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

1235

Comments

  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,403

    maxh said:

    Boring Starmer leading the way 😂

    How does 'Boredom You Can Afford' sound as an election slogan?
    They should just bring back the slogans Brown would have used in 2007.

    E.g.





    This one is the one that would do the best IMHO:


    Thanks for dredging these up. Not flash, just Gordon is easily my favourite political slogan of all time. So apt. Still makes me smile.
    Not going for that election was a huge mistake. We'd have avoided all this chaos.
    Oooh now, Gordon was plenty capable of creating his own brand of chaos, but I think he would have won.
    Even if he'd lost, the Tories would have overseen the financial crisis. Something they said needed less regulation than Labour proposed, so it would have been worse under them - Labour would have been back in a few years later.
    You underestimate the consequences of the crisis getting out of control.

    Brown haters (and I'm no fan) choke on the notion that he played a leading role in mitigating its worst effects, but it is hard to dispute, and if it was the only good thing he did it was definitely a biggy.
    But Brown also significantly contributed to the issue. Even if he did not pull the trigger, he handed the gun to the person who did. You don't laud the person who stems the blood loss, if they're involved with the shooting.

    The severity of the GFC in the UK is down to one thing: Brown's ambition. He wanted to be PM, and undermined Blair to get the job. But that also required electability, so he ran the treasury to get short-term gains, not long-term stability.

    He could have made decisions that reduced the effect of the GFC, but he didn't. Because he wanted to be PM.
    Nonsense on stilts. Brown did not cause the
    GFC, did not exacerbate the GFC, but did help stem the GFC.
    How did his policies not 'exacerbate' the GFC) ? Are you saying the British economy was well-structured to withstand it?
    Brown thought he’d abolished the business cycle, and fuelled a boom in borrowing and house price growth.

  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @BrianSpanner1: Bloody hell.
    He was in the Parliament building.
    Well played Team Forbes.
    https://twitter.com/BrianSpanner1/status/1627782499232350209/photo/1

    Somebody will have to explain the significance of that one to me.
    Something to do with Yousaf missing a vote for gay marriage back in 2014 (explanation is attending to some sort of official business). Not sure it will go anywhere.
    Hardly surprising, Yousaf is Muslim, Forbes Free Church of Scotland.

    Neither are exactly known for their fullsome support for homosexual unions and marriages
    On the contrary, Yousaf is quite well known for his support of all things LGBT.
    For public consumption maybe though seems somewhat curious he managed to miss this key 2014 Holyrood vote legalising gay marriage in Scotland if what the Forbes camp says tonight is correct
    If what a strong anti-SNP tweeter says is correct. There is no inherent evidence it came from the Forbes camp.
    You must be concerned that even before it has started it looks like gay marriage is taking centre stage
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,628
    edited February 2023
    I see the 4 day week is being touted.
    Would be the single greatest boon to our kids' education.
    Doubt they'll be the ones getting it.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    My question for the Scots

    Is the SNP about to enter a divisive leadership contest with similar ramifications as has occurred with the conservative party ?

    Too early to say. I noted earlier (but you were out, perhaps) that we have till Friday noon for candidates to stand.
    I did miss that and in the circumstances do you expect anyone else to stand, even the unexpected ?
    Why not? Today alone has changed drastically since breakfast-time.
    Do you have any thoughts on who as outside of those named and those saying no I cannot think of anyone?
    Generally that we may [edit] see some otherwise obvious possibles reconsidering their statement that they won't stand. And one or two of the younger people.
    I only see Robertson/Swinney/Brown jumping back in if Yousaf collapses in some scandal or other. He appears to be the chosen one.

    I don't think any of the younger ones (McAllan already out /Macpherson one for the future perhaps) will touch this. Feels like Ferguson/Moyes, to reference another Scottish succession crisis.
    How soon before Sturgeon is called back in to rescue the ship? By the end of the year?
    Please do not give Johnson anymore ideas
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,000
    Tres said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy 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.
    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.
    Children's books are of their time. I was brought up on Biggles, Molesworth, Famous Five and Commando comics. Not really the cup of tea of my boys, who preferred Captain Underpants, Charlie Higson and some rather derivative pulp fantasy stuff. Fashions change and I was never a fan of Dahl particularly myself.

    Get kids hooked on reading, but resist temptation to force on them books that you liked as a youth.
    My particular favourites were the Jennings series by Anthony Buckeridge and "How to be Topp", as any fule kno.

    Perhaps that's why I am an advocate for comprehensive education.
    Yes, I read Jennings too, but I did find it all rather odd. I see now how boarding school is a good device to get kids off in groups having adventures away from their parents.

    I was rather confused too about Boarstall and boarding school, thinking them the same thing!

    I loved the Willard Price "Adventure" series too, but think they have probably aged very poorly too.
    stuff like the one when they went whaling was anachronistic even at the time of publication (although more readable for an 8 year old than Moby Dick!)
    I remember thinking that even in the early Seventies.

    One thing my boys did love was TinTin. Despite the dubious nature of some of the stories, generally they have aged well. Plenty of jokes keep it all going.

  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @BrianSpanner1: Bloody hell.
    He was in the Parliament building.
    Well played Team Forbes.
    https://twitter.com/BrianSpanner1/status/1627782499232350209/photo/1

    Somebody will have to explain the significance of that one to me.
    Something to do with Yousaf missing a vote for gay marriage back in 2014 (explanation is attending to some sort of official business). Not sure it will go anywhere.
    Hardly surprising, Yousaf is Muslim, Forbes Free Church of Scotland.

    Neither are exactly known for their fullsome support for homosexual unions and marriages
    On the contrary, Yousaf is quite well known for his support of all things LGBT.
    For public consumption maybe though seems somewhat curious he managed to miss this key 2014 Holyrood vote legalising gay marriage in Scotland if what the Forbes camp says tonight is correct
    If what a strong anti-SNP tweeter says is correct. There is no inherent evidence it came from the Forbes camp.
    You must be concerned that even before it has started it looks like gay marriage is taking centre stage
    Not surprised in the least. It's coming out in the wash early, is the key point.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,161
    Sean_F said:

    maxh said:

    Boring Starmer leading the way 😂

    How does 'Boredom You Can Afford' sound as an election slogan?
    They should just bring back the slogans Brown would have used in 2007.

    E.g.





    This one is the one that would do the best IMHO:


    Thanks for dredging these up. Not flash, just Gordon is easily my favourite political slogan of all time. So apt. Still makes me smile.
    Not going for that election was a huge mistake. We'd have avoided all this chaos.
    Oooh now, Gordon was plenty capable of creating his own brand of chaos, but I think he would have won.
    Even if he'd lost, the Tories would have overseen the financial crisis. Something they said needed less regulation than Labour proposed, so it would have been worse under them - Labour would have been back in a few years later.
    You underestimate the consequences of the crisis getting out of control.

    Brown haters (and I'm no fan) choke on the notion that he played a leading role in mitigating its worst effects, but it is hard to dispute, and if it was the only good thing he did it was definitely a biggy.
    But Brown also significantly contributed to the issue. Even if he did not pull the trigger, he handed the gun to the person who did. You don't laud the person who stems the blood loss, if they're involved with the shooting.

    The severity of the GFC in the UK is down to one thing: Brown's ambition. He wanted to be PM, and undermined Blair to get the job. But that also required electability, so he ran the treasury to get short-term gains, not long-term stability.

    He could have made decisions that reduced the effect of the GFC, but he didn't. Because he wanted to be PM.
    Nonsense on stilts. Brown did not cause the
    GFC, did not exacerbate the GFC, but did help stem the GFC.
    How did his policies not 'exacerbate' the GFC) ? Are you saying the British economy was well-structured to withstand it?
    Brown thought he’d abolished the business cycle, and fuelled a boom in borrowing and house price growth.

    But it was failed economic theory too. As long as you had low inflation there was nothing to worry about.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,403

    While I was having a few days break last week, I read:

    1. Azincourt (Bernard Cornwell)
    I may be a lefty, liberal, card-carrying member of the wokerati, but I bloody love the story of Agincourt. I've loved it since I first read Shakespeare's Henry V, and saw Olivier's film; I've seen and loved Branagh's film too, been in the play (Burgundy), been to the battlefield, seen Robert Hardy talk passionately about it, played the wargame. Cornwell writes about, and from the point of view of, the archers. They were craftsmen, who knew their discipline inside out, had practiced to perfection, and used that to devastating effect. So does Cornwell: solid history, great characterisation, clear-eyed view of Henry, braids fact and fiction together with ease, gives an amazing sense of what it would have been like to stand at the bottom of that hill, tired, ill and resigned to death. Wonderful read. Recommended.

    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'?

    3. The Dreamstone (C.J. Cherryh)
    A very early Cherryh book, and one I initially thought was going to be completely unlike the ones I knew - Celtic fantasy as opposed to the hard SF of the Alliance-Union, Chanur and other books. But there is a resonance and a resemblance to the Morgaine books: a sense of fading, loss, resignation, and ending. For a book
    so early in a career, it is incredibly accomplished; for a book so short (180pp), it is incredibly charged. If you're not into folklore and mythology, don't bother; if you are, it'll be rewarding.

    Now starting The Furys by James Hanley.

    Azincourt is very good.

  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,493
    Foxy said:

    How soon before Sturgeon is called back in to rescue the ship? By the end of the year?

    Given her record with ships?
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,141
    Scott_xP said:

    @SunPolitics: PM facing Tory rebellion over Brexit fix as hopes of breakthrough fade
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21454463/rishi-sunak-tory-rebellion-northern-ireland-brexit-fix/

    If Sunak can't get this through what is the point of him being PM?
  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @BrianSpanner1: Bloody hell.
    He was in the Parliament building.
    Well played Team Forbes.
    https://twitter.com/BrianSpanner1/status/1627782499232350209/photo/1

    Somebody will have to explain the significance of that one to me.
    Something to do with Yousaf missing a vote for gay marriage back in 2014 (explanation is attending to some sort of official business). Not sure it will go anywhere.
    Hardly surprising, Yousaf is Muslim, Forbes Free Church of Scotland.

    Neither are exactly known for their fullsome support for homosexual unions and marriages
    On the contrary, Yousaf is quite well known for his support of all things LGBT.
    For public consumption maybe though seems somewhat curious he managed to miss this key 2014 Holyrood vote legalising gay marriage in Scotland if what the Forbes camp says tonight is correct
    If what a strong anti-SNP tweeter says is correct. There is no inherent evidence it came from the Forbes camp.
    You must be concerned that even before it has started it looks like gay marriage is taking centre stage
    Not surprised in the least. It's coming out in the wash early, is the key point.
    It does look as if this is going to become very divisive
  • Options
    Sunak should do the right thing then and call a general election.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074
    edited February 2023

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @BrianSpanner1: Bloody hell.
    He was in the Parliament building.
    Well played Team Forbes.
    https://twitter.com/BrianSpanner1/status/1627782499232350209/photo/1

    Somebody will have to explain the significance of that one to me.
    Something to do with Yousaf missing a vote for gay marriage back in 2014 (explanation is attending to some sort of official business). Not sure it will go anywhere.
    Hardly surprising, Yousaf is Muslim, Forbes Free Church of Scotland.

    Neither are exactly known for their fullsome support for homosexual unions and marriages
    On the contrary, Yousaf is quite well known for his support of all things LGBT.
    For public consumption maybe though seems somewhat curious he managed to miss this key 2014 Holyrood vote legalising gay marriage in Scotland if what the Forbes camp says tonight is correct
    If what a strong anti-SNP tweeter says is correct. There is no inherent evidence it came from the Forbes camp.
    You must be concerned that even before it has started it looks like gay marriage is taking centre stage
    Not surprised in the least. It's coming out in the wash early, is the key point.
    It does look as if this is going to become very divisive
    Depends on the candidates. Still time. For the moment.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    Foxy 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.
    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.
    Children's books are of their time. I was brought up on Biggles, Molesworth, Famous Five and Commando comics. Not really the cup of tea of my boys, who preferred Captain Underpants, Charlie Higson and some rather derivative pulp fantasy stuff. Fashions change and I was never a fan of Dahl particularly myself.

