I see Hague and Blair think they can transform the economy. The ideas aren’t wrong, but whether this gets any traction is questionable. And it does prompt the question of why they didn’t have such revelations when active politicians.
That’s an awful lot of words to say that they basically think China is brilliant, and they want to emulate China in the UK, starting with the “Digital ID” and working from there. Klaus Schwab would be proud of their political nous, to dance around the questions of privacy and personal autonomy.
They didn’t do this when they were active politicians, because they knew they’d be kicked out of office the minute they tried it.
At a time when China’s economic performance is becoming distinctly mediocre.
Interesting comments from Kyocera on this (it's a free link)
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
I never said there should be a ban on her holding political power. In fact I have repeatedly and explicitly said there should be no ban.
What I have said is that people should vote against her. That's democracy, and if the people I support lose the vote then I would accept that, democratically.
We absolutely are a secular society. Our values have evolved from the Ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, hence some similarities to Judeo-Christianity as it evolved from the same origins too. Our values are constantly evolving and not stuck to a single book or era.
If you want to be a traditional Christian, or traditional anything else, you are perfectly entitled to do so. And you are perfectly entitled to seek office. And if you can keep your politics and religion separate, then I wouldn't hold it against you when casting my ballot, but if you can't, I'm entitled to my own beliefs just as you are.
Funnily enough, I am not a traditional Christian. Yes, I believe in God and would describe myself as Catholic but haven't been to Church since I was 12 and do not let Catholic teachings dominate my behaviour. It is more of a cultural than religious thing.
I would disagree on your points re our values come from the Greeks and Romans, and not a Judaeo-Christian tradition. A clear example is the Law. We follow Common Law, most of Europe goes for Roman. Roman Law was imposed by Napoleon - who, for all intents and purposes was an atheist and a product of the French Revolution - on these countries to precisely wipe away the influence of the Churches. That did not happen here. Another is our criminal system - the Greek and Roman systems (the latter in particular) centred on punishment, ours has more evolved to Christian concepts such as redemption.
I read your point that you say you don't want a ban but, to me, the words sound like the segregationists in the 1950s Southern states who said, of course, Black people can vote if they want, they just have to run through a gang of police with billy clubs to do so. Oh, and then after that, guess the exact number of jelly beans in that jar over there to be able to have that right. It is a nominal acceptance that such people can stand for office (if only because you realise an actual ban would look very bad) but, to all intents and purposes, your aim is an effective bar on them standing.
This is silly, of course parties are more likely to elect leaders who share their values. Why wouldn't they?
Indeed: She’s ultimately our responsibility. Not that she’s likely to be able to return to the UK, but if she did we charge her & if convicted send her to prison.
Just on the dinosaurs and Forbes thing - there are literal dinosaur footprints on Skye, in her constituency.
If I were an enterprising journalist, I'd be doing a piece to camera from there this morning.
...
Then the Serpentarium in Broadford, close ups of snakes followed by an interview of the people trying to undermine her from the Sturgeon camp.
Just wondering, are you sure about this dinobusiness? I don't recall it in connexion with the FCS in the news recently - is someone getting muddled with the FCS(C) or the FPC(U)? The latter lot certainlu attracted some political attention, as did at least one of those privatised-but-state-funded academy chains in England.
Indeed: She’s ultimately our responsibility. We ought to drag her back here, charge her & if convicted send her to prison.
Why bother? Surely a bunch of tabloid columnists and their readers are much better qualified to weigh the pros and cons of her case in an impartial and balanced way?
I double checked - the statement is on their Facebook page.
Not a surprise if you live in Scotland
I can't find any evidence of the "Muslim Council of the UK", and think it's an attempt to conflate with the Muslim Council of Britain.
Still digging into the Indian Council of Scotland, but they don't have a large online presence, at the very least.
The Indian Council of Scotland are on Facebook with 1k followers. As are the Muslim Council of the U.K. which appeared yesterday and has 3 followers….
Quite. Interesting to see how many PBers fell for that straight off.
Who fell for what exactly?
We are just sitting back watching the clownshow, as Candidate A hits herself in the face with a cake full of cuttlefish-spunk, and then Candidate B gets attacked by a dwarf dressed as a Zoroastrian donkey, and candidate C rules themselves out because they have 9 million quid resting in their Icelandic Tartan Bond ISA account, a fact known to Candidate D who is actually the ghost of Alex Salmond, living in Bermuda
I could ghet ChatGPT to write a letter from the Satanic Council of the EU complaining about the candidacy of Ms Forbes, change a few spellings to, say, the Conserve and Unionises Party, print it out on paper with a John Bull printing set, scan it complete with visible sellotape, and put it on PB, and the reaction would be exactly the same.
He runs vs Trump, even if on his sick bed as he is best placed to beat the orange manchild, and that will be a duty. He might pass vs others. But Trump likely wins the nomination so it shall be a 2020 repeat.
He runs vs Trump, even if on his sick bed as he is best placed to beat the orange manchild, and that will be a duty. He might pass vs others. But Trump likely wins the nomination so it shall be a 2020 repeat.
Hmm not sure. Nevertheless I've locked in some profit on the Dem Nominee market.
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
I never said there should be a ban on her holding political power. In fact I have repeatedly and explicitly said there should be no ban.
What I have said is that people should vote against her. That's democracy, and if the people I support lose the vote then I would accept that, democratically.
We absolutely are a secular society. Our values have evolved from the Ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, hence some similarities to Judeo-Christianity as it evolved from the same origins too. Our values are constantly evolving and not stuck to a single book or era.
If you want to be a traditional Christian, or traditional anything else, you are perfectly entitled to do so. And you are perfectly entitled to seek office. And if you can keep your politics and religion separate, then I wouldn't hold it against you when casting my ballot, but if you can't, I'm entitled to my own beliefs just as you are.
Funnily enough, I am not a traditional Christian. Yes, I believe in God and would describe myself as Catholic but haven't been to Church since I was 12 and do not let Catholic teachings dominate my behaviour. It is more of a cultural than religious thing.
I would disagree on your points re our values come from the Greeks and Romans, and not a Judaeo-Christian tradition. A clear example is the Law. We follow Common Law, most of Europe goes for Roman. Roman Law was imposed by Napoleon - who, for all intents and purposes was an atheist and a product of the French Revolution - on these countries to precisely wipe away the influence of the Churches. That did not happen here. Another is our criminal system - the Greek and Roman systems (the latter in particular) centred on punishment, ours has more evolved to Christian concepts such as redemption.
I read your point that you say you don't want a ban but, to me, the words sound like the segregationists in the 1950s Southern states who said, of course, Black people can vote if they want, they just have to run through a gang of police with billy clubs to do so. Oh, and then after that, guess the exact number of jelly beans in that jar over there to be able to have that right. It is a nominal acceptance that such people can stand for office (if only because you realise an actual ban would look very bad) but, to all intents and purposes, your aim is an effective bar on them standing.
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
I never said there should be a ban on her holding political power. In fact I have repeatedly and explicitly said there should be no ban.
What I have said is that people should vote against her. That's democracy, and if the people I support lose the vote then I would accept that, democratically.
We absolutely are a secular society. Our values have evolved from the Ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, hence some similarities to Judeo-Christianity as it evolved from the same origins too. Our values are constantly evolving and not stuck to a single book or era.
If you want to be a traditional Christian, or traditional anything else, you are perfectly entitled to do so. And you are perfectly entitled to seek office. And if you can keep your politics and religion separate, then I wouldn't hold it against you when casting my ballot, but if you can't, I'm entitled to my own beliefs just as you are.
Funnily enough, I am not a traditional Christian. Yes, I believe in God and would describe myself as Catholic but haven't been to Church since I was 12 and do not let Catholic teachings dominate my behaviour. It is more of a cultural than religious thing.
I would disagree on your points re our values come from the Greeks and Romans, and not a Judaeo-Christian tradition. A clear example is the Law. We follow Common Law, most of Europe goes for Roman. Roman Law was imposed by Napoleon - who, for all intents and purposes was an atheist and a product of the French Revolution - on these countries to precisely wipe away the influence of the Churches. That did not happen here. Another is our criminal system - the Greek and Roman systems (the latter in particular) centred on punishment, ours has more evolved to Christian concepts such as redemption.
I read your point that you say you don't want a ban but, to me, the words sound like the segregationists in the 1950s Southern states who said, of course, Black people can vote if they want, they just have to run through a gang of police with billy clubs to do so. Oh, and then after that, guess the exact number of jelly beans in that jar over there to be able to have that right. It is a nominal acceptance that such people can stand for office (if only because you realise an actual ban would look very bad) but, to all intents and purposes, your aim is an effective bar on them standing.
You can be religious in the UK and still be an elected politician now but only as long as you are pro homosexual marriage and don't want to ban abortion. Those are the litmus tests, certainly for Labour, the LDs and the Greens and SNP. Probably also for the Tories too most of the time if you want to be Tory leader and PM.
Cameron lost some Tory members to UKIP when he backed gay marriage in 2013 but he still was re elected PM at the 2015 general election with a majority despite UKIP getting 12% of the vote
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
I never said there should be a ban on her holding political power. In fact I have repeatedly and explicitly said there should be no ban.
What I have said is that people should vote against her. That's democracy, and if the people I support lose the vote then I would accept that, democratically.
We absolutely are a secular society. Our values have evolved from the Ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, hence some similarities to Judeo-Christianity as it evolved from the same origins too. Our values are constantly evolving and not stuck to a single book or era.
If you want to be a traditional Christian, or traditional anything else, you are perfectly entitled to do so. And you are perfectly entitled to seek office. And if you can keep your politics and religion separate, then I wouldn't hold it against you when casting my ballot, but if you can't, I'm entitled to my own beliefs just as you are.
Funnily enough, I am not a traditional Christian. Yes, I believe in God and would describe myself as Catholic but haven't been to Church since I was 12 and do not let Catholic teachings dominate my behaviour. It is more of a cultural than religious thing.
I would disagree on your points re our values come from the Greeks and Romans, and not a Judaeo-Christian tradition. A clear example is the Law. We follow Common Law, most of Europe goes for Roman. Roman Law was imposed by Napoleon - who, for all intents and purposes was an atheist and a product of the French Revolution - on these countries to precisely wipe away the influence of the Churches. That did not happen here. Another is our criminal system - the Greek and Roman systems (the latter in particular) centred on punishment, ours has more evolved to Christian concepts such as redemption.
I read your point that you say you don't want a ban but, to me, the words sound like the segregationists in the 1950s Southern states who said, of course, Black people can vote if they want, they just have to run through a gang of police with billy clubs to do so. Oh, and then after that, guess the exact number of jelly beans in that jar over there to be able to have that right. It is a nominal acceptance that such people can stand for office (if only because you realise an actual ban would look very bad) but, to all intents and purposes, your aim is an effective bar on them standing.
Utter hogwash.
I am saying that if someone wishes to use the law in a way I don't see fit, then I will vote against them, democratically, and hope others of their own free will do the same.
You are comparing that with barriers to prevent others from casting their own ballot.
