Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

LAB extend lead to 18% in the “Red Wall” – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,793
edited February 2023 in General
imageLAB extend lead to 18% in the “Red Wall” – politicalbetting.com

r

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,116
    edited February 2023
    First! ☺️

    TTFN
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,796
    edited February 2023
    Second.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302
    So basically Sunak and co have seen a slight recovery from the Truss nadir, but it's not much (and exceeded by a rise for Labour) and even before then they were considerably behind even under the great and powerful Bojo.
  • Options
    FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,249
    edited February 2023
    Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph.
    Edit; not third.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,871

    Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph.
    Edit; not third.

    Yes, surely there is. Food, leccy, inflation, under inflation pay rises, the after-Christmas deficit, and all that.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,945
    As I said in the previous thread the problem is that Sunak is the invisible man most of the time more interested in managing than leading and being seen to lead. These are very major flaws in a political leader in the 21st century. You can't get anywhere by just getting on with it. You need to control the narrative and set the agenda. He simply isn't. Starmer must be struggling to believe his luck.
  • Options
    First (with the correction.)

    If you're still up Mike, it's 55% - 27% = 28% not 18%.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,116
    kle4 said:

    So basically Sunak and co have seen a slight recovery from the Truss nadir, but it's not much (and exceeded by a rise for Labour) and even before then they were considerably behind even under the great and powerful Bojo.

    According to this chart at the point they decide to hold a vote of no confidence in Boris, he has them on 38% in these freshly taken seats, just about 7 behind Labour midterm?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,945

    Carnyx said:

    Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph.
    Edit; not third.

    Yes, surely there is. Food, leccy, inflation, under inflation pay rises, the after-Christmas deficit, and all that.
    And today the Government is proposing a 3.5% pay rise for millions working for a living, while inflation is over 10%.

    And yet they have enough money to give a 10% pay rise to those who are not working for a living.

    Don't have to be very interested in politics to see a problem with that.
    It looks like there might be some movement on the nurses at least. But that will still leave a lot of very sensitive groups in education, junior doctors, trains (because of their effect on so many others) etc. Again, Sunak needs to put himself out front and find agreements, not hide behind pay boards.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302
    DavidL said:

    As I said in the previous thread the problem is that Sunak is the invisible man most of the time more interested in managing than leading and being seen to lead. These are very major flaws in a political leader in the 21st century. You can't get anywhere by just getting on with it. You need to control the narrative and set the agenda. He simply isn't. Starmer must be struggling to believe his luck.

    To give Sunak a little bit of defence, it is hard to be a leader when you know 1/3 of your MPs think you are one of the traitorous cabal who brought down his leader, and probably another 1/3 would want the same leader back instead of Sunak if they could get past how ridiculous that would be.

    But he did ask for the job so it is not much of a defence.

    Right choice, too - he wouldn't have had an other chance to become PM.
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 19,299
    edited February 2023
    Monkeys said:

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.
    With respect to same-sex marriage, not other issues, and that's an issue where she has no legislative say since it was legalised by Westminster.

    On other subjects she has proposed faith exemptions to the law and she has allowed her faith to dominate her leadership campaign instead of prioritising other political issues instead.

    Perfectly reasonable for people to think that is a very serious problem and oppose her campaign as a result.
  • Options
    solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,623
    Are RefUK massively visible in certain parts of the country and I'm just missing them being in a different part, or are they as invisible as I half-suspect they are and just picking up vote share almost incidentally?
  • Options
    Latest Westminster Scottish You Gov

    SNP 38
    Lab 29
    Con 19
    LD 6
    Green 4

    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/axjilie529/ScottishTimes_Results_230220.pdf
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,945
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said in the previous thread the problem is that Sunak is the invisible man most of the time more interested in managing than leading and being seen to lead. These are very major flaws in a political leader in the 21st century. You can't get anywhere by just getting on with it. You need to control the narrative and set the agenda. He simply isn't. Starmer must be struggling to believe his luck.

    To give Sunak a little bit of defence, it is hard to be a leader when you know 1/3 of your MPs think you are one of the traitorous cabal who brought down his leader, and probably another 1/3 would want the same leader back instead of Sunak if they could get past how ridiculous that would be.

    But he did ask for the job so it is not much of a defence.

    Right choice, too - he wouldn't have had an other chance to become PM.
    All the more reason to be bold. Not completely mental like Truss of course, but bold.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph.
    Edit; not third.

    Yes, surely there is. Food, leccy, inflation, under inflation pay rises, the after-Christmas deficit, and all that.
    And today the Government is proposing a 3.5% pay rise for millions working for a living, while inflation is over 10%.

    And yet they have enough money to give a 10% pay rise to those who are not working for a living.

    Don't have to be very interested in politics to see a problem with that.
    It looks like there might be some movement on the nurses at least. But that will still leave a lot of very sensitive groups in education, junior doctors, trains (because of their effect on so many others) etc. Again, Sunak needs to put himself out front and find agreements, not hide behind pay boards.
    Seems they're proposing even less for experienced teachers, just 3% not even 3.5%.

    Be easier to find agreements if we were "all in it together", but double-digit pay rises are being reserved for preferred groups while proposing shafting others with over 7% real term pay cuts.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,871

    Monkeys said:

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.
    With respect to same-sex marriage, not other issues, and that's an issue where she has no legislative say since it was legalised by Westminster.

    On other subjects she has proposed faith exemptions to the law and she has allowed her faith to dominate her leadership campaign instead of prioritising other political issues instead.

    Perfectly reasonable for people to think that is a very serious problem and oppose her campaign as a result.
    SAme sex marriage is a devolved area.
  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    Monkeys said:

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.
    With respect to same-sex marriage, not other issues, and that's an issue where she has no legislative say since it was legalised by Westminster.

    On other subjects she has proposed faith exemptions to the law and she has allowed her faith to dominate her leadership campaign instead of prioritising other political issues instead.

    Perfectly reasonable for people to think that is a very serious problem and oppose her campaign as a result.
    SAme sex marriage is a devolved area.
    My mistake, sorry.
  • Options
    solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,623

    Monkeys said:

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.
    With respect to same-sex marriage, not other issues, and that's an issue where she has no legislative say since it was legalised by Westminster.

    On other subjects she has proposed faith exemptions to the law and she has allowed her faith to dominate her leadership campaign instead of prioritising other political issues instead.

    Perfectly reasonable for people to think that is a very serious problem and oppose her campaign as a result.
    Um, no. Wikipedia:

    Same-sex marriage in Scotland has been legal since 16 December 2014. As family law is not reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence to make changes to the law on marriage.[1] A same-sex marriage law was approved by the Scottish Parliament in February 2014 and received royal assent on 12 March 2014. It came into effect on 16 December with many civil partners converting their relationships into marriages, while the first same-sex marriage ceremonies occurred on 31 December 2014. Civil partnerships for same-sex couples have been legal in Scotland since 2005.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,529

    Are RefUK massively visible in certain parts of the country and I'm just missing them being in a different part, or are they as invisible as I half-suspect they are and just picking up vote share almost incidentally?

    I suspect the last option, like the greens who manage something similar.
  • Options

    Monkeys said:

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.
    With respect to same-sex marriage, not other issues, and that's an issue where she has no legislative say since it was legalised by Westminster.

    On other subjects she has proposed faith exemptions to the law and she has allowed her faith to dominate her leadership campaign instead of prioritising other political issues instead.

    Perfectly reasonable for people to think that is a very serious problem and oppose her campaign as a result.
    Um, no. Wikipedia:

    Same-sex marriage in Scotland has been legal since 16 December 2014. As family law is not reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence to make changes to the law on marriage.[1] A same-sex marriage law was approved by the Scottish Parliament in February 2014 and received royal assent on 12 March 2014. It came into effect on 16 December with many civil partners converting their relationships into marriages, while the first same-sex marriage ceremonies occurred on 31 December 2014. Civil partnerships for same-sex couples have been legal in Scotland since 2005.
    Already said I made a mistake.

