The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
On Sunak's negative ratings I believe it is not just coming from the expected sources but also the ERG, Truss, Farage grouping
In many aspects Sunak comes over as well meaning but naive, and certainly avoidable errors like his seat belt are just silly and to be fair if he had been in the back seat of my car the red seat belt alarm would have been sounding on the dashboard
He is in a difficult position and I have no doubt the ERG will be very angry when he does do a deal on the NIP not least following Bill Cash's recent comments following his meeting with the DUP
For the first time I can recall there are more conservative mps I would celebrate losing their seats then labour ones, and that in itself is remarkable
I expect Starmer will win in 24 and the conservative party should take the time in opposition to rid itself of the remaining ERG and move back to a one nation parry
Returning to Sunak he is the party's best hope of mitigating 24, and with Hunt holding the line on inflation pay rises which is brave especially with the nurses, between them they have stabilised the markets and hopefully providing the foundation for modest tax cuts in Spring 24
Yes it looks like LAB majority time. I also think LAB will do quite well in Scotland maybe 15 to 20 seats as the shine continues to come off SNP.
LAB 320 to 340 seats in an autumn 2024 GE. LAB would take 340 now if offered it, notwithstanding the current big polling leads.
That is not an unreasonable forecast
A Johnson redux on the other hand would give the Tories a comfortable majority.
Only in the head of Dorries and other zealots
You and I might not be too keen. However there are plenty who can see Emperor Johnson's new clothes.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, Baptist, charismatic Evangelical churches won't even allow prayers for homosexual marriages as the Church of England is now.
Barely any Muslim imams will perform homosexual marriage of course either
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It will happen within 2 years on a conscience basis as with women priests.
Prayers and blessings for homosexual marriages is a step in the right direction. Evangelicals don't have enough votes at Synod to block it completely
The bet: same sex marriages will not be allowed in the CoE (or by its ministers wherever they fly to) within two years.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Because they think God welcomes and approves of them and that the church is the authorised intermediary.
Off topic, but of interest to anyone who bets on American elections: This analysis by Aaron Blake: "Polls of the 2024 race since then have been piecemeal and mostly focused on the GOP primary, showing DeSantis eroding and perhaps erasing Trump’s status as the presumptive favorite. (We’ve had DeSantis ahead of Trump in our 2024 GOP nomination rankings for a while now.) But the few that have compared Trump and DeSantis in general election matchups appear to confirm the difference in viability.
Most recently came a survey from a GOP pollster for the Club for Growth. It shows Trump trailing President Biden by eight points in a 2024 rematch, but DeSantis with a three-point lead (which is inside the margin of error) — which amounts to a gap of 11 points between their respective margins."
It's notable that the Trump/DeSantis odds for the Presidency (Betfair Exchange) are around 4 and 6 respectively.
While for the nomination, Trump is actually shorter odds.
Increasingly my view is that Trump and DeSantis will do a deal with Trump running again and RDS as VP pick. The advantages for RDS are:
1. He avoids a scrap with DJT and he's young enough to wait 4 years for the nomination (which I think he would get either way ie if Trump wins or is defeated).
2. It's a no-lose situation - either DJT wins and he's VP or DJT loses and RDS can say it was Trump's fault (and he probably destroys Harris in the VP debate).
3. Running now is a risk - he loses the nomination to DJT, he encourages others in 4 years time and / or DJT picks another VP and DJT wins, he's down the list. Lose the election to Biden (or whoever) now, he's toast. As a Governor, it's a lot harder to come back if you lose than if you are a Senator
Biden and Buttigieg would likely beat Trump and DeSantis.
Biden and Harris however probably won't
No offence meant but have you been playing attention to what's been happening in the US with transportation? Pete B would be crucified by RDS.
Not to mention the fact that the Black voting block - particularly Black women - are not doing to be chuffed about Harris being dumped for a white guy.
Harris is not popular with blacks, certainly compared to Obama.
Buttigieg is popular with suburban voters who will decide the next election, indeed probably more so than DeSantis and Trump. DeSantis of course firmly pro restricting abortion
Speaking of (or rather to) punters eager to bet on a 2024 Trump-DiSantis presidential-vice presidential GOP ticket:
> what is reasonable handicap one needs to factor into wagering calculations, with respect to Amendment XII of US Constitution (proposed 1803, ratified 1804) which states in part:
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; . . ."
Note that in 2024, the Electoral Vote of State of Florida = 30.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It will happen within 2 years on a conscience basis as with women priests.
Prayers and blessings for homosexual marriages is a step in the right direction. Evangelicals don't have enough votes at Synod to block it completely
The bet: same sex marriages will not be allowed in the CoE (or by its ministers wherever they fly to) within two years.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Not your average gay couple, no - but likely a group of gay rights activists, who want the church to be forced to do it.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It will happen within 2 years on a conscience basis as with women priests.
Prayers and blessings for homosexual marriages is a step in the right direction. Evangelicals don't have enough votes at Synod to block it completely
The bet: same sex marriages will not be allowed in the CoE (or by its ministers wherever they fly to) within two years.
Take it or not?
Perhaps the C of E will be urging them to be burned at the stake within a couple of years.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Many have a deep Christian faith and as such should have the right to be married in the church of their choosing
It is just wrong to deny them something which is important to them
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, Baptist, charismatic Evangelical churches won't even allow prayers for homosexual marriages as the Church of England is now.
Barely any Muslim imams will perform homosexual marriage of course either
It still does not make it right that the COE denies same sex marriage
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, Baptist, charismatic Evangelical churches won't even allow prayers for homosexual marriages as the Church of England is now.
Barely any Muslim imams will perform homosexual marriage of course either
It still does not make it right that the COE denies same sex marriage
Well if more people who support same sex marriage went to Church of England churches, had votes on Deanery Synod reps who vote at General Synod etc then change would come quicker.
Instead evangelicals who oppose homosexual marriage are still able to elect more anti gay marriage Synod reps as they always ensure they fill their hardline evangelical churches!!
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Because they think God welcomes and approves of them and that the church is the authorised intermediary.
Is not the church the higher arbiter of what god thinks or doesn't think? We can't have random gay people running around telling us what he thinks.
Er, major problem with notion of Trump for POTU with DiSantis for VP for Republicans in 2024, is the penalty imposed by US constitution upon any ticket that includes two candidates from the SAME state.
Meaning that IF a Trump-DiSantis ticket carried their home state of Florida, then GOP electors from Sunshine State could vote for EITHER one or the other, but NOT both.
Theoretically possible but practically about 99.46% unlikely.
Of course Sage of Mar-a-Lardo could move his legal residence to some other state. But would NOT bet on it.
Fair point but how hard is it for DJT to skip his legal residence to Alabama or Mississippi even if temporary (tax issues probably key here).
Tax issues NOT an issue (about 99.46% of cases anyway) when it comes to legal residence for VOTING purposes.
> For example, when Mitt Romney first ran for Governor of Massachusetts, his candidacy was challenged by Mass Democrats, on grounds that he'd declared he was resident of Utah to get a tax break on his ski chalet (or some such). But Mass courts (hardly a nest of Republicans!) ruled that had nothing to do with his legal domicile for purposes of voting (Mitt was a long-time active registered voter in Bay State) or running for office.
> On other hand, when New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof filed to run for Governor of Oregon in 2022 (as a Democrat) he was also challenged on ground of non-residency. But NOT because of a tax matter, instead, because he'd voted in New York in 2020, which combined with Oregon's 3-year residency qualification for state office, left him high, dry and OFF the 2022 primary ballot. In this case, state supreme court DID cites fact Kristof also had a NY State drivers license until end of 2020 - BUT the real sticking point was his VOTING residency in the Empire State as opposed to the Beaver State. Despite fact that he was native Oregonian and local property owner.
In Trump's case, the sticking point would be partly the "rootless anti-cosmopolitan" aspect. But MAJOR problem would (I think) The Donald's disinclination (to put it mildly) to yield on such a point to anyone else, including (or rather especially) Ron DiSantis. Let HIM move to Freaking, Alabama (just across state line from Hot Coffee, Mississippi).
US press conference from Ramstein is an utter embarrassment for Germany and its appeasement
I wonder if this is an opportunity for Macron. There was some talk of the French providing LeClercs. Perhaps he will break the deadlock.
The Germans can more easily ignore the UK tank contribution than it can that of the other member of the EU's ruling duumvirate.
However it does look, for the moment, that Putin is having some success in intimidating the Germans. If Russia was going to nuke anyone, it would the Germans, who are not Slavs - and the UK, France and USA are completely safe anyway for obvious reasons.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Because they think God welcomes and approves of them and that the church is the authorised intermediary.
Is not the church the higher arbiter of what god thinks or doesn't think? We can't have random gay people running around telling us what he thinks.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, Baptist, charismatic Evangelical churches won't even allow prayers for homosexual marriages as the Church of England is now.