My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected, so long as my views prevail democratically, yes of course it is. That is democracy, we cast our votes to see that which we want to get elected. If I lose the vote, that's democracy too.
I am in no ways doing anything wrong in casting my vote against someone who represents that which I abhor.
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
Had the near Marxist Corbyn been up against an evangelical Christian Conservative leader in 2017 rather than the small c Church of England Theresa May then Corbyn may well have won
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
Had the near Marxist Corbyn been up against an evangelical Christian Conservative leader in 2017 rather than the small c Church of England Theresa May then Corbyn may well have won
He didn't do very well against devout Catholic Johnson though, did he?
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
Wouldn't he have been in the Chamber when John McDonnell pretty much did this, bringing in Mao's little red book? Wouldn't he have seen the reaction afterwards, both in the Chamber and the Media?
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
Had the near Marxist Corbyn been up against an evangelical Christian Conservative leader in 2017 rather than the small c Church of England Theresa May then Corbyn may well have won
He didn't do very well against devout Catholic Johnson though, did he?
Johnson certainly took the go forth and multiply, both from the bible and insults from his opponents, very literally.
He runs vs Trump, even if on his sick bed as he is best placed to beat the orange manchild, and that will be a duty. He might pass vs others. But Trump likely wins the nomination so it shall be a 2020 repeat.
Hmm not sure. Nevertheless I've locked in some profit on the Dem Nominee market.
Are you on Marianne WIlliamson? Predicted by good sources to formally take Biden to a primary.
I reckon the hiking of Uni fees to create a debt of ~ £50k is a big reason for much of the public sector pay rankles.
That, 10% inflation, triple lock for others, clap for heroes but don't pay them, hundreds of thousands of vacancies they can't fill, ex colleagues getting more on agency rates for fewer hours and less stress.....
I reckon the hiking of Uni fees to create a debt of ~ £50k is a big reason for much of the public sector pay rankles.
Yes, it's an additional 8% income tax over £26k for all hires in the last decade. It's why the current generation of junior doctors, nurses and other people in low level or junior roles are much more militant than previous ones.
The solution is, IMO, degrade the pension benefits to match the private sector and uprate the wages likewise. That gives people money in their pocket today and even at an 8% per year contribution with the minimum legally allowable amount it still adds up over a 45 year career. The government are missing a trick by not pushing that 8% up to 12% (8% and 4%) as it solves the future pension income crisis for the millennial generation and below and it will boost investment culture among younger generations who will have hundreds of thousands in equity markets when they retire.
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
I fear being a Lib Dem is more of a bar to high office than being religious
Of course, Farron's problem wasn't that he was "religious" - it was that he voted in parliament against liberal measures (notably against making illegal discrimination on the basis of sexual preference) while presenting himself as a Liberal politician. The mystery is that he was able to get away with it for so long.
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
Who is saying there should be a ban? People have said that they won't vote for her because she said that she would vote to outlaw same-sex marriage given the chance. It is perfectly reasonable for people to vote against her for that reason. This attempt to play the victim 'it's not fair, you're banning christians etc' is really pathetic and dishonest.
He runs vs Trump, even if on his sick bed as he is best placed to beat the orange manchild, and that will be a duty. He might pass vs others. But Trump likely wins the nomination so it shall be a 2020 repeat.
Hmm not sure. Nevertheless I've locked in some profit on the Dem Nominee market.
Are you on Marianne WIlliamson? Predicted by good sources to formally take Biden to a primary.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
I see Hague and Blair think they can transform the economy. The ideas aren’t wrong, but whether this gets any traction is questionable. And it does prompt the question of why they didn’t have such revelations when active politicians.
That’s an awful lot of words to say that they basically think China is brilliant, and they want to emulate China in the UK, starting with the “Digital ID” and working from there. Klaus Schwab would be proud of their political nous, to dance around the questions of privacy and personal autonomy.
They didn’t do this when they were active politicians, because they knew they’d be kicked out of office the minute they tried it.
At a time when China’s economic performance is becoming distinctly mediocre.
Interesting comments from Kyocera on this (it's a free link)
Feels like we are entering another one of those great power showdowns, with Russia playing the Habsburgs to the Chinese Kaiser. Always dangerous when a rising power starts to slow down economically after decades of astronomical growth. They tend to start focusing on projecting military and diplomatic power instead.
Looking back through history it happened several times. Places like Rome or Venice grew rapidly through mercantilism then turned military and expansionist once the initial growth spurt levelled off. Britain really got going on the empire once its early head start in industrialisation got chipped away at, the US only went fully military during and after WW2 after decades of economic catch-up. There are exceptions of course like Napoleonic France or the Ottomans, but there certainly seems to be a common pattern.
Ukraine feels like one of those moments when one power goes into inexorable decline while another rises. China has so far stayed out but I fancy it will start to intervene more and more if it looks like Russia is losing. That would be very bad news for Ukrainians.
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
Who is saying there should be a ban? People have said that they won't vote for her because she said that she would vote to outlaw same-sex marriage given the chance. It is perfectly reasonable for people to vote against her for that reason. This attempt to play the victim 'it's not fair, you're banning christians etc' is really pathetic and dishonest.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
No they shouldn't
She may be a celebrity terrorist, and unrepentant, but she was a groomed child but she should have the right to due legal process.
She should be tried for her crimes and punished accordingly.
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
Who is saying there should be a ban? People have said that they won't vote for her because she said that she would vote to outlaw same-sex marriage given the chance. It is perfectly reasonable for people to vote against her for that reason. This attempt to play the victim 'it's not fair, you're banning christians etc' is really pathetic and dishonest.
Interesting and somewhat surprising talking to colleagues today in both England and Scotland, who seemed in general to be quite positive about the way Forbes has dealt with the issue up-front. Maybe she does have a chance.
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
I never said there should be a ban on her holding political power. In fact I have repeatedly and explicitly said there should be no ban.
What I have said is that people should vote against her. That's democracy, and if the people I support lose the vote then I would accept that, democratically.
We absolutely are a secular society. Our values have evolved from the Ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, hence some similarities to Judeo-Christianity as it evolved from the same origins too. Our values are constantly evolving and not stuck to a single book or era.
If you want to be a traditional Christian, or traditional anything else, you are perfectly entitled to do so. And you are perfectly entitled to seek office. And if you can keep your politics and religion separate, then I wouldn't hold it against you when casting my ballot, but if you can't, I'm entitled to my own beliefs just as you are.
Funnily enough, I am not a traditional Christian. Yes, I believe in God and would describe myself as Catholic but haven't been to Church since I was 12 and do not let Catholic teachings dominate my behaviour. It is more of a cultural than religious thing.
I would disagree on your points re our values come from the Greeks and Romans, and not a Judaeo-Christian tradition. A clear example is the Law. We follow Common Law, most of Europe goes for Roman. Roman Law was imposed by Napoleon - who, for all intents and purposes was an atheist and a product of the French Revolution - on these countries to precisely wipe away the influence of the Churches. That did not happen here. Another is our criminal system - the Greek and Roman systems (the latter in particular) centred on punishment, ours has more evolved to Christian concepts such as redemption.
I read your point that you say you don't want a ban but, to me, the words sound like the segregationists in the 1950s Southern states who said, of course, Black people can vote if they want, they just have to run through a gang of police with billy clubs to do so. Oh, and then after that, guess the exact number of jelly beans in that jar over there to be able to have that right. It is a nominal acceptance that such people can stand for office (if only because you realise an actual ban would look very bad) but, to all intents and purposes, your aim is an effective bar on them standing.
Utter hogwash.
I am saying that if someone wishes to use the law in a way I don't see fit, then I will vote against them, democratically, and hope others of their own free will do the same.
You are comparing that with barriers to prevent others from casting their own ballot.
My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected, so long as my views prevail democratically, yes of course it is. That is democracy, we cast our votes to see that which we want to get elected. If I lose the vote, that's democracy too.
I am in no ways doing anything wrong in casting my vote against someone who represents that which I abhor.
"My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected"
Which is exactly what the Segregationists did in the South in the 50s when it came to ensuring Blacks didn't have the vote. Only in your case it's not the cops with billy clubs, it's the weight of public censure. Same intention though.
Indeed: She’s ultimately our responsibility. Not that she’s likely to be able to return to the UK, but if she did we charge her & if convicted send her to prison.
It's an interesting one. I've certainly been of that opinion. I didn't think the decision to step her of citizenship would survive scrutiny, but it's now been confirmed by a number of different judges.
How can it be that the judges have disagreed with me?
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
I never said there should be a ban on her holding political power. In fact I have repeatedly and explicitly said there should be no ban.
What I have said is that people should vote against her. That's democracy, and if the people I support lose the vote then I would accept that, democratically.
We absolutely are a secular society. Our values have evolved from the Ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, hence some similarities to Judeo-Christianity as it evolved from the same origins too. Our values are constantly evolving and not stuck to a single book or era.
If you want to be a traditional Christian, or traditional anything else, you are perfectly entitled to do so. And you are perfectly entitled to seek office. And if you can keep your politics and religion separate, then I wouldn't hold it against you when casting my ballot, but if you can't, I'm entitled to my own beliefs just as you are.
Funnily enough, I am not a traditional Christian. Yes, I believe in God and would describe myself as Catholic but haven't been to Church since I was 12 and do not let Catholic teachings dominate my behaviour. It is more of a cultural than religious thing.
I would disagree on your points re our values come from the Greeks and Romans, and not a Judaeo-Christian tradition. A clear example is the Law. We follow Common Law, most of Europe goes for Roman. Roman Law was imposed by Napoleon - who, for all intents and purposes was an atheist and a product of the French Revolution - on these countries to precisely wipe away the influence of the Churches. That did not happen here. Another is our criminal system - the Greek and Roman systems (the latter in particular) centred on punishment, ours has more evolved to Christian concepts such as redemption.
I read your point that you say you don't want a ban but, to me, the words sound like the segregationists in the 1950s Southern states who said, of course, Black people can vote if they want, they just have to run through a gang of police with billy clubs to do so. Oh, and then after that, guess the exact number of jelly beans in that jar over there to be able to have that right. It is a nominal acceptance that such people can stand for office (if only because you realise an actual ban would look very bad) but, to all intents and purposes, your aim is an effective bar on them standing.
The Scots follow Roman Law. Just saying.
You're both wrong - and right. The Norman conquest introduced continental ideas including Roman ones to English jurisprudence. Canon law in particular helped place Roman legal concepts into English law. Most lawyers and judges in 12th century England were churchmen schooled in Canon and Civil law. This training in Roman method and principal enabled them to construct a rational, a general, a definite system of law out of the vague and conflicting mass of customs, half tribal, half feudal of which English law consisted. That became the Common Law
Where the common law was silent, or where it was defective, English jurists also drew upon Roman law. It supplied a method of reasoning upon legal matters and a power to create a technical language to describe precise rules from vague customs and individual cases.
Throughout the formative period of the English Common Law, the study of Civil and Canon directly influenced it. By imparting to the customary law of England the essence of Roman principles, English lawyers were able to constructed a system which could stand on its own.