    Get kids hooked on reading, but resist temptation to force on them books that you liked as a youth.
    My particular favourites were the Jennings series by Anthony Buckeridge and "How to be Topp", as any fule kno.

    Perhaps that's why I am an advocate for comprehensive education.
    Yes, I read Jennings too, but I did find it all rather odd. I see now how boarding school is a good device to get kids off in groups having adventures away from their parents.

    I was rather confused too about Boarstall and boarding school, thinking them the same thing!

    I loved the Willard Price "Adventure" series too, but think they have probably aged very poorly too.
    Likewise, I was a Jennings fan round about aged 10, but I do feel a bit uncomfortable with some of the middle-class assumptions. I don't recall any 'bad language' though.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,184
    Scott_xP said:

    @SunPolitics: PM facing Tory rebellion over Brexit fix as hopes of breakthrough fade
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21454463/rishi-sunak-tory-rebellion-northern-ireland-brexit-fix/

    There's always a chance that Bojo is actually helping Rishi by depressing expectations, in advance of a blinding deal that will surprise and delight everyone (possibly until we read the small print several weeks hence).
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,251

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @BrianSpanner1: Bloody hell.
    He was in the Parliament building.
    Well played Team Forbes.
    https://twitter.com/BrianSpanner1/status/1627782499232350209/photo/1

    Somebody will have to explain the significance of that one to me.
    Something to do with Yousaf missing a vote for gay marriage back in 2014 (explanation is attending to some sort of official business). Not sure it will go anywhere.
    Hardly surprising, Yousaf is Muslim, Forbes Free Church of Scotland.

    Neither are exactly known for their fullsome support for homosexual unions and marriages
    On the contrary, Yousaf is quite well known for his support of all things LGBT.
    For public consumption maybe though seems somewhat curious he managed to miss this key 2014 Holyrood vote legalising gay marriage in Scotland if what the Forbes camp says tonight is correct
    If what a strong anti-SNP tweeter says is correct. There is no inherent evidence it came from the Forbes camp.
    You must be concerned that even before it has started it looks like gay marriage is taking centre stage
    Well it has taken the focus away from Cocks in Frocks, so a positive outcome for the SNP.
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,999
    Cookie said:

    DougSeal 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.
    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.
    I don't see why that makes Kitchen Cabinet's post rubbish.
    I live just outside the M60 and know well very few non-white people. And most of those I do know are Hong Kong Chinese. Yet walk arounr Manchester City Centre and - well, I'd be exaggerating to say I feel lile I'm in a minority, but perhaps every third or fourth person you see is non-white.
    Sale remains pretty white - until you look at its schools. It certainly won't still be pretty white in 15 years' time.
    The take home here is that people's experience of race is complex conditioning. I went to a different secondary school to my brother and my experience in a school where the children of a well established and mixed together Indian Hindu and Pakistani Muslim immigrant community (and arguments about cricket aside, they rubbed along pretty smoothly) is nowhere near the same as his experience with a very recently immigrated and, at that point, poorly integrated Bengali community - probably not unlike some formerly WWC dominated areas of the city are now. And Cookie, just a few miles further round the then M63/66 had a very different experience. Central Manchester does have lots of different looking people in it - it's very normal and unnoteworthy to me.

    And there are more and less atomised bits of community. There is a sizable background level of middle class Asian population across the nicer suburbs and villages of Huddersfield. Sometimes with generations of mixed marriage you don't even realise for years that someone has a recently immigrant family history. And there are areas of town which are more atomised now than 20 years ago and where established communities have gone downhill their members having substantially grown up in the UK and yet some parts of the culture are still a non negligible factor in dragging an area, indeed the whole town, down.



  • Options
    Foxy said:

    Foxy 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.
    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.
    Children's books are of their time. I was brought up on Biggles, Molesworth, Famous Five and Commando comics. Not really the cup of tea of my boys, who preferred Captain Underpants, Charlie Higson and some rather derivative pulp fantasy stuff. Fashions change and I was never a fan of Dahl particularly myself.

    Get kids hooked on reading, but resist temptation to force on them books that you liked as a youth.
    My particular favourites were the Jennings series by Anthony Buckeridge and "How to be Topp", as any fule kno.

    Perhaps that's why I am an advocate for comprehensive education.
    Yes, I read Jennings too, but I did find it all rather odd. I see now how boarding school is a good device to get kids off in groups having adventures away from their parents.

    I was rather confused too about Boarstall and boarding school, thinking them the same thing!

    I loved the Willard Price "Adventure" series too, but think they have probably aged very poorly too.
    Oh yes, the Willard Price books - loved them at 10 or so, would be a bit nervous about rereading them now.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,493
    @PaulBrandITV: NEW: Trouble brewing for Rishi Sunak on immigration.

    The 92 Group of right-wing Tory MPs has sent this message aro… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627797489507086336
  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @BrianSpanner1: Bloody hell.
    He was in the Parliament building.
    Well played Team Forbes.
    https://twitter.com/BrianSpanner1/status/1627782499232350209/photo/1

    Somebody will have to explain the significance of that one to me.
    Something to do with Yousaf missing a vote for gay marriage back in 2014 (explanation is attending to some sort of official business). Not sure it will go anywhere.
    Hardly surprising, Yousaf is Muslim, Forbes Free Church of Scotland.

    Neither are exactly known for their fullsome support for homosexual unions and marriages
    On the contrary, Yousaf is quite well known for his support of all things LGBT.
    For public consumption maybe though seems somewhat curious he managed to miss this key 2014 Holyrood vote legalising gay marriage in Scotland if what the Forbes camp says tonight is correct
    If what a strong anti-SNP tweeter says is correct. There is no inherent evidence it came from the Forbes camp.
    You must be concerned that even before it has started it looks like gay marriage is taking centre stage
    Not surprised in the least. It's coming out in the wash early, is the key point.
    It does look as if this is going to become very divisive
    Depends on the candidates. Still time.
    Needs somebody to persuade Angus Robertson to change his mind and stand
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,403

    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.
    Sorry, but I don’t believe you.

    You have never expressed an opinion that is anything other than left wing.

  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    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.
    Sorry, but I don’t believe you.

    You have never expressed an opinion that is anything other than left wing.

    Then you’re calling me a liar. I have voted Tory and Lib Dem.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,559
    edited February 2023

    Scott_xP said:

    @SunPolitics: PM facing Tory rebellion over Brexit fix as hopes of breakthrough fade
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21454463/rishi-sunak-tory-rebellion-northern-ireland-brexit-fix/

    If Sunak can't get this through what is the point of him being PM?
    The point would be that he is a safe pair of hands on the tiller who won't run the ship of state aground, even if he doesn't make any particularly useful progress.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,493
    Analysis of the campaign so far.

    Nobody with a brain would support Humza.

    Nobody with a heart would support Forbes.

    Nobody would support Regan.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,403

    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 .
    Wait. JK Rowling's books a right-wing??!
    In the eyes of Woko Haram, she’s the equivalent of Julius Streicher.

  • Options
    maxhmaxh Posts: 958

    Cookie said:

    DougSeal 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.
    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.
    Mmmm, not sure you grasped my point. If you are wealthy, you don't have to worry about immigration.

    I've always thought it would be a great experiment to see if the burghers of Hampstead would be so tolerant of immigration if 30% of the housing stock was compulsory purchased and made into accommodation for refugee families.

    I'd put good money on the answer being no.
    I work with immigrants. What are you on about?
    Well, that immigration disproportionately impacts poor areas and that urban liberals im rich enclaves may feel differently if their own areas were more impacted.
    It's no use Cookie, when it comes to the subject, you will never get certain types to see this - as far as they are concerned, if you express any sort of empathy for what certain groups may be feeling, you might as well be reading Der Sturmer.
    I am arguing in good faith. Trying to understand.
    Believe it or not Horse I get that. You are genuinely (I think because I have never met you) a good person. What I am saying is that there are shades of grey - it is possible to have concerns about immigration and the change on your surroundings without being a raging racist who burns immigrants from their homes.
    Goodness. You shouldn’t be so tough on yourself. You never know, CHB’s good character might survive the encounter.
  • Options
    SNP leadership favourite (at least when I last checked) Kate Forbes says she'd be "loath to challenge" UK Gov's gender self-ID law veto

    Scottish Greens statement now makes clear not challenging it would be a deal breaker in their de facto coalition with SNP

    Trouble at t'mill..


    https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1627756480253374465?s=20
  • Options

    Scott_xP said:

    @SunPolitics: PM facing Tory rebellion over Brexit fix as hopes of breakthrough fade
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21454463/rishi-sunak-tory-rebellion-northern-ireland-brexit-fix/

    If Sunak can't get this through what is the point of him being PM?
    You know those space saving spare wheels? They don't work that well and they wear away pretty quickly but they allow you to get home after a disastrous blowout?

    Rishi is the space saving wheel of Conservative politics. It's not that he will do well, but he'll do less badly than the alternatives.
    Not only that Starmer and Labour should be grateful both Sunak and Hunt are only interested in stabilising the economy after Truss diabolical few weeks and taking the political hit for it
  • Options
    Sunak vs Starmer (18 Feb):

    Starmer leads Sunak in ALL leadership characteristics on which we poll including:

    Can bring British people together (45% | 24%)
    Understands the problems affecting the UK (42% | 26%)
    Can build a strong economy (37% | 32%)
  • Options
    Rishi now appears weak. That is hard to get away from.

    Are we about to see Cameron vs Brown again?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,210

    Rishi now appears weak. That is hard to get away from.

    Are we about to see Cameron vs Brown again?

    Cameron failed to get a majority against Brown?
  • Options


    I posted earlier about a 2007 repeat. Here we are.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,403

    Sean_F said:

    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.
    Sorry, but I don’t believe you.

    You have never expressed an opinion that is
    anything other than left wing.

    Then you’re calling me a liar. I have voted Tory and Lib Dem.
    Maybe you were a former Tory who shifted very far left. People do make big switches in either direction.

    Nothing you have posted is anything other than left wing.

  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    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.
    Sorry, but I don’t believe you.

    You have never expressed an opinion that is
    anything other than left wing.

    Then you’re calling me a liar. I have voted Tory and Lib Dem.
    Maybe you were a former Tory who shifted very far left. People do make big switches in either direction.

    Nothing you have posted is anything other than left wing.

    I never said I wasn’t left wing. I said I voted Tory and Lib Dem
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,184
    Scott_xP said:

    @PaulBrandITV: NEW: Trouble brewing for Rishi Sunak on immigration.

    The 92 Group of right-wing Tory MPs has sent this message aro… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627797489507086336

    'Our Prime Minister needs our support to deliver this' - it's like they're in a strategy meeting talking about an under-performing TV shop manager. Which in effect they are.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,000
    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    How soon before Sturgeon is called back in to rescue the ship? By the end of the year?

    Given her record with ships?
    Would she be ferry foolish to stand again?
  • Options
    maxhmaxh Posts: 958

    maxh 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.
    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.
    Yes there was a decent study a while ago (I’ll try to dig out a link) that suggested people’s negative attitude towards those of a different ethnicity were inversely correlated with the numbers of people of a different ethnicity that they interacted with
    regularly.

    Though i think TKC’s point about the speed of change in less dynamic, footloose communities than (most parts of) London is valid.
    Yes that was valid. So how do we resolve this problem? It isn’t an easy solution. Farage and co are dishonest.

    I just don’t know how you do it. Only a certain number of immigrants to an area in a year and increasing slowly over time?

    But we used to hear about Ukrainians and Romanians taking over and having too much of their Christian influence in the community. How do you deal with that? Ukrainians seem to be “fine” now, not to be feared. And yet Farage said we should fear them, Polish people
    I think @Foxy is right that it is more about class (or perhaps inequality) than ethnicity. Fund public services properly and deal with the cost of living crisis and people will have less to fear.

