The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
Very much agree on that last point. I hear Drew Hendry, MP for Inverness Badenoch and Strathspey, withdrew his support. The idea that he didn't know her views is, quite frankly, laughable. One must assume he had decided it is no longer politically expedient to continue to support her, rather than having any actual objection. Shabby behaviour imo.
Perhaps he thought she might have a bit of talent when it comes to presenting her views to the public, what with her being a top ranking politician and all.
Personally when I’ve been with religious people (including Wee Frees) I’ve tended to avoid the subject of religion with them unless they bring it up. I find it perfectly plausible that a don’t ask, don’t tell policy operated in the SNP when it came to religion just as it operates in loads of other parts of society.
Except I'm sure I read it flagged up on here even, a place without massive knowledge of internal scottish politics, and she was a senior figure, a rising star - it seems pretty implausible there was not mention of her views floating about, people gossip about rising stars after all.
Almost the exact same thing happened to another political party six years ago. That was in the middle of a general election campaign, of course. The simplest explanation is that scrutiny of politicians is random, especially outside the big two parties.
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.
And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.
If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
Very much agree on that last point. I hear Drew Hendry, MP for Inverness Badenoch and Strathspey, withdrew his support. The idea that he didn't know her views is, quite frankly, laughable. One must assume he had decided it is no longer politically expedient to continue to support her, rather than having any actual objection. Shabby behaviour imo.
Perhaps he thought she might have a bit of talent when it comes to presenting her views to the public, what with her being a top ranking politician and all.
Personally when I’ve been with religious people (including Wee Frees) I’ve tended to avoid the subject of religion with them unless they bring it up. I find it perfectly plausible that a don’t ask, don’t tell policy operated in the SNP when it came to religion just as it operates in loads of other parts of society.
Except I'm sure I read it flagged up on here even, a place without massive knowledge of internal scottish politics, and she was a senior figure, a rising star - it seems pretty implausible there was not mention of her views floating about, people gossip about rising stars after all.
You’ve answered your own question, there wasn’t a hint of Forbes’ ossified views or gossip about them floating about. That tends to be what leadership elections are about; who knew that Mordaunt was a slippery hypocrite over trans issues or Rishak was a dweeb who didn’t know how to put fuel in a car.
Sometimes it is a relief to remember incompetence is not a UK only affliction. Though if it was the UK the new trains would be delivered a lot more than just 2 years late, as the story says is the case here.
Two top Spanish transport officials have resigned over a botched order for new commuter trains that cost nearly €260m ($275m; £230m).
The trains could not fit into non-standard tunnels in the northern regions of Asturias and Cantabria.
The head of Spain's rail operator Renfe, Isaías Táboas, and the Secretary of State for Transport, Isabel Pardo de Vera, have now left their roles.
The design fault was made public earlier this month.
The Spanish government says the mistake was spotted early enough to avoid financial loss. However the region of Cantabria has demanded compensation
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
Very much agree on that last point. I hear Drew Hendry, MP for Inverness Badenoch and Strathspey, withdrew his support. The idea that he didn't know her views is, quite frankly, laughable. One must assume he had decided it is no longer politically expedient to continue to support her, rather than having any actual objection. Shabby behaviour imo.
Perhaps he thought she might have a bit of talent when it comes to presenting her views to the public, what with her being a top ranking politician and all.
Personally when I’ve been with religious people (including Wee Frees) I’ve tended to avoid the subject of religion with them unless they bring it up. I find it perfectly plausible that a don’t ask, don’t tell policy operated in the SNP
More than plausible I'd say.
Careful, you’ll get some hysterical bleating about editing people’s posts if you’re not careful. Or not as the case might be.
Sometimes it is a relief to remember incompetence is not a UK only affliction. Though if it was the UK the new trains would be delivered a lot more than just 2 years late, as the story says is the case here.
Two top Spanish transport officials have resigned over a botched order for new commuter trains that cost nearly €260m ($275m; £230m).
The trains could not fit into non-standard tunnels in the northern regions of Asturias and Cantabria.
The head of Spain's rail operator Renfe, Isaías Táboas, and the Secretary of State for Transport, Isabel Pardo de Vera, have now left their roles.
The design fault was made public earlier this month.
The Spanish government says the mistake was spotted early enough to avoid financial loss. However the region of Cantabria has demanded compensation
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.
And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.
If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.
You're pretending that your stupid rules are somehow consistent, when they're clearly anything but. Forbes is entitled not only to have whatever views and moral code she chooses, but also to let those views and moral code to inform her political decisions. To suggest otherwise is the most absurdly Stalinist thing from someone pertaining to be liberal that I've ever heard.
