    I used to go to a C of E Church many years ago where the vicar defected to the Catholics. He was always a bells and smells merchant, so no great shocks. Made sure he got married first, though, the old horn-dog.
    Alot of them went when the ordination of women came on. Along with Ann Widdecombe.
  • Options
    If you want to see how much the CofE and the Catholic Church are still very much the same beyond the fundamental difference of who is SG look at this (awe inspiring to me) clip of a rendition of Oh come all ye faithful at Westminster Abbey - the icons used are more reminiscent of a catholic service but it is CofE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1wHyMR_SCA&t=404s
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,592

    I kind of hope the Catholics do come over, as I've always wanted a definitive answer to the age old question "does a Pope sh1t in the woods?" and this allows us to monitor the situation.

    IN Scotland, most unlikely. As any fule kno, ursids are Rangers supporters, and always defecate in areas of climax or near-climax terrestrial vegetation.
  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    We are, if you believe HYUFD. The Anglican church *is* Catholic, just Brexited, or more correctly Engexited.
    I used to go to a C of E Church many years ago where the vicar defected to the Catholics. He was always a bells and smells merchant, so no great shocks. Made sure he got married first, though, the old horn-dog.
    Doesn't surprise me - I encountered some High Anglicans when visiting my Oxonian friends. But what I want to know is, did he have to send Mrs Rev to a nunnery or what?
    No - there's a special dispensation to the celibacy rules for defectors. It's a bit of a pro tip if you're basically Catholic, want to be a priest, and don't want to take pot luck with whatever "housekeeper" you're allocated.

    I think Orthodox priests can marry but only before ordination, making the final term of training a bit of a Benny Hill scenario.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    yes the reason the Cof E is not the Catholic religion is that the SG is NOT the pope but the Monarch . It has very little to do historically with theological differences or even practices but that sole fact of who is the SG - If King Charles is not it then it would revert to the Pope
    Are you suggesting the Church of England is basically Catholic? If its members want to be Catholics who is the Monarch to stop them?
    The C of E is a Protestant Church in the Catholic tradition with 3 wings, Anglo Catholic, Liberal and Evangelical
    Removing the Monarch as Supreme Governor is not going to make the Pope head of the C of E. You see people are capable of going forward rather than backwards. Anyway shouldn't the C of E be allowed to have the supreme governor it wants?
    It would however almost certainly lead to the Pope heading the largest Christian denomination in England again for the first time in 500 years
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    kjh said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
    in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
    Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.

    There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
    far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
    I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
    Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
    I’ve got my Sunday School bit all prepared. 😇 Christmas is coming. Can you tell me how many sleeps till Christmas? Did you know Advent means coming? So what do we think is coming?

    For a child will be born for us, a son will be given to us, and the government will be on his shoulders. He will be named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,865
    So Elon Trussk organised a Twitter push poll to get The Donald's account reactivated.

    Trump said no thanks...

    Maximum bants.

    Or as Trussk himself puts it

    The most entertaining outcome is the most likely – my variant on Occam’s Razor
    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1594078009954570240
  • Options
    TresTres Posts: 2,208

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
    in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
    Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.

    There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
    far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
    I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
    hobbies are important
  • Options

    If you want to see how much the CofE and the Catholic Church are still very much the same beyond the fundamental difference of who is SG look at this (awe inspiring to me) clip of a rendition of Oh come all ye faithful at Westminster Abbey - the icons used are more reminiscent of a catholic service but it is CofE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1wHyMR_SCA&t=404s

    Awe inspiring? LOL, what a bunch of elderly blokes in dresses

    The difference is that the c o e is not responsible for the existence of millions of unwanted babies and millions of unwanted cases of aids in Africa. But, yes, the prancing old perverts in women's clothing do look much of a muchness.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    But if the Monarch wasn't supreme governor it would be the Archbishop of Cantebury I assume? It's not going to be the Pope surely?
    Without the Monarch as SG of the C of E it ceases to be the national church, leaving the way open for the Vatican to reverse the Reformation and restore the Pope as head of our largest church
    The Pope is already head of all Catholics in the UK. The status of the C of E is irrelevant to that fact. There aren't warrior priests awaiting to emerge from Priest Holes and convert or massacre the masses on disestablishment
    The Pope is NOT however head of the largest Christian denomination in the UK, mainly because the C of E is the established church in England. Disestablish the C of E and he would head the largest Christian denomination in the UK again almost certainly
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    kjh said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
    in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
    Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.

