Carlisle, Gloucester, Peterborough, Worcester, Coventry: all big-ass cathedral cities, all near the top of the list.
Leicester, Birmingham, Manchester: over-promoted parish churches, all near the bottom of the list. Oxford: college chapel. Cambridge: doesn't even have one.
Handful of exceptions (Doncaster; Bristol, Norwich) but it's an interesting correlation nonetheless.
In my experience even atheists in cities with great Medieval cathedrals like Durham, Worcester, Salisbury, Gloucester, St David's, York, Canterbury, Winchester and Lincoln are proud of their cathedrals as great landmarks and features of the city
Well, in the case of Durham, Worcester, Salisbury, Gloucester, York and above all Lincoln they literally dominate the city. They are still the tallest and largest buildings and the site of many major and important events including concerts and plays.
(You could have added Lichfield, Ely and Hereford to that list, by the way.)
Ely for sure; the ‘Ship of the Fens’, One can see it for miles.
There must have been many a weary traveller far from home on the M25 whose spirits were raised by the distant sight of St Albans.
There's a great spot on the M11 when you can suddenly see London's cluster of skyscrapers on the horizon, always a welcome sight on a long drive home from the North.
Crossing the M25 from the outside always lifts my spirits.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
I'd say it's the same for any religion. Either you believe in your preferred deity or you don't. I dunno why they have to make it so complicated!
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Laurence Llewyen Bowen is an atheist but still goes to his medieval village church every Sunday as he likes the aesthetics of the building and it is where the local community meet for a catch up. He is friendly with the Vicar who knows he doesn't believe in God.
So he could be a cultural Christian even if a non believer
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
There is a slightly tricky aspect to using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It is conventional not to do it.
But the much more interesting question for all groups, Christian, No religion, Islam, everyone else, is "What do you actually think which results in your self identification". On this we have rather a lot of silence.
A recent big book on Humanism (Sarah Bakewell) includes all manner of believers in God in their ranks, including the great Erasmus, a giant of Christian history. Whereas to most people Humanists are people like Dawkins who are specifically atheist or agnostic. These issues are hard.
@severincarrell BREAKING Number 10 on brink of cancelling a Scottish press briefing with PM @RishiSunak in Glasgow - the first time a PM refuses to meet Scottish newspaper reporters 1/3
Number 10 tried to handpick 6 reporters from centre-right papers & @PA - @ScotParlJournos, including six invited titles, refuse to comply & insist all reporters have access 2/3
After TV reporters ask for one question to Sunak about Sharp resignation, No 10 demand TV cameras leave to do Sharp clip later. They then threaten to cancel press briefing entirely 3/3
Carlisle, Gloucester, Peterborough, Worcester, Coventry: all big-ass cathedral cities, all near the top of the list.
Leicester, Birmingham, Manchester: over-promoted parish churches, all near the bottom of the list. Oxford: college chapel. Cambridge: doesn't even have one.
Handful of exceptions (Doncaster; Bristol, Norwich) but it's an interesting correlation nonetheless.
In my experience even atheists in cities with great Medieval cathedrals like Durham, Worcester, Salisbury, Gloucester, St David's, York, Canterbury, Winchester and Lincoln are proud of their cathedrals as great landmarks and features of the city
Well, in the case of Durham, Worcester, Salisbury, Gloucester, York and above all Lincoln they literally dominate the city. They are still the tallest and largest buildings and the site of many major and important events including concerts and plays.
(You could have added Lichfield, Ely and Hereford to that list, by the way.)
Ely for sure; the ‘Ship of the Fens’, One can see it for miles.
There must have been many a weary traveller far from home on the M25 whose spirits were raised by the distant sight of St Albans.
There's a great spot on the M11 when you can suddenly see London's cluster of skyscrapers on the horizon, always a welcome sight on a long drive home from the North.
I had the misfortune to have to travel that way to that there London earlier this week as the M1 is closed at J18. It did look impressive. Driving around London, less impressive.
Ah now we've been here before, about this time last year. I remember the opprobrium heaped on Truro - and then a month later I drove past Truro Cathedral on a sunny day and was awestruck. Not a typical British cathedral, but rather striking nonetheless. Certainly in the top 1% of attractive buildings in the country, even if not in the top 1% of cathedrals.
Manchester: just a large parish church, basically. Not ugly by any means. Quite charming in its way. But not amazing. Ditto Blackburn.
Manchester had plans for a bloody huge cathedral in Piccadilly Gardens. A pity it never happened: not because Manchester needs a huge cathedral, but because what got put there instead was so ugly. These were the plans:
Truro is fine. It’s just a tiny bit generic neo-gothic. I was being mean. And of course, as a modern cathedral it lacks that numinous quality. I agree that it’s a rather handsome building taken on its own merits
Apparently Derby, Bradford and Sheffield are rubbish, but I just checked them out and they look ok. Merely a bit meh. Adapted parish churches
Nothing in the Anglican list matches the horror of Guildford. Tho there are some truly hideous Catholic jobs
Durham Cathedral is my favourite, followed by Wells.
