The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.
And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.
If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.
You're pretending that your stupid rules are somehow consistent, when they're clearly anything but. Forbes is entitled not only to have whatever views and moral code she chooses, but also to let those views and moral code to inform her political decisions. To suggest otherwise is the most absurdly Stalinist thing from someone pertaining to be liberal that I've ever heard.
Don't be stupid.
There should be no law against Forbes selfishly allowing her private beliefs to shape what she thinks the law should be.
There equally is no law, nor any problem, in the majority of people like myself who don't share her beliefs [and even many who do share her beliefs but oppose her making those beliefs political] to think that her enforcing her views on others is problematic and should be opposed.
Indeed opposing one person trying to force their personal beliefs onto everyone else via the law isn't illiberal, its pretty much the definition of liberalism. I do not want a law forcing my views onto Forbes, Forbes can not say the same, that is why she is not fit for office, and that is a perfectly liberal answer.
You're tying yourself in knots. There's nothing 'selfish' about Forbes pursuing policies dictated by her beliefs - in actuality she has not done that, but if she were to do so, that would be in line with every other politician (or in an ideal world it would be).
Of course those opposed to her beliefs also have the right to campaign for their own vision and beliefs, and if they're in the majority, to prevail, but you cannot say there is no 'forcing of beliefs' because that is not the case - Churches being compelled to solemnise gay marriages is one incidence of a belief in gay marriage being forced upon those who don't believe it.
Your argument that Forbes should be disapproved of or drummed out of politics for her traditional Christian beliefs (which by the way have not even lead her to campaign against any of the reforms you support) is totally inconsistent with any form of liberalism, and it would be a pleasant surprise if you had the humility and strength of character to acknowledge the fact.
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.
The problem is that you are arbitrarily deciding which beliefs are deemed "acceptable" enough whereby someone is considered suitable for office.It should be up to the members to decide.
Two other factors come into play. One is who gets to decide what is objectionable. There are plenty of people (oh dear, here we go again) who think that people who advocate 4 and 5 year olds should be able to change sex and undergo medical surgery are total weirdos and would take the view that such people shouldn't be allowed to stand for office. Yet if anyone stood up to stay that, they would be hounded as a transphobe and condemned. Why should we allow one group to determine who gets to stand for office?
The second is the hypocrisy. If Forbes held exactly the same views but the only exception was she was Muslim not a Christian, the silence would be deafening. Those calling the loudest for her to stand down now would be scared shitless of called an Islamophobe.
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.
Actually I caught Asda out last week with pricing 7 gold biscuits at £1.25 and their family pack of 14 immediately next to the 7 pack at £3.30
I queried it with a staff member who said it was upto their head office to price items, but after pressing him he did say he would report it to his manager
In the midst of all the speech making a few potentially notable events
In Bakhmut the Ukrainians currently have lost all security on its last supply routes. This is in danger of becoming a cutting of those routes unless the Ukrainians produce some kind of counter attack.
Near the frontline town of Avdiivka, out of nowhere the Russians have been forced to abandon positions that they have held for 6+ months. Whether is just local success or the first signs of something else, time will tell but this area is considered the possible launch point of a Ukrainian south eastern push
Russian occupied Mariupol has been subject to Ukrainian missile strikes. The distance for Ukrainian artillery is pretty stretched, unless that new kit supplied by the Americans has seen its debut. If its the latter, the Russians are going to find their logistics and rear assembly operations under the cosh all over again.
Given the overall level of competence from the Ukrainian military so far, I would be surprised if they allowed their troops in Bakhmut to be completely cut off. Always possible given the high status of the town but would be surprising.
Cheers re Avdiivka. Has been fairly low profile compared to the other areas.
The U.K.’s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes amid a bitter row over same-sex marriage....
.... Badenoch told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.
“I think that is sad because I believe in freedom of conscience,” she said of the backlash. “That’s one of the things that makes this country great. It’s one of the reasons why many people want to live here.”...
“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”
Badenoch also condemned SNP politicians who have yanked their support from the under-fire contender. Shelved endorsements of Forbes, she argued, show “the level of un-seriousness of many of the people who engage in political activity and commentary.”
I mean, she’s not wrong. Kate Forbes is totally free to believe what she wants to believe. And people are totally free to make their own minds up on whether they think she should be FM and hold those beliefs.
Surprised (pleasantly) by that from Badenoch.
Telling lies would, indeed have been easy.
The backers claiming that they didn’t know is risible.
The issue isn't lies versus truth. The issue is one of professionalism.
Freedom of conscience is very important and everyone is free to hold whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they choose, in the privacy of their own home and their own Church etc. But when you go to work, especially as a politician or in the legal sphere etc you should be professional enough to check your personal religion at the door and not let it dominate. So long as you are prepared to have your own beliefs, but accept that others have their own beliefs that may be very different, then people are free to choose and there's no need for religion and politics to mix. Forbes could be ultra-orthodox and I wouldn't give a damn, if she was able to keep her religion and politics separate but she has been unable to do so.
Religion is like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, and its OK to exercise it however you want with other consenting adults, even in ways other people find weird. But don't take it out and put it on display in the workplace, and whatever you do don't try and shove it down other people's throats against their will.
She just said what she thought. I know that's naïve, that we really don't want politicians saying what they think. It's about our judgement of character, and the more they lie about themselves the better we think their character is.
And what she thinks shows she is unsuitable for high office. What she said shows she thinks that as a politician, her own morals and judging others for being sinners, is appropriate. It is not.
If you want to spread your morals, then go into the clergy. If you go into politics, then your job is to represent all people of all religions and none, not your own, just as Yousaf did - while being completely open and honest in doing so. If asked a question, you should be professional enough to not put yourself and your own faith ahead of everyone else's. She isn't. She is unsuited for office and should be rejected.
You're pretending that your stupid rules are somehow consistent, when they're clearly anything but. Forbes is entitled not only to have whatever views and moral code she chooses, but also to let those views and moral code to inform her political decisions. To suggest otherwise is the most absurdly Stalinist thing from someone pertaining to be liberal that I've ever heard.
Don't be stupid.
There should be no law against Forbes selfishly allowing her private beliefs to shape what she thinks the law should be.
There equally is no law, nor any problem, in the majority of people like myself who don't share her beliefs [and even many who do share her beliefs but oppose her making those beliefs political] to think that her enforcing her views on others is problematic and should be opposed.
Indeed opposing one person trying to force their personal beliefs onto everyone else via the law isn't illiberal, its pretty much the definition of liberalism. I do not want a law forcing my views onto Forbes, Forbes can not say the same, that is why she is not fit for office, and that is a perfectly liberal answer.
You're tying yourself in knots. There's nothing 'selfish' about Forbes pursuing policies dictated by her beliefs - in actuality she has not done that, but if she were to do so, that would be in line with every other politician (or in an ideal world it would be).
Of course those opposed to her beliefs also have the right to campaign for their own vision and beliefs, and if they're in the majority, to prevail, but you cannot say there is no 'forcing of beliefs' because that is not the case - Churches being compelled to solemnise gay marriages is one incidence of a belief in gay marriage being forced upon those who don't believe it.
Your argument that Forbes should be disapproved of or drummed out of politics for her traditional Christian beliefs (which by the way have not even lead her to campaign against any of the reforms you support) is totally inconsistent with any form of liberalism, and it would be a pleasant surprise if you had the humility and strength of character to acknowledge the fact.
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.
The problem is that you are arbitrarily deciding which beliefs are deemed "acceptable" enough whereby someone is considered suitable for office.It should be up to the members to decide.
Two other factors come into play. One is who gets to decide what is objectionable. There are plenty of people (oh dear, here we go again) who think that people who advocate 4 and 5 year olds should be able to change sex and undergo medical surgery are total weirdos and would take the view that such people shouldn't be allowed to stand for office. Yet if anyone stood up to stay that, they would be hounded as a transphobe and condemned. Why should we allow one group to determine who gets to stand for office?
