Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

R&W has the worst voting poll in months for the Tories – politicalbetting.com

1356

Comments

  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,184
    DavidL said:

    People are starting to see that holding together a party of nutters, economic illiterates and fantasists and pretending that they are fit to run a government is not as straightforward as Nicola made it appear. You’d have to be a saint not to laugh.

    Or a Tory of course. The joke went sour on them a while ago.

    Yes, it's all the party's fault. Nothing at all to do with Rishi's dire programme for Government.
  • Options

    DavidL said:

    People are starting to see that holding together a party of nutters, economic illiterates and fantasists and pretending that they are fit to run a government is not as straightforward as Nicola made it appear. You’d have to be a saint not to laugh.

    Or a Tory of course. The joke went sour on them a while ago.

    Yes, it's all the party's fault. Nothing at all to do with Rishi's dire programme for Government.
    Presumably you still support Liz Truss's plans?
  • Options
    stodge said:

    TimS said:

    Looking again at that latest R&W poll and perhaps the most remarkable stat is the LLG score: 66%. Highest we’ve seen. This isn’t a Labour score benefiting from eating up green votes. They’re unchanged on 5% and the LDs are up one on 10%.

    Or, to put it more succinctly, the Tory share is bloody low.
    The actual reason for the move seems to be more ex-Conservative supporters now going Labour rather than Don't Know. Could just be the sample used for this poll - we'll see.
    Sure, we'll see, but just as a precaution somebody should confiscate Hyufd's shoelaces.
  • Options
    PhilPhil Posts: 2,000

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    Yes, I think when you’re this out of touch with where the majority of the UK population is it puts you in a very difficult position as a politician. The anti-gay marriage group are reduced to religious fundamentalists these days.

    Forbes needed a Campell in the background to cut the interview with a blunt “We don’t do God”.
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,110
    algarkirk said:

    Is Kate Forbes the new Tim Farron?

    I think this has a little way to run. Though I am surprised she stood as she has a tiny baby and better things to do, and bound to attract loads of sniping from all sides as they set the hounds on a tame gazelle. Hills have her moving rapidly from about 4/6 -to 13/8 in a short time. Humza now favourite at 4/6.

    SFAICS KF is the only candidate with a charisma level above 1 out of 10. And if someone can emerge who is any good, how come we have not heard of them?

    Her intro video today was awful. Scottish Tourist Board images and a commentary conspicuous for its absences.

    I'm quite surprised that she chose to run just based on the impression that she's quite smart. She must (I think) know she's going to get repeatedly questioned on the lgbt stuff and that her answers don't play that well in the current climate, and (again, I think) must know that the next #indyref is 5-10 years away when she would have much more political experience, kid(s) off at school or nursery and possibly better answers (or possibly hope society has shifted) for such questions.

    Maybe she's a chess move ahead - no idea. But I was pondering it.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,600

    Well, I say you are utterly and totally wrong in the 'exacerbating' bit. In essence, you are claiming that Brown could not have done anything to set the UK up to be in a better position for when the crash occurred. Is that your position?

    If we'd had the Tories, they said Brown regulated too much and they would have matched his spending.

    So yes I think we did the best we could.
    That is a very simplistic take. It's not about how many rules you have, but what the rules are, and do you enforce them. We had loads of regulation, and thousands of regulators, but it was ultimately no bloody good. The FSA must rank as one of them most useless institutions in British history. Peter Lilley was proved right, Gordon Brown wrong.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074

    Phil said:



    2. The City & the City (China Mieville)
    I drifted away from SF a bit for a while in the 90s and 00s, but before and since have read very widely in the genre, under its many guises (including those mainstream authors who avoid using the term SF because they look down on it, even though it's what they're writing), and the premise of this book stands out in my recollection as being utterly unique and original. Imagine a city in mittel-Europa: down at heel, decaying and a little backward, searching for an identity and place in the modern world. Imagine another city, this one somewhat Turkic or near Eastern, thrusting forward economically as it modernises and embraces western capitalism. Now imagine that these two cities share the same streets and parks, not just culturally, but with the inhabitants of each, by a collective and individual effort of will, *never seeing the residents of their counterpart*. Set a murder mystery in those weird twin cities, bring in some secret history and fringe politics, and that's a recipe you won't find anywhere else. Mieville may not be the greatest stylist as a writer, either in SF (his many awards would indicate lots of people don't agree with me on that) or crime fiction, but frankly this is irresistible. I do have some questions, however: is Orciny a nod to Ursula Le Guin? Did he want to call it 'Between the City & the City' for added metatextualism, but it wouldn't fit? And why is it 'The City & the City', and not 'The City and the City'?

    I’m not a huge Mieville fan but The City & the City is excellent. The Beeb did a good adaptation that really nailed the feel of the book too.
    Yes, I saw the BBC adaptation when it was on and really enjoyed it - I was very intrigued to see how it was actually expressed in print, and I think it came across very well. I have another Mieville - Perdido Street Station - on the 'waiting to be read' bookcase, so it might just have moved up a few notches.

    BBC adaptation? Any linky please?
  • Options
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1627771211747938305

    Respectful disagreement from this MP, but Kate Forbes’s views on equal marriage are already causing her problems within the SNP.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,951
    edited February 2023

    Phil said:



    2. The City & the City (China Mieville)
    I drifted away from SF a bit for a while in the 90s and 00s, but before and since have read very widely in the genre, under its many guises (including those mainstream authors who avoid using the term SF because they look down on it, even though it's what they're writing), and the premise of this book stands out in my recollection as being utterly unique and original. Imagine a city in mittel-Europa: down at heel, decaying and a little backward, searching for an identity and place in the modern world. Imagine another city, this one somewhat Turkic or near Eastern, thrusting forward economically as it modernises and embraces western capitalism. Now imagine that these two cities share the same streets and parks, not just culturally, but with the inhabitants of each, by a collective and individual effort of will, *never seeing the residents of their counterpart*. Set a murder mystery in those weird twin cities, bring in some secret history and fringe politics, and that's a recipe you won't find anywhere else. Mieville may not be the greatest stylist as a writer, either in SF (his many awards would indicate lots of people don't agree with me on that) or crime fiction, but frankly this is irresistible. I do have some questions, however: is Orciny a nod to Ursula Le Guin? Did he want to call it 'Between the City & the City' for added metatextualism, but it wouldn't fit? And why is it 'The City & the City', and not 'The City and the City'?

    I’m not a huge Mieville fan but The City & the City is excellent. The Beeb did a good adaptation that really nailed the feel of the book too.
    Yes, I saw the BBC adaptation when it was on and really enjoyed it - I was very intrigued to see how it was actually expressed in print, and I think it came across very well. I have another Mieville - Perdido Street Station - on the 'waiting to be read' bookcase, so it might just have moved up a few notches.

    Perdido Street station is very good IMHO. The third one in the Bas-Lag trilogy, The Iron Council, is too much of a full on Marxist polemic for me, conversely the second one, The Scar, never quite gets to the point. But Perdido Street Station is great.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,418

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    I'm not sure you've entirely grasped this religion thing.

    If you believe in a God who is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and if you believe that our duty is to serve that God absolutely, and if you believe God considers gay sex to be a sin (perhaps even to the extent of punishing gays in ways that would contravene the UN Convention against Torture), then where on earth (or beyond) would voting in favour of gay marriage fit into that general picture?
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,184

    DavidL said:

    People are starting to see that holding together a party of nutters, economic illiterates and fantasists and pretending that they are fit to run a government is not as straightforward as Nicola made it appear. You’d have to be a saint not to laugh.

    Or a Tory of course. The joke went sour on them a while ago.

    Yes, it's all the party's fault. Nothing at all to do with Rishi's dire programme for Government.
    Presumably you still support Liz Truss's plans?
    I support the fact that she had a plan, one that did not involve having all the fortitude and determination of a windsock. Granted, she fucked it up, and there is not much good having a plan if you're not there to implement it.
  • Options
    PhilPhil Posts: 2,000

    Phil said:



    2. The City & the City (China Mieville)
    I drifted away from SF a bit for a while in the 90s and 00s, but before and since have read very widely in the genre, under its many guises (including those mainstream authors who avoid using the term SF because they look down on it, even though it's what they're writing), and the premise of this book stands out in my recollection as being utterly unique and original. Imagine a city in mittel-Europa: down at heel, decaying and a little backward, searching for an identity and place in the modern world. Imagine another city, this one somewhat Turkic or near Eastern, thrusting forward economically as it modernises and embraces western capitalism. Now imagine that these two cities share the same streets and parks, not just culturally, but with the inhabitants of each, by a collective and individual effort of will, *never seeing the residents of their counterpart*. Set a murder mystery in those weird twin cities, bring in some secret history and fringe politics, and that's a recipe you won't find anywhere else. Mieville may not be the greatest stylist as a writer, either in SF (his many awards would indicate lots of people don't agree with me on that) or crime fiction, but frankly this is irresistible. I do have some questions, however: is Orciny a nod to Ursula Le Guin? Did he want to call it 'Between the City & the City' for added metatextualism, but it wouldn't fit? And why is it 'The City & the City', and not 'The City and the City'?

    I’m not a huge Mieville fan but The City & the City is excellent. The Beeb did a good adaptation that really nailed the feel of the book too.
    Yes, I saw the BBC adaptation when it was on and really enjoyed it - I was very intrigued to see how it was actually expressed in print, and I think it came across very well. I have another Mieville - Perdido Street Station - on the 'waiting to be read' bookcase, so it might just have moved up a few notches.

    Fair warning: Mieville’s Bas Lag books (The Scar, Perdido Street Station) are kind of depressing. Lots of body horror too IIRC, but it’s ages since I’ve read them.

    I think Mieville is at his best when he goes for a lighter tone. Embassytown is excellent & Railsea is good. Un Lun Dun is a fantastic piece of children’s urban fantasy.

  • Options

    DavidL said:

    People are starting to see that holding together a party of nutters, economic illiterates and fantasists and pretending that they are fit to run a government is not as straightforward as Nicola made it appear. You’d have to be a saint not to laugh.

    Or a Tory of course. The joke went sour on them a while ago.

    Yes, it's all the party's fault. Nothing at all to do with Rishi's dire programme for Government.
    Presumably you still support Liz Truss's plans?
    I support the fact that she had a plan, one that did not involve having all the fortitude and determination of a windsock. Granted, she fucked it up, and there is not much good having a plan if you're not there to implement it.
    But her plan crashed the economy. It was crap from day one.

    If it had been Labour you'd be the first here saying they are terrible
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,210
    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    I'm not sure you've entirely grasped this religion thing.

    If you believe in a God who is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and if you believe that our duty is to serve that God absolutely, and if you believe God considers gay sex to be a sin (perhaps even to the extent of punishing gays in ways that would contravene the UN Convention against Torture), then where on earth (or beyond) would voting in favour of gay marriage fit into that general picture?
    Jesus never opposed homosexual unions
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074
    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/feb/20/sheffield-school-criticised-for-saying-job-applicants-must-be-wedded-to-role

    For @dixiedean and @ydoethur ...

    'A job advertisement for an assistant headteacher has attracted widespread criticism after it warned candidates they would have to work “ridiculously hard”, be “wedded” to their job and that “we cannot carry anyone”.

    [...]

    Before applying for the role, which attracts a salary of up to £62,561, the advert suggested candidates should ask themselves: “Are you ok with the team contacting you in the evening? Meeting in holidays and being prepared to do detentions on a Saturday morning?[...]