I'm still giving it to Lincoln. Not so much even for the architecture fine though it is, but for that truly stunning setting.
I visited Wells Cathedral for the first time, a fortnight ago. It's stunning.
Out of Durham, Lincoln, Wells, Exeter, Ely, Winchester, Southwell, York, St. Paul's, St. Alban's, St. David's, I'd be hard pressed to choose.
Ely has a special place in my heart, because when I worked for Wood Green Animal Shelters, there was an annual service to which people took their dogs, who'd all start howling and barking along to the hymns.
Durham has the greatest interior. Spellbinding. I’d say it has the greatest interior of any cathedral in the world. It’s overwhelming
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Laurence Llewyen Bowen is an atheist but still goes to his medieval village church every Sunday as he likes the aesthetics of the building and it is where the local community meet for a catch up. He is friendly with the Vicar who knows he doesn't believe in God.
So he could be a cultural Christian even if a non believer
Nah, you can't bump up your figures that way. Either you're a believer or not. I like all the Norman churches around these parts, lovely to look at, but I don't believe in the fella they're built to worship.
Ah now we've been here before, about this time last year. I remember the opprobrium heaped on Truro - and then a month later I drove past Truro Cathedral on a sunny day and was awestruck. Not a typical British cathedral, but rather striking nonetheless. Certainly in the top 1% of attractive buildings in the country, even if not in the top 1% of cathedrals.
Manchester: just a large parish church, basically. Not ugly by any means. Quite charming in its way. But not amazing. Ditto Blackburn.
Manchester had plans for a bloody huge cathedral in Piccadilly Gardens. A pity it never happened: not because Manchester needs a huge cathedral, but because what got put there instead was so ugly. These were the plans:
Truro is fine. It’s just a tiny bit generic neo-gothic. I was being mean. And of course, as a modern cathedral it lacks that numinous quality. I agree that it’s a rather handsome building taken on its own merits
Apparently Derby, Bradford and Sheffield are rubbish, but I just checked them out and they look ok. Merely a bit meh. Adapted parish churches
Nothing in the Anglican list matches the horror of Guildford. Tho there are some truly hideous Catholic jobs
I don't know Bradford, but Derby is nice enough, and I actively like Sheffield. My last bit of active religion was done in Sheffield Cathedral around 15 years ago, where I did a spot of Godfathering.
And yes, what was going through my mind earlier was that Guildford looked like a Catholic cathedral.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Laurence Llewyen Bowen is an atheist but still goes to his medieval village church every Sunday as he likes the aesthetics of the building and it is where the local community meet for a catch up. He is friendly with the Vicar who knows he doesn't believe in God.
So he could be a cultural Christian even if a non believer
Fine, but he's not a Christian though is he?
Professor Richard Dawkins says he himself is a 'cultural Christian' because he is of that tradition and likes to sing hymns.
But he's not a Christian either.
To be a Christian you must believe in the Christian God, otherwise you are not a Christian. Simple as that.
Otherwise, it's rather like calling someone a supporter of Nottingham Forest because they live in Nottingham, even though they actually support Notts County.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Laurence Llewyen Bowen is an atheist but still goes to his medieval village church every Sunday as he likes the aesthetics of the building and it is where the local community meet for a catch up. He is friendly with the Vicar who knows he doesn't believe in God.
So he could be a cultural Christian even if a non believer
Nah, you can't bump up your figures that way. Either you're a believer or not. I like all the Norman churches around these parts, lovely to look at, but I don't believe in the fella they're built to worship.
The Church of England can. An atheist who attends church every Sunday and contributes to the collection is more useful to the Church of England than a Christian who never goes to church.
Though technically yes to be a Christian you do need to believe in God and the Trinity
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
There is a slightly tricky aspect to using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It is conventional not to do it.
But the much more interesting question for all groups, Christian, No religion, Islam, everyone else, is "What do you actually think which results in your self identification". On this we have rather a lot of silence.
A recent big book on Humanism (Sarah Bakewell) includes all manner of believers in God in their ranks, including the great Erasmus, a giant of Christian history. Whereas to most people Humanists are people like Dawkins who are specifically atheist or agnostic. These issues are hard.
You are making them needlessly difficult.
See simple flowchart below.
Do you believe in the Christian God?
1) Yes 2) No
If 1 go to A.
If 2 go to B.
A.) You are a Christian B.) You are not a Christian
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Laurence Llewyen Bowen is an atheist but still goes to his medieval village church every Sunday as he likes the aesthetics of the building and it is where the local community meet for a catch up. He is friendly with the Vicar who knows he doesn't believe in God.
So he could be a cultural Christian even if a non believer
Fine, but he's not a Christian though is he?