    All the same, you can’t dismiss the cultural aspect; if a community changes faster than you can keep up with it you get real cultural isolation and dislocation. Shared language is a crucial first step in my view (not sure that’s controversial or new, though).
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,251
    Roald Dahl. A load of old shite. We were subjected to this guff at school. Giant peach - ridiculous.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Rishi now appears weak. That is hard to get away from.

    Are we about to see Cameron vs Brown again?

    Cameron failed to get a majority against Brown?
    Cameron won one seat in Scotland. With the way the SNP are going, SKS is going to win a lot more than that.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,403

    SNP leadership favourite (at least when I last checked) Kate Forbes says she'd be "loath to challenge" UK Gov's gender self-ID law veto

    Scottish Greens statement now makes clear not challenging it would be a deal breaker in their de facto coalition with SNP

    Trouble at t'mill..


    https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1627756480253374465?s=20

    But, where else can the Greens go?

    And, a legal challenge would be futile in any case.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,493
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Foxy said:

    How soon before Sturgeon is called back in to rescue the ship? By the end of the year?

    Given her record with ships?
    Would she be ferry foolish to stand again?
    Helen of Troy had a face that launched 1000 ships

    Which means Nippy's coupon registers exactly 1 mili-Helen...
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,493
    Sean_F said:

    SNP leadership favourite (at least when I last checked) Kate Forbes says she'd be "loath to challenge" UK Gov's gender self-ID law veto

    Scottish Greens statement now makes clear not challenging it would be a deal breaker in their de facto coalition with SNP

    Trouble at t'mill..


    https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1627756480253374465?s=20

    But, where else can the Greens go?

    And, a legal challenge would be futile in any case.
    And the "mandate" (sic) is fucked...
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,147
    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:


    Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
    In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."

    She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.

    I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people.
    'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
    Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭

    Starmer is a lucky general.
    Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.

    The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism

    What are your grounds for thinking this?
    Thinking what??

    You said:

    "Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:

    History,
    Culture,
    Religious practice,
    Natural law,
    The meaning of words,
    The distinctiveness of institutions,
    The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.

    Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
    Putting it that way would be embarrassingly ignorant of tradition and history around marriage, being the weakness of the rubbish you just offered. Of course there’s a smoking gun and I’m going to give you both barrels of it.

    A member of a church saying they don’t accept same sex marriage, so could never support it is them saying they don’t believe the most sacred bond there can be is love.

    To say it’s about rights, equality, or socio economic benefits misses the main point - not that politicians defending bad stereotypes and inequality ain’t a bad point - truth is these people are too busy trying to enforce stereotypes they don’t understand either their own religion or the history of marriage properly. Arguments scripture and tradition affirm holy nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman are actually rubbish, they don’t stand in light of the biblical and historical evidence - what I know is history of Church Christianity didn’t own marriage from the start, in fact only through more recent politics, like from 17th C. did procreation and nurture actually actually enter into argument for it.

    Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside.

    The biggest upside of same sex marriage is how it strengthens religion. When the same existential reality of love and commitment exists between same-sex couples as exists between heterosexuals, then of course it’s just as sacramental! The wonderful richnesses of sexual intimacy that fosters deep personal affirmation, reconciliation , sexual affirmation, hope and thanksgiving, is never going to only exist between a man and a woman is it? It simply don’t is the fact. What embarrassing pea brained gibberish anyone who claims that such things can only occur between a man and a women? So what ceremony better reflects the nature of God than the tradition of marriage as a symbol of God’s unconditional love for us, and of our faithful pledge to love God? The more people entering into that the better for any religion.
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,384
    maxh said:

    maxh 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.
    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.
    Yes there was a decent study a while ago (I’ll try to dig out a link) that suggested people’s negative attitude towards those of a different ethnicity were inversely correlated with the numbers of people of a different ethnicity that they interacted with
    regularly.

    Though i think TKC’s point about the speed of change in less dynamic, footloose communities than (most parts of) London is valid.
    Yes that was valid. So how do we resolve this problem? It isn’t an easy solution. Farage and co are dishonest.

    I just don’t know how you do it. Only a certain number of immigrants to an area in a year and increasing slowly over time?

    But we used to hear about Ukrainians and Romanians taking over and having too much of their Christian influence in the community. How do you deal with that? Ukrainians seem to be “fine” now, not to be feared. And yet Farage said we should fear them, Polish people
    I think @Foxy is right that it is more about class (or perhaps inequality) than ethnicity. Fund public services properly and deal with the cost of living crisis and people will have less to fear.

    All the same, you can’t dismiss the cultural aspect; if a community changes faster than you can keep up with it you get real cultural isolation and dislocation. Shared language is a crucial first step in my view (not sure that’s controversial or new, though).
    Sweden and Denmark are two of the most redistributive welfare states in the world. Did nothing to prevent the immigration issue being either as big as in the UK or bigger. It's not so much speed as the belief that local cultural values are being violated. The EU issue worked to placate that sense in the UK for now
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,628

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:


    Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
    In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."

    She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.

    I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people.
    'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
    Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭

    Starmer is a lucky general.
    Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.

    The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism

    What are your grounds for thinking this?
    Thinking what??

    You said:

    "Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:

    History,
    Culture,
    Religious practice,
    Natural law,
    The meaning of words,
    The distinctiveness of institutions,
    The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.

    Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
    Putting it that way would be embarrassingly ignorant of tradition and history around marriage, being the weakness of the rubbish you just offered. Of course there’s a smoking gun and I’m going to give you both barrels of it.

    A member of a church saying they don’t accept same sex marriage, so could never support it is them saying they don’t believe the most sacred bond there can be is love.

    To say it’s about rights, equality, or socio economic benefits misses the main point - not that politicians defending bad stereotypes and inequality ain’t a bad point - truth is these people are too busy trying to enforce stereotypes they don’t understand either their own religion or the history of marriage properly. Arguments scripture and tradition affirm holy nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman are actually rubbish, they don’t stand in light of the biblical and historical evidence - what I know is history of Church Christianity didn’t own marriage from the start, in fact only through more recent politics, like from 17th C. did procreation and nurture actually actually enter into argument for it.

    Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside.

    The biggest upside of same sex marriage is how it strengthens religion. When the same existential reality of love and commitment exists between same-sex couples as exists between heterosexuals, then of course it’s just as sacramental! The wonderful richnesses of sexual intimacy that fosters deep personal affirmation, reconciliation , sexual affirmation, hope and thanksgiving, is never going to only exist between a man and a woman is it? It simply don’t is the fact. What embarrassing pea brained gibberish anyone who claims that such things can only occur between a man and a women? So what ceremony better reflects the nature of God than the tradition of marriage as a symbol of God’s unconditional love for us, and of our faithful pledge to love God? The more people entering into that the better for any religion.
    Fair enough. I absolutely agree
    But what about religions that reject God?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,210
    edited February 2023

    Roald Dahl. A load of old shite. We were subjected to this guff at school. Giant peach - ridiculous.

    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda and Danny the Champion of the World and the Witches are masterpieces of childrens' literature. All made into successful films too, including Hollywood heavyweights from Johnny Depp to Danny DeVito, Jeremy Irons and Rowan Atkinson and Anjelica Huston
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,737
    Lochhead un-endorses Forbes.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,493
    Ministers are prepared to resign over Rishi Sunak’s Brexit deal if it risks Northern Ireland’s place within the UK, The Times has been told. There is a mounting backlash among Eurosceptic Conservative MPs to the deal.

    The prime minister spent several hours in his Commons office meeting Brexiteer critics of his deal as he tried to address their concerns yesterday.

    Sunak told them that no deal had yet been agreed and talks were continuing.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-dup-brexit-deal-northern-ireland-latest-news-live-cwlp39pqh
  • Options
    franklynfranklyn Posts: 303
    Well today there was the result of a real ballot, of 37,000 junior doctors (including my daughter). With 77% voting it was 98% for strike action, starting next month.
    We are already losing doctors in droves. Of the very bright and able doctors who trained under me in the past few years, three are now in Australia, two in the Middle East and one in an EU country. One has given up medicine to become a hedge fund manager, and two civil servants. Others have given up
    the NHS to do purely private work.

    In every case they were driven away by the appalling way that doctors are treated in the NHS. They are paid appallingly for the sort of work they do, with lots of irregular and antisocial hours, but mores to the point constant bullying by venal managers.

    All of this was spelled out two years ago in my award winning book 'Lifeline'. The NHS has been destroyed.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,737
    Eabhal said:

    Lochhead un-endorses Forbes.

    Is that a word?
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,737
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Lochhead un-endorses Forbes.

    Is that a word?
    Others on twitter also struggling with this.
  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,224

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:


    Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
    In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."

    She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.

    I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people.
    'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
    Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭

    Starmer is a lucky general.
    Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.

    The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism

    What are your grounds for thinking this?
    Thinking what??

    You said:

    "Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:

    History,
    Culture,
    Religious practice,
    Natural law,
    The meaning of words,
    The distinctiveness of institutions,
    The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.

    Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
    Putting it that way would be embarrassingly ignorant of tradition and history around marriage, being the weakness of the rubbish you just offered. Of course there’s a smoking gun and I’m going to give you both barrels of it.

    A member of a church saying they don’t accept same sex marriage, so could never support it is them saying they don’t believe the most sacred bond there can be is love.

    To say it’s about rights, equality, or socio economic benefits misses the main point - not that politicians defending bad stereotypes and inequality ain’t a bad point - truth is these people are too busy trying to enforce stereotypes they don’t understand either their own religion or the history of marriage properly. Arguments scripture and tradition affirm holy nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman are actually rubbish, they don’t stand in light of the biblical and historical evidence - what I know is history of Church Christianity didn’t own marriage from the start, in fact only through more recent politics, like from 17th C. did procreation and nurture actually actually enter into argument for it.

    Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside.

    The biggest upside of same sex marriage is how it strengthens religion. When the same existential reality of love and commitment exists between same-sex couples as exists between heterosexuals, then of course it’s just as sacramental! The wonderful richnesses of sexual intimacy that fosters deep personal affirmation, reconciliation , sexual affirmation, hope and thanksgiving, is never going to only exist between a man and a woman is it? It simply don’t is the fact. What embarrassing pea brained gibberish anyone who claims that such things can only occur between a man and a women? So what ceremony better reflects the nature of God than the tradition of marriage as a symbol of God’s unconditional love for us, and of our faithful pledge to love God? The more people entering into that the better for any religion.
    "Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside."

    Religions have frequently defined marriage as being between a man and many women, often with the allowance of concubines too.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,553
    HYUFD said:

    Roald Dahl. A load of old shite. We were subjected to this guff at school. Giant peach - ridiculous.

    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda and Danny the Champion of the World and the Witches are masterpieces of childrens' literature. All made into successful films too, including Hollywood heavyweights from Johnny Depp to Danny DeVito, Jeremy Irons and Rowan Atkinson and Anjelica Huston
    I'm always fascinated by what people were 'subjected to' at school, as it is all a bit of a mess to me what was a requirement and what was not. I read most of the Dahl books when I was around 7-8, and must have found out about them somehow but have no recollection how - my parents both read quite a bit, but I don't remember them reading anythingto me, but when my mum took me to the library I presume she must have subtly steered me towards certain things.
  • Options
    Scott_xP said:

    Ministers are prepared to resign over Rishi Sunak’s Brexit deal if it risks Northern Ireland’s place within the UK, The Times has been told. There is a mounting backlash among Eurosceptic Conservative MPs to the deal.

    The prime minister spent several hours in his Commons office meeting Brexiteer critics of his deal as he tried to address their concerns yesterday.

    Sunak told them that no deal had yet been agreed and talks were continuing.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-dup-brexit-deal-northern-ireland-latest-news-live-cwlp39pqh

    Good riddance. The deal can pass with Labour support. Sunak needs to stand up to the Brexit ultras, or they will destroy him like they've destroyed every Tory PM since Major.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,628
    HYUFD said:

    Roald Dahl. A load of old shite. We were subjected to this guff at school. Giant peach - ridiculous.