    The list of requirements was so extreme that some commentators thought it was a spoof. By Monday the advert had disappeared from the Tes website, and the school did not respond to requests from the Guardian for clarification and for the number of applications received so far.'
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,951

    DavidL said:

    People are starting to see that holding together a party of nutters, economic illiterates and fantasists and pretending that they are fit to run a government is not as straightforward as Nicola made it appear. You’d have to be a saint not to laugh.

    Or a Tory of course. The joke went sour on them a while ago.

    Yes, it's all the party's fault. Nothing at all to do with Rishi's dire programme for Government.
    Yes, it’s the party’s fault. The party that gave us each of Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak. You can’t disavow one or two of them and say “oh, they’re not REAL Tories”. The Conservative Party owns all of them and will have to answer for each of their mistakes at the next election.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,116
    glw said:

    Well, I say you are utterly and totally wrong in the 'exacerbating' bit. In essence, you are claiming that Brown could not have done anything to set the UK up to be in a better position for when the crash occurred. Is that your position?

    If we'd had the Tories, they said Brown regulated too much and they would have matched his spending.

    So yes I think we did the best we could.
    That is a very simplistic take. It's not about how many rules you have, but what the rules are, and do you enforce them. We had loads of regulation, and thousands of regulators, but it was ultimately no bloody good. The FSA must rank as one of them most useless institutions in British history. Peter Lilley was proved right, Gordon Brown wrong.
    Peter Lilley was right? That's an unexpected statement. Must find out more ...
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074
    edited February 2023
    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    I'm not sure you've entirely grasped this religion thing.

    If you believe in a God who is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and if you believe that our duty is to serve that God absolutely, and if you believe God considers gay sex to be a sin (perhaps even to the extent of punishing gays in ways that would contravene the UN Convention against Torture), then where on earth (or beyond) would voting in favour of gay marriage fit into that general picture?
    Jesus never opposed homosexual unions
    Huge if true. Is your name IshmaelZ by any chance?

    The chap was a Jewish rabbi. Perhaps you could point out the relevant bit in the NT where it says "OT Leviticus x, verses y-z, cut out and paste this replacement in, clause 2, subclause i, sections 4-5".
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,210

    HYUFD said:

    As the SNP considers electing an anti homosexual marriage leader, the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans removes Justin Welby as their leader after the Church of England Synod voted to bless homosexual couples

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11772769/Anglican-church-leaders-oust-Archbishop-Canterbury-head-following-blessing-sex-couples.html#article-11772769

    How out of touch they are, not about Welby but their attitude to the LBGT+ community

    I rarely use the word but bigots does seem appropriate
    Remember though in over half of African nations and many Middle Eastern nations homosexuality is still illegal.

    South Africa a rare exception allowing homosexual marriage
  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    Phil said:



    2. The City & the City (China Mieville)
    I drifted away from SF a bit for a while in the 90s and 00s, but before and since have read very widely in the genre, under its many guises (including those mainstream authors who avoid using the term SF because they look down on it, even though it's what they're writing), and the premise of this book stands out in my recollection as being utterly unique and original. Imagine a city in mittel-Europa: down at heel, decaying and a little backward, searching for an identity and place in the modern world. Imagine another city, this one somewhat Turkic or near Eastern, thrusting forward economically as it modernises and embraces western capitalism. Now imagine that these two cities share the same streets and parks, not just culturally, but with the inhabitants of each, by a collective and individual effort of will, *never seeing the residents of their counterpart*. Set a murder mystery in those weird twin cities, bring in some secret history and fringe politics, and that's a recipe you won't find anywhere else. Mieville may not be the greatest stylist as a writer, either in SF (his many awards would indicate lots of people don't agree with me on that) or crime fiction, but frankly this is irresistible. I do have some questions, however: is Orciny a nod to Ursula Le Guin? Did he want to call it 'Between the City & the City' for added metatextualism, but it wouldn't fit? And why is it 'The City & the City', and not 'The City and the City'?

    I’m not a huge Mieville fan but The City & the City is excellent. The Beeb did a good adaptation that really nailed the feel of the book too.
    Yes, I saw the BBC adaptation when it was on and really enjoyed it - I was very intrigued to see how it was actually expressed in print, and I think it came across very well. I have another Mieville - Perdido Street Station - on the 'waiting to be read' bookcase, so it might just have moved up a few notches.

    BBC adaptation? Any linky please?
    Don't think it's on iPlayer currently, but there's a DVD: https://amzn.eu/d/44dBb50
  • Options
    PhilPhil Posts: 2,000
    Carnyx said:

    Phil said:



    2. The City & the City (China Mieville)
    I drifted away from SF a bit for a while in the 90s and 00s, but before and since have read very widely in the genre, under its many guises (including those mainstream authors who avoid using the term SF because they look down on it, even though it's what they're writing), and the premise of this book stands out in my recollection as being utterly unique and original. Imagine a city in mittel-Europa: down at heel, decaying and a little backward, searching for an identity and place in the modern world. Imagine another city, this one somewhat Turkic or near Eastern, thrusting forward economically as it modernises and embraces western capitalism. Now imagine that these two cities share the same streets and parks, not just culturally, but with the inhabitants of each, by a collective and individual effort of will, *never seeing the residents of their counterpart*. Set a murder mystery in those weird twin cities, bring in some secret history and fringe politics, and that's a recipe you won't find anywhere else. Mieville may not be the greatest stylist as a writer, either in SF (his many awards would indicate lots of people don't agree with me on that) or crime fiction, but frankly this is irresistible. I do have some questions, however: is Orciny a nod to Ursula Le Guin? Did he want to call it 'Between the City & the City' for added metatextualism, but it wouldn't fit? And why is it 'The City & the City', and not 'The City and the City'?

    I’m not a huge Mieville fan but The City & the City is excellent. The Beeb did a good adaptation that really nailed the feel of the book too.
    Yes, I saw the BBC adaptation when it was on and really enjoyed it - I was very intrigued to see how it was actually expressed in print, and I think it came across very well. I have another Mieville - Perdido Street Station - on the 'waiting to be read' bookcase, so it might just have moved up a few notches.

    BBC adaptation? Any linky please?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p061bd5l

    Probably on BritBox, or else channel your inner pirate.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,418

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    She is.

    It's like that couple that said they wouldn't sell their house to a gay couple because it was against their beliefs. Why does it matter what the people who live in the house do, after you've sold it?
    Because if you really believe in all that stuff, by selling them the house you will be facilitating something God really doesn't like, and God will be angry as a result.

    You're projecting your own relativistic view of religion on people for whom religion is an absolute.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBattery3CorrectHorseBattery3 Posts: 2,757
    edited February 2023
    MJW said:

    I think the Tories' problem is twofold.

    1.) So-called Red Wall 2019 Lab-Tory switchers may be reverting to type and going back or giving up on voting for a big party altogether. I'd be interested to see if more local 'independents' groups pop up. Because feel cheated as Brexit/Tory rule hasn't led to any improvement and things feel if anything even more broken. That's not to say there's massive Bregret but a notion that the government is just handling everything badly and made promises it had no intention of keeping, so won't vote for it and either want to give Starmer a chance to fix things or a plague on all of you.

    2.) The Tories have completely set fire to what used to be a fairly solid constituency for them in working age professionals. The voting pattern of those under 50 looks like students - you're almost more likely to find someone under 50 who believes the moon landings were faked than is planning to vote Tory. This is far more than the usual young people voting Labour. It's those in their 30s who have lived under 13 years of Tory government where feel most decisions have been taken to make their lives worse to pander to others. In previous times these are those who would decide elections. Lost some demographic power as Boomers aged but still, you have to rack up the votes elsewhere if you're that unpopular with anyone born after the early 70s. That's especially going to hit them in the suburbs and commuter belt, where are spilling out due to high prices in London or the centre of places like Manchester. There are underlying reasons behind it - stagnating wages, failure to build houses etc but the Tories have calcified those negative sentiments by picking endless fights with those people's sensibilities. If you're an IT professional from Wokingham, say, on £35,000 a year, who holds fairly liberal views on stuff without being a massive bleeding heart, and didn't mind the EU as just didn't bother you much, a decade ago there's a fair chance you'd vote Tory if thought might cut your taxes or get you on the housing ladder, or just disliked Ed M and then Corbyn. Now? You'd crawl over broken glass to vote against the Tories, who you perceive not only to be responsible for the country's decline but whose only answer to that appears to be deliberately insulting people like you.

    I speak as one of these people. Every time the Tories start the culture wars I move further and further away from them.

    They seem to spend their time telling me the problems are with boats coming across the channel or trans people. All whilst the country goes into the pits. They call me thick and work shy.

    I feel utterly betrayed by this lot, they have done nothing but fuck me over and given money to the elderly and their rich mates. This is why the South is going Lib Dem.
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,065

    Back in my old West London Manor. Ealing Broadway station has certainly been spruced up since I was last here.

    What used to be Fat Boys Thai restaurant has become a branch of Rosa's. Hopefully the food is just as good. I shall find out soon. We used to eat here all the time. Here and the Clay Oven Indian restaurant which is now sadly shut down and boarded up.

    Tomorrow I get to sample Crossrail for the first time.

    Oh, and on topic: LOL.

    Month’s is still going though. And Crossrail is fab. I’m about to leave the area after over 13 years - heading to the Docklands.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,101
    DougSeal said:

    There's a parallel universe in which Brown was removed in 2009.

    There’s a parallel universe where I married Scarlett Johansson. What’s your point?
    Small parallel world. That must have been after I left her for Lily James.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,730
    edited February 2023
    Looks like the self styled Scotch Expert that said Forbes is nowhere near experienced enough politically might have had a point.
    Hats off to you!
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074
    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    She is.

    It's like that couple that said they wouldn't sell their house to a gay couple because it was against their beliefs. Why does it matter what the people who live in the house do, after you've sold it?
    Because if you really believe in all that stuff, by selling them the house you will be facilitating something God really doesn't like, and God will be angry as a result.

    You're projecting your own relativistic view of religion on people for whom religion is an absolute.
    It's also possible they think their *neighbours* are also going to be upset and they don't want that to happen. Yes, I know, but ...
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,116
    Phil said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    Yes, I think when you’re this out of touch with where the majority of the UK population is it puts you in a very difficult position as a politician. The anti-gay marriage group are reduced to religious fundamentalists these days.

    Forbes needed a Campell in the background to cut the interview with a blunt “We don’t do God”.
    I don't see a problem with Forbes's beliefs per se. Her problem is her implied view that her personal beliefs trump party and government policy. If she thinks that she can't be leader. She has to defend the collective decision.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,418
    edited February 2023
    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    I'm not sure you've entirely grasped this religion thing.

    If you believe in a God who is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and if you believe that our duty is to serve that God absolutely, and if you believe God considers gay sex to be a sin (perhaps even to the extent of punishing gays in ways that would contravene the UN Convention against Torture), then where on earth (or beyond) would voting in favour of gay marriage fit into that general picture?
    Jesus never opposed homosexual unions
    No doubt your knowledge of Jesus's every word and deed two thousand years ago is as accurate as your knowledge of what is about to happen one, two, three and any number of years from now.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074

    Looks like the self styled Scotch Expert that said Forbes is nowhere near experienced enough politically might have had a point.
    Hat's off to you!

