The 5 missions - Secure the highest sustained growth in G7 - Build an NHS fit for future - Make Britain’s streets safe - Break down barriers to opportunity at every stage - Make Britain a clean energy superpower Detail today will b on econ & clean energy
I look forward to the last because on current plans we are going to get nowhere near net zero by 2050.
Christ alone knows how we'll get the US, China and India - that pump out more than 50% of global emissions- to do the same.
We may well not be able to but the least we can do is try to set an example. “The big boys won’t do it so why should we?” doesn’t cut it as a reason not to.
I didn't argue we should not do so, and I agree we should set an example.
Please read my posts properly for what I actually said rather than what you infer I must have meant.
Not much chance of that happening with the frothers on here, they are blinkered and show their ignorance constantly.
Hello Malky, bit like Largs beach, isn't it? Nice sunny day for a slider from Nardini's on the beach, though.
The 5 missions - Secure the highest sustained growth in G7 - Build an NHS fit for future - Make Britain’s streets safe - Break down barriers to opportunity at every stage - Make Britain a clean energy superpower Detail today will b on econ & clean energy
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
The 5 missions - Secure the highest sustained growth in G7 - Build an NHS fit for future - Make Britain’s streets safe - Break down barriers to opportunity at every stage - Make Britain a clean energy superpower Detail today will b on econ & clean energy
The equines are closer than some on PB like to think.
But NB voodoo poll. In particular, this is *not* confined to subscribers of the National, so far as I can tell, with all that that implies (but as I am one, I can't be sure - if you aren;t and find you can't enter, please say so).
I was able to vote in that. There is a lot of brigading going on across the various indy blogs.
I think it will be closer than the current media narrative would suggest, with the SNP membership older than you'd expect. But I still think the last few days irrecoverable for Forbes.
The equines are closer than some on PB like to think.
But NB voodoo poll. In particular, this is *not* confined to subscribers of the National, so far as I can tell, with all that that implies (but as I am one, I can't be sure - if you aren;t and find you can't enter, please say so).
I was able to vote in that. There is a lot of brigading going on across the various indy blogs.
I think it will be closer than the current media narrative would suggest, with the SNP membership older than you'd expect. But I still think the last few days irrecoverable for Forbes.
Can you give details ? I was listening, but Starmer put me back to sleep. He will be next PM, but he is really quite boring to listen to.
Worth rewinding on the BBC Sounds…..Amol cutting through the waffle “Why should people trust you when you’ve abandoned so many of the pledges when you ran for leader?” Starmer tries to bring it back to his 5 missions, but Amol drags him back.
Just might take the heat off Forbes for a bit and refocus questions on the competence of Mr Yousaf. Forbes remains value at the current odds in my view.
Keeping tight on Forbes, long on Swinney and Robertson.
Laying Yousaf.
It really is like betting on a donkey derby.
As a founder of the Royal Society For Preventing Cruelty And Insults To Equus Asinus, could you please withdraw that remark?
Many horses regard donkeys as friends. I have not met a horse that would adopt any of the candidates as a friend.
In fairness to Malky, he wasn't advocating organising one - simply suggesting that there wasn't much else in the line of pb at present.
Mr. S, vague and meaningless is fine for Starmer. The Conservatives are busy trying to repel as many voters as possible, particularly if the rumours of the jester's machinations for a return are true.
Labour just needs to be "not those civil war lunatics" to do very well indeed.
Bit of a cavalier attitude
If Labour all sign up to a covenant or something?
I wouldn't let all the Naseby dominating the responses, it might have some positives.
Just might take the heat off Forbes for a bit and refocus questions on the competence of Mr Yousaf. Forbes remains value at the current odds in my view.
Keeping tight on Forbes, long on Swinney and Robertson.
Laying Yousaf.
It really is like betting on a donkey derby.
Bit harsh Malky.
Donkeys are hardworking and amiable, even if they're not always the brightest.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
Cold turkey or hair of the dog?
The best thing for Conservatives as a movement, an idea is to accept that things are going badly wrong. That a rethink is needed, even if the price of that is accepting a bad defeat in 2024. After all, the quicker you start the detox, the quicker it will be over.
The understandable temptation is to keep going, singing the same songs more loudly. It might work, but denial will probably make things even worse.
But it's an understandable temptation; see the way parties tend to go more extreme after losing. But it slows the swing of the pendulum. If the current crop of Conservative MPs can't bring themselves to think about what's going wrong, it makes it more likely that the next Conservative PM isn't even an MP yet.
If Labour had chosen Dennis Healey not Michael Foot in 1980 after losing power in 1979 would they have beaten Thatcher in 1983? If the Conservatives had picked Ken Clarke rather than William Hague after losing power in 1997 would they have beaten Blair in 2001? If Labour had picked David Miliband not Ed Miliband after losing power in 2010 would they have beaten David Cameron in 2015?
Probably not in each case. It might just have been a bit closer
If Labour hadn’t split, then they might well have lost 1983, still. But not the next one, probably.
Can you give details ? I was listening, but Starmer put me back to sleep. He will be next PM, but he is really quite boring to listen to.
Worth rewinding on the BBC Sounds…..Amol cutting through the waffle “Why should people trust you when you’ve abandoned so many of the pledges when you ran for leader?” Starmer tries to bring it back to his 5 missions, but Amol drags him back.
A misstep today. The second in a couple of weeks after the ridiculous expenses “expose”. New strategy team? They need to stop making unforced errors like this.
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
If you've been following my posts over the last four days you'll see I described far too many Tories as "venal self-serving bastards" and that I also said "Labour has to deliver" in office, for all our sakes.
What I'm trying to focus your party on, which is very likely to be in office in the next 20 months, is on the fundamental issues affecting Britain which haven't really been adequately addressed by either party in the last 20 years.
Not everything is a partisan ding-dong.
Your desire to present yourself as non partisan despite being anything but is always a little puzzling. You’re a Tory, currently pinning your hopes on Sunak and are intrinsically suspicious of anyone else especially Labour.
Your analysis always comes from that place, even when you’re presenting yourself as unbiased. I come from a similar albeit opposite place, that’s ok.
Your downbeat prescription and framing of problems within a 20 year window is biased. Starmer doesn’t have to solve all the world’s problems to be a significant improvement. Nor did the world’s problems start with Blair.
True - but he's struggling to make much impact during his long-form interview on R4 right now. It's devoid of detail and the Q&A is running along the lines of Q: "Having these missions is all well and good, but what are you actually going to do to achieve them?"......A: "Let me take that head on. What people want to know is not just what we want to achieve but how we will go about it; people are crying out for real change...." followed by a stream of waffle.
Hopefully Starmer is simply playing for time and won't remain someone incapable of offering any specifics.
It’s not a general election campaign. These are not campaign pledges. They are statement of high level priorities for a Labour government. All good. Everyone is impatient to get going, but the timetable is set by Sunak. We have months of him hanging on yet.
Good morning
I very much doubt anyone in the street has the slightest interest in politicians from any party making pledges or being able to name any of the pledges
As far as the next GE October 24 is 20 months away which is a lifetime in politics
The equines are closer than some on PB like to think.
But NB voodoo poll. In particular, this is *not* confined to subscribers of the National, so far as I can tell, with all that that implies (but as I am one, I can't be sure - if you aren;t and find you can't enter, please say so).
I was able to vote in that. There is a lot of brigading going on across the various indy blogs.
I think it will be closer than the current media narrative would suggest, with the SNP membership older than you'd expect. But I still think the last few days irrecoverable for Forbes.
The current voting, at 479k , is more than 10x the readership of the National
So, how do Leavers propose to take things from here? They’ve spent far too long fighting the last battle. The next one is going to require a strategic genius.
PEOPLE of faith will be reluctant to enter politics in the wake of attacks on Kate Forbes over her moral views, the Catholic Church has warned.
In a dramatic intervention, the church's spokesman in Scotland Peter Kearney said political parties had helped foster a culture of intolerance towards people's "religious orientations".
It came as one of the country's most prominent historians Sir Tom Devine said Ms Forbes should be praised for her "steadfast personal commitment" to her principles as a backlash began against criticisms of the finance secretary.
None of her critics that I have heard care what religious group she belongs to. They don't agree with her opposition to equal rights. It is totally dishonest to pretend otherwise. Disgusting tactics from the catholic church.
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
If you've been following my posts over the last four days you'll see I described far too many Tories as "venal self-serving bastards" and that I also said "Labour has to deliver" in office, for all our sakes.
What I'm trying to focus your party on, which is very likely to be in office in the next 20 months, is on the fundamental issues affecting Britain which haven't really been adequately addressed by either party in the last 20 years.
Not everything is a partisan ding-dong.
Your desire to present yourself as non partisan despite being anything but is always a little puzzling. You’re a Tory, currently pinning your hopes on Sunak and are intrinsically suspicious of anyone else especially Labour.
Your analysis always comes from that place, even when you’re presenting yourself as unbiased. I come from a similar albeit opposite place, that’s ok.
Your downbeat prescription and framing of problems within a 20 year window is biased. Starmer doesn’t have to solve all the world’s problems to be a significant improvement. Nor did the world’s problems start with Blair.
True - but he's struggling to make much impact during his long-form interview on R4 right now. It's devoid of detail and the Q&A is running along the lines of Q: "Having these missions is all well and good, but what are you actually going to do to achieve them?"......A: "Let me take that head on. What people want to know is not just what we want to achieve but how we will go about it; people are crying out for real change...." followed by a stream of waffle.
Hopefully Starmer is simply playing for time and won't remain someone incapable of offering any specifics.
Edit/ interview just finished. A masterclass in repeating over and over that people want specifics whilst being careful not to mention a single one....
I only caught the end of it, but the gist of project drive Corbynite antisemitism out of the Labour Party seemed to be that only once Starmer realised Jezza was an electoral loser did the scales fall from his eyes. He’s probably inadvertently told the truth there but he’s going to have to think up something a bit better than that as it’s a scab that will continue to be picked.
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
If you've been following my posts over the last four days you'll see I described far too many Tories as "venal self-serving bastards" and that I also said "Labour has to deliver" in office, for all our sakes.
What I'm trying to focus your party on, which is very likely to be in office in the next 20 months, is on the fundamental issues affecting Britain which haven't really been adequately addressed by either party in the last 20 years.
Not everything is a partisan ding-dong.
Your desire to present yourself as non partisan despite being anything but is always a little puzzling. You’re a Tory, currently pinning your hopes on Sunak and are intrinsically suspicious of anyone else especially Labour.