Professor Richard Dawkins says he himself is a 'cultural Christian' because he is of that tradition and likes to sing hymns.
But he's not a Christian either.
To be a Christian you must believe in the Christian God, otherwise you are not a Christian. Simple as that.
Otherwise, it's rather like calling someone a supporter of Nottingham Forest because they live in Nottingham, even though they actually support Notts County.
I like the hymns on Sunday religious programmes. They remind us …….Mrs C and I …… of our long-ago youth. Not so keen about some of the very modern ones though!
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Laurence Llewyen Bowen is an atheist but still goes to his medieval village church every Sunday as he likes the aesthetics of the building and it is where the local community meet for a catch up. He is friendly with the Vicar who knows he doesn't believe in God.
So he could be a cultural Christian even if a non believer
Nah, you can't bump up your figures that way. Either you're a believer or not. I like all the Norman churches around these parts, lovely to look at, but I don't believe in the fella they're built to worship.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
There is a slightly tricky aspect to using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It is conventional not to do it.
But the much more interesting question for all groups, Christian, No religion, Islam, everyone else, is "What do you actually think which results in your self identification". On this we have rather a lot of silence.
A recent big book on Humanism (Sarah Bakewell) includes all manner of believers in God in their ranks, including the great Erasmus, a giant of Christian history. Whereas to most people Humanists are people like Dawkins who are specifically atheist or agnostic. These issues are hard.
You are making them needlessly difficult.
See simple flowchart below.
Do you believe in the Christian God?
1) Yes 2) No
If 1 go to A.
If 2 go to B.
A.) You are a Christian B.) You are not a Christian
The Christian God is the same God of Abraham as the Muslim and Jewish God.
Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian
It reminds me of a huge, industrial-sized crematorium
I've just Google-image-searched Guildford Cathedral. Yes: I think that's the only Anglican cathedral I've come across which is actively unattractive.
Amazingly, it’s even worse in real life. They should knock it down (apparently this is actually being mooted)
Ooh, Coventry Cathedral of course - I forgot about that. A special case because there's still the shell of something beautiful: left there, no doubt, to show you what we had once and turned out back on. (It's quite a shock when you go to the continent and see all the buildings that were destroyed in the war then painstakingly recreated rather than discarded for the brave new world of the 50s and 60s.)
Ah now we've been here before, about this time last year. I remember the opprobrium heaped on Truro - and then a month later I drove past Truro Cathedral on a sunny day and was awestruck. Not a typical British cathedral, but rather striking nonetheless. Certainly in the top 1% of attractive buildings in the country, even if not in the top 1% of cathedrals.
Manchester: just a large parish church, basically. Not ugly by any means. Quite charming in its way. But not amazing. Ditto Blackburn.
Manchester had plans for a bloody huge cathedral in Piccadilly Gardens. A pity it never happened: not because Manchester needs a huge cathedral, but because what got put there instead was so ugly. These were the plans:
Truro is fine. It’s just a tiny bit generic neo-gothic. I was being mean. And of course, as a modern cathedral it lacks that numinous quality. I agree that it’s a rather handsome building taken on its own merits
Apparently Derby, Bradford and Sheffield are rubbish, but I just checked them out and they look ok. Merely a bit meh. Adapted parish churches
Nothing in the Anglican list matches the horror of Guildford. Tho there are some truly hideous Catholic jobs
To be fair the “hideous Catholic jobs” wouldn’t need to exist if the beautiful Catholic built and designed ones hadn’t been stolen from them.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
There is a slightly tricky aspect to using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It is conventional not to do it.
But the much more interesting question for all groups, Christian, No religion, Islam, everyone else, is "What do you actually think which results in your self identification". On this we have rather a lot of silence.
A recent big book on Humanism (Sarah Bakewell) includes all manner of believers in God in their ranks, including the great Erasmus, a giant of Christian history. Whereas to most people Humanists are people like Dawkins who are specifically atheist or agnostic. These issues are hard.
You are making them needlessly difficult.
See simple flowchart below.
Do you believe in the Christian God?
1) Yes 2) No
If 1 go to A.
If 2 go to B.
A.) You are a Christian B.) You are not a Christian
The Christian God is the same God of Abraham as the Muslim and Jewish God.
Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Laurence Llewyen Bowen is an atheist but still goes to his medieval village church every Sunday as he likes the aesthetics of the building and it is where the local community meet for a catch up. He is friendly with the Vicar who knows he doesn't believe in God.
So he could be a cultural Christian even if a non believer
Fine, but he's not a Christian though is he?
Professor Richard Dawkins says he himself is a 'cultural Christian' because he is of that tradition and likes to sing hymns.
But he's not a Christian either.
To be a Christian you must believe in the Christian God, otherwise you are not a Christian. Simple as that.
Otherwise, it's rather like calling someone a supporter of Nottingham Forest because they live in Nottingham, even though they actually support Notts County.