    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda and Danny the Champion of the World and the Witches are masterpieces of childrens' literature. All made into successful films too, including Hollywood heavyweights from Johnny Depp to Danny DeVito, Jeremy Irons and Rowan Atkinson and Anjelica Huston
    Never read them. Never read them to my children.
    Don't know why particularly. But they weren't there for me.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,161
    edited February 2023

    Scott_xP said:

    @PaulBrandITV: NEW: Trouble brewing for Rishi Sunak on immigration.

    The 92 Group of right-wing Tory MPs has sent this message aro… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627797489507086336

    'Our Prime Minister needs our support to deliver this' - it's like they're in a strategy meeting talking about an under-performing TV shop manager. Which in effect they are.
    And yet the stock market has bounced back, Scottish separatism is on the rack and he made a widely respected speech in Munich. Not perfect by any means but perhaps if his MPs weren't constantly badgering him it might help a bit.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,559
    Sean_F said:

    SNP leadership favourite (at least when I last checked) Kate Forbes says she'd be "loath to challenge" UK Gov's gender self-ID law veto

    Scottish Greens statement now makes clear not challenging it would be a deal breaker in their de facto coalition with SNP

    Trouble at t'mill..


    https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1627756480253374465?s=20

    But, where else can the Greens go?

    And, a legal challenge would be futile in any case.
    I don't think it looks great for the Greens to seek to interfere in the SNP leadership election in this way. A simple comment that a new SNP leader cannot unilaterally change the coalition deal, but they look forward to finding an agreed way to achieve their common priorities, would be better in my view.
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,384
    franklyn said:

    Well today there was the result of a real ballot, of 37,000 junior doctors (including my daughter). With 77% voting it was 98% for strike action, starting next month.
    We are already losing doctors in droves. Of the very bright and able doctors who trained under me in the past few years, three are now in Australia, two in the Middle East and one in an EU country. One has given up medicine to become a hedge fund manager, and two civil servants. Others have given up
    the NHS to do purely private work.

    In every case they were driven away by the appalling way that doctors are treated in the NHS. They are paid appallingly for the sort of work they do, with lots of irregular and antisocial hours, but mores to the point constant bullying by venal managers.

    All of this was spelled out two years ago in my award winning book 'Lifeline'. The NHS has been destroyed.

    Unfortunately, medicine has to live within society's means like other industries do.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,553
    Scott_xP said:

    Ministers are prepared to resign over Rishi Sunak’s Brexit deal if it risks Northern Ireland’s place within the UK, The Times has been told. There is a mounting backlash among Eurosceptic Conservative MPs to the deal.

    The prime minister spent several hours in his Commons office meeting Brexiteer critics of his deal as he tried to address their concerns yesterday.

    Sunak told them that no deal had yet been agreed and talks were continuing.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-dup-brexit-deal-northern-ireland-latest-news-live-cwlp39pqh

    These reports are always a little bit stupid, since 'if it risks NI's place within the UK' is completely subjective. It's been mentioned before some MPs have literally claimed any offer from the EU is by definition unacceptable because they have offered it, so there's really no way to win with at least some of them, which makes it hard to judge which others are objecting to things for sound reasons and which ones are just idiots.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Roald Dahl. A load of old shite. We were subjected to this guff at school. Giant peach - ridiculous.

    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda and Danny the Champion of the World and the Witches are masterpieces of childrens' literature. All made into successful films too, including Hollywood heavyweights from Johnny Depp to Danny DeVito, Jeremy Irons and Rowan Atkinson and Anjelica Huston
    He is a great writer but was a pretty misanthropic person some of whose less pleasant views are evident in his writing. A bit like Larkin I suppose, but it's trickier to navigate as he wrote for children.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,403

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:


    Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
    In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."

    She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.

    I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people.
    'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
    Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭

    Starmer is a lucky general.
    Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.

    The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism

    What are your grounds for thinking this?
    Thinking what??

    You said:

    "Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:

    History,
    Culture,
    Religious practice,
    Natural law,
    The meaning of words,
    The distinctiveness of institutions,
    The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.

    Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
    Putting it that way would be embarrassingly ignorant of tradition and history around marriage, being the weakness of the rubbish you just offered. Of course there’s a smoking gun and I’m going to give you both barrels of it.

    A member of a church saying they don’t accept same sex marriage, so could never support it is them saying they don’t believe the most sacred bond there can be is love.

    To say it’s about rights, equality, or socio economic benefits misses the main point - not that politicians defending bad stereotypes and inequality ain’t a bad point - truth is these people are too busy trying to enforce stereotypes they don’t understand either their own religion or the history of marriage properly. Arguments scripture and tradition affirm holy nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman are actually rubbish, they don’t stand in light of the biblical and historical evidence - what I know is history of Church Christianity didn’t own marriage from the start, in fact only through more recent politics, like from 17th C. did procreation and nurture actually actually enter into argument for it.

    Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside.

    The biggest upside of same sex marriage is how it strengthens religion. When the same existential reality of love and commitment exists between same-sex couples as exists between heterosexuals, then of course it’s just as sacramental! The wonderful richnesses of sexual intimacy that fosters deep personal affirmation, reconciliation , sexual affirmation, hope and
    thanksgiving, is never going to only exist between a man and a woman is it? It simply don’t is the fact. What embarrassing pea brained gibberish anyone who claims that such things can only occur between a man and a women? So what ceremony better reflects the nature of God than the tradition of marriage as a symbol of God’s unconditional love for us, and of our faithful pledge to love God? The more people entering into that the better for any religion.
    How odd, that pretty well every theologian would have disagreed with you until thirty or so years ago.

    You’re confusing ought with does.

  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,493

    I don't think it looks great for the Greens to seek to interfere in the SNP leadership election in this way. A simple comment that a new SNP leader cannot unilaterally change the coalition deal, but they look forward to finding an agreed way to achieve their common priorities, would be better in my view.

    That cuts both ways

    Assuming the agreement was to pass the bill, they did that. I bet it doesn't say anything about challenging it in court
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,553

    Scott_xP said:

    Ministers are prepared to resign over Rishi Sunak’s Brexit deal if it risks Northern Ireland’s place within the UK, The Times has been told. There is a mounting backlash among Eurosceptic Conservative MPs to the deal.

    The prime minister spent several hours in his Commons office meeting Brexiteer critics of his deal as he tried to address their concerns yesterday.

    Sunak told them that no deal had yet been agreed and talks were continuing.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-dup-brexit-deal-northern-ireland-latest-news-live-cwlp39pqh

    Good riddance. The deal can pass with Labour support. Sunak needs to stand up to the Brexit ultras, or they will destroy him like they've destroyed every Tory PM since Major.
    But standing up to them will also destroy him.

    Which is still an argument for doing it, since either they completely emasculate him, or they oust him, either way he's done but at least one way he has achieved something.

    Because here's the thing - seemingly no one wants the status quo. It's a cliche that 'something must be done, this is something therefore we must do it', but sometimes that's the way to go. The assessment Sunak needs to make is whether there are any alternatives that will please his rebels, or are they simply indulging in 'never never never never' posturing.

    I think we can guess.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,493
    kle4 said:

    makes it hard to judge which others are objecting to things for sound reasons and which ones are just idiots.

    Oh, it's easy to work out which ones are idiots.

    Which ones want BoZo as PM...
  • Options
    Kate Forbes campaign team fear she has already "f***ed" her bid to be the new SNP leader after admitting she didn't support gay marriage. The 32-year-old finance secretary is favourite for the role but is now under fire just hours after announcing her candidacy.

    The Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch MSP said she would not have voted for the Scottish Parliament's equal marriage bill "as a matter of conscience". One senior member of her team said "she has fucked it" according to political commentators.



    https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/kate-forbes-fed-it-fear-29268168
  • Options
    maxhmaxh Posts: 958
    EPG said:

    maxh said:

    maxh 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.
    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.
    Yes there was a decent study a while ago (I’ll try to dig out a link) that suggested people’s negative attitude towards those of a different ethnicity were inversely correlated with the numbers of people of a different ethnicity that they interacted with
    regularly.

    Though i think TKC’s point about the speed of change in less dynamic, footloose communities than (most parts of) London is valid.
    Yes that was valid. So how do we resolve this problem? It isn’t an easy solution. Farage and co are dishonest.

    I just don’t know how you do it. Only a certain number of immigrants to an area in a year and increasing slowly over time?

    But we used to hear about Ukrainians and Romanians taking over and having too much of their Christian influence in the community. How do you deal with that? Ukrainians seem to be “fine” now, not to be feared. And yet Farage said we should fear them, Polish people
    I think @Foxy is right that it is more about class (or perhaps inequality) than ethnicity. Fund public services properly and deal with the cost of living crisis and people will have less to fear.

    All the same, you can’t dismiss the cultural aspect; if a community changes faster than you can keep up with it you get real cultural isolation and dislocation. Shared language is a crucial first step in my view (not sure that’s controversial or new, though).
    Sweden and Denmark are two of the most redistributive welfare states in the world. Did nothing to prevent the immigration issue being either as big as in the UK or bigger. It's not so much speed as the belief that local cultural values are being violated. The EU issue worked to placate that sense in the UK for now
    Reference for 'immigration issue being either as big as in the UK or bigger' please? TKC and I weren't talking about high-profile things, but more the dislocation and fear felt at a local level when a community changes. I'm not disbelieving you, just haven't heard that the same issues or worse are present in Sweden and Denmark.

    Local cultural values are mutable, at an appropriate pace (so I'd argue it is about speed). Look at attitudes to homosexuality, child labour or smoking, for example.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,403
    Scott_xP said:

    Ministers are prepared to resign over Rishi Sunak’s Brexit deal if it risks Northern Ireland’s place within the UK, The Times has been told. There is a mounting backlash among Eurosceptic Conservative MPs to the deal.

    The prime minister spent several hours in his Commons office meeting Brexiteer critics of his deal as he tried to address their concerns yesterday.

    Sunak told them that no deal had yet been agreed and talks were continuing.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-dup-brexit-deal-northern-ireland-latest-news-live-cwlp39pqh

    I suspect that it’s all piss and wind.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,553
    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    makes it hard to judge which others are objecting to things for sound reasons and which ones are just idiots.

    Oh, it's easy to work out which ones are idiots.

    Which ones want BoZo as PM...
    1/3 of them at a minimum, and probably more than that since dozens and dozens of others only got rid of him in extremis.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,553
    edited February 2023

    HYUFD said:

    Roald Dahl. A load of old shite. We were subjected to this guff at school. Giant peach - ridiculous.

    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda and Danny the Champion of the World and the Witches are masterpieces of childrens' literature. All made into successful films too, including Hollywood heavyweights from Johnny Depp to Danny DeVito, Jeremy Irons and Rowan Atkinson and Anjelica Huston
    He is a great writer but was a pretty misanthropic person some of whose less pleasant views are evident in his writing. A bit like Larkin I suppose, but it's trickier to navigate as he wrote for children.
    Being a bastard may have even helped make his writing more appealing. Not in relation to specific opinions he held which may have bled through, but just in making his stories a bit more f*cked up and weird. A lot of kids like weird and dark stuff of course. They may be less into the gentle bearded christian sing along hour or whatever (I jest a little, since plenty of kids have gotten great enjoyment out of more gentle and wholesome fare).
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,553
    Scott_xP said:

    I don't think it looks great for the Greens to seek to interfere in the SNP leadership election in this way. A simple comment that a new SNP leader cannot unilaterally change the coalition deal, but they look forward to finding an agreed way to achieve their common priorities, would be better in my view.

    That cuts both ways

    Assuming the agreement was to pass the bill, they did that. I bet it doesn't say anything about challenging it in court
    When emotion and faith (religious or cultural) are in play I doubt they would play ball over a technicality like that.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,553
    edited February 2023
    Tres said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy 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.
    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.
    Children's books are of their time. I was brought up on Biggles, Molesworth, Famous Five and Commando comics. Not really the cup of tea of my boys, who preferred Captain Underpants, Charlie Higson and some rather derivative pulp fantasy stuff. Fashions change and I was never a fan of Dahl particularly myself.

    Get kids hooked on reading, but resist temptation to force on them books that you liked as a youth.
    My particular favourites were the Jennings series by Anthony Buckeridge and "How to be Topp", as any fule kno.