    The chap who was pished on by PB collectively, only this morning? Jings!
  • Options

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    The Redfield & Wilton poll is certainly a surprise. I thought the Government had, by its standards, a decent week last week. All I can think is the impact of winter bills is finally coming through - it's also possible this poll is a massive outlier.

    Sunak's own approval figures continue to sink and he trails Starmer by nine points on the best PM polling (or should that be better PM polling?)

    Into the data (rather than just using the headline figures) and excluding those saying they Won't Vote, Labour leads 43-21 with 15% Don't Knows. The 2019 Conservative vote now splits 47% Conservative, 24% Labour (and there's your explanation for the change), 17% Don't Know and 8% Reform.

    The Conservative Don't Knows represent 44% of the total.

    Stripping out the DKs, Labour leads by 18 points among men and 35 points among women. Among the 65+ age group, the Conservatives lead 39-36 which represents a 22% swing from Conservative to Labour among this core Tory voting group.

    The England sub sample comes out at Labour 53%, Conservative 25%, LD 9.5%, Reform 7% and Green 5%. That's a swing of 20.5% from Conservative to Labour and a 9.5% swing from Conservative to Liberal Democrat since the 2019 election.

    A UNS of 20.5% means Hertsmere, the 293rd most marginal Conservative seat, would be a Labour gain suggesting a Conservative Parliamentary Party reduced to just under 100 seats

    Doesn't look like an outlier, Stodge.

    It's fairly consistent with their previous two efforts. They are not a notably Labour-leaning pollster. It's broadly consistent with the trend of other recent polls.

    Even if it's a few points overstated, it's still effing terrible for the Tories.
    The last four R+Ws have gone 28-49, 24-50, 27-48, 24-51 (today). There's noise and wobble there, but not much.

    And OK, it's not 1995. But the then Gold Standard ICM polls were better for the Conservatives than most of the polls now;


  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074
    Phil said:

    Carnyx said:

    Phil said:



    2. The City & the City (China Mieville)
    I drifted away from SF a bit for a while in the 90s and 00s, but before and since have read very widely in the genre, under its many guises (including those mainstream authors who avoid using the term SF because they look down on it, even though it's what they're writing), and the premise of this book stands out in my recollection as being utterly unique and original. Imagine a city in mittel-Europa: down at heel, decaying and a little backward, searching for an identity and place in the modern world. Imagine another city, this one somewhat Turkic or near Eastern, thrusting forward economically as it modernises and embraces western capitalism. Now imagine that these two cities share the same streets and parks, not just culturally, but with the inhabitants of each, by a collective and individual effort of will, *never seeing the residents of their counterpart*. Set a murder mystery in those weird twin cities, bring in some secret history and fringe politics, and that's a recipe you won't find anywhere else. Mieville may not be the greatest stylist as a writer, either in SF (his many awards would indicate lots of people don't agree with me on that) or crime fiction, but frankly this is irresistible. I do have some questions, however: is Orciny a nod to Ursula Le Guin? Did he want to call it 'Between the City & the City' for added metatextualism, but it wouldn't fit? And why is it 'The City & the City', and not 'The City and the City'?

    I’m not a huge Mieville fan but The City & the City is excellent. The Beeb did a good adaptation that really nailed the feel of the book too.
    Yes, I saw the BBC adaptation when it was on and really enjoyed it - I was very intrigued to see how it was actually expressed in print, and I think it came across very well. I have another Mieville - Perdido Street Station - on the 'waiting to be read' bookcase, so it might just have moved up a few notches.

    BBC adaptation? Any linky please?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p061bd5l

    Probably on BritBox, or else channel your inner pirate.
    Thank you very much.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    As the SNP considers electing an anti homosexual marriage leader, the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans removes Justin Welby as their leader after the Church of England Synod voted to bless homosexual couples

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11772769/Anglican-church-leaders-oust-Archbishop-Canterbury-head-following-blessing-sex-couples.html#article-11772769

    How out of touch they are, not about Welby but their attitude to the LBGT+ community

    I rarely use the word but bigots does seem appropriate
    Remember though in over half of African nations and many Middle Eastern nations homosexuality is still illegal.

    South Africa a rare exception allowing homosexual marriage
    And?
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,730
    edited February 2023
    Carnyx said:

    Looks like the self styled Scotch Expert that said Forbes is nowhere near experienced enough politically might have had a point.
    Hat's off to you!

    The chap who was pished on by PB collectively, only this morning? Jings!
    12 hrs is an eon on the PB rollercoaster.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,382
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    I'm not sure you've entirely grasped this religion thing.

    If you believe in a God who is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and if you believe that our duty is to serve that God absolutely, and if you believe God considers gay sex to be a sin (perhaps even to the extent of punishing gays in ways that would contravene the UN Convention against Torture), then where on earth (or beyond) would voting in favour of gay marriage fit into that general picture?
    Jesus never opposed homosexual unions
    Huge if true. Is your name IshmaelZ by any chance?

    The chap was a Jewish rabbi. Perhaps you could point out the relevant bit in the NT where it says "OT Leviticus x, verses y-z, cut out and paste this replacement in, clause 2, subclause i, sections 4-5".
    He wasn't a rabbi, he was an apocalyptic preacher. More a sort of hermit, in our cultural reference points,
  • Options
    PhilPhil Posts: 2,000
    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    Well, I say you are utterly and totally wrong in the 'exacerbating' bit. In essence, you are claiming that Brown could not have done anything to set the UK up to be in a better position for when the crash occurred. Is that your position?

    If we'd had the Tories, they said Brown regulated too much and they would have matched his spending.

    So yes I think we did the best we could.
    That is a very simplistic take. It's not about how many rules you have, but what the rules are, and do you enforce them. We had loads of regulation, and thousands of regulators, but it was ultimately no bloody good. The FSA must rank as one of them most useless institutions in British history. Peter Lilley was proved right, Gordon Brown wrong.
    Peter Lilley was right? That's an unexpected statement. Must find out more ...
    I sat within, oo, 5m of Peter Lilley at a random college dinner once. The economics students had invited him down to give a talk & then taken him to formal hall to feed him. IIRC the college was not happy that no-one had told them that a cabinet minister was going to grace us with his presence: presumably they were peeved they hadn’t been given the opportunity to drag him onto the college fellow’s table & bore him to death.

    I did consider lobbing a bread roll at him as some kind of vaguely left wing protest, but decided against it.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074

    Carnyx said:

    Phil said:



    2. The City & the City (China Mieville)
    I drifted away from SF a bit for a while in the 90s and 00s, but before and since have read very widely in the genre, under its many guises (including those mainstream authors who avoid using the term SF because they look down on it, even though it's what they're writing), and the premise of this book stands out in my recollection as being utterly unique and original. Imagine a city in mittel-Europa: down at heel, decaying and a little backward, searching for an identity and place in the modern world. Imagine another city, this one somewhat Turkic or near Eastern, thrusting forward economically as it modernises and embraces western capitalism. Now imagine that these two cities share the same streets and parks, not just culturally, but with the inhabitants of each, by a collective and individual effort of will, *never seeing the residents of their counterpart*. Set a murder mystery in those weird twin cities, bring in some secret history and fringe politics, and that's a recipe you won't find anywhere else. Mieville may not be the greatest stylist as a writer, either in SF (his many awards would indicate lots of people don't agree with me on that) or crime fiction, but frankly this is irresistible. I do have some questions, however: is Orciny a nod to Ursula Le Guin? Did he want to call it 'Between the City & the City' for added metatextualism, but it wouldn't fit? And why is it 'The City & the City', and not 'The City and the City'?

    I’m not a huge Mieville fan but The City & the City is excellent. The Beeb did a good adaptation that really nailed the feel of the book too.
    Yes, I saw the BBC adaptation when it was on and really enjoyed it - I was very intrigued to see how it was actually expressed in print, and I think it came across very well. I have another Mieville - Perdido Street Station - on the 'waiting to be read' bookcase, so it might just have moved up a few notches.

    BBC adaptation? Any linky please?
    Don't think it's on iPlayer currently, but there's a DVD: https://amzn.eu/d/44dBb50
    Thasnk you too! There;s a similar plot device in a Ken Macleod short story - in the anthology called Alternative Futures or something similar.
  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/feb/20/sheffield-school-criticised-for-saying-job-applicants-must-be-wedded-to-role

    For @dixiedean and @ydoethur ...

    'A job advertisement for an assistant headteacher has attracted widespread criticism after it warned candidates they would have to work “ridiculously hard”, be “wedded” to their job and that “we cannot carry anyone”.

    [...]

    Before applying for the role, which attracts a salary of up to £62,561, the advert suggested candidates should ask themselves: “Are you ok with the team contacting you in the evening? Meeting in holidays and being prepared to do detentions on a Saturday morning?[...]

    The list of requirements was so extreme that some commentators thought it was a spoof. By Monday the advert had disappeared from the Tes website, and the school did not respond to requests from the Guardian for clarification and for the number of applications received so far.'

    Did the Guardian pick it up from pb? It was discussed here yesterday.
    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4308489#Comment_4308489
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,210
    edited February 2023
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    I'm not sure you've entirely grasped this religion thing.

    If you believe in a God who is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and if you believe that our duty is to serve that God absolutely, and if you believe God considers gay sex to be a sin (perhaps even to the extent of punishing gays in ways that would contravene the UN Convention against Torture), then where on earth (or beyond) would voting in favour of gay marriage fit into that general picture?
    Jesus never opposed homosexual unions
    Huge if true. Is your name IshmaelZ by any chance?

    The chap was a Jewish rabbi. Perhaps you could point out the relevant bit in the NT where it says "OT Leviticus x, verses y-z, cut out and paste this replacement in, clause 2, subclause i, sections 4-5".
    No, he wasn't, he was the Christian Messiah. If he was Jewish at the Crucifixion Christianity would never have been founded, he made clear he wanted a new covenant.

    Though I do recognise the current favourite for your party's leadership does take a firmly anti gay marriage line and interprets the Bible as you do. Incorrectly in my Anglican view.

    So it is hardly a surprise if SNP supporters like you are having to start practising the anti homosexual unions line
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    As the SNP considers electing an anti homosexual marriage leader, the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans removes Justin Welby as their leader after the Church of England Synod voted to bless homosexual couples

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11772769/Anglican-church-leaders-oust-Archbishop-Canterbury-head-following-blessing-sex-couples.html#article-11772769

    How out of touch they are, not about Welby but their attitude to the LBGT+ community

    I rarely use the word but bigots does seem appropriate
    Remember though in over half of African nations and many Middle Eastern nations homosexuality is still illegal.

    South Africa a rare exception allowing homosexual marriage
    Most non-White cultures are homophobic?
  • Options
    Phil said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    Well, I say you are utterly and totally wrong in the 'exacerbating' bit. In essence, you are claiming that Brown could not have done anything to set the UK up to be in a better position for when the crash occurred. Is that your position?

    If we'd had the Tories, they said Brown regulated too much and they would have matched his spending.

    So yes I think we did the best we could.
    That is a very simplistic take. It's not about how many rules you have, but what the rules are, and do you enforce them. We had loads of regulation, and thousands of regulators, but it was ultimately no bloody good. The FSA must rank as one of them most useless institutions in British history. Peter Lilley was proved right, Gordon Brown wrong.
    Peter Lilley was right? That's an unexpected statement. Must find out more ...
    I sat within, oo, 5m of Peter Lilley at a random college dinner once. The economics students had invited him down to give a talk & then taken him to formal hall to feed him. IIRC the college was not happy that no-one had told them that a cabinet minister was going to grace us with his presence: presumably they were peeved they hadn’t been given the opportunity to drag him onto the college fellow’s table & bore him to death.