    Westminster passed the same sex marriage law in 2013. I had no idea that the Scottish Parliament was so tardy as to do it a year later.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811

    Are RefUK massively visible in certain parts of the country and I'm just missing them being in a different part, or are they as invisible as I half-suspect they are and just picking up vote share almost incidentally?

    They have been nowhere in the recent by-election, so I don't think a real threat. Most won't turnout.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,871

    Carnyx said:

    Monkeys said:

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.
    With respect to same-sex marriage, not other issues, and that's an issue where she has no legislative say since it was legalised by Westminster.

    On other subjects she has proposed faith exemptions to the law and she has allowed her faith to dominate her leadership campaign instead of prioritising other political issues instead.

    Perfectly reasonable for people to think that is a very serious problem and oppose her campaign as a result.
    SAme sex marriage is a devolved area.
    My mistake, sorry.
    No need to apologise, please.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,945

    Monkeys said:

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.
    With respect to same-sex marriage, not other issues, and that's an issue where she has no legislative say since it was legalised by Westminster.

    On other subjects she has proposed faith exemptions to the law and she has allowed her faith to dominate her leadership campaign instead of prioritising other political issues instead.

    Perfectly reasonable for people to think that is a very serious problem and oppose her campaign as a result.
    Um, no. Wikipedia:

    Same-sex marriage in Scotland has been legal since 16 December 2014. As family law is not reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence to make changes to the law on marriage.[1] A same-sex marriage law was approved by the Scottish Parliament in February 2014 and received royal assent on 12 March 2014. It came into effect on 16 December with many civil partners converting their relationships into marriages, while the first same-sex marriage ceremonies occurred on 31 December 2014. Civil partnerships for same-sex couples have been legal in Scotland since 2005.
    Friends of mine were the first in Scotland to have a heterosexual civil partnership when changes to the law allowed that. They considered marriage a patriarchal institution and thought a civil partnership was more in line with their atheist views. It seems to be going very well.

    Which, in reverse, very much reflects my views on gay marriage. Whose business is it other than the parties themselves that they want to make such a commitment to each other (assuming that there is free choice, of course).
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,019
    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph.
    Edit; not third.

    Yes, surely there is. Food, leccy, inflation, under inflation pay rises, the after-Christmas deficit, and all that.
    And today the Government is proposing a 3.5% pay rise for millions working for a living, while inflation is over 10%.

    And yet they have enough money to give a 10% pay rise to those who are not working for a living.

    Don't have to be very interested in politics to see a problem with that.
    It looks like there might be some movement on the nurses at least. But that will still leave a lot of very sensitive groups in education, junior doctors, trains (because of their effect on so many others) etc. Again, Sunak needs to put himself out front and find agreements, not hide behind pay boards.
    Reluctant as I am to say anything that might be construed as supportive to Sunak's Government, I really don't know why NHS pay is still being decided at a Ministerial level. Give NHS trusts carte blanche to offer whatever wages they want according to their needs. It seems absurd to me that these well-funded organisations can't work it out themselves. I think they just don't want the unpopularity that comes with these sorts of decisions.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811
    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph.
    Edit; not third.

    Yes, surely there is. Food, leccy, inflation, under inflation pay rises, the after-Christmas deficit, and all that.
    And today the Government is proposing a 3.5% pay rise for millions working for a living, while inflation is over 10%.

    And yet they have enough money to give a 10% pay rise to those who are not working for a living.

    Don't have to be very interested in politics to see a problem with that.
    It looks like there might be some movement on the nurses at least. But that will still leave a lot of very sensitive groups in education, junior doctors, trains (because of their effect on so many others) etc. Again, Sunak needs to put himself out front and find agreements, not hide behind pay boards.
    I think the "independent" pay boards have effectively collapsed. The NHS staff unions are not engaging with a fixed process that works to government rules. Want no strikes? Then must have payboards out of government control with staffside representatives.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,019
    FPT

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.

  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,871

    Monkeys said:

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.
    With respect to same-sex marriage, not other issues, and that's an issue where she has no legislative say since it was legalised by Westminster.

    On other subjects she has proposed faith exemptions to the law and she has allowed her faith to dominate her leadership campaign instead of prioritising other political issues instead.

    Perfectly reasonable for people to think that is a very serious problem and oppose her campaign as a result.
    Um, no. Wikipedia:

    Same-sex marriage in Scotland has been legal since 16 December 2014. As family law is not reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence to make changes to the law on marriage.[1] A same-sex marriage law was approved by the Scottish Parliament in February 2014 and received royal assent on 12 March 2014. It came into effect on 16 December with many civil partners converting their relationships into marriages, while the first same-sex marriage ceremonies occurred on 31 December 2014. Civil partnerships for same-sex couples have been legal in Scotland since 2005.
    Already said I made a mistake.

    Westminster passed the same sex marriage law in 2013. I had no idea that the Scottish Parliament was so tardy as to do it a year later.
    Difference isn't that significant. SP works to a distinctly different legislative procedure and electoral cycle from Westminster, so bills tend to be actually passed with a minimum timelag after an election to allow for all tyhe various stages. Can work either way, s28 was abolished a lot earlier.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,945

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph.
    Edit; not third.

    Yes, surely there is. Food, leccy, inflation, under inflation pay rises, the after-Christmas deficit, and all that.
    And today the Government is proposing a 3.5% pay rise for millions working for a living, while inflation is over 10%.

    And yet they have enough money to give a 10% pay rise to those who are not working for a living.

    Don't have to be very interested in politics to see a problem with that.
    It looks like there might be some movement on the nurses at least. But that will still leave a lot of very sensitive groups in education, junior doctors, trains (because of their effect on so many others) etc. Again, Sunak needs to put himself out front and find agreements, not hide behind pay boards.
    Reluctant as I am to say anything that might be construed as supportive to Sunak's Government, I really don't know why NHS pay is still being decided at a Ministerial level.
    Well, basically this country is becoming a health service with a small country attached to it. Already 1 in 50 of us work for it directly and many more indirectly. It is a huge and growing share of all public expenditure and pretty much determines the tax level. if politicians were not involved in its running they would be completely pointless rather than largely so.

  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,527

    Carnyx said:

    Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph.
    Edit; not third.

    Yes, surely there is. Food, leccy, inflation, under inflation pay rises, the after-Christmas deficit, and all that.
    And today the Government is proposing a 3.5% pay rise for millions working for a living, while inflation is over 10%.

    And yet they have enough money to give a 10% pay rise to those who are not working for a living.

    Don't have to be very interested in politics to see a problem with that.
    Yes.
    You're on the opposite side of politics to me. But it's obvious to you.
    It's actually very simple.
  • Options

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.
    You really don't get it do you? I don't have a problem with Forbes having her own 'traditional Christian beliefs', if she keeps them to herself, or in her Church.

    I do have a problem with Forbes expressing such beliefs as a politician, when a politician is to represent all beliefs, not her own.

    To be perfectly frank, I personally don't like Yousaf's religion [I don't like any organised religion], but when asked about it he gave a very appropriate answer about the difference between religion and politics. That to me means, that regardless of his religion, there's no reason why his religion should disqualify him from politics.

    If he's prepared to keep religion and politics separate, then he can keep privately whatever beliefs he wants. Even those I dislike. That's liberalism. That's what Forbes failed to do.
  • Options

    FPT

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.

    n

    God didn't marry the mother of His only begotten son!
    And none of the other creatures He created bother with marriage either!
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph.
    Edit; not third.

    Yes, surely there is. Food, leccy, inflation, under inflation pay rises, the after-Christmas deficit, and all that.
    And today the Government is proposing a 3.5% pay rise for millions working for a living, while inflation is over 10%.

    And yet they have enough money to give a 10% pay rise to those who are not working for a living.