The second is the hypocrisy. If Forbes held exactly the same views but the only exception was she was Muslim not a Christian, the silence would be deafening. Those calling the loudest for her to stand down now would be scared shitless of called an Islamophobe.
Islam is of course the fastest growing religion in the UK. Yousaf is Muslim, I expect even if he says he backs homosexual marriage he is also slightly conflicted, he notably failed to vote for gay marriage at Holyrood in 2014 but was absent for the vote
In the midst of all the speech making a few potentially notable events
In Bakhmut the Ukrainians currently have lost all security on its last supply routes. This is in danger of becoming a cutting of those routes unless the Ukrainians produce some kind of counter attack.
Near the frontline town of Avdiivka, out of nowhere the Russians have been forced to abandon positions that they have held for 6+ months. Whether is just local success or the first signs of something else, time will tell but this area is considered the possible launch point of a Ukrainian south eastern push
Russian occupied Mariupol has been subject to Ukrainian missile strikes. The distance for Ukrainian artillery is pretty stretched, unless that new kit supplied by the Americans has seen its debut. If its the latter, the Russians are going to find their logistics and rear assembly operations under the cosh all over again.
From what I can gather it seems as though Russia has no answer to the American artillery. If the Ukrainians are getting the longer range stuff now I presume that will be another major blow.
In the midst of all the speech making a few potentially notable events
In Bakhmut the Ukrainians currently have lost all security on its last supply routes. This is in danger of becoming a cutting of those routes unless the Ukrainians produce some kind of counter attack.
Near the frontline town of Avdiivka, out of nowhere the Russians have been forced to abandon positions that they have held for 6+ months. Whether is just local success or the first signs of something else, time will tell but this area is considered the possible launch point of a Ukrainian south eastern push
Russian occupied Mariupol has been subject to Ukrainian missile strikes. The distance for Ukrainian artillery is pretty stretched, unless that new kit supplied by the Americans has seen its debut. If its the latter, the Russians are going to find their logistics and rear assembly operations under the cosh all over again.
From what I can gather it seems as though Russia has no answer to the American artillery. If the Ukrainians are getting the longer range stuff now I presume that will be another major blow.
Pretty much. The Russians have some good range artillery but their counter battery capability appears really poor and the Ukrainians are making it hard to hit their high value launchers by keeping them moving and keeping them well behind the front lines and often out of range. The major failure, however, is with the Russian Airforce which should be controlling airspace and hunting the high value launchers
If the new kit has arrived very little of Russian occupied Ukraine is out of range, this stuff is really accurate and the US targeting data is very good. The likelihood is that the rejig of logistics carried out in recent months may be rendered ineffective. If the rumoured MBDA missiles ever appear its going to get worse.
When the time comes, as her big run for leader surely will, I don’t think ‘Cultual Christian’/Catholic Kemi will play the same doubling down game as Kate done here. Kemi abstained rather than vote against Same Sex Marriage when she had the chance in 2019, despite in 2018 being hostile to the idea.
“In the recording, the minister also appears to mock gay marriage, and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which was spearheaded by several of her predecessors as equalities minister.”
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.
It might not be coincidence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, previously defeated the junior doctors.
OpenAI has privately announced a new developer product called Foundry, which enables customers to run OpenAI model inference at scale w/ dedicated capacity.
It also reveals that DV (Davinci; likely GPT-4) will have up to 32k max context length in the public version. 🔥
Honesty in politics is great perhaps Badenoch might like her own party to practice that some time ! Forbes seems to think that honesty absolves her of others deciding her honest beliefs are backward and bigoted !
And now she’s playing the martyr . Pass me the sick bag !
Of course she is suitable for office, but get real, Starmer would exploit the situation to make huge inroads with Scots under... 50? and those not committed to cultural conservatism. So it is like making a very generic appeal that fails in the specifics, like a slightly better version of the Jeremy Corbyn offer.
It appears some journalists have acquired Russian plans for the slow takeover of Belarus. I wonder what President Big Hat will make of it.
Not just Belarus; Moldova also appears to be in Putin's crosshairs. I'm waiting for certain people to start talking about 'Moldovan Nazis'. It'd be interesting (but tragic) to see what happens if they try: do the Russians have enough men and material in Transnistria to beat Moldova's weak forces? Or do they have enough to hold the country even if they did? And how would Romania and/or Ukraine react?
In other news, it looks as though China is considering tripling the number of nuclear warheads it owns. Needless to say, this is not good.
Kate Forbes has decided that if she's going to stand for leader she's going to do so on her own terms and be who she is - and nothing else.
Whatever you think of your views, I think at some level you have to respect that.
Shall I tell you how bad Kate Forbes is?
If I lived in Scotland and she was SNP leader.
I would have to consider voting Labour.
She is that bad.
So, given your judgement of leaders included endorsements of Johnson and Corbyn, we should assume she’s actually pretty good?
I also thought big John owls was a Labour supporter because there is no other left wing option (in England / Wales) that reflects his views.
In Scotland the SNP has until now managed to occupy a left wing position that probably gave them a lot of Scottish Labour votes. It’s very easy to see many of them returning to Labour if any reason existed for them tp do so (either a non left wing SN- leader or a more appealing Scottish Labour Party.
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.
It might not be coincidence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, previously defeated the junior doctors.
I wonder what the other 22% who didn’t vote are thinking about doing. It wouldn’t surprise me if they were busy sorting out the things they need finished to get one of the Australian jobs that currently pay 50-100% more than they currently get in the uk.
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.
That would be the modern industrial relations approach - a complete deal, combining working conditions, arbitration for disputes, independent paybody and no strike deal.
The problem is that you are proposing to hand control of a fair chunk if GDP to the pay bodies. Out of the politicians hands. Out of the Treasuries control. If the pay body says 10%, then it has to be funded, otherwise no point.
A national paydeal comes from the core of old union demands. I doubt very much they would like localised pay.
Kate Forbes is a social, economic and fiscal conservative. She is only in the SNP because she believes in Scottish independence. The SNP is a nationalist party, not a left-of-centre one.
It appears some journalists have acquired Russian plans for the slow takeover of Belarus. I wonder what President Big Hat will make of it.
Not just Belarus; Moldova also appears to be in Putin's crosshairs. I'm waiting for certain people to start talking about 'Moldovan Nazis'. It'd be interesting (but tragic) to see what happens if they try: do the Russians have enough men and material in Transdnistria to beat Moldova's weak forces? Or do they have enough to hold the country even if they did? And how would Romania and/or Ukraine react?
In other news, it looks as though China is considering tripling the number of nuclear warheads it owns. Needless to say, this is not good.
From what I've seen online, the Moldovans probably wouldn't want to challenge the Transdnestrians alone, but would do so with support from Ukraine. That would be a walkover. There is no way for the Russians in Transdnestria to be resupplied for obvious geographical reasons, so it would only be a matter of time in any case.
Kate Forbes is a social, economic and fiscal conservative. She is only in the SNP because she believes in Scottish independence. The SNP is a nationalist party, not a left-of-centre one.
Why would anyone give a toss about what she thinks about it?
Actually her comments in this were well worth reading.
Aside from saying that Forbes honest was something to admire, she pointed out that condemning people’s religiously inspired beliefs actually goes against one of the specific roles of an Equality Minister in the U.K.
Protection of the right to worship as you chose.
I could compile a list of religions that have issues with the modern liberal world. The short version is that if you want to go to war with them, you would be going to war with quite a few immigrants.
It appears some journalists have acquired Russian plans for the slow takeover of Belarus. I wonder what President Big Hat will make of it.