    There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
    far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
    I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
    Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
    I’ll also be going into Soho for lunch.

    I’ll say a prayer for you.
  • Options
    Scott_xP said:

    So Elon Trussk organised a Twitter push poll to get The Donald's account reactivated.

    Trump said no thanks...

    Maximum bants.

    Or as Trussk himself puts it

    The most entertaining outcome is the most likely – my variant on Occam’s Razor
    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1594078009954570240

    Now we just need truth.social to turn the federation setting back on and Trump will be on Mastodon.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    Scott_xP said:

    🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨
    Labour lead is twenty six points in latest results from Deltapoll for The Mail on Sunday.
    Con 25% (-2)
    Lab 51% (+1)
    Lib Dem 9% (+3)
    Other 15% (-2)
    Fieldwork: 17th - 19th November 2022
    Sample: 1,604 GB adults
    (Changes from 10th - 14th November 2022) https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1594096410617593863/photo/1

    The main take out is where this poll tallies with other recent ones in LibDem fight back.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,592

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    We are, if you believe HYUFD. The Anglican church *is* Catholic, just Brexited, or more correctly Engexited.
    I used to go to a C of E Church many years ago where the vicar defected to the Catholics. He was always a bells and smells merchant, so no great shocks. Made sure he got married first, though, the old horn-dog.
    Doesn't surprise me - I encountered some High Anglicans when visiting my Oxonian friends. But what I want to know is, did he have to send Mrs Rev to a nunnery or what?
    No - there's a special dispensation to the celibacy rules for defectors. It's a bit of a pro tip if you're basically Catholic, want to be a priest, and don't want to take pot luck with whatever "housekeeper" you're allocated.

    I think Orthodox priests can marry but only before ordination, making the final term of training a bit of a Benny Hill scenario.
    Thanks. Well, that's as neat a piece of cakeism as I have ever seen. Like ignoring previous marriages performed by the state or other Christian sects and treating the resulting divorcees as first-timers. But at least the RCs can do what they like as they are a private club in essence.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,982
    FPT... regarding the Russian use of Vergeltungswaffen against the Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

    While destruction of the energy system is a worthy goal if it forces Ukraine to negotiate the other aspect of the operation is that they are trying to run down the Ukrainian S-300 stocks. Russia (like Ukraine) has had a very weak SEAD/DEAD game so they are trying to make Ukraine use up their S-300 stocks to counter UAS, cruise missles. (And blow up Polish grain silos. XAXA.)

    Ukraine has no easy way to replace these and Western systems (IRIS-T, Hawk, etc.) will never arrive in sufficient numbers to replace them. If the Russians can get S-300 off the table then then RuAF can stop playing cards and return to action over Ukraine - at least at medium altitudes. Hardly anything the Russians do works out so this might not come to pass but you can see the bones of a long term strategy for a change.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,129
    Roger said:

    Jonathan said:

    Lordy Lordy. This is interesting.

    Smart idea. He's finally getting the hang of this politics lark. Now he has a significant lead he can start eating away at the edges.

    Get some intense market research done and find out what the public want. Then start molding the party accordingly. Not vote changers in themselves but getting with the zeitgeist of the voters.

    I'm sure another beached gravy train will be pretty well received particularly if Rees Mogg and Mad Nad have a place reserved.

    It's all straight out of the TB playbook. Blair's research guru was of course on the payroll and was integral to their success
    Yep it's the Blair template:

    Aura of competence
    Tight manifesto
    Big win vs tired discredited Tories
    Stick to Tory fiscals for a while before diverging
    Something constitutional, eg Lords

    But we skip invading Iraq, I'd hope.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    But if the Monarch wasn't supreme governor it would be the Archbishop of Cantebury I assume? It's not going to be the Pope surely?
    Without the Monarch as SG of the C of E it ceases to be the national church, leaving the way open for the Vatican to reverse the Reformation and restore the Pope as head of our largest church
    How? Are the Swiss Guard going to take Eurostar and invade the UK.