Barely any Muslim imams will perform homosexual marriage of course either
It still does not make it right that the COE denies same sex marriage
Well if more people who support same sex marriage went to Church of England churches, had votes on Deanery Synod reps who vote at General Synod etc then change would come quicker.
Instead evangelicals who oppose homosexual marriage are still able to elect more anti gay marriage Synod reps as they always ensure they fill their hardline evangelical churches!!
This looks like the key point. From the Church Times;
The Church Times understands that there was “some way off” a two-thirds majority in favour of same-sex marriage in church among the bishops. This is thought to be a key reason why individual bishops in favour of allowing same-sex marriage saw no point in sending something to Synod that would have required a two-thirds majority in each House, only for it to be voted down by the Bishops.
Which is the price one pays for not letting 50.1% simply overrrule 49.9%. But it's an awfully high threshold, especially against a determined minority. And this synod is in place until 2026. Where's the betting on the results of that election?
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
I fear Germany thinks it can save money on having to maintain a functioning army by appeasing its enemies.
What good reasons are there for them doing this? The "US must send Abrams!" is bullshit, from both a moral and a practical viewpoint, as the UK is sending MBTs (and not ignoring all the other ex-Soviet tanks sent over last year).
Yes, I know Germany's doing a lot. But this is manna from Heaven for the Kremlin; both in terms of actual hardware and messaging. As much as anything else, it shows their opposition can be easily split.
Well if more people who support same sex marriage went to Church of England churches, had votes on Deanery Synod reps who vote at General Synod etc then change would come quicker.
A pretty idiotic thing to say, as it was the bishops who blocked it.
But the really idiotic thing is that we still have an established church in this day and age, represented by members of the House of Lords (!). Maybe the answer is for bishops to be elected. In which case quite of a few of them would be gay and/or Muslim or Jewish ...
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Because they think God welcomes and approves of them and that the church is the authorised intermediary.
Is not the church the higher arbiter of what god thinks or doesn't think? We can't have random gay people running around telling us what he thinks.
Well I am a godless straight person and I can tell you that you have to work really hard to find the bits which imply that he gives a toss about whether you are gay or not.
Well if more people who support same sex marriage went to Church of England churches, had votes on Deanery Synod reps who vote at General Synod etc then change would come quicker.
A pretty idiotic thing to say, as it was the bishops who blocked it.
But the really idiotic thing is that we still have an established church in this day and age, represented by members of the House of Lords (!). Maybe the answer is for bishops to be elected. In which case quite of a few of them would be gay and/or Muslim or Jewish ...
This is Britain. We'd end up with Richard Dawkins, the Hot Priest from Fleabag, John Bishop and Bishopy McBishopface.
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
I fear Germany thinks it can save money on having to maintain a functioning army by appeasing its enemies.
What good reasons are there for them doing this? The "US must send Abrams!" is bullshit, from both a moral and a practical viewpoint, as the UK is sending MBTs (and not ignoring all the other ex-Soviet tanks sent over last year).
Yes, I know Germany's doing a lot. But this is manna from Heaven for the Kremlin; both in terms of actual hardware and messaging. As much as anything else, it shows their opposition can be easily split.
If Germany wants a long and slow war in Ukraine, with no chance of any resumption in O&G supplies for several years, then they’re going the right way about it.
On the other hand, if they want to make money selling German capital equipment and machinery to help rebuild Ukraine, then they should want this war to be over as quickly as possible.
Which means sending whatever arms can be spared, to help the Ukranians. Not just because it’s the right thing to do, Herr Sholz, but because it will also directly help German industry.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Because they think God welcomes and approves of them and that the church is the authorised intermediary.
Is not the church the higher arbiter of what god thinks or doesn't think? We can't have random gay people running around telling us what he thinks.
God doesn't even believe in marriage!
The only reason Jesus's parents weren't married is because marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and God isn't a man. (Or he wasn't before Jesus was born - in case anyone is tempted to get theological.)
So, like Elton John and David Furnish, God had to make other arrangements.
Well if more people who support same sex marriage went to Church of England churches, had votes on Deanery Synod reps who vote at General Synod etc then change would come quicker.
A pretty idiotic thing to say, as it was the bishops who blocked it.
But the really idiotic thing is that we still have an established church in this day and age, represented by members of the House of Lords (!). Maybe the answer is for bishops to be elected. In which case quite of a few of them would be gay and/or Muslim or Jewish ...
No you idiot, any change has to get through Synod whatever the Bishops say. Liberals are still likely to table the issue at Synod next month anyway.
If however you went to Church yourself and stopped your ranting from the sidelines then you could get a say on the future direction of the Church of England.
46% of the UK are still Christian, less than 5% of the fully appointed, unelected Lords are Bishops.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It will happen within 2 years on a conscience basis as with women priests.
Prayers and blessings for homosexual marriages is a step in the right direction. Evangelicals don't have enough votes at Synod to block it completely
The bet: same sex marriages will not be allowed in the CoE (or by its ministers wherever they fly to) within two years.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, Baptist, charismatic Evangelical churches won't even allow prayers for homosexual marriages as the Church of England is now.
Barely any Muslim imams will perform homosexual marriage of course either
It still does not make it right that the COE denies same sex marriage
Well if more people who support same sex marriage went to Church of England churches, had votes on Deanery Synod reps who vote at General Synod etc then change would come quicker.
Instead evangelicals who oppose homosexual marriage are still able to elect more anti gay marriage Synod reps as they always ensure they fill their hardline evangelical churches!!
This looks like the key point. From the Church Times;
The Church Times understands that there was “some way off” a two-thirds majority in favour of same-sex marriage in church among the bishops. This is thought to be a key reason why individual bishops in favour of allowing same-sex marriage saw no point in sending something to Synod that would have required a two-thirds majority in each House, only for it to be voted down by the Bishops.
Which is the price one pays for not letting 50.1% simply overrrule 49.9%. But it's an awfully high threshold, especially against a determined minority. And this synod is in place until 2026. Where's the betting on the results of that election?
Evangelicals have their biggest strength in the House of Laity, so it would not have got 2/3 there even if it passed the House of Bishops. The House of Clergy though already likely has a 2/3 majority for homosexual marriages
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Because they think God welcomes and approves of them and that the church is the authorised intermediary.
Is not the church the higher arbiter of what god thinks or doesn't think? We can't have random gay people running around telling us what he thinks.
God doesn't even believe in marriage!
The only reason Jesus's parents weren't married is because marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and God isn't a man. (Or he wasn't before Jesus was born - in case anyone is tempted to get theological.)
So, like Elton John and David Furnish, God had to make other arrangements.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Because they think God welcomes and approves of them and that the church is the authorised intermediary.
Sure, but if the intermediary disagrees it seems like a sign God would want you to find or found a different intermediary.
It's not as though Christianity has ever been shy about using doctrinal or other disputes as a reason to found a new church.
Well if more people who support same sex marriage went to Church of England churches, had votes on Deanery Synod reps who vote at General Synod etc then change would come quicker.
A pretty idiotic thing to say, as it was the bishops who blocked it.
But the really idiotic thing is that we still have an established church in this day and age, represented by members of the House of Lords (!). Maybe the answer is for bishops to be elected. In which case quite of a few of them would be gay and/or Muslim or Jewish ...
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Because they think God welcomes and approves of them and that the church is the authorised intermediary.
Is not the church the higher arbiter of what god thinks or doesn't think? We can't have random gay people running around telling us what he thinks.
God doesn't even believe in marriage!
The only reason Jesus's parents weren't married is because marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and God isn't a man. (Or he wasn't before Jesus was born - in case anyone is tempted to get theological.)
So, like Elton John and David Furnish, God had to make other arrangements.
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
The Dura Ace contingent argument I think is that current events show Russia is crap, so you don't need to spend more on your army. I assume that is presuming what remains is effective though.
I was there and saw Lloyd Russell Moyle bizarrely go and sit close to Miriam Cates on the Conservative side of chamber after his extraordinary outburst. So I moved and sat next to Miriam to support my colleague.
This morning I suggested that @RosieDuffield1 was mistaken - I’m happy to correct that - she wasn’t Here is the intimidation and bullying in three screenshots I hope @CommonsSpeaker@Keir_Starmer and @UKLabour will now investigate Lloyd Russell-Moyle’s behaviour in parliament
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, Baptist, charismatic Evangelical churches won't even allow prayers for homosexual marriages as the Church of England is now.
Barely any Muslim imams will perform homosexual marriage of course either
It still does not make it right that the COE denies same sex marriage
Well if more people who support same sex marriage went to Church of England churches, had votes on Deanery Synod reps who vote at General Synod etc then change would come quicker.
Instead evangelicals who oppose homosexual marriage are still able to elect more anti gay marriage Synod reps as they always ensure they fill their hardline evangelical churches!!
This looks like the key point. From the Church Times;
The Church Times understands that there was “some way off” a two-thirds majority in favour of same-sex marriage in church among the bishops. This is thought to be a key reason why individual bishops in favour of allowing same-sex marriage saw no point in sending something to Synod that would have required a two-thirds majority in each House, only for it to be voted down by the Bishops.