Not just Belarus; Moldova also appears to be in Putin's crosshairs. I'm waiting for certain people to start talking about 'Moldovan Nazis'. It'd be interesting (but tragic) to see what happens if they try: do the Russians have enough men and material in Transdnistria to beat Moldova's weak forces? Or do they have enough to hold the country even if they did? And how would Romania and/or Ukraine react?
In other news, it looks as though China is considering tripling the number of nuclear warheads it owns. Needless to say, this is not good.
From what I've seen online, the Moldovans probably wouldn't want to challenge the Transdnestrians alone, but would do so with support from Ukraine. That would be a walkover. There is no way for the Russians in Transdnestria to be resupplied for obvious geographical reasons, so it would only be a matter of time in any case.
Yes. My concern is that Putin may do it, for three reasons: 1) It's a confounding factor, which complicates matters for Ukraine and NATO. 2) It might well give him a 'win' for the sheep back home. 3) He's an evil git.
A year ago there might have been a fourth: to give an excuse for taking over the south of Ukraine through Odessa, to link Transnistria and Moldova to Russia. But I doubt his military has the ability to do that atm.
A big question atm is whether he has a spectacular planned for on, or around, the 24th - the anniversary of his initial invasion. The talk about this appears to have died down, and I hope that the attacks we have seen recently are all his forces can muster.
It appears some journalists have acquired Russian plans for the slow takeover of Belarus. I wonder what President Big Hat will make of it.
Not just Belarus; Moldova also appears to be in Putin's crosshairs. I'm waiting for certain people to start talking about 'Moldovan Nazis'. It'd be interesting (but tragic) to see what happens if they try: do the Russians have enough men and material in Transnistria to beat Moldova's weak forces? Or do they have enough to hold the country even if they did? And how would Romania and/or Ukraine react?
In the OGRF only the officers are mainland Russian, the grunts are Transnistrian but they are sat on 25,000 tons of stockpiled ammunition at Cobsana. When it kicks off I assume the Transnistrians will mobilise to provide the cannon fodder.
Moldova has always had conscription so they have a lot of reserves at various degrees of readiness.
The war drums do not truly start to beat until Johnson arrives in Chisnau with a shit eating grin and an NLAW in his luggage. When that happens, it's on. It's on like Kate Forbes' cilice.
Well, looks like Kate Forbes is winning over the English right wingers.
The same people who were muttering that Putin had a point on social issues, up to round about this time last year.
They really hate our country.
There is an interesting and legitimate debate about religion, personal belief, public service, rights.
It’s another area where rights of different groups and individuals intersect. The right to stand for public office. Freedom of religion. Freedom from great and repression by minority groups.
I said, very early on, that I couldn’t see how Forbes could lead a progressive European political party. It would be like leading a socialist party, while publicly declaring that state benefits should be withdrawn from the unemployed.
Here’s a question to ask yourself - how many politicians from various parties are lying? There are a couple of religions where, if you denounced the sexiest and misogynistic bits (for example) you would be a heretic. An outcast. Yet there are politicians who say they are practising X, and keeping quiet on their views on those issues.
Who are they lying to? Us? Their coreligionists? Themselves?
It appears some journalists have acquired Russian plans for the slow takeover of Belarus. I wonder what President Big Hat will make of it.
Not just Belarus; Moldova also appears to be in Putin's crosshairs. I'm waiting for certain people to start talking about 'Moldovan Nazis'. It'd be interesting (but tragic) to see what happens if they try: do the Russians have enough men and material in Transdnistria to beat Moldova's weak forces? Or do they have enough to hold the country even if they did? And how would Romania and/or Ukraine react?
In other news, it looks as though China is considering tripling the number of nuclear warheads it owns. Needless to say, this is not good.
From what I've seen online, the Moldovans probably wouldn't want to challenge the Transdnestrians alone, but would do so with support from Ukraine. That would be a walkover. There is no way for the Russians in Transdnestria to be resupplied for obvious geographical reasons, so it would only be a matter of time in any case.
Yes. My concern is that Putin may do it, for three reasons: 1) It's a confounding factor, which complicates matters for Ukraine and NATO. 2) It might well give him a 'win' for the sheep back home. 3) He's an evil git.
A year ago there might have been a fourth: to give an excuse for taking over the south of Ukraine through Odessa, to link Transnistria and Moldova to Russia. But I doubt his military has the ability to do that atm.
A big question atm is whether he has a spectacular planned for on, or around, the 24th - the anniversary of his initial invasion. The talk about this appears to have died down, and I hope that the attacks we have seen recently are all his forces can muster.
If he's defeated though, that would take a lot of explaining away. More so than the retreats from Kharkiv and Kherson. So it would be a high stakes gamble.
Why would anyone give a toss about what she thinks about it?
Actually her comments in this were well worth reading.
Aside from saying that Forbes honest was something to admire, she pointed out that condemning people’s religiously inspired beliefs actually goes against one of the specific roles of an Equality Minister in the U.K.
Protection of the right to worship as you chose.
I could compile a list of religions that have issues with the modern liberal world. The short version is that if you want to go to war with them, you would be going to war with quite a few immigrants.
No one is opposing her right to worship as she chooses, just opposing her as a prospective FM.
Personally I am quite OK with her views on these things, despite coming from a much more liberal church.
It would be interesting to hear more on her role as Finance Minister, and views on a further Sindyref. I suspect those would be less to the taste of our Wokefinder Generals.
Well, looks like Kate Forbes is winning over the English right wingers.
The same people who were muttering that Putin had a point on social issues, up to round about this time last year.
They really hate our country.
There is an interesting and legitimate debate about religion, personal belief, public service, rights.
It’s another area where rights of different groups and individuals intersect. The right to stand for public office. Freedom of religion. Freedom from great and repression by minority groups.
I said, very early on, that I couldn’t see how Forbes could lead a progressive European political party. It would be like leading a socialist party, while publicly declaring that state benefits should be withdrawn from the unemployed.
Here’s a question to ask yourself - how many politicians from various parties are lying? There are a couple of religions where, if you denounced the sexiest and misogynistic bits (for example) you would be a heretic. An outcast. Yet there are politicians who say they are practising X, and keeping quiet on their views on those issues.
Who are they lying to? Us? Their coreligionists? Themselves?
Unnecessarily exclusive.
They're quite capable of lying to all of those at once.
Kate Forbes is a social, economic and fiscal conservative. She is only in the SNP because she believes in Scottish independence. The SNP is a nationalist party, not a left-of-centre one.
The events of yesterday suggest that they’re very much now a left-of-centre party, with seemingly little room for anyone who’s socially conservative.
Well, looks like Kate Forbes is winning over the English right wingers.
The same people who were muttering that Putin had a point on social issues, up to round about this time last year.
They really hate our country.
There is an interesting and legitimate debate about religion, personal belief, public service, rights.
It’s another area where rights of different groups and individuals intersect. The right to stand for public office. Freedom of religion. Freedom from great and repression by minority groups.
I said, very early on, that I couldn’t see how Forbes could lead a progressive European political party. It would be like leading a socialist party, while publicly declaring that state benefits should be withdrawn from the unemployed.
Here’s a question to ask yourself - how many politicians from various parties are lying? There are a couple of religions where, if you denounced the sexiest and misogynistic bits (for example) you would be a heretic. An outcast. Yet there are politicians who say they are practising X, and keeping quiet on their views on those issues.
Who are they lying to? Us? Their coreligionists? Themselves?
Unnecessarily exclusive.
They're quite capable of lying to all of those at once.
Oh indeed.
It’s what I think Queen Liz I was talking about with the Windows & Souls comment.
Which is why, despite opposing her entire social agenda, Forbes deserves a polite nod of respect.
If she’d equivocated, it’s clear that her backers and others would have gone along.