Your analysis always comes from that place, even when you’re presenting yourself as unbiased. I come from a similar albeit opposite place, that’s ok.
Your downbeat prescription and framing of problems within a 20 year window is biased. Starmer doesn’t have to solve all the world’s problems to be a significant improvement. Nor did the world’s problems start with Blair.
True - but he's struggling to make much impact during his long-form interview on R4 right now. It's devoid of detail and the Q&A is running along the lines of Q: "Having these missions is all well and good, but what are you actually going to do to achieve them?"......A: "Let me take that head on. What people want to know is not just what we want to achieve but how we will go about it; people are crying out for real change...." followed by a stream of waffle.
Hopefully Starmer is simply playing for time and won't remain someone incapable of offering any specifics.
Edit/ interview just finished. A masterclass in repeating over and over that people want specifics whilst being careful not to mention a single one....
I only caught the end of it, but the gist of project drive Corbynite antisemitism out of the Labour Party seemed to be that only once Starmer realised Jezza was an electoral loser did the scales fall from his eyes. He’s probably inadvertently told the truth there but he’s going to think up something a bit better than that as it’s a scab that will continue to be picked.
OTOH if the public want Mr Corbyn J then isn't it a democratic duty to put him in power? And vice versa.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Not sure. Christian adherents collectively are probably the largest identifiable group on the planet. Everyone knows they come in a number of different flavours. In the UK everyone who is sentient knows the churches are split on the gay issue.
No-one thinks that an group maybe 2 billion strong will think the same about things.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
Indeed. I had some respect for Forbes in being open and honest about her views, even while they likely sank her chances of winning the leadership.
But, assuming she approved her spokesperson's comments (and there has been no public statement otherwise, as far as I'm aware) then she's either thick (doesn't understand how bonkers that argument is) or a thoroughly nasty piece of work (intentionally playing the Christian victim while stirring up ideas that people of other faiths are treated preferentially).
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
If you've been following my posts over the last four days you'll see I described far too many Tories as "venal self-serving bastards" and that I also said "Labour has to deliver" in office, for all our sakes.
What I'm trying to focus your party on, which is very likely to be in office in the next 20 months, is on the fundamental issues affecting Britain which haven't really been adequately addressed by either party in the last 20 years.
Not everything is a partisan ding-dong.
Your desire to present yourself as non partisan despite being anything but is always a little puzzling. You’re a Tory, currently pinning your hopes on Sunak and are intrinsically suspicious of anyone else especially Labour.
Your analysis always comes from that place, even when you’re presenting yourself as unbiased. I come from a similar albeit opposite place, that’s ok.
Your downbeat prescription and framing of problems within a 20 year window is biased. Starmer doesn’t have to solve all the world’s problems to be a significant improvement. Nor did the world’s problems start with Blair.
Casino has never pretended to be non partisan. I disagree with him vehemently on a lot of stuff (and haven’t voted Tory since the 1980s, FWIW) but I agree with what he’s saying here.
To take a couple of examples, the failure over the last two decades to invest in energy infrastructure, and the post Brexit abandonment of vehicle manufacturing. The second of those is a particularly strong example. I think he’s a fool for voting for Brexit, and we’ve been quite rude to each other on occasion, but we’re nonetheless able to agree on that.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Not sure. Christian adherents collectively are probably the largest identifiable group on the planet. Everyone knows they come in a number of different flavours. In the UK everyone who is sentient knows the churches are split on the gay issue.
No-one thinks that an group maybe 2 billion strong will think the same about things.
Maybe someone should tell Forbes, and those supporting the completely crackers "christians are being barred from office" line.
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
If you've been following my posts over the last four days you'll see I described far too many Tories as "venal self-serving bastards" and that I also said "Labour has to deliver" in office, for all our sakes.
What I'm trying to focus your party on, which is very likely to be in office in the next 20 months, is on the fundamental issues affecting Britain which haven't really been adequately addressed by either party in the last 20 years.
Not everything is a partisan ding-dong.
Your desire to present yourself as non partisan despite being anything but is always a little puzzling. You’re a Tory, currently pinning your hopes on Sunak and are intrinsically suspicious of anyone else especially Labour.
Your analysis always comes from that place, even when you’re presenting yourself as unbiased. I come from a similar albeit opposite place, that’s ok.
Your downbeat prescription and framing of problems within a 20 year window is biased. Starmer doesn’t have to solve all the world’s problems to be a significant improvement. Nor did the world’s problems start with Blair.
True - but he's struggling to make much impact during his long-form interview on R4 right now. It's devoid of detail and the Q&A is running along the lines of Q: "Having these missions is all well and good, but what are you actually going to do to achieve them?"......A: "Let me take that head on. What people want to know is not just what we want to achieve but how we will go about it; people are crying out for real change...." followed by a stream of waffle.
Hopefully Starmer is simply playing for time and won't remain someone incapable of offering any specifics.
Edit/ interview just finished. A masterclass in repeating over and over that people want specifics whilst being careful not to mention a single one....
I only caught the end of it, but the gist of project drive Corbynite antisemitism out of the Labour Party seemed to be that only once Starmer realised Jezza was an electoral loser did the scales fall from his eyes. He’s probably inadvertently told the truth there but he’s going to think up something a bit better than that as it’s a scab that will continue to be picked.
OTOH if the public want Mr Corbyn J then isn't it a democratic duty to put him in power? And vice versa.
Maybe, but if one of your major selling points is that you cleaned out the Augean Stables, that’s somewhat tarnished if you were a horse’s arse pooping out horse poo for 5 years in said stables.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Not sure. Christian adherents collectively are probably the largest identifiable group on the planet. Everyone knows they come in a number of different flavours. In the UK everyone who is sentient knows the churches are split on the gay issue.
No-one thinks that an group maybe 2 billion strong will think the same about things.
Also - consider how the FCS and the C of E are generally treated by the media.
FCS = far away sect of which e hacks know little, islands, Whisky Galore, Rev. I. M. Jolly, Wicker Man, funny lot who speak what is as good as Welsh, etc. etc.
C of E = the nice chap you play golf with at Surbiton GC, and where your daughter got married.
Yet if you are gay, your chances of being married in either are precisely zero.
I am not a member of either. But I suspect we are seeing something of that as well.
Can you give details ? I was listening, but Starmer put me back to sleep. He will be next PM, but he is really quite boring to listen to.
Worth rewinding on the BBC Sounds…..Amol cutting through the waffle “Why should people trust you when you’ve abandoned so many of the pledges when you ran for leader?” Starmer tries to bring it back to his 5 missions, but Amol drags him back.
That’s hardly a demolition. It’s an embarrassing question, sure. But the fact is that he’d not be party leader otherwise.
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
If you've been following my posts over the last four days you'll see I described far too many Tories as "venal self-serving bastards" and that I also said "Labour has to deliver" in office, for all our sakes.
What I'm trying to focus your party on, which is very likely to be in office in the next 20 months, is on the fundamental issues affecting Britain which haven't really been adequately addressed by either party in the last 20 years.
Not everything is a partisan ding-dong.
Your desire to present yourself as non partisan despite being anything but is always a little puzzling. You’re a Tory, currently pinning your hopes on Sunak and are intrinsically suspicious of anyone else especially Labour.
Your analysis always comes from that place, even when you’re presenting yourself as unbiased. I come from a similar albeit opposite place, that’s ok.
Your downbeat prescription and framing of problems within a 20 year window is biased. Starmer doesn’t have to solve all the world’s problems to be a significant improvement. Nor did the world’s problems start with Blair.
True - but he's struggling to make much impact during his long-form interview on R4 right now. It's devoid of detail and the Q&A is running along the lines of Q: "Having these missions is all well and good, but what are you actually going to do to achieve them?"......A: "Let me take that head on. What people want to know is not just what we want to achieve but how we will go about it; people are crying out for real change...." followed by a stream of waffle.
Hopefully Starmer is simply playing for time and won't remain someone incapable of offering any specifics.
Edit/ interview just finished. A masterclass in repeating over and over that people want specifics whilst being careful not to mention a single one....
I only caught the end of it, but the gist of project drive Corbynite antisemitism out of the Labour Party seemed to be that only once Starmer realised Jezza was an electoral loser did the scales fall from his eyes. He’s probably inadvertently told the truth there but he’s going to think up something a bit better than that as it’s a scab that will continue to be picked.
OTOH if the public want Mr Corbyn J then isn't it a democratic duty to put him in power? And vice versa.
Maybe, but if one of your major selling points is that you cleaned out the Augean Stables, that’s somewhat tarnished if you were a horse’s arse pooping out horse poo for 5 years in said stables.
OTOH, and to put it topically,
And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
If you've been following my posts over the last four days you'll see I described far too many Tories as "venal self-serving bastards" and that I also said "Labour has to deliver" in office, for all our sakes.
What I'm trying to focus your party on, which is very likely to be in office in the next 20 months, is on the fundamental issues affecting Britain which haven't really been adequately addressed by either party in the last 20 years.
Not everything is a partisan ding-dong.
Your desire to present yourself as non partisan despite being anything but is always a little puzzling. You’re a Tory, currently pinning your hopes on Sunak and are intrinsically suspicious of anyone else especially Labour.
Your analysis always comes from that place, even when you’re presenting yourself as unbiased. I come from a similar albeit opposite place, that’s ok.
Your downbeat prescription and framing of problems within a 20 year window is biased. Starmer doesn’t have to solve all the world’s problems to be a significant improvement. Nor did the world’s problems start with Blair.
Casino has never pretended to be non partisan. I disagree with him vehemently on a lot of stuff (and haven’t voted Tory since the 1980s, FWIW) but I agree with what he’s saying here.
To take a couple of examples, the failure over the last two decades to invest in energy infrastructure, and the post Brexit abandonment of vehicle manufacturing. The second of those is a particularly strong example. I think he’s a fool for voting for Brexit, and we’ve been quite rude to each other on occasion, but we’re nonetheless able to agree on that.
Casino is an interesting and informative poster (from a different political position to me, which is part of why he's informative and interesting) as long as you can ignore his rants about political correctness gone mad the woke agenda
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
If you've been following my posts over the last four days you'll see I described far too many Tories as "venal self-serving bastards" and that I also said "Labour has to deliver" in office, for all our sakes.
What I'm trying to focus your party on, which is very likely to be in office in the next 20 months, is on the fundamental issues affecting Britain which haven't really been adequately addressed by either party in the last 20 years.
Not everything is a partisan ding-dong.