Which is the price one pays for not letting 50.1% simply overrrule 49.9%. But it's an awfully high threshold, especially against a determined minority. And this synod is in place until 2026. Where's the betting on the results of that election?
Evangelicals have their biggest strength in the House of Laity, so it would not have got 2/3 there even if it passed the House of Bishops. The House of Clergy though already likely has a 2/3 majority for homosexual marriages
The analysis I saw of the 2021 synod elections was roughly 40% for SSM, 40% against change, and 20% unknown. Evangelicals are the largest block, but probably not a majority. But definitely enough to form a blocking minority, at least until 2026.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Many have a deep Christian faith and as such should have the right to be married in the church of their choosing
It is just wrong to deny them something which is important to them
By that logic there's no point to church organisations at all, since whatever theological differences exists it would be wrong to deny the individual who claimed to be a part.
I was there and saw Lloyd Russell Moyle bizarrely go and sit close to Miriam Cates on the Conservative side of chamber after his extraordinary outburst. So I moved and sat next to Miriam to support my colleague.
This morning I suggested that @RosieDuffield1 was mistaken - I’m happy to correct that - she wasn’t Here is the intimidation and bullying in three screenshots I hope @CommonsSpeaker@Keir_Starmer and @UKLabour will now investigate Lloyd Russell-Moyle’s behaviour in parliament
She will be told to have thicker skin, I imagine. Opponent and all that. But Russell-Moyle is a bit of a strange, volatile man given some of his outbursts and hissy fits over the years.
54:46 Yes: No (not counting DKs as either side!) - Electoral Calculus. Between January 11 to 18 this year, n = 1098.
'Polling expert Professor John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, said it was "too soon" to tell whether the UK Government's intervention had any impact on Scots' voting intentions.
But he suggested that the results suggested that a reported drop-off in Yes support which followed the Supreme Court ruling may not be the case.
He said: "There isn't any evidence here that this is any clear indication that the GRR row has pushed support for independence up any higher.
"What it does do is suggest that maybe we can doubt whether or not the impact of the Supreme Court judgment has dissapated in the way that some other polls have suggested."'
NB the timing also means it doesn't take into account Mr Jack so clearly claiming it's nothing to do with trans and everything to do with London control of devolved assemblies.
Well if more people who support same sex marriage went to Church of England churches, had votes on Deanery Synod reps who vote at General Synod etc then change would come quicker.
A pretty idiotic thing to say, as it was the bishops who blocked it.
But the really idiotic thing is that we still have an established church in this day and age, represented by members of the House of Lords (!). Maybe the answer is for bishops to be elected. In which case quite of a few of them would be gay and/or Muslim or Jewish ...
No you idiot ...
You're not really in any position for name-calling, considering you were telling us only a few days ago that the Church of England was about to approve same-sex marriage!
Almost beyond belief - if we hadn't had ample prior experience of your trying to rewrite history to disguise your egregious idiocy.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Many have a deep Christian faith and as such should have the right to be married in the church of their choosing
It is just wrong to deny them something which is important to them
By that logic there's no point to church organisations at all, since whatever theological differences exists it would be wrong to deny the individual who claimed to be a part.
And, as I have remarked in the past, bloody odd for a State church to deny marriage to a couple who are absolutely legally entitled to it by that selfsame state. Teachers can't refuse to teach gay students, civil servants can't refuse to do the tax returns of gay people ...
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
The Dura Ace contingent argument I think is that current events show Russia is crap, so you don't need to spend more on your army. I assume that is presuming what remains is effective though.
The two most popular opinions arising from the conflict, firstly we should spend a lot more on defence and a smaller group saying we should spend a lot less. Not heard anyone say we have got it about right, but feels that way to me?
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, Baptist, charismatic Evangelical churches won't even allow prayers for homosexual marriages as the Church of England is now.
Barely any Muslim imams will perform homosexual marriage of course either
It still does not make it right that the COE denies same sex marriage
Well if more people who support same sex marriage went to Church of England churches, had votes on Deanery Synod reps who vote at General Synod etc then change would come quicker.
Instead evangelicals who oppose homosexual marriage are still able to elect more anti gay marriage Synod reps as they always ensure they fill their hardline evangelical churches!!
This looks like the key point. From the Church Times;
The Church Times understands that there was “some way off” a two-thirds majority in favour of same-sex marriage in church among the bishops. This is thought to be a key reason why individual bishops in favour of allowing same-sex marriage saw no point in sending something to Synod that would have required a two-thirds majority in each House, only for it to be voted down by the Bishops.
Which is the price one pays for not letting 50.1% simply overrrule 49.9%. But it's an awfully high threshold, especially against a determined minority. And this synod is in place until 2026. Where's the betting on the results of that election?
Rule of thumb in such matters (IIRC found inscribed on a Babylonian clay brick?) is simple: > when you have the required votes - VOTE. And when you don't? - DON'T.
Would that the Democrats in US Congress 2017-20 had had the wisdom to imbibe this ancient wisdom!
Seeing as how their first two impeachments versus #45 were (at best) failed PR exercises that (allegedly) enthused the Democratic base, but which also strengthened Trump among HIS base, while NOT impressing swing voters overmuch in 2020. AND made it HARDER (politically if not morally) for Republicans in Congress to go against the Trump riptide, even after the Proudest Boy rallied his minions to sack the Capitol.
So will cut the Bishop of Church of England By Law Established plenty of slack this point.
However, given we're talking about a legally-established Church, should not the ultimate legal authority be King in Parliament? And NOT an episcopal synod?
But better for COE to NOT be Established? Instead, Free?
Retaining its ancient & present fabric, indeed serving in many cases as steward and caretaker in the national - and global - interest. With suitable financial & other support from government, as regulated by law. And with equal access to other resources available to all faith traditions (meeting basic legal stipulations) on grounds of WIDE variety of genuine community services to equally varied range of communities.
From Crackpot to the Shepard's Bush Roundabout, and back again. Ditto from Cape to Karachi to Kalgoorlie.
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
The Dura Ace contingent argument I think is that current events show Russia is crap, so you don't need to spend more on your army. I assume that is presuming what remains is effective though.
Well it’s certainly true, that the Russian military has shown itself to be less capable than expected, and it’s likely that continuing sanctions for several years on military equipment will slow their efforts to re-arm themselves, after this war which has destroyed their capability. The Ukranian number for Russian tanks destroyed or captured, is now damn close to estimates for the number of Russian tanks extant before this war started. They’re pulling relics of the Soviet/Afghan war out of museums and boneyards, to send to their front line in Ukraine.
But re-arm themselves, they will. And Europe had better be ready for when they do.
If Germany had any sense, they’d see this as a huge opportunity to drive development and exports of military equipment to the rest of Europe and beyond. There’s also a lot of non-European countries with Soviet kit, that are now re-evaluating its suitability. UK and France will certainly be pushing military tech exports in the coming years, as of course will the Americans.
American politics is I fear starting to turn on this war, there’s increasingly comments about the lack of Europe’s ability to defend itself, and instead rely continually on Uncle Sam to bail them out. Europe is full of developed, first world countries, who should be able to defend themselves and their near neighbours.
Well if more people who support same sex marriage went to Church of England churches, had votes on Deanery Synod reps who vote at General Synod etc then change would come quicker.
A pretty idiotic thing to say, as it was the bishops who blocked it.
But the really idiotic thing is that we still have an established church in this day and age, represented by members of the House of Lords (!). Maybe the answer is for bishops to be elected. In which case quite of a few of them would be gay and/or Muslim or Jewish ...
No you idiot, any change has to get through Synod whatever the Bishops say. Liberals are still likely to table the issue at Synod next month anyway.
If however you went to Church yourself and stopped your ranting from the sidelines then you could get a say on the future direction of the Church of England.
46% of the UK are still Christian, less than 5% of the fully appointed, unelected Lords are Bishops.
Eh? The C of E is a democracy? Henry VIII would chop off your head and wollocks and eviscerate you for claiming that.
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
The Dura Ace contingent argument I think is that current events show Russia is crap, so you don't need to spend more on your army. I assume that is presuming what remains is effective though.
The two most popular opinions arising from the conflict, firstly we should spend a lot more on defence and a smaller group saying we should spend a lot less. Not heard anyone say we have got it about right, but feels that way to me?
I think it might be the right amount, if it were spent well, but I suspect it is not.