    Don't have to be very interested in politics to see a problem with that.
    It looks like there might be some movement on the nurses at least. But that will still leave a lot of very sensitive groups in education, junior doctors, trains (because of their effect on so many others) etc. Again, Sunak needs to put himself out front and find agreements, not hide behind pay boards.
    Reluctant as I am to say anything that might be construed as supportive to Sunak's Government, I really don't know why NHS pay is still being decided at a Ministerial level.
    Well, basically this country is becoming a health service with a small country attached to it. Already 1 in 50 of us work for it directly and many more indirectly. It is a huge and growing share of all public expenditure and pretty much determines the tax level. if politicians were not involved in its running they would be completely pointless rather than largely so.

    In most developed countries, healthcare is around one tenth of the economy, so why shouldn't employ 1 in 50 of us?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,945
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph.
    Edit; not third.

    Yes, surely there is. Food, leccy, inflation, under inflation pay rises, the after-Christmas deficit, and all that.
    And today the Government is proposing a 3.5% pay rise for millions working for a living, while inflation is over 10%.

    And yet they have enough money to give a 10% pay rise to those who are not working for a living.

    Don't have to be very interested in politics to see a problem with that.
    It looks like there might be some movement on the nurses at least. But that will still leave a lot of very sensitive groups in education, junior doctors, trains (because of their effect on so many others) etc. Again, Sunak needs to put himself out front and find agreements, not hide behind pay boards.
    I think the "independent" pay boards have effectively collapsed. The NHS staff unions are not engaging with a fixed process that works to government rules. Want no strikes? Then must have payboards out of government control with staffside representatives.
    Yes, I think that system has run out of road.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,019
    edited February 2023
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph.
    Edit; not third.

    Yes, surely there is. Food, leccy, inflation, under inflation pay rises, the after-Christmas deficit, and all that.
    And today the Government is proposing a 3.5% pay rise for millions working for a living, while inflation is over 10%.

    And yet they have enough money to give a 10% pay rise to those who are not working for a living.

    Don't have to be very interested in politics to see a problem with that.
    It looks like there might be some movement on the nurses at least. But that will still leave a lot of very sensitive groups in education, junior doctors, trains (because of their effect on so many others) etc. Again, Sunak needs to put himself out front and find agreements, not hide behind pay boards.
    Reluctant as I am to say anything that might be construed as supportive to Sunak's Government, I really don't know why NHS pay is still being decided at a Ministerial level.
    Well, basically this country is becoming a health service with a small country attached to it. Already 1 in 50 of us work for it directly and many more indirectly. It is a huge and growing share of all public expenditure and pretty much determines the tax level. if politicians were not involved in its running they would be completely pointless rather than largely so.

    But the polticians already set the budget. So why shouldn't those trusts be handed the budget and told to use it effectively? Then when the nurses are complaining, they can complain at the trust which has just employed a fleet of new equality champions at £100,000pa a pop, rather than it all being the Government's fault. I really think politicians are the biggest mugs going. The whole system is geared toward the civil service becoming fatter, more powerful, less accountable, less efficient, and less capable.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,527
    edited February 2023

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph.
    Edit; not third.

    Yes, surely there is. Food, leccy, inflation, under inflation pay rises, the after-Christmas deficit, and all that.
    And today the Government is proposing a 3.5% pay rise for millions working for a living, while inflation is over 10%.

    And yet they have enough money to give a 10% pay rise to those who are not working for a living.

    Don't have to be very interested in politics to see a problem with that.
    It looks like there might be some movement on the nurses at least. But that will still leave a lot of very sensitive groups in education, junior doctors, trains (because of their effect on so many others) etc. Again, Sunak needs to put himself out front and find agreements, not hide behind pay boards.
    Seems they're proposing even less for experienced teachers, just 3% not even 3.5%.

    Be easier to find agreements if we were "all in it together", but double-digit pay rises are being reserved for preferred groups while proposing shafting others with over 7% real term pay cuts.
    And what is there for Teaching Assistants and all the other support staff who make a school function?
    Still on minimum wage.
    Probably zero again.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,871

    FPT

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.

    n

    God didn't marry the mother of His only begotten son!
    And none of the other creatures He created bother with marriage either!
    If you are going to argue from natural theology, you need to be a very good zoologist! Quite a few 'higher' species are monogamous in the long term (even if sometimes having a bit on the side). Though a lot aren't, it must be said.

    https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blog/2020/02/which-birds-mate-for-life/
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972
    Tories still doing better in the redwall than they were under Truss
  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    FPT

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.

    n

    God didn't marry the mother of His only begotten son!
    And none of the other creatures He created bother with marriage either!
    If you are going to argue from natural theology, you need to be a very good zoologist! Quite a few 'higher' species are monogamous in the long term (even if sometimes having a bit on the side). Though a lot aren't, it must be said.

    https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blog/2020/02/which-birds-mate-for-life/
    But even the monogamous ones simply cohabit, they do NOT marry!
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811
    dixiedean said:

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph.
    Edit; not third.

    Yes, surely there is. Food, leccy, inflation, under inflation pay rises, the after-Christmas deficit, and all that.
    And today the Government is proposing a 3.5% pay rise for millions working for a living, while inflation is over 10%.

    And yet they have enough money to give a 10% pay rise to those who are not working for a living.

    Don't have to be very interested in politics to see a problem with that.
    It looks like there might be some movement on the nurses at least. But that will still leave a lot of very sensitive groups in education, junior doctors, trains (because of their effect on so many others) etc. Again, Sunak needs to put himself out front and find agreements, not hide behind pay boards.
    Seems they're proposing even less for experienced teachers, just 3% not even 3.5%.

    Be easier to find agreements if we were "all in it together", but double-digit pay rises are being reserved for preferred groups while proposing shafting others with over 7% real term pay cuts.
    And what is there for Teaching Assistants and all the other support staff who make a school function?
    Probably zero again.
    2% for the junior doctors at a time of 10% inflation was a calculated insult. No wonder 98% voted to strike on a 78% turnout.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,945

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph.
    Edit; not third.

    Yes, surely there is. Food, leccy, inflation, under inflation pay rises, the after-Christmas deficit, and all that.
    And today the Government is proposing a 3.5% pay rise for millions working for a living, while inflation is over 10%.

    And yet they have enough money to give a 10% pay rise to those who are not working for a living.

    Don't have to be very interested in politics to see a problem with that.
    It looks like there might be some movement on the nurses at least. But that will still leave a lot of very sensitive groups in education, junior doctors, trains (because of their effect on so many others) etc. Again, Sunak needs to put himself out front and find agreements, not hide behind pay boards.
    Reluctant as I am to say anything that might be construed as supportive to Sunak's Government, I really don't know why NHS pay is still being decided at a Ministerial level.
    Well, basically this country is becoming a health service with a small country attached to it. Already 1 in 50 of us work for it directly and many more indirectly. It is a huge and growing share of all public expenditure and pretty much determines the tax level. if politicians were not involved in its running they would be completely pointless rather than largely so.

    But the polticians already set the budget. So why shouldn't those trusts be handed the budget and told to use it effectively? Then when the nurses are complaining, they can complain at the trust which has just employed a fleet of new equality champions at £100,000pa a pop, rather than it all being the Government's fault. I really think politicians are the biggest mugs going. The whole system is geared toward the civil service becoming fatter, more powerful, less accountable, less efficient, and less capable.
    The evidence in favour of that proposition is compelling. And it seems to have got noticeably worse since Covid.
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 19,299
    edited February 2023
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph.
    Edit; not third.

    Yes, surely there is. Food, leccy, inflation, under inflation pay rises, the after-Christmas deficit, and all that.
    And today the Government is proposing a 3.5% pay rise for millions working for a living, while inflation is over 10%.

    And yet they have enough money to give a 10% pay rise to those who are not working for a living.