Not really, a better comparison would be someone who goes to all Nottingham Forest home matches but just doesn't support the team
It reminds me of a huge, industrial-sized crematorium
It is a very similar design and age to St Elisabeths church in Eastbourne, which was finally demolished a couple of years ago after 20 years spent trying to find a solution to the site.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
There is a slightly tricky aspect to using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It is conventional not to do it.
But the much more interesting question for all groups, Christian, No religion, Islam, everyone else, is "What do you actually think which results in your self identification". On this we have rather a lot of silence.
A recent big book on Humanism (Sarah Bakewell) includes all manner of believers in God in their ranks, including the great Erasmus, a giant of Christian history. Whereas to most people Humanists are people like Dawkins who are specifically atheist or agnostic. These issues are hard.
You are making them needlessly difficult.
See simple flowchart below.
Do you believe in the Christian God?
1) Yes 2) No
If 1 go to A.
If 2 go to B.
A.) You are a Christian B.) You are not a Christian
The Christian God is the same God of Abraham as the Muslim and Jewish God.
Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian
Where do Unitarians fit in to that?
Not really Christian as they don't believe in the Trinity
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
There is a slightly tricky aspect to using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It is conventional not to do it.
But the much more interesting question for all groups, Christian, No religion, Islam, everyone else, is "What do you actually think which results in your self identification". On this we have rather a lot of silence.
A recent big book on Humanism (Sarah Bakewell) includes all manner of believers in God in their ranks, including the great Erasmus, a giant of Christian history. Whereas to most people Humanists are people like Dawkins who are specifically atheist or agnostic. These issues are hard.
You are making them needlessly difficult.
See simple flowchart below.
Do you believe in the Christian God?
1) Yes 2) No
If 1 go to A.
If 2 go to B.
A.) You are a Christian B.) You are not a Christian
The Christian God is the same God of Abraham as the Muslim and Jewish God.
Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian
Fair enough – an important clarification. I would agree.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
There is a slightly tricky aspect to using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It is conventional not to do it.
But the much more interesting question for all groups, Christian, No religion, Islam, everyone else, is "What do you actually think which results in your self identification". On this we have rather a lot of silence.
A recent big book on Humanism (Sarah Bakewell) includes all manner of believers in God in their ranks, including the great Erasmus, a giant of Christian history. Whereas to most people Humanists are people like Dawkins who are specifically atheist or agnostic. These issues are hard.
You are making them needlessly difficult.
See simple flowchart below.
Do you believe in the Christian God?
1) Yes 2) No
If 1 go to A.
If 2 go to B.
A.) You are a Christian B.) You are not a Christian
The Christian God is the same God of Abraham as the Muslim and Jewish God.
Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian
Where do Unitarians fit in to that?
Not really Christian as they don't believe in the Trinity
Perhaps a Unitarian would say that you're not really a Christian because you do?
Yes; Brighton is the city of godless green gays; not much room for Christians there.
Nor Tories in Brighton either now, two Parliamentary seats in the city Labour, the other Green
Yes, I'm in Brighton Kemptown, a Tory seat as recently as 2015. The Tories have disappeared completely, even though Lloyd Russell-Moyle is the MP. We've had no communication from Tories for the local elections.
Conservative support in Brighton & Hove in 2019 was actually lower than in 1997. It's England's equivalent of San Francisco, politically.
Brighton is more diverse than it is often perceived, there are still large suburbs full of older people. There is still a respectable number of conservative councillors.
Ah now we've been here before, about this time last year. I remember the opprobrium heaped on Truro - and then a month later I drove past Truro Cathedral on a sunny day and was awestruck. Not a typical British cathedral, but rather striking nonetheless. Certainly in the top 1% of attractive buildings in the country, even if not in the top 1% of cathedrals.
Manchester: just a large parish church, basically. Not ugly by any means. Quite charming in its way. But not amazing. Ditto Blackburn.
Manchester had plans for a bloody huge cathedral in Piccadilly Gardens. A pity it never happened: not because Manchester needs a huge cathedral, but because what got put there instead was so ugly. These were the plans:
Truro is fine. It’s just a tiny bit generic neo-gothic. I was being mean. And of course, as a modern cathedral it lacks that numinous quality. I agree that it’s a rather handsome building taken on its own merits
Apparently Derby, Bradford and Sheffield are rubbish, but I just checked them out and they look ok. Merely a bit meh. Adapted parish churches
Nothing in the Anglican list matches the horror of Guildford. Tho there are some truly hideous Catholic jobs
To be fair the “hideous Catholic jobs” wouldn’t need to exist if the beautiful Catholic built and designed ones hadn’t been stolen from them.
I'm sure if they knew the horrible 20th century architecture their bishops would have to put up with 500 years later they would have been more clement in granting Henry VIII a divorce.
In fact, what is 'beauty' in any building or structure?
Is it proportion, fitting into location, form, materials?