    Or

    Actually nothing happens as most of us don't give a toss.
    The moment the C of E ceases the be the national church the way is open for the Vatican to make the RC church effectively the national church instead
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,592
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    But if the Monarch wasn't supreme governor it would be the Archbishop of Cantebury I assume? It's not going to be the Pope surely?
    Without the Monarch as SG of the C of E it ceases to be the national church, leaving the way open for the Vatican to reverse the Reformation and restore the Pope as head of our largest church
    The Pope is already head of all Catholics in the UK. The status of the C of E is irrelevant to that fact. There aren't warrior priests awaiting to emerge from Priest Holes and convert or massacre the masses on disestablishment
    The Pope is NOT however head of the largest Christian denomination in the UK, mainly because the C of E is the established church in England. Disestablish the C of E and he would head the largest Christian denomination in the UK again almost certainly
    Eh? You'rte claiming that the only reason the C of E membership sticks together is because it's propped up by the state.
  • Options

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    We are, if you believe HYUFD. The Anglican church *is* Catholic, just Brexited, or more correctly Engexited.
    I used to go to a C of E Church many years ago where the vicar defected to the Catholics. He was always a bells and smells merchant, so no great shocks. Made sure he got married first, though, the old horn-dog.
    Doesn't surprise me - I encountered some High Anglicans when visiting my Oxonian friends. But what I want to know is, did he have to send Mrs Rev to a nunnery or what?
    No - there's a special dispensation to the celibacy rules for defectors. It's a bit of a pro tip if you're basically Catholic, want to be a priest, and don't want to take pot luck with whatever "housekeeper" you're allocated.

    I think Orthodox priests can marry but only before ordination, making the final term of training a bit of a Benny Hill scenario.
    Many RC priests are not too fussed about this. Old but good joke: How do you get a nun pregnant? Dress her up as a choir boy.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    kjh said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
    in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
    Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.

    There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
    far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
    I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
    Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
    Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,573
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
    in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
    Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.

    There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
    far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
    I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
    Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
    Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
    3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    But if the Monarch wasn't supreme governor it would be the Archbishop of Cantebury I assume? It's not going to be the Pope surely?
    Without the Monarch as SG of the C of E it ceases to be the national church, leaving the way open for the Vatican to reverse the Reformation and restore the Pope as head of our largest church
    The Pope is already head of all Catholics in the UK. The status of the C of E is irrelevant to that fact. There aren't warrior priests awaiting to emerge from Priest Holes and convert or massacre the masses on disestablishment
    The Pope is NOT however head of the largest Christian denomination in the UK, mainly because the C of E is the established church in England. Disestablish the C of E and he would head the largest Christian denomination in the UK again almost certainly
    Eh? You'rte claiming that the only reason the C of E membership sticks together is because it's propped up by the state.
    In part, if it ceased to be the national church the Anglo Catholics for example would largely become full Roman Catholic and the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,945
    pillsbury said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    We are, if you believe HYUFD. The Anglican church *is* Catholic, just Brexited, or more correctly Engexited.
    I used to go to a C of E Church many years ago where the vicar defected to the Catholics. He was always a bells and smells merchant, so no great shocks. Made sure he got married first, though, the old horn-dog.
    Doesn't surprise me - I encountered some High Anglicans when visiting my Oxonian friends. But what I want to know is, did he have to send Mrs Rev to a nunnery or what?
    No - there's a special dispensation to the celibacy rules for defectors. It's a bit of a pro tip if you're basically Catholic, want to be a priest, and don't want to take pot luck with whatever "housekeeper" you're allocated.

    I think Orthodox priests can marry but only before ordination, making the final term of training a bit of a Benny Hill scenario.
    Many RC priests are not too fussed about this. Old but good joke: How do you get a nun pregnant? Dress her up as a choir boy.
    Wouldn't that involve the wrong hole?
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,045
    HYUFD said:

    MikeL said:

    The UK is not a religious country and the public does not support the total charade of Bishops in the House of Lords.

    Techne poll earlier this year:

    19% support Bishops in House of Lords
    62% do not support Bishops in House of Lords

    If it is such a good idea, why is Iran the only other country to have places in its Parliament reserved for representatives of religions?

    It's beyond comical and there is overwhelming support for ending this total nonsense.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1599924/Justin-Welby-poll-bishops-woke-news-welby

    if Starmer does create an elected upper house the C of E must still remain our established church even if they leave the upper house to prevent reversal of the Reformation
    There's been some belters tonight but I think this might go down as the single most deranged post I've read on pb.

    On a serious note it is rather disquieting. The arguments around maintaining an established church revolve around anti-catholic paranoia and the possibility of even Imans in the House of Lords.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,642
    Dura_Ace said:

    FPT... regarding the Russian use of Vergeltungswaffen against the Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

    While destruction of the energy system is a worthy goal if it forces Ukraine to negotiate the other aspect of the operation is that they are trying to run down the Ukrainian S-300 stocks. Russia (like Ukraine) has had a very weak SEAD/DEAD game so they are trying to make Ukraine use up their S-300 stocks to counter UAS, cruise missles. (And blow up Polish grain silos. XAXA.)