Labour (50%) now has a 26-point lead over the Conservatives (24%) Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s approval rating dropped by four points to 26% - his disapproval rating surged six points to 41% Sir Keir Starmer surged ahead as the public’s choice to be Prime Minister on 40% (+3%) as Rishi Sunak lost five points and now sits on 27%
ON BREXIT SENTIMENT
60% (+1%) of voters would like to see the UK re-join the European Union against 40% (-1%) who want the UK to stay out 62% of people believe there should be an independent enquiry into the impact of Brexit on the economy, businesses and citizens – 22% said there should not be an inquiry
ON TAX AFFAIRS
48% said Nadim Zahawi received different treatment from the HMRC over his tax affairs compared to average taxpayers 70% agreed that Mr Zahawi has more questions to answer over his tax affairs 76% said all government ministers should publish their tax returns
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Because they think God welcomes and approves of them and that the church is the authorised intermediary.
Is not the church the higher arbiter of what god thinks or doesn't think? We can't have random gay people running around telling us what he thinks.
To be fair that Jesus fellow travelled around with 12 blokes all the time and never seemed to have a girlfriend.
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
I fear Germany thinks it can save money on having to maintain a functioning army by appeasing its enemies.
What good reasons are there for them doing this? The "US must send Abrams!" is bullshit, from both a moral and a practical viewpoint, as the UK is sending MBTs (and not ignoring all the other ex-Soviet tanks sent over last year).
Yes, I know Germany's doing a lot. But this is manna from Heaven for the Kremlin; both in terms of actual hardware and messaging. As much as anything else, it shows their opposition can be easily split.
It seems pretty obvious to me that NATO is indeed following the policy of providing just enough help to Ukraine to keep Russia bogged down in a war of attrition but not enough to drive Russia back and possibly spark nuclear retaliation. This is exactly what I predicted would happen and what makes the most sense.
Your notion that Germany is going to piss everyone off just to save a few pennies on its military spending makes no sense whatsoever.
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
The Dura Ace contingent argument I think is that current events show Russia is crap, so you don't need to spend more on your army. I assume that is presuming what remains is effective though.
The two most popular opinions arising from the conflict, firstly we should spend a lot more on defence and a smaller group saying we should spend a lot less. Not heard anyone say we have got it about right, but feels that way to me?
I think it might be the right amount, if it were spent well, but I suspect it is not.
We really on our enemies to be at least equally ineffecient which is probably safe enough.....
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
The Dura Ace contingent argument I think is that current events show Russia is crap, so you don't need to spend more on your army. I assume that is presuming what remains is effective though.
The two most popular opinions arising from the conflict, firstly we should spend a lot more on defence and a smaller group saying we should spend a lot less. Not heard anyone say we have got it about right, but feels that way to me?
I think it might be the right amount, if it were spent well, but I suspect it is not.
We really on our enemies to be at least equally ineffecient which is probably safe enough.....
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
The Dura Ace contingent argument I think is that current events show Russia is crap, so you don't need to spend more on your army. I assume that is presuming what remains is effective though.
The two most popular opinions arising from the conflict, firstly we should spend a lot more on defence and a smaller group saying we should spend a lot less. Not heard anyone say we have got it about right, but feels that way to me?
I think it might be the right amount, if it were spent well, but I suspect it is not.
We really on our enemies to be at least equally ineffecient which is probably safe enough.....
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, Baptist, charismatic Evangelical churches won't even allow prayers for homosexual marriages as the Church of England is now.
Barely any Muslim imams will perform homosexual marriage of course either
It still does not make it right that the COE denies same sex marriage
Well if more people who support same sex marriage went to Church of England churches, had votes on Deanery Synod reps who vote at General Synod etc then change would come quicker.
Instead evangelicals who oppose homosexual marriage are still able to elect more anti gay marriage Synod reps as they always ensure they fill their hardline evangelical churches!!
This looks like the key point. From the Church Times;
The Church Times understands that there was “some way off” a two-thirds majority in favour of same-sex marriage in church among the bishops. This is thought to be a key reason why individual bishops in favour of allowing same-sex marriage saw no point in sending something to Synod that would have required a two-thirds majority in each House, only for it to be voted down by the Bishops.
Which is the price one pays for not letting 50.1% simply overrrule 49.9%. But it's an awfully high threshold, especially against a determined minority. And this synod is in place until 2026. Where's the betting on the results of that election?
"same-sex marriage in church among the bishops"
That would get the swivel-eyed foaming at the mouth.
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
The Dura Ace contingent argument I think is that current events show Russia is crap, so you don't need to spend more on your army. I assume that is presuming what remains is effective though.
The two most popular opinions arising from the conflict, firstly we should spend a lot more on defence and a smaller group saying we should spend a lot less. Not heard anyone say we have got it about right, but feels that way to me?
I think it might be the right amount, if it were spent well, but I suspect it is not.
We really on our enemies to be at least equally ineffecient which is probably safe enough.....
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Many have a deep Christian faith and as such should have the right to be married in the church of their choosing
It is just wrong to deny them something which is important to them
By that logic there's no point to church organisations at all, since whatever theological differences exists it would be wrong to deny the individual who claimed to be a part.
And, as I have remarked in the past, bloody odd for a State church to deny marriage to a couple who are absolutely legally entitled to it by that selfsame state. Teachers can't refuse to teach gay students, civil servants can't refuse to do the tax returns of gay people ...
Nor by law can any "service provider", public or private - whether charging for the service or not - refuse to provide the service on grounds that the person concerned is gay.
Arguments about disestablishment aside. the position of the Church of England would seem pretty anomalous.
On Sarah Palin: In 2008, I thought columnist Noemie Emery had it right when she wrote that -- while both Obama and Palin had promise -- neither was ready for the job they were running for.
And I think that events have shown, in different ways, that Emery was right -- about both.
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
The Dura Ace contingent argument I think is that current events show Russia is crap, so you don't need to spend more on your army. I assume that is presuming what remains is effective though.
The two most popular opinions arising from the conflict, firstly we should spend a lot more on defence and a smaller group saying we should spend a lot less. Not heard anyone say we have got it about right, but feels that way to me?
I think it might be the right amount, if it were spent well, but I suspect it is not.
We really on our enemies to be at least equally ineffecient which is probably safe enough.....
Probably…
What do you expect on a betting website....
Odds?
Next successful invasion of the UK.
1.6 AI Robots 4.5 Aliens 8 USA 12 China 25 EU 66 Russia
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
The Dura Ace contingent argument I think is that current events show Russia is crap, so you don't need to spend more on your army. I assume that is presuming what remains is effective though.
The two most popular opinions arising from the conflict, firstly we should spend a lot more on defence and a smaller group saying we should spend a lot less. Not heard anyone say we have got it about right, but feels that way to me?
I think it might be the right amount, if it were spent well, but I suspect it is not.
We really on our enemies to be at least equally ineffecient which is probably safe enough.....
Probably…
What do you expect on a betting website....
Odds?
Next successful invasion of the UK.
1.6 AI Robots 4.5 Aliens 8 USA 12 China 25 EU 66 Russia
That’s more like it. I think you’ve got Russia and USA the wrong way around though!
USA Today - 'We're going first no matter what.' NH governor rules out idea of moving presidential primary
Penalties or not, New Hampshire will kick off Democrats’ presidential selection process in 2024, the state’s Republican Gov. Chris Sununu says, extending a fight with the Democratic Party that could lead to a bruising loss for President Joe Biden in the early voting state.
“We're going first no matter what,” Sununu said. “The White House badly mismanaged this, and the blowback has been extraordinary from all levels of the Democrat party.”
[Sununu undermines his argument with Ds by NOT saying "Democratic Party" but maybe that part of his intention? And "Democrat Party" (unhistorical) is GOP code for "I'm NOT a Rhino!"]
A calendar that Democrats’ rule-making panel approved last month – at Biden’s behest – puts New Hampshire second and on the same day as Nevada. States were given a month to say they would comply.
Sununu, who is expected to challenge Biden for the presidency, is refusing. State law requires New Hampshire to hold the country's first primary — and Republicans who control the state legislature say they will not change it.
SSI - In case you didn't catch it, allow me to repeat from above:
"Sununu, who is expected to challenge Biden for the presidency . . ."
That said, the New Hampshire Primary is definitely a BI-PARTISAN cause in the great Granite State. A major source of state pride AND significant quadrennial cottage industry.
Years ago, none other than Nancy Pelosi, when she was a youngish congresswoman and already part of House Democratic leadership, visited Concord on a mission to persuade (read bully) local officials into going along with previous effort to bump NH from poll position as First Primary. Her first appointment being NH Secretary of State.
Imagine a heavy-duty bulldozer running full tilt into a convenient rock quarry at base of Mount Washington.
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
I fear Germany thinks it can save money on having to maintain a functioning army by appeasing its enemies.
What good reasons are there for them doing this? The "US must send Abrams!" is bullshit, from both a moral and a practical viewpoint, as the UK is sending MBTs (and not ignoring all the other ex-Soviet tanks sent over last year).
Yes, I know Germany's doing a lot. But this is manna from Heaven for the Kremlin; both in terms of actual hardware and messaging. As much as anything else, it shows their opposition can be easily split.
It seems pretty obvious to me that NATO is indeed following the policy of providing just enough help to Ukraine to keep Russia bogged down in a war of attrition but not enough to drive Russia back and possibly spark nuclear retaliation. This is exactly what I predicted would happen and what makes the most sense.