Your desire to present yourself as non partisan despite being anything but is always a little puzzling. You’re a Tory, currently pinning your hopes on Sunak and are intrinsically suspicious of anyone else especially Labour.
Your analysis always comes from that place, even when you’re presenting yourself as unbiased. I come from a similar albeit opposite place, that’s ok.
Your downbeat prescription and framing of problems within a 20 year window is biased. Starmer doesn’t have to solve all the world’s problems to be a significant improvement. Nor did the world’s problems start with Blair.
True - but he's struggling to make much impact during his long-form interview on R4 right now. It's devoid of detail and the Q&A is running along the lines of Q: "Having these missions is all well and good, but what are you actually going to do to achieve them?"......A: "Let me take that head on. What people want to know is not just what we want to achieve but how we will go about it; people are crying out for real change...." followed by a stream of waffle.
Hopefully Starmer is simply playing for time and won't remain someone incapable of offering any specifics.
Edit/ interview just finished. A masterclass in repeating over and over that people want specifics whilst being careful not to mention a single one....
I only caught the end of it, but the gist of project drive Corbynite antisemitism out of the Labour Party seemed to be that only once Starmer realised Jezza was an electoral loser did the scales fall from his eyes. He’s probably inadvertently told the truth there but he’s going to think up something a bit better than that as it’s a scab that will continue to be picked.
OTOH if the public want Mr Corbyn J then isn't it a democratic duty to put him in power? And vice versa.
Maybe, but if one of your major selling points is that you cleaned out the Augean Stables, that’s somewhat tarnished if you were a horse’s arse pooping out horse poo for 5 years in said stables.
Are we talking about Starmer, Sunak or the next leader of the SNP?
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
Indeed. I had some respect for Forbes in being open and honest about her views, even while they likely sank her chances of winning the leadership.
But, assuming she approved her spokesperson's comments (and there has been no public statement otherwise, as far as I'm aware) then she's either thick (doesn't understand how bonkers that argument is) or a thoroughly nasty piece of work (intentionally playing the Christian victim while stirring up ideas that people of other faiths are treated preferentially).
But they are. We are very comfortable having a go at Christian beliefs where we don’t think that they are sufficiently progressive. We are much, much more cautious about challenging Muslim beliefs or Hindu beliefs because we are scared of being judged racist.
Whether it is helpful to her to point out this hypocrisy is another matter.
Can you give details ? I was listening, but Starmer put me back to sleep. He will be next PM, but he is really quite boring to listen to.
Worth rewinding on the BBC Sounds…..Amol cutting through the waffle “Why should people trust you when you’ve abandoned so many of the pledges when you ran for leader?” Starmer tries to bring it back to his 5 missions, but Amol drags him back.
That’s hardly a demolition. It’s an embarrassing question, sure. But the fact is that he’d not be party leader otherwise.
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
If you've been following my posts over the last four days you'll see I described far too many Tories as "venal self-serving bastards" and that I also said "Labour has to deliver" in office, for all our sakes.
What I'm trying to focus your party on, which is very likely to be in office in the next 20 months, is on the fundamental issues affecting Britain which haven't really been adequately addressed by either party in the last 20 years.
Not everything is a partisan ding-dong.
Your desire to present yourself as non partisan despite being anything but is always a little puzzling. You’re a Tory, currently pinning your hopes on Sunak and are intrinsically suspicious of anyone else especially Labour.
Your analysis always comes from that place, even when you’re presenting yourself as unbiased. I come from a similar albeit opposite place, that’s ok.
Your downbeat prescription and framing of problems within a 20 year window is biased. Starmer doesn’t have to solve all the world’s problems to be a significant improvement. Nor did the world’s problems start with Blair.
True - but he's struggling to make much impact during his long-form interview on R4 right now. It's devoid of detail and the Q&A is running along the lines of Q: "Having these missions is all well and good, but what are you actually going to do to achieve them?"......A: "Let me take that head on. What people want to know is not just what we want to achieve but how we will go about it; people are crying out for real change...." followed by a stream of waffle.
Hopefully Starmer is simply playing for time and won't remain someone incapable of offering any specifics.
Edit/ interview just finished. A masterclass in repeating over and over that people want specifics whilst being careful not to mention a single one....
I only caught the end of it, but the gist of project drive Corbynite antisemitism out of the Labour Party seemed to be that only once Starmer realised Jezza was an electoral loser did the scales fall from his eyes. He’s probably inadvertently told the truth there but he’s going to think up something a bit better than that as it’s a scab that will continue to be picked.
OTOH if the public want Mr Corbyn J then isn't it a democratic duty to put him in power? And vice versa.
Maybe, but if one of your major selling points is that you cleaned out the Augean Stables, that’s somewhat tarnished if you were a horse’s arse pooping out horse poo for 5 years in said stables.
OTOH, and to put it topically,
And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
Or the parable of the Lost Sheep:
'I tell you, there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth than over the ninety and nine who never went astray.'
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
If you've been following my posts over the last four days you'll see I described far too many Tories as "venal self-serving bastards" and that I also said "Labour has to deliver" in office, for all our sakes.
What I'm trying to focus your party on, which is very likely to be in office in the next 20 months, is on the fundamental issues affecting Britain which haven't really been adequately addressed by either party in the last 20 years.
Not everything is a partisan ding-dong.
Your desire to present yourself as non partisan despite being anything but is always a little puzzling. You’re a Tory, currently pinning your hopes on Sunak and are intrinsically suspicious of anyone else especially Labour.
Your analysis always comes from that place, even when you’re presenting yourself as unbiased. I come from a similar albeit opposite place, that’s ok.
Your downbeat prescription and framing of problems within a 20 year window is biased. Starmer doesn’t have to solve all the world’s problems to be a significant improvement. Nor did the world’s problems start with Blair.
True - but he's struggling to make much impact during his long-form interview on R4 right now. It's devoid of detail and the Q&A is running along the lines of Q: "Having these missions is all well and good, but what are you actually going to do to achieve them?"......A: "Let me take that head on. What people want to know is not just what we want to achieve but how we will go about it; people are crying out for real change...." followed by a stream of waffle.
Hopefully Starmer is simply playing for time and won't remain someone incapable of offering any specifics.
Edit/ interview just finished. A masterclass in repeating over and over that people want specifics whilst being careful not to mention a single one....
I only caught the end of it, but the gist of project drive Corbynite antisemitism out of the Labour Party seemed to be that only once Starmer realised Jezza was an electoral loser did the scales fall from his eyes. He’s probably inadvertently told the truth there but he’s going to think up something a bit better than that as it’s a scab that will continue to be picked.
OTOH if the public want Mr Corbyn J then isn't it a democratic duty to put him in power? And vice versa.
Maybe, but if one of your major selling points is that you cleaned out the Augean Stables, that’s somewhat tarnished if you were a horse’s arse pooping out horse poo for 5 years in said stables.
OTOH, and to put it topically,
And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
Or the parable of the Lost Sheep:
'I tell you, there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth than over the ninety and nine who never went astray.'
(Luke 15:17)
That's better: just right. Trust a professional historian to have exactly the right reference, ready-documented.
It’s not a general election campaign. These are not campaign pledges. They are statement of high level priorities for a Labour government. All good. Everyone is impatient to get going, but the timetable is set by Sunak. We have months of him hanging on yet.
Good morning
I very much doubt anyone in the street has the slightest interest in politicians from any party making pledges or being able to name any of the pledges
As far as the next GE October 24 is 20 months away which is a lifetime in politics
Even quite apolitical people who I listen to are really exasperated by the Government, but in a curiously non-specific way except for failing with the NHS. I'm not hearing many specific demands for policy X or Y, just "stop squabbling and fix the mess". Ironically for folk like me who like specifics, Starmer is probably going with the public mood here. I agree we need something concrete too, but Jonathan is probably right that it's too soon.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
Indeed. I had some respect for Forbes in being open and honest about her views, even while they likely sank her chances of winning the leadership.
But, assuming she approved her spokesperson's comments (and there has been no public statement otherwise, as far as I'm aware) then she's either thick (doesn't understand how bonkers that argument is) or a thoroughly nasty piece of work (intentionally playing the Christian victim while stirring up ideas that people of other faiths are treated preferentially).
But they are. We are very comfortable having a go at Christian beliefs where we don’t think that they are sufficiently progressive. We are much, much more cautious about challenging Muslim beliefs or Hindu beliefs because we are scared of being judged racist.
Whether it is helpful to her to point out this hypocrisy is another matter.
Examples of muslim beliefs not being challenged? Maybe we live on different planets
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
Indeed. I had some respect for Forbes in being open and honest about her views, even while they likely sank her chances of winning the leadership.
But, assuming she approved her spokesperson's comments (and there has been no public statement otherwise, as far as I'm aware) then she's either thick (doesn't understand how bonkers that argument is) or a thoroughly nasty piece of work (intentionally playing the Christian victim while stirring up ideas that people of other faiths are treated preferentially).
But they are. We are very comfortable having a go at Christian beliefs where we don’t think that they are sufficiently progressive. We are much, much more cautious about challenging Muslim beliefs or Hindu beliefs because we are scared of being judged racist.
Whether it is helpful to her to point out this hypocrisy is another matter.
In the late 1990s, Jasper Carrott said there had been a change in attitudes on that point. He used to tell lots of jokes about Christians and that was fine 'because they were Christians and nobody bothered. Now, you get all these born again Christians coming up to you in the street and saying, 'Oi! Jasper! Lay off the Christians! Why don't you tell some jokes about Muslims?'
'Because they'd kill me,' he replied. 'One joke about the Koran and I'm sharing a flat with Salman Rushdie.'
And to be fair, that's not a fate you'd wish on anyone.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Not sure. Christian adherents collectively are probably the largest identifiable group on the planet. Everyone knows they come in a number of different flavours. In the UK everyone who is sentient knows the churches are split on the gay issue.
No-one thinks that an group maybe 2 billion strong will think the same about things.
Also - consider how the FCS and the C of E are generally treated by the media.
FCS = far away sect of which e hacks know little, islands, Whisky Galore, Rev. I. M. Jolly, Wicker Man, funny lot who speak what is as good as Welsh, etc. etc.
C of E = the nice chap you play golf with at Surbiton GC, and where your daughter got married.
Yet if you are gay, your chances of being married in either are precisely zero.
I am not a member of either. But I suspect we are seeing something of that as well.
Maybe so. It's easier to characterise he as extreme for being out of the (peceived) 'mainstream' as it were. But a CofE candidate for e.g. Labour (or probably any major UK party) leadership with the same views would find themselves in the same difficulties.