    Don't have to be very interested in politics to see a problem with that.
    It looks like there might be some movement on the nurses at least. But that will still leave a lot of very sensitive groups in education, junior doctors, trains (because of their effect on so many others) etc. Again, Sunak needs to put himself out front and find agreements, not hide behind pay boards.
    Reluctant as I am to say anything that might be construed as supportive to Sunak's Government, I really don't know why NHS pay is still being decided at a Ministerial level.
    Well, basically this country is becoming a health service with a small country attached to it. Already 1 in 50 of us work for it directly and many more indirectly. It is a huge and growing share of all public expenditure and pretty much determines the tax level. if politicians were not involved in its running they would be completely pointless rather than largely so.

    In most developed countries, healthcare is around one tenth of the economy, so why shouldn't employ 1 in 50 of us?
    Possibly because doctors can be paid more than five times the average worker is, and need more than 5x the infrastructure expenditure too (you can't operate with just a Laptop or five) so the maths there are a problem.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,019
    edited February 2023

    FPT

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.

    n

    God didn't marry the mother of His only begotten son!
    And none of the other creatures He created bother with marriage either!
    Is that an argument for or against gay marriage?

    As far as animals go, the human tendency to have traditions concerning marriage/fidelity/the nuclear family seems to have an evolutionary benefit. It certainly seems common across human culture. Other animals obviously don't marry, but some mate for life.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811

    Carnyx said:

    FPT

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.

    n

    God didn't marry the mother of His only begotten son!
    And none of the other creatures He created bother with marriage either!
    If you are going to argue from natural theology, you need to be a very good zoologist! Quite a few 'higher' species are monogamous in the long term (even if sometimes having a bit on the side). Though a lot aren't, it must be said.

    https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blog/2020/02/which-birds-mate-for-life/
    But even the monogamous ones simply cohabit, they do NOT marry!
    They do have courtship rituals and ceremonies.

    Who says these aren't marriages?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972

    FPT

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.

    n

    God didn't marry the mother of His only begotten son!
    And none of the other creatures He created bother with marriage either!
    Mary was also God's mother, Jesus also being Father and Holy Spirit as well as Son. You don't marry your mother!
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,871

    Carnyx said:

    FPT

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.

    n

    God didn't marry the mother of His only begotten son!
    And none of the other creatures He created bother with marriage either!
    If you are going to argue from natural theology, you need to be a very good zoologist! Quite a few 'higher' species are monogamous in the long term (even if sometimes having a bit on the side). Though a lot aren't, it must be said.

    https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blog/2020/02/which-birds-mate-for-life/
    But even the monogamous ones simply cohabit, they do NOT marry!
    They can't find their birth or baptismal certificates (depending on which is needed). Quite likely to have a ring round the ankle if a bird, though.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,073
    HYUFD said:

    Tories still doing better in the redwall than they were under Truss

    Blimey. What a thrusting resurgence that is. More popular than Truss? Wow.
  • Options

    Monkeys said:

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.
    With respect to same-sex marriage, not other issues, and that's an issue where she has no legislative say since it was legalised by Westminster.

    On other subjects she has proposed faith exemptions to the law and she has allowed her faith to dominate her leadership campaign instead of prioritising other political issues instead.

    Perfectly reasonable for people to think that is a very serious problem and oppose her campaign as a result.
    Um, no. Wikipedia:

    Same-sex marriage in Scotland has been legal since 16 December 2014. As family law is not reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence to make changes to the law on marriage.[1] A same-sex marriage law was approved by the Scottish Parliament in February 2014 and received royal assent on 12 March 2014. It came into effect on 16 December with many civil partners converting their relationships into marriages, while the first same-sex marriage ceremonies occurred on 31 December 2014. Civil partnerships for same-sex couples have been legal in Scotland since 2005.
    Already said I made a mistake.

    Westminster passed the same sex marriage law in 2013. I had no idea that the Scottish Parliament was so tardy as to do it a year later.
    At least we were in tandem with rUK in that a majority of Tory reps voted against it.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.

    n

    God didn't marry the mother of His only begotten son!
    And none of the other creatures He created bother with marriage either!
    Mary was also God's mother, Jesus also being Father and Holy Spirit as well as Son. You don't marry your mother!
    God does NOT believe in marriage. So if you believe in God - if you have so-called "FAITH" - then you don't TRULY believe in marriage!
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph.
    Edit; not third.

    Yes, surely there is. Food, leccy, inflation, under inflation pay rises, the after-Christmas deficit, and all that.
    And today the Government is proposing a 3.5% pay rise for millions working for a living, while inflation is over 10%.

    And yet they have enough money to give a 10% pay rise to those who are not working for a living.

    Don't have to be very interested in politics to see a problem with that.
    It looks like there might be some movement on the nurses at least. But that will still leave a lot of very sensitive groups in education, junior doctors, trains (because of their effect on so many others) etc. Again, Sunak needs to put himself out front and find agreements, not hide behind pay boards.
    Reluctant as I am to say anything that might be construed as supportive to Sunak's Government, I really don't know why NHS pay is still being decided at a Ministerial level.
    Well, basically this country is becoming a health service with a small country attached to it. Already 1 in 50 of us work for it directly and many more indirectly. It is a huge and growing share of all public expenditure and pretty much determines the tax level. if politicians were not involved in its running they would be completely pointless rather than largely so.

    In most developed countries, healthcare is around one tenth of the economy, so why shouldn't employ 1 in 50 of us?
    Possibly because doctors can be paid more than five times the average worker is, and need more than 5x the infrastructure expenditure too (you can't operate with just a Laptop or five) so the maths there are a problem.
    Though many health workers are paid less than Median wage.

    It's supply and demand. If you want the job done then you have to pay the going rate. I thought Tories understood markets.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    FPT

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.

    n

    God didn't marry the mother of His only begotten son!
    And none of the other creatures He created bother with marriage either!
    If you are going to argue from natural theology, you need to be a very good zoologist! Quite a few 'higher' species are monogamous in the long term (even if sometimes having a bit on the side). Though a lot aren't, it must be said.

    https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blog/2020/02/which-birds-mate-for-life/
    But even the monogamous ones simply cohabit, they do NOT marry!
    They do have courtship rituals and ceremonies.

    Who says these aren't marriages?
    They simply cohabit.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,811

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    FPT

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.

    n

    God didn't marry the mother of His only begotten son!
    And none of the other creatures He created bother with marriage either!
    If you are going to argue from natural theology, you need to be a very good zoologist! Quite a few 'higher' species are monogamous in the long term (even if sometimes having a bit on the side). Though a lot aren't, it must be said.

    https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blog/2020/02/which-birds-mate-for-life/
    But even the monogamous ones simply cohabit, they do NOT marry!
    They do have courtship rituals and ceremonies.

    Who says these aren't marriages?
    They simply cohabit.
    Isn't marriage a courtship ritual and ceremony?
  • Options

    FPT

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.

    n

    God didn't marry the mother of His only begotten son!
    And none of the other creatures He created bother with marriage either!
    Is that an argument for or against gay marriage?

    As far as animals go, the human tendency to have traditions concerning marriage/fidelity/the nuclear family seems to have an evolutionary benefit. It certainly seems common across human culture. Other animals obviously don't marry, but some mate for life.
    Yes, marriage was invented by "religious" people, it doesn't occur with God's other creations.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,019
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph.
    Edit; not third.

    Yes, surely there is. Food, leccy, inflation, under inflation pay rises, the after-Christmas deficit, and all that.
    And today the Government is proposing a 3.5% pay rise for millions working for a living, while inflation is over 10%.

    And yet they have enough money to give a 10% pay rise to those who are not working for a living.

    Don't have to be very interested in politics to see a problem with that.
    It looks like there might be some movement on the nurses at least. But that will still leave a lot of very sensitive groups in education, junior doctors, trains (because of their effect on so many others) etc. Again, Sunak needs to put himself out front and find agreements, not hide behind pay boards.
    Reluctant as I am to say anything that might be construed as supportive to Sunak's Government, I really don't know why NHS pay is still being decided at a Ministerial level.
    Well, basically this country is becoming a health service with a small country attached to it. Already 1 in 50 of us work for it directly and many more indirectly. It is a huge and growing share of all public expenditure and pretty much determines the tax level. if politicians were not involved in its running they would be completely pointless rather than largely so.