As an example, I am not a fan of concrete as a 'beautiful' material. But I'd strongly argue that the Kylesku Bridge in the northwest of Scotland isn't a stunning addition to the landscape. Or, to a slightly lesser extent, the Glenfinnan Viaduct.
The Skye Bridge, on the other hand, whilst useful, is just fugly.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
There is a slightly tricky aspect to using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It is conventional not to do it.
But the much more interesting question for all groups, Christian, No religion, Islam, everyone else, is "What do you actually think which results in your self identification". On this we have rather a lot of silence.
A recent big book on Humanism (Sarah Bakewell) includes all manner of believers in God in their ranks, including the great Erasmus, a giant of Christian history. Whereas to most people Humanists are people like Dawkins who are specifically atheist or agnostic. These issues are hard.
You are making them needlessly difficult.
See simple flowchart below.
Do you believe in the Christian God?
1) Yes 2) No
If 1 go to A.
If 2 go to B.
A.) You are a Christian B.) You are not a Christian
The Christian God is the same God of Abraham as the Muslim and Jewish God.
Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian
Where do Unitarians fit in to that?
Not really Christian as they don't believe in the Trinity
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
There is a slightly tricky aspect to using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It is conventional not to do it.
But the much more interesting question for all groups, Christian, No religion, Islam, everyone else, is "What do you actually think which results in your self identification". On this we have rather a lot of silence.
A recent big book on Humanism (Sarah Bakewell) includes all manner of believers in God in their ranks, including the great Erasmus, a giant of Christian history. Whereas to most people Humanists are people like Dawkins who are specifically atheist or agnostic. These issues are hard.
You are making them needlessly difficult.
See simple flowchart below.
Do you believe in the Christian God?
1) Yes 2) No
If 1 go to A.
If 2 go to B.
A.) You are a Christian B.) You are not a Christian
The Christian God is the same God of Abraham as the Muslim and Jewish God.
Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian
Where do Unitarians fit in to that?
Not really Christian as they don't believe in the Trinity
Perhaps a Unitarian would say that you're not really a Christian because you do?
I would gently suggest the matter is between the individual and their God, and not for anyone to decide someone's else's beliefs
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
There is a slightly tricky aspect to using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It is conventional not to do it.
But the much more interesting question for all groups, Christian, No religion, Islam, everyone else, is "What do you actually think which results in your self identification". On this we have rather a lot of silence.
A recent big book on Humanism (Sarah Bakewell) includes all manner of believers in God in their ranks, including the great Erasmus, a giant of Christian history. Whereas to most people Humanists are people like Dawkins who are specifically atheist or agnostic. These issues are hard.
You are making them needlessly difficult.
See simple flowchart below.
Do you believe in the Christian God?
1) Yes 2) No
If 1 go to A.
If 2 go to B.
A.) You are a Christian B.) You are not a Christian
The Christian God is the same God of Abraham as the Muslim and Jewish God.
Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian
Where do Unitarians fit in to that?
Not really Christian as they don't believe in the Trinity
Perhaps a Unitarian would say that you're not really a Christian because you do?
Plenty of Christians don't believe in any god, just as with other religions. It's weirdly fanatic, or just ignorant, to claim otherwise.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
In fact, what is 'beauty' in any building or structure?
Is it proportion, fitting into location, form, materials?
As an example, I am not a fan of concrete as a 'beautiful' material. But I'd strongly argue that the Kylesku Bridge in the northwest of Scotland isn't a stunning addition to the landscape. Or, to a slightly lesser extent, the Glenfinnan Viaduct.
The Skye Bridge, on the other hand, whilst useful, is just fugly.
I think the Humber Bridge is stunningly beautiful, especially in early morning mist. Notorious white elephant though, commissioned to help Labour win a by-election.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
There is a slightly tricky aspect to using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It is conventional not to do it.
But the much more interesting question for all groups, Christian, No religion, Islam, everyone else, is "What do you actually think which results in your self identification". On this we have rather a lot of silence.
A recent big book on Humanism (Sarah Bakewell) includes all manner of believers in God in their ranks, including the great Erasmus, a giant of Christian history. Whereas to most people Humanists are people like Dawkins who are specifically atheist or agnostic. These issues are hard.
You are making them needlessly difficult.
See simple flowchart below.
Do you believe in the Christian God?
1) Yes 2) No
If 1 go to A.
If 2 go to B.
A.) You are a Christian B.) You are not a Christian
The Christian God is the same God of Abraham as the Muslim and Jewish God.
Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian
Where do Unitarians fit in to that?
Not really Christian as they don't believe in the Trinity
I think the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy applies.
Unitarians are closer to Muslims than Christians. They believe in God and see Jesus as Prophet and Messiah but unlike Christians don't believe Jesus is also God and in the Trinity
8.7 million watched the trooping of the colour 13.4 million watched Party at the Palace 16.75 million took part in a community event
So about one in four of the population.