As would a Muslim or Hindu candidate, if seeking to bring personal religious views to legislation on social issues.
I was going to quote the example of Farron, but he's apparently also a nonconformist protestant, so not so far away from Forbes? (I may be wrong in drawing a parallel there, my knowledge of subsects of Christianity rivals only my knowledge of Scottish politics )
Curious to see Tories spent the night banging on about Brown and 2007-2010, somehow trying to recapture their youth, Reminds me of old Labour warriors who used to go in about Thatch long after the world had moved on.
If the Tories ever want to recover, they need to accept and deal with the consequences of their own failures. It will be hard from them, but they should make a start with whacky far out Trussonomics, empty populist promises, hollowed out public services, double digit inflation, and the economic consequences of Brexit.
If you've been following my posts over the last four days you'll see I described far too many Tories as "venal self-serving bastards" and that I also said "Labour has to deliver" in office, for all our sakes.
What I'm trying to focus your party on, which is very likely to be in office in the next 20 months, is on the fundamental issues affecting Britain which haven't really been adequately addressed by either party in the last 20 years.
Not everything is a partisan ding-dong.
Your desire to present yourself as non partisan despite being anything but is always a little puzzling. You’re a Tory, currently pinning your hopes on Sunak and are intrinsically suspicious of anyone else especially Labour.
Your analysis always comes from that place, even when you’re presenting yourself as unbiased. I come from a similar albeit opposite place, that’s ok.
Your downbeat prescription and framing of problems within a 20 year window is biased. Starmer doesn’t have to solve all the world’s problems to be a significant improvement. Nor did the world’s problems start with Blair.
True - but he's struggling to make much impact during his long-form interview on R4 right now. It's devoid of detail and the Q&A is running along the lines of Q: "Having these missions is all well and good, but what are you actually going to do to achieve them?"......A: "Let me take that head on. What people want to know is not just what we want to achieve but how we will go about it; people are crying out for real change...." followed by a stream of waffle.
Hopefully Starmer is simply playing for time and won't remain someone incapable of offering any specifics.
Edit/ interview just finished. A masterclass in repeating over and over that people want specifics whilst being careful not to mention a single one....
I only caught the end of it, but the gist of project drive Corbynite antisemitism out of the Labour Party seemed to be that only once Starmer realised Jezza was an electoral loser did the scales fall from his eyes. He’s probably inadvertently told the truth there but he’s going to have to think up something a bit better than that as it’s a scab that will continue to be picked.
The bullet points from the 'mission statement' and the extract from the interview that have made it into the news come across fine. I expect the interview was the pain Labour had to go through to get the news coverage, with only a small minority of those who will see the story in the news actually having heard it.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
Indeed. I had some respect for Forbes in being open and honest about her views, even while they likely sank her chances of winning the leadership.
But, assuming she approved her spokesperson's comments (and there has been no public statement otherwise, as far as I'm aware) then she's either thick (doesn't understand how bonkers that argument is) or a thoroughly nasty piece of work (intentionally playing the Christian victim while stirring up ideas that people of other faiths are treated preferentially).
But they are. We are very comfortable having a go at Christian beliefs where we don’t think that they are sufficiently progressive. We are much, much more cautious about challenging Muslim beliefs or Hindu beliefs because we are scared of being judged racist.
Whether it is helpful to her to point out this hypocrisy is another matter.
Really? You think Sadiq Kahn would have won the Labour nomination for Mayor of London (let alone the election) if he'd said that he would vote against gay marriage and thought having children out of wedlock was wrong? If so, I have Boris's garden bridge to sell you.
I can possibly believe that Sunak could have won a Tory members' election with similar views, but very much doubt he would have got the nomination of MPs.
The kernel of a point that you have is that Sunak, Kahn etc may be less likely to be put on the spot by the media about their religious views. But they're also more forthcoming in volunteering their liberal credentials (see also Yousaf), probably due to fear that they will be stereotyped as socially conservative due to their religion.
ETA: And anyway, it's not about abusing her beliefs (I disagree with her, but respect right to her beliefs). I just wouldn't want her making laws based on those beliefs in a country that I lived in.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Not sure. Christian adherents collectively are probably the largest identifiable group on the planet. Everyone knows they come in a number of different flavours. In the UK everyone who is sentient knows the churches are split on the gay issue.
No-one thinks that an group maybe 2 billion strong will think the same about things.
Also - consider how the FCS and the C of E are generally treated by the media.
FCS = far away sect of which e hacks know little, islands, Whisky Galore, Rev. I. M. Jolly, Wicker Man, funny lot who speak what is as good as Welsh, etc. etc.
C of E = the nice chap you play golf with at Surbiton GC, and where your daughter got married.
Yet if you are gay, your chances of being married in either are precisely zero.
I am not a member of either. But I suspect we are seeing something of that as well.
Not sure. Tim Farron was CofE, but evangelical. That’s what his troubles came from. I think there’s an awareness these days of what fundamentalist Christianity means, probably spurred on more by US evangelicals sounding off than anything else.
It’s another area of politics that has been sharpened by US culture wars.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Not sure. Christian adherents collectively are probably the largest identifiable group on the planet. Everyone knows they come in a number of different flavours. In the UK everyone who is sentient knows the churches are split on the gay issue.
No-one thinks that an group maybe 2 billion strong will think the same about things.
Also - consider how the FCS and the C of E are generally treated by the media.
FCS = far away sect of which e hacks know little, islands, Whisky Galore, Rev. I. M. Jolly, Wicker Man, funny lot who speak what is as good as Welsh, etc. etc.
C of E = the nice chap you play golf with at Surbiton GC, and where your daughter got married.
Yet if you are gay, your chances of being married in either are precisely zero.
I am not a member of either. But I suspect we are seeing something of that as well.
Maybe so. It's easier to characterise he as extreme for being out of the (peceived) 'mainstream' as it were. But a CofE candidate for e.g. Labour (or probably any major UK party) leadership with the same views would find themselves in the same difficulties.
As would a Muslim or Hindu candidate, if seeking to bring personal religious views to legislation on social issues.
I was going to quote the example of Farron, but he's apparently also a nonconformist protestant, so not so far away from Forbes? (I may be wrong in drawing a parallel there, my knowledge of subsects of Christianity rivals only my knowledge of Scottish politics )
But the C of E is so mixed that being a member isn't a great indicator of anything. In contrast, the beauty for the historian, and perhaps the danger for the politician, is that membership of the various free churches ('Nonconformist' being only applicable to England, obviously) is a very specific indicator.
Good point re Tim Farron. B|ut I can't find *which" church - simply being 'Nonconformist' and not RC could be anything from the Plymouth Brethren to the Society of Friends and the Unitarians.
FIEC = Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. So a member of a standalone congregation loosely affiliated to others, I think? (Not sure if this derives from the older Independents but doubt it as those last are now known as the Congregational Church.)
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
Indeed. I had some respect for Forbes in being open and honest about her views, even while they likely sank her chances of winning the leadership.
But, assuming she approved her spokesperson's comments (and there has been no public statement otherwise, as far as I'm aware) then she's either thick (doesn't understand how bonkers that argument is) or a thoroughly nasty piece of work (intentionally playing the Christian victim while stirring up ideas that people of other faiths are treated preferentially).
But they are. We are very comfortable having a go at Christian beliefs where we don’t think that they are sufficiently progressive. We are much, much more cautious about challenging Muslim beliefs or Hindu beliefs because we are scared of being judged racist.
Whether it is helpful to her to point out this hypocrisy is another matter.
Really? You think Sadiq Kahn would have won the Labour nomination for Mayor of London (let alone the election) if he'd said that he would vote against gay marriage and thought having children out of wedlock was wrong? If so, I have Boris's garden bridge to sell you.
I can possibly believe that Sunak could have won a Tory members' election with similar views, but very much doubt he would have got the nomination of MPs.
The kernel of a point that you have is that Sunak, Kahn etc may be less likely to be put on the spot by the media about their religious views. But they're also more forthcoming in volunteering their liberal credentials (see also Yousaf), probably due to fear that they will be stereotyped as socially conservative due to their religion.
Forbes was very naive (perhaps from inexperience).
The correct answer to questions about her private life/beliefs is:
" I will say only one thing. I do not allow anyone else to stick their noses into it".
And she should then have moved on to her policies, on which she should be properly judged.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Not sure. Christian adherents collectively are probably the largest identifiable group on the planet. Everyone knows they come in a number of different flavours. In the UK everyone who is sentient knows the churches are split on the gay issue.
No-one thinks that an group maybe 2 billion strong will think the same about things.
Also - consider how the FCS and the C of E are generally treated by the media.
FCS = far away sect of which e hacks know little, islands, Whisky Galore, Rev. I. M. Jolly, Wicker Man, funny lot who speak what is as good as Welsh, etc. etc.
C of E = the nice chap you play golf with at Surbiton GC, and where your daughter got married.
Yet if you are gay, your chances of being married in either are precisely zero.
I am not a member of either. But I suspect we are seeing something of that as well.
Maybe so. It's easier to characterise he as extreme for being out of the (peceived) 'mainstream' as it were. But a CofE candidate for e.g. Labour (or probably any major UK party) leadership with the same views would find themselves in the same difficulties.
As would a Muslim or Hindu candidate, if seeking to bring personal religious views to legislation on social issues.
I was going to quote the example of Farron, but he's apparently also a nonconformist protestant, so not so far away from Forbes? (I may be wrong in drawing a parallel there, my knowledge of subsects of Christianity rivals only my knowledge of Scottish politics )
But the C of E is so mixed that being a member isn't a great indicator of anything. In contrast, the beauty for the historian, and perhaps the danger for the politician, is that membership of the various free churches ('Nonconformist' being only applicable to England, obviously) is a very specific indicator.
Good point re Tim Farron. B|ut I can't find *which" church - simply being 'Nonconformist' and not RC could be anything from the Plymouth Brethren to the Society of Friends and the Unitarians.
FIEC = Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. So a member of a standalone congregation loosely affiliated to others, I think? (Not sure if this derives from the older Independents but doubt it as those last are now known as the Congregational Church.)
Indeed. I was baptised in the nonconformist URC, but I'm sadly lacking in fire and brimstone
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Not sure. Christian adherents collectively are probably the largest identifiable group on the planet. Everyone knows they come in a number of different flavours. In the UK everyone who is sentient knows the churches are split on the gay issue.
No-one thinks that an group maybe 2 billion strong will think the same about things.