    Perhaps that's why I am an advocate for comprehensive education.
    Yes, I read Jennings too, but I did find it all rather odd. I see now how boarding school is a good device to get kids off in groups having adventures away from their parents.

    I was rather confused too about Boarstall and boarding school, thinking them the same thing!

    I loved the Willard Price "Adventure" series too, but think they have probably aged very poorly too.
    stuff like the one when they went whaling was anachronistic even at the time of publication (although more readable for an 8 year old than Moby Dick!)
    Yes, I don't remember exactly when they were supposed to be set but it felt like they were in a world much older.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,147
    edited February 2023
    Sean_F said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:


    Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
    In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."

    She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.

    I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people.
    'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
    Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭

    Starmer is a lucky general.
    Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.

    The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism

    What are your grounds for thinking this?
    Thinking what??

    You said:

    "Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:

    History,
    Culture,
    Religious practice,
    Natural law,
    The meaning of words,
    The distinctiveness of institutions,
    The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.

    Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
    Putting it that way would be embarrassingly ignorant of tradition and history around marriage, being the weakness of the rubbish you just offered. Of course there’s a smoking gun and I’m going to give you both barrels of it.

    A member of a church saying they don’t accept same sex marriage, so could never support it is them saying they don’t believe the most sacred bond there can be is love.

    To say it’s about rights, equality, or socio economic benefits misses the main point - not that politicians defending bad stereotypes and inequality ain’t a bad point - truth is these people are too busy trying to enforce stereotypes they don’t understand either their own religion or the history of marriage properly. Arguments scripture and tradition affirm holy nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman are actually rubbish, they don’t stand in light of the biblical and historical evidence - what I know is history of Church Christianity didn’t own marriage from the start, in fact only through more recent politics, like from 17th C. did procreation and nurture actually actually enter into argument for it.

    Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside.

    The biggest upside of same sex marriage is how it strengthens religion. When the same existential reality of love and commitment exists between same-sex couples as exists between heterosexuals, then of course it’s just as sacramental! The wonderful richnesses of sexual intimacy that fosters deep personal affirmation, reconciliation , sexual affirmation, hope and
    thanksgiving, is never going to only exist between a man and a woman is it? It simply don’t is the fact. What embarrassing pea brained gibberish anyone who claims that such things can only occur between a man and a women? So what ceremony better reflects the nature of God than the tradition of marriage as a symbol of God’s unconditional love for us, and of our faithful pledge to love God? The more people entering into that the better for any religion.
    How odd, that pretty well every theologian would have disagreed with you until thirty or so years ago.

    You’re confusing ought with does.

    How can the reality of love and commitment only exist between a man and a women not same-sex couples too? How can believing it only can exist between man and woman actually be the basis for anything strong or good?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,403

    HYUFD said:

    Roald Dahl. A load of old shite. We were subjected to this guff at school. Giant peach - ridiculous.

    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda and Danny the Champion of the World and the Witches are masterpieces of childrens' literature. All made into successful films too, including Hollywood heavyweights from Johnny Depp to Danny DeVito, Jeremy Irons and Rowan Atkinson and Anjelica Huston
    He is a great writer but was a pretty misanthropic person some of whose less pleasant views are evident in his writing. A bit like Larkin I suppose, but it's trickier to navigate as he wrote for children.
    Plenty of good writers have been unpleasant people (Patricia Highsmith, Marion Zwimmer Bradley, HP Lovecraft, GK Chesterton, Ezra Pound, Ernest Hemmingway, ). One just had to separate the writing from the writer).
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,101
    edited February 2023
    Scott_xP said:

    I don't think it looks great for the Greens to seek to interfere in the SNP leadership election in this way. A simple comment that a new SNP leader cannot unilaterally change the coalition deal, but they look forward to finding an agreed way to achieve their common priorities, would be better in my view.

    That cuts both ways

    Assuming the agreement was to pass the bill, they did that. I bet it doesn't say anything about challenging it in court
    This is the agreement:

    reform the Gender Recognition Act in a Bill introduced in the first year of this parliamentary session. This will ensure the process by which a trans person can obtain legal recognition is simplified, reducing the trauma associated with that process.

    https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/agreement/2021/08/scottish-government-and-scottish-green-party-shared-policy-programme/documents/scottish-government-and-scottish-green-party-draft-shared-policy-programme/scottish-government-and-scottish-green-party-draft-shared-policy-programme/govscot:document/SG+SGP+Talks+-+Draft+Policy+Programme+-+FINAL+-+OFFSEN.pdf

    No mention of “self-ID”…..
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,147
    edited February 2023
    WillG said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:


    Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
    In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."

    She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.

    I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people.
    'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
    Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭

    Starmer is a lucky general.
    Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.

    The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism

    What are your grounds for thinking this?
    Thinking what??

    You said:

    "Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:

    History,
    Culture,
    Religious practice,
    Natural law,
    The meaning of words,
    The distinctiveness of institutions,
    The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.

    Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
    Putting it that way would be embarrassingly ignorant of tradition and history around marriage, being the weakness of the rubbish you just offered. Of course there’s a smoking gun and I’m going to give you both barrels of it.

    A member of a church saying they don’t accept same sex marriage, so could never support it is them saying they don’t believe the most sacred bond there can be is love.

    To say it’s about rights, equality, or socio economic benefits misses the main point - not that politicians defending bad stereotypes and inequality ain’t a bad point - truth is these people are too busy trying to enforce stereotypes they don’t understand either their own religion or the history of marriage properly. Arguments scripture and tradition affirm holy nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman are actually rubbish, they don’t stand in light of the biblical and historical evidence - what I know is history of Church Christianity didn’t own marriage from the start, in fact only through more recent politics, like from 17th C. did procreation and nurture actually actually enter into argument for it.

    Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside.

    The biggest upside of same sex marriage is how it strengthens religion. When the same existential reality of love and commitment exists between same-sex couples as exists between heterosexuals, then of course it’s just as sacramental! The wonderful richnesses of sexual intimacy that fosters deep personal affirmation, reconciliation , sexual affirmation, hope and thanksgiving, is never going to only exist between a man and a woman is it? It simply don’t is the fact. What embarrassing pea brained gibberish anyone who claims that such things can only occur between a man and a women? So what ceremony better reflects the nature of God than the tradition of marriage as a symbol of God’s unconditional love for us, and of our faithful pledge to love God? The more people entering into that the better for any religion.
    "Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside."

    Religions have frequently defined marriage as being between a man and many women, often with the allowance of concubines too.
    How can the reality of love and commitment only exist between a man and a women not same-sex couples too? How can believing what you are suggesting actually be the basis for anything strong or good?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,403

    Sean_F said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:


    Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
    In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."

    She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.

    I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people.
    'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
    Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭

    Starmer is a lucky general.
    Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.

    The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism

    What are your grounds for thinking this?
    Thinking what??

    You said:

    "Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:

    History,
    Culture,
    Religious practice,
    Natural law,
    The meaning of words,
    The distinctiveness of institutions,
    The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.

    Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
    Putting it that way would be embarrassingly ignorant of tradition and history around marriage, being the weakness of the rubbish you just offered. Of course there’s a smoking gun and I’m going to give you both barrels of it.

    A member of a church saying they don’t accept same sex marriage, so could never support it is them saying they don’t believe the most sacred bond there can be is love.

    To say it’s about rights, equality, or socio economic benefits misses the main point - not that politicians defending bad stereotypes and inequality ain’t a bad point - truth is these people are too busy trying to enforce stereotypes they don’t understand either their own religion or the history of marriage properly. Arguments scripture and tradition affirm holy nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman are actually rubbish, they don’t stand in light of the biblical and historical evidence - what I know is history of Church Christianity didn’t own marriage from the start, in fact only through more recent politics, like from 17th C. did procreation and nurture actually actually enter into argument for it.

    Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside.

    The biggest upside of same sex marriage is how it strengthens religion. When the same existential reality of love and commitment exists between same-sex couples as exists between heterosexuals, then of course it’s just as sacramental! The wonderful richnesses of sexual intimacy that fosters deep personal affirmation, reconciliation , sexual affirmation, hope and
    thanksgiving, is never going to only exist between a man and a woman is it? It simply don’t is the fact. What embarrassing pea brained gibberish anyone who claims that such things can only occur between a man and a women? So what ceremony better reflects the nature of God than the tradition of marriage as a symbol of God’s unconditional love for us, and of our faithful pledge to love God? The more people entering into that the better for any religion.
    How odd, that pretty well every theologian would have disagreed with you until thirty or so years ago.

    You’re confusing ought with does.

    How can the reality of love and commitment only exist between a man and a women not same-sex couples too? How can believing such warped nonsense actually be the basis for anything strong or good?
    Why don’t you take it up with the theologians? Explain to them how they missed this obvious religious truth for so long.

  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,161
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    makes it hard to judge which others are objecting to things for sound reasons and which ones are just idiots.

    Oh, it's easy to work out which ones are idiots.

    Which ones want BoZo as PM...
    1/3 of them at a minimum, and probably more than that since dozens and dozens of others only got rid of him in extremis.
    Surely Johnson promises jobs for all the talentless non-entities who wouldn't get one under any other leader. Except Truss perhaps but I think her ship truly has sailed.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,147
    dixiedean said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:


    Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
    In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."

    She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.

    I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people.
    'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
    Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭

    Starmer is a lucky general.
    Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.

    The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism

    What are your grounds for thinking this?
    Thinking what??

    You said:

    "Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:

    History,
    Culture,
    Religious practice,
    Natural law,
    The meaning of words,
    The distinctiveness of institutions,
    The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.

    Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
    Putting it that way would be embarrassingly ignorant of tradition and history around marriage, being the weakness of the rubbish you just offered. Of course there’s a smoking gun and I’m going to give you both barrels of it.

    A member of a church saying they don’t accept same sex marriage, so could never support it is them saying they don’t believe the most sacred bond there can be is love.

    To say it’s about rights, equality, or socio economic benefits misses the main point - not that politicians defending bad stereotypes and inequality ain’t a bad point - truth is these people are too busy trying to enforce stereotypes they don’t understand either their own religion or the history of marriage properly. Arguments scripture and tradition affirm holy nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman are actually rubbish, they don’t stand in light of the biblical and historical evidence - what I know is history of Church Christianity didn’t own marriage from the start, in fact only through more recent politics, like from 17th C. did procreation and nurture actually actually enter into argument for it.

    Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside.

    The biggest upside of same sex marriage is how it strengthens religion. When the same existential reality of love and commitment exists between same-sex couples as exists between heterosexuals, then of course it’s just as sacramental! The wonderful richnesses of sexual intimacy that fosters deep personal affirmation, reconciliation , sexual affirmation, hope and thanksgiving, is never going to only exist between a man and a woman is it? It simply don’t is the fact. What embarrassing pea brained gibberish anyone who claims that such things can only occur between a man and a women? So what ceremony better reflects the nature of God than the tradition of marriage as a symbol of God’s unconditional love for us, and of our faithful pledge to love God? The more people entering into that the better for any religion.
    Fair enough. I absolutely agree
    But what about religions that reject God?
    religion that reject God wouldn’t be mine.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,553
    edited February 2023
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:


    Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
    In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."

    She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.

    I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people.
    'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
    Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭

    Starmer is a lucky general.
    Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.

    The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism

    What are your grounds for thinking this?
    Thinking what??

    You said:

    "Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:

    History,
    Culture,
    Religious practice,
    Natural law,
    The meaning of words,
    The distinctiveness of institutions,
    The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.

    Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
    Putting it that way would be embarrassingly ignorant of tradition and history around marriage, being the weakness of the rubbish you just offered. Of course there’s a smoking gun and I’m going to give you both barrels of it.

    A member of a church saying they don’t accept same sex marriage, so could never support it is them saying they don’t believe the most sacred bond there can be is love.