Napoleon's code is a bit of a red herring. Yes, it is based on a lot of Roman Law, but as I say above so is English Common Law. And, as Carnyx says, Scots Law.
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
Who is saying there should be a ban? People have said that they won't vote for her because she said that she would vote to outlaw same-sex marriage given the chance. It is perfectly reasonable for people to vote against her for that reason. This attempt to play the victim 'it's not fair, you're banning christians etc' is really pathetic and dishonest.
Interesting and somewhat surprising talking to colleagues today in both England and Scotland, who seemed in general to be quite positive about the way Forbes has dealt with the issue up-front. Maybe she does have a chance.
Interesting in view of Algarkirk's comments yesterday. And she *has* done well in her constituency - by no means wall to wall Free Kirkers. Yet she has to win two other elections before she even faces a general election as party leader.
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
I never said there should be a ban on her holding political power. In fact I have repeatedly and explicitly said there should be no ban.
What I have said is that people should vote against her. That's democracy, and if the people I support lose the vote then I would accept that, democratically.
We absolutely are a secular society. Our values have evolved from the Ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, hence some similarities to Judeo-Christianity as it evolved from the same origins too. Our values are constantly evolving and not stuck to a single book or era.
If you want to be a traditional Christian, or traditional anything else, you are perfectly entitled to do so. And you are perfectly entitled to seek office. And if you can keep your politics and religion separate, then I wouldn't hold it against you when casting my ballot, but if you can't, I'm entitled to my own beliefs just as you are.
Funnily enough, I am not a traditional Christian. Yes, I believe in God and would describe myself as Catholic but haven't been to Church since I was 12 and do not let Catholic teachings dominate my behaviour. It is more of a cultural than religious thing.
I would disagree on your points re our values come from the Greeks and Romans, and not a Judaeo-Christian tradition. A clear example is the Law. We follow Common Law, most of Europe goes for Roman. Roman Law was imposed by Napoleon - who, for all intents and purposes was an atheist and a product of the French Revolution - on these countries to precisely wipe away the influence of the Churches. That did not happen here. Another is our criminal system - the Greek and Roman systems (the latter in particular) centred on punishment, ours has more evolved to Christian concepts such as redemption.
I read your point that you say you don't want a ban but, to me, the words sound like the segregationists in the 1950s Southern states who said, of course, Black people can vote if they want, they just have to run through a gang of police with billy clubs to do so. Oh, and then after that, guess the exact number of jelly beans in that jar over there to be able to have that right. It is a nominal acceptance that such people can stand for office (if only because you realise an actual ban would look very bad) but, to all intents and purposes, your aim is an effective bar on them standing.
Criminal law in Greek democracies was essentially mob rule. Roman criminal law was a bit more sophisticated, but it was primarily concerned with maintaining order, rather than punishing criminals, or upholding the rights of the accused. The Romans took the view that torture was a very useful means of establishing the truth. Indeed, slaves could only give evidence against their masters, after having been tortured. It also depended a very great deal upon self-help.
Reading Cicero's cases, you can see that he focuses far more on attacking or promoting the character of the accused, and the witnesses against him, than he does on what the law actually says. At one point, he argued that only second-rate advocates were bothered about the letter of the law.
Both our criminal justice system, and its continental equivalents are a good deal more sophisticated and humane than anything the Greeks or Romans came up with. A lot of what we take for granted, such as banning the use of hearsay evidence, requiring judges who have an interest in the outcome of a case to recuse themselves, granting the accused the right to cross-examine witnesses, the presumption of innocence, privilege against self-incrimination, derive from the practices of medieval ecclesiastical courts.
Where Roman law had much more of an impact is in fields like trusts and contract.
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
I imagine if a politician tried to lead a mainstream political party on a platform of abolishing all private property there would be rather more push back than Ms Forbes has received. Once again for the terminally dim: Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform. Anyone can criticise that platform and can argue against the candidate on that basis. You don't get "cancelled" because your views come out of an old book. Equally you and your views don't get a free pass. Someone whose views are far from the mainstream and would try to put those views into practice will struggle to lead a mainstream party. That doesn't mean they are cancelled. It's just democracy.
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
I never said there should be a ban on her holding political power. In fact I have repeatedly and explicitly said there should be no ban.
What I have said is that people should vote against her. That's democracy, and if the people I support lose the vote then I would accept that, democratically.
We absolutely are a secular society. Our values have evolved from the Ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, hence some similarities to Judeo-Christianity as it evolved from the same origins too. Our values are constantly evolving and not stuck to a single book or era.
If you want to be a traditional Christian, or traditional anything else, you are perfectly entitled to do so. And you are perfectly entitled to seek office. And if you can keep your politics and religion separate, then I wouldn't hold it against you when casting my ballot, but if you can't, I'm entitled to my own beliefs just as you are.
Funnily enough, I am not a traditional Christian. Yes, I believe in God and would describe myself as Catholic but haven't been to Church since I was 12 and do not let Catholic teachings dominate my behaviour. It is more of a cultural than religious thing.
I would disagree on your points re our values come from the Greeks and Romans, and not a Judaeo-Christian tradition. A clear example is the Law. We follow Common Law, most of Europe goes for Roman. Roman Law was imposed by Napoleon - who, for all intents and purposes was an atheist and a product of the French Revolution - on these countries to precisely wipe away the influence of the Churches. That did not happen here. Another is our criminal system - the Greek and Roman systems (the latter in particular) centred on punishment, ours has more evolved to Christian concepts such as redemption.
I read your point that you say you don't want a ban but, to me, the words sound like the segregationists in the 1950s Southern states who said, of course, Black people can vote if they want, they just have to run through a gang of police with billy clubs to do so. Oh, and then after that, guess the exact number of jelly beans in that jar over there to be able to have that right. It is a nominal acceptance that such people can stand for office (if only because you realise an actual ban would look very bad) but, to all intents and purposes, your aim is an effective bar on them standing.
Are you seriously comparing Kate Forbes, current Scottish finance minister, being less likely to become leader of the SNP and first minister because of her views on same-sex marriage, with black people getting beaten up in 1950s US for trying to vote?
Jeez, talk about absurd attempts to play the victim.
Indeed: She’s ultimately our responsibility. Not that she’s likely to be able to return to the UK, but if she did we charge her & if convicted send her to prison.
It's an interesting one. I've certainly been of that opinion. I didn't think the decision to step her of citizenship would survive scrutiny, but it's now been confirmed by a number of different judges.
How can it be that the judges have disagreed with me?
Good question. I wonder if part of it is the likely reaction from both the cabinet and press if it went the other way.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
I never said there should be a ban on her holding political power. In fact I have repeatedly and explicitly said there should be no ban.
What I have said is that people should vote against her. That's democracy, and if the people I support lose the vote then I would accept that, democratically.
We absolutely are a secular society. Our values have evolved from the Ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, hence some similarities to Judeo-Christianity as it evolved from the same origins too. Our values are constantly evolving and not stuck to a single book or era.
If you want to be a traditional Christian, or traditional anything else, you are perfectly entitled to do so. And you are perfectly entitled to seek office. And if you can keep your politics and religion separate, then I wouldn't hold it against you when casting my ballot, but if you can't, I'm entitled to my own beliefs just as you are.
Funnily enough, I am not a traditional Christian. Yes, I believe in God and would describe myself as Catholic but haven't been to Church since I was 12 and do not let Catholic teachings dominate my behaviour. It is more of a cultural than religious thing.
I would disagree on your points re our values come from the Greeks and Romans, and not a Judaeo-Christian tradition. A clear example is the Law. We follow Common Law, most of Europe goes for Roman. Roman Law was imposed by Napoleon - who, for all intents and purposes was an atheist and a product of the French Revolution - on these countries to precisely wipe away the influence of the Churches. That did not happen here. Another is our criminal system - the Greek and Roman systems (the latter in particular) centred on punishment, ours has more evolved to Christian concepts such as redemption.
I read your point that you say you don't want a ban but, to me, the words sound like the segregationists in the 1950s Southern states who said, of course, Black people can vote if they want, they just have to run through a gang of police with billy clubs to do so. Oh, and then after that, guess the exact number of jelly beans in that jar over there to be able to have that right. It is a nominal acceptance that such people can stand for office (if only because you realise an actual ban would look very bad) but, to all intents and purposes, your aim is an effective bar on them standing.
The Scots follow Roman Law. Just saying.
You're both wrong - and right. The Norman conquest introduced continental ideas including Roman ones to English jurisprudence. Canon law in particular helped place Roman legal concepts into English law. Most lawyers and judges in 12th century England were churchmen schooled in Canon and Civil law. This training in Roman method and principal enabled them to construct a rational, a general, a definite system of law out of the vague and conflicting mass of customs, half tribal, half feudal of which English law consisted. That became the Common Law
Where the common law was silent, or where it was defective, English jurists also drew upon Roman law. It supplied a method of reasoning upon legal matters and a power to create a technical language to describe precise rules from vague customs and individual cases.
Throughout the formative period of the English Common Law, the study of Civil and Canon directly influenced it. By imparting to the customary law of England the essence of Roman principles, English lawyers were able to constructed a system which could stand on its own.
Napoleon's code is a bit of a red herring. Yes, it is based on a lot of Roman Law, but as I say above so is English Common Law. And, as Carnyx says, Scots Law.
Cheers for the legal history lesson. So would you say our legal system is mainly secular or religious in nature, or is it stupid to think of it in this way?
I see Hague and Blair think they can transform the economy. The ideas aren’t wrong, but whether this gets any traction is questionable. And it does prompt the question of why they didn’t have such revelations when active politicians.
That’s an awful lot of words to say that they basically think China is brilliant, and they want to emulate China in the UK, starting with the “Digital ID” and working from there. Klaus Schwab would be proud of their political nous, to dance around the questions of privacy and personal autonomy.
They didn’t do this when they were active politicians, because they knew they’d be kicked out of office the minute they tried it.
At a time when China’s economic performance is becoming distinctly mediocre.
Interesting comments from Kyocera on this (it's a free link)
Feels like we are entering another one of those great power showdowns, with Russia playing the Habsburgs to the Chinese Kaiser. Always dangerous when a rising power starts to slow down economically after decades of astronomical growth. They tend to start focusing on projecting military and diplomatic power instead.
Looking back through history it happened several times. Places like Rome or Venice grew rapidly through mercantilism then turned military and expansionist once the initial growth spurt levelled off. Britain really got going on the empire once its early head start in industrialisation got chipped away at, the US only went fully military during and after WW2 after decades of economic catch-up. There are exceptions of course like Napoleonic France or the Ottomans, but there certainly seems to be a common pattern.
Ukraine feels like one of those moments when one power goes into inexorable decline while another rises. China has so far stayed out but I fancy it will start to intervene more and more if it looks like Russia is losing. That would be very bad news for Ukrainians.
I'm not sure what China has to gain here. So long as the west makes it clear (Europe in particular) that supporting the blatant aggressor that is resorting to terrorist methods in a major European war will have severe economic consequences for them I suspect they will stay out. Of course they could be more belligerent and Europe weaker than we might think.