Kate Forbes has decided that if she's going to stand for leader she's going to do so on her own terms and be who she is - and nothing else.
Whatever you think of your views, I think at some level you have to respect that.
Shall I tell you how bad Kate Forbes is?
If I lived in Scotland and she was SNP leader.
I would have to consider voting Labour.
She is that bad.
So, given your judgement of leaders included endorsements of Johnson and Corbyn, we should assume she’s actually pretty good?
Assume she will lose badly with SNP members and voters alike.
BTW Johnson won a massive majority all be it on a lie but you like leaders who lie dont you?.
As for Corbyn got 12.9m votes and the biggest increase in the Labour vote since WW2 in GE 2017
How often do you need to be told? Corbyn lost in 2017!
I may have mentioned this before but I had been building up a spreadsheet of Labour's seats in the Northern seats looking at the results going back to 2001 and the level of swings. Two things stood out from that, namely (1) Labour's problems had also been going on for a long time in the RW seats but also (2) that, in 2017, Labour managed to stop the rot in those seats significantly.
You can argue the reasons for (2) but, if you are going to blame JC for 2019, then you should at least give him some credit for 2017. FWIW, I think JC's brand of old-fashioned redistributive Socialism, relative silence on cultural issues (which traditional leftists see as a distraction from class issues) and nudge-nudge wink-wink form on Brexit did him favours with many WWC voters.
Speaking of leaders who lie, I see the forewoman of the Georgia Grand Jury has effectively announced there will be charges recommended against Trump.
That's going to be fun.
Was always on the cards. Fulton County is not exactly a hotbed of Trump-loving people.
It will be the same and drag on. Regardless of whether Kemp and Trump get on, if DJT is the nominee, the closer we get to 2024, the more pressure there will be to kick this into touch.
Well, looks like Kate Forbes is winning over the English right wingers.
The same people who were muttering that Putin had a point on social issues, up to round about this time last year.
They really hate our country.
There is an interesting and legitimate debate about religion, personal belief, public service, rights.
It’s another area where rights of different groups and individuals intersect. The right to stand for public office. Freedom of religion. Freedom from great and repression by minority groups.
I said, very early on, that I couldn’t see how Forbes could lead a progressive European political party. It would be like leading a socialist party, while publicly declaring that state benefits should be withdrawn from the unemployed.
Here’s a question to ask yourself - how many politicians from various parties are lying? There are a couple of religions where, if you denounced the sexiest and misogynistic bits (for example) you would be a heretic. An outcast. Yet there are politicians who say they are practising X, and keeping quiet on their views on those issues.
Who are they lying to? Us? Their coreligionists? Themselves?
Consider Catholic Ireland. There was a news item recently about the first non-denominational primary school in County Tipperary. One of the issues raised was about how First Communion would be organised for the Catholic children. The status quo is that first communion is organised, in school time, by Catholic primary schools, which is to say, almost every primary school in the country. Needless to say, Ireland is still a very Catholic country.
The very Catholic country of Ireland voted by 66% in 2018 to amend the constitution to allow abortion.
There are clearly lots of people who see themselves as religious adherents, to one degree or another, but who come to their own conclusions when it comes to various points of religious doctrine. Why should we be surprised to find the same is true of those believers who are politicians?
Have you thought of taking up a hobby? When I’m bored I reach for a good old jigsaw puzzle. I’m doing a rather fiendish one of the Middlesbrough Transporter Bridge at the moment!
Have you thought of taking up a hobby? When I’m bored I reach for a good old jigsaw puzzle. I’m doing a rather fiendish one of the Middlesbrough Transporter Bridge at the moment!
I might have to. Thankyou for the advice
There’s only so much endless sun, agreeable sex, excellent seafood and sensuous luxury a man can take before you yearn for, fuck knows, squalor. Suffering. War. A tube journey to Acton
Why would anyone give a toss about what she thinks about it?
Actually her comments in this were well worth reading.
Aside from saying that Forbes honest was something to admire, she pointed out that condemning people’s religiously inspired beliefs actually goes against one of the specific roles of an Equality Minister in the U.K.
Protection of the right to worship as you chose.
I could compile a list of religions that have issues with the modern liberal world. The short version is that if you want to go to war with them, you would be going to war with quite a few immigrants.
No one is opposing her right to worship as she chooses, just opposing her as a prospective FM.
Personally I am quite OK with her views on these things, despite coming from a much more liberal church.
It would be interesting to hear more on her role as Finance Minister, and views on a further Sindyref. I suspect those would be less to the taste of our Wokefinder Generals.
There is also the question of local politics. Do we ban people with religious views from holding power there? There are plenty of areas where allowing religious beliefs to influence politics has a very real effect e.g. education, social services etc.
@Malmesbury's point is an interesting one though. If you take the reaction against Forbes, we essentially would be saying a fair good percentage of the immigrant population would effectively be disbarred from being in charge.
Speaking of leaders who lie, I see the forewoman of the Georgia Grand Jury has effectively announced there will be charges recommended against Trump.
That's going to be fun.
Was always on the cards. Fulton County is not exactly a hotbed of Trump-loving people.
It will be the same and drag on. Regardless of whether Kemp and Trump get on, if DJT is the nominee, the closer we get to 2024, the more pressure there will be to kick this into touch.
And the more Kemp will push back out of revenge for the way Trump has treated him...
Have you thought of taking up a hobby? When I’m bored I reach for a good old jigsaw puzzle. I’m doing a rather fiendish one of the Middlesbrough Transporter Bridge at the moment!
One of my Christmas presents this year. A very pleasing puzzle to complete with some lovely colours.
Have you thought of taking up a hobby? When I’m bored I reach for a good old jigsaw puzzle. I’m doing a rather fiendish one of the Middlesbrough Transporter Bridge at the moment!
I might have to. Thankyou for the advice
There’s only so much endless sun, agreeable sex, excellent seafood and sensuous luxury a man can take before you yearn for, fuck knows, squalor. Suffering. War. A tube journey to Acton
Yes, when you go you’ll find Acton is an absolutely fascinating place to explore. As a result of its soft water sources, Acton became famous for its laundries, at the end of the 19th century there were around 170 establishments in South Acton and you can search for their locations today!
I once did an excellent jigsaw puzzle of Acton Town Hall! Very satisfying.
OpenAI has privately announced a new developer product called Foundry, which enables customers to run OpenAI model inference at scale w/ dedicated capacity.
It also reveals that DV (Davinci; likely GPT-4) will have up to 32k max context length in the public version. 🔥
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.
That would be the modern industrial relations approach - a complete deal, combining working conditions, arbitration for disputes, independent paybody and no strike deal.
The problem is that you are proposing to hand control of a fair chunk if GDP to the pay bodies. Out of the politicians hands. Out of the Treasuries control. If the pay body says 10%, then it has to be funded, otherwise no point.
A national paydeal comes from the core of old union demands. I doubt very much they would like localised pay.
No, I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that the entire budget for NHS England/Scotland/Wales, to include salaries, is set by the respective Governments, and apportioned by those bodies to the trusts. The trusts are given that money, and can spend it how they wish - capex, staff wage increases, equipment, extra headcount, etc. etc. They should be accountable for their own decisions.
Have you thought of taking up a hobby? When I’m bored I reach for a good old jigsaw puzzle. I’m doing a rather fiendish one of the Middlesbrough Transporter Bridge at the moment!
I did a really hard one last year: a 1,000 piece jigsaw of a blueprint of Turing's Zeta machine - the entire thing was just blue and white.
Have you thought of taking up a hobby? When I’m bored I reach for a good old jigsaw puzzle. I’m doing a rather fiendish one of the Middlesbrough Transporter Bridge at the moment!