    I did consider lobbing a bread roll at him as some kind of vaguely left wing protest, but decided against it.
    Wasn't there a story that a headmaster of Eton was peeved to discover the Queen Mum had dined at the school the previous day?
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,951

    Carnyx said:

    Looks like the self styled Scotch Expert that said Forbes is nowhere near experienced enough politically might have had a point.
    Hat's off to you!

    The chap who was pished on by PB collectively, only this morning? Jings!
    12 hrs is an eon on the PB rollercoaster.
    I think the pishing could, possibly, have been down to his confident assertion that she wouldn’t run.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    I'm not sure you've entirely grasped this religion thing.

    If you believe in a God who is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and if you believe that our duty is to serve that God absolutely, and if you believe God considers gay sex to be a sin (perhaps even to the extent of punishing gays in ways that would contravene the UN Convention against Torture), then where on earth (or beyond) would voting in favour of gay marriage fit into that general picture?
    Jesus never opposed homosexual unions
    Huge if true. Is your name IshmaelZ by any chance?

    The chap was a Jewish rabbi. Perhaps you could point out the relevant bit in the NT where it says "OT Leviticus x, verses y-z, cut out and paste this replacement in, clause 2, subclause i, sections 4-5".
    No, he wasn't, he was the Christian Messiah. If he was Jewish at the Crucifixion Christianity would never have been founded, he made clear he wanted a new covenant.

    Though I do recognise the current favourite for your party's leadership does take a firmly anti gay marriage line and interprets the Bible as you do. Incorrectly in my Anglican view.

    So it is hardly a surprise if SNP supporters like you are having to start practising the anti homosexual unions line
    That's at least two sentences that are complete bollocks, to coin an expression.

    And as for the first sentence: Matthew 5:17–18 is all that is needed.


    17 uThink not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, xTill heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
  • Options
    numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,925
    edited February 2023
    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    She is.

    It's like that couple that said they wouldn't sell their house to a gay couple because it was against their beliefs. Why does it matter what the people who live in the house do, after you've sold it?
    Because if you really believe in all that stuff, by selling them the house you will be facilitating something God really doesn't like, and God will be angry as a result.

    You're projecting your own relativistic view of religion on people for whom religion is an absolute.
    If they think people wait to buy a house together before doing all that stuff that god apparently really doesn’t like, I’ve got some magic beans to sell them.

  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,116
    Phil said:

    FF43 said:

    glw said:

    Well, I say you are utterly and totally wrong in the 'exacerbating' bit. In essence, you are claiming that Brown could not have done anything to set the UK up to be in a better position for when the crash occurred. Is that your position?

    If we'd had the Tories, they said Brown regulated too much and they would have matched his spending.

    So yes I think we did the best we could.
    That is a very simplistic take. It's not about how many rules you have, but what the rules are, and do you enforce them. We had loads of regulation, and thousands of regulators, but it was ultimately no bloody good. The FSA must rank as one of them most useless institutions in British history. Peter Lilley was proved right, Gordon Brown wrong.
    Peter Lilley was right? That's an unexpected statement. Must find out more ...
    I sat within, oo, 5m of Peter Lilley at a random college dinner once. The economics students had invited him down to give a talk & then taken him to formal hall to feed him. IIRC the college was not happy that no-one had told them that a cabinet minister was going to grace us with his presence: presumably they were peeved they hadn’t been given the opportunity to drag him onto the college fellow’s table & bore him to death.

    I did consider lobbing a bread roll at him as some kind of vaguely left wing protest, but decided against it.
    Obviously I don't follow everything Peter Lilley has ever said. Maybe at some point he was right about something - the next train for Hitchin leaves at 10 o'clock, for example.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,418
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    I'm not sure you've entirely grasped this religion thing.

    If you believe in a God who is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and if you believe that our duty is to serve that God absolutely, and if you believe God considers gay sex to be a sin (perhaps even to the extent of punishing gays in ways that would contravene the UN Convention against Torture), then where on earth (or beyond) would voting in favour of gay marriage fit into that general picture?
    Jesus never opposed homosexual unions
    Huge if true. Is your name IshmaelZ by any chance?

    The chap was a Jewish rabbi. Perhaps you could point out the relevant bit in the NT where it says "OT Leviticus x, verses y-z, cut out and paste this replacement in, clause 2, subclause i, sections 4-5".
    No, he wasn't, he was the Christian Messiah. If he was Jewish at the Crucifixion Christianity would never have been founded, he made clear he wanted a new covenant.

    Though I do recognise the current favourite for your party's leadership does take a firmly anti gay marriage line and interprets the Bible as you do. Incorrectly in my Anglican view.

    So it is hardly a surprise if SNP supporters like you are having to start practising the anti homosexual unions line
    You'll be telling us next your bible doesn't prescribe the death penalty for gay sex!
  • Options
    BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,505
    ohnotnow said:

    algarkirk said:

    Is Kate Forbes the new Tim Farron?

    I think this has a little way to run. Though I am surprised she stood as she has a tiny baby and better things to do, and bound to attract loads of sniping from all sides as they set the hounds on a tame gazelle. Hills have her moving rapidly from about 4/6 -to 13/8 in a short time. Humza now favourite at 4/6.

    SFAICS KF is the only candidate with a charisma level above 1 out of 10. And if someone can emerge who is any good, how come we have not heard of them?

    Her intro video today was awful. Scottish Tourist Board images and a commentary conspicuous for its absences.

    I'm quite surprised that she chose to run just based on the impression that she's quite smart. She must (I think) know she's going to get repeatedly questioned on the lgbt stuff and that her answers don't play that well in the current climate, and (again, I think) must know that the next #indyref is 5-10 years away when she would have much more political experience, kid(s) off at school or nursery and possibly better answers (or possibly hope society has shifted) for such questions.

    Maybe she's a chess move ahead - no idea. But I was pondering it.
    Doubt it. Been pitchforked into a leadership campaign unexpectedly and at a personally very inopportune time.

    Interesting that Yousaf has reported that he was one of the few that Nicola spoke to before making her statement. Pretty clear who she wants to win.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,210
    edited February 2023

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    The Redfield & Wilton poll is certainly a surprise. I thought the Government had, by its standards, a decent week last week. All I can think is the impact of winter bills is finally coming through - it's also possible this poll is a massive outlier.

    Sunak's own approval figures continue to sink and he trails Starmer by nine points on the best PM polling (or should that be better PM polling?)

    Into the data (rather than just using the headline figures) and excluding those saying they Won't Vote, Labour leads 43-21 with 15% Don't Knows. The 2019 Conservative vote now splits 47% Conservative, 24% Labour (and there's your explanation for the change), 17% Don't Know and 8% Reform.

    The Conservative Don't Knows represent 44% of the total.

    Stripping out the DKs, Labour leads by 18 points among men and 35 points among women. Among the 65+ age group, the Conservatives lead 39-36 which represents a 22% swing from Conservative to Labour among this core Tory voting group.

    The England sub sample comes out at Labour 53%, Conservative 25%, LD 9.5%, Reform 7% and Green 5%. That's a swing of 20.5% from Conservative to Labour and a 9.5% swing from Conservative to Liberal Democrat since the 2019 election.

    A UNS of 20.5% means Hertsmere, the 293rd most marginal Conservative seat, would be a Labour gain suggesting a Conservative Parliamentary Party reduced to just under 100 seats

    Doesn't look like an outlier, Stodge.

    It's fairly consistent with their previous two efforts. They are not a notably Labour-leaning pollster. It's broadly consistent with the trend of other recent polls.

    Even if it's a few points overstated, it's still effing terrible for the Tories.
    The last four R+Ws have gone 28-49, 24-50, 27-48, 24-51 (today). There's noise and wobble there, but not much.

    And OK, it's not 1995. But the then Gold Standard ICM polls were better for the Conservatives than most of the polls now;


    The final Redfield poll before Truss resigned on October 20th 2022 was Labour 55% Conservatives 19% LDs 12%.

    So even tonight's Redfield poll still gives Rishi a 4.5% swing to the Tories since he replaced Truss
    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/magnified-email/issue-53/

    Gold standard Survation gives Labour just 42% and the Tories 26%

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1624821484215492609?s=20
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,418

    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    She is.

    It's like that couple that said they wouldn't sell their house to a gay couple because it was against their beliefs. Why does it matter what the people who live in the house do, after you've sold it?
    Because if you really believe in all that stuff, by selling them the house you will be facilitating something God really doesn't like, and God will be angry as a result.

    You're projecting your own relativistic view of religion on people for whom religion is an absolute.
    If they think people wait to buy a house together before doing all that stuff that god apparently really doesn’t like, I’ve got some magic beans for them.

    Read it again - if necessary looking up the meaning of that longish word "facilitating".
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,184

    DavidL said:

    People are starting to see that holding together a party of nutters, economic illiterates and fantasists and pretending that they are fit to run a government is not as straightforward as Nicola made it appear. You’d have to be a saint not to laugh.

    Or a Tory of course. The joke went sour on them a while ago.

    Yes, it's all the party's fault. Nothing at all to do with Rishi's dire programme for Government.
    Presumably you still support Liz Truss's plans?
    I support the fact that she had a plan, one that did not involve having all the fortitude and determination of a windsock. Granted, she fucked it up, and there is not much good having a plan if you're not there to implement it.
    But her plan crashed the economy. It was crap from day one.

    If it had been Labour you'd be the first here saying they are terrible
    Truss's plan (including the mini budget) was never implemented, so we'll never know whether it was crap.

    I believe that the mini budget was poorly presented and timed, but I don't think the market was responding to it in isolation. Ultimately the BOE deserves the biggest share of the blame in my opinion.

  • Options
    MJWMJW Posts: 1,527

    MJW said:

    I think the Tories' problem is twofold.

    1.) So-called Red Wall 2019 Lab-Tory switchers may be reverting to type and going back or giving up on voting for a big party altogether. I'd be interested to see if more local 'independents' groups pop up. Because feel cheated as Brexit/Tory rule hasn't led to any improvement and things feel if anything even more broken. That's not to say there's massive Bregret but a notion that the government is just handling everything badly and made promises it had no intention of keeping, so won't vote for it and either want to give Starmer a chance to fix things or a plague on all of you.

    2.) The Tories have completely set fire to what used to be a fairly solid constituency for them in working age professionals. The voting pattern of those under 50 looks like students - you're almost more likely to find someone under 50 who believes the moon landings were faked than is planning to vote Tory. This is far more than the usual young people voting Labour. It's those in their 30s who have lived under 13 years of Tory government where feel most decisions have been taken to make their lives worse to pander to others. In previous times these are those who would decide elections. Lost some demographic power as Boomers aged but still, you have to rack up the votes elsewhere if you're that unpopular with anyone born after the early 70s. That's especially going to hit them in the suburbs and commuter belt, where are spilling out due to high prices in London or the centre of places like Manchester. There are underlying reasons behind it - stagnating wages, failure to build houses etc but the Tories have calcified those negative sentiments by picking endless fights with those people's sensibilities. If you're an IT professional from Wokingham, say, on £35,000 a year, who holds fairly liberal views on stuff without being a massive bleeding heart, and didn't mind the EU as just didn't bother you much, a decade ago there's a fair chance you'd vote Tory if thought might cut your taxes or get you on the housing ladder, or just disliked Ed M and then Corbyn. Now? You'd crawl over broken glass to vote against the Tories, who you perceive not only to be responsible for the country's decline but whose only answer to that appears to be deliberately insulting people like you.