Maybe someone should tell Forbes, and those supporting the completely crackers "christians are being barred from office" line.
I was genuinely interested to see if Forbes could square the circle of being someone of a somewhat conservative faith and being the leader of a moderately progressive party; as I've said before I have no doubt that many people of that faith are kind and decent people. Unfortunately she's come nowhere close which is sad for her and may be sad for the SNP.
Can you give details ? I was listening, but Starmer put me back to sleep. He will be next PM, but he is really quite boring to listen to.
Not letting him get away with meaningless bullshit. Pushing him on what the meaningless bullshit is actually supposed to mean.
Meaningless bullshit, or pretentious & dissembling duplicity, is everywhere in UK politics.
(And I am not bullshitting here).
Sincerity in UK politics is too much to hope for. But, attempts to make bullshit promises as quantitive and hard as possible is a reasonable aim.
"Make Britain’s streets safe". I mean, has any UK politicians set out to make Britain's streets dangerous?
At the moment, Keir's bullshit has the warm and watery consistency of dripping wet diarrhoea.
SKS is better advised to STFU until he has something to say.
He should have something to say by now!
I’m trying to remember what 1995-era Blair was like, as the government struggled to govern.
My memory says he was all over the media, all the time, to anyone who would listen - but perhaps one’s brain plays tricks, trying to go back nearly three decades to when one was still at school.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Not sure. Christian adherents collectively are probably the largest identifiable group on the planet. Everyone knows they come in a number of different flavours. In the UK everyone who is sentient knows the churches are split on the gay issue.
No-one thinks that an group maybe 2 billion strong will think the same about things.
Also - consider how the FCS and the C of E are generally treated by the media.
FCS = far away sect of which e hacks know little, islands, Whisky Galore, Rev. I. M. Jolly, Wicker Man, funny lot who speak what is as good as Welsh, etc. etc.
C of E = the nice chap you play golf with at Surbiton GC, and where your daughter got married.
Yet if you are gay, your chances of being married in either are precisely zero.
I am not a member of either. But I suspect we are seeing something of that as well.
Maybe so. It's easier to characterise he as extreme for being out of the (peceived) 'mainstream' as it were. But a CofE candidate for e.g. Labour (or probably any major UK party) leadership with the same views would find themselves in the same difficulties.
As would a Muslim or Hindu candidate, if seeking to bring personal religious views to legislation on social issues.
I was going to quote the example of Farron, but he's apparently also a nonconformist protestant, so not so far away from Forbes? (I may be wrong in drawing a parallel there, my knowledge of subsects of Christianity rivals only my knowledge of Scottish politics )
He's a member of a Presbyterian church offshoot, so actually very similar to the Free Church of Scotland which is also an offshoot from the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
Indeed. I had some respect for Forbes in being open and honest about her views, even while they likely sank her chances of winning the leadership.
But, assuming she approved her spokesperson's comments (and there has been no public statement otherwise, as far as I'm aware) then she's either thick (doesn't understand how bonkers that argument is) or a thoroughly nasty piece of work (intentionally playing the Christian victim while stirring up ideas that people of other faiths are treated preferentially).
But they are. We are very comfortable having a go at Christian beliefs where we don’t think that they are sufficiently progressive. We are much, much more cautious about challenging Muslim beliefs or Hindu beliefs because we are scared of being judged racist.
Whether it is helpful to her to point out this hypocrisy is another matter.
Though that too may change given the high percentage of Black British Christians
"Sincerity in UK politics is too much to hope for."
Unfortunately true. That's why politicians and journalists usually compete at the bottom of any poll for honesty or sincerity. But voters aren't angels in this respect. Activists being worst of all. They see what they want to see.
Journalists see stories, facts irrelevant. Politicians see advantages, facts also irrelevant.
A classic example. The Big Bang Theory. Not the TV programme, the real thing. Fred Hoyle a committed atheist, coined the word as an insult, because it hinted at a creator. Georges Le Maitre, known as the father of the big bang. A Belgian priest.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Not sure. Christian adherents collectively are probably the largest identifiable group on the planet. Everyone knows they come in a number of different flavours. In the UK everyone who is sentient knows the churches are split on the gay issue.
No-one thinks that an group maybe 2 billion strong will think the same about things.
Also - consider how the FCS and the C of E are generally treated by the media.
FCS = far away sect of which e hacks know little, islands, Whisky Galore, Rev. I. M. Jolly, Wicker Man, funny lot who speak what is as good as Welsh, etc. etc.
C of E = the nice chap you play golf with at Surbiton GC, and where your daughter got married.
Yet if you are gay, your chances of being married in either are precisely zero.
I am not a member of either. But I suspect we are seeing something of that as well.
Not sure. Tim Farron was CofE, but evangelical. That’s what his troubles came from. I think there’s an awareness these days of what fundamentalist Christianity means, probably spurred on more by US evangelicals sounding off than anything else.
It’s another area of politics that has been sharpened by US culture wars.
So it seems I was wrong about Farron, he’s also in one of those other denominations. But actually maybe that’s telling in itself. Most people have no idea about the various denominations and who belongs to what.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
Can you give details ? I was listening, but Starmer put me back to sleep. He will be next PM, but he is really quite boring to listen to.
Not letting him get away with meaningless bullshit. Pushing him on what the meaningless bullshit is actually supposed to mean.
Meaningless bullshit, or pretentious & dissembling duplicity, is everywhere in UK politics.
(And I am not bullshitting here).
Sincerity in UK politics is too much to hope for. But, attempts to make bullshit promises as quantitive and hard as possible is a reasonable aim.
"Make Britain’s streets safe". I mean, has any UK politicians set out to make Britain's streets dangerous?
At the moment, Keir's bullshit has the warm and watery consistency of dripping wet diarrhoea.
SKS is better advised to STFU until he has something to say.
He should have something to say by now!
I’m trying to remember what 1995-era Blair was like, as the government struggled to govern.
My memory says he was all over the media, all the time, to anyone who would listen - but perhaps one’s brain plays tricks, trying to go back nearly three decades to when one was still at school.
That's a good question. Although in fairness, being all over the media was a lot easier in 1995. Most people only had 4 TV channels, for a start - satellite and cable were still very much minority interests - and the Internet was most of a decade away from being a significant factor.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Not sure. Christian adherents collectively are probably the largest identifiable group on the planet. Everyone knows they come in a number of different flavours. In the UK everyone who is sentient knows the churches are split on the gay issue.
No-one thinks that an group maybe 2 billion strong will think the same about things.
Also - consider how the FCS and the C of E are generally treated by the media.
FCS = far away sect of which e hacks know little, islands, Whisky Galore, Rev. I. M. Jolly, Wicker Man, funny lot who speak what is as good as Welsh, etc. etc.
C of E = the nice chap you play golf with at Surbiton GC, and where your daughter got married.
Yet if you are gay, your chances of being married in either are precisely zero.
I am not a member of either. But I suspect we are seeing something of that as well.
Not sure. Tim Farron was CofE, but evangelical. That’s what his troubles came from. I think there’s an awareness these days of what fundamentalist Christianity means, probably spurred on more by US evangelicals sounding off than anything else.
It’s another area of politics that has been sharpened by US culture wars.
So it seems I was wrong about Farron, he’s also in one of those other denominations. But actually maybe that’s telling in itself. Most people have no idea about the various denominations and who belongs to what.
He isn't even in a denomination but a Free Independent Evangelical church, which alongside Pentecostal churches are the fastest growing Christian churches globally and the only churches really still growing in the UK
"Sincerity in UK politics is too much to hope for."
Unfortunately true. That's why politicians and journalists usually compete at the bottom of any poll for honesty or sincerity. But voters aren't angels in this respect. Activists being worst of all. They see what they want to see.
Journalists see stories, facts irrelevant. Politicians see advantages, facts also irrelevant.
A classic example. The Big Bang Theory. Not the TV programme, the real thing. Fred Hoyle a committed atheist, coined the word as an insult, because it hinted at a creator. Georges Le Maitre, known as the father of the big bang. A Belgian priest.
By coincidence, I'm working my way through the box set of The Big Bang Theory, the television programme. The second most remarkable thing (aside from the 1970s-style race and sex jokes in a 2010s series; mental health might be problematic too in the 2020s) is that each episode is just 20 minutes long, suggesting American television is 30 per cent adverts.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Not sure. Christian adherents collectively are probably the largest identifiable group on the planet. Everyone knows they come in a number of different flavours. In the UK everyone who is sentient knows the churches are split on the gay issue.
No-one thinks that an group maybe 2 billion strong will think the same about things.
Also - consider how the FCS and the C of E are generally treated by the media.
FCS = far away sect of which e hacks know little, islands, Whisky Galore, Rev. I. M. Jolly, Wicker Man, funny lot who speak what is as good as Welsh, etc. etc.
C of E = the nice chap you play golf with at Surbiton GC, and where your daughter got married.
Yet if you are gay, your chances of being married in either are precisely zero.
I am not a member of either. But I suspect we are seeing something of that as well.
Maybe so. It's easier to characterise he as extreme for being out of the (peceived) 'mainstream' as it were. But a CofE candidate for e.g. Labour (or probably any major UK party) leadership with the same views would find themselves in the same difficulties.
As would a Muslim or Hindu candidate, if seeking to bring personal religious views to legislation on social issues.
I was going to quote the example of Farron, but he's apparently also a nonconformist protestant, so not so far away from Forbes? (I may be wrong in drawing a parallel there, my knowledge of subsects of Christianity rivals only my knowledge of Scottish politics )
But the C of E is so mixed that being a member isn't a great indicator of anything. In contrast, the beauty for the historian, and perhaps the danger for the politician, is that membership of the various free churches ('Nonconformist' being only applicable to England, obviously) is a very specific indicator.
Good point re Tim Farron. B|ut I can't find *which" church - simply being 'Nonconformist' and not RC could be anything from the Plymouth Brethren to the Society of Friends and the Unitarians.
FIEC = Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. So a member of a standalone congregation loosely affiliated to others, I think? (Not sure if this derives from the older Independents but doubt it as those last are now known as the Congregational Church.)
Indeed. I was baptised in the nonconformist URC, but I'm sadly lacking in fire and brimstone
Speaking of which, I do hope it's a standard part of nonconformist church services for the congregation to chant, in unison, "we are all nonconformists"
"Sincerity in UK politics is too much to hope for."
Unfortunately true. That's why politicians and journalists usually compete at the bottom of any poll for honesty or sincerity. But voters aren't angels in this respect. Activists being worst of all. They see what they want to see.