    But the polticians already set the budget. So why shouldn't those trusts be handed the budget and told to use it effectively? Then when the nurses are complaining, they can complain at the trust which has just employed a fleet of new equality champions at £100,000pa a pop, rather than it all being the Government's fault. I really think politicians are the biggest mugs going. The whole system is geared toward the civil service becoming fatter, more powerful, less accountable, less efficient, and less capable.
    The evidence in favour of that proposition is compelling. And it seems to have got noticeably worse since Covid.
    We have a fat DOH, a fat NHS England/Scotland/Wales, fat NHS trusts, the NHS employs getting on for as many people as Macdonalds worldwide, but apparently they can't decide how much to pay their staff - that's all Rishi's fault.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,938
    What on earth has happened to Liverpool this season?
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,591
    edited February 2023
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph.
    Edit; not third.

    Yes, surely there is. Food, leccy, inflation, under inflation pay rises, the after-Christmas deficit, and all that.
    And today the Government is proposing a 3.5% pay rise for millions working for a living, while inflation is over 10%.

    And yet they have enough money to give a 10% pay rise to those who are not working for a living.

    Don't have to be very interested in politics to see a problem with that.
    It looks like there might be some movement on the nurses at least. But that will still leave a lot of very sensitive groups in education, junior doctors, trains (because of their effect on so many others) etc. Again, Sunak needs to put himself out front and find agreements, not hide behind pay boards.
    Reluctant as I am to say anything that might be construed as supportive to Sunak's Government, I really don't know why NHS pay is still being decided at a Ministerial level.
    Well, basically this country is becoming a health service with a small country attached to it. Already 1 in 50 of us work for it directly and many more indirectly. It is a huge and growing share of all public expenditure and pretty much determines the tax level. if politicians were not involved in its running they would be completely pointless rather than largely so.

    I don't know where you get the idea that our health system is particularly bloated - it is about average for industrialised countries.

    https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/health_spending_as_percent_of_gdp/

    America, with no universal health system, is the bloated one.

    And wtf is going on in Tuvalu where they spend 24% of GDP on healthcare?
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,527
    edited February 2023
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph.
    Edit; not third.

    Yes, surely there is. Food, leccy, inflation, under inflation pay rises, the after-Christmas deficit, and all that.
    And today the Government is proposing a 3.5% pay rise for millions working for a living, while inflation is over 10%.

    And yet they have enough money to give a 10% pay rise to those who are not working for a living.

    Don't have to be very interested in politics to see a problem with that.
    It looks like there might be some movement on the nurses at least. But that will still leave a lot of very sensitive groups in education, junior doctors, trains (because of their effect on so many others) etc. Again, Sunak needs to put himself out front and find agreements, not hide behind pay boards.
    Reluctant as I am to say anything that might be construed as supportive to Sunak's Government, I really don't know why NHS pay is still being decided at a Ministerial level.
    Well, basically this country is becoming a health service with a small country attached to it. Already 1 in 50 of us work for it directly and many more indirectly. It is a huge and growing share of all public expenditure and pretty much determines the tax level. if politicians were not involved in its running they would be completely pointless rather than largely so.

    In most developed countries, healthcare is around one tenth of the economy, so why shouldn't employ 1 in 50 of us?
    Possibly because doctors can be paid more than five times the average worker is, and need more than 5x the infrastructure expenditure too (you can't operate with just a Laptop or five) so the maths there are a problem.
    Though many health workers are paid less than Median wage.

    It's supply and demand. If you want the job done then you have to pay the going rate. I thought Tories understood markets.
    Wait till you hear what's happening in education.
    A teacher is off. Whole classes are being taken by a completely unqualified, untrained agency person on minimum wage.
    Admittedly with a slightly less experienced assistant.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,000
    edited February 2023
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    FPT

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.

    n

    God didn't marry the mother of His only begotten son!
    And none of the other creatures He created bother with marriage either!
    If you are going to argue from natural theology, you need to be a very good zoologist! Quite a few 'higher' species are monogamous in the long term (even if sometimes having a bit on the side). Though a lot aren't, it must be said.

    https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blog/2020/02/which-birds-mate-for-life/
    But even the monogamous ones simply cohabit, they do NOT marry!
    They do have courtship rituals and ceremonies.

    Who says these aren't marriages?
    They simply cohabit.
    Isn't marriage a courtship ritual and ceremony?
    So why didn't the Lord God marry his Baby-mama?

    And you religious types actually "worship" this Guy?
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,871

    Monkeys said:

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.
    With respect to same-sex marriage, not other issues, and that's an issue where she has no legislative say since it was legalised by Westminster.

    On other subjects she has proposed faith exemptions to the law and she has allowed her faith to dominate her leadership campaign instead of prioritising other political issues instead.

    Perfectly reasonable for people to think that is a very serious problem and oppose her campaign as a result.
    Um, no. Wikipedia:

    Same-sex marriage in Scotland has been legal since 16 December 2014. As family law is not reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence to make changes to the law on marriage.[1] A same-sex marriage law was approved by the Scottish Parliament in February 2014 and received royal assent on 12 March 2014. It came into effect on 16 December with many civil partners converting their relationships into marriages, while the first same-sex marriage ceremonies occurred on 31 December 2014. Civil partnerships for same-sex couples have been legal in Scotland since 2005.
    Already said I made a mistake.

    Westminster passed the same sex marriage law in 2013. I had no idea that the Scottish Parliament was so tardy as to do it a year later.
    At least we were in tandem with rUK in that a majority of Tory reps voted against it.
    Interestingly, the Episcopal Kirk approved gay marriage ages ago (first in the Anglican Communion and got stick for it from the others) yet the C of E won't allow it at all. Seem to have adopted a solution not so much of opting out but opting in for priests.

    https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/originals/the-primus-of-the-scottish-episcopal-church-on-lgbtq-inclusion/
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Tories still doing better in the redwall than they were under Truss

    But not enough to hang on in 2024!
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    FPT

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.

    n

    God didn't marry the mother of His only begotten son!
    And none of the other creatures He created bother with marriage either!
    If you are going to argue from natural theology, you need to be a very good zoologist! Quite a few 'higher' species are monogamous in the long term (even if sometimes having a bit on the side). Though a lot aren't, it must be said.

    https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blog/2020/02/which-birds-mate-for-life/
    But even the monogamous ones simply cohabit, they do NOT marry!
    They do have courtship rituals and ceremonies.

    Who says these aren't marriages?
    They simply cohabit.
    Isn't marriage a courtship ritual and ceremony?
    So why didn't the Lord God marry his Baby-mama?

    And you religious types actually "worship" this Guy?
    As I already told you the Lord God IS also his son and you don't marry your mother!
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,938
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    FPT

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.

    n

    God didn't marry the mother of His only begotten son!
    And none of the other creatures He created bother with marriage either!
    If you are going to argue from natural theology, you need to be a very good zoologist! Quite a few 'higher' species are monogamous in the long term (even if sometimes having a bit on the side). Though a lot aren't, it must be said.

    https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blog/2020/02/which-birds-mate-for-life/
    But even the monogamous ones simply cohabit, they do NOT marry!
    They do have courtship rituals and ceremonies.

    Who says these aren't marriages?
    They simply cohabit.
    Isn't marriage a courtship ritual and ceremony?
    That's a wedding; marriage is (aspirationally) a lifelong commitment.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,527

    What on earth has happened to Liverpool this season?

    They came up against the genius that is Ancelloti.
    A man who got Everton to finish tenth.
    Nuff said.
  • Options
    Fishing said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Third! The interesting part of the graph is the movement over the last month when there hasn’t been a particular issue to move the graph.
    Edit; not third.