    I speak as one of these people. Every time the Tories start the culture wars I move further and further away from them.

    They seem to spend their time telling me the problems are with boats coming across the channel or trans people. All whilst the country goes into the pits. They call me thick and work shy.

    I feel utterly betrayed by this lot, they have done nothing but fuck me over and given money to the elderly and their rich mates. This is why the South is going Lib Dem.
    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,210
    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    I'm not sure you've entirely grasped this religion thing.

    If you believe in a God who is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and if you believe that our duty is to serve that God absolutely, and if you believe God considers gay sex to be a sin (perhaps even to the extent of punishing gays in ways that would contravene the UN Convention against Torture), then where on earth (or beyond) would voting in favour of gay marriage fit into that general picture?
    Jesus never opposed homosexual unions
    Huge if true. Is your name IshmaelZ by any chance?

    The chap was a Jewish rabbi. Perhaps you could point out the relevant bit in the NT where it says "OT Leviticus x, verses y-z, cut out and paste this replacement in, clause 2, subclause i, sections 4-5".
    No, he wasn't, he was the Christian Messiah. If he was Jewish at the Crucifixion Christianity would never have been founded, he made clear he wanted a new covenant.

    Though I do recognise the current favourite for your party's leadership does take a firmly anti gay marriage line and interprets the Bible as you do. Incorrectly in my Anglican view.

    So it is hardly a surprise if SNP supporters like you are having to start practising the anti homosexual unions line
    You'll be telling us next your bible doesn't prescribe the death penalty for gay sex!
    The Christian New Testament doesn't.

    The Old Testament is largely shared by Christians, Muslims and Jews. Only the New Testament is fully Christian and mostly the word of Christ. Jews don't believe he was the Messiah, Muslims do believe he was the Messiah but don't believe he was God and Holy Spirit as per the Trinity as Christians do
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,748

    Well, I say you are utterly and totally wrong in the 'exacerbating' bit. In essence, you are claiming that Brown could not have done anything to set the UK up to be in a better position for when the crash occurred. Is that your position?

    If we'd had the Tories, they said Brown regulated too much and they would have matched his spending.

    So yes I think we did the best we could.
    That's a real "look, squirrel!" response.

    Look at what Brown did. Are you claiming the UK economy was in a good position prior to the GFC?
    I think in hindsight you're saying all of this. Virtually nobody was saying he was spending too much prior and some said he was spending too little.
    Well, I wasn't on PB at the time ( I think PB as only 2 or 3 years old), but I for one as saying he was spending too much on the wrong things. And I don't think I was alone in saying that.

    As it happens, I remember driving back from work with Mrs J and hearing on the radio that Brown had finally taken over from Blair. I said to her; "Thank God that's finally happened, and we can get some stability without the government killing each other."

    How wrong I was... ;)

    (And for those praising Brown: never, ever forget the way he got the top job.)
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074
    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    I'm not sure you've entirely grasped this religion thing.

    If you believe in a God who is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and if you believe that our duty is to serve that God absolutely, and if you believe God considers gay sex to be a sin (perhaps even to the extent of punishing gays in ways that would contravene the UN Convention against Torture), then where on earth (or beyond) would voting in favour of gay marriage fit into that general picture?
    Jesus never opposed homosexual unions
    Huge if true. Is your name IshmaelZ by any chance?

    The chap was a Jewish rabbi. Perhaps you could point out the relevant bit in the NT where it says "OT Leviticus x, verses y-z, cut out and paste this replacement in, clause 2, subclause i, sections 4-5".
    No, he wasn't, he was the Christian Messiah. If he was Jewish at the Crucifixion Christianity would never have been founded, he made clear he wanted a new covenant.

    Though I do recognise the current favourite for your party's leadership does take a firmly anti gay marriage line and interprets the Bible as you do. Incorrectly in my Anglican view.

    So it is hardly a surprise if SNP supporters like you are having to start practising the anti homosexual unions line
    You'll be telling us next your bible doesn't prescribe the death penalty for gay sex!
    And, as I say below, JC was saying he was sticking to the Law. Even interpretation (like the ears of corn on the Sabbath) doesn't get very far round that prescription.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBattery3CorrectHorseBattery3 Posts: 2,757
    edited February 2023
    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,210
    edited February 2023
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    I'm not sure you've entirely grasped this religion thing.

    If you believe in a God who is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and if you believe that our duty is to serve that God absolutely, and if you believe God considers gay sex to be a sin (perhaps even to the extent of punishing gays in ways that would contravene the UN Convention against Torture), then where on earth (or beyond) would voting in favour of gay marriage fit into that general picture?
    Jesus never opposed homosexual unions
    Huge if true. Is your name IshmaelZ by any chance?

    The chap was a Jewish rabbi. Perhaps you could point out the relevant bit in the NT where it says "OT Leviticus x, verses y-z, cut out and paste this replacement in, clause 2, subclause i, sections 4-5".
    No, he wasn't, he was the Christian Messiah. If he was Jewish at the Crucifixion Christianity would never have been founded, he made clear he wanted a new covenant.

    Though I do recognise the current favourite for your party's leadership does take a firmly anti gay marriage line and interprets the Bible as you do. Incorrectly in my Anglican view.

    So it is hardly a surprise if SNP supporters like you are having to start practising the anti homosexual unions line
    That's at least two sentences that are complete bollocks, to coin an expression.

    And as for the first sentence: Matthew 5:17–18 is all that is needed.


    17 uThink not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, xTill heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
    Yes he didn't abolish the Ten Commandments (which didn't mention homosexuality either).

    I recognise though you need to get practising on that homophobia given the direction your party is heading in!!

    You also forgot Hebrews 'Hebrews 8:13

    In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.'

    'Hebrews 9:15

    Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.'

    Plus 'Luke 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.'
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,748

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published, FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.
    Actually, the little, unimportant things can resonate. It won't win an election, but will hurt your opponent. Remember the "cones hotline" ? Tiny and pathetic, but it hurt the government.
  • Options

    Well, I say you are utterly and totally wrong in the 'exacerbating' bit. In essence, you are claiming that Brown could not have done anything to set the UK up to be in a better position for when the crash occurred. Is that your position?

    If we'd had the Tories, they said Brown regulated too much and they would have matched his spending.

    So yes I think we did the best we could.
    That's a real "look, squirrel!" response.

    Look at what Brown did. Are you claiming the UK economy was in a good position prior to the GFC?
    I think in hindsight you're saying all of this. Virtually nobody was saying he was spending too much prior and some said he was spending too little.
    Well, I wasn't on PB at the time ( I think PB as only 2 or 3 years old), but I for one as saying he was spending too much on the wrong things. And I don't think I was alone in saying that.

    As it happens, I remember driving back from work with Mrs J and hearing on the radio that Brown had finally taken over from Blair. I said to her; "Thank God that's finally happened, and we can get some stability without the government killing each other."

    How wrong I was... ;)

    (And for those praising Brown: never, ever forget the way he got the top job.)
    I'm re-reading Blair's memoirs. It is quite obvious they hated each other from 1998 onwards.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    I'm not sure you've entirely grasped this religion thing.

    If you believe in a God who is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and if you believe that our duty is to serve that God absolutely, and if you believe God considers gay sex to be a sin (perhaps even to the extent of punishing gays in ways that would contravene the UN Convention against Torture), then where on earth (or beyond) would voting in favour of gay marriage fit into that general picture?
    Jesus never opposed homosexual unions
    Huge if true. Is your name IshmaelZ by any chance?

    The chap was a Jewish rabbi. Perhaps you could point out the relevant bit in the NT where it says "OT Leviticus x, verses y-z, cut out and paste this replacement in, clause 2, subclause i, sections 4-5".
    No, he wasn't, he was the Christian Messiah. If he was Jewish at the Crucifixion Christianity would never have been founded, he made clear he wanted a new covenant.

    Though I do recognise the current favourite for your party's leadership does take a firmly anti gay marriage line and interprets the Bible as you do. Incorrectly in my Anglican view.

    So it is hardly a surprise if SNP supporters like you are having to start practising the anti homosexual unions line
    That's at least two sentences that are complete bollocks, to coin an expression.

    And as for the first sentence: Matthew 5:17–18 is all that is needed.


    17 uThink not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, xTill heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
    Yes he didn't abolish the Ten Commandments (which didn't mention homosexuality either).

    You better get practising though on that homophobia given the direction your party is heading in!!
    I've been pointing out the homophobia of the C of E for months now. Contrary to decency and the law of the land. Bit late for you to lecture on the matter.
  • Options

    DavidL said:

    People are starting to see that holding together a party of nutters, economic illiterates and fantasists and pretending that they are fit to run a government is not as straightforward as Nicola made it appear. You’d have to be a saint not to laugh.

    Or a Tory of course. The joke went sour on them a while ago.

    Yes, it's all the party's fault. Nothing at all to do with Rishi's dire programme for Government.
    Presumably you still support Liz Truss's plans?
    I support the fact that she had a plan, one that did not involve having all the fortitude and determination of a windsock. Granted, she fucked it up, and there is not much good having a plan if you're not there to implement it.
    But her plan crashed the economy. It was crap from day one.

    If it had been Labour you'd be the first here saying they are terrible
    Truss's plan (including the mini budget) was never implemented, so we'll never know whether it was crap.

    I believe that the mini budget was poorly presented and timed, but I don't think the market was responding to it in isolation. Ultimately the BOE deserves the biggest share of the blame in my opinion.

    If Truss' plan had been presented in mid 2021, it would have not set off a panic. You only have to look at the bond markets' acceptance of massive hikes of government spending and deficits with interest rates remaining at ultra low interest rates.

    Yes, the BoE certainly deserves a lot of blame for the issue. Truss though is a bit like the apocryphal story of the LIFFE trader who had a heart attack on the trading floor and everyone stuffed their loss tickets into his pocket - she's become a useful dumping ground for others to hide their mistakes (U.K. pension funds for example).
  • Options

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published, FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.
    Actually, the little, unimportant things can resonate. It won't win an election, but will hurt your opponent. Remember the "cones hotline" ? Tiny and pathetic, but it hurt the government.
    You are one of the best level-headed people on this stuff, I have to say. My disagreements with you about Brown aside, I find it hard to disagree with anything you post.

    I not only feel deeply uncomfortable with making human beings a scape goat, I also feel like they think I'm stupid. And that insults me.
  • Options
    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    I'm not sure you've entirely grasped this religion thing.

    If you believe in a God who is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and if you believe that our duty is to serve that God absolutely, and if you believe God considers gay sex to be a sin (perhaps even to the extent of punishing gays in ways that would contravene the UN Convention against Torture), then where on earth (or beyond) would voting in favour of gay marriage fit into that general picture?
    Jesus never opposed homosexual unions
    No doubt your knowledge of Jesus's every word and deed two thousand years ago is as accurate as your knowledge of what is about to happen one, two, three and any number of years from now.
    HYFUD is actually right. It was St Paul who started off the gay bashing. Much of what we call Christian is actually Pauline doctrine
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,909
    edited February 2023
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    I'm not sure you've entirely grasped this religion thing.