Journalists see stories, facts irrelevant. Politicians see advantages, facts also irrelevant.
A classic example. The Big Bang Theory. Not the TV programme, the real thing. Fred Hoyle a committed atheist, coined the word as an insult, because it hinted at a creator. Georges Le Maitre, known as the father of the big bang. A Belgian priest.
By coincidence, I'm working my way through the box set of The Big Bang Theory, the television programme. The second most remarkable thing (aside from the 1970s-style race and sex jokes in a 2010s series; mental health might be problematic too in the 2020s) is that each episode is just 20 minutes long, suggesting American television is 30 per cent adverts.
Yes, there’s loads of ads on American TV. The series “24”, supposedly set in real time hours, and with a clock on the screen for quite a bit of it - has epidodes that last 38-41 minutes. Regular American TV is indeed a third adverts.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
I find that a bit bonkers. You are a member of a religion which (if you are gay and that religion is CoE) actively discriminates against you.
And instead of saying go fuck yourself, you try by all means possible, and so far with zero success, to change the religion.
So what have you been a member of and so enthusiastic about hitherto such that you want it to change completely to accommodate your own views. Makes no sense to me.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Not sure. Christian adherents collectively are probably the largest identifiable group on the planet. Everyone knows they come in a number of different flavours. In the UK everyone who is sentient knows the churches are split on the gay issue.
No-one thinks that an group maybe 2 billion strong will think the same about things.
Also - consider how the FCS and the C of E are generally treated by the media.
FCS = far away sect of which e hacks know little, islands, Whisky Galore, Rev. I. M. Jolly, Wicker Man, funny lot who speak what is as good as Welsh, etc. etc.
C of E = the nice chap you play golf with at Surbiton GC, and where your daughter got married.
Yet if you are gay, your chances of being married in either are precisely zero.
I am not a member of either. But I suspect we are seeing something of that as well.
Not sure. Tim Farron was CofE, but evangelical. That’s what his troubles came from. I think there’s an awareness these days of what fundamentalist Christianity means, probably spurred on more by US evangelicals sounding off than anything else.
It’s another area of politics that has been sharpened by US culture wars.
So it seems I was wrong about Farron, he’s also in one of those other denominations. But actually maybe that’s telling in itself. Most people have no idea about the various denominations and who belongs to what.
Your post begins with six words we'll never see HYUFD write.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Not sure. Christian adherents collectively are probably the largest identifiable group on the planet. Everyone knows they come in a number of different flavours. In the UK everyone who is sentient knows the churches are split on the gay issue.
No-one thinks that an group maybe 2 billion strong will think the same about things.
Also - consider how the FCS and the C of E are generally treated by the media.
FCS = far away sect of which e hacks know little, islands, Whisky Galore, Rev. I. M. Jolly, Wicker Man, funny lot who speak what is as good as Welsh, etc. etc.
C of E = the nice chap you play golf with at Surbiton GC, and where your daughter got married.
Yet if you are gay, your chances of being married in either are precisely zero.
I am not a member of either. But I suspect we are seeing something of that as well.
Not sure. Tim Farron was CofE, but evangelical. That’s what his troubles came from. I think there’s an awareness these days of what fundamentalist Christianity means, probably spurred on more by US evangelicals sounding off than anything else.
It’s another area of politics that has been sharpened by US culture wars.
So it seems I was wrong about Farron, he’s also in one of those other denominations. But actually maybe that’s telling in itself. Most people have no idea about the various denominations and who belongs to what.
Your post begins with six words we'll never see HYUFD write.
That's not 100% accurate. He's admitted three mistakes in the last eight years.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Not sure. Christian adherents collectively are probably the largest identifiable group on the planet. Everyone knows they come in a number of different flavours. In the UK everyone who is sentient knows the churches are split on the gay issue.
No-one thinks that an group maybe 2 billion strong will think the same about things.
Also - consider how the FCS and the C of E are generally treated by the media.
FCS = far away sect of which e hacks know little, islands, Whisky Galore, Rev. I. M. Jolly, Wicker Man, funny lot who speak what is as good as Welsh, etc. etc.
C of E = the nice chap you play golf with at Surbiton GC, and where your daughter got married.
Yet if you are gay, your chances of being married in either are precisely zero.
I am not a member of either. But I suspect we are seeing something of that as well.
Maybe so. It's easier to characterise he as extreme for being out of the (peceived) 'mainstream' as it were. But a CofE candidate for e.g. Labour (or probably any major UK party) leadership with the same views would find themselves in the same difficulties.
As would a Muslim or Hindu candidate, if seeking to bring personal religious views to legislation on social issues.
I was going to quote the example of Farron, but he's apparently also a nonconformist protestant, so not so far away from Forbes? (I may be wrong in drawing a parallel there, my knowledge of subsects of Christianity rivals only my knowledge of Scottish politics )
But the C of E is so mixed that being a member isn't a great indicator of anything. In contrast, the beauty for the historian, and perhaps the danger for the politician, is that membership of the various free churches ('Nonconformist' being only applicable to England, obviously) is a very specific indicator.
Good point re Tim Farron. B|ut I can't find *which" church - simply being 'Nonconformist' and not RC could be anything from the Plymouth Brethren to the Society of Friends and the Unitarians.
FIEC = Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. So a member of a standalone congregation loosely affiliated to others, I think? (Not sure if this derives from the older Independents but doubt it as those last are now known as the Congregational Church.)
Indeed. I was baptised in the nonconformist URC, but I'm sadly lacking in fire and brimstone
Speaking of which, I do hope it's a standard part of nonconformist church services for the congregation to chant, in unison, "we are all nonconformists"
"Sincerity in UK politics is too much to hope for."
Unfortunately true. That's why politicians and journalists usually compete at the bottom of any poll for honesty or sincerity. But voters aren't angels in this respect. Activists being worst of all. They see what they want to see.
Journalists see stories, facts irrelevant. Politicians see advantages, facts also irrelevant.
A classic example. The Big Bang Theory. Not the TV programme, the real thing. Fred Hoyle a committed atheist, coined the word as an insult, because it hinted at a creator. Georges Le Maitre, known as the father of the big bang. A Belgian priest.
By coincidence, I'm working my way through the box set of The Big Bang Theory, the television programme. The second most remarkable thing (aside from the 1970s-style race and sex jokes in a 2010s series; mental health might be problematic too in the 2020s) is that each episode is just 20 minutes long, suggesting American television is 30 per cent adverts.
Yes, there’s loads of ads on American TV. The series “24”, supposedly set in real time hours, and with a clock on the screen for quite a bit of it - has epidodes that last 38-41 minutes. Regular American TV is indeed a third adverts.
We enjoyed the BBC sitcom Ghosts which we watched an hour at a time, two episodes back to back on iPlayer.
Having enjoyed it we decided to check out the US clone. Still an hour at a time, three episodes back to back fit nicely.
(Neither are 'great' TV but gentle entertainment for a winter evening.)
Can you give details ? I was listening, but Starmer put me back to sleep. He will be next PM, but he is really quite boring to listen to.
Not letting him get away with meaningless bullshit. Pushing him on what the meaningless bullshit is actually supposed to mean.
Meaningless bullshit, or pretentious & dissembling duplicity, is everywhere in UK politics.
(And I am not bullshitting here).
Sincerity in UK politics is too much to hope for. But, attempts to make bullshit promises as quantitive and hard as possible is a reasonable aim.
"Make Britain’s streets safe". I mean, has any UK politicians set out to make Britain's streets dangerous?
At the moment, Keir's bullshit has the warm and watery consistency of dripping wet diarrhoea.
SKS is better advised to STFU until he has something to say.
He should have something to say by now!
I’m trying to remember what 1995-era Blair was like, as the government struggled to govern.
My memory says he was all over the media, all the time, to anyone who would listen - but perhaps one’s brain plays tricks, trying to go back nearly three decades to when one was still at school.
That's a good question. Although in fairness, being all over the media was a lot easier in 1995. Most people only had 4 TV channels, for a start - satellite and cable were still very much minority interests - and the Internet was most of a decade away from being a significant factor.
My recollection is that yes there was a lot of interest in Blair and a reasonable amount of coverage, but it wasn't wall to wall (there was way more on the Tories' travails) and not all of it was positive. I remember the clause 4 debates - a lot of media reporting including in the BBC questioning whether this would bring the party to crisis point. There was also a lot of scepticism about whether Blair could actually secure a majority.
New Labour was not particularly policy-heavy ahead of the election. They had the pledge card, which came quite late, and the promise to stick to Tory spending limits. But big changes like BofE independence were only announced after they were in government.
Funnily enough I also remember quite a lot of positive news for Major's government in the last couple of years. The Downing St declaration on NI, the Ken and Eddy show on monetary policy which was generally popular, lots of good news about stockmarket growth and housing market recovery after the long early 1990s housing recession. The really bad news was all from the usual places: back bench bastards rebelling on Maastricht and a rising tide of (what now looks quite low level) corruption and sleaze.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Not sure. Christian adherents collectively are probably the largest identifiable group on the planet. Everyone knows they come in a number of different flavours. In the UK everyone who is sentient knows the churches are split on the gay issue.
No-one thinks that an group maybe 2 billion strong will think the same about things.
Also - consider how the FCS and the C of E are generally treated by the media.
FCS = far away sect of which e hacks know little, islands, Whisky Galore, Rev. I. M. Jolly, Wicker Man, funny lot who speak what is as good as Welsh, etc. etc.
C of E = the nice chap you play golf with at Surbiton GC, and where your daughter got married.
Yet if you are gay, your chances of being married in either are precisely zero.
I am not a member of either. But I suspect we are seeing something of that as well.
Not sure. Tim Farron was CofE, but evangelical. That’s what his troubles came from. I think there’s an awareness these days of what fundamentalist Christianity means, probably spurred on more by US evangelicals sounding off than anything else.
It’s another area of politics that has been sharpened by US culture wars.
So it seems I was wrong about Farron, he’s also in one of those other denominations. But actually maybe that’s telling in itself. Most people have no idea about the various denominations and who belongs to what.
Your post begins with six words we'll never see HYUFD write.
That's not 100% accurate. He's admitted three mistakes in the last eight years.
So it seems I was wrong about HYUFD. Abject apologies for any offence caused.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
I find that a bit bonkers. You are a member of a religion which (if you are gay and that religion is CoE) actively discriminates against you.
And instead of saying go fuck yourself, you try by all means possible, and so far with zero success, to change the religion.