I might have to. Thankyou for the advice
There’s only so much endless sun, agreeable sex, excellent seafood and sensuous luxury a man can take before you yearn for, fuck knows, squalor. Suffering. War. A tube journey to Acton
Yes, when you go you’ll find Acton is an absolutely fascinating place to explore. As a result of its soft water sources, Acton became famous for its laundries, at the end of the 19th century there were around 170 establishments in South Acton and you can search for their locations today!
I once did an excellent jigsaw puzzle of Acton Town Hall! Very satisfying.
Have you thought of taking up a hobby? When I’m bored I reach for a good old jigsaw puzzle. I’m doing a rather fiendish one of the Middlesbrough Transporter Bridge at the moment!
One of my Christmas presents this year. A very pleasing puzzle to complete with some lovely colours.
Why would anyone give a toss about what she thinks about it?
Actually her comments in this were well worth reading.
Aside from saying that Forbes honest was something to admire, she pointed out that condemning people’s religiously inspired beliefs actually goes against one of the specific roles of an Equality Minister in the U.K.
Protection of the right to worship as you chose.
I could compile a list of religions that have issues with the modern liberal world. The short version is that if you want to go to war with them, you would be going to war with quite a few immigrants.
No one is opposing her right to worship as she chooses, just opposing her as a prospective FM.
Personally I am quite OK with her views on these things, despite coming from a much more liberal church.
It would be interesting to hear more on her role as Finance Minister, and views on a further Sindyref. I suspect those would be less to the taste of our Wokefinder Generals.
There is also the question of local politics. Do we ban people with religious views from holding power there? There are plenty of areas where allowing religious beliefs to influence politics has a very real effect e.g. education, social services etc.
@Malmesbury's point is an interesting one though. If you take the reaction against Forbes, we essentially would be saying a fair good percentage of the immigrant population would effectively be disbarred from being in charge.
Who wants to go first at saying that?
But they’re not disbarred are they? Because we are so scared of “being racist”/getting beheaded, no one ever challenges Muslims on their beliefs. White Christian Scotswomen are fair game however
OpenAI has privately announced a new developer product called Foundry, which enables customers to run OpenAI model inference at scale w/ dedicated capacity.
It also reveals that DV (Davinci; likely GPT-4) will have up to 32k max context length in the public version. 🔥
We just need one of these LLMs with all the guardrails off. Wholly unfettered
Let the out the cage and watch them ROAR
Quite. In particular it would be absolutely fascinating to see to see how fast one could solve the 1000-piece L. S. Lowry Going To Work Jigsaw Puzzle I got for Christmas. My biggest fear is that AI will take the fun out of puzzles. Luckily, I doubt a computer will ever be able to beat a human at Scrabble.
OpenAI has privately announced a new developer product called Foundry, which enables customers to run OpenAI model inference at scale w/ dedicated capacity.
It also reveals that DV (Davinci; likely GPT-4) will have up to 32k max context length in the public version. 🔥
We just need one of these LLMs with all the guardrails off. Wholly unfettered
Let the out the cage and watch them ROAR
Quite. In particular it would be absolutely fascinating to see to see how fast one could solve the 1000-piece L. S. Lowry Going To Work Jigsaw Puzzle I got for Christmas. My biggest fear is that AI will take the fun out of puzzles. Luckily, I doubt a computer will ever be able to beat a human at Scrabble.
You don't need an AI for that.
Here's a bloke who created a robot that will (nearly) make a 4,000 piece all-white jigsaw. The biggest problems were not with the 'solving' part of the task; it was in scanning the pieces in, and placing them accurately.
Why would anyone give a toss about what she thinks about it?
Actually her comments in this were well worth reading.
Aside from saying that Forbes honest was something to admire, she pointed out that condemning people’s religiously inspired beliefs actually goes against one of the specific roles of an Equality Minister in the U.K.
Protection of the right to worship as you chose.
I could compile a list of religions that have issues with the modern liberal world. The short version is that if you want to go to war with them, you would be going to war with quite a few immigrants.
No one is opposing her right to worship as she chooses, just opposing her as a prospective FM.
Personally I am quite OK with her views on these things, despite coming from a much more liberal church.
It would be interesting to hear more on her role as Finance Minister, and views on a further Sindyref. I suspect those would be less to the taste of our Wokefinder Generals.
There is also the question of local politics. Do we ban people with religious views from holding power there? There are plenty of areas where allowing religious beliefs to influence politics has a very real effect e.g. education, social services etc.
@Malmesbury's point is an interesting one though. If you take the reaction against Forbes, we essentially would be saying a fair good percentage of the immigrant population would effectively be disbarred from being in charge.
Who wants to go first at saying that?
You seem to have missed my point. Despite disagreeing with her views, I am quite OK about Kate Fobes as a national politician.
I have no problem with similar views expressed by African Christians or Asian Muslims either.
All these views are fine as long as people respect the law and do not try to legislate their morality onto other people.
Why would anyone give a toss about what she thinks about it?
Actually her comments in this were well worth reading.
Aside from saying that Forbes honest was something to admire, she pointed out that condemning people’s religiously inspired beliefs actually goes against one of the specific roles of an Equality Minister in the U.K.
Protection of the right to worship as you chose.
I could compile a list of religions that have issues with the modern liberal world. The short version is that if you want to go to war with them, you would be going to war with quite a few immigrants.
No one is opposing her right to worship as she chooses, just opposing her as a prospective FM.
Personally I am quite OK with her views on these things, despite coming from a much more liberal church.
It would be interesting to hear more on her role as Finance Minister, and views on a further Sindyref. I suspect those would be less to the taste of our Wokefinder Generals.
There is also the question of local politics. Do we ban people with religious views from holding power there? There are plenty of areas where allowing religious beliefs to influence politics has a very real effect e.g. education, social services etc.
@Malmesbury's point is an interesting one though. If you take the reaction against Forbes, we essentially would be saying a fair good percentage of the immigrant population would effectively be disbarred from being in charge.
Who wants to go first at saying that?
Still going on about people being disbarred!
Corbyn is essentially "disbarred" from being leader of the Conservative party - because he holds completely opposite views to party policy and membership - in the same way that someone with very old fashioned socially conservative views is hardly going to be an effective leader of a progressive party that has aimed itself very much at the younger half of the population.
If someone with socially conservative views wants to be a leader of a mainstream party their best bet, is unsurprisingly with the Conservative party.
Kate Forbes has decided that if she's going to stand for leader she's going to do so on her own terms and be who she is - and nothing else.
Whatever you think of your views, I think at some level you have to respect that.
I'm not sure you do have to respect someone applying for a job for which they are plainly ill-suited.
I'm not sure I know enough about Kate Forbes to know whether she's well suited or not.
But, I'd rather politicians were true to themselves and honest to the electorate rather than cover it up for electoral convenience.
If your beliefs are way out of line with those of party supporters and the public generally on key issues, you're not suitable. It isn't admirable to seek a job that you can't sensibly do on that basis.
I agree that, if you're applying to be Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, it's much better (and in a sense admirable maybe) to be honest about the fact that you failed your maths GCSE rather than lying about it. But the better thing to do is not to waste people's time applying at all.
I’m so bored I might go to Manila. Has anyone here ever been to Manila?
I hear it’s an absolute shit hole but at least it wouid. be different and interestingly violent
I was there about a month before the pandemic. Stayed in the central business district, but even there the overwhelming smell of the open sewers was dominant.
Plenty of ‘billiards bars’ where the LBFMs hang out, just like Bangkok.
I’m so bored I might go to Manila. Has anyone here ever been to Manila?
I hear it’s an absolute shit hole but at least it wouid. be different and interestingly violent
Yes. There is an absolutely fascinating display at the Philippines National Museum of Anthropology of artefacts recovered from the wreck of the Spanish Galleon San Diego. There are more than 34,000 of them and I am sure you could spend at least a week getting totally immersed in such a captivating display of naval archeology. And I’m sure you could pick up a nice jigsaw at the gift shop at the end.