    If you believe in a God who is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and if you believe that our duty is to serve that God absolutely, and if you believe God considers gay sex to be a sin (perhaps even to the extent of punishing gays in ways that would contravene the UN Convention against Torture), then where on earth (or beyond) would voting in favour of gay marriage fit into that general picture?
    Jesus never opposed homosexual unions
    Huge if true. Is your name IshmaelZ by any chance?

    The chap was a Jewish rabbi. Perhaps you could point out the relevant bit in the NT where it says "OT Leviticus x, verses y-z, cut out and paste this replacement in, clause 2, subclause i, sections 4-5".
    No, he wasn't, he was the Christian Messiah. If he was Jewish at the Crucifixion Christianity would never have been founded, he made clear he wanted a new covenant.

    Though I do recognise the current favourite for your party's leadership does take a firmly anti gay marriage line and interprets the Bible as you do. Incorrectly in my Anglican view.

    So it is hardly a surprise if SNP supporters like you are having to start practising the anti homosexual unions line
    That's at least two sentences that are complete bollocks, to coin an expression.

    And as for the first sentence: Matthew 5:17–18 is all that is needed.


    17 uThink not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, xTill heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
    And another subject on PB that I know absolutely nothing about and will just admire the jousting from a distance. Trouble is how will I know who is right, when arguments are put forth with such certainty by all sides, as is the norm on PB?
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,918

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    That’s not a fair reflection. Sunak was asked a question and responded. I agree with Sunak. Sometimes I think the extreme woke are doing stupid things to provoke a reaction.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    I'm not sure you've entirely grasped this religion thing.

    If you believe in a God who is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and if you believe that our duty is to serve that God absolutely, and if you believe God considers gay sex to be a sin (perhaps even to the extent of punishing gays in ways that would contravene the UN Convention against Torture), then where on earth (or beyond) would voting in favour of gay marriage fit into that general picture?
    Jesus never opposed homosexual unions
    Make a good t-shirt slogan, that. Wind up the lunatics.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    I'm not sure you've entirely grasped this religion thing.

    If you believe in a God who is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and if you believe that our duty is to serve that God absolutely, and if you believe God considers gay sex to be a sin (perhaps even to the extent of punishing gays in ways that would contravene the UN Convention against Torture), then where on earth (or beyond) would voting in favour of gay marriage fit into that general picture?
    Jesus never opposed homosexual unions
    No doubt your knowledge of Jesus's every word and deed two thousand years ago is as accurate as your knowledge of what is about to happen one, two, three and any number of years from now.
    HYFUD is actually right. It was St Paul who started off the gay bashing. Much of what we call Christian is actually Pauline doctrine
    In which case, why does he so fervently defend the C of E not allowing gay marriage against the law of England - of which it is the state church?
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,142
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    The Redfield & Wilton poll is certainly a surprise. I thought the Government had, by its standards, a decent week last week. All I can think is the impact of winter bills is finally coming through - it's also possible this poll is a massive outlier.

    Sunak's own approval figures continue to sink and he trails Starmer by nine points on the best PM polling (or should that be better PM polling?)

    Into the data (rather than just using the headline figures) and excluding those saying they Won't Vote, Labour leads 43-21 with 15% Don't Knows. The 2019 Conservative vote now splits 47% Conservative, 24% Labour (and there's your explanation for the change), 17% Don't Know and 8% Reform.

    The Conservative Don't Knows represent 44% of the total.

    Stripping out the DKs, Labour leads by 18 points among men and 35 points among women. Among the 65+ age group, the Conservatives lead 39-36 which represents a 22% swing from Conservative to Labour among this core Tory voting group.

    The England sub sample comes out at Labour 53%, Conservative 25%, LD 9.5%, Reform 7% and Green 5%. That's a swing of 20.5% from Conservative to Labour and a 9.5% swing from Conservative to Liberal Democrat since the 2019 election.

    A UNS of 20.5% means Hertsmere, the 293rd most marginal Conservative seat, would be a Labour gain suggesting a Conservative Parliamentary Party reduced to just under 100 seats

    Doesn't look like an outlier, Stodge.

    It's fairly consistent with their previous two efforts. They are not a notably Labour-leaning pollster. It's broadly consistent with the trend of other recent polls.

    Even if it's a few points overstated, it's still effing terrible for the Tories.
    The last four R+Ws have gone 28-49, 24-50, 27-48, 24-51 (today). There's noise and wobble there, but not much.

    And OK, it's not 1995. But the then Gold Standard ICM polls were better for the Conservatives than most of the polls now;


    The final Redfield poll before Truss resigned on October 20th 2022 was Labour 55% Conservatives 19% LDs 12%.

    So even tonight's Redfield poll still gives Rishi a 4.5% swing to the Tories since he replaced Truss
    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/magnified-email/issue-53/

    Gold standard Survation gives Labour just 42% and the Tories 26%

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1624821484215492609?s=20
    That Survation must be comforting to you - applied to Electoral Calculus it only leads to a Labour majority of 166 (assuming no tactical voting).
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074
    edited February 2023

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    That’s not a fair reflection. Sunak was asked a question and responded. I agree with Sunak. Sometimes I think the extreme woke are doing stupid things to provoke a reaction.
    TBF it's an American media company not some statue-bather in Bristol that made the change.
    Capitalism innit.

    Edit: American in the sense that it's not even a UK company.
  • Options

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    That’s not a fair reflection. Sunak was asked a question and responded. I agree with Sunak. Sometimes I think the extreme woke are doing stupid things to provoke a reaction.
    He could have just said, it's not any of my business but no he had to "own the libs", he knew exactly what he was doing.

    This isn't controversial, they've been briefing for weeks that this is how they intend to destroy Labour. The problem is, people see the current falling to bits and the Tories say "look over there there's a man dressed as a woman".

    Thankfully this rubbish was defeated in Oz and the US already. I just hope it ends up the same way here.

    For all their many faults, I just cannot see Osborne or Cameron even considering going down this road.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,210
    edited February 2023
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    I'm not sure you've entirely grasped this religion thing.

    If you believe in a God who is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and if you believe that our duty is to serve that God absolutely, and if you believe God considers gay sex to be a sin (perhaps even to the extent of punishing gays in ways that would contravene the UN Convention against Torture), then where on earth (or beyond) would voting in favour of gay marriage fit into that general picture?
    Jesus never opposed homosexual unions
    Huge if true. Is your name IshmaelZ by any chance?

    The chap was a Jewish rabbi. Perhaps you could point out the relevant bit in the NT where it says "OT Leviticus x, verses y-z, cut out and paste this replacement in, clause 2, subclause i, sections 4-5".
    No, he wasn't, he was the Christian Messiah. If he was Jewish at the Crucifixion Christianity would never have been founded, he made clear he wanted a new covenant.

    Though I do recognise the current favourite for your party's leadership does take a firmly anti gay marriage line and interprets the Bible as you do. Incorrectly in my Anglican view.

    So it is hardly a surprise if SNP supporters like you are having to start practising the anti homosexual unions line
    That's at least two sentences that are complete bollocks, to coin an expression.

    And as for the first sentence: Matthew 5:17–18 is all that is needed.


    17 uThink not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, xTill heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
    Yes he didn't abolish the Ten Commandments (which didn't mention homosexuality either).

    You better get practising though on that homophobia given the direction your party is heading in!!
    I've been pointing out the homophobia of the C of E for months now. Contrary to decency and the law of the land. Bit late for you to lecture on the matter.
    The C of E which has just voted to bless gay couples (despite opposition from evangelicals and African churches).

    Your party may well be about to elect a leader however firmly in league with evangelicals and African churches which oppose homosexual unions and homosexual marriage.

    So either you leave the SNP if Forbes is elected leader or you are nothing but a bare faced hypocrite!!
  • Options
    maxhmaxh Posts: 958

    DougSeal said:

    There's a parallel universe in which Brown was removed in 2009.

    There’s a parallel universe where I married Scarlett Johansson. What’s your point?
    Presumably there are also parallel universes in which Brown married Johansson.
    As well as the ones where Brown married Doug. Unless Forbes has her way…
  • Options
    MJW said:

    TimS said:

    Looking again at that latest R&W poll and perhaps the most remarkable stat is the LLG score: 66%. Highest we’ve seen. This isn’t a Labour score benefiting from eating up green votes. They’re unchanged on 5% and the LDs are up one on 10%.

    Or, to put it more succinctly, the Tory share is bloody low.
    I think the Tories' problem is twofold.

    1.) So-called Red Wall 2019 Lab-Tory switchers may be reverting to type and going back or giving up on voting for a big party altogether. I'd be interested to see if more local 'independents' groups pop up. Because feel cheated as Brexit/Tory rule hasn't led to any improvement and things feel if anything even more broken. That's not to say there's massive Bregret but a notion that the government is just handling everything badly and made promises it had no intention of keeping, so won't vote for it and either want to give Starmer a chance to fix things or a plague on all of you.

    2.) The Tories have completely set fire to what used to be a fairly solid constituency for them in working age professionals. The voting pattern of those under 50 looks like students - you're almost more likely to find someone under 50 who believes the moon landings were faked than is planning to vote Tory. This is far more than the usual young people voting Labour. It's those in their 30s who have lived under 13 years of Tory government where feel most decisions have been taken to make their lives worse to pander to others. In previous times these are those who would decide elections. Lost some demographic power as Boomers aged but still, you have to rack up the votes elsewhere if you're that unpopular with anyone born after the early 70s. That's especially going to hit them in the suburbs and commuter belt, where are spilling out due to high prices in London or the centre of places like Manchester. There are underlying reasons behind it - stagnating wages, failure to build houses etc but the Tories have calcified those negative sentiments by picking endless fights with those people's sensibilities. If you're an IT professional from Wokingham, say, on £35,000 a year, who holds fairly liberal views on stuff without being a massive bleeding heart, and didn't mind the EU as just didn't bother you much, a decade ago there's a fair chance you'd vote Tory if thought might cut your taxes or get you on the housing ladder, or just disliked Ed M and then Corbyn. Now? You'd crawl over broken glass to vote against the Tories, who you perceive not only to be responsible for the country's decline but whose only answer to that appears to be deliberately insulting people like you.
    There is a key issue here in that how much of the 51% Labour share is actually pro-aLabour or more anti-Tory?

    If it's the former, like in 1997, the Tories are in the shit. If it's the latter, they may still be in the shit but it's more of an unknown.

    From a personal view, and chats I've had with friends across the spectrum, it's a mixture. Starmer has definitely regained left-wing middle class North London types who disliked the anti-semitism allegations but he's not switching Tories.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,918

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    Maybe because what you want to say matches the prevailing ‘correct’ speech? Look at the fuss about Forbes today. She is entitled to her view about gay marriage. And yet people are decrying it. Certain views and expressions become the only accepted view. Take the phrase ‘coloured people’ vs ‘people of colour’. One of those is allowed, one isn’t. Who decides this shit? And when an older person gets it ‘wrong’ they are publicly castigated.
    I believe in politeness, treating people with respect and don’t be a dick. Too much of this is extreme wokeists being a dick. But then the right should try not to get sucked in quite so much.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,142
    kjh said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    I'm not sure you've entirely grasped this religion thing.