Your notion that Germany is going to piss everyone off just to save a few pennies on its military spending makes no sense whatsoever.
The 'just enough' argument is imv fallacious, because it's impossible to judge what level that is. It's how you end up getting an unpleasant surprise when one side suddenly breaks through.
Germany's words and actions make little sense to me. It really is playing into Moscow's hands, especially on the PR front as it screams of divisions within the allies.
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
The Dura Ace contingent argument I think is that current events show Russia is crap, so you don't need to spend more on your army. I assume that is presuming what remains is effective though.
The two most popular opinions arising from the conflict, firstly we should spend a lot more on defence and a smaller group saying we should spend a lot less. Not heard anyone say we have got it about right, but feels that way to me?
I think it might be the right amount, if it were spent well, but I suspect it is not.
We really on our enemies to be at least equally ineffecient which is probably safe enough.....
Probably…
What do you expect on a betting website....
Odds?
Next successful invasion of the UK.
1.6 AI Robots 4.5 Aliens 8 USA 12 China 25 EU 66 Russia
No No No...
The threat is not from "AI Robots" and "Aliens" but WokeTransAlienIllegalImmigrantAIs. And they Are! Already! Here!
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
The Dura Ace contingent argument I think is that current events show Russia is crap, so you don't need to spend more on your army. I assume that is presuming what remains is effective though.
The two most popular opinions arising from the conflict, firstly we should spend a lot more on defence and a smaller group saying we should spend a lot less. Not heard anyone say we have got it about right, but feels that way to me?
I think it might be the right amount, if it were spent well, but I suspect it is not.
We really on our enemies to be at least equally ineffecient which is probably safe enough.....
Probably…
What do you expect on a betting website....
Odds?
Next successful invasion of the UK.
1.6 AI Robots 4.5 Aliens 8 USA 12 China 25 EU 66 Russia
That’s more like it. I think you’ve got Russia and USA the wrong way around though!
It is the US-Russian alliance we need to watch out for.
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
The Dura Ace contingent argument I think is that current events show Russia is crap, so you don't need to spend more on your army. I assume that is presuming what remains is effective though.
The two most popular opinions arising from the conflict, firstly we should spend a lot more on defence and a smaller group saying we should spend a lot less. Not heard anyone say we have got it about right, but feels that way to me?
I think it might be the right amount, if it were spent well, but I suspect it is not.
We really on our enemies to be at least equally ineffecient which is probably safe enough.....
Probably…
What do you expect on a betting website....
Odds?
Next successful invasion of the UK.
1.6 AI Robots 4.5 Aliens 8 USA 12 China 25 EU 66 Russia
Can't even be taken over by a homebuilt army of AI robots, has to be an invasion, another sad indicator of decline.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
No. Translated from the Martian it means:
"Globally the Anglican communion is absolutely split on a binary issue that cannot be for ever evaded. For many (on both sides) both in England and overseas it is an issue over which they are prepared to split the church. I, as AoC, want to avoid bringing that split about if I can. Sitting on the fence, facing both ways with both ears to the ground while talking in contradictory ways is my only option. Let's hope for the best. Please do not mention that many of the strongest 'Biblical' opponents of the gays, including a lot of my old evangelical friends are perfectly comfortable with divorce and remarriage which Jesus (and Paul) explicitly ban. Amen".
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
I fear Germany thinks it can save money on having to maintain a functioning army by appeasing its enemies.
What good reasons are there for them doing this? The "US must send Abrams!" is bullshit, from both a moral and a practical viewpoint, as the UK is sending MBTs (and not ignoring all the other ex-Soviet tanks sent over last year).
Yes, I know Germany's doing a lot. But this is manna from Heaven for the Kremlin; both in terms of actual hardware and messaging. As much as anything else, it shows their opposition can be easily split.
It seems pretty obvious to me that NATO is indeed following the policy of providing just enough help to Ukraine to keep Russia bogged down in a war of attrition but not enough to drive Russia back and possibly spark nuclear retaliation. This is exactly what I predicted would happen and what makes the most sense.
Your notion that Germany is going to piss everyone off just to save a few pennies on its military spending makes no sense whatsoever.
The 'just enough' argument is imv fallacious, because it's impossible to judge what level that is. It's how you end up getting an unpleasant surprise when one side suddenly breaks through.
Germany's words and actions make little sense to me. It really is playing into Moscow's hands, especially on the PR front as it screams of divisions within the allies.
Tonight's news headlined Germany's attitude to the tanks and it was not a good look and gave the impression of the allies frustration at the prevarication by Germany
F1: just seen Ladbrokes' specials for F1 this year. Not tempted by any of them. Lack of an each way option for title betting is also a little disappointing.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
No. Translated from the Martian it means:
"Globally the Anglican communion is absolutely split on a binary issue that cannot be for ever evaded. For many (on both sides) both in England and overseas it is an issue over which they are prepared to split the church. I, as AoC, want to avoid bringing that split about if I can. Sitting on the fence, facing both ways with both ears to the ground while talking in contradictory ways is my only option. Let's hope for the best. Please do not mention that many of the strongest 'Biblical' opponents of the gays, including a lot of my old evangelical friends are perfectly comfortable with divorce and remarriage which Jesus (and Paul) explicitly ban. Amen".
Indeed, there is a huge divide from Anglican churches in the US, Wales and Scotland which allow homosexual marriages already in their churches to Anglican churches in Africa, in countries where homosexuality is often still illegal let alone homosexual marriage being legal.
The only way is a conscience basis, let each Province in the Anglican Communion decide its own position.
The Anglican Communion is only a loose alliance anyway, like the Commonwealth except the Archbishop of Canterbury is not even head of it but primus inter pares ie first amongst equals. It is not the Roman Catholic Church which is one united Church where what the Pope and Vatican say goes for Roman Catholic churches across the world
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
No. Translated from the Martian it means:
"Globally the Anglican communion is absolutely split on a binary issue that cannot be for ever evaded. For many (on both sides) both in England and overseas it is an issue over which they are prepared to split the church. I, as AoC, want to avoid bringing that split about if I can. Sitting on the fence, facing both ways with both ears to the ground while talking in contradictory ways is my only option. Let's hope for the best. Please do not mention that many of the strongest 'Biblical' opponents of the gays, including a lot of my old evangelical friends are perfectly comfortable with divorce and remarriage which Jesus (and Paul) explicitly ban. Amen".
Not just that. The approach the bishops are taking is cowardly, worldly-political, and leaves the pain to be borne by gay Anglicans.
But, given the rules they have to work in, they're absolutely right to do this terrible stuff.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Because they think God welcomes and approves of them and that the church is the authorised intermediary.
Is not the church the higher arbiter of what god thinks or doesn't think? We can't have random gay people running around telling us what he thinks.
To be fair that Jesus fellow travelled around with 12 blokes all the time and never seemed to have a girlfriend.
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
The Dura Ace contingent argument I think is that current events show Russia is crap, so you don't need to spend more on your army. I assume that is presuming what remains is effective though.
The two most popular opinions arising from the conflict, firstly we should spend a lot more on defence and a smaller group saying we should spend a lot less. Not heard anyone say we have got it about right, but feels that way to me?
I think it might be the right amount, if it were spent well, but I suspect it is not.
We really on our enemies to be at least equally ineffecient which is probably safe enough.....
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
I fear Germany thinks it can save money on having to maintain a functioning army by appeasing its enemies.
What good reasons are there for them doing this? The "US must send Abrams!" is bullshit, from both a moral and a practical viewpoint, as the UK is sending MBTs (and not ignoring all the other ex-Soviet tanks sent over last year).
Yes, I know Germany's doing a lot. But this is manna from Heaven for the Kremlin; both in terms of actual hardware and messaging. As much as anything else, it shows their opposition can be easily split.
It seems pretty obvious to me that NATO is indeed following the policy of providing just enough help to Ukraine to keep Russia bogged down in a war of attrition but not enough to drive Russia back and possibly spark nuclear retaliation. This is exactly what I predicted would happen and what makes the most sense.
Your notion that Germany is going to piss everyone off just to save a few pennies on its military spending makes no sense whatsoever.
The 'just enough' argument is imv fallacious, because it's impossible to judge what level that is. It's how you end up getting an unpleasant surprise when one side suddenly breaks through.
Germany's words and actions make little sense to me. It really is playing into Moscow's hands, especially on the PR front as it screams of divisions within the allies.
For what Germany really playing into Russia's hands would look like, imagine German service personnel being sent to fight in the war.
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
I fear Germany thinks it can save money on having to maintain a functioning army by appeasing its enemies.
What good reasons are there for them doing this? The "US must send Abrams!" is bullshit, from both a moral and a practical viewpoint, as the UK is sending MBTs (and not ignoring all the other ex-Soviet tanks sent over last year).