    Yes, surely there is. Food, leccy, inflation, under inflation pay rises, the after-Christmas deficit, and all that.
    And today the Government is proposing a 3.5% pay rise for millions working for a living, while inflation is over 10%.

    And yet they have enough money to give a 10% pay rise to those who are not working for a living.

    Don't have to be very interested in politics to see a problem with that.
    It looks like there might be some movement on the nurses at least. But that will still leave a lot of very sensitive groups in education, junior doctors, trains (because of their effect on so many others) etc. Again, Sunak needs to put himself out front and find agreements, not hide behind pay boards.
    Reluctant as I am to say anything that might be construed as supportive to Sunak's Government, I really don't know why NHS pay is still being decided at a Ministerial level.
    Well, basically this country is becoming a health service with a small country attached to it. Already 1 in 50 of us work for it directly and many more indirectly. It is a huge and growing share of all public expenditure and pretty much determines the tax level. if politicians were not involved in its running they would be completely pointless rather than largely so.

    I don't know where you get the idea that our health system is particularly bloated - it is about average for industrialised countries.

    https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/health_spending_as_percent_of_gdp/

    America, with no universal health system, is the bloated one.

    And wtf is going on in Tuvalu where they spend 24% of GDP on healthcare?
    Aren't they a nation of Augustus Gloops?
    (oops! sorry!)
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,327

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.
    You really don't get it do you? I don't have a problem with Forbes having her own 'traditional Christian beliefs', if she keeps them to herself, or in her Church.

    I do have a problem with Forbes expressing such beliefs as a politician, when a politician is to represent all beliefs, not her own.

    To be perfectly frank, I personally don't like Yousaf's religion [I don't like any organised religion], but when asked about it he gave a very appropriate answer about the difference between religion and politics. That to me means, that regardless of his religion, there's no reason why his religion should disqualify him from politics.

    If he's prepared to keep religion and politics separate, then he can keep privately whatever beliefs he wants. Even those I dislike. That's liberalism. That's what Forbes failed to do.
    The difference is whether religious dogma is a guide for how to organise society, or a guide for how believers should live their personal lives.

    It's only very recently that it stopped being the former, and even then only in some parts of the world. I don't want religious people to use the law to force me to live by their dogma.

    If a religious person were to talk about how their faith motivated them to make a difference to improve the world, and to help others, then that's something that I as an atheist could see as a plus.

    Essentially Britain isn't that religious a country anymore. So if religious people want to represent the people of Britain they have to acknowledge that they will be representing a lot of non-religious people and they can't use their dogma as a political guide book. Or else non-religious people won't vote for them.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 28,217
    Forbes for leader.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,938
    dixiedean said:

    What on earth has happened to Liverpool this season?

    They came up against the genius that is Ancelloti.
    A man who got Everton to finish tenth.
    Nuff said.
    It's a funny old game, no doubt.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972
    edited February 2023
    Carnyx said:

    Monkeys said:

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.
    With respect to same-sex marriage, not other issues, and that's an issue where she has no legislative say since it was legalised by Westminster.

    On other subjects she has proposed faith exemptions to the law and she has allowed her faith to dominate her leadership campaign instead of prioritising other political issues instead.

    Perfectly reasonable for people to think that is a very serious problem and oppose her campaign as a result.
    Um, no. Wikipedia:

    Same-sex marriage in Scotland has been legal since 16 December 2014. As family law is not reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence to make changes to the law on marriage.[1] A same-sex marriage law was approved by the Scottish Parliament in February 2014 and received royal assent on 12 March 2014. It came into effect on 16 December with many civil partners converting their relationships into marriages, while the first same-sex marriage ceremonies occurred on 31 December 2014. Civil partnerships for same-sex couples have been legal in Scotland since 2005.
    Already said I made a mistake.

    Westminster passed the same sex marriage law in 2013. I had no idea that the Scottish Parliament was so tardy as to do it a year later.
    At least we were in tandem with rUK in that a majority of Tory reps voted against it.
    Interestingly, the Episcopal Kirk approved gay marriage ages ago (first in the Anglican Communion and got stick for it from the others) yet the C of E won't allow it at all. Seem to have adopted a solution not so much of opting out but opting in for priests.

    https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/originals/the-primus-of-the-scottish-episcopal-church-on-lgbtq-inclusion/
    The C of E now blesses homosexual marriages which is more than the Free Church of Scotland does.

    Though given over half a million people still attend C of E services every Sunday but only about 11,000 attend weekly Scottish Episcopal Church services every Sunday (less than 5% of the C of E total), maybe the SEP went too far in losing most of its evangelical churches
    https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/2021StatisticsForMission.pdf#:~:text=The total all age average,and 605,000 people in 2021.&text=14% of the average weekly,, and 12% in 2021.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Episcopal_Church
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    FPT

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.

    n

    God didn't marry the mother of His only begotten son!
    And none of the other creatures He created bother with marriage either!
    If you are going to argue from natural theology, you need to be a very good zoologist! Quite a few 'higher' species are monogamous in the long term (even if sometimes having a bit on the side). Though a lot aren't, it must be said.

    https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blog/2020/02/which-birds-mate-for-life/
    But even the monogamous ones simply cohabit, they do NOT marry!
    They do have courtship rituals and ceremonies.

    Who says these aren't marriages?
    They simply cohabit.
    Isn't marriage a courtship ritual and ceremony?
    If recognised by state/church (take your pick). Which rituals and ceremonies are determined to be 'legal' is a crapshoot.
  • Options
    Re cost of living Asda have a single can of Heinz tomato soup for £1.70 but if you buy 2 x 6 packs they are 75p each

    Huge difference
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,871
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Monkeys said:

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.
    With respect to same-sex marriage, not other issues, and that's an issue where she has no legislative say since it was legalised by Westminster.

    On other subjects she has proposed faith exemptions to the law and she has allowed her faith to dominate her leadership campaign instead of prioritising other political issues instead.

    Perfectly reasonable for people to think that is a very serious problem and oppose her campaign as a result.
    Um, no. Wikipedia:

    Same-sex marriage in Scotland has been legal since 16 December 2014. As family law is not reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence to make changes to the law on marriage.[1] A same-sex marriage law was approved by the Scottish Parliament in February 2014 and received royal assent on 12 March 2014. It came into effect on 16 December with many civil partners converting their relationships into marriages, while the first same-sex marriage ceremonies occurred on 31 December 2014. Civil partnerships for same-sex couples have been legal in Scotland since 2005.
    Already said I made a mistake.

    Westminster passed the same sex marriage law in 2013. I had no idea that the Scottish Parliament was so tardy as to do it a year later.
    At least we were in tandem with rUK in that a majority of Tory reps voted against it.
    Interestingly, the Episcopal Kirk approved gay marriage ages ago (first in the Anglican Communion and got stick for it from the others) yet the C of E won't allow it at all. Seem to have adopted a solution not so much of opting out but opting in for priests.

    https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/originals/the-primus-of-the-scottish-episcopal-church-on-lgbtq-inclusion/
    The C of E now blesses homosexual marriages which is more than the Free Church of Scotland does.

    Though given over half a million people still attend C of E services every Sunday but only about 11,000 attend weekly Scottish Episcopal Church services every Sunday (less than 5% of the C of E total), maybe the SEP went too far in losing most of its evangelical churches
    https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/2021StatisticsForMission.pdf#:~:text=The total all age average,and 605,000 people in 2021.&text=14% of the average weekly,, and 12% in 2021.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Episcopal_Church
    That's in some ways worse than nothing, the C of E policy. Being treated as second class Christians.

    At least the ECS was consistent right from the start of its change.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302
    edited February 2023
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    FPT

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.

    n

    God didn't marry the mother of His only begotten son!
    And none of the other creatures He created bother with marriage either!
    If you are going to argue from natural theology, you need to be a very good zoologist! Quite a few 'higher' species are monogamous in the long term (even if sometimes having a bit on the side). Though a lot aren't, it must be said.

    https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blog/2020/02/which-birds-mate-for-life/
    But even the monogamous ones simply cohabit, they do NOT marry!
    They do have courtship rituals and ceremonies.