So what have you been a member of and so enthusiastic about hitherto such that you want it to change completely to accommodate your own views. Makes no sense to me.
This is, of course, an exercise in her detractors perpetuating the narrative that they devised.
Her detractors, by the way, seem to think that the SNP is and must remain a left wing party when it is at bottom a single issue party which can and does accommodate all sorts across the left-right spectrum.
Forbes said that the vote ten years ago was a free vote, a vote of conscience, and if she had voted she would have voted against extending marriage to homosexual couples. Hardly a niche view in the population at the time, though it probably is now. She also said that she would have, and does, accept the democratic decision that was taken.
There is no story here. I see nothing wrong in her words and they have the virtue of being refreshingly honest as opposed to her erstwhile supporters who have withdrawn support to - they think - protect their own self images.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
I don't think she is, at least not in the mould of the Christian Conservative wing (are they a wing) of the GOP. She takes her faith way more seriously than those rednecks and I think there's a lot more of caring for the poor and needy in there. Less Tucker Carlson and more like a patriarchal 19th Century reformer.
Her views on certain things, gay rights, children only in wedlock, no sex before marriage might make people think she's just a British version of the kind of American fundamentalist we all love to laugh at but there's a lot more 'love thy neighbour' in there, I suspect.
"Sincerity in UK politics is too much to hope for."
Unfortunately true. That's why politicians and journalists usually compete at the bottom of any poll for honesty or sincerity. But voters aren't angels in this respect. Activists being worst of all. They see what they want to see.
Journalists see stories, facts irrelevant. Politicians see advantages, facts also irrelevant.
A classic example. The Big Bang Theory. Not the TV programme, the real thing. Fred Hoyle a committed atheist, coined the word as an insult, because it hinted at a creator. Georges Le Maitre, known as the father of the big bang. A Belgian priest.
By coincidence, I'm working my way through the box set of The Big Bang Theory, the television programme. The second most remarkable thing (aside from the 1970s-style race and sex jokes in a 2010s series; mental health might be problematic too in the 2020s) is that each episode is just 20 minutes long, suggesting American television is 30 per cent adverts.
Yes, there’s loads of ads on American TV. The series “24”, supposedly set in real time hours, and with a clock on the screen for quite a bit of it - has epidodes that last 38-41 minutes. Regular American TV is indeed a third adverts.
The volume of ads on British commercial TV has increased over the decades. You can most obviously notice this when there's a repeat of an old show that used to be scheduled for 60 minutes, including ads, but now runs 5-10 minutes longer.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
I don't think she is, at least not in the mould of the Christian Conservative wing (are they a wing) of the GOP. She takes her faith way more seriously than those rednecks and I think there's a lot more of caring for the poor and needy in there. Less Tucker Carlson and more like a patriarchal 19th Century reformer.
Her views on certain things, gay rights, children only in wedlock, no sex before marriage might make people think she's just a British version of the kind of American fundamentalist we all love to laugh at but there's a lot more 'love thy neighbour' in there, I suspect.
Quite. How many machine-guns does she have in her basement?
And it also relates to the unfamiliarity of the FCS to your average media hack. I'm not sure it has been much highlighted since the Lord Mackay of Clashfern affair (in which much of it split off in anger at his treatment, one should note).
This is one of the most interesting mini-debates PB has had in…a long time.
I agree. I'm really surprised how the lack of positivity towards Rishi amongst the Tory party membership isn't cutting through as a good proxy for the country. This is the membership who selected the most successful Tory leader for decades. They're dismissed as a group, by the media-westminster complex who do not get them, but their last choice to face an election actually won, and won big.....
My opinion is to some extent irrelevant as I’m not a Tory voter.
However, the quality of commentary is very poor; it’s quite painful. Although Liz Truss was mad, she outlined something that was potentially quite exciting. I think the membership were faced with quite a difficult choice.
She really did “surprise on the upside” in the second debate at least (was there a third?). I said this at the time and stick by it.
Truss being bounced into the energy support package is underplayed as a factor in her implosion of her premiership. Without it, the market reaction to her budget wouldn't have been so extreme and she might have been given chance to try implementing some of her supply-side reform programme.
Who bounced her? It was all her own work. That was the issue!
I think she outlined a potentially appealing vision, and as soon as she was in office she made a series of catastrophic blunders.
Of course we aren't getting to see how it would actually work, but with recent signs that the economy is not doing as badly as the chumps at the OBR and BOE predicted, we can probably surmise that with some active growth policies, we might actually have been chugging away a lot better, and people might actually have been noticing, and putting it down to the Tories.
I do also idly wonder whether the unions would have been messing with Truss to the same extent as they have been with Rishi. You could argue it would have been worse, who knows.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
Meaningless, given the diversity of evangelical churches and evangelical arms of wider churches. It's not even as if they are in the same denomination. She's a Scottish Presbyterian for heaven's sake.
"Sincerity in UK politics is too much to hope for."
Unfortunately true. That's why politicians and journalists usually compete at the bottom of any poll for honesty or sincerity. But voters aren't angels in this respect. Activists being worst of all. They see what they want to see.
Journalists see stories, facts irrelevant. Politicians see advantages, facts also irrelevant.
A classic example. The Big Bang Theory. Not the TV programme, the real thing. Fred Hoyle a committed atheist, coined the word as an insult, because it hinted at a creator. Georges Le Maitre, known as the father of the big bang. A Belgian priest.
An interesting example (if I understand it right).
I admire Hoyle -- from a genuinely Northern, working class background, he rose to become the top Professor in Astronomy in Cambridge.
He voted Labour in 1945, but he seemed to end up as a working-class Tory by the end. His book on politics The Decade of Decision is very eccentric.
A lot of the attacks on Hoyle's theories were driven by class hatred in the Cambridge of that time.
The animosity of those personal attacks led Hoyle into an error, so that when data arrived to disprove his theory, he refused to accept it.
"Sincerity in UK politics is too much to hope for."
Unfortunately true. That's why politicians and journalists usually compete at the bottom of any poll for honesty or sincerity. But voters aren't angels in this respect. Activists being worst of all. They see what they want to see.
Journalists see stories, facts irrelevant. Politicians see advantages, facts also irrelevant.
A classic example. The Big Bang Theory. Not the TV programme, the real thing. Fred Hoyle a committed atheist, coined the word as an insult, because it hinted at a creator. Georges Le Maitre, known as the father of the big bang. A Belgian priest.
An interesting example (if I understand it right).
I admire Hoyle -- from a genuinely Northern, working class background, he rose to become the top Professor in Astronomy in Cambridge.
He voted Labour in 1945, but he seemed to end up as a working-class Tory by the end. His book on politics The Decade of Decision is very eccentric.
A lot of the attacks on Hoyle's theories were driven by class hatred in the Cambridge of that time.
The animosity of those personal attacks led Hoyle into an error, so that when data arrived to disprove his theory, he refused to accept it.
A sad story.
He came out with some pretty awful stuff in other fields too. Claiming that Archaeopteryx was a fake ...
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
I find that a bit bonkers. You are a member of a religion which (if you are gay and that religion is CoE) actively discriminates against you.
And instead of saying go fuck yourself, you try by all means possible, and so far with zero success, to change the religion.
So what have you been a member of and so enthusiastic about hitherto such that you want it to change completely to accommodate your own views. Makes no sense to me.
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
Meaningless, given the diversity of evangelical churches and evangelical arms of wider churches. It's not even as if they are in the same denomination. She's a Scottish Presbyterian for heaven's sake.
Free Church of Scotland members have more in common with evangelical US Southern Baptists and Pentecostals than they do with most members of the Church of Scotland and Church of England and other mainline Protestant denominations (other than the minority of evangelicals in the Church of England and Church of Scotland)
"Sincerity in UK politics is too much to hope for."
Unfortunately true. That's why politicians and journalists usually compete at the bottom of any poll for honesty or sincerity. But voters aren't angels in this respect. Activists being worst of all. They see what they want to see.
Journalists see stories, facts irrelevant. Politicians see advantages, facts also irrelevant.
A classic example. The Big Bang Theory. Not the TV programme, the real thing. Fred Hoyle a committed atheist, coined the word as an insult, because it hinted at a creator. Georges Le Maitre, known as the father of the big bang. A Belgian priest.
An interesting example (if I understand it right).
I admire Hoyle -- from a genuinely Northern, working class background, he rose to become the top Professor in Astronomy in Cambridge.
He voted Labour in 1945, but he seemed to end up as a working-class Tory by the end. His book on politics The Decade of Decision is very eccentric.
A lot of the attacks on Hoyle's theories were driven by class hatred in the Cambridge of that time.
The animosity of those personal attacks led Hoyle into an error, so that when data arrived to disprove his theory, he refused to accept it.
A sad story.
Not just class. Fred Hoyle was also looked down on as a public intellectual, like AJP Taylor (denied a chair).
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
I find that a bit bonkers. You are a member of a religion which (if you are gay and that religion is CoE) actively discriminates against you.
And instead of saying go fuck yourself, you try by all means possible, and so far with zero success, to change the religion.
So what have you been a member of and so enthusiastic about hitherto such that you want it to change completely to accommodate your own views. Makes no sense to me.
This is, of course, an exercise in her detractors perpetuating the narrative that they devised.
Her detractors, by the way, seem to think that the SNP is and must remain a left wing party when it is at bottom a single issue party which can and does accommodate all sorts across the left-right spectrum.
Forbes said that the vote ten years ago was a free vote, a vote of conscience, and if she had voted she would have voted against extending marriage to homosexual couples. Hardly a niche view in the population at the time, though it probably is now. She also said that she would have, and does, accept the democratic decision that was taken.
There is no story here. I see nothing wrong in her words and they have the virtue of being refreshingly honest as opposed to her erstwhile supporters who have withdrawn support to - they think - protect their own self images.
It may be relevant that a key GRA vote was whipped by the SNP - and it is worth noting that Ms Forbes respected that (at least for the key vote), so far as I can tell.
Apologies for earlier misspelling Khan's name, btw ('Kahn'). I must think he's German!
I also realised that I've been referring to 'Regan' as 'Ashten', not because she has the 'Boris' factor, but because I appear to not only be confused over her sex, but also which is her forename and surname.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
Meaningless, given the diversity of evangelical churches and evangelical arms of wider churches. It's not even as if they are in the same denomination. She's a Scottish Presbyterian for heaven's sake.