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
I never said there should be a ban on her holding political power. In fact I have repeatedly and explicitly said there should be no ban.
What I have said is that people should vote against her. That's democracy, and if the people I support lose the vote then I would accept that, democratically.
We absolutely are a secular society. Our values have evolved from the Ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, hence some similarities to Judeo-Christianity as it evolved from the same origins too. Our values are constantly evolving and not stuck to a single book or era.
If you want to be a traditional Christian, or traditional anything else, you are perfectly entitled to do so. And you are perfectly entitled to seek office. And if you can keep your politics and religion separate, then I wouldn't hold it against you when casting my ballot, but if you can't, I'm entitled to my own beliefs just as you are.
Funnily enough, I am not a traditional Christian. Yes, I believe in God and would describe myself as Catholic but haven't been to Church since I was 12 and do not let Catholic teachings dominate my behaviour. It is more of a cultural than religious thing.
I would disagree on your points re our values come from the Greeks and Romans, and not a Judaeo-Christian tradition. A clear example is the Law. We follow Common Law, most of Europe goes for Roman. Roman Law was imposed by Napoleon - who, for all intents and purposes was an atheist and a product of the French Revolution - on these countries to precisely wipe away the influence of the Churches. That did not happen here. Another is our criminal system - the Greek and Roman systems (the latter in particular) centred on punishment, ours has more evolved to Christian concepts such as redemption.
I read your point that you say you don't want a ban but, to me, the words sound like the segregationists in the 1950s Southern states who said, of course, Black people can vote if they want, they just have to run through a gang of police with billy clubs to do so. Oh, and then after that, guess the exact number of jelly beans in that jar over there to be able to have that right. It is a nominal acceptance that such people can stand for office (if only because you realise an actual ban would look very bad) but, to all intents and purposes, your aim is an effective bar on them standing.
Are you seriously comparing Kate Forbes, current Scottish finance minister, being less likely to become leader of the SNP and first minister because of her views on same-sex marriage, with black people getting beaten up in 1950s US for trying to vote?
Jeez, talk about absurd attempts to play the victim.
Bartholomew has already admitted what his intentions are:
"My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected"
The methods by which he aims to do so may be different and less physically brutal but the aim is the same. And I am also surprised that, in a society where mental illness is apparently far more seriously taken, we still the view that piling onto someone publicly for their religious views and ridiculing them is absolutely fine. Seems like a disconnect in the logic there.
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
I fear being a Lib Dem is more of a bar to high office than being religious
Of course, Farron's problem wasn't that he was "religious" - it was that he voted in parliament against liberal measures (notably against making illegal discrimination on the basis of sexual preference) while presenting himself as a Liberal politician. The mystery is that he was able to get away with it for so long.
You can do that even as an MP, but it's far harder to get away with it as leader (see also Corbyn and the interesting company he kept - no on particularly cared when he was a Labour nobody).
FWIW, I find Farron an interesting case. His voting record isn't really consistent with his individual faith, supporting his argument that he's a liberal first, but also not fully consistent with acceptance and support of homosexuality. He has, when pressed, made a liberal case for protecting people of faith from being compelled to do things they consider wrong and there is an argument there, although I do disagree with him on much of it.
The main (political) issue was that he dealt with the questions very badly, squirming and avoiding rather than being a bit more uprfront, as he was eventually forced to be. Forbes has been more direct and honest and I do respect that, even though I disagree with her views.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
I can’t agree with that. Sorry. That’s outrageous
We should pay for the bullet
The various groups hostile to ISIS (including the Kurds) have agreed not to try her, or get hold of her to try, at the behest of the UK government.
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
I imagine if a politician tried to lead a mainstream political party on a platform of abolishing all private property there would be rather more push back than Ms Forbes has received. Once again for the terminally dim: Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform. Anyone can criticise that platform and can argue against the candidate on that basis. You don't get "cancelled" because your views come out of an old book. Equally you and your views don't get a free pass. Someone whose views are far from the mainstream and would try to put those views into practice will struggle to lead a mainstream party. That doesn't mean they are cancelled. It's just democracy.
So when someone who agrees with your viewpoint says "My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected", can you work through how that matches your comment that "Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform."?
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
I never said there should be a ban on her holding political power. In fact I have repeatedly and explicitly said there should be no ban.
What I have said is that people should vote against her. That's democracy, and if the people I support lose the vote then I would accept that, democratically.
We absolutely are a secular society. Our values have evolved from the Ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, hence some similarities to Judeo-Christianity as it evolved from the same origins too. Our values are constantly evolving and not stuck to a single book or era.
If you want to be a traditional Christian, or traditional anything else, you are perfectly entitled to do so. And you are perfectly entitled to seek office. And if you can keep your politics and religion separate, then I wouldn't hold it against you when casting my ballot, but if you can't, I'm entitled to my own beliefs just as you are.
Funnily enough, I am not a traditional Christian. Yes, I believe in God and would describe myself as Catholic but haven't been to Church since I was 12 and do not let Catholic teachings dominate my behaviour. It is more of a cultural than religious thing.
I would disagree on your points re our values come from the Greeks and Romans, and not a Judaeo-Christian tradition. A clear example is the Law. We follow Common Law, most of Europe goes for Roman. Roman Law was imposed by Napoleon - who, for all intents and purposes was an atheist and a product of the French Revolution - on these countries to precisely wipe away the influence of the Churches. That did not happen here. Another is our criminal system - the Greek and Roman systems (the latter in particular) centred on punishment, ours has more evolved to Christian concepts such as redemption.
I read your point that you say you don't want a ban but, to me, the words sound like the segregationists in the 1950s Southern states who said, of course, Black people can vote if they want, they just have to run through a gang of police with billy clubs to do so. Oh, and then after that, guess the exact number of jelly beans in that jar over there to be able to have that right. It is a nominal acceptance that such people can stand for office (if only because you realise an actual ban would look very bad) but, to all intents and purposes, your aim is an effective bar on them standing.
The Scots follow Roman Law. Just saying.
You're both wrong - and right. The Norman conquest introduced continental ideas including Roman ones to English jurisprudence. Canon law in particular helped place Roman legal concepts into English law. Most lawyers and judges in 12th century England were churchmen schooled in Canon and Civil law. This training in Roman method and principal enabled them to construct a rational, a general, a definite system of law out of the vague and conflicting mass of customs, half tribal, half feudal of which English law consisted. That became the Common Law
Where the common law was silent, or where it was defective, English jurists also drew upon Roman law. It supplied a method of reasoning upon legal matters and a power to create a technical language to describe precise rules from vague customs and individual cases.
Throughout the formative period of the English Common Law, the study of Civil and Canon directly influenced it. By imparting to the customary law of England the essence of Roman principles, English lawyers were able to constructed a system which could stand on its own.
Napoleon's code is a bit of a red herring. Yes, it is based on a lot of Roman Law, but as I say above so is English Common Law. And, as Carnyx says, Scots Law.
Cheers for the legal history lesson. So would you say our legal system is mainly secular or religious in nature, or is it stupid to think of it in this way?
Complicated. For centuries, knowledge, learning and law were bound up with religion. The separation evolved later.
I've just backed someone even older than Biden and Trump for POTUS.
Bernie Sanders @ 259-1 for £5
Sanders, who himself is 81, has said that he would not challenge Biden in a primary. But he had not ruled out a run in 2024 in the event there was an open presidential primary. Sanders’ former campaign co-chair, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif), told POLITICO that Sanders “is preparing to run if Biden doesn’t,” adding he’d support Sanders in such a scenario.
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
I never said there should be a ban on her holding political power. In fact I have repeatedly and explicitly said there should be no ban.
What I have said is that people should vote against her. That's democracy, and if the people I support lose the vote then I would accept that, democratically.
We absolutely are a secular society. Our values have evolved from the Ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, hence some similarities to Judeo-Christianity as it evolved from the same origins too. Our values are constantly evolving and not stuck to a single book or era.
If you want to be a traditional Christian, or traditional anything else, you are perfectly entitled to do so. And you are perfectly entitled to seek office. And if you can keep your politics and religion separate, then I wouldn't hold it against you when casting my ballot, but if you can't, I'm entitled to my own beliefs just as you are.
Funnily enough, I am not a traditional Christian. Yes, I believe in God and would describe myself as Catholic but haven't been to Church since I was 12 and do not let Catholic teachings dominate my behaviour. It is more of a cultural than religious thing.
I would disagree on your points re our values come from the Greeks and Romans, and not a Judaeo-Christian tradition. A clear example is the Law. We follow Common Law, most of Europe goes for Roman. Roman Law was imposed by Napoleon - who, for all intents and purposes was an atheist and a product of the French Revolution - on these countries to precisely wipe away the influence of the Churches. That did not happen here. Another is our criminal system - the Greek and Roman systems (the latter in particular) centred on punishment, ours has more evolved to Christian concepts such as redemption.
I read your point that you say you don't want a ban but, to me, the words sound like the segregationists in the 1950s Southern states who said, of course, Black people can vote if they want, they just have to run through a gang of police with billy clubs to do so. Oh, and then after that, guess the exact number of jelly beans in that jar over there to be able to have that right. It is a nominal acceptance that such people can stand for office (if only because you realise an actual ban would look very bad) but, to all intents and purposes, your aim is an effective bar on them standing.
Criminal law in Greek democracies was essentially mob rule. Roman criminal law was a bit more sophisticated, but it was primarily concerned with maintaining order, rather than punishing criminals, or upholding the rights of the accused. The Romans took the view that torture was a very useful means of establishing the truth. Indeed, slaves could only give evidence against their masters, after having been tortured. It also depended a very great deal upon self-help.
Reading Cicero's cases, you can see that he focuses far more on attacking or promoting the character of the accused, and the witnesses against him, than he does on what the law actually says. At one point, he argued that only second-rate advocates were bothered about the letter of the law.
Both our criminal justice system, and its continental equivalents are a good deal more sophisticated and humane than anything the Greeks or Romans came up with. A lot of what we take for granted, such as banning the use of hearsay evidence, requiring judges who have an interest in the outcome of a case to recuse themselves, granting the accused the right to cross-examine witnesses, the presumption of innocence, privilege against self-incrimination, derive from the practices of medieval ecclesiastical courts.
Where Roman law had much more of an impact is in fields like trusts and contract.
One interesting aspect of The Oresteia - that great drama of Athenian democracy - is the way it charts across its three plays the progression from acts of personal vengeance to judicial process.
I see Hague and Blair think they can transform the economy. The ideas aren’t wrong, but whether this gets any traction is questionable. And it does prompt the question of why they didn’t have such revelations when active politicians.
That’s an awful lot of words to say that they basically think China is brilliant, and they want to emulate China in the UK, starting with the “Digital ID” and working from there. Klaus Schwab would be proud of their political nous, to dance around the questions of privacy and personal autonomy.
They didn’t do this when they were active politicians, because they knew they’d be kicked out of office the minute they tried it.
At a time when China’s economic performance is becoming distinctly mediocre.