    Who says these aren't marriages?
    They simply cohabit.
    Isn't marriage a courtship ritual and ceremony?
    So why didn't the Lord God marry his Baby-mama?

    And you religious types actually "worship" this Guy?
    As I already told you the Lord God IS also his son and you don't marry your mother!
    Sounds awfully convoluted, He could have avoided a great many theological arguments over the millennia by cutting out this born of a mortal women stuff.

    I don't even know if we still have monophysite creeds.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,527

    Re cost of living Asda have a single can of Heinz tomato soup for £1.70 but if you buy 2 x 6 packs they are 75p each

    Huge difference

    Assuming you have £9.
    And want to only eat tomato soup.
    Then that's OK then.
    Thanks for your input.
    Exactly the kind of stuff that's winning Tory support.
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    Re cost of living Asda have a single can of Heinz tomato soup for £1.70 but if you buy 2 x 6 packs they are 75p each

    Huge difference

    Assuming you have £9.
    And want to only eat tomato soup.
    Then that's OK then.
    Thanks for your input.
    Exactly the kind of stuff that's winning Tory support.
    Soon there won't be enough tomatoes to make tomato soup!
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,327

    Re cost of living Asda have a single can of Heinz tomato soup for £1.70 but if you buy 2 x 6 packs they are 75p each

    Huge difference

    That's a lot of soup though. £9 in one go and nearly 5kg plus the weight of the tins to drag home.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,871

    FPT

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.

    n

    God didn't marry the mother of His only begotten son!
    And none of the other creatures He created bother with marriage either!
    Is that an argument for or against gay marriage?

    As far as animals go, the human tendency to have traditions concerning marriage/fidelity/the nuclear family seems to have an evolutionary benefit. It certainly seems common across human culture. Other animals obviously don't marry, but some mate for life.
    Yes, marriage was invented by "religious" people, it doesn't occur with God's other creations.
    Not in Scotland. It is primarily a legal contract. No need for a minister; that counts as 'nice to have'. Never been a sacrament in the Presbyterian kirks, though the minister and kirk session didn't approve of adultery or fornication outside marriage.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,108
    Management consultancy, AI, and fizzy drinks.
    A marriage made in…

    Announcing our partnership with Bain, with Coca-Cola Company as the first mutual client:
    https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1628122763847413760
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,019
    edited February 2023

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.
    You really don't get it do you? I don't have a problem with Forbes having her own 'traditional Christian beliefs', if she keeps them to herself, or in her Church.

    I do have a problem with Forbes expressing such beliefs as a politician, when a politician is to represent all beliefs, not her own.

    To be perfectly frank, I personally don't like Yousaf's religion [I don't like any organised religion], but when asked about it he gave a very appropriate answer about the difference between religion and politics. That to me means, that regardless of his religion, there's no reason why his religion should disqualify him from politics.

    If he's prepared to keep religion and politics separate, then he can keep privately whatever beliefs he wants. Even those I dislike. That's liberalism. That's what Forbes failed to do.
    Why should Kate Forbes keep her views to herself, or only utter them within a Church setting? Is that some new form of free speech I'm not familiar with?

    Plenty of people wouldn't like a lot of your loopy beliefs, that you came by from your Mum and Dad, watching Marvel films, reading comics, or whatever else your formative experiences were, but the fact is that you're entitled to have them, and entitled to campaign on them if you so wish. Because you have an issue with organised religion, you put views derived religiously into some sort of arbitrary second class category, and philsophically, that's a complete pile of horse testicles.

    Humza Yousaf is fine to adopt his attitude to his religion, Kate Forbes is entitled to adopt her attitude (to be honest they don't seem that different to me - they were both happy to be part of the SNP/Green high command), and someone like Ann Widdecombe who campaigns strongly on her traditional beliefs is also fine. It's all democracy, and it's all fine.
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    Re cost of living Asda have a single can of Heinz tomato soup for £1.70 but if you buy 2 x 6 packs they are 75p each

    Huge difference

    Assuming you have £9.
    And want to only eat tomato soup.
    Then that's OK then.
    Thanks for your input.
    Exactly the kind of stuff that's winning Tory support.
    I was demonstrating the difference and not making a political point to be fair
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302
    I'd joke that there are a large number of people this could be from the allies of Jeremy Corbyn, but in fact it's exactly who you'd think it would be as your first thought.

    EXC: A former Labour MP and fierce ally of Jeremy Corbyn is being stripped of his Westminster pass until further notice over his links to Iranian state television https://telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/02/21/jeremy-corbyn-ally-chris-williamson-stripped-parliamentary-pass/ (me via @Telegraph )

    https://twitter.com/tweetsbyames/status/1628049992819564547?cxt=HHwWhoCzqfe1_5ctAAAA
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,527
    edited February 2023
    It's almost as if poor people never realised you can save by buying in bulk.
    Fortunately the Conservative Party exists.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,871
    dixiedean said:

    Re cost of living Asda have a single can of Heinz tomato soup for £1.70 but if you buy 2 x 6 packs they are 75p each

    Huge difference

    Assuming you have £9.
    And want to only eat tomato soup.
    Then that's OK then.
    Thanks for your input.
    Exactly the kind of stuff that's winning Tory support.
    Vimes Theorem. If you are so poor you can't afford £9 just to buy soup, plus a car to take it home, you have to do it the expensive way.

    Which tbf was perhaps BigG's point.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,972
    edited February 2023
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Monkeys said:

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.
    With respect to same-sex marriage, not other issues, and that's an issue where she has no legislative say since it was legalised by Westminster.

    On other subjects she has proposed faith exemptions to the law and she has allowed her faith to dominate her leadership campaign instead of prioritising other political issues instead.

    Perfectly reasonable for people to think that is a very serious problem and oppose her campaign as a result.
    Um, no. Wikipedia:

    Same-sex marriage in Scotland has been legal since 16 December 2014. As family law is not reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence to make changes to the law on marriage.[1] A same-sex marriage law was approved by the Scottish Parliament in February 2014 and received royal assent on 12 March 2014. It came into effect on 16 December with many civil partners converting their relationships into marriages, while the first same-sex marriage ceremonies occurred on 31 December 2014. Civil partnerships for same-sex couples have been legal in Scotland since 2005.
    Already said I made a mistake.

    Westminster passed the same sex marriage law in 2013. I had no idea that the Scottish Parliament was so tardy as to do it a year later.
    At least we were in tandem with rUK in that a majority of Tory reps voted against it.
    Interestingly, the Episcopal Kirk approved gay marriage ages ago (first in the Anglican Communion and got stick for it from the others) yet the C of E won't allow it at all. Seem to have adopted a solution not so much of opting out but opting in for priests.

    https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/originals/the-primus-of-the-scottish-episcopal-church-on-lgbtq-inclusion/
    The C of E now blesses homosexual marriages which is more than the Free Church of Scotland does.

    Though given over half a million people still attend C of E services every Sunday but only about 11,000 attend weekly Scottish Episcopal Church services every Sunday (less than 5% of the C of E total), maybe the SEP went too far in losing most of its evangelical churches
    https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/2021StatisticsForMission.pdf#:~:text=The total all age average,and 605,000 people in 2021.&text=14% of the average weekly,, and 12% in 2021.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Episcopal_Church
    That's in some ways worse than nothing, the C of E policy. Being treated as second class Christians.

    At least the ECS was consistent right from the start of its change.
    There is no denial however that the only churches growing in the UK tend to be evangelical ones (outside of cathedrals anyway which still attract lots of visitors and worshippers due to their architecture and outstanding choirs). They also therefore have the most cash in collections and donations from their congregations.