Free Church of Scotland members have more in common with evangelical US Southern Baptists and Pentecostals than they do with most members of the Church of Scotland and Church of England and other mainline Protestant denominations (other than the minority of evangelicals in the Church of England and Church of Scotland)
But "more in common with" is never, ever, good enough in a logical arcument. You are trying to equate the two. it's not good enough for what you want. .
I'll give you one example. The FCS don't believe in facilitating the machine-gunnign of schoolchildren. Prsetty basic distinction there when it comes to ethics.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
I find that a bit bonkers. You are a member of a religion which (if you are gay and that religion is CoE) actively discriminates against you.
And instead of saying go fuck yourself, you try by all means possible, and so far with zero success, to change the religion.
So what have you been a member of and so enthusiastic about hitherto such that you want it to change completely to accommodate your own views. Makes no sense to me.
This is, of course, an exercise in her detractors perpetuating the narrative that they devised.
Her detractors, by the way, seem to think that the SNP is and must remain a left wing party when it is at bottom a single issue party which can and does accommodate all sorts across the left-right spectrum.
Forbes said that the vote ten years ago was a free vote, a vote of conscience, and if she had voted she would have voted against extending marriage to homosexual couples. Hardly a niche view in the population at the time, though it probably is now. She also said that she would have, and does, accept the democratic decision that was taken.
There is no story here. I see nothing wrong in her words and they have the virtue of being refreshingly honest as opposed to her erstwhile supporters who have withdrawn support to - they think - protect their own self images.
Oh yes absolutely. I was just pondering the whole CoE/gay marriage thing.
Forbes said that the vote ten years ago was a free vote, a vote of conscience, and if she had voted she would have voted against extending marriage to homosexual couples. Hardly a niche view in the population at the time, though it probably is now. She also said that she would have, and does, accept the democratic decision that was taken.
There is no story here. I see nothing wrong in her words and they have the virtue of being refreshingly honest as opposed to her erstwhile supporters who have withdrawn support to - they think - protect their own self images.
The problem with that is whether as party leader and First Minister she would ever have brought it to a vote in the first place, not how she would have voted herself.
Comments
I was listening, but Starmer put me back to sleep. He will be next PM, but he is really quite boring to listen to.
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64729962
I think it will be closer than the current media narrative would suggest, with the SNP membership older than you'd expect. But I still think the last few days irrecoverable for Forbes.
Donkeys are useful animals.
Donkeys are hardworking and amiable, even if they're not always the brightest.
The no true Christian fallacy.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23331172.brian-cox-backs-angus-robertson-succeed-nicola-sturgeon/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-love-to-visit-but-its-too-damp-to-live-in-scotland-says-brian-cox-h0f26z6pz
Finger on the pulse….
I very much doubt anyone in the street has the slightest interest in politicians from any party making pledges or being able to name any of the pledges
As far as the next GE October 24 is 20 months away which is a lifetime in politics
Remind you of anyone else?
No-one thinks that an group maybe 2 billion strong will think the same about things.
But, assuming she approved her spokesperson's comments (and there has been no public statement otherwise, as far as I'm aware) then she's either thick (doesn't understand how bonkers that argument is) or a thoroughly nasty piece of work (intentionally playing the Christian victim while stirring up ideas that people of other faiths are treated preferentially).
I disagree with him vehemently on a lot of stuff (and haven’t voted Tory since the 1980s, FWIW) but I agree with what he’s saying here.
To take a couple of examples, the failure over the last two decades to invest in energy infrastructure, and the post Brexit abandonment of vehicle manufacturing.
The second of those is a particularly strong example. I think he’s a fool for voting for Brexit, and we’ve been quite rude to each other on occasion, but we’re nonetheless able to agree on that.
FCS = far away sect of which e hacks know little, islands, Whisky Galore, Rev. I. M. Jolly, Wicker Man, funny lot who speak what is as good as Welsh, etc. etc.
C of E = the nice chap you play golf with at Surbiton GC, and where your daughter got married.
Yet if you are gay, your chances of being married in either are precisely zero.
I am not a member of either. But I suspect we are seeing something of that as well.
It’s an embarrassing question, sure. But the fact is that he’d not be party leader otherwise.
And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
Whether it is helpful to her to point out this hypocrisy is another matter.
'I tell you, there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth than over the ninety and nine who never went astray.'
(Luke 15:17)
'Because they'd kill me,' he replied. 'One joke about the Koran and I'm sharing a flat with Salman Rushdie.'
And to be fair, that's not a fate you'd wish on anyone.
The flat sharing, that is.
As would a Muslim or Hindu candidate, if seeking to bring personal religious views to legislation on social issues.
I was going to quote the example of Farron, but he's apparently also a nonconformist protestant, so not so far away from Forbes? (I may be wrong in drawing a parallel there, my knowledge of subsects of Christianity rivals only my knowledge of Scottish politics
(And I am not bullshitting here).
Sincerity in UK politics is too much to hope for. But, attempts to make bullshit promises as quantitive and hard as possible is a reasonable aim.
"Make Britain’s streets safe". I mean, has any UK politicians set out to make Britain's streets dangerous?
At the moment, Keir's bullshit has the warm and watery consistency of dripping wet diarrhoea.
SKS is better advised to STFU until he has something to say.
I can possibly believe that Sunak could have won a Tory members' election with similar views, but very much doubt he would have got the nomination of MPs.
The kernel of a point that you have is that Sunak, Kahn etc may be less likely to be put on the spot by the media about their religious views. But they're also more forthcoming in volunteering their liberal credentials (see also Yousaf), probably due to fear that they will be stereotyped as socially conservative due to their religion.
ETA: And anyway, it's not about abusing her beliefs (I disagree with her, but respect right to her beliefs). I just wouldn't want her making laws based on those beliefs in a country that I lived in.
It’s another area of politics that has been sharpened by US culture wars.
Good point re Tim Farron. B|ut I can't find *which" church - simply being 'Nonconformist' and not RC could be anything from the Plymouth Brethren to the Society of Friends and the Unitarians.
Thoughb he is involved with this
http://www.faithinpublic.org.uk/
Edit: Found it. https://www.baptist.org.uk/Articles/557682/A_Better_Ambition.aspx
FIEC = Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. So a member of a standalone congregation loosely affiliated to others, I think? (Not sure if this derives from the older Independents but doubt it as those last are now known as the Congregational Church.)
The correct answer to questions about her private life/beliefs is:
" I will say only one thing. I do not allow anyone else to stick their noses into it".
And she should then have moved on to her policies, on which she should be properly judged.
My memory says he was all over the media, all the time, to anyone who would listen - but perhaps one’s brain plays tricks, trying to go back nearly three decades to when one was still at school.
"Sincerity in UK politics is too much to hope for."
Unfortunately true. That's why politicians and journalists usually compete at the bottom of any poll for honesty or sincerity. But voters aren't angels in this respect. Activists being worst of all. They see what they want to see.
Journalists see stories, facts irrelevant. Politicians see advantages, facts also irrelevant.
A classic example. The Big Bang Theory. Not the TV programme, the real thing. Fred Hoyle a committed atheist, coined the word as an insult, because it hinted at a creator. Georges Le Maitre, known as the father of the big bang. A Belgian priest.
denominations and who belongs to what.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/support-gay-marriage-reaches-all-time-high-survey-finds-n1244143
Forbes is a British white evangelical
And instead of saying go fuck yourself, you try by all means possible, and so far with zero success, to change the religion.
So what have you been a member of and so enthusiastic about hitherto such that you want it to change completely to accommodate your own views. Makes no sense to me.
250,000 votes overnight 🤣🤣🤣🤣
https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/1628676197340135426?s=20
Having enjoyed it we decided to check out the US clone. Still an hour at a time, three episodes back to back fit nicely.
(Neither are 'great' TV but gentle entertainment for a winter evening.)
New Labour was not particularly policy-heavy ahead of the election. They had the pledge card, which came quite late, and the promise to stick to Tory spending limits. But big changes like BofE independence were only announced after they were in government.
Funnily enough I also remember quite a lot of positive news for Major's government in the last couple of years. The Downing St declaration on NI, the Ken and Eddy show on monetary policy which was generally popular, lots of good news about stockmarket growth and housing market recovery after the long early 1990s housing recession. The really bad news was all from the usual places: back bench bastards rebelling on Maastricht and a rising tide of (what now looks quite low level) corruption and sleaze.
Her detractors, by the way, seem to think that the SNP is and must remain a left wing party when it is at bottom a single issue party which can and does accommodate all sorts across the left-right spectrum.
Forbes said that the vote ten years ago was a free vote, a vote of conscience, and if she had voted she would have voted against extending marriage to homosexual couples. Hardly a niche view in the population at the time, though it probably is now. She also said that she would have, and does, accept the democratic decision that was taken.
There is no story here. I see nothing wrong in her words and they have the virtue of being refreshingly honest as opposed to her erstwhile supporters who have withdrawn support to - they think - protect their own self images.
Her views on certain things, gay rights, children only in wedlock, no sex before marriage might make people think she's just a British version of the kind of American fundamentalist we all love to laugh at but there's a lot more 'love thy neighbour' in there, I suspect.
And it also relates to the unfamiliarity of the FCS to your average media hack. I'm not sure it has been much highlighted since the Lord Mackay of Clashfern affair (in which much of it split off in anger at his treatment, one should note).
Of course we aren't getting to see how it would actually work, but with recent signs that the economy is not doing as badly as the chumps at the OBR and BOE predicted, we can probably surmise that with some active growth policies, we might actually have been chugging away a lot better, and people might actually have been noticing, and putting it down to the Tories.
I do also idly wonder whether the unions would have been messing with Truss to the same extent as they have been with Rishi. You could argue it would have been worse, who knows.
I admire Hoyle -- from a genuinely Northern, working class background, he rose to become the top Professor in Astronomy in Cambridge.
He voted Labour in 1945, but he seemed to end up as a working-class Tory by the end. His book on politics The Decade of Decision is very eccentric.
A lot of the attacks on Hoyle's theories were driven by class hatred in the Cambridge of that time.
The animosity of those personal attacks led Hoyle into an error, so that when data arrived to disprove his theory, he refused to accept it.
A sad story.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23083465.gender-recognition-reform-bill-passes-first-hurdle-holyrood/
I also realised that I've been referring to 'Regan' as 'Ashten', not because she has the 'Boris' factor, but because I appear to not only be confused over her sex, but also which is her forename and surname.
Before I know it, I'll be writing 'Kier'
I'll give you one example. The FCS don't believe in facilitating the machine-gunnign of schoolchildren. Prsetty basic distinction there when it comes to ethics.