It’s actually a very interesting leadership bid. This sort of occasional airing of laundry is fascinating for those of us who don’t follow the party very closely. It shows just how far Salmond and Sturgeon dominated the narrative up till now.
There's also this question. Most people don't practice exactly the way of life Kate Forbes represents- trad religion, trad morality, and all that. The political realm and anoraks, abundantly represented in and around PB, are suddenly consumed by a sort of bullying hatred of someone who, when all is said and done comes across to normal people as just a nice girl, a bit old fashioned but on the whole would make a decent daughter in law.
It seems to me that lots of people won't care much, unless instructed by the media, and would view her as OK, and actually quite like her image. People don't mind people who go to church and have stable sets of practical values. They often rely on them for things.
Whether she is value betting wise I don't know. I think she may have to stand down.
“unless instructed by the media” is the critical phrase here. The National and BBC Scotland will want Yousaf. BBC Scotland will push him slightly more subtly than The National, but let’s see who gets the most positive media coverage.
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.
And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.
If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.
You're pretending that your stupid rules are somehow consistent, when they're clearly anything but. Forbes is entitled not only to have whatever views and moral code she chooses, but also to let those views and moral code to inform her political decisions. To suggest otherwise is the most absurdly Stalinist thing from someone pertaining to be liberal that I've ever heard.
She can. And others can decide they don't like that.
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.
And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.
If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.
You're pretending that your stupid rules are somehow consistent, when they're clearly anything but. Forbes is entitled not only to have whatever views and moral code she chooses, but also to let those views and moral code to inform her political decisions. To suggest otherwise is the most absurdly Stalinist thing from someone pertaining to be liberal that I've ever heard.
Don't be stupid.
There should be no law against Forbes selfishly allowing her private beliefs to shape what she thinks the law should be.
There equally is no law, nor any problem, in the majority of people like myself who don't share her beliefs [and even many who do share her beliefs but oppose her making those beliefs political] to think that her enforcing her views on others is problematic and should be opposed.
Indeed opposing one person trying to force their personal beliefs onto everyone else via the law isn't illiberal, its pretty much the definition of liberalism. I do not want a law forcing my views onto Forbes, Forbes can not say the same, that is why she is not fit for office, and that is a perfectly liberal answer.
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
Maggie T was very happy to let her religious views influence her politics.
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
Maggie T was very happy to let her religious views influence her politics.
Sure, but she did so explicitly as well. The Sermon on the Mound is very clear on that. She positively wove it into her argument.
Edit: it's not for nothing that the speech is nicknamed that.
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.
And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.
If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.
You're pretending that your stupid rules are somehow consistent, when they're clearly anything but. Forbes is entitled not only to have whatever views and moral code she chooses, but also to let those views and moral code to inform her political decisions. To suggest otherwise is the most absurdly Stalinist thing from someone pertaining to be liberal that I've ever heard.
Don't be stupid.
There should be no law against Forbes selfishly allowing her private beliefs to shape what she thinks the law should be.
There equally is no law, nor any problem, in the majority of people like myself who don't share her beliefs [and even many who do share her beliefs but oppose her making those beliefs political] to think that her enforcing her views on others is problematic and should be opposed.
Indeed opposing one person trying to force their personal beliefs onto everyone else via the law isn't illiberal, its pretty much the definition of liberalism. I do not want a law forcing my views onto Forbes, Forbes can not say the same, that is why she is not fit for office, and that is a perfectly liberal answer.
She isn't proposing a single change to the law, and in fact stated the law should be upheld as it is, with respect to same-sex marriage.
Keir Starmer's contract with the Devil must be quite something.
. .
He looks better when dressed down, should do it more often. Angela always looks good.
Holy Crap who looks the most gormless between that pair
Err…Sunak?
The problem I am having with Sunak is that he keeps disappearing. The job of the PM is to make the political weather. Boris got that, even although he was a lying b******, hell, even Truss got that, although her preference for hurricanes was regrettable, but Sunak, he just disappears.
Just checked out the official number ten twitter. Some tweets about Sunak at the Munich Security conference (on the 18th). No tweets on the 19th or the 20th. Today there are three retweets and one quote tweet of tweets by other government departments. On gov.uk there is no news about what the PM has been doing today or yesterday. No meetings with anyone worth publicising. Nothing.
The Foreign Secretary seems to be busy, and there's a welcome announcement that the Health Secretary is finally going to enter talks with the RCN, but the PM isn't doing very much.
I know I'm quick to take the piss out of politicians and their lame photo opportunities, but a PM does need to be meeting people - whether that be people in business, abroad, civil society, government agencies, etc, to solve problems and to get people on board with their agenda.