    No organisation or business is likely to take a strategy that turns off its strongest growth market, especially as the evangelicals tend to be the most anti homosexual marriage.

    So the blessings for homosexual couples compromise both allowed homosexual English Anglicans to go to a willing church to get a blessing after their civil marriage while also ensuring holy matrimony was reserved for one man and woman to keep the Church of England evangelicals on board
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,660
    dixiedean said:

    Re cost of living Asda have a single can of Heinz tomato soup for £1.70 but if you buy 2 x 6 packs they are 75p each

    Huge difference

    Assuming you have £9.
    And want to only eat tomato soup.
    Then that's OK then.
    Thanks for your input.
    Exactly the kind of stuff that's winning Tory support.
    It's expensive being poor.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,108
    It begins

    Fulton County, Georgia special grand jury has recommended the indictment of multiple people.

    Forewoman of the jury speaks on the record.

    “You’re not going to be shocked. It’s not rocket science.”

    https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1628117342977753088
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,962
    edited February 2023

    Re cost of living Asda have a single can of Heinz tomato soup for £1.70 but if you buy 2 x 6 packs they are 75p each

    Huge difference

    That's a lot of soup though. £9 in one go and nearly 5kg plus the weight of the tins to drag home.
    Actually in our case we do use quite a lot of tomato soup as our appetite has changed as we have aged

    And we do have a weekly delivery from Asda anyway but I only intended to demonstrate the huge discount on this item

    And you can buy 6 for £5.50 @ 92p per can
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,527
    edited February 2023

    dixiedean said:

    Re cost of living Asda have a single can of Heinz tomato soup for £1.70 but if you buy 2 x 6 packs they are 75p each

    Huge difference

    Assuming you have £9.
    And want to only eat tomato soup.
    Then that's OK then.
    Thanks for your input.
    Exactly the kind of stuff that's winning Tory support.
    I was demonstrating the difference and not making a political point to be fair
    And that's why you don't get it.
    And why many can't understand why the government is so unpopular.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302
    edited February 2023

    Monkeys said:

    That'll help.....

    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.”


    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-defends-under-fire-snp-hopeful-kemi-badenoch-faith-conservative-party-free-church-scotland/

    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.
    You really don't get it do you? I don't have a problem with Forbes having her own 'traditional Christian beliefs', if she keeps them to herself, or in her Church.

    I do have a problem with Forbes expressing such beliefs as a politician, when a politician is to represent all beliefs, not her own.

    To be perfectly frank, I personally don't like Yousaf's religion [I don't like any organised religion], but when asked about it he gave a very appropriate answer about the difference between religion and politics. That to me means, that regardless of his religion, there's no reason why his religion should disqualify him from politics.

    If he's prepared to keep religion and politics separate, then he can keep privately whatever beliefs he wants. Even those I dislike. That's liberalism. That's what Forbes failed to do.
    So if religious people want to represent the people of Britain they have to acknowledge that they will be representing a lot of non-religious people and they can't use their dogma as a political guide book. Or else non-religious people won't vote for them.
    I don't really know how realistic this is to be honest. Plenty of religious people get by just fine until their faith becomes a talking point, as there's going to be something in their creed which will upset someone. Then suddenly people question their potential actions.

    At what point does one's faith deeply influencing the policies and ideas a politician adopts cross over into using dogma as a guide book?

    I do think this Forbes free speech stuff is overblown, at the end of the day she can believe what she wants and if people don't like what she believes there's nothing wrong with people deciding they don't want to support her even if she promises her beliefs won't affect specific policies, but speaking as a non-religious person I find it hard to imagine how someone could be driven by their faith or a specific ideology and not have that be relevant to their politics, even if they are not about to legislate that people follow the bible/communist manifesto or whatever.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302
    Nigelb said:

    It begins

    Fulton County, Georgia special grand jury has recommended the indictment of multiple people.

    Forewoman of the jury speaks on the record.

    “You’re not going to be shocked. It’s not rocket science.”

    https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1628117342977753088

    I'll still be shocked, it took 2 years for the process to rumble on this far after all (yes yes, the law is complicated).
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,302
    dixiedean said:

    It's almost as if poor people never realised you can save by buying in bulk.
    Fortunately the Conservative Party exists.

    We bought Tory MPs in bulk and there seems to have been a quality issue though.
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Re cost of living Asda have a single can of Heinz tomato soup for £1.70 but if you buy 2 x 6 packs they are 75p each

    Huge difference

    Assuming you have £9.
    And want to only eat tomato soup.
    Then that's OK then.
    Thanks for your input.
    Exactly the kind of stuff that's winning Tory support.
    I was demonstrating the difference and not making a political point to be fair
    And that's why you don't get it.
    And why many can't understand why the government is so unpopular.
    Never mind, Drakeford's latest policy is to ban all multi buy offers in Wales
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,527

    Re cost of living Asda have a single can of Heinz tomato soup for £1.70 but if you buy 2 x 6 packs they are 75p each

    Huge difference

    That's a lot of soup though. £9 in one go and nearly 5kg plus the weight of the tins to drag home.
    Actually in our case we do use quite a lot of tomato soup as our appetite has changed as we have aged

    And we do have a weekly delivery from Asda anyway but I only intended to demonstrate the huge discount on this item

    And you can buy 6 for £5.50 @ 92p per can
    And I get up at 6:30 every morning to go to work and can't afford to buy in bulk like that.
    Until the Tories understand that they won't be re-elected.
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    Re cost of living Asda have a single can of Heinz tomato soup for £1.70 but if you buy 2 x 6 packs they are 75p each

    Huge difference

    That's a lot of soup though. £9 in one go and nearly 5kg plus the weight of the tins to drag home.
    Actually in our case we do use quite a lot of tomato soup as our appetite has changed as we have aged

    And we do have a weekly delivery from Asda anyway but I only intended to demonstrate the huge discount on this item

    And you can buy 6 for £5.50 @ 92p per can
    And I get up at 6:30 every morning to go to work and can't afford to buy in bulk like that.
    Until the Tories understand that they won't be re-elected.
    Not at all sure why the conservatives are responsible for supermarket offers unless you think Starmer will follow Drakeford and ban all multi buy offers

    Multi buy has been a feature of supermarket sales under all governments
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,527
    I desperately need to see a dentist but can't afford it.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,527

    dixiedean said:

    Re cost of living Asda have a single can of Heinz tomato soup for £1.70 but if you buy 2 x 6 packs they are 75p each

    Huge difference

    That's a lot of soup though. £9 in one go and nearly 5kg plus the weight of the tins to drag home.
    Actually in our case we do use quite a lot of tomato soup as our appetite has changed as we have aged

    And we do have a weekly delivery from Asda anyway but I only intended to demonstrate the huge discount on this item

    And you can buy 6 for £5.50 @ 92p per can
    And I get up at 6:30 every morning to go to work and can't afford to buy in bulk like that.
    Until the Tories understand that they won't be re-elected.
    Not at all sure why the conservatives are responsible for supermarket offers unless you think Starmer will follow Drakeford and ban all multi buy offers

    Multi buy has been a feature of supermarket sales under all governments
    Not sure why the confusion?
    Working folk are skint. Multibuy or no.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,327

    Re cost of living Asda have a single can of Heinz tomato soup for £1.70 but if you buy 2 x 6 packs they are 75p each

    Huge difference

    That's a lot of soup though. £9 in one go and nearly 5kg plus the weight of the tins to drag home.
    Actually in our case we do use quite a lot of tomato soup as our appetite has changed as we have aged

    And we do have a weekly delivery from Asda anyway but I only intended to demonstrate the huge discount on this item

    And you can buy 6 for £5.50 @ 92p per can
    It's more fun when the supermarkets mess their pricing up and try to charge you more per unit for the bulk buy option, rather than less.

    Got myself £10 in vouchers for complaining at Sainsbury's about that once. Went back the next week and they still hadn't fixed it. Couldn't be arsed to complain again.
This discussion has been closed.