It's a plurality because they were the most popular/watched TV shows at the time, and more people were celebrating than doing any other one activity - even if not an absolute majority of the population. Many more caught highlights later. There would also have been school and other institutional celebrations as well, as well as private ones that did not show up in the figures. All in all I suspect a third of the population did something.
I expect viewing numbers for the Coronation to be similar and about 10 million+ to watch it live, and a higher number on highlights later.
That’d be my guess too. Lots will probably just put it on in the background or whatever. Plenty of people who are not football fans still put the World Cup on. Similarly a lot of folk generally disinterested in royalty may well just flick it on out of a sense of curiosity or it’s-a-historic-event sort of thing.
Whatever the actual viewing figures, I’m sure there’ll be plenty for all sides to interpret in whichever way fits their pre-existing views
The only thing I did for the world cup was flip on the last 30 minutes of the Final, when England were in it.
I otherwise never touch, watch or read about football and simply ignore anyone who does.
I will not watch 1 second of the parasite crowning.
Morning Malc. You will have your union flag bunting out though, right?
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Maybe Labour should improve their offer rather than trying to rely solely on "We're your only alternative."
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
It reminds me of a huge, industrial-sized crematorium
I've just Google-image-searched Guildford Cathedral. Yes: I think that's the only Anglican cathedral I've come across which is actively unattractive.
Amazingly, it’s even worse in real life. They should knock it down (apparently this is actually being mooted)
Ooh, Coventry Cathedral of course - I forgot about that. A special case because there's still the shell of something beautiful: left there, no doubt, to show you what we had once and turned out back on. (It's quite a shock when you go to the continent and see all the buildings that were destroyed in the war then painstakingly recreated rather than discarded for the brave new world of the 50s and 60s.)
At least Coventry is interesting, and bold. Guildford is neither
Ah now we've been here before, about this time last year. I remember the opprobrium heaped on Truro - and then a month later I drove past Truro Cathedral on a sunny day and was awestruck. Not a typical British cathedral, but rather striking nonetheless. Certainly in the top 1% of attractive buildings in the country, even if not in the top 1% of cathedrals.
Manchester: just a large parish church, basically. Not ugly by any means. Quite charming in its way. But not amazing. Ditto Blackburn.
Manchester had plans for a bloody huge cathedral in Piccadilly Gardens. A pity it never happened: not because Manchester needs a huge cathedral, but because what got put there instead was so ugly. These were the plans:
Truro is fine. It’s just a tiny bit generic neo-gothic. I was being mean. And of course, as a modern cathedral it lacks that numinous quality. I agree that it’s a rather handsome building taken on its own merits
Apparently Derby, Bradford and Sheffield are rubbish, but I just checked them out and they look ok. Merely a bit meh. Adapted parish churches
Nothing in the Anglican list matches the horror of Guildford. Tho there are some truly hideous Catholic jobs
To be fair the “hideous Catholic jobs” wouldn’t need to exist if the beautiful Catholic built and designed ones hadn’t been stolen from them.
Brentwood Roman Catholic cathedral is quite pleasing on the eye, in a neoclassical style
Ah now we've been here before, about this time last year. I remember the opprobrium heaped on Truro - and then a month later I drove past Truro Cathedral on a sunny day and was awestruck. Not a typical British cathedral, but rather striking nonetheless. Certainly in the top 1% of attractive buildings in the country, even if not in the top 1% of cathedrals.
Manchester: just a large parish church, basically. Not ugly by any means. Quite charming in its way. But not amazing. Ditto Blackburn.
Manchester had plans for a bloody huge cathedral in Piccadilly Gardens. A pity it never happened: not because Manchester needs a huge cathedral, but because what got put there instead was so ugly. These were the plans:
Truro is fine. It’s just a tiny bit generic neo-gothic. I was being mean. And of course, as a modern cathedral it lacks that numinous quality. I agree that it’s a rather handsome building taken on its own merits
Apparently Derby, Bradford and Sheffield are rubbish, but I just checked them out and they look ok. Merely a bit meh. Adapted parish churches
Nothing in the Anglican list matches the horror of Guildford. Tho there are some truly hideous Catholic jobs
I don't mind Paddy's Wigwam, actually. It is what it is. I'm fond of Westminster Cathedral too.
Bit harsh to knock Manchester (and Bradford too) for their cathedrals; Manchester's is actually subtly quite lovely, though St Ann's church is nicer still. And let's not forget that York Minster took longer to build than the time Manchester has actually been a city of any note.
Ely is uniquely spectacular because of it's location in the fens; like stumbling on a cruise liner in a millpond. But my fave is probably Lincoln.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
There is a slightly tricky aspect to using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It is conventional not to do it.
But the much more interesting question for all groups, Christian, No religion, Islam, everyone else, is "What do you actually think which results in your self identification". On this we have rather a lot of silence.