Yes, I know Germany's doing a lot. But this is manna from Heaven for the Kremlin; both in terms of actual hardware and messaging. As much as anything else, it shows their opposition can be easily split.
It seems pretty obvious to me that NATO is indeed following the policy of providing just enough help to Ukraine to keep Russia bogged down in a war of attrition but not enough to drive Russia back and possibly spark nuclear retaliation. This is exactly what I predicted would happen and what makes the most sense.
Your notion that Germany is going to piss everyone off just to save a few pennies on its military spending makes no sense whatsoever.
The 'just enough' argument is imv fallacious, because it's impossible to judge what level that is. It's how you end up getting an unpleasant surprise when one side suddenly breaks through.
Germany's words and actions make little sense to me. It really is playing into Moscow's hands, especially on the PR front as it screams of divisions within the allies.
It’s the same playbook as during the Eurozone crisis. Germany is allergic to big gestures. I remember Cameron at the time annoying them by demanding they get out the “big bazooka”. Well now there’s the same demand, but for literal big bazookas (well, tanks).
They are temperamentally and institutionally cautious. The trouble is I know the sort and the more they are nagged by everyone else the more stubborn they will become, making a virtue about not rushing in headlong. It’s the precautionary principle taken to extremes.
If NATO tanks has just been shipped across as a matter of course months ago with no fuss they would by now be a basic fact of life. Like HIMARS.
The USSR not only supplied all sorts of heavy weaponry to North Vietnam during the war but large numbers of fighter planes some of which were actually flown by Soviet “advisers”.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
No. Translated from the Martian it means:
"Globally the Anglican communion is absolutely split on a binary issue that cannot be for ever evaded. For many (on both sides) both in England and overseas it is an issue over which they are prepared to split the church. I, as AoC, want to avoid bringing that split about if I can. Sitting on the fence, facing both ways with both ears to the ground while talking in contradictory ways is my only option. Let's hope for the best. Please do not mention that many of the strongest 'Biblical' opponents of the gays, including a lot of my old evangelical friends are perfectly comfortable with divorce and remarriage which Jesus (and Paul) explicitly ban. Amen".
Indeed, there is a huge divide from Anglican churches in the US, Wales and Scotland which allow homosexual marriages already in their churches to Anglican churches in Africa, in countries where homosexuality is often still illegal let alone homosexual marriage being legal.
The only way is a conscience basis, let each Province in the Anglican Communion decide its own position.
The Anglican Communion is only a loose alliance anyway, like the Commonwealth except the Archbishop of Canterbury is not even head of it but primus inter pares ie first amongst equals. It is not the Roman Catholic Church which is one united Church where what the Pope and Vatican say goes for Roman Catholic churches across the world
You do realise your last paragraph is an argument _against_ the point you're trying to make.
Do you ever think at all as your fingers move over the keyboard?
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Because they think God welcomes and approves of them and that the church is the authorised intermediary.
Is not the church the higher arbiter of what god thinks or doesn't think? We can't have random gay people running around telling us what he thinks.
To be fair that Jesus fellow travelled around with 12 blokes all the time and never seemed to have a girlfriend.
He and Mary Magdalene were an item according to some scholars. A nice thought, true or not.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
No. Translated from the Martian it means:
"Globally the Anglican communion is absolutely split on a binary issue that cannot be for ever evaded. For many (on both sides) both in England and overseas it is an issue over which they are prepared to split the church. I, as AoC, want to avoid bringing that split about if I can. Sitting on the fence, facing both ways with both ears to the ground while talking in contradictory ways is my only option. Let's hope for the best. Please do not mention that many of the strongest 'Biblical' opponents of the gays, including a lot of my old evangelical friends are perfectly comfortable with divorce and remarriage which Jesus (and Paul) explicitly ban. Amen".
Not just that. The approach the bishops are taking is cowardly, worldly-political, and leaves the pain to be borne by gay Anglicans.
But, given the rules they have to work in, they're absolutely right to do this terrible stuff.
Rubbish. As @HYUFD says if more people attended church then pretty soon there would be pressure to change. They don't so there isn't.
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?
I fear Germany thinks it can save money on having to maintain a functioning army by appeasing its enemies.
What good reasons are there for them doing this? The "US must send Abrams!" is bullshit, from both a moral and a practical viewpoint, as the UK is sending MBTs (and not ignoring all the other ex-Soviet tanks sent over last year).
Yes, I know Germany's doing a lot. But this is manna from Heaven for the Kremlin; both in terms of actual hardware and messaging. As much as anything else, it shows their opposition can be easily split.
It seems pretty obvious to me that NATO is indeed following the policy of providing just enough help to Ukraine to keep Russia bogged down in a war of attrition but not enough to drive Russia back and possibly spark nuclear retaliation. This is exactly what I predicted would happen and what makes the most sense.
Your notion that Germany is going to piss everyone off just to save a few pennies on its military spending makes no sense whatsoever.
The 'just enough' argument is imv fallacious, because it's impossible to judge what level that is. It's how you end up getting an unpleasant surprise when one side suddenly breaks through.
Germany's words and actions make little sense to me. It really is playing into Moscow's hands, especially on the PR front as it screams of divisions within the allies.
For what Germany really playing into Russia's hands would look like, imagine German service personnel being sent to fight in the war.
1. Ain’t going to happen. Try to ignore what your local state TV tells you 2. We dealt with this before. The idea Ukrainians will suddenly feel a visceral change of heart if they see Germans fighting alongside them because of some ancestral WW2 instinct is as absurd as Kenyans feeling the same if Germans came to help them defeat a British reconquest.
> Democratic National Committee WILL change primary calendar.
> New Hampshire will go ahead anyway and schedule NH Primary BEFORE South Carolina.
> DNC will strip New Hamphire of all 2024 Convention delegates, announced prior to NH Primary.
> Some will run as Democrats in NH anyway, but Biden will not IF he's candidate; and nor will any other major (so far) alternatives if Biden's out.
> After the snow has melted and dust has settled and prior to Democratic National Convention, a deal will be struck, and NH delegation will be seated.
This all would offer Republican candidates a more-or-less free field in New Hampshire. Including potential for significant cross-over voting by Democrats.
Possible to likely presence of Governor Sununu the Younger on Republican primary ballot, as either a serious contender OR as a Favorite Son (21st-century style) would make situation more complicated.
For example, would Ron DiSantis AND Donald Trump both battle it out against Sununu? OR would one or the other skip NH? A strategy that has been demonstrated in the past - for example by Rudy Giuliani - to be HIGHLY risky?
BTW, nothing recent in news re: Iowa Precinct Caucuses 2024. As of December, situation was the DNC had nixed them, whereas RNC was going head with starting GOP race yet again in the great Hawkeye State.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Because they think God welcomes and approves of them and that the church is the authorised intermediary.
Is not the church the higher arbiter of what god thinks or doesn't think? We can't have random gay people running around telling us what he thinks.
To be fair that Jesus fellow travelled around with 12 blokes all the time and never seemed to have a girlfriend.
On Sarah Palin: In 2008, I thought columnist Noemie Emery had it right when she wrote that -- while both Obama and Palin had promise -- neither was ready for the job they were running for.
And I think that events have shown, in different ways, that Emery was right -- about both.
On Sarah Palin: In 2008, I thought columnist Noemie Emery had it right when she wrote that -- while both Obama and Palin had promise -- neither was ready for the job they were running for.
And I think that events have shown, in different ways, that Emery was right -- about both.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Because they think God welcomes and approves of them and that the church is the authorised intermediary.
Is not the church the higher arbiter of what god thinks or doesn't think? We can't have random gay people running around telling us what he thinks.
To be fair that Jesus fellow travelled around with 12 blokes all the time and never seemed to have a girlfriend.
Wasn't that Chris Eubank Jr?
Have they ever been seen in the same room?
Not sure but in each case the father thought he was god so perhaps there's something in it
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
Welby is an evangelical, the natural cycle is the next Archbishop will be a liberal Catholic who almost certainly will bless homosexual marriages. See Runcie - liberal Catholic, Carey - evangelical, Williams - liberal Catholic etc.
By then full homosexual marriage may well have got through Synod anyway (with opt outs for evangelicals who object as now for Anglo Catholic Parishes who object to women priests and Bishops and for Vicars who don't want to marry divorcees).
What about our bet?
I don't think it (same sex marriage in the CofE) will happen in the next two years.
A tenner to the charity of the winner's choice?
It shames the COE that it will not agree to same sex marriage
It does indeed Big G but also it is interesting to me why a gay couple would want to get married in a church that transparently obviously doesn't welcome or approve of or recognise them.
But people are funny, I suppose.
Many have a deep Christian faith and as such should have the right to be married in the church of their choosing
It is just wrong to deny them something which is important to them
By that logic there's no point to church organisations at all, since whatever theological differences exists it would be wrong to deny the individual who claimed to be a part.