    To say it’s about rights, equality, or socio economic benefits misses the main point - not that politicians defending bad stereotypes and inequality ain’t a bad point - truth is these people are too busy trying to enforce stereotypes they don’t understand either their own religion or the history of marriage properly. Arguments scripture and tradition affirm holy nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman are actually rubbish, they don’t stand in light of the biblical and historical evidence - what I know is history of Church Christianity didn’t own marriage from the start, in fact only through more recent politics, like from 17th C. did procreation and nurture actually actually enter into argument for it.

    Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside.

    The biggest upside of same sex marriage is how it strengthens religion. When the same existential reality of love and commitment exists between same-sex couples as exists between heterosexuals, then of course it’s just as sacramental! The wonderful richnesses of sexual intimacy that fosters deep personal affirmation, reconciliation , sexual affirmation, hope and
    thanksgiving, is never going to only exist between a man and a woman is it? It simply don’t is the fact. What embarrassing pea brained gibberish anyone who claims that such things can only occur between a man and a women? So what ceremony better reflects the nature of God than the tradition of marriage as a symbol of God’s unconditional love for us, and of our faithful pledge to love God? The more people entering into that the better for any religion.
    How odd, that pretty well every theologian would have disagreed with you until thirty or so years ago.

    You’re confusing ought with does.

    How can the reality of love and commitment only exist between a man and a women not same-sex couples too? How can believing such warped nonsense actually be the basis for anything strong or good?
    Why don’t you take it up with the theologians? Explain to them how they missed this obvious religious truth for so long.

    You see, God is a lot like Boris Johnson - He might be good on some big picture stuff, vague good natured platitudes, but when He gets into the details, about genitals or food preparation or whatever, He gets into a bit of a mess, and His disciples then invent a whole bunch more rules to benefit themselves and claim it is the will of the Lord.
  • Options

    Cookie said:

    DougSeal 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.
    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.
    Mmmm, not sure you grasped my point. If you are wealthy, you don't have to worry about immigration.

    I've always thought it would be a great experiment to see if the burghers of


    Hampstead would be so tolerant of immigration if 30% of the housing stock was compulsory purchased and made into accommodation for refugee families.

    I'd put good money on the answer being no.
    I work with immigrants. What are you on about?
    Well, that immigration disproportionately impacts poor areas and that urban liberals im rich enclaves may feel differently if their own areas were more impacted.
    It's no use Cookie, when it comes to the subject, you will never get certain types to see this - as far as they are concerned, if you express any sort of empathy for what certain groups may be feeling, you might as well be reading Der Sturmer.
    I am arguing in good faith. Trying to understand.
    Believe it or not Horse I get that. You are genuinely (I think because I have never met you) a good person. What I am saying is that there are shades of grey - it is possible to have concerns about immigration and the change on your surroundings without being a raging racist who burns immigrants from their homes.
    I totally agree with that. We do now have control of immigration though and Labour policy is to maintain it.

    My fear is that this won’t be enough, certain people will continue to use immigrants as a scapegoat.

    I think there are legitimate issues with immigration and its impacts. But the solution is not “send them all home” as I’ve heard several times. We need grown up and honest solutions. Do you have any in mind?

    Thank you for your kind words. I try to be good but doubt it sometimes based on some of the replies I get. You too are a nice person which is why I am happy to converse with you.

    Sorry Horse, my phone died and I was out hence the delay in replying. But thank you for the kind words.

    I don't believe in caps or anything like that. I think @Foxy had it spot on (and
    sorry Foxy for not replying direct) that class has a lot to do with things and I also that @maxh is right re a shared language.

    Where I have seen things work - and this is simply my own experience so others may have differently - is where both sides recognise they need to compromise and accept that there are some things they may / may not like but that people have got to do to get on if they are neighbours. There are no set rules on who moves first, it's just being open to talking.

    Where things get hostile is when one (or both) side(s) don't believe they need to compromise and that, in effect, the other side should come to them. That can be the locals (Tebbit's comments on the cricket test were ridiculous - if he was living in Pakistan, would he be cheering for Pakistan?) but it can also be the immigrants.

    And this is where I think the modern Left got it wrong on immigration. It presented a line that said it was fine not to integrate if you didn't want to. That led to some groups taking that to mean that the locals had to accept their ways but they didn't have to accept the locals. And if the locals complained? Well, obviously it's racism. And if they didn't accept the need to confirm? Well, that's racism too. Naturally that breeds resentment. If you want the apogee of that, take a trip to Oldham (actually don't).

    There are a few obvious black and white points in this debate but most of it is shades of grey and finding the balance. Unfortunately that's an art not a science.

  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,403
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roald Dahl. A load of old shite. We were subjected to this guff at school. Giant peach - ridiculous.

    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda and Danny the Champion of the World and the Witches are masterpieces of childrens' literature. All made into successful films too, including Hollywood heavyweights from Johnny Depp to Danny DeVito, Jeremy Irons and Rowan Atkinson and Anjelica Huston
    He is a great writer but was a pretty misanthropic person some of whose less pleasant views are evident in his writing. A bit like Larkin I suppose, but it's trickier to navigate as he wrote for children.
    Being a bastard may have even helped make his writing more appealing. Not in relation to specific opinions he held which may have bled through, but just in making his stories a bit more f*cked up and weird. A lot of kids like weird and dark stuff of course. They may be less into the gentle bearded christian sing along hour or whatever (I jest a little, since plenty of kids have gotten great enjoyment out of more gentle and wholesome fare).
    Children are mostly unscrupulous and vindictive (subject to their love of animals). Of course they like dark and twisted stuff.

  • Options
    An SNP staffer tweets:

    I hate to do this. But I have been blocked by Kate Forbes for my comment. This is unacceptable during a democratic leadership contest. Please engage in respectful dialogue and do not completely ignore me. I’m happy to speak any time.

    Scott McElvanney @ScottMcElv1 1h
    @theSNP is about equality & social justice. Any credibility & respect @_KateForbes had has gone. I’ve lost faith. I want the right to marry who I want. I don’t want to be stopped by a party leader. A party I love. It’s time for progressive policy to win. #HumzaForScotland 🏳️‍🌈


    https://twitter.com/ScottMcElv1/status/1627798376199733251?s=20

  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,147
    On topic. “Generally speaking we can partly explain poll shifts as being within the margin of error but not so with tonight’s R&W survey which came out this afternoon.”

    I wouldn’t go that far myself. I would caution not to read too much into week by week poll by poll movements, instead average out a trend from pollsters over half a dozen or more polls, average of all polls over month or more not week by week - sampling is not an exact science, and how the margin of errors bounce back in the next sample, and evens out with more samples is how we should follow polling trends.

    We know going 24% is on the low side of what this firm normally find, let’s see if next poll lifts Tory’s +2 or 3 to correct this sampling error.

    What we do know of trend is Tories still stuck somewhere between 26 and 27. The Sunak bounce the Tory MPs bet the house on when they moved against Boris to have Sunak has yet to happen (ignore that they got Truss and so got rid of her to get what they really wanted) In fact the trend is Sunak’s personal ratings on slide with the voters, as is the party’s month by month polling average.

    “Quite what has been driving this is hard to explain but these are the worst numbers from this pollster since Sunak became leader last October.”

    The most likely answer to that question is how sleazy the Tories have been in recent years, and Sunak ever present in centre of all that up to his eyebrows in Tory sleaze revelations week by week.

    It’s a party existing to line it’s own pockets with the power of government, by fleecing everything they can, in which instance there’s no floor to their fall. Reform could get 20% and Tories 8% at the next election. Who is eager to vote for sleaze and corruption?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,210
    edited February 2023

    WillG said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:


    Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
    In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."

    She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.

    I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people.
    'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
    Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭

    Starmer is a lucky general.
    Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.

    The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism

    What are your grounds for thinking this?
    Thinking what??

    You said:

    "Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:

    History,
    Culture,
    Religious practice,
    Natural law,
    The meaning of words,
    The distinctiveness of institutions,
    The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.

    Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
    Putting it that way would be embarrassingly ignorant of tradition and history around marriage, being the weakness of the rubbish you just offered. Of course there’s a smoking gun and I’m going to give you both barrels of it.

    A member of a church saying they don’t accept same sex marriage, so could never support it is them saying they don’t believe the most sacred bond there can be is love.

    To say it’s about rights, equality, or socio economic benefits misses the main point - not that politicians defending bad stereotypes and inequality ain’t a bad point - truth is these people are too busy trying to enforce stereotypes they don’t understand either their own religion or the history of marriage properly. Arguments scripture and tradition affirm holy nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman are actually rubbish, they don’t stand in light of the biblical and historical evidence - what I know is history of Church Christianity didn’t own marriage from the start, in fact only through more recent politics, like from 17th C. did procreation and nurture actually actually enter into argument for it.

    Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside.

    The biggest upside of same sex marriage is how it strengthens religion. When the same existential reality of love and commitment exists between same-sex couples as exists between heterosexuals, then of course it’s just as sacramental! The wonderful richnesses of sexual intimacy that fosters deep personal affirmation, reconciliation , sexual affirmation, hope and thanksgiving, is never going to only exist between a man and a woman is it? It simply don’t is the fact. What embarrassing pea brained gibberish anyone who claims that such things can only occur between a man and a women? So what ceremony better reflects the nature of God than the tradition of marriage as a symbol of God’s unconditional love for us, and of our faithful pledge to love God? The more people entering into that the better for any religion.
    "Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside."

    Religions have frequently defined marriage as being between a man and many women, often with the allowance of concubines too.
    How can the reality of love and commitment only exist between a man and a women not same-sex couples too? How can believing what you are suggesting actually be the basis for anything strong or good?
    It isn't for Lutherans, increasing numbers of western Anglican churches, Methodists and members of the Church of Scotland, Quakers, Unitarians and some reformist Buddhists and Jews which already perform homosexual marriages or at least bless homosexual couples.

    Even if it is by most other religions and Christian denominations
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,403
    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:


    Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
    In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."

    She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.

    I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people.
    'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
    Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭

    Starmer is a lucky general.
    Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.

    The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism

    What are your grounds for thinking this?
    Thinking what??

    You said:

    "Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:

    History,
    Culture,
    Religious practice,
    Natural law,
    The meaning of words,
    The distinctiveness of institutions,
    The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.

    Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
    Putting it that way would be embarrassingly ignorant of tradition and history around marriage, being the weakness of the rubbish you just offered. Of course there’s a smoking gun and I’m going to give you both barrels of it.

    A member of a church saying they don’t accept same sex marriage, so could never support it is them saying they don’t believe the most sacred bond there can be is love.

    To say it’s about rights, equality, or socio economic benefits misses the main point - not that politicians defending bad stereotypes and inequality ain’t a bad point - truth is these people are too busy trying to enforce stereotypes they don’t understand either their own religion or the history of marriage properly. Arguments scripture and tradition affirm holy nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman are actually rubbish, they don’t stand in light of the biblical and historical evidence - what I know is history of Church Christianity didn’t own marriage from the start, in fact only through more recent politics, like from 17th C. did procreation and nurture actually actually enter into argument for it.

    Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside.

    The biggest upside of same sex marriage is how it strengthens religion. When the same existential reality of love and commitment exists between same-sex couples as exists between heterosexuals, then of course it’s just as sacramental! The wonderful richnesses of sexual intimacy that fosters deep personal affirmation, reconciliation , sexual affirmation, hope and
    thanksgiving, is never going to only exist between a man and a woman is it? It simply don’t is the fact. What embarrassing pea brained gibberish anyone who claims that such things can only occur between a man and a women? So what ceremony better reflects the nature of God than the tradition of marriage as a symbol of God’s unconditional love for us, and of our faithful pledge to love God? The more people entering into that the better for any religion.
    How odd, that pretty well every theologian would have disagreed with you until thirty or so years ago.

    You’re confusing ought with does.

    How can the reality of love and commitment only exist between a man and a women not same-sex couples too? How can believing such warped nonsense actually be the basis for anything strong or good?
    Why don’t you take it up with the theologians? Explain to them how they missed this obvious
    religious truth for so long.