Maybe Sunak is busy going through the budget, line-by-line, with his Chancellor. Or doubtless he's working on something else similarly important. But the detail is why he has a Cabinet, and why his Cabinet minsters have junior ministers, and whole battalions of SPADs, and regiments of civil servants. The Prime Minister should be selling his government to the country.
It's not even that Rishi Sunak is bad at being Prime Minister. It's that he doesn't seem to understand what the job of Prime Minister is.
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
Simpler, really.
Religiously inspired beliefs are beliefs.
If you want to be the leader of a Western European major party, then believing that gay marriage is wrong etc means that… you can’t.
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.
And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.
If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.
You're pretending that your stupid rules are somehow consistent, when they're clearly anything but. Forbes is entitled not only to have whatever views and moral code she chooses, but also to let those views and moral code to inform her political decisions. To suggest otherwise is the most absurdly Stalinist thing from someone pertaining to be liberal that I've ever heard.
Don't be stupid.
There should be no law against Forbes selfishly allowing her private beliefs to shape what she thinks the law should be.
There equally is no law, nor any problem, in the majority of people like myself who don't share her beliefs [and even many who do share her beliefs but oppose her making those beliefs political] to think that her enforcing her views on others is problematic and should be opposed.
Indeed opposing one person trying to force their personal beliefs onto everyone else via the law isn't illiberal, its pretty much the definition of liberalism. I do not want a law forcing my views onto Forbes, Forbes can not say the same, that is why she is not fit for office, and that is a perfectly liberal answer.
You're tying yourself in knots. There's nothing 'selfish' about Forbes pursuing policies dictated by her beliefs - in actuality she has not done that, but if she were to do so, that would be in line with every other politician (or in an ideal world it would be).
Of course those opposed to her beliefs also have the right to campaign for their own vision and beliefs, and if they're in the majority, to prevail, but you cannot say there is no 'forcing of beliefs' because that is not the case - Churches being compelled to solemnise gay marriages is one incidence of a belief in gay marriage being forced upon those who don't believe it.
Your argument that Forbes should be disapproved of or drummed out of politics for her traditional Christian beliefs (which by the way have not even lead her to campaign against any of the reforms you support) is totally inconsistent with any form of liberalism, and it would be a pleasant surprise if you had the humility and strength of character to acknowledge the fact.
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
They almost certainly knew - they just didn’t expect her to tell the truth - which says more about them than her.
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.
And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.
If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.
You're pretending that your stupid rules are somehow consistent, when they're clearly anything but. Forbes is entitled not only to have whatever views and moral code she chooses, but also to let those views and moral code to inform her political decisions. To suggest otherwise is the most absurdly Stalinist thing from someone pertaining to be liberal that I've ever heard.
Don't be stupid.
There should be no law against Forbes selfishly allowing her private beliefs to shape what she thinks the law should be.
There equally is no law, nor any problem, in the majority of people like myself who don't share her beliefs [and even many who do share her beliefs but oppose her making those beliefs political] to think that her enforcing her views on others is problematic and should be opposed.
Indeed opposing one person trying to force their personal beliefs onto everyone else via the law isn't illiberal, its pretty much the definition of liberalism. I do not want a law forcing my views onto Forbes, Forbes can not say the same, that is why she is not fit for office, and that is a perfectly liberal answer.
She isn't proposing a single change to the law, and in fact stated the law should be upheld as it is, with respect to same-sex marriage.
If she had been in charge 20 years ago it's likely we would never have gotten the law in the first place.
Fantastic result for Douglas Ross, Sunak and Scottish Conservatives if it is Yousaf.
He will be far less popular with their 2019 voters than Forbes would have been. In fact even less popular with Scottish Tories than Sturgeon
Good evening
We do not agree too often but on this I do
Forbes had the possibility of attracting Scons, not least as her pro the oil and gas industry plus her commitment to dualling the A9 would be popular with the conservatives
Indeed the dualling of the A9 or lack of it has been a failure of the SNP, indeed one of many failures
Furthermore, there may have been a little wee bit of hyping labour chances if Yousaf and Sarwar/Starmer fight for the left vote
These are interesting times in Scottish politics and frankly until this all settles down, polls are likely to be all over the place
Tories shouldn't have voted for the Edinburgh trams if they wanted the A9 dualled.
There is more than enough blame to go around to everyone in respect of the Edinburgh Trams. Even the Inquiry itself has proven a disgrace with Lord Hardie's report now several years overdue and massively over budget.