And, as I have remarked in the past, bloody odd for a State church to deny marriage to a couple who are absolutely legally entitled to it by that selfsame state. Teachers can't refuse to teach gay students, civil servants can't refuse to do the tax returns of gay people ...
Nor by law can any "service provider", public or private - whether charging for the service or not - refuse to provide the service on grounds that the person concerned is gay.
Arguments about disestablishment aside. the position of the Church of England would seem pretty anomalous.
Yet establishmentarianism is relevant. HYUFD is always saying that the point of the establishment of the C of E is to giver everyoine somewhere they can get married in their home parish. Now that argument is comprehensively trashed.
And registrars in state registry offices (albeit local gmt agents of central gmt) aren't allowed to discriminate.
The Archbishop of Canterbury commented on the proposals that would allow same-sex unions to be blessed: ... because of my pastoral care and responsibility of being a focus of unity for the whole communion I will - while being extremely joyfully celebratory of these new resources - I will not personally use them in order to compromise that pastoral care
Not sure whether there's a "not" missing from that sentence, though what with the "I will ... I will not" its construction is a bit confusing.
Gay couples will no doubt take heart from the fact that the archbishop is "extremely joyfully celebratory" of the fact he could have give a blessing, but won't.
I wonder, could the archbishop be any more emphatically on the fence without actually impaling a delicate part of his anatomy?
No. Translated from the Martian it means:
"Globally the Anglican communion is absolutely split on a binary issue that cannot be for ever evaded. For many (on both sides) both in England and overseas it is an issue over which they are prepared to split the church. I, as AoC, want to avoid bringing that split about if I can. Sitting on the fence, facing both ways with both ears to the ground while talking in contradictory ways is my only option. Let's hope for the best. Please do not mention that many of the strongest 'Biblical' opponents of the gays, including a lot of my old evangelical friends are perfectly comfortable with divorce and remarriage which Jesus (and Paul) explicitly ban. Amen".
Indeed, there is a huge divide from Anglican churches in the US, Wales and Scotland which allow homosexual marriages already in their churches to Anglican churches in Africa, in countries where homosexuality is often still illegal let alone homosexual marriage being legal.
The only way is a conscience basis, let each Province in the Anglican Communion decide its own position.
The Anglican Communion is only a loose alliance anyway, like the Commonwealth except the Archbishop of Canterbury is not even head of it but primus inter pares ie first amongst equals. It is not the Roman Catholic Church which is one united Church where what the Pope and Vatican say goes for Roman Catholic churches across the world
You do realise your last paragraph is an argument _against_ the point you're trying to make.
Do you ever think at all as your fingers move over the keyboard?
He's also contradixcting himself in another way - he once tried to argue that the C of E had superiority over the Episcopal Church of Scotland just because Anglican Communion. (They are sister churches, independently formed.)
Comments
But people are funny, I suppose.
Barely any Muslim imams will perform homosexual marriage of course either
Take it or not?
With the signs in Scottish numbers, I think overall majority (able to govern without coalition, with the usual non-voting MPs etc) is 70%+ now.
Buttigieg is popular with suburban voters who will decide the next election, indeed probably more so than DeSantis and Trump. DeSantis of course firmly pro restricting abortion
> what is reasonable handicap one needs to factor into wagering calculations, with respect to Amendment XII of US Constitution (proposed 1803, ratified 1804) which states in part:
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; . . ."
Note that in 2024, the Electoral Vote of State of Florida = 30.
It is just wrong to deny them something which is important to them
Ahem. I will always wonder if I could have worded that differently.
Seat covers are a bit 1970s.
The average of those polls is almost identical to the average of the 28 polls in December.
Instead evangelicals who oppose homosexual marriage are still able to elect more anti gay marriage Synod reps as they always ensure they fill their hardline evangelical churches!!
Despite that though change will come, over 50% of Anglicans in England now back homosexual marriage for the first time.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/majority-of-church-of-england-worshippers-back-gay-marriage-896937b3n
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/20/competent-rishi-mirage-dissolving-front-eyes/
> For example, when Mitt Romney first ran for Governor of Massachusetts, his candidacy was challenged by Mass Democrats, on grounds that he'd declared he was resident of Utah to get a tax break on his ski chalet (or some such). But Mass courts (hardly a nest of Republicans!) ruled that had nothing to do with his legal domicile for purposes of voting (Mitt was a long-time active registered voter in Bay State) or running for office.
> On other hand, when New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof filed to run for Governor of Oregon in 2022 (as a Democrat) he was also challenged on ground of non-residency. But NOT because of a tax matter, instead, because he'd voted in New York in 2020, which combined with Oregon's 3-year residency qualification for state office, left him high, dry and OFF the 2022 primary ballot. In this case, state supreme court DID cites fact Kristof also had a NY State drivers license until end of 2020 - BUT the real sticking point was his VOTING residency in the Empire State as opposed to the Beaver State. Despite fact that he was native Oregonian and local property owner.
In Trump's case, the sticking point would be partly the "rootless anti-cosmopolitan" aspect. But MAJOR problem would (I think) The Donald's disinclination (to put it mildly) to yield on such a point to anyone else, including (or rather especially) Ron DiSantis. Let HIM move to Freaking, Alabama (just across state line from Hot Coffee, Mississippi).
The Germans can more easily ignore the UK tank contribution than it can that of the other member of the EU's ruling duumvirate.
However it does look, for the moment, that Putin is having some success in intimidating the Germans. If Russia was going to nuke anyone, it would the Germans, who are not Slavs - and the UK, France and USA are completely safe anyway for obvious reasons.
The Church Times understands that there was “some way off” a two-thirds majority in favour of same-sex marriage in church among the bishops. This is thought to be a key reason why individual bishops in favour of allowing same-sex marriage saw no point in sending something to Synod that would have required a two-thirds majority in each House, only for it to be voted down by the Bishops.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/20-january/news/uk/bishops-opt-for-blessings-for-same-sex-couples-in-church-but-not-marriage
Which is the price one pays for not letting 50.1% simply overrrule 49.9%. But it's an awfully high threshold, especially against a determined minority. And this synod is in place until 2026. Where's the betting on the results of that election?
What good reasons are there for them doing this? The "US must send Abrams!" is bullshit, from both a moral and a practical viewpoint, as the UK is sending MBTs (and not ignoring all the other ex-Soviet tanks sent over last year).
Yes, I know Germany's doing a lot. But this is manna from Heaven for the Kremlin; both in terms of actual hardware and messaging. As much as anything else, it shows their opposition can be easily split.
But the really idiotic thing is that we still have an established church in this day and age, represented by members of the House of Lords (!). Maybe the answer is for bishops to be elected. In which case quite of a few of them would be gay and/or Muslim or Jewish ...
Just for the LOLs.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/people/archbishop-of-york-confirms-he-will-bless-same-sex-marriages-in-church-as-justin-welby-says-he-will-not-3995336
On the other hand, if they want to make money selling German capital equipment and machinery to help rebuild Ukraine, then they should want this war to be over as quickly as possible.
Which means sending whatever arms can be spared, to help the Ukranians. Not just because it’s the right thing to do, Herr Sholz, but because it will also directly help German industry.
So, like Elton John and David Furnish, God had to make other arrangements.
If however you went to Church yourself and stopped your ranting from the sidelines then you could get a say on the future direction of the
Church of England.
46% of the UK are still Christian, less than 5% of the fully appointed, unelected Lords are Bishops.
It's not as though Christianity has ever been shy about using doctrinal or other disputes as a reason to found a new church.
Might as well get it done before next pmqs.
I was there and saw Lloyd Russell Moyle bizarrely go and sit close to Miriam Cates on the Conservative side of chamber after his extraordinary outburst. So I moved and sat next to Miriam to support my colleague.
This morning I suggested that @RosieDuffield1 was mistaken - I’m happy to correct that - she wasn’t Here is the intimidation and bullying in three screenshots I hope @CommonsSpeaker @Keir_Starmer and @UKLabour will now investigate Lloyd Russell-Moyle’s behaviour in parliament
https://twitter.com/paulbristow79/status/1616469826096230404
On their past record, they won't....
54:46 Yes: No (not counting DKs as either side!) - Electoral Calculus. Between January 11 to 18 this year, n = 1098.
'Polling expert Professor John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, said it was "too soon" to tell whether the UK Government's intervention had any impact on Scots' voting intentions.
But he suggested that the results suggested that a reported drop-off in Yes support which followed the Supreme Court ruling may not be the case.
He said: "There isn't any evidence here that this is any clear indication that the GRR row has pushed support for independence up any higher.
"What it does do is suggest that maybe we can doubt whether or not the impact of the Supreme Court judgment has dissapated in the way that some other polls have suggested."'
NB the timing also means it doesn't take into account Mr Jack so clearly claiming it's nothing to do with trans and everything to do with London control of devolved assemblies.
Almost beyond belief - if we hadn't had ample prior experience of your trying to rewrite history to disguise your egregious idiocy.
> when you have the required votes - VOTE. And when you don't? - DON'T.