Interesting comments from Kyocera on this (it's a free link)
Feels like we are entering another one of those great power showdowns, with Russia playing the Habsburgs to the Chinese Kaiser. Always dangerous when a rising power starts to slow down economically after decades of astronomical growth. They tend to start focusing on projecting military and diplomatic power instead.
Looking back through history it happened several times. Places like Rome or Venice grew rapidly through mercantilism then turned military and expansionist once the initial growth spurt levelled off. Britain really got going on the empire once its early head start in industrialisation got chipped away at, the US only went fully military during and after WW2 after decades of economic catch-up. There are exceptions of course like Napoleonic France or the Ottomans, but there certainly seems to be a common pattern.
Ukraine feels like one of those moments when one power goes into inexorable decline while another rises. China has so far stayed out but I fancy it will start to intervene more and more if it looks like Russia is losing. That would be very bad news for Ukrainians.
I'm not sure what China has to gain here. So long as the west makes it clear (Europe in particular) that supporting the blatant aggressor that is resorting to terrorist methods in a major European war will have severe economic consequences for them I suspect they will stay out. Of course they could be more belligerent and Europe weaker than we might think.
The doctrine of power balance I think. Russia is a useful bulwark against Western dominance of world politics (and raw materials). And an opportunity to tie down the US instead of letting it focus too much on the Far East.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
I can’t agree with that. Sorry. That’s outrageous
We should pay for the bullet
The various groups hostile to ISIS (including the Kurds) have agreed not to try her, or get hold of her to try, at the behest of the UK government.
She should just crowdsource the money to pay people smugglers. She'd be impossible to deport and very difficult to convict once she was here. I'd chip in a hundred quid.
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
Who is saying there should be a ban? People have said that they won't vote for her because she said that she would vote to outlaw same-sex marriage given the chance. It is perfectly reasonable for people to vote against her for that reason. This attempt to play the victim 'it's not fair, you're banning christians etc' is really pathetic and dishonest.
Interesting and somewhat surprising talking to colleagues today in both England and Scotland, who seemed in general to be quite positive about the way Forbes has dealt with the issue up-front. Maybe she does have a chance.
There is a sizeable minority of people who are against equal marriage. There are others for whom it's not an important issue, or who might feel that it's unlikely that the issue will be revisited so Ms Forbes's views are immaterial, or that should it be revisited she will be in the minority anyway. There's also the argument that she gave a straight (no pun intended) answer to a question, which is admirable. So I don't think her candidature is completely dead, but equally I think it's highly unlikely she will win given the balance of views among the SNP membership. As a Labour supporter I'd be happy for her to be elected.
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
I never said there should be a ban on her holding political power. In fact I have repeatedly and explicitly said there should be no ban.
What I have said is that people should vote against her. That's democracy, and if the people I support lose the vote then I would accept that, democratically.
We absolutely are a secular society. Our values have evolved from the Ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, hence some similarities to Judeo-Christianity as it evolved from the same origins too. Our values are constantly evolving and not stuck to a single book or era.
If you want to be a traditional Christian, or traditional anything else, you are perfectly entitled to do so. And you are perfectly entitled to seek office. And if you can keep your politics and religion separate, then I wouldn't hold it against you when casting my ballot, but if you can't, I'm entitled to my own beliefs just as you are.
Funnily enough, I am not a traditional Christian. Yes, I believe in God and would describe myself as Catholic but haven't been to Church since I was 12 and do not let Catholic teachings dominate my behaviour. It is more of a cultural than religious thing.
I would disagree on your points re our values come from the Greeks and Romans, and not a Judaeo-Christian tradition. A clear example is the Law. We follow Common Law, most of Europe goes for Roman. Roman Law was imposed by Napoleon - who, for all intents and purposes was an atheist and a product of the French Revolution - on these countries to precisely wipe away the influence of the Churches. That did not happen here. Another is our criminal system - the Greek and Roman systems (the latter in particular) centred on punishment, ours has more evolved to Christian concepts such as redemption.
I read your point that you say you don't want a ban but, to me, the words sound like the segregationists in the 1950s Southern states who said, of course, Black people can vote if they want, they just have to run through a gang of police with billy clubs to do so. Oh, and then after that, guess the exact number of jelly beans in that jar over there to be able to have that right. It is a nominal acceptance that such people can stand for office (if only because you realise an actual ban would look very bad) but, to all intents and purposes, your aim is an effective bar on them standing.
The Scots follow Roman Law. Just saying.
You're both wrong - and right. The Norman conquest introduced continental ideas including Roman ones to English jurisprudence. Canon law in particular helped place Roman legal concepts into English law. Most lawyers and judges in 12th century England were churchmen schooled in Canon and Civil law. This training in Roman method and principal enabled them to construct a rational, a general, a definite system of law out of the vague and conflicting mass of customs, half tribal, half feudal of which English law consisted. That became the Common Law
Where the common law was silent, or where it was defective, English jurists also drew upon Roman law. It supplied a method of reasoning upon legal matters and a power to create a technical language to describe precise rules from vague customs and individual cases.
Throughout the formative period of the English Common Law, the study of Civil and Canon directly influenced it. By imparting to the customary law of England the essence of Roman principles, English lawyers were able to constructed a system which could stand on its own.
Napoleon's code is a bit of a red herring. Yes, it is based on a lot of Roman Law, but as I say above so is English Common Law. And, as Carnyx says, Scots Law.
Cheers for the legal history lesson. So would you say our legal system is mainly secular or religious in nature, or is it stupid to think of it in this way?
It has some strong roots in Canon law, and indeed religious morality, but it's hard to argue that the religious influence has not considerably lessened over 20th and 21st centuries.
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
I imagine if a politician tried to lead a mainstream political party on a platform of abolishing all private property there would be rather more push back than Ms Forbes has received. Once again for the terminally dim: Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform. Anyone can criticise that platform and can argue against the candidate on that basis. You don't get "cancelled" because your views come out of an old book. Equally you and your views don't get a free pass. Someone whose views are far from the mainstream and would try to put those views into practice will struggle to lead a mainstream party. That doesn't mean they are cancelled. It's just democracy.
So when someone who agrees with your viewpoint says "My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected", can you work through how that matches your comment that "Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform."?
It depends what they mean. If they are talking about an actual bar then they don't share my viewpoint. If they are talking about not voting for people they disagree with then that is precisely my viewpoint. The term effective bar is I think an ambiguous one that was probably chosen mostly to wind people up, in which case job done.
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
I imagine if a politician tried to lead a mainstream political party on a platform of abolishing all private property there would be rather more push back than Ms Forbes has received. Once again for the terminally dim: Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform. Anyone can criticise that platform and can argue against the candidate on that basis. You don't get "cancelled" because your views come out of an old book. Equally you and your views don't get a free pass. Someone whose views are far from the mainstream and would try to put those views into practice will struggle to lead a mainstream party. That doesn't mean they are cancelled. It's just democracy.
So when someone who agrees with your viewpoint says "My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected", can you work through how that matches your comment that "Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform."?
The right to stand is not a guarantee of being elected.
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
I never said there should be a ban on her holding political power. In fact I have repeatedly and explicitly said there should be no ban.
What I have said is that people should vote against her. That's democracy, and if the people I support lose the vote then I would accept that, democratically.
We absolutely are a secular society. Our values have evolved from the Ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, hence some similarities to Judeo-Christianity as it evolved from the same origins too. Our values are constantly evolving and not stuck to a single book or era.
If you want to be a traditional Christian, or traditional anything else, you are perfectly entitled to do so. And you are perfectly entitled to seek office. And if you can keep your politics and religion separate, then I wouldn't hold it against you when casting my ballot, but if you can't, I'm entitled to my own beliefs just as you are.
Funnily enough, I am not a traditional Christian. Yes, I believe in God and would describe myself as Catholic but haven't been to Church since I was 12 and do not let Catholic teachings dominate my behaviour. It is more of a cultural than religious thing.
I would disagree on your points re our values come from the Greeks and Romans, and not a Judaeo-Christian tradition. A clear example is the Law. We follow Common Law, most of Europe goes for Roman. Roman Law was imposed by Napoleon - who, for all intents and purposes was an atheist and a product of the French Revolution - on these countries to precisely wipe away the influence of the Churches. That did not happen here. Another is our criminal system - the Greek and Roman systems (the latter in particular) centred on punishment, ours has more evolved to Christian concepts such as redemption.
I read your point that you say you don't want a ban but, to me, the words sound like the segregationists in the 1950s Southern states who said, of course, Black people can vote if they want, they just have to run through a gang of police with billy clubs to do so. Oh, and then after that, guess the exact number of jelly beans in that jar over there to be able to have that right. It is a nominal acceptance that such people can stand for office (if only because you realise an actual ban would look very bad) but, to all intents and purposes, your aim is an effective bar on them standing.
Criminal law in Greek democracies was essentially mob rule. Roman criminal law was a bit more sophisticated, but it was primarily concerned with maintaining order, rather than punishing criminals, or upholding the rights of the accused. The Romans took the view that torture was a very useful means of establishing the truth. Indeed, slaves could only give evidence against their masters, after having been tortured. It also depended a very great deal upon self-help.
Reading Cicero's cases, you can see that he focuses far more on attacking or promoting the character of the accused, and the witnesses against him, than he does on what the law actually says. At one point, he argued that only second-rate advocates were bothered about the letter of the law.
Both our criminal justice system, and its continental equivalents are a good deal more sophisticated and humane than anything the Greeks or Romans came up with. A lot of what we take for granted, such as banning the use of hearsay evidence, requiring judges who have an interest in the outcome of a case to recuse themselves, granting the accused the right to cross-examine witnesses, the presumption of innocence, privilege against self-incrimination, derive from the practices of medieval ecclesiastical courts.
Where Roman law had much more of an impact is in fields like trusts and contract.
One interesting aspect of The Oresteia - that great drama of Athenian democracy - is the way it charts across its three plays the progression from acts of personal vengeance to judicial process.
Sadly, the Athenians did not follow its message.
In the closing stages of the Pelopennesian war, the Athenians won a big naval victory at Arginoussae. Unfortunately, a storm suddenly sank several Athenian warships. The successful Athenian commanders were put on trial before the Athenian assembly, for having failed to rescue sailors on the foundering ships. The assembly voted to condemn all ten of them to death, en bloc. Socrates argued that every one of the men was entitled to be tried individually, the counter-argument (which prevailed) being that the law was whatever the assembly said it was.
Almost every Athenian statesman ended up being executed or exiled, on trumped-up charges.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
Shamima Begum blocked from returning to the UK, oh well. Hope we can block all of the other jihadists as well, joining ISIS is a one way trip, no comfortable jail cell and potential to radicalise inmates for them.
The Kurds should just shoot her and have done with it.
I can’t agree with that. Sorry. That’s outrageous
We should pay for the bullet
The various groups hostile to ISIS (including the Kurds) have agreed not to try her, or get hold of her to try, at the behest of the UK government.
She should just crowdsource the money to pay people smugglers. She'd be impossible to deport and very difficult to convict once she was here. I'd chip in a hundred quid.