I’m so bored I might go to Manila. Has anyone here ever been to Manila?
I hear it’s an absolute shit hole but at least it wouid. be different and interestingly violent
Loads of times. P. Burgos in Makati is ok but for really degrading filth, the type that lives with you for years every time you close your eyes, you need to be in Angeles City near the old Clark AFB. It's the fucking dirt. Also, tremendously dangerous for pissed old white men.
I once bar fined the elderly madam from 'Bottoms Bar' (think it's shut down now) on P. Burgos on Christmas Eve. While I was trying to get a taxi in the pissing rain I could hear the choir singing 'Silent Night' at the Church of St. Peter on the corner of Burgos and Marcos. Her nipples looked like Ron Atkinson had put his cigar out on a Jaffa Cake.
Kate Forbes has decided that if she's going to stand for leader she's going to do so on her own terms and be who she is - and nothing else.
Whatever you think of your views, I think at some level you have to respect that.
I'm not sure you do have to respect someone applying for a job for which they are plainly ill-suited.
I'm not sure I know enough about Kate Forbes to know whether she's well suited or not.
But, I'd rather politicians were true to themselves and honest to the electorate rather than cover it up for electoral convenience.
If your beliefs are way out of line with those of party supporters and the public generally on key issues, you're not suitable. It isn't admirable to seek a job that you can't sensibly do on that basis.
I agree that, if you're applying to be Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, it's much better (and in a sense admirable maybe) to be honest about the fact that you failed your maths GCSE rather than lying about it. But the better thing to do is not to waste people's time applying at all.
Of course, if you failed your English GCSE they'll make you a Professor of Literature.
I’m so bored I might go to Manila. Has anyone here ever been to Manila?
I hear it’s an absolute shit hole but at least it wouid. be different and interestingly violent
I was there about a month before the pandemic. Stayed in the central business district, but even there the overwhelming smell of the open sewers was dominant.
Plenty of ‘billiards bars’ where the LBFMs hang out, just like Bangkok.
I hear it’s really boring, quite dangerous, and the food is - uniquely for Asia - terrible
I’m so bored I might go to Manila. Has anyone here ever been to Manila?
I hear it’s an absolute shit hole but at least it wouid. be different and interestingly violent
I was there about a month before the pandemic. Stayed in the central business district, but even there the overwhelming smell of the open sewers was dominant.
Plenty of ‘billiards bars’ where the LBFMs hang out, just like Bangkok.
I hear it’s really boring, quite dangerous, and the food is - uniquely for Asia - terrible
True?
The food is certainly different. I work with a lot of Filipino nurses, and they are a lovely bunch. I will get there one day myself, though suspect that like Jakarta, the capital city is far from the best bit of the country.
They have really weird combinations of flavours in their meals, and even in snacks that they bring back. It is a bit of an acquired taste.
I’m so bored I might go to Manila. Has anyone here ever been to Manila?
I hear it’s an absolute shit hole but at least it wouid. be different and interestingly violent
I was there about a month before the pandemic. Stayed in the central business district, but even there the overwhelming smell of the open sewers was dominant.
Plenty of ‘billiards bars’ where the LBFMs hang out, just like Bangkok.
I hear it’s really boring, quite dangerous, and the food is - uniquely for Asia - terrible
True?
Yep. Didn’t see much in the way of danger or crime in Makati, but there’s not a lot to do and didn’t find anywhere really fancy to eat. Grand Hyatt hotel has a nice terrace bar.
Kate Forbes has decided that if she's going to stand for leader she's going to do so on her own terms and be who she is - and nothing else.
Whatever you think of your views, I think at some level you have to respect that.
I'm not sure you do have to respect someone applying for a job for which they are plainly ill-suited.
I'm not sure I know enough about Kate Forbes to know whether she's well suited or not.
But, I'd rather politicians were true to themselves and honest to the electorate rather than cover it up for electoral convenience.
If your beliefs are way out of line with those of party supporters and the public generally on key issues, you're not suitable. It isn't admirable to seek a job that you can't sensibly do on that basis.
I agree that, if you're applying to be Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, it's much better (and in a sense admirable maybe) to be honest about the fact that you failed your maths GCSE rather than lying about it. But the better thing to do is not to waste people's time applying at all.
Of course, if you failed your English GCSE they'll make you a Professor of Literature.
Did F. R. Leavis have an Eng Lit O Level, I wonder?
Why would anyone give a toss about what she thinks about it?
Actually her comments in this were well worth reading.
Aside from saying that Forbes honest was something to admire, she pointed out that condemning people’s religiously inspired beliefs actually goes against one of the specific roles of an Equality Minister in the U.K.
Protection of the right to worship as you chose.
I could compile a list of religions that have issues with the modern liberal world. The short version is that if you want to go to war with them, you would be going to war with quite a few immigrants.
No one is opposing her right to worship as she chooses, just opposing her as a prospective FM.
Personally I am quite OK with her views on these things, despite coming from a much more liberal church.
It would be interesting to hear more on her role as Finance Minister, and views on a further Sindyref. I suspect those would be less to the taste of our Wokefinder Generals.
There is also the question of local politics. Do we ban people with religious views from holding power there? There are plenty of areas where allowing religious beliefs to influence politics has a very real effect e.g. education, social services etc.
@Malmesbury's point is an interesting one though. If you take the reaction against Forbes, we essentially would be saying a fair good percentage of the immigrant population would effectively be disbarred from being in charge.
Who wants to go first at saying that?
But no one is being banned. Take Kate Forbes, she's very popular in her constituency. I know people there that vote for her based on their 'shared values' despite being Unionists to their core. There's a lot of socially conservative Christianity in her seat and so she appeals to that electorate.
There are a lot fewer socially Conservative Christians Scotland-wide, meaning that she might struggle with that electorate.
But, all that said, she doesn't have to face the Scottish electorate yet and so talk about Kate Forbes' defeat due to her socially conservative Christianity may be premature. I'm not convinced that the SNP membership won't go for her but I don't really know what the party's thinking.
I’m so bored I might go to Manila. Has anyone here ever been to Manila?
I hear it’s an absolute shit hole but at least it wouid. be different and interestingly violent
I was there about a month before the pandemic. Stayed in the central business district, but even there the overwhelming smell of the open sewers was dominant.
Plenty of ‘billiards bars’ where the LBFMs hang out, just like Bangkok.
I hear it’s really boring, quite dangerous, and the food is - uniquely for Asia - terrible
True?
You need to stop pussying around in these places that are basically Disneyland for sodden old roués. Get yourself to somewhere genuinely horrible. Kinshasa. Tijuana. Port Moresby.
Does all this mean Forbes has no hope of becoming first minister? Not necessarily. But I think she and her aides may have misidentified the resistance she is facing. Secular voters are fine with religion as culture. We’re a’ Jock Tamson’s bairns. They are even fine with religion as a moral purpose in politics. It is the fire and brimstone they have a problem with. The weeping and gnashing of teeth. The smiting. Leviticus is a bit of a downer.
Forbes needs to make some things clear. Although a product of fundamentalist Presbyterianism, she is not its prisoner. Although a believer, she is not a proselytiser. Although she is living a religious life, the rest of us can live whatever lives we goddam like, and she will defend our right to do so. Is she capable of giving those answers?
Although they are generalisations, politicians generally lie, and journalists tend to be hypocrites.
Jeremy Corbyn's one claimed virtue is that he is honest. A loon, but honest. Ask him whether he was a Remainer or a Leaver and you never got a straight answer.
Harry's views on journalists are well known, but he's not totally wrong. The Nicola Bulley story is a classic. The media will criticise everyone but themselves.