Would that the Democrats in US Congress 2017-20 had had the wisdom to imbibe this ancient wisdom!
Seeing as how their first two impeachments versus #45 were (at best) failed PR exercises that (allegedly) enthused the Democratic base, but which also strengthened Trump among HIS base, while NOT impressing swing voters overmuch in 2020. AND made it HARDER (politically if not morally) for Republicans in Congress to go against the Trump riptide, even after the Proudest Boy rallied his minions to sack the Capitol.
So will cut the Bishop of Church of England By Law Established plenty of slack this point.
However, given we're talking about a legally-established Church, should not the ultimate legal authority be King in Parliament? And NOT an episcopal synod?
But better for COE to NOT be Established? Instead, Free?
Retaining its ancient & present fabric, indeed serving in many cases as steward and caretaker in the national - and global - interest. With suitable financial & other support from government, as regulated by law. And with equal access to other resources available to all faith traditions (meeting basic legal stipulations) on grounds of WIDE variety of genuine community services to equally varied range of communities.
From Crackpot to the Shepard's Bush Roundabout, and back again. Ditto from Cape to Karachi to Kalgoorlie.
But re-arm themselves, they will. And Europe had better be ready for when they do.
If Germany had any sense, they’d see this as a huge opportunity to drive development and exports of military equipment to the rest of Europe and beyond. There’s also a lot of non-European countries with Soviet kit, that are now re-evaluating its suitability. UK and France will certainly be pushing military tech exports in the coming years, as of course will the Americans.
American politics is I fear starting to turn on this war, there’s increasingly comments about the lack of Europe’s ability to defend itself, and instead rely continually on Uncle Sam to bail them out. Europe is full of developed, first world countries, who should be able to defend themselves and their near neighbours.
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 50% (+2)
CON: 24% (-4)
LDEM: 8% (+1)
GRN: 5% (-2)
REF: 5% (+2)
https://www.omnisis.co.uk/polls/turbulent-week-costs-tories-in-latest-poll/
ON VOTER INTENTION
Labour (50%) now has a 26-point lead over the Conservatives (24%)
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s approval rating dropped by four points to 26% - his disapproval rating surged six points to 41%
Sir Keir Starmer surged ahead as the public’s choice to be Prime Minister on 40% (+3%) as Rishi Sunak lost five points and now sits on 27%
ON BREXIT SENTIMENT
60% (+1%) of voters would like to see the UK re-join the European Union against 40% (-1%) who want the UK to stay out
62% of people believe there should be an independent enquiry into the impact of Brexit on the economy, businesses and citizens – 22% said there should not be an inquiry
ON TAX AFFAIRS
48% said Nadim Zahawi received different treatment from the HMRC over his tax affairs compared to average taxpayers
70% agreed that Mr Zahawi has more questions to answer over his tax affairs
76% said all government ministers should publish their tax returns
Your notion that Germany is going to piss everyone off just to save a few pennies on its military spending makes no sense whatsoever.
"The Labour Party has a woman problem
I know how it feels to be in an abusive relationship
By Rosie Duffield"
https://unherd.com/2023/01/the-labour-party-has-a-woman-problem/
That would get the swivel-eyed foaming at the mouth.
Arguments about disestablishment aside. the position of the Church of England would seem pretty anomalous.
Football: decided to back Lazio at home versus AC Milan at 3.25. Only four points between them, so a shade long.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2023/01/serie-20-january-2023.html
https://truenorth.scot/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/True-North-January-Poll-Summary-Document.pdf
House effects?
And I think that events have shown, in different ways, that Emery was right -- about both.
1.6 AI Robots
4.5 Aliens
8 USA
12 China
25 EU
66 Russia
USA Today - 'We're going first no matter what.' NH governor rules out idea of moving presidential primary
Penalties or not, New Hampshire will kick off Democrats’ presidential selection process in 2024, the state’s Republican Gov. Chris Sununu says, extending a fight with the Democratic Party that could lead to a bruising loss for President Joe Biden in the early voting state.
“We're going first no matter what,” Sununu said. “The White House badly mismanaged this, and the blowback has been extraordinary from all levels of the Democrat party.”
[Sununu undermines his argument with Ds by NOT saying "Democratic Party" but maybe that part of his intention? And "Democrat Party" (unhistorical) is GOP code for "I'm NOT a Rhino!"]
A calendar that Democrats’ rule-making panel approved last month – at Biden’s behest – puts New Hampshire second and on the same day as Nevada. States were given a month to say they would comply.
Sununu, who is expected to challenge Biden for the presidency, is refusing. State law requires New Hampshire to hold the country's first primary — and Republicans who control the state legislature say they will not change it.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/19/new-hampshire-2024-primary-sununu-democrats/11025071002/
SSI - In case you didn't catch it, allow me to repeat from above:
"Sununu, who is expected to challenge Biden for the presidency . . ."
That said, the New Hampshire Primary is definitely a BI-PARTISAN cause in the great Granite State. A major source of state pride AND significant quadrennial cottage industry.
Years ago, none other than Nancy Pelosi, when she was a youngish congresswoman and already part of House Democratic leadership, visited Concord on a mission to persuade (read bully) local officials into going along with previous effort to bump NH from poll position as First Primary. Her first appointment being NH Secretary of State.
Imagine a heavy-duty bulldozer running full tilt into a convenient rock quarry at base of Mount Washington.
Germany's words and actions make little sense to me. It really is playing into Moscow's hands, especially on the PR front as it screams of divisions within the allies.
The threat is not from "AI Robots" and "Aliens" but WokeTransAlienIllegalImmigrantAIs. And they Are! Already! Here!
Get with the program.
"Globally the Anglican communion is absolutely split on a binary issue that cannot be for ever evaded. For many (on both sides) both in England and overseas it is an issue over which they are prepared to split the church. I, as AoC, want to avoid bringing that split about if I can. Sitting on the fence, facing both ways with both ears to the ground while talking in contradictory ways is my only option. Let's hope for the best. Please do not mention that many of the strongest 'Biblical' opponents of the gays, including a lot of my old evangelical friends are perfectly comfortable with divorce and remarriage which Jesus (and Paul) explicitly ban. Amen".
The only way is a conscience basis, let each Province in the Anglican Communion decide its own position.
The Anglican Communion is only a loose alliance anyway, like the Commonwealth except the Archbishop of Canterbury is not even head of it but primus inter pares ie first amongst equals. It is not the Roman Catholic Church which is one united Church where what the Pope and Vatican say goes for Roman Catholic churches across the world
But, given the rules they have to work in, they're absolutely right to do this terrible stuff.
"Evens."
I don't understand betting!
They are temperamentally and institutionally cautious. The trouble is I know the sort and the more they are nagged by everyone else the more stubborn they will become, making a virtue about not rushing in headlong. It’s the precautionary principle taken to extremes.
If NATO tanks has just been shipped across as a matter of course months ago with no fuss they would by now be a basic fact of life. Like HIMARS.
The USSR not only supplied all sorts of heavy weaponry to North Vietnam during the war but large numbers of fighter planes some of which were actually flown by Soviet “advisers”.
Do you ever think at all as your fingers move over the keyboard?
2. We dealt with this before. The idea Ukrainians will suddenly feel a visceral change of heart if they see Germans fighting alongside them because of some ancestral WW2 instinct is as absurd as Kenyans feeling the same if Germans came to help them defeat a British reconquest.
My fearless prediction is that
> Democratic National Committee WILL change primary calendar.
> New Hampshire will go ahead anyway and schedule NH Primary BEFORE South Carolina.
> DNC will strip New Hamphire of all 2024 Convention delegates, announced prior to NH Primary.
> Some will run as Democrats in NH anyway, but Biden will not IF he's candidate; and nor will any other major (so far) alternatives if Biden's out.
> After the snow has melted and dust has settled and prior to Democratic National Convention, a deal will be struck, and NH delegation will be seated.
This all would offer Republican candidates a more-or-less free field in New Hampshire. Including potential for significant cross-over voting by Democrats.
Possible to likely presence of Governor Sununu the Younger on Republican primary ballot, as either a serious contender OR as a Favorite Son (21st-century style) would make situation more complicated.
For example, would Ron DiSantis AND Donald Trump both battle it out against Sununu? OR would one or the other skip NH? A strategy that has been demonstrated in the past - for example by Rudy Giuliani - to be HIGHLY risky?
BTW, nothing recent in news re: Iowa Precinct Caucuses 2024. As of December, situation was the DNC had nixed them, whereas RNC was going head with starting GOP race yet again in the great Hawkeye State.
LAB: 50% (+2)
CON: 24% (-4)
LDM: 8% (+1)
GRN: 5% (-2)
RFM: 5% (+2)
SNP: 4% (=)
Via
@Omnisis
, 19 Jan.
Changes w/ 12 Jan.
And registrars in state registry offices (albeit local gmt agents of central gmt) aren't allowed to discriminate.