    Ukraine has no easy way to replace these and Western systems (IRIS-T, Hawk, etc.) will never arrive in sufficient numbers to replace them. If the Russians can get S-300 off the table then then RuAF can stop playing cards and return to action over Ukraine - at least at medium altitudes. Hardly anything the Russians do works out so this might not come to pass but you can see the bones of a long term strategy for a change.

    I gather from the above the S-300 is not western produced, but any idea of if the West can aid Ukraine in some way to produce more, or is likely that their capability to do so is shot?
  • Options

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    We are, if you believe HYUFD. The Anglican church *is* Catholic, just Brexited, or more correctly Engexited.
    I used to go to a C of E Church many years ago where the vicar defected to the Catholics. He was always a bells and smells merchant, so no great shocks. Made sure he got married first, though, the old horn-dog.
    Alot of them went when the ordination of women came on. Along with Ann Widdecombe.
    I don't think he did actually go over that, but some other pretext, although I forget what.

    With defections related to women priests, I've always wondered how much of it was career-based - i.e. a large increase in the pool of potential job applicants in the C of E.

    I mean, I know there are also various theological arguments about whether women can be priests or whether regretably their breasts get in the way or whatever, but there are loads of theological points where priests who disagree just live with. The number who went over that particular point seems suspicious.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,945

    Scott_xP said:

    🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨
    Labour lead is twenty six points in latest results from Deltapoll for The Mail on Sunday.
    Con 25% (-2)
    Lab 51% (+1)
    Lib Dem 9% (+3)
    Other 15% (-2)
    Fieldwork: 17th - 19th November 2022
    Sample: 1,604 GB adults
    (Changes from 10th - 14th November 2022) https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1594096410617593863/photo/1

    The main take out is where this poll tallies with other recent ones in LibDem fight back.
    9% is one heck of a fightback. Almost on the knees rather than flat on the back.
    2 years of bollocks and suffering till a Labour government.
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    pillsbury said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    We are, if you believe HYUFD. The Anglican church *is* Catholic, just Brexited, or more correctly Engexited.
    I used to go to a C of E Church many years ago where the vicar defected to the Catholics. He was always a bells and smells merchant, so no great shocks. Made sure he got married first, though, the old horn-dog.
    Doesn't surprise me - I encountered some High Anglicans when visiting my Oxonian friends. But what I want to know is, did he have to send Mrs Rev to a nunnery or what?
    No - there's a special dispensation to the celibacy rules for defectors. It's a bit of a pro tip if you're basically Catholic, want to be a priest, and don't want to take pot luck with whatever "housekeeper" you're allocated.

    I think Orthodox priests can marry but only before ordination, making the final term of training a bit of a Benny Hill scenario.
    Many RC priests are not too fussed about this. Old but good joke: How do you get a nun pregnant? Dress her up as a choir boy.
    Wouldn't that involve the wrong hole?
    You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,573
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    But if the Monarch wasn't supreme governor it would be the Archbishop of Cantebury I assume? It's not going to be the Pope surely?
    Without the Monarch as SG of the C of E it ceases to be the national church, leaving the way open for the Vatican to reverse the Reformation and restore the Pope as head of our largest church
    How? Are the Swiss Guard going to take Eurostar and invade the UK.

    Or

    Actually nothing happens as most of us don't give a toss.
    The moment the C of E ceases the be the national church the way is open for the Vatican to make the RC church effectively the national church instead
    And I repeat how? An invasion? It has no impact on 90+ percent of the population as it has no impact on us so we don't care.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,129
    Scott_xP said:

    Sunday TIMES: “Britain mulls Swiss-style ties with Brussels” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1594097169782358017/photo/1

    We're getting Free Movement back? Fab!
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,642

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    We are, if you believe HYUFD. The Anglican church *is* Catholic, just Brexited, or more correctly Engexited.
    I used to go to a C of E Church many years ago where the vicar defected to the Catholics. He was always a bells and smells merchant, so no great shocks. Made sure he got married first, though, the old horn-dog.
    Alot of them went when the ordination of women came on. Along with Ann Widdecombe.
    I don't think he did actually go over that, but some other pretext, although I forget what.

    With defections related to women priests, I've always wondered how much of it was career-based - i.e. a large increase in the pool of potential job applicants in the C of E.