People claim they want honest polititicians but they don't really.
Tim Farron was reasonably unobjectionable, but fell foul of that.
Hence my decision to vote for the prettiest female. What you see is what you get.
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
I don't like travelling at a maximum speed of 20mph. Living where I do, I do not intend to dispose of my car and take non-existent public transport as Drakeford demands by his cancellation of all road projects.. Even Andrew RT Davies looks attractive after that last policy.
But I am with Shaky Drakey over the multi buy ban. Encouraging excessive purchasing is potentially wasteful and potentially encourages gluttony. It is all about supermarkets maximising customer spend per visit, with an expectation of wastage so you come back for more anyway. Just price at the best price like Aldi and Lidl, it's simple really. The big 4 supermarket cabal is the instrument of the Devil. Unfair to farmers and producers, unfair to consumers. A plague on their supply of salad vegetables. Oh wait...
I’m so bored I might go to Manila. Has anyone here ever been to Manila?
I hear it’s an absolute shit hole but at least it wouid. be different and interestingly violent
I was there about a month before the pandemic. Stayed in the central business district, but even there the overwhelming smell of the open sewers was dominant.
Plenty of ‘billiards bars’ where the LBFMs hang out, just like Bangkok.
I hear it’s really boring, quite dangerous, and the food is - uniquely for Asia - terrible
True?
You need to stop pussying around in these places that are basically Disneyland for sodden old roués. Get yourself to somewhere genuinely horrible. Kinshasa. Tijuana. Port Moresby.
I hear you. Tho Tijuana is not that bad. I’ve been there
I’d go to somewhere shit in Africa if it wasn’t so hard to reach from here
Port Moresby is properly interesting. I have friends who have been who say it is the scariest city they’ve ever visited. But also fascinating
I’m so bored I might go to Manila. Has anyone here ever been to Manila?
I hear it’s an absolute shit hole but at least it wouid. be different and interestingly violent
I was there about a month before the pandemic. Stayed in the central business district, but even there the overwhelming smell of the open sewers was dominant.
Plenty of ‘billiards bars’ where the LBFMs hang out, just like Bangkok.
I hear it’s really boring, quite dangerous, and the food is - uniquely for Asia - terrible
True?
You need to stop pussying around in these places that are basically Disneyland for sodden old roués. Get yourself to somewhere genuinely horrible. Kinshasa. Tijuana. Port Moresby.
I don’t agree with Kate Forbes on gay marriage. I don’t agree with her on Gender recognition certificates provided that adequate safeguards are introduced. I do agree with her that reducing the age to 16 was just wrong. But what I really want to know is what she thinks she can do about the Scottish economy. Recognising the importance of infrastructure such as dualling the A9 is a good start as is the recognition that we must exploit our remaining oil and gas resources as our economy switches to renewable energy.
What else? Under Sturgeon Scotland was more heavily taxed than the rest of the UK to show how much she “cared”. This does not assist in attracting or retaining high earners in Scotland. It doesn’t help fill vacancies for NHS consultants either. Is she willing to address this?
What are we going to do to address the very real problems of limited space for Scots at Scottish universities (an inevitable consequence of the state paying very restricted fees for a limited number of places) ? How do we make Scotland a better place to invest, build businesses and live? The debate seems to have got stuck before it even starts, dominated by her religious beliefs. But these questions are important for all Scots, not just those that get to vote for our new FM.
I’m so bored I might go to Manila. Has anyone here ever been to Manila?
I hear it’s an absolute shit hole but at least it wouid. be different and interestingly violent
I was there about a month before the pandemic. Stayed in the central business district, but even there the overwhelming smell of the open sewers was dominant.
Plenty of ‘billiards bars’ where the LBFMs hang out, just like Bangkok.
I hear it’s really boring, quite dangerous, and the food is - uniquely for Asia - terrible
True?
You need to stop pussying around in these places that are basically Disneyland for sodden old roués. Get yourself to somewhere genuinely horrible. Kinshasa. Tijuana. Port Moresby.
Port Moresby is a fascinating place to lose yourself and explore. Whats’s more, the gift shop at the PNG National Museum and Art Gallery includes jigsaws of masks and carved wooden poles, as well as of the captivating Parliament House that is modeled on a traditional house of worship.
Comments
Two other factors come into play. One is who gets to decide what is objectionable. There are plenty of people (oh dear, here we go again) who think that people who advocate 4 and 5 year olds should be able to change sex and undergo medical surgery are total weirdos and would take the view that such people shouldn't be allowed to stand for office. Yet if anyone stood up to stay that, they would be hounded as a transphobe and condemned. Why should we allow one group to determine who gets to stand for office?
The second is the hypocrisy. If Forbes held exactly the same views but the only exception was she was Muslim not a Christian, the silence would be deafening. Those calling the loudest for her to stand down now would be scared shitless of called an Islamophobe.
I queried it with a staff member who said it was upto their head office to price items, but after pressing him he did say he would report it to his manager
I can only assume people who backed her, had expected Forbes to lie about what she believed in pursuit of power.
https://twitter.com/rory_maclean/status/1627964823769153537
Cheers re Avdiivka. Has been fairly low profile compared to the other areas.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1628169763611344897?s=20
If the new kit has arrived very little of Russian occupied Ukraine is out of range, this stuff is really accurate and the US targeting data is very good. The likelihood is that the rejig of logistics carried out in recent months may be rendered ineffective. If the rumoured MBDA missiles ever appear its going to get worse.
“In the recording, the minister also appears to mock gay marriage, and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which was spearheaded by several of her predecessors as equalities minister.”
https://www.vice.com/en/article/jg8znx/uk-equalities-minister-kemi-badenoch-goes-on-anti-lgbtq-rant-in-leaked-audio
OpenAI has privately announced a new developer product called Foundry, which enables customers to run OpenAI model inference at scale w/ dedicated capacity.
It also reveals that DV (Davinci; likely GPT-4) will have up to 32k max context length in the public version. 🔥
https://twitter.com/transitive_bs/status/1628118163874516992
And now she’s playing the martyr . Pass me the sick bag !
In other news, it looks as though China is considering tripling the number of nuclear warheads it owns. Needless to say, this is not good.
Whatever you think of your views, I think at some level you have to respect that.
If I lived in Scotland and she was SNP leader.
I would have to consider voting Labour.
She is that bad.
In Scotland the SNP has until now managed to occupy a left wing position that probably gave them a lot of Scottish Labour votes. It’s very easy to see many of them returning to Labour if any reason existed for them tp do so (either a non left wing SN- leader or a more appealing Scottish Labour Party.
The problem is that you are proposing to hand control of a fair chunk if GDP to the pay bodies. Out of the politicians hands. Out of the Treasuries control. If the pay body says 10%, then it has to be funded, otherwise no point.
A national paydeal comes from the core of old union demands. I doubt very much they would like localised pay.
Suggests at least someone thinks there is still a chance he may stand.
BTW Johnson won a massive majority all be it on a lie but you like leaders who lie dont you?.
As for Corbyn got 12.9m votes and the biggest increase in the Labour vote since WW2 in GE 2017
The same people who were muttering that Putin had a point on social issues, up to round about this time last year.
They really hate our country.
Aside from saying that Forbes honest was something to admire, she pointed out that condemning people’s religiously inspired beliefs actually goes against one of the specific roles of an Equality Minister in the U.K.
Protection of the right to worship as you chose.
I could compile a list of religions that have issues with the modern liberal world. The short version is that if you want to go to war with them, you would be going to war with quite a few immigrants.
1) It's a confounding factor, which complicates matters for Ukraine and NATO.
2) It might well give him a 'win' for the sheep back home.
3) He's an evil git.