A recent big book on Humanism (Sarah Bakewell) includes all manner of believers in God in their ranks, including the great Erasmus, a giant of Christian history. Whereas to most people Humanists are people like Dawkins who are specifically atheist or agnostic. These issues are hard.
You are making them needlessly difficult.
See simple flowchart below.
Do you believe in the Christian God?
1) Yes 2) No
If 1 go to A.
If 2 go to B.
A.) You are a Christian B.) You are not a Christian
The Christian God is the same God of Abraham as the Muslim and Jewish God.
Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian
Where do Unitarians fit in to that?
Not really Christian as they don't believe in the Trinity
I think the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy applies.
It would be interesting to know whether HYUFD thinks there were any Christians before the doctrine of the Trinity was developed in the late second century!
Maybe the idea is that Jesus was just too modest to mention it.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Anabobazina can see a Lab Majority slipping away as the Polls narrow and rather than blame the person responsible seeks to blame everyone else
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Laurence Llewyen Bowen is an atheist but still goes to his medieval village church every Sunday as he likes the aesthetics of the building and it is where the local community meet for a catch up. He is friendly with the Vicar who knows he doesn't believe in God.
So he could be a cultural Christian even if a non believer
Fine, but he's not a Christian though is he?
Professor Richard Dawkins says he himself is a 'cultural Christian' because he is of that tradition and likes to sing hymns.
But he's not a Christian either.
To be a Christian you must believe in the Christian God, otherwise you are not a Christian. Simple as that.
Otherwise, it's rather like calling someone a supporter of Nottingham Forest because they live in Nottingham, even though they actually support Notts County.
What if you believe in the Christian God AND you also believe in the Muslim God, and you happen to think they are really one and the same? Many, I presume most, other Christians would say you are not a Christian. Are you a Christian?
There is, of course, no right answer. Religions are not neatly defined things. Any religion followed by more than a handful of people shows a range of beliefs and practices. Religions are diverse, even if their followers sometimes insist otherwise.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
There is a slightly tricky aspect to using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It is conventional not to do it.
But the much more interesting question for all groups, Christian, No religion, Islam, everyone else, is "What do you actually think which results in your self identification". On this we have rather a lot of silence.
A recent big book on Humanism (Sarah Bakewell) includes all manner of believers in God in their ranks, including the great Erasmus, a giant of Christian history. Whereas to most people Humanists are people like Dawkins who are specifically atheist or agnostic. These issues are hard.
You are making them needlessly difficult.
See simple flowchart below.
Do you believe in the Christian God?
1) Yes 2) No
If 1 go to A.
If 2 go to B.
A.) You are a Christian B.) You are not a Christian
The Christian God is the same God of Abraham as the Muslim and Jewish God.
Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian
Where do Unitarians fit in to that?
Not really Christian as they don't believe in the Trinity
I think the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy applies.
It would be interesting to know whether HYUFD thinks there were any Christians before the doctrine of the Trinity was developed in the late second century!
Maybe the idea is that Jesus was just too modest to mention it.
Well as Jesus is and was God by definition if you followed him you were a Christian. Jews didn't believe Jesus was a Messiah or God and Muhammad hadn't yet arrived on the scene
Ah now we've been here before, about this time last year. I remember the opprobrium heaped on Truro - and then a month later I drove past Truro Cathedral on a sunny day and was awestruck. Not a typical British cathedral, but rather striking nonetheless. Certainly in the top 1% of attractive buildings in the country, even if not in the top 1% of cathedrals.
Manchester: just a large parish church, basically. Not ugly by any means. Quite charming in its way. But not amazing. Ditto Blackburn.
Manchester had plans for a bloody huge cathedral in Piccadilly Gardens. A pity it never happened: not because Manchester needs a huge cathedral, but because what got put there instead was so ugly. These were the plans:
Truro is fine. It’s just a tiny bit generic neo-gothic. I was being mean. And of course, as a modern cathedral it lacks that numinous quality. I agree that it’s a rather handsome building taken on its own merits
Apparently Derby, Bradford and Sheffield are rubbish, but I just checked them out and they look ok. Merely a bit meh. Adapted parish churches
Nothing in the Anglican list matches the horror of Guildford. Tho there are some truly hideous Catholic jobs
I don't mind Paddy's Wigwam, actually. It is what it is. I'm fond of Westminster Cathedral too.
Bit harsh to knock Manchester (and Bradford too) for their cathedrals; Manchester's is actually subtly quite lovely, though St Ann's church is nicer still. And let's not forget that York Minster took longer to build than the time Manchester has actually been a city of any note.
Ely is uniquely spectacular because of it's location in the fens; like stumbling on a cruise liner in a millpond. But my fave is probably Lincoln.
Yes, Westminster Cathedral is one of the best mosques in the country.