    I mean, I know there are also various theological arguments about whether women can be priests or whether regretably their breasts get in the way or whatever, but there are loads of theological points where priests who disagree just live with. The number who went over that particular point seems suspicious.
    Probably the majority of priests and points. Past eras of rapid changes, and also former heresies being adopted as doctrine later (or vice-versa) would indicate theologians are a rabid minority so long as the broad points are accepted.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,592

    HYUFD said:

    MikeL said:

    The UK is not a religious country and the public does not support the total charade of Bishops in the House of Lords.

    Techne poll earlier this year:

    19% support Bishops in House of Lords
    62% do not support Bishops in House of Lords

    If it is such a good idea, why is Iran the only other country to have places in its Parliament reserved for representatives of religions?

    It's beyond comical and there is overwhelming support for ending this total nonsense.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1599924/Justin-Welby-poll-bishops-woke-news-welby

    if Starmer does create an elected upper house the C of E must still remain our established church even if they leave the upper house to prevent reversal of the Reformation
    There's been some belters tonight but I think this might go down as the single most deranged post I've read on pb.

    On a serious note it is rather disquieting. The arguments around maintaining an established church revolve around anti-catholic paranoia and the possibility of even Imans in the House of Lords.
    It's also a remarkably narrow view of the Reformed Churches. That there was only one Reformation and that it is all down to Henry VIII and the C of E. Calvin, Knox and Melville would like a word.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
    in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
    Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.

    There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
    far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
    I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
    Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
    Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
    3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
    I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
  • Options

    HYUFD said:

    MikeL said:

    The UK is not a religious country and the public does not support the total charade of Bishops in the House of Lords.

    Techne poll earlier this year:

    19% support Bishops in House of Lords
    62% do not support Bishops in House of Lords

    If it is such a good idea, why is Iran the only other country to have places in its Parliament reserved for representatives of religions?

    It's beyond comical and there is overwhelming support for ending this total nonsense.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1599924/Justin-Welby-poll-bishops-woke-news-welby

    if Starmer does create an elected upper house the C of E must still remain our established church even if they leave the upper house to prevent reversal of the Reformation
    There's been some belters tonight but I think this might go down as the single most deranged post I've read on pb.

    On a serious note it is rather disquieting. The arguments around maintaining an established church revolve around anti-catholic paranoia and the possibility of even Imans in the House of Lords.
    both of those would have a far more hardline approach to abortion and homosexuality for instance. It is not disquieting to not want such hardline opinion spreading in parliament
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    edited November 2022
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    But if the Monarch wasn't supreme governor it would be the Archbishop of Cantebury I assume? It's not going to be the Pope surely?
    Without the Monarch as SG of the C of E it ceases to be the national church, leaving the way open for the Vatican to reverse the Reformation and restore the Pope as head of our largest church
    How? Are the Swiss Guard going to take Eurostar and invade the UK.

    Or

    Actually nothing happens as most of us don't give a toss.
    The moment the C of E ceases the be the national church the way is open for the Vatican to make the RC church effectively the national church instead
    And I repeat how? An invasion? It has no impact on 90+ percent of the population as it has no impact on us so we don't care.
    It does have an impact, as if the C of E ceases to be the established church then the RC church and evangelical Pentecostal and Baptist churches will become more powerful and push a harder line against abortion and gay marriage and trans as in the US or Italy or Poland or Brazil.

    No established church ironically means more political churches as they can take on the state line and try and change it on more issues and infiltrate political parties, especially on the right and the evangelical churches are already growing through African immigration as the Catholic church has grown via Eastern European immigration.

    Muslims too would back them on pushing for less liberal social policy and they are growing in number via immigration too
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,045

    HYUFD said:

    MikeL said:

    The UK is not a religious country and the public does not support the total charade of Bishops in the House of Lords.

    Techne poll earlier this year:

    19% support Bishops in House of Lords
    62% do not support Bishops in House of Lords

    If it is such a good idea, why is Iran the only other country to have places in its Parliament reserved for representatives of religions?

    It's beyond comical and there is overwhelming support for ending this total nonsense.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1599924/Justin-Welby-poll-bishops-woke-news-welby

    if Starmer does create an elected upper house the C of E must still remain our established church even if they leave the upper house to prevent reversal of the Reformation
    There's been some belters tonight but I think this might go down as the single most deranged post I've read on pb.