A year ago there might have been a fourth: to give an excuse for taking over the south of Ukraine through Odessa, to link Transnistria and Moldova to Russia. But I doubt his military has the ability to do that atm.
A big question atm is whether he has a spectacular planned for on, or around, the 24th - the anniversary of his initial invasion. The talk about this appears to have died down, and I hope that the attacks we have seen recently are all his forces can muster.
Moldova has always had conscription so they have a lot of reserves at various degrees of readiness.
The war drums do not truly start to beat until Johnson arrives in Chisnau with a shit eating grin and an NLAW in his luggage. When that happens, it's on. It's on like Kate Forbes' cilice.
It’s another area where rights of different groups and individuals intersect. The right to stand for public office. Freedom of religion. Freedom from great and repression by minority groups.
I said, very early on, that I couldn’t see how Forbes could lead a progressive European political party. It would be like leading a socialist party, while publicly declaring that state benefits should be withdrawn from the unemployed.
Here’s a question to ask yourself - how many politicians from various parties are lying? There are a couple of religions where, if you denounced the sexiest and misogynistic bits (for example) you would be a heretic. An outcast. Yet there are politicians who say they are practising X, and keeping quiet on their views on those issues.
Who are they lying to? Us? Their coreligionists? Themselves?
But then, you like leaders who lie except for Starmer, don't you?
Personally I am quite OK with her views on these things, despite coming from a much more liberal church.
It would be interesting to hear more on her role as Finance Minister, and views on a further Sindyref. I suspect those would be less to the taste of our Wokefinder Generals.
They're quite capable of lying to all of those at once.
That's going to be fun.
It’s what I think Queen Liz I was talking about with the Windows & Souls comment.
Which is why, despite opposing her entire social agenda, Forbes deserves a polite nod of respect.
If she’d equivocated, it’s clear that her backers and others would have gone along.
But, I'd rather politicians were true to themselves and honest to the electorate rather than cover it up for electoral convenience.
You can argue the reasons for (2) but, if you are going to blame JC for 2019, then you should at least give him some credit for 2017. FWIW, I think JC's brand of old-fashioned redistributive Socialism, relative silence on cultural issues (which traditional leftists see as a distraction from class issues) and nudge-nudge wink-wink form on Brexit did him favours with many WWC voters.
It will be the same and drag on. Regardless of whether Kemp and Trump get on, if DJT is the nominee, the closer we get to 2024, the more pressure there will be to kick this into touch.
The very Catholic country of Ireland voted by 66% in 2018 to amend the constitution to allow abortion.
There are clearly lots of people who see themselves as religious adherents, to one degree or another, but who come to their own conclusions when it comes to various points of religious doctrine. Why should we be surprised to find the same is true of those believers who are politicians?
There’s only so much endless sun, agreeable sex, excellent seafood and sensuous luxury a man can take before you yearn for, fuck knows, squalor. Suffering. War. A tube journey to Acton
@Malmesbury's point is an interesting one though. If you take the reaction against Forbes, we essentially would be saying a fair good percentage of the immigrant population would effectively be disbarred from being in charge.
Who wants to go first at saying that?
Edit - of course, some trains went straight from steam to electric, particularly on the Southern.
https://www.galison.com/products/avian-friends-puzzle
I once did an excellent jigsaw puzzle of Acton Town Hall! Very satisfying.
Let the out the cage and watch them ROAR
👍
The hypocrisy reeks - as does the cowardice
I hear it’s an absolute shit hole but at least it wouid. be different and interestingly violent
Here's a bloke who created a robot that will (nearly) make a 4,000 piece all-white jigsaw. The biggest problems were not with the 'solving' part of the task; it was in scanning the pieces in, and placing them accurately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsPHBD5NsS0
I have no problem with similar views expressed by African Christians or Asian Muslims either.
All these views are fine as long as people respect the law and do not try to legislate their morality onto other people.
Corbyn is essentially "disbarred" from being leader of the Conservative party - because he holds completely opposite views to party policy and membership - in the same way that someone with very old fashioned socially conservative views is hardly going to be an effective leader of a progressive party that has aimed itself very much at the younger half of the population.
If someone with socially conservative views wants to be a leader of a mainstream party their best bet, is unsurprisingly with the Conservative party.
I agree that, if you're applying to be Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, it's much better (and in a sense admirable maybe) to be honest about the fact that you failed your maths GCSE rather than lying about it. But the better thing to do is not to waste people's time applying at all.
Plenty of ‘billiards bars’ where the LBFMs hang out, just like Bangkok.
archeology. And I’m sure you could pick up a nice jigsaw at the gift shop at the end.
I once bar fined the elderly madam from 'Bottoms Bar' (think it's shut down now) on P. Burgos on Christmas Eve. While I was trying to get a taxi in the pissing rain I could hear the choir singing 'Silent Night' at the Church of St. Peter on the corner of Burgos and Marcos. Her nipples looked like Ron Atkinson had put his cigar out on a Jaffa Cake.
True?
They have really weird combinations of flavours in their meals, and even in snacks that they bring back. It is a bit of an acquired taste.
There are a lot fewer socially Conservative Christians Scotland-wide, meaning that she might struggle with that electorate.
But, all that said, she doesn't have to face the Scottish electorate yet and so talk about Kate Forbes' defeat due to her socially conservative Christianity may be premature. I'm not convinced that the SNP membership won't go for her but I don't really know what the party's thinking.
Forbes needs to make some things clear. Although a product of fundamentalist Presbyterianism, she is not its prisoner. Although a believer, she is not a proselytiser. Although she is living a religious life, the rest of us can live whatever lives we goddam like, and she will defend our right to do so. Is she capable of giving those answers?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kenny-farquharson-is-scotland-ready-for-a-wee-free-leader-8vbcv28c3
Jeremy Corbyn's one claimed virtue is that he is honest. A loon, but honest. Ask him whether he was a Remainer or a Leaver and you never got a straight answer.
Harry's views on journalists are well known, but he's not totally wrong. The Nicola Bulley story is a classic. The media will criticise everyone but themselves.
People claim they want honest polititicians but they don't really.
Tim Farron was reasonably unobjectionable, but fell foul of that.
Hence my decision to vote for the prettiest female. What you see is what you get.
But I am with Shaky Drakey over the multi buy ban. Encouraging excessive purchasing is potentially wasteful and potentially encourages gluttony. It is all about supermarkets maximising customer spend per visit, with an expectation of wastage so you come back for more anyway. Just price at the best price like Aldi and Lidl, it's simple really. The big 4 supermarket cabal is the instrument of the Devil. Unfair to farmers and producers, unfair to consumers. A plague on their supply of salad vegetables. Oh wait...
I’d go to somewhere shit in Africa if it wasn’t so hard to reach from here
Port Moresby is properly interesting. I have friends who have been who say it is the scariest city they’ve ever visited. But also fascinating
A challenge!
But what I really want to know is what she thinks she can do about the Scottish economy. Recognising the importance of infrastructure such as dualling the A9 is a good start as is the recognition that we must exploit our remaining oil and gas resources as our economy switches to renewable energy.
What else? Under Sturgeon Scotland was more heavily taxed than the rest of the UK to show how much she “cared”. This does not assist in attracting or retaining high earners in Scotland. It doesn’t help fill vacancies for NHS consultants either.
Is she willing to address this?
What are we going to do to address the very real problems of limited space for Scots at Scottish universities (an inevitable consequence of the state paying very restricted fees for a limited number of places) ?
How do we make Scotland a better place to invest, build businesses and live?
The debate seems to have got stuck before it even starts, dominated by her religious beliefs. But these questions are important for all Scots, not just those that get to vote for our new FM.
So just to repeat. The thread header still needs amending.
THE LABOUR LEAD IN THE RED WALL SEATS IS 28%, NOT 18%.