I'd chip in the extra so she ends up in Yazzidi territory. They can try her.
I see Hague and Blair think they can transform the economy. The ideas aren’t wrong, but whether this gets any traction is questionable. And it does prompt the question of why they didn’t have such revelations when active politicians.
That’s an awful lot of words to say that they basically think China is brilliant, and they want to emulate China in the UK, starting with the “Digital ID” and working from there. Klaus Schwab would be proud of their political nous, to dance around the questions of privacy and personal autonomy.
They didn’t do this when they were active politicians, because they knew they’d be kicked out of office the minute they tried it.
At a time when China’s economic performance is becoming distinctly mediocre.
Interesting comments from Kyocera on this (it's a free link)
Feels like we are entering another one of those great power showdowns, with Russia playing the Habsburgs to the Chinese Kaiser. Always dangerous when a rising power starts to slow down economically after decades of astronomical growth. They tend to start focusing on projecting military and diplomatic power instead.
Looking back through history it happened several times. Places like Rome or Venice grew rapidly through mercantilism then turned military and expansionist once the initial growth spurt levelled off. Britain really got going on the empire once its early head start in industrialisation got chipped away at, the US only went fully military during and after WW2 after decades of economic catch-up. There are exceptions of course like Napoleonic France or the Ottomans, but there certainly seems to be a common pattern.
Ukraine feels like one of those moments when one power goes into inexorable decline while another rises. China has so far stayed out but I fancy it will start to intervene more and more if it looks like Russia is losing. That would be very bad news for Ukrainians.
I'm not sure what China has to gain here. So long as the west makes it clear (Europe in particular) that supporting the blatant aggressor that is resorting to terrorist methods in a major European war will have severe economic consequences for them I suspect they will stay out. Of course they could be more belligerent and Europe weaker than we might think.
It seems to me China’s main focus is the global south and in that focus it has a real interest in an impression of the US and NATO something less than a hegemonic power. I think it is becoming clear that ‘the West’ has a lot of work to do if it is to retain its legitimacy as a model of development for others to follow. In that sense a stalemate in Ukraine would fit well with China’s political interests in my view.
I see Hague and Blair think they can transform the economy. The ideas aren’t wrong, but whether this gets any traction is questionable. And it does prompt the question of why they didn’t have such revelations when active politicians.
That’s an awful lot of words to say that they basically think China is brilliant, and they want to emulate China in the UK, starting with the “Digital ID” and working from there. Klaus Schwab would be proud of their political nous, to dance around the questions of privacy and personal autonomy.
They didn’t do this when they were active politicians, because they knew they’d be kicked out of office the minute they tried it.
At a time when China’s economic performance is becoming distinctly mediocre.
Interesting comments from Kyocera on this (it's a free link)
Feels like we are entering another one of those great power showdowns, with Russia playing the Habsburgs to the Chinese Kaiser. Always dangerous when a rising power starts to slow down economically after decades of astronomical growth. They tend to start focusing on projecting military and diplomatic power instead.
Looking back through history it happened several times. Places like Rome or Venice grew rapidly through mercantilism then turned military and expansionist once the initial growth spurt levelled off. Britain really got going on the empire once its early head start in industrialisation got chipped away at, the US only went fully military during and after WW2 after decades of economic catch-up. There are exceptions of course like Napoleonic France or the Ottomans, but there certainly seems to be a common pattern.
Ukraine feels like one of those moments when one power goes into inexorable decline while another rises. China has so far stayed out but I fancy it will start to intervene more and more if it looks like Russia is losing. That would be very bad news for Ukrainians.
I'm not sure what China has to gain here. So long as the west makes it clear (Europe in particular) that supporting the blatant aggressor that is resorting to terrorist methods in a major European war will have severe economic consequences for them I suspect they will stay out. Of course they could be more belligerent and Europe weaker than we might think.
The doctrine of power balance I think. Russia is a useful bulwark against Western dominance of world politics (and raw materials). And an opportunity to tie down the US instead of letting it focus too much on the Far East.
They would likely be paying a major economic price, would draw the west closer together and Russia's policy in eastern European is completely counter to China's supposed respect for sovereignty. I suspect they want to preserve a pro-China government in Moscow but we'll see.
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
I imagine if a politician tried to lead a mainstream political party on a platform of abolishing all private property there would be rather more push back than Ms Forbes has received. Once again for the terminally dim: Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform. Anyone can criticise that platform and can argue against the candidate on that basis. You don't get "cancelled" because your views come out of an old book. Equally you and your views don't get a free pass. Someone whose views are far from the mainstream and would try to put those views into practice will struggle to lead a mainstream party. That doesn't mean they are cancelled. It's just democracy.
So when someone who agrees with your viewpoint says "My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected", can you work through how that matches your comment that "Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform."?
Anyone can stand (usually need to be a member and meet a threshold of backers in the party). People who don't want them getting elected vote against them, people who do want them elected vote for them. Add up the votes and see who wins. The winner will generally represent the memberships views and values.
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
I never said there should be a ban on her holding political power. In fact I have repeatedly and explicitly said there should be no ban.
What I have said is that people should vote against her. That's democracy, and if the people I support lose the vote then I would accept that, democratically.
We absolutely are a secular society. Our values have evolved from the Ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, hence some similarities to Judeo-Christianity as it evolved from the same origins too. Our values are constantly evolving and not stuck to a single book or era.
If you want to be a traditional Christian, or traditional anything else, you are perfectly entitled to do so. And you are perfectly entitled to seek office. And if you can keep your politics and religion separate, then I wouldn't hold it against you when casting my ballot, but if you can't, I'm entitled to my own beliefs just as you are.
Funnily enough, I am not a traditional Christian. Yes, I believe in God and would describe myself as Catholic but haven't been to Church since I was 12 and do not let Catholic teachings dominate my behaviour. It is more of a cultural than religious thing.
I would disagree on your points re our values come from the Greeks and Romans, and not a Judaeo-Christian tradition. A clear example is the Law. We follow Common Law, most of Europe goes for Roman. Roman Law was imposed by Napoleon - who, for all intents and purposes was an atheist and a product of the French Revolution - on these countries to precisely wipe away the influence of the Churches. That did not happen here. Another is our criminal system - the Greek and Roman systems (the latter in particular) centred on punishment, ours has more evolved to Christian concepts such as redemption.
I read your point that you say you don't want a ban but, to me, the words sound like the segregationists in the 1950s Southern states who said, of course, Black people can vote if they want, they just have to run through a gang of police with billy clubs to do so. Oh, and then after that, guess the exact number of jelly beans in that jar over there to be able to have that right. It is a nominal acceptance that such people can stand for office (if only because you realise an actual ban would look very bad) but, to all intents and purposes, your aim is an effective bar on them standing.
Criminal law in Greek democracies was essentially mob rule. Roman criminal law was a bit more sophisticated, but it was primarily concerned with maintaining order, rather than punishing criminals, or upholding the rights of the accused. The Romans took the view that torture was a very useful means of establishing the truth. Indeed, slaves could only give evidence against their masters, after having been tortured. It also depended a very great deal upon self-help.
Reading Cicero's cases, you can see that he focuses far more on attacking or promoting the character of the accused, and the witnesses against him, than he does on what the law actually says. At one point, he argued that only second-rate advocates were bothered about the letter of the law.
Both our criminal justice system, and its continental equivalents are a good deal more sophisticated and humane than anything the Greeks or Romans came up with. A lot of what we take for granted, such as banning the use of hearsay evidence, requiring judges who have an interest in the outcome of a case to recuse themselves, granting the accused the right to cross-examine witnesses, the presumption of innocence, privilege against self-incrimination, derive from the practices of medieval ecclesiastical courts.
Where Roman law had much more of an impact is in fields like trusts and contract.
One interesting aspect of The Oresteia - that great drama of Athenian democracy - is the way it charts across its three plays the progression from acts of personal vengeance to judicial process.
Sadly, the Athenians did not follow its message.
In the closing stages of the Pelopennesian war, the Athenians won a big naval victory at Arginoussae. Unfortunately, a storm suddenly sank several Athenian warships. The successful Athenian commanders were put on trial before the Athenian assembly, for having failed to rescue sailors on the foundering ships. The assembly voted to condemn all ten of them to death, en bloc. Socrates argued that every one of the men was entitled to be tried individually, the counter-argument (which prevailed) being that the law was whatever the assembly said it was.
Almost every Athenian statesman ended up being executed or exiled, on trumped-up charges.
IIRC the trial of the commanders was used as a precedent by the 30 tyrants for their "trials" of those they wished to eliminate.
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
I've never understood why prosecutions for treason are so rare. Perhaps it's because there's a reluctance to accept that the State has a claim on its' citizens loyalty.
Mr. F, treason law was changed by Jack Straw in the late 1990s. I forget the specifics, beyond ending capital punishment, but it might be so narrowly defined it's of little use most of the time.
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
Had the near Marxist Corbyn been up against an evangelical Christian Conservative leader in 2017 rather than the small c Church of England Theresa May then Corbyn may well have won
He didn't do very well against devout Catholic Johnson though, did he?
Johnson was a social liberal, not a member of Opus Dei!
I see Hague and Blair think they can transform the economy. The ideas aren’t wrong, but whether this gets any traction is questionable. And it does prompt the question of why they didn’t have such revelations when active politicians.
That’s an awful lot of words to say that they basically think China is brilliant, and they want to emulate China in the UK, starting with the “Digital ID” and working from there. Klaus Schwab would be proud of their political nous, to dance around the questions of privacy and personal autonomy.
They didn’t do this when they were active politicians, because they knew they’d be kicked out of office the minute they tried it.
At a time when China’s economic performance is becoming distinctly mediocre.
Interesting comments from Kyocera on this (it's a free link)
Feels like we are entering another one of those great power showdowns, with Russia playing the Habsburgs to the Chinese Kaiser. Always dangerous when a rising power starts to slow down economically after decades of astronomical growth. They tend to start focusing on projecting military and diplomatic power instead.
Looking back through history it happened several times. Places like Rome or Venice grew rapidly through mercantilism then turned military and expansionist once the initial growth spurt levelled off. Britain really got going on the empire once its early head start in industrialisation got chipped away at, the US only went fully military during and after WW2 after decades of economic catch-up. There are exceptions of course like Napoleonic France or the Ottomans, but there certainly seems to be a common pattern.
Ukraine feels like one of those moments when one power goes into inexorable decline while another rises. China has so far stayed out but I fancy it will start to intervene more and more if it looks like Russia is losing. That would be very bad news for Ukrainians.
I'm not sure what China has to gain here. So long as the west makes it clear (Europe in particular) that supporting the blatant aggressor that is resorting to terrorist methods in a major European war will have severe economic consequences for them I suspect they will stay out. Of course they could be more belligerent and Europe weaker than we might think.
The doctrine of power balance I think. Russia is a useful bulwark against Western dominance of world politics (and raw materials). And an opportunity to tie down the US instead of letting it focus too much on the Far East.