    On a serious note it is rather disquieting. The arguments around maintaining an established church revolve around anti-catholic paranoia and the possibility of even Imans in the House of Lords.
    both of those would have a far more hardline approach to abortion and homosexuality for instance. It is not disquieting to not want such hardline opinion spreading in parliament
    They're only going to end up in the House of Lords if our democratically elected members decide to put them there. To be honest there is probably more pressure to put them there now as a counterweight to the Bishops than if the Bishops weren't already there.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Sunday TIMES: “Britain mulls Swiss-style ties with Brussels” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1594097169782358017/photo/1

    We're getting Free Movement back? Fab!
    Farage not happy at this prospect '@Nigel_Farage
    Rishi Sunak is a Goldman Sachs globalist, so this sellout of Brexit is not surprising. The Tories must be crushed.'
    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1594054645713887232?s=20&t=p_cm84VX4oQNknpSK4hAQA
  • Options
    VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,435

    kjh said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
    in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
    Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.

    There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
    far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
    I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
    Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
    I’ve got my Sunday School bit all prepared. 😇 Christmas is coming. Can you tell me how many sleeps till Christmas? Did you know Advent means coming? So what do we think is coming?

    For a child will be born for us, a son will be given to us, and the government will be on his shoulders. He will be named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
    So the son must have broad shoulders to be carrying a government. Thus he will be paying the most tax?
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,801
    Off topic, I've just had to check today's Heardle wasn't a wildcard, being literally the last song I'd completed listening to on Spotify an hour before. Quite disconcerting.
  • Options

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
    in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
    Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.

    There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
    far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
    I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
    Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
    Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
    3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
    I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
    a very good point and whilst I am not as good as you at church attending (do it about 6 times a year) it is a great pity such souless activity is the norm for a sunday for many rather than self reflection and thinking of something bigger and holistic than ones self
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,001
    Is it broken sleazy Starmer on the slide that I spy?
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,045
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    But if the Monarch wasn't supreme governor it would be the Archbishop of Cantebury I assume? It's not going to be the Pope surely?
    Without the Monarch as SG of the C of E it ceases to be the national church, leaving the way open for the Vatican to reverse the Reformation and restore the Pope as head of our largest church
    How? Are the Swiss Guard going to take Eurostar and invade the UK.

    Or

    Actually nothing happens as most of us don't give a toss.
    The moment the C of E ceases the be the national church the way is open for the Vatican to make the RC church effectively the national church instead
    And I repeat how? An invasion? It has no impact on 90+ percent of the population as it has no impact on us so we don't care.
    It does have an impact, as if the C of E ceases to be the established church then the RC church and evangelical Pentecostal and Baptist churches will become more powerful and push a harder line against abortion and gay marriage and LGBTQ as in the US or Italy or Poland or Brazil.

    No established church ironically means more political churches as they can take on the state line and try and change it on more issues and infiltrate political parties, especially on the right and the evangelical churches are already growing through African immigration as the Catholic church has grown via Eastern European immigration.

    Muslims too would back them on pushing for less liberal social policy and they are growing in number via immigration too
    So you support the established church because you think it stifles the religious views of its members? It's an interesting idea I suppose.

    Anyway we're a democracy so we shouldn't really be trying to artificially stifle people's views. We should debate them instead.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,945
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Sunday TIMES: “Britain mulls Swiss-style ties with Brussels” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1594097169782358017/photo/1

    We're getting Free Movement back? Fab!
    Farage not happy at this prospect '@Nigel_Farage
    Rishi Sunak is a Goldman Sachs globalist, so this sellout of Brexit is not surprising. The Tories must be crushed.'
    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1594054645713887232?s=20&t=p_cm84VX4oQNknpSK4hAQA
    Nige wants a Labour government too?
    Bring it on. Soon as.
  • Options
    SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 6,248
    edited November 2022
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Sunday TIMES: “Britain mulls Swiss-style ties with Brussels” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1594097169782358017/photo/1

    We're getting Free Movement back? Fab!
    Farage not happy at this prospect '@Nigel_Farage
    Rishi Sunak is a Goldman Sachs globalist, so this sellout of Brexit is not surprising. The Tories must be crushed.'
    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1594054645713887232?s=20&t=p_cm84VX4oQNknpSK4hAQA
    On the contrary, he's delighted about it.

    Anything that gives the shameless, festering old turd the chance to avoid owning Brexit and instead cash in by bleating on about being betrayed by the wrong type of Brexit is more than fine by Nigel.