    If you believe in a God who is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and if you believe that our duty is to serve that God absolutely, and if you believe God considers gay sex to be a sin (perhaps even to the extent of punishing gays in ways that would contravene the UN Convention against Torture), then where on earth (or beyond) would voting in favour of gay marriage fit into that general picture?
    Jesus never opposed homosexual unions
    Huge if true. Is your name IshmaelZ by any chance?

    The chap was a Jewish rabbi. Perhaps you could point out the relevant bit in the NT where it says "OT Leviticus x, verses y-z, cut out and paste this replacement in, clause 2, subclause i, sections 4-5".
    No, he wasn't, he was the Christian Messiah. If he was Jewish at the Crucifixion Christianity would never have been founded, he made clear he wanted a new covenant.

    Though I do recognise the current favourite for your party's leadership does take a firmly anti gay marriage line and interprets the Bible as you do. Incorrectly in my Anglican view.

    So it is hardly a surprise if SNP supporters like you are having to start practising the anti homosexual unions line
    That's at least two sentences that are complete bollocks, to coin an expression.

    And as for the first sentence: Matthew 5:17–18 is all that is needed.


    17 uThink not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, xTill heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
    And another subject on PB that I know absolutely nothing about and will just admire the jousting from a distance. Trouble is how will I know who is right, when arguments are put forth with such certainty by all sides, as is the norm on PB?
    You can usually spot who's right quite easily - HUYFD is arguing against them.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,116

    DavidL said:

    People are starting to see that holding together a party of nutters, economic illiterates and fantasists and pretending that they are fit to run a government is not as straightforward as Nicola made it appear. You’d have to be a saint not to laugh.

    Or a Tory of course. The joke went sour on them a while ago.

    Yes, it's all the party's fault. Nothing at all to do with Rishi's dire programme for Government.
    Presumably you still support Liz Truss's plans?
    I support the fact that she had a plan, one that did not involve having all the fortitude and determination of a windsock. Granted, she fucked it up, and there is not much good having a plan if you're not there to implement it.
    But her plan crashed the economy. It was crap from day one.

    If it had been Labour you'd be the first here saying they are terrible
    Truss's plan (including the mini budget) was never implemented, so we'll never know whether it was crap.

    I believe that the mini budget was poorly presented and timed, but I don't think the market was responding to it in isolation. Ultimately the BOE deserves the biggest share of the blame in my opinion.

    Apart from being a duplicitous, pig-headed fantasist, I would say you are right about Liz Truss. She screwed up so spectacularly it really didn't matter if other people hid their own deficiencies in the bomb damage.
  • Options

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published, FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.
    Actually, the little, unimportant things can resonate. It won't win an election, but will hurt your opponent. Remember the "cones hotline" ? Tiny and pathetic, but it hurt the government.
    But it depends a lot whether the little things are going with the tide or against it. The cones hotline fed into the perception of Major as a small man with small ambitions.

    If you want a political narrative about Woke Dhal, it's what happens when a country flogs bits of itself off to the highest bidder- in this case, an American media giant. You lose control (or more accurately, you trade control for cash upfront). And part of the problem with the British model of recent decades is that we've been way too casual about doing that.
    My contention is that we are not discussing these issues to progress, we are discussing because the Government is doing a classic "fear of the outsider" to deflect from their many failings. I will not have a part in that - and I think most people under the age of 50 agree with me.
  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    That’s not a fair reflection. Sunak was asked a question and responded. I agree with Sunak. Sometimes I think the extreme woke are doing stupid things to provoke a reaction.
    TBF it's an American media company not some statue-bather in Bristol that made the change.
    Capitalism innit.

    Edit: American in the sense that it's not even a UK company.
    And the Dahl family/estate.
    Commercial businesses + family inheritors, a union made in heaven for Tories ye would think.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    I'm not sure you've entirely grasped this religion thing.

    If you believe in a God who is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and if you believe that our duty is to serve that God absolutely, and if you believe God considers gay sex to be a sin (perhaps even to the extent of punishing gays in ways that would contravene the UN Convention against Torture), then where on earth (or beyond) would voting in favour of gay marriage fit into that general picture?
    Jesus never opposed homosexual unions
    Huge if true. Is your name IshmaelZ by any chance?

    The chap was a Jewish rabbi. Perhaps you could point out the relevant bit in the NT where it says "OT Leviticus x, verses y-z, cut out and paste this replacement in, clause 2, subclause i, sections 4-5".
    No, he wasn't, he was the Christian Messiah. If he was Jewish at the Crucifixion Christianity would never have been founded, he made clear he wanted a new covenant.

    Though I do recognise the current favourite for your party's leadership does take a firmly anti gay marriage line and interprets the Bible as you do. Incorrectly in my Anglican view.

    So it is hardly a surprise if SNP supporters like you are having to start practising the anti homosexual unions line
    That's at least two sentences that are complete bollocks, to coin an expression.

    And as for the first sentence: Matthew 5:17–18 is all that is needed.


    17 uThink not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, xTill heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
    Yes he didn't abolish the Ten Commandments (which didn't mention homosexuality either).

    You better get practising though on that homophobia given the direction your party is heading in!!
    I've been pointing out the homophobia of the C of E for months now. Contrary to decency and the law of the land. Bit late for you to lecture on the matter.
    The C of E which has just voted to bless gay couples (despite opposition from evangelicals and African churches).

    Your party may well be about to elect a leader however firmly in league with evangelicals and African churches which oppose homosexual unions and homosexual marriage.

    So either you leave the SNP if Forbes is elected leader or you are nothing but a bare faced hypocrite!!
    I'll worry about that if it happens. Which is looking less and less likely, and we have almost a week now for more developments.

    Hmm. Don't remember you resigning from the Tories when Mr J became RC. Yet you're always going on about the need for the Established Church in England to protect England against RC domination, the need to defend Protestants in NI, how awful it is that the RCs are the lagrest church in Scotland, and so on.
  • Options

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    Maybe because what you want to say matches the prevailing ‘correct’ speech? Look at the fuss about Forbes today. She is entitled to her view about gay marriage. And yet people are decrying it. Certain views and expressions become the only accepted view. Take the phrase ‘coloured people’ vs ‘people of colour’. One of those is allowed, one isn’t. Who decides this shit? And when an older person gets it ‘wrong’ they are publicly castigated.
    I believe in politeness, treating people with respect and don’t be a dick. Too much of this is extreme wokeists being a dick. But then the right should try not to get sucked in quite so much.
    She's entitled to her view but is it an appropriate view for a leader of a country to hold in 2023? I don't.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074

    Carnyx said:

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    That’s not a fair reflection. Sunak was asked a question and responded. I agree with Sunak. Sometimes I think the extreme woke are doing stupid things to provoke a reaction.
    TBF it's an American media company not some statue-bather in Bristol that made the change.
    Capitalism innit.

    Edit: American in the sense that it's not even a UK company.
    And the Dahl family/estate.
    Commercial businesses + family inheritors, a union made in heaven for Tories ye would think.
    Didn't the family sell out completely?
  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    That’s not a fair reflection. Sunak was asked a question and responded. I agree with Sunak. Sometimes I think the extreme woke are doing stupid things to provoke a reaction.
    TBF it's an American media company not some statue-bather in Bristol that made the change.
    Capitalism innit.

    Edit: American in the sense that it's not even a UK company.
    And the Dahl family/estate.
    Commercial businesses + family inheritors, a union made in heaven for Tories ye would think.
    Didn't the family sell out completely?
    I’m sure I read somewhere that they were involved in the decision, but happy to be corrected.
  • Options

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    Maybe because what you want to say matches the prevailing ‘correct’ speech? Look at the fuss about Forbes today. She is entitled to her view about gay marriage. And yet people are decrying it. Certain views and expressions become the only accepted view. Take the phrase ‘coloured people’ vs ‘people of colour’. One of those is allowed, one isn’t. Who decides this shit? And when an older person gets it ‘wrong’ they are publicly castigated.
    I believe in politeness, treating people with respect and don’t be a dick. Too much of this is extreme wokeists being a dick. But then the right should try not to get sucked in quite so much.
    Same sort of thing with immigration.

    Go to most inner-city districts in Manchester for example and they have gone from mainly white 30 years ago to very non-white. The few white people left feel like they are swamped but, if they say that, they are racist.

    Yet if you go to the places where the people who call them racist live (Didsbury / West Didsbury, Hale, Cheadle etc to continue the Manchester vibe), they are so white you have to wear sunglasses. No mixed couples - all white. No mixed kids - all white.

    To people living in those districts, talk of being swamped makes no sense because they don't see in their home lives. Sure, they've got the 'cool' Black guy who works in IT or Imran who is on their team but their friends, their closest contact, their families - all white.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    That’s not a fair reflection. Sunak was asked a question and responded. I agree with Sunak. Sometimes I think the extreme woke are doing stupid things to provoke a reaction.
    TBF it's an American media company not some statue-bather in Bristol that made the change.
    Capitalism innit.

    Edit: American in the sense that it's not even a UK company.
    And the Dahl family/estate.
    Commercial businesses + family inheritors, a union made in heaven for Tories ye would think.
    Didn't the family sell out completely?
    I’m sure I read somewhere that they were involved in the decision, but happy to be corrected.
    Me too. I wonder if I misread things, on reflection - books or movie rights?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/20/roald-dahl-industry-classics-parents
  • Options

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    Maybe because what you want to say matches the prevailing ‘correct’ speech? Look at the fuss about Forbes today. She is entitled to her view about gay marriage. And yet people are decrying it. Certain views and expressions become the only accepted view. Take the phrase ‘coloured people’ vs ‘people of colour’. One of those is allowed, one isn’t. Who decides this shit? And when an older person gets it ‘wrong’ they are publicly castigated.
    I believe in politeness, treating people with respect and don’t be a dick. Too much of this is extreme wokeists being a dick. But then the right should try not to get sucked in quite so much.
    Same sort of thing with immigration.

    Go to most inner-city districts in Manchester for example and they have gone from mainly white 30 years ago to very non-white. The few white people left feel like they are swamped but, if they say that, they are racist.

    Yet if you go to the places where the people who call them racist live (Didsbury / West Didsbury, Hale, Cheadle etc to continue the Manchester vibe), they are so white you have to wear sunglasses. No mixed couples - all white. No mixed kids - all white.

    To people living in those districts, talk of being swamped makes no sense because they don't see in their home lives. Sure, they've got the 'cool' Black guy who works in IT or Imran who is on their team but their friends, their closest contact, their families - all white.
    I live in London and I’m surrounded by people of all sorts of background. I think you are dead wrong.
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,413
    edited February 2023

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published, FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.
    Actually, the little, unimportant things can resonate. It won't win an election, but will hurt your opponent. Remember the "cones hotline" ? Tiny and pathetic, but it hurt the government.
    But it depends a lot whether the little things are going with the tide or against it. The cones hotline fed into the perception of Major as a small man with small ambitions.