    You see, God is a lot like Boris Johnson - He
    might be good on some big picture stuff, vague good natured platitudes, but when He gets into the details, about genitals or food preparation or whatever, He gets into a bit of a mess, and His disciples then invent a whole bunch more rules to benefit themselves and claim it is the will of the Lord.
    There’s something pretty great, IMHO, about a God who will send a pair of she/bears to eat 42 bad boys who mocked His prophet.

  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,161
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roald Dahl. A load of old shite. We were subjected to this guff at school. Giant peach - ridiculous.

    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda and Danny the Champion of the World and the Witches are masterpieces of childrens' literature. All made into successful films too, including Hollywood heavyweights from Johnny Depp to Danny DeVito, Jeremy Irons and Rowan Atkinson and Anjelica Huston
    He is a great writer but was a pretty misanthropic person some of whose less pleasant views are evident in his writing. A bit like Larkin I suppose, but it's trickier to navigate as he wrote for children.
    Being a bastard may have even helped make his writing more appealing. Not in relation to specific opinions he held which may have bled through, but just in making his stories a bit more f*cked up and weird. A lot of kids like weird and dark stuff of course. They may be less into the gentle bearded christian sing along hour or whatever (I jest a little, since plenty of kids have gotten great enjoyment out of more gentle and wholesome fare).
    Children are mostly unscrupulous and vindictive (subject to their love of animals). Of course they like dark and twisted stuff.

    Oooh that's controversial. I don't have children so it is hard for me to comment. More so than adults? Don't we like dark and twisted stuff too?
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:


    Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
    In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."

    She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.

    I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people.
    'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
    Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭

    Starmer is a lucky general.
    Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.

    The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism

    What are your grounds for thinking this?
    Thinking what??

    You said:

    "Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:

    History,
    Culture,
    Religious practice,
    Natural law,
    The meaning of words,
    The distinctiveness of institutions,
    The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.

    Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
    Putting it that way would be embarrassingly ignorant of tradition and history around marriage, being the weakness of the rubbish you just offered. Of course there’s a smoking gun and I’m going to give you both barrels of it.

    A member of a church saying they don’t accept same sex marriage, so could never support it is them saying they don’t believe the most sacred bond there can be is love.

    To say it’s about rights, equality, or socio economic benefits misses the main point - not that politicians defending bad stereotypes and inequality ain’t a bad point - truth is these people are too busy trying to enforce stereotypes they don’t understand either their own religion or the history of marriage properly. Arguments scripture and tradition affirm holy nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman are actually rubbish, they don’t stand in light of the biblical and historical evidence - what I know is history of Church Christianity didn’t own marriage from the start, in fact only through more recent politics, like from 17th C. did procreation and nurture actually actually enter into argument for it.

    Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside.

    The biggest upside of same sex marriage is how it strengthens religion. When the same existential reality of love and commitment exists between same-sex couples as exists between heterosexuals, then of course it’s just as sacramental! The wonderful richnesses of sexual intimacy that fosters deep personal affirmation, reconciliation , sexual affirmation, hope and thanksgiving, is never going to only exist between a man and a woman is it? It simply don’t is the fact. What embarrassing pea brained gibberish anyone who claims that such things can only occur between a man and a women? So what ceremony better reflects the nature of God than the tradition of marriage as a symbol of God’s unconditional love for us, and of our faithful pledge to love God? The more people entering into that the better for any religion.
    "Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside."

    Religions have frequently defined marriage as being between a man and many women, often with the allowance of concubines too.
    How can the reality of love and commitment only exist between a man and a women not same-sex couples too? How can believing what you are suggesting actually be the basis for anything strong or good?
    It isn't for Lutherans, increasing numbers of western Anglican churches, Methodists and members of the Church of Scotland, Quakers, Unitarians and some reformist Buddhists and Jews.

    Even if it is by most other religions and Christian denominations
    The Church of Scotland permits gay marriages, unlike your own state sect.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,403

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roald Dahl. A load of old shite. We were subjected to this guff at school. Giant peach - ridiculous.

    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda and Danny the Champion of the World and the Witches are masterpieces of childrens' literature. All made into successful films too, including Hollywood heavyweights from Johnny Depp to Danny DeVito, Jeremy Irons and Rowan Atkinson and Anjelica Huston
    He is a great writer but was a pretty misanthropic person some of whose less pleasant views are evident in his writing. A bit like Larkin I suppose, but it's trickier to navigate as he wrote for children.
    Being a bastard may have even helped make his writing more appealing. Not in relation to specific opinions he held which may have bled through, but just in making his stories a bit more f*cked up and weird. A lot of kids like weird and dark stuff of course. They may be less into the gentle bearded christian sing along hour or whatever (I jest a little, since plenty of kids have gotten great enjoyment out of more gentle and wholesome fare).
    Children are mostly unscrupulous and vindictive (subject to their love of animals). Of course they like dark and twisted stuff.

    Oooh that's controversial. I don't have children so it is hard for me to comment. More so than adults? Don't we like dark and twisted stuff too?
    Well I enjoy both reading and writing dark and twisted stuff that plumbs the depths of human nature.

    But, does everyone?

  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,553
    Rishi goes past George Canning on Wednesday in terms of tenure as PM. Practically a veteran in the job, so really I can see where MPs are coming from in looking to replace.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,553
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roald Dahl. A load of old shite. We were subjected to this guff at school. Giant peach - ridiculous.

    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda and Danny the Champion of the World and the Witches are masterpieces of childrens' literature. All made into successful films too, including Hollywood heavyweights from Johnny Depp to Danny DeVito, Jeremy Irons and Rowan Atkinson and Anjelica Huston
    He is a great writer but was a pretty misanthropic person some of whose less pleasant views are evident in his writing. A bit like Larkin I suppose, but it's trickier to navigate as he wrote for children.
    Being a bastard may have even helped make his writing more appealing. Not in relation to specific opinions he held which may have bled through, but just in making his stories a bit more f*cked up and weird. A lot of kids like weird and dark stuff of course. They may be less into the gentle bearded christian sing along hour or whatever (I jest a little, since plenty of kids have gotten great enjoyment out of more gentle and wholesome fare).
    Children are mostly unscrupulous and vindictive (subject to their love of animals). Of course they like dark and twisted stuff.

    Oooh that's controversial. I don't have children so it is hard for me to comment. More so than adults? Don't we like dark and twisted stuff too?
    Well I enjoy both reading and writing dark and twisted stuff that plumbs the depths of human nature.

    But, does everyone?

    I cannot imagine why someone who enjoys plumbing the depths of human nature would also comment on a political message board, I see no connections there at all.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,210

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:


    Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
    In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."

    She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.

    I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people.
    'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
    Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭

    Starmer is a lucky general.
    Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.

    The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism

    What are your grounds for thinking this?
    Thinking what??

    You said:

    "Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:

    History,
    Culture,
    Religious practice,
    Natural law,
    The meaning of words,
    The distinctiveness of institutions,
    The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.

    Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
    Putting it that way would be embarrassingly ignorant of tradition and history around marriage, being the weakness of the rubbish you just offered. Of course there’s a smoking gun and I’m going to give you both barrels of it.

    A member of a church saying they don’t accept same sex marriage, so could never support it is them saying they don’t believe the most sacred bond there can be is love.

    To say it’s about rights, equality, or socio economic benefits misses the main point - not that politicians defending bad stereotypes and inequality ain’t a bad point - truth is these people are too busy trying to enforce stereotypes they don’t understand either their own religion or the history of marriage properly. Arguments scripture and tradition affirm holy nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman are actually rubbish, they don’t stand in light of the biblical and historical evidence - what I know is history of Church Christianity didn’t own marriage from the start, in fact only through more recent politics, like from 17th C. did procreation and nurture actually actually enter into argument for it.

    Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside.

    The biggest upside of same sex marriage is how it strengthens religion. When the same existential reality of love and commitment exists between same-sex couples as exists between heterosexuals, then of course it’s just as sacramental! The wonderful richnesses of sexual intimacy that fosters deep personal affirmation, reconciliation , sexual affirmation, hope and thanksgiving, is never going to only exist between a man and a woman is it? It simply don’t is the fact. What embarrassing pea brained gibberish anyone who claims that such things can only occur between a man and a women? So what ceremony better reflects the nature of God than the tradition of marriage as a symbol of God’s unconditional love for us, and of our faithful pledge to love God? The more people entering into that the better for any religion.
    "Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside."

    Religions have frequently defined marriage as being between a man and many women, often with the allowance of concubines too.
    How can the reality of love and commitment only exist between a man and a women not same-sex couples too? How can believing what you are suggesting actually be the basis for anything strong or good?
    It isn't for Lutherans, increasing numbers of western Anglican churches, Methodists and members of the Church of Scotland, Quakers, Unitarians and some reformist Buddhists and Jews.

    Even if it is by most other religions and Christian denominations
    The Church of Scotland permits gay marriages, unlike your own state sect.
    The Church of England now permits blessings of homosexual couples and the Scottish Episcopal Church also offers homosexual marriages.

    The Free Church of Scotland, the church of the possible next SNP leader, allows neither
  • Options
    TresTres Posts: 2,349
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:


    Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
    In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."

    She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.

    I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people.
    'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
    Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭

    Starmer is a lucky general.
    Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.

    The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism

    What are your grounds for thinking this?
    Thinking what??

    You said:

    "Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:

    History,
    Culture,
    Religious practice,
    Natural law,
    The meaning of words,
    The distinctiveness of institutions,
    The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.

    Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
    Putting it that way would be embarrassingly ignorant of tradition and history around marriage, being the weakness of the rubbish you just offered. Of course there’s a smoking gun and I’m going to give you both barrels of it.

    A member of a church saying they don’t accept same sex marriage, so could never support it is them saying they don’t believe the most sacred bond there can be is love.

    To say it’s about rights, equality, or socio economic benefits misses the main point - not that politicians defending bad stereotypes and inequality ain’t a bad point - truth is these people are too busy trying to enforce stereotypes they don’t understand either their own religion or the history of marriage properly. Arguments scripture and tradition affirm holy nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman are actually rubbish, they don’t stand in light of the biblical and historical evidence - what I know is history of Church Christianity didn’t own marriage from the start, in fact only through more recent politics, like from 17th C. did procreation and nurture actually actually enter into argument for it.

    Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside.

    The biggest upside of same sex marriage is how it strengthens religion. When the same existential reality of love and commitment exists between same-sex couples as exists between heterosexuals, then of course it’s just as sacramental! The wonderful richnesses of sexual intimacy that fosters deep personal affirmation, reconciliation , sexual affirmation, hope and thanksgiving, is never going to only exist between a man and a woman is it? It simply don’t is the fact. What embarrassing pea brained gibberish anyone who claims that such things can only occur between a man and a women? So what ceremony better reflects the nature of God than the tradition of marriage as a symbol of God’s unconditional love for us, and of our faithful pledge to love God? The more people entering into that the better for any religion.
    "Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside."

    Religions have frequently defined marriage as being between a man and many women, often with the allowance of concubines too.
    How can the reality of love and commitment only exist between a man and a women not same-sex couples too? How can believing what you are suggesting actually be the basis for anything strong or good?
    It isn't for Lutherans, increasing numbers of western Anglican churches, Methodists and members of the Church of Scotland, Quakers, Unitarians and some reformist Buddhists and Jews.

    Even if it is by most other religions and Christian denominations
    The Church of Scotland permits gay marriages, unlike your own state sect.
    The Church of England now permits blessings of homosexual couples and the Scottish Episcopal Church also offers homosexual marriages.

    The Free Church of Scotland, the church of the possible next SNP leader, allows neither
    Name change to the Gay-Free Church of Scotland in order methinks
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,463

    WillG said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:


    Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
    In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."

    She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.

    I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people.
    'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
    Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭

    Starmer is a lucky general.
    Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.

    The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism

    What are your grounds for thinking this?
    Thinking what??

    You said:

    "Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:

    History,
    Culture,
    Religious practice,
    Natural law,
    The meaning of words,
    The distinctiveness of institutions,
    The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.

    Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
    Putting it that way would be embarrassingly ignorant of tradition and history around marriage, being the weakness of the rubbish you just offered. Of course there’s a smoking gun and I’m going to give you both barrels of it.