    He even gets to throw in a bit of dog-whistle racism with the "globalist" stuff. Farage must be like a pig in sh1t tonight.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,982
    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    FPT... regarding the Russian use of Vergeltungswaffen against the Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

    While destruction of the energy system is a worthy goal if it forces Ukraine to negotiate the other aspect of the operation is that they are trying to run down the Ukrainian S-300 stocks. Russia (like Ukraine) has had a very weak SEAD/DEAD game so they are trying to make Ukraine use up their S-300 stocks to counter UAS, cruise missles. (And blow up Polish grain silos. XAXA.)

    Ukraine has no easy way to replace these and Western systems (IRIS-T, Hawk, etc.) will never arrive in sufficient numbers to replace them. If the Russians can get S-300 off the table then then RuAF can stop playing cards and return to action over Ukraine - at least at medium altitudes. Hardly anything the Russians do works out so this might not come to pass but you can see the bones of a long term strategy for a change.

    I gather from the above the S-300 is not western produced, but any idea of if the West can aid Ukraine in some way to produce more, or is likely that their capability to do so is shot?
    I'm sure they could make them... eventually... as they have working examples to reverse engineer and copy. Dunno how long that would take.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,573

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
    in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
    Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.

    There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
    far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
    I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
    Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
    Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
    3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
    I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
    You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.

    Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,001
    A lot of government spending is about paying out pensions, and it's growing. This is more like forced saving than government spending. If you include it in government spending, it's no wonder the apparent tax burden is rising, but it just reflects longer life spans without the desire for longer work spans.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,642
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    MikeL said:

    The UK is not a religious country and the public does not support the total charade of Bishops in the House of Lords.

    Techne poll earlier this year:

    19% support Bishops in House of Lords
    62% do not support Bishops in House of Lords

    If it is such a good idea, why is Iran the only other country to have places in its Parliament reserved for representatives of religions?

    It's beyond comical and there is overwhelming support for ending this total nonsense.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1599924/Justin-Welby-poll-bishops-woke-news-welby

    if Starmer does create an elected upper house the C of E must still remain our established church even if they leave the upper house to prevent reversal of the Reformation
    There's been some belters tonight but I think this might go down as the single most deranged post I've read on pb.

    On a serious note it is rather disquieting. The arguments around maintaining an established church revolve around anti-catholic paranoia and the possibility of even Imans in the House of Lords.
    It's also a remarkably narrow view of the Reformed Churches. That there was only one Reformation and that it is all down to Henry VIII and the C of E. Calvin, Knox and Melville would like a word.
    A rather stern word, I would imagine given their styles.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
    in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
    Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.

    There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
    far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
    I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
    Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
    Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
    3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
    I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
    You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.

    Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
    Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.

    There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Sunday TIMES: “Britain mulls Swiss-style ties with Brussels” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1594097169782358017/photo/1

    We're getting Free Movement back? Fab!
    Farage not happy at this prospect '@Nigel_Farage
    Rishi Sunak is a Goldman Sachs globalist, so this sellout of Brexit is not surprising. The Tories must be crushed.'
    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1594054645713887232?s=20&t=p_cm84VX4oQNknpSK4hAQA
    Nige wants a Labour government too?
    Bring it on. Soon as.
    Course he does. He wants a Starmer government with him as Leader of the Opposition having pushed the Tories into 3rd place or worse
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    The main christian church in the UK? I'm puzzled by your logic. What is the largest christian church in the UK? And how would not having the monarch as supreme governor mean that that title goes to the Pope?
    As in most other Christian nations on earth the Roman Catholic church is the largest church, in Northern Ireland and Wales now too and probably within a decade or 2 Scotland (given the Church of England has a higher percentage lead in England over the RC church than the Church of Scotland does over the RC Church in Scotland).

    Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
    What does that have to do with the Monarch being supreme governor of the Church of England?
    Everything as it stops the Pope being the head of our largest Christian denomination, which is the main reason Henry VIII made himself SG of the C of E
    But if the Monarch wasn't supreme governor it would be the Archbishop of Cantebury I assume? It's not going to be the Pope surely?
    Without the Monarch as SG of the C of E it ceases to be the national church, leaving the way open for the Vatican to reverse the Reformation and restore the Pope as head of our largest church
    How? Are the Swiss Guard going to take Eurostar and invade the UK.