    If you want a political narrative about Woke Dhal, it's what happens when a country flogs bits of itself off to the highest bidder- in this case, an American media giant. You lose control (or more accurately, you trade control for cash upfront). And part of the problem with the British model of recent decades is that we've been way too casual about doing that.
    I remember New Labour using John Major's decision to use state money to buy the Churchill archive as a stick to beat him with.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,101

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    I have to admit that I was earlier of the opinion "what a storm in a woke teacup", Augustus Gloop for example, is characterised by his over indulgence and as such he is f**. But later I learned the amendments were agreed between Puffin Books and the Dahl Estate and not the Great Socialist Conspiracy. Apparently raging anti-Semite as he was, Dahl was involved in his own PC related amendments during his lifetime. It's a funny old game Saint.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,918

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    Maybe because what you want to say matches the prevailing ‘correct’ speech? Look at the fuss about Forbes today. She is entitled to her view about gay marriage. And yet people are decrying it. Certain views and expressions become the only accepted view. Take the phrase ‘coloured people’ vs ‘people of colour’. One of those is allowed, one isn’t. Who decides this shit? And when an older person gets it ‘wrong’ they are publicly castigated.
    I believe in politeness, treating people with respect and don’t be a dick. Too much of this is extreme wokeists being a dick. But then the right should try not to get sucked in quite so much.
    She's entitled to her view but is it an appropriate view for a leader of a country to hold in 2023? I don't.

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    Maybe because what you want to say matches the prevailing ‘correct’ speech? Look at the fuss about Forbes today. She is entitled to her view about gay marriage. And yet people are decrying it. Certain views and expressions become the only accepted view. Take the phrase ‘coloured people’ vs ‘people of colour’. One of those is allowed, one isn’t. Who decides this shit? And when an older person gets it ‘wrong’ they are publicly castigated.
    I believe in politeness, treating people with respect and don’t be a dick. Too much of this is extreme wokeists being a dick. But then the right should try not to get sucked in quite so much.
    Most of what the right now label as 'woke' and which they used to call 'political correctness' is simply informed politeness.
    A lot of it yes, and we drift as a society. Life moves on.

    I think the nonsense around Dahl is rather pathetic. Knew it would be with the phrase ‘lived experience’ being involved.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074
    kjh said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    I can’t say I really understand the concept of voting against gay marriage for religious reasons. I get that you might believe that in your church or faith or religion it would not be accepted. And I am not a proponent of requiring religious officials to marry people against their beliefs. But to me it seems really weird to be against it so fundamentally as a concept in a civil or (where different religions or officials want to) religious context outside of your own beliefs. Just let it take place if people want it to. It doesn’t affect your practices.

    Forbes is going to really struggle with this now.

    I'm not sure you've entirely grasped this religion thing.

    If you believe in a God who is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and if you believe that our duty is to serve that God absolutely, and if you believe God considers gay sex to be a sin (perhaps even to the extent of punishing gays in ways that would contravene the UN Convention against Torture), then where on earth (or beyond) would voting in favour of gay marriage fit into that general picture?
    Jesus never opposed homosexual unions
    Huge if true. Is your name IshmaelZ by any chance?

    The chap was a Jewish rabbi. Perhaps you could point out the relevant bit in the NT where it says "OT Leviticus x, verses y-z, cut out and paste this replacement in, clause 2, subclause i, sections 4-5".
    No, he wasn't, he was the Christian Messiah. If he was Jewish at the Crucifixion Christianity would never have been founded, he made clear he wanted a new covenant.

    Though I do recognise the current favourite for your party's leadership does take a firmly anti gay marriage line and interprets the Bible as you do. Incorrectly in my Anglican view.

    So it is hardly a surprise if SNP supporters like you are having to start practising the anti homosexual unions line
    That's at least two sentences that are complete bollocks, to coin an expression.

    And as for the first sentence: Matthew 5:17–18 is all that is needed.


    17 uThink not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, xTill heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
    And another subject on PB that I know absolutely nothing about and will just admire the jousting from a distance. Trouble is how will I know who is right, when arguments are put forth with such certainty by all sides, as is the norm on PB?
    It's actually Ydoethur who often puts me right - very educational and good for me.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,184
    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    People are starting to see that holding together a party of nutters, economic illiterates and fantasists and pretending that they are fit to run a government is not as straightforward as Nicola made it appear. You’d have to be a saint not to laugh.

    Or a Tory of course. The joke went sour on them a while ago.

    Yes, it's all the party's fault. Nothing at all to do with Rishi's dire programme for Government.
    Presumably you still support Liz Truss's plans?
    I support the fact that she had a plan, one that did not involve having all the fortitude and determination of a windsock. Granted, she fucked it up, and there is not much good having a plan if you're not there to implement it.
    But her plan crashed the economy. It was crap from day one.

    If it had been Labour you'd be the first here saying they are terrible
    Truss's plan (including the mini budget) was never implemented, so we'll never know whether it was crap.

    I believe that the mini budget was poorly presented and timed, but I don't think the market was responding to it in isolation. Ultimately the BOE deserves the biggest share of the blame in my opinion.

    Apart from being a duplicitous, pig-headed fantasist, I would say you are right about Liz Truss. She screwed up so spectacularly it really didn't matter if other people hid their own deficiencies in the bomb damage.
    Um, thanks?

    A Prime Minister is really a team. Thatcher had Airey Neave, Willie Whitelaw, Norman Tebbit. When she lost them, the wheels came off a bit. Truss had Kwasi Kwarteng.
  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    That’s not a fair reflection. Sunak was asked a question and responded. I agree with Sunak. Sometimes I think the extreme woke are doing stupid things to provoke a reaction.
    TBF it's an American media company not some statue-bather in Bristol that made the change.
    Capitalism innit.

    Edit: American in the sense that it's not even a UK company.
    It's Netflix. So not one of the established corporates but probably the streaming giant of the lot that sees 'wokery' / progressive programming as a key money earner and way to boost subscribers.
  • Options

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    I have to admit that I was earlier of the opinion "what a storm in a woke teacup", Augustus Gloop for example, is characterised by his over indulgence and as such he is f**. But later I learned the amendments were agreed between Puffin Books and the Dahl Estate and not the Great Socialist Conspiracy. Apparently raging anti-Semite as he was, Dahl was involved in his own PC related amendments during his lifetime. It's a funny old game Saint.
    Surely it was a commercial decision at the end of the day. That’s what all these companies care about. Barclays Bank aren’t going woke because they want to brainwash the youth it’s that they see a commercial advantage in being progressive.

    Just replace woke or trans for gay and you’ll fit right into the 90s!
  • Options

    Carnyx said:

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    That’s not a fair reflection. Sunak was asked a question and responded. I agree with Sunak. Sometimes I think the extreme woke are doing stupid things to provoke a reaction.
    TBF it's an American media company not some statue-bather in Bristol that made the change.
    Capitalism innit.

    Edit: American in the sense that it's not even a UK company.
    It's Netflix. So not one of the established corporates but probably the streaming giant of the lot that sees 'wokery' / progressive programming as a key money earner and way to boost subscribers.
    But that’s up to them. If it’s a terrible decision they’ll go bust. Capitalism working as intended.

    I don’t believe in telling private organisations how to operate.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,951

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    Maybe because what you want to say matches the prevailing ‘correct’ speech? Look at the fuss about Forbes today. She is entitled to her view about gay marriage. And yet people are decrying it. Certain views and expressions become the only accepted view. Take the phrase ‘coloured people’ vs ‘people of colour’. One of those is allowed, one isn’t. Who decides this shit? And when an older person gets it ‘wrong’ they are publicly castigated.
    I believe in politeness, treating people with respect and don’t be a dick. Too much of this is extreme wokeists being a dick. But then the right should try not to get sucked in quite so much.
    Same sort of thing with immigration.

    Go to most inner-city districts in Manchester for example and they have gone from mainly white 30 years ago to very non-white. The few white people left feel like they are swamped but, if they say that, they are racist.

    Yet if you go to the places where the people who call them racist live (Didsbury / West Didsbury, Hale, Cheadle etc to continue the Manchester vibe), they are so white you have to wear sunglasses. No mixed couples - all white. No mixed kids - all white.

    To people living in those districts, talk of being swamped makes no sense because they don't see in their home lives. Sure, they've got the 'cool' Black guy who works in IT or Imran who is on their team but their friends, their closest contact, their families - all white.
    That is absolute rubbish. I lived in central London for 20 years and was as happy to call a racist a racist then as now.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,918

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    I have to admit that I was earlier of the opinion "what a storm in a woke teacup", Augustus Gloop for example, is characterised by his over indulgence and as such he is f**. But later I learned the amendments were agreed between Puffin Books and the Dahl Estate and not the Great Socialist Conspiracy. Apparently raging anti-Semite as he was, Dahl was involved in his own PC related amendments during his lifetime. It's a funny old game Saint.
    He was - the Oompa-Loompas were once a lot more problematic. I think changing his text after his death is rather sinister though. Art is of its time. All art. Feel free to explain, but why change the art?
  • Options

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    I have to admit that I was earlier of the opinion "what a storm in a woke teacup", Augustus Gloop for example, is characterised by his over indulgence and as such he is f**. But later I learned the amendments were agreed between Puffin Books and the Dahl Estate and not the Great Socialist Conspiracy. Apparently raging anti-Semite as he was, Dahl was involved in his own PC related amendments during his lifetime. It's a funny old game Saint.
    He was - the Oompa-Loompas were once a lot more problematic. I think changing his text after his death is rather sinister though. Art is of its time. All art. Feel free to explain, but why change the art?
    Why is the PM involved though? What’s he got to do with it except point scoring.

    If the organisation that own the rights want to change it that is up to them. As it happens I don’t agree with changing the books but they’re a private organisation and they can do what they want. Won’t impact me at all, I will still buy the books in future.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,142
    edited February 2023

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    Maybe because what you want to say matches the prevailing ‘correct’ speech? Look at the fuss about Forbes today. She is entitled to her view about gay marriage. And yet people are decrying it. Certain views and expressions become the only accepted view. Take the phrase ‘coloured people’ vs ‘people of colour’. One of those is allowed, one isn’t. Who decides this shit? And when an older person gets it ‘wrong’ they are publicly castigated.
    I believe in politeness, treating people with respect and don’t be a dick. Too much of this is extreme wokeists being a dick. But then the right should try not to get sucked in quite so much.
    Same sort of thing with immigration.

    Go to most inner-city districts in Manchester for example and they have gone from mainly white 30 years ago to very non-white. The few white people left feel like they are swamped but, if they say that, they are racist.

    Yet if you go to the places where the people who call them racist live (Didsbury / West Didsbury, Hale, Cheadle etc to continue the Manchester vibe), they are so white you have to wear sunglasses. No mixed couples - all white. No mixed kids - all white.

    To people living in those districts, talk of being swamped makes no sense because they don't see in their home lives. Sure, they've got the 'cool' Black guy who works in IT or Imran who is on their team but their friends, their closest contact, their families - all white.
    Not my experience tbh. Worked in Halifax - very little racism evident; lived in a village near Selby - quite a lot of casual racism, sadly.

    The former was very racially diverse, the latter very white.

    My guess at why? Fear of the different.
  • Options

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    I have to admit that I was earlier of the opinion "what a storm in a woke teacup", Augustus Gloop for example, is characterised by his over indulgence and as such he is f**. But later I learned the amendments were agreed between Puffin Books and the Dahl Estate and not the Great Socialist Conspiracy. Apparently raging anti-Semite as he was, Dahl was involved in his own PC related amendments during his lifetime. It's a funny old game Saint.
    Many book publishers will refuse to publish books seen as 'controversial' (which are always right-wing or which are viewed to express non-progressive views), in part because their junior staff refuse to be associated with it and / or the senior publishers don't get the backlash.

    JK Rowling only gets away with it because Bloomsbury's share price would be down 25% in the morning if they stopped their deal with her and the management team would be kicked out by investors. Which just goes to show how principles can easily be trumped by good old money .
This discussion has been closed.