    A member of a church saying they don’t accept same sex marriage, so could never support it is them saying they don’t believe the most sacred bond there can be is love.

    To say it’s about rights, equality, or socio economic benefits misses the main point - not that politicians defending bad stereotypes and inequality ain’t a bad point - truth is these people are too busy trying to enforce stereotypes they don’t understand either their own religion or the history of marriage properly. Arguments scripture and tradition affirm holy nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman are actually rubbish, they don’t stand in light of the biblical and historical evidence - what I know is history of Church Christianity didn’t own marriage from the start, in fact only through more recent politics, like from 17th C. did procreation and nurture actually actually enter into argument for it.

    Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside.

    The biggest upside of same sex marriage is how it strengthens religion. When the same existential reality of love and commitment exists between same-sex couples as exists between heterosexuals, then of course it’s just as sacramental! The wonderful richnesses of sexual intimacy that fosters deep personal affirmation, reconciliation , sexual affirmation, hope and thanksgiving, is never going to only exist between a man and a woman is it? It simply don’t is the fact. What embarrassing pea brained gibberish anyone who claims that such things can only occur between a man and a women? So what ceremony better reflects the nature of God than the tradition of marriage as a symbol of God’s unconditional love for us, and of our faithful pledge to love God? The more people entering into that the better for any religion.
    "Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside."

    Religions have frequently defined marriage as being between a man and many women, often with the allowance of concubines too.
    How can the reality of love and commitment only exist between a man and a women not same-sex couples too? How can believing what you are suggesting actually be the basis for anything strong or good?
    Yes, it's a deeply unprincipled stance.
    Most denominations are happy to ignore biblical injunctions against marrying the barren, or the divorced, for example.

    And certainly ignored Jesus' more important statement - the Sermon in the amount for example.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,463
    I hadn't appreciated that Dominion are asking for summary judgment in the libel case against Fox, and stand a reasonable chance if getting it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/feb/20/fox-news-dominion-voting-systems-defamation-case-analysis
    ...Tribe was one of several first amendment experts to call the filing nearly unprecedented.

    “This is the most remarkable discovery filing I’ve ever read in a commercial litigation,” said Scott Horton, a Columbia Law School lecturer, Harper’s Magazine contributing editor and litigator with clients including CBS and the Associated Press.

    “A summary judgment motion by a plaintiff in this kind of case is almost unheard of. These suits usually fail because you can’t prove the company you’re suing knew they were spreading falsehoods. That you would have evidence they knew it was a lie is almost unheard of … in this case the sheer volume of all the email and text messages is staggering.”...


    I'm not generally a fan of libel cases, but when the offence is as clear and egregious as here, I make an exception.
    ...Perhaps most devastating of all is Dominion’s account of what happened on 12 November, after the reporter Jaqui Heinrich “correctly factchecked [a Trump] tweet, pointing out that top election infrastructure officials said that there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”

    Carlson was incensed. He messaged Hannity: “Please get her fired. Seriously what the fuck? Actually shocked. It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down.”..
  • Options

    On topic. “Generally speaking we can partly explain poll shifts as being within the margin of error but not so with tonight’s R&W survey which came out this afternoon.”

    I wouldn’t go that far myself. I would caution not to read too much into week by week poll by poll movements, instead average out a trend from pollsters over half a dozen or more polls, average of all polls over month or more not week by week - sampling is not an exact science, and how the margin of errors bounce back in the next sample, and evens out with more samples is how we should follow polling trends.

    We know going 24% is on the low side of what this firm normally find, let’s see if next poll lifts Tory’s +2 or 3 to correct this sampling error.

    What we do know of trend is Tories still stuck somewhere between 26 and 27. The Sunak bounce the Tory MPs bet the house on when they moved against Boris to have Sunak has yet to happen (ignore that they got Truss and so got rid of her to get what they really wanted) In fact the trend is Sunak’s personal ratings on slide with the voters, as is the party’s month by month polling average.

    “Quite what has been driving this is hard to explain but these are the worst numbers from this pollster since Sunak became leader last October.”

    The most likely answer to that question is how sleazy the Tories have been in recent years, and Sunak ever present in centre of all that up to his eyebrows in Tory sleaze revelations week by week.

    It’s a party existing to line it’s own pockets with the power of government, by fleecing everything they can, in which instance there’s no floor to their fall. Reform could get 20% and Tories 8% at the next election. Who is eager to vote for sleaze and corruption?

    Taking your advice to "average out a trend from pollsters over half a dozen or more polls" applied to R&W polls, it does not look that much of a rogue poll at all.

    Look at the graph in the thread header. You can put a straight line through the level of Tory support going all the way to June 21 when it stood at 45%. Their support has been declining at a rate of roughly 1% a month ever since
    then, the only major departure being a temporary collapse during Truss premiership before a reversion to the underlying downward trend in Nov 22. R&W also had the Tories at 24% two weeks ago before a recovery last week that has now proved to be temporary.

    A steady underlying upward trend in Labour support is also apparent, although it starts later in about Sept 21.

  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,553
    Nigelb said:

    I hadn't appreciated that Dominion are asking for summary judgment in the libel case against Fox, and stand a reasonable chance if getting it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/feb/20/fox-news-dominion-voting-systems-defamation-case-analysis
    ...Tribe was one of several first amendment experts to call the filing nearly unprecedented.

    “This is the most remarkable discovery filing I’ve ever read in a commercial litigation,” said Scott Horton, a Columbia Law School lecturer, Harper’s Magazine contributing editor and litigator with clients including CBS and the Associated Press.

    “A summary judgment motion by a plaintiff in this kind of case is almost unheard of. These suits usually fail because you can’t prove the company you’re suing knew they were spreading falsehoods. That you would have evidence they knew it was a lie is almost unheard of … in this case the sheer volume of all the email and text messages is staggering.”...


    I'm not generally a fan of libel cases, but when the offence is as clear and egregious as here, I make an exception.
    ...Perhaps most devastating of all is Dominion’s account of what happened on 12 November, after the reporter Jaqui Heinrich “correctly factchecked [a Trump] tweet, pointing out that top election infrastructure officials said that there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”

    Carlson was incensed. He messaged Hannity: “Please get her fired. Seriously what the fuck? Actually shocked. It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down.”..

    It's a convincing document although any good legal submission should be. Its clearly a high bar to clear, and most of the public comments were still from guests not presenters (though the submission does address that), but succeeds or not it's a tougher fight for Fox than it should have been.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:


    Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
    In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."

    She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.

    I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people.
    'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
    Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭

    Starmer is a lucky general.
    Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.

    The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism

    What are your grounds for thinking this?
    Thinking what??

    You said:

    "Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:

    History,
    Culture,
    Religious practice,
    Natural law,
    The meaning of words,
    The distinctiveness of institutions,
    The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.

    Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
    Putting it that way would be embarrassingly ignorant of tradition and history around marriage, being the weakness of the rubbish you just offered. Of course there’s a smoking gun and I’m going to give you both barrels of it.

    A member of a church saying they don’t accept same sex marriage, so could never support it is them saying they don’t believe the most sacred bond there can be is love.

    To say it’s about rights, equality, or socio economic benefits misses the main point - not that politicians defending bad stereotypes and inequality ain’t a bad point - truth is these people are too busy trying to enforce stereotypes they don’t understand either their own religion or the history of marriage properly. Arguments scripture and tradition affirm holy nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman are actually rubbish, they don’t stand in light of the biblical and historical evidence - what I know is history of Church Christianity didn’t own marriage from the start, in fact only through more recent politics, like from 17th C. did procreation and nurture actually actually enter into argument for it.

    Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside.

    The biggest upside of same sex marriage is how it strengthens religion. When the same existential reality of love and commitment exists between same-sex couples as exists between heterosexuals, then of course it’s just as sacramental! The wonderful richnesses of sexual intimacy that fosters deep personal affirmation, reconciliation , sexual affirmation, hope and thanksgiving, is never going to only exist between a man and a woman is it? It simply don’t is the fact. What embarrassing pea brained gibberish anyone who claims that such things can only occur between a man and a women? So what ceremony better reflects the nature of God than the tradition of marriage as a symbol of God’s unconditional love for us, and of our faithful pledge to love God? The more people entering into that the better for any religion.
    "Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside."

    Religions have frequently defined marriage as being between a man and many women, often with the allowance of concubines too.
    How can the reality of love and commitment only exist between a man and a women not same-sex couples too? How can believing what you are suggesting actually be the basis for anything strong or good?
    It isn't for Lutherans, increasing numbers of western Anglican churches, Methodists and members of the Church of Scotland, Quakers, Unitarians and some reformist Buddhists and Jews.

    Even if it is by most other religions and Christian denominations
    The Church of Scotland permits gay marriages, unlike your own state sect.
    The Church of England now permits blessings of homosexual couples and the Scottish Episcopal Church also offers homosexual marriages.

    The Free Church of Scotland, the church of the possible next SNP leader, allows neither
    But you said the Church of Scotland, not the Free Church of Scotland?
    I see your Scottish ecclesiastical knowledge hasn’t really advanced since you espoused the startling notion that the Church of Scotland possessed bishops,
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,210
    edited February 2023

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:


    Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
    In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."

    She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.

    I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people.
    'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
    Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭

    Starmer is a lucky general.
    Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.

    The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism

    What are your grounds for thinking this?
    Thinking what??

    You said:

    "Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:

    History,
    Culture,
    Religious practice,
    Natural law,
    The meaning of words,
    The distinctiveness of institutions,
    The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.

    Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
    Putting it that way would be embarrassingly ignorant of tradition and history around marriage, being the weakness of the rubbish you just offered. Of course there’s a smoking gun and I’m going to give you both barrels of it.

    A member of a church saying they don’t accept same sex marriage, so could never support it is them saying they don’t believe the most sacred bond there can be is love.

    To say it’s about rights, equality, or socio economic benefits misses the main point - not that politicians defending bad stereotypes and inequality ain’t a bad point - truth is these people are too busy trying to enforce stereotypes they don’t understand either their own religion or the history of marriage properly. Arguments scripture and tradition affirm holy nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman are actually rubbish, they don’t stand in light of the biblical and historical evidence - what I know is history of Church Christianity didn’t own marriage from the start, in fact only through more recent politics, like from 17th C. did procreation and nurture actually actually enter into argument for it.

    Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside.

    The biggest upside of same sex marriage is how it strengthens religion. When the same existential reality of love and commitment exists between same-sex couples as exists between heterosexuals, then of course it’s just as sacramental! The wonderful richnesses of sexual intimacy that fosters deep personal affirmation, reconciliation , sexual affirmation, hope and thanksgiving, is never going to only exist between a man and a woman is it? It simply don’t is the fact. What embarrassing pea brained gibberish anyone who claims that such things can only occur between a man and a women? So what ceremony better reflects the nature of God than the tradition of marriage as a symbol of God’s unconditional love for us, and of our faithful pledge to love God? The more people entering into that the better for any religion.
    "Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside."

    Religions have frequently defined marriage as being between a man and many women, often with the allowance of concubines too.
    How can the reality of love and commitment only exist between a man and a women not same-sex couples too? How can believing what you are suggesting actually be the basis for anything strong or good?
    It isn't for Lutherans, increasing numbers of western Anglican churches, Methodists and members of the Church of Scotland, Quakers, Unitarians and some reformist Buddhists and Jews.

    Even if it is by most other religions and Christian denominations
    The Church of Scotland permits gay marriages, unlike your own state sect.
    The Church of England now permits blessings of homosexual couples and the Scottish Episcopal Church also offers homosexual marriages.

    The Free Church of Scotland, the church of the possible next SNP leader, allows neither
    But you said the Church of Scotland, not the Free Church of Scotland?
    I see your Scottish ecclesiastical knowledge hasn’t really advanced since you espoused the startling notion that the Church of Scotland possessed bishops,
    Yes, I excluded the Free Church of Scotland. The Free Church being the Church of Kate Forbes who may well be the next leader of the SNP and Scottish FM.

    The denominations I mentioned all perform homosexual marriages or bless homosexual unions unlike Forbes' Free Church of Scotland
This discussion has been closed.