    Or

    Actually nothing happens as most of us don't give a toss.
    The moment the C of E ceases the be the national church the way is open for the Vatican to make the RC church effectively the national church instead
    And I repeat how? An invasion? It has no impact on 90+ percent of the population as it has no impact on us so we don't care.
    It does have an impact, as if the C of E ceases to be the established church then the RC church and evangelical Pentecostal and Baptist churches will become more powerful and push a harder line against abortion and gay marriage and LGBTQ as in the US or Italy or Poland or Brazil.

    No established church ironically means more political churches as they can take on the state line and try and change it on more issues and infiltrate political parties, especially on the right and the evangelical churches are already growing through African immigration as the Catholic church has grown via Eastern European immigration.

    Muslims too would back them on pushing for less liberal social policy and they are growing in number via immigration too
    So you support the established church because you think it stifles the religious views of its members? It's an interesting idea I suppose.

    Anyway we're a democracy so we shouldn't really be trying to artificially stifle people's views. We should debate them instead.
    No, I support the established church because it is a broad church including liberals, evangelicals and Anglo Catholics and providing parish based ministry and weddings, funerals etc across England
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.

    I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
    Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.

    And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
    It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
    Would it?

    I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.

    There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
    The Lords Spiritual going will mean disestablishment
    Only if the King gets demoted, either as head of state or head of the C of E, surely.
    I think it would be inevitable, the Lords Spiritual are the political link/union of church and state
    No they aren't, they are less than 5% of the Lords and not even most C of E Bishops are Lords Spiritual.

    The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
    26 of 42 counts as 'most' of them, more than half. Before the reformation Lords Spiritual were more numerous than Temporal as prior to the Dissolution for example Abbots sat in the Lords
    No, there are 115 C of E bishops, 42 diocesan and 73 suffragan.

    So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.

    Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
    I was only including the 42 Diocesean bishops. But yes, obviously its not most of the All and Sundries.
    That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
    The Monarch being Supreme Governor of our established Church is not irrelevant, it stops the Pope being the head of the main Christian church
    Yeah, im not worried about the Swiss Guards storming Canterbury and enslaving the Protestants
    The Pope being head of the main church wouldl have us seriously debating abortion again for instance - The CofE is underrated in evolving us to a more progressive but moderate state
    Theres no mechanism for that to happen though. We don't require the church to remain established to stop the Papist horde. It is no longer the 16th/17th century. We are not a Catholic country and will not become one
    Plenty of African and Eastern European migrants are Catholic and Catholics tend to have higher birthrates.
    About 10% of the population. They need to get down to some hardcore banging to be numerous enough to reverse the reformation. Knickers Off For Francis '22
    If the RC church became the largest church in England again the Reformation would be reversed effectively and disestablishment most likely leads to that
    in the 21st century that's like fighting over being the tallest dwarf
    Given there are 2.2 billion Christians worldwide (almost 40 times the entire UK population) hardly.

    There are 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide too
    far fewer will bother getting up to go to church tomorrow though
    I’ll be participating in two Christian services tomorrow, and helping with online Sunday school.
    Sounds like you are standing in for the rest of us who aren't turning up.
    Speak for yourself, many of us still go to Church on Sunday
    3 times though seems beyond the call of duty.
    I expect many not participating in Church tomorrow will actually spend longer playing Call of Duty than I will spend listening, learning, thinking and growing and giving back to others. In that context maybe it’s not so over the top a commitment after all?
    You can give back to others without going to church. In fact it would be a better use of ones time to do so.

    Similarly learning and thinking would be better achieved elsewhere which involves real learning.
    Maybe but many if not most of the foodbanks in Britain are church run as are many of the homeless shelters.

    There is no greater learning than that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour for all eternity
    and learning to walk with the poor and marginalised for there but the grace of God in all his glory go I
  • Options
    The Tory bounce has clearly now disappeared. What is their plan to get out of the 20s?

    When Labour was polling like this we were asking how long before a new party emerges, what if this really is the end of the Tories and they never govern again
  • Options
    WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,503
    edited November 2022
    I really do think the Tories would do better as the two parties of social and economic liberalism on the one hand, and Farageite nationalism and social conservatism on the other hand. Their problem is that they can't do that until or unless Labour splits on equivalent lines between their left and centre-left too, which isn't looking at all likely now, for a good while, or in fact ever.
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,001

    I really do think the Tories would be better as the two parties of social and economic liberalism on the one hand, and Farageite nationalism and social conservatism on the other hand. Their problem is that they can't do that unless Labour splits on equivalent lines between their left and centre-left too, which isn't looking at all likely at least for a good while.

    They really only have the votes for one party right now.
This discussion has been closed.