They would likely be paying a major economic price, would draw the west closer together and Russia's policy in eastern European is completely counter to China's supposed respect for sovereignty. I suspect they want to preserve a pro-China government in Moscow but we'll see.
Imagine the despair in Beijing if Russia ends up with one of those "colour revolutions" they so despise. And Belarus.
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
I imagine if a politician tried to lead a mainstream political party on a platform of abolishing all private property there would be rather more push back than Ms Forbes has received. Once again for the terminally dim: Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform. Anyone can criticise that platform and can argue against the candidate on that basis. You don't get "cancelled" because your views come out of an old book. Equally you and your views don't get a free pass. Someone whose views are far from the mainstream and would try to put those views into practice will struggle to lead a mainstream party. That doesn't mean they are cancelled. It's just democracy.
So when someone who agrees with your viewpoint says "My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected", can you work through how that matches your comment that "Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform."?
Anyone can stand (usually need to be a member and meet a threshold of backers in the party). People who don't want them getting elected vote against them, people who do want them elected vote for them. Add up the votes and see who wins. The winner will generally represent the memberships views and values.
Hope this helps.
I would add that if a gay politician stood on a platform of banning Christians from marrying each other I would also be against that but would look forward to Kemi Badenoch admiring their honesty.
What if a politician said their faith meant they would vote for a return to the traditional form marriage where a married woman had no rights to own their own stuff, make their own contracts? It's supported by the bible eg: “Wives submit yourselves unto your husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.” — Ephesians 5:22–5 In France a married woman could only take a job without their husband's permission after 1965.
Or what about a politician who said their religious faith meant they would vote to allow men to have four wives?
Or a politician who said they belonged to a faith community that found mixed-race marriages immoral and would have to vote to make them illegal as a matter of conscience?
Would criticism of those politicians also be unacceptable to those who claim that Kate Forbes is being 'banned' for her religious beliefs? Would they be praised for their honesty if they made those views clear?
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
I imagine if a politician tried to lead a mainstream political party on a platform of abolishing all private property there would be rather more push back than Ms Forbes has received. Once again for the terminally dim: Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform. Anyone can criticise that platform and can argue against the candidate on that basis. You don't get "cancelled" because your views come out of an old book. Equally you and your views don't get a free pass. Someone whose views are far from the mainstream and would try to put those views into practice will struggle to lead a mainstream party. That doesn't mean they are cancelled. It's just democracy.
So when someone who agrees with your viewpoint says "My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected", can you work through how that matches your comment that "Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform."?
Anyone can stand (usually need to be a member and meet a threshold of backers in the party). People who don't want them getting elected vote against them, people who do want them elected vote for them. Add up the votes and see who wins. The winner will generally represent the memberships views and values.
Hope this helps.
It does for you. But clearly not all share your liberalism on this.
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.
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.
Why should she separate her politics from her religion?
Because she's a politician seeking to be elected in a secular society and people will quite appropriately vote against her if she's incapable of doing so.
There is no ban on her expressing whatever views she wants, just as there's no ban on myself and most others finding such views unacceptable and voting accordingly. That too is democracy, and it too is all fine.
You are trying to twist out of LuckyGuy's point. Sure, you are saying there is no ban on her expressing her views but you are saying there should be a ban on her holding political power. That is a different standard to what you apply to yourself.
We are also not a secular society. Yes, we don't go to the Church and plenty of people are happy to say they are atheist or agnostic. However, our values are very much based on the Judaeo-Christian system and religion runs through the centre of the way that we think about our politics and how they should be conducted.
I never said there should be a ban on her holding political power. In fact I have repeatedly and explicitly said there should be no ban.
What I have said is that people should vote against her. That's democracy, and if the people I support lose the vote then I would accept that, democratically.
We absolutely are a secular society. Our values have evolved from the Ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, hence some similarities to Judeo-Christianity as it evolved from the same origins too. Our values are constantly evolving and not stuck to a single book or era.
If you want to be a traditional Christian, or traditional anything else, you are perfectly entitled to do so. And you are perfectly entitled to seek office. And if you can keep your politics and religion separate, then I wouldn't hold it against you when casting my ballot, but if you can't, I'm entitled to my own beliefs just as you are.
Funnily enough, I am not a traditional Christian. Yes, I believe in God and would describe myself as Catholic but haven't been to Church since I was 12 and do not let Catholic teachings dominate my behaviour. It is more of a cultural than religious thing.
I would disagree on your points re our values come from the Greeks and Romans, and not a Judaeo-Christian tradition. A clear example is the Law. We follow Common Law, most of Europe goes for Roman. Roman Law was imposed by Napoleon - who, for all intents and purposes was an atheist and a product of the French Revolution - on these countries to precisely wipe away the influence of the Churches. That did not happen here. Another is our criminal system - the Greek and Roman systems (the latter in particular) centred on punishment, ours has more evolved to Christian concepts such as redemption.
I read your point that you say you don't want a ban but, to me, the words sound like the segregationists in the 1950s Southern states who said, of course, Black people can vote if they want, they just have to run through a gang of police with billy clubs to do so. Oh, and then after that, guess the exact number of jelly beans in that jar over there to be able to have that right. It is a nominal acceptance that such people can stand for office (if only because you realise an actual ban would look very bad) but, to all intents and purposes, your aim is an effective bar on them standing.
Utter hogwash.
I am saying that if someone wishes to use the law in a way I don't see fit, then I will vote against them, democratically, and hope others of their own free will do the same.
You are comparing that with barriers to prevent others from casting their own ballot.
My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected, so long as my views prevail democratically, yes of course it is. That is democracy, we cast our votes to see that which we want to get elected. If I lose the vote, that's democracy too.
I am in no ways doing anything wrong in casting my vote against someone who represents that which I abhor.
"My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected"
Which is exactly what the Segregationists did in the South in the 50s when it came to ensuring Blacks didn't have the vote. Only in your case it's not the cops with billy clubs, it's the weight of public censure. Same intention though.
Cheers for proving my point.
No it is not.
The Segregationists didn't seek to outvote the blacks, they sought to stop the blacks from voting.
The "weight of public censure" is democracy. Perfectly legitimate.
I see Hague and Blair think they can transform the economy. The ideas aren’t wrong, but whether this gets any traction is questionable. And it does prompt the question of why they didn’t have such revelations when active politicians.
That’s an awful lot of words to say that they basically think China is brilliant, and they want to emulate China in the UK, starting with the “Digital ID” and working from there. Klaus Schwab would be proud of their political nous, to dance around the questions of privacy and personal autonomy.
They didn’t do this when they were active politicians, because they knew they’d be kicked out of office the minute they tried it.
At a time when China’s economic performance is becoming distinctly mediocre.
Interesting comments from Kyocera on this (it's a free link)
Feels like we are entering another one of those great power showdowns, with Russia playing the Habsburgs to the Chinese Kaiser. Always dangerous when a rising power starts to slow down economically after decades of astronomical growth. They tend to start focusing on projecting military and diplomatic power instead.
Looking back through history it happened several times. Places like Rome or Venice grew rapidly through mercantilism then turned military and expansionist once the initial growth spurt levelled off. Britain really got going on the empire once its early head start in industrialisation got chipped away at, the US only went fully military during and after WW2 after decades of economic catch-up. There are exceptions of course like Napoleonic France or the Ottomans, but there certainly seems to be a common pattern.
Ukraine feels like one of those moments when one power goes into inexorable decline while another rises. China has so far stayed out but I fancy it will start to intervene more and more if it looks like Russia is losing. That would be very bad news for Ukrainians.
I'm not sure what China has to gain here. So long as the west makes it clear (Europe in particular) that supporting the blatant aggressor that is resorting to terrorist methods in a major European war will have severe economic consequences for them I suspect they will stay out. Of course they could be more belligerent and Europe weaker than we might think.
The doctrine of power balance I think. Russia is a useful bulwark against Western dominance of world politics (and raw materials). And an opportunity to tie down the US instead of letting it focus too much on the Far East.
Possibly it is a sign also that China thinks Russia is in danger of a collapse and needs support. It would be interesting to know what the Chinese view is of a Russia that breaks apart.
If I commit a murder abroad, why shouldn't I have my citizenship stripped? Not our problem right?
This sets such a bad precedent.
It's a stupid, dangerous hack to get around -
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason. - It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
The question is what do you do? The stripping of citizenship seems absurd. Isn't it based on the theoretical idea that she could apply for Bangladeshi citizenship? Do we honestly think they would take her? Is this not going to make it more difficult for us to get rid of foreign criminals as countries say we're not interested?
'THE chairman of the "council" that made headlines accusing Humza Yousaf of breaking the ministerial code is also the president of a Scottish Conservative group, The National can reveal.'
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
I imagine if a politician tried to lead a mainstream political party on a platform of abolishing all private property there would be rather more push back than Ms Forbes has received. Once again for the terminally dim: Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform. Anyone can criticise that platform and can argue against the candidate on that basis. You don't get "cancelled" because your views come out of an old book. Equally you and your views don't get a free pass. Someone whose views are far from the mainstream and would try to put those views into practice will struggle to lead a mainstream party. That doesn't mean they are cancelled. It's just democracy.
So when someone who agrees with your viewpoint says "My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected", can you work through how that matches your comment that "Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform."?
It depends what they mean. If they are talking about an actual bar then they don't share my viewpoint. If they are talking about not voting for people they disagree with then that is precisely my viewpoint. The term effective bar is I think an ambiguous one that was probably chosen mostly to wind people up, in which case job done.
Brutal. How much more of this can the Tories take before they go nuclear? By that I mean reinstall proven election winner Boris Johnson. What have they got to lose?
Actually, there are the green shoots of Tory recovery here
Yes yes, they are faint, like the first tips of crocuses in February, but they are there. The descent to the low-mid teens has slowed discernibly, and the chances of the Tories being overtaken in MPs by the Hare Krishna Party are now almost negligible
I see Hague and Blair think they can transform the economy. The ideas aren’t wrong, but whether this gets any traction is questionable. And it does prompt the question of why they didn’t have such revelations when active politicians.
That’s an awful lot of words to say that they basically think China is brilliant, and they want to emulate China in the UK, starting with the “Digital ID” and working from there. Klaus Schwab would be proud of their political nous, to dance around the questions of privacy and personal autonomy.
They didn’t do this when they were active politicians, because they knew they’d be kicked out of office the minute they tried it.
At a time when China’s economic performance is becoming distinctly mediocre.
Interesting comments from Kyocera on this (it's a free link)
Feels like we are entering another one of those great power showdowns, with Russia playing the Habsburgs to the Chinese Kaiser. Always dangerous when a rising power starts to slow down economically after decades of astronomical growth. They tend to start focusing on projecting military and diplomatic power instead.
Looking back through history it happened several times. Places like Rome or Venice grew rapidly through mercantilism then turned military and expansionist once the initial growth spurt levelled off. Britain really got going on the empire once its early head start in industrialisation got chipped away at, the US only went fully military during and after WW2 after decades of economic catch-up. There are exceptions of course like Napoleonic France or the Ottomans, but there certainly seems to be a common pattern.