Except that the SNP didn't want them in the first place. Forced on them by the Tories and everyone else as well.
Which reminds us that the Greens could do huge damage if the arithmetic you correctly mention was to change.
The management of the contracts, once granted, was, well, sub-optimal, to put it kindly.
Indeed. Edinburgh Council was not at its best. If there is such a thing.
But the combination of old infrastructure (which all had to be redone, though that will pay off in the long run) and heavy engineering for a tram line was always going to be tricky.
The first stage of Edinburgh's tram system seems to have been a mess (We were in Edinburgh just before Christmas, and the phase 2 scheme seems to be progressing well). But many other cities have introduced new tram systems over the last few decades: Manchester, Nottingham, Leeds, Croydon. Was Edinburgh's scheme uniquely mishandled?
It's not a tramway, but in my part of the world the (mis)guided bus appears to have been a tragic waste of funds and opportunity.
Also: what are the ridership figures of phase 1 compared to the pre-building predictions?
The Leeds tram system must have been built awfully quietly
Ahem. Yes. Sheffield. Apols. The Leeds Supertram got canned by Darling.
It’s actually a very interesting leadership bid. This sort of occasional airing of laundry is fascinating for those of us who don’t follow the party very closely. It shows just how far Salmond and Sturgeon dominated the narrative up till now.
There's also this question. Most people don't practice exactly the way of life Kate Forbes represents- trad religion, trad morality, and all that. The political realm and anoraks, abundantly represented in and around PB, are suddenly consumed by a sort of bullying hatred of someone who, when all is said and done comes across to normal people as just a nice girl, a bit old fashioned but on the whole would make a decent daughter in law.
It seems to me that lots of people won't care much, unless instructed by the media, and would view her as OK, and actually quite like her image. People don't mind people who go to church and have stable sets of practical values. They often rely on them for things.
Whether she is value betting wise I don't know. I think she may have to stand down.
Kate Forbes has decided that if she's going to stand for leader she's going to do so on her own terms and be who she is - and nothing else.
Whatever you think of your views, I think at some level you have to respect that.
Comments
If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.
That tends to be what leadership elections are about; who knew that Mordaunt was a slippery hypocrite over trans issues or Rishak was a dweeb who didn’t know how to put fuel in a car.
There should be no law against Forbes selfishly allowing her private beliefs to shape what she thinks the law should be.
There equally is no law, nor any problem, in the majority of people like myself who don't share her beliefs [and even many who do share her beliefs but oppose her making those beliefs political] to think that her enforcing her views on others is problematic and should be opposed.
Indeed opposing one person trying to force their personal beliefs onto everyone else via the law isn't illiberal, its pretty much the definition of liberalism. I do not want a law forcing my views onto Forbes, Forbes can not say the same, that is why she is not fit for office, and that is a perfectly liberal answer.
Edit: it's not for nothing that the speech is nicknamed that.
The Foreign Secretary seems to be busy, and there's a welcome announcement that the Health Secretary is finally going to enter talks with the RCN, but the PM isn't doing very much.
I know I'm quick to take the piss out of politicians and their lame photo opportunities, but a PM does need to be meeting people - whether that be people in business, abroad, civil society, government agencies, etc, to solve problems and to get people on board with their agenda.
Maybe Sunak is busy going through the budget, line-by-line, with his Chancellor. Or doubtless he's working on something else similarly important. But the detail is why he has a Cabinet, and why his Cabinet minsters have junior ministers, and whole battalions of SPADs, and regiments of civil servants. The Prime Minister should be selling his government to the country.
It's not even that Rishi Sunak is bad at being Prime Minister. It's that he doesn't seem to understand what the job of Prime Minister is.
Religiously inspired beliefs are beliefs.
If you want to be the leader of a Western European major party, then believing that gay marriage is wrong etc means that… you can’t.
Of course those opposed to her beliefs also have the right to campaign for their own vision and beliefs, and if they're in the majority, to prevail, but you cannot say there is no 'forcing of beliefs' because that is not the case - Churches being compelled to solemnise gay marriages is one incidence of a belief in gay marriage being forced upon those who don't believe it.
Your argument that Forbes should be disapproved of or drummed out of politics for her traditional Christian beliefs (which by the way have not even lead her to campaign against any of the reforms you support) is totally inconsistent with any form of liberalism, and it would be a pleasant surprise if you had the humility and strength of character to acknowledge the fact.
Whatever you think of your views, I think at some level you have to respect that.
I'd died and found the afterlife to be an excessively bureaucratised communist "paradise"
Heaven was run by Engels
Stuart is correct I am not a member , I would not give a penny to enrich the Murrel's