Ukraine feels like one of those moments when one power goes into inexorable decline while another rises. China has so far stayed out but I fancy it will start to intervene more and more if it looks like Russia is losing. That would be very bad news for Ukrainians.
I'm not sure what China has to gain here. So long as the west makes it clear (Europe in particular) that supporting the blatant aggressor that is resorting to terrorist methods in a major European war will have severe economic consequences for them I suspect they will stay out. Of course they could be more belligerent and Europe weaker than we might think.
It seems to me China’s main focus is the global south and in that focus it has a real interest in an impression of the US and NATO something less than a hegemonic power. I think it is becoming clear that ‘the West’ has a lot of work to do if it is to retain its legitimacy as a model of development for others to follow. In that sense a stalemate in Ukraine would fit well with China’s political interests in my view.
A stalemate would be better for them than a western victory but the key is to make sure that the price for China getting involved is higher than any gain.
Obvuously most of that REF vote will fall back into the Tories but not all of it, some will move across to the abstention party.
The Con-LD gap of 13% (22-9) is the lowest I can remember for some time too. At the last election it was 43.6-11.5=32.1%. From 32 to 13%. We tend to forget that the Lib Dems achieved a pretty good vote share in 2019 and were the biggest risers from 2017, yet did very badly in seats. Almost entirely due to the strong Tory vote. Quite conceivable the party could drop a couple of percent in vote share come 2024 yet gain a dozen or more seats.
Tim SMASHING it in the old remorseless logic department. Notable what an easy ride Marxism gets in the British press.
I imagine if a politician tried to lead a mainstream political party on a platform of abolishing all private property there would be rather more push back than Ms Forbes has received. Once again for the terminally dim: Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform. Anyone can criticise that platform and can argue against the candidate on that basis. You don't get "cancelled" because your views come out of an old book. Equally you and your views don't get a free pass. Someone whose views are far from the mainstream and would try to put those views into practice will struggle to lead a mainstream party. That doesn't mean they are cancelled. It's just democracy.
So when someone who agrees with your viewpoint says "My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected", can you work through how that matches your comment that "Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform."?
Anyone can stand (usually need to be a member and meet a threshold of backers in the party). People who don't want them getting elected vote against them, people who do want them elected vote for them. Add up the votes and see who wins. The winner will generally represent the memberships views and values.
Hope this helps.
It does for you. But clearly not all share your liberalism on this.
You seem to be asking for members to ignore not merely someones religion (which I think they should) but also their political beliefs and views on key legislation simply because they derive from religion.
This is obviously going to be unacceptable and has no basis in logic or how democratic politics work.
Comments
https://on.ft.com/3YRKnwZ
Liverpool = Tories
So many plans are dependent on this.
Some of us are about to enter that timeframe where free cancellation of our hotel rooms window expires.
REMAIN = 56%
LEAVE = 44%
Cameron lost some Tory members to UKIP when he backed gay marriage in 2013 but he still was re elected PM at the 2015 general election with a majority despite UKIP getting 12% of the vote
Bus driver Evans in the dock: I spotted the **** and just saw blue!
I am saying that if someone wishes to use the law in a way I don't see fit, then I will vote against them, democratically, and hope others of their own free will do the same.
You are comparing that with barriers to prevent others from casting their own ballot.
My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected, so long as my views prevail democratically, yes of course it is. That is democracy, we cast our votes to see that which we want to get elected. If I lose the vote, that's democracy too.
I am in no ways doing anything wrong in casting my vote against someone who represents that which I abhor.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=mOSoy0U8UJs
Definitely a trading bet.
Nonsense from the govt to think 2% can work.
The solution is, IMO, degrade the pension benefits to match the private sector and uprate the wages likewise. That gives people money in their pocket today and even at an 8% per year contribution with the minimum legally allowable amount it still adds up over a 45 year career. The government are missing a trick by not pushing that 8% up to 12% (8% and 4%) as it solves the future pension income crisis for the millennial generation and below and it will boost investment culture among younger generations who will have hundreds of thousands in equity markets when they retire.
Looking back through history it happened several times. Places like Rome or Venice grew rapidly through mercantilism then turned military and expansionist once the initial growth spurt levelled off. Britain really got going on the empire once its early head start in industrialisation got chipped away at, the US only went fully military during and after WW2 after decades of economic catch-up. There are exceptions of course like Napoleonic France or the Ottomans, but there certainly seems to be a common pattern.
Ukraine feels like one of those moments when one power goes into inexorable decline while another rises. China has so far stayed out but I fancy it will start to intervene more and more if it looks like Russia is losing. That would be very bad news for Ukrainians.
She may be a celebrity terrorist, and unrepentant, but she was a groomed child but she should have the right to due legal process.
She should be tried for her crimes and punished accordingly.
Which is exactly what the Segregationists did in the South in the 50s when it came to ensuring Blacks didn't have the vote. Only in your case it's not the cops with billy clubs, it's the weight of public censure. Same intention though.
Cheers for proving my point.
How can it be that the judges have disagreed with me?
Supposition: how one sits to drink
Where the common law was silent, or where it was defective, English jurists also drew upon Roman law. It supplied a method of reasoning upon legal matters and a power to create a technical language to describe precise rules from vague customs and individual cases.
Throughout the formative period of the English Common Law, the study of Civil and Canon directly influenced it. By imparting to the customary law of England the essence of Roman principles, English lawyers were able to constructed a system which could stand on its own.
Napoleon's code is a bit of a red herring. Yes, it is based on a lot of Roman Law, but as I say above so is English Common Law. And, as Carnyx says, Scots Law.
As for the idea that English criminal law focused on redemption....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Code
Reading Cicero's cases, you can see that he focuses far more on attacking or promoting the character of the accused, and the witnesses against him, than he does on what the law actually says. At one point, he argued that only second-rate advocates were bothered about the letter of the law.
Both our criminal justice system, and its continental equivalents are a good deal more sophisticated and humane than anything the Greeks or Romans came up with. A lot of what we take for granted, such as banning the use of hearsay evidence, requiring judges who have an interest in the outcome of a case to recuse themselves, granting the accused the right to cross-examine witnesses, the presumption of innocence, privilege against self-incrimination, derive from the practices of medieval ecclesiastical courts.
Where Roman law had much more of an impact is in fields like trusts and contract.
Once again for the terminally dim:
Anyone can stand for any political job on any platform.
Anyone can criticise that platform and can argue against the candidate on that basis.
You don't get "cancelled" because your views come out of an old book. Equally you and your views don't get a free pass.
Someone whose views are far from the mainstream and would try to put those views into practice will struggle to lead a mainstream party. That doesn't mean they are cancelled. It's just democracy.
Jeez, talk about absurd attempts to play the victim.
What lies behind this?
We should pay for the bullet
"My aim is an effective bar on them getting elected"
The methods by which he aims to do so may be different and less physically brutal but the aim is the same. And I am also surprised that, in a society where mental illness is apparently far more seriously taken, we still the view that piling onto someone publicly for their religious views and ridiculing them is absolutely fine. Seems like a disconnect in the logic there.
FWIW, I find Farron an interesting case. His voting record isn't really consistent with his individual faith, supporting his argument that he's a liberal first, but also not fully consistent with acceptance and support of homosexuality. He has, when pressed, made a liberal case for protecting people of faith from being compelled to do things they consider wrong and there is an argument there, although I do disagree with him on much of it.
The main (political) issue was that he dealt with the questions very badly, squirming and avoiding rather than being a bit more uprfront, as he was eventually forced to be. Forbes has been more direct and honest and I do respect that, even though I disagree with her views.
This sets such a bad precedent.
Bernie Sanders @ 259-1 for £5
Sanders, who himself is 81, has said that he would not challenge Biden in a primary. But he had not ruled out a run in 2024 in the event there was an open presidential primary. Sanders’ former campaign co-chair, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif), told POLITICO that Sanders “is preparing to run if Biden doesn’t,” adding he’d support Sanders in such a scenario.
Has Yousaf converted from the Muslim faith recently? Now, that could be risky.
- It's apparently impossible to try people for treason.
- It's apparently rude to try people from sub-national groups as war criminals.
On the last point - I was told this, by a human rights lawyer when I suggested it. The horror with which the suggestion was greeted was interesting - The laws of war are actually quite clear on the applicability.
Perhaps it relates to another story I heard. The story goes that a group of victims of terrorism in NI was raising money etc - their plan was to imitate war crimes proceedings (Hague etc) against various of the paramilitaries. This was stamped on very hard by the government.
In the closing stages of the Pelopennesian war, the Athenians won a big naval victory at Arginoussae. Unfortunately, a storm suddenly sank several Athenian warships. The successful Athenian commanders were put on trial before the Athenian assembly, for having failed to rescue sailors on the foundering ships. The assembly voted to condemn all ten of them to death, en bloc. Socrates argued that every one of the men was entitled to be tried individually, the counter-argument (which prevailed) being that the law was whatever the assembly said it was.
Almost every Athenian statesman ended up being executed or exiled, on trumped-up charges.
People who don't want them getting elected vote against them, people who do want them elected vote for them.
Add up the votes and see who wins.
The winner will generally represent the memberships views and values.
Hope this helps.
LAB: 50% (+3)
CON: 22% (-2)
LDEM: 9% (-1)
REF: 7% (+1)
GRN: 6% (-)
via
@YouGov
, 14 - 15 Feb
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1628357677481967618?s=20
LLG 65%, REFCON 29%
It's supported by the bible eg:
“Wives submit yourselves unto your husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.” — Ephesians 5:22–5
In France a married woman could only take a job without their husband's permission after 1965.
Or what about a politician who said their religious faith meant they would vote to allow men to have four wives?
Or a politician who said they belonged to a faith community that found mixed-race marriages immoral and would have to vote to make them illegal as a matter of conscience?
Would criticism of those politicians also be unacceptable to those who claim that Kate Forbes is being 'banned' for her religious beliefs? Would they be praised for their honesty if they made those views clear?
The Segregationists didn't seek to outvote the blacks, they sought to stop the blacks from voting.
The "weight of public censure" is democracy. Perfectly legitimate.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19726991.indian-council-scotland-leaders-attacking-humza-yousaf-scottish-tory-allies/
'THE chairman of the "council" that made headlines accusing Humza Yousaf of breaking the ministerial code is also the president of a Scottish Conservative group, The National can reveal.'
Hard to read into anyone's thoughts.
Yes yes, they are faint, like the first tips of crocuses in February, but they are there. The descent to the low-mid teens has slowed discernibly, and the chances of the Tories being overtaken in MPs by the Hare Krishna Party are now almost negligible
The Con-LD gap of 13% (22-9) is the lowest I can remember for some time too. At the last election it was 43.6-11.5=32.1%. From 32 to 13%. We tend to forget that the Lib Dems achieved a pretty good vote share in 2019 and were the biggest risers from 2017, yet did very badly in seats. Almost entirely due to the strong Tory vote. Quite conceivable the party could drop a couple of percent in vote share come 2024 yet gain a dozen or more seats.
This is obviously going to be unacceptable and has no basis in logic or how democratic politics work.