Generally quite a lot of hate for Guildford, and Liverpool Catholic cathedral (which is unfair, i reckon it’s OK)
And this is a very good contender for THE ugliest cathedral on earth. Rio
Works better if you think of each of these apertures filled with the decapitated heads of your human sacrifices (yes, I know Rio is further south than the more excessive South American civilisations, but still..).
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
There is a slightly tricky aspect to using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It is conventional not to do it.
But the much more interesting question for all groups, Christian, No religion, Islam, everyone else, is "What do you actually think which results in your self identification". On this we have rather a lot of silence.
A recent big book on Humanism (Sarah Bakewell) includes all manner of believers in God in their ranks, including the great Erasmus, a giant of Christian history. Whereas to most people Humanists are people like Dawkins who are specifically atheist or agnostic. These issues are hard.
You are making them needlessly difficult.
See simple flowchart below.
Do you believe in the Christian God?
1) Yes 2) No
If 1 go to A.
If 2 go to B.
A.) You are a Christian B.) You are not a Christian
The Christian God is the same God of Abraham as the Muslim and Jewish God.
Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian
Where do Unitarians fit in to that?
Not really Christian as they don't believe in the Trinity
I think the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy applies.
It would be interesting to know whether HYUFD thinks there were any Christians before the doctrine of the Trinity was developed in the late second century!
Maybe the idea is that Jesus was just too modest to mention it.
Well as Jesus is and was God by definition if you followed him you were a Christian.
Do you ever think before you write?
Do you remember saying a short time ago that someone who doesn't believe in the Trinity isn't "really" a Christian?
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Laurence Llewyen Bowen is an atheist but still goes to his medieval village church every Sunday as he likes the aesthetics of the building and it is where the local community meet for a catch up. He is friendly with the Vicar who knows he doesn't believe in God.
So he could be a cultural Christian even if a non believer
Fine, but he's not a Christian though is he?
Professor Richard Dawkins says he himself is a 'cultural Christian' because he is of that tradition and likes to sing hymns.
But he's not a Christian either.
To be a Christian you must believe in the Christian God, otherwise you are not a Christian. Simple as that.
Otherwise, it's rather like calling someone a supporter of Nottingham Forest because they live in Nottingham, even though they actually support Notts County.
What if you believe in the Christian God AND you also believe in the Muslim God, and you happen to think they are really one and the same? Many, I presume most, other Christians would say you are not a Christian. Are you a Christian?
There is, of course, no right answer. Religions are not neatly defined things. Any religion followed by more than a handful of people shows a range of beliefs and practices. Religions are diverse, even if their followers sometimes insist otherwise.
It's not up to anyone else is it? Really surprised at the enthusiasm for takfir around here.
Generally quite a lot of hate for Guildford, and Liverpool Catholic cathedral (which is unfair, i reckon it’s OK)
And this is a very good contender for THE ugliest cathedral on earth. Rio
Works better if you think of each of these apertures filled with the decapitated heads of your human sacrifices (yes, I know Rio is further south than the more excessive South American civilisations, but still..).
Apparently that was the inspiration. Mesoamerican pyramids. Pagan sites of brutal human sacrifice
Tho if you’ve been to Palenque or Chichen Itza or Teotihuacan they are a lot nicer than THAT
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Laurence Llewyen Bowen is an atheist but still goes to his medieval village church every Sunday as he likes the aesthetics of the building and it is where the local community meet for a catch up. He is friendly with the Vicar who knows he doesn't believe in God.
So he could be a cultural Christian even if a non believer
Fine, but he's not a Christian though is he?
Professor Richard Dawkins says he himself is a 'cultural Christian' because he is of that tradition and likes to sing hymns.
But he's not a Christian either.
To be a Christian you must believe in the Christian God, otherwise you are not a Christian. Simple as that.
Otherwise, it's rather like calling someone a supporter of Nottingham Forest because they live in Nottingham, even though they actually support Notts County.
What if you believe in the Christian God AND you also believe in the Muslim God, and you happen to think they are really one and the same? Many, I presume most, other Christians would say you are not a Christian. Are you a Christian?
There is, of course, no right answer. Religions are not neatly defined things. Any religion followed by more than a handful of people shows a range of beliefs and practices. Religions are diverse, even if their followers sometimes insist otherwise.
I thought the Christian God and the Islamic God were the same? Basically just the Jewish God. Personally I am an Atheist but a cultural Christian. I'm a real sucker for a good Christmas carol.
Generally quite a lot of hate for Guildford, and Liverpool Catholic cathedral (which is unfair, i reckon it’s OK)
And this is a very good contender for THE ugliest cathedral on earth. Rio
Surprised Clifton Cathedral didn't get a look in on that list.
I honestly don't mind brutalism done right. But there is nothing right about Clifton Cathedral, a building that resembles a dystopian out-of-town shopping centre that belongs in A Clockwork Orange.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
There is a slightly tricky aspect to using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It is conventional not to do it.
But the much more interesting question for all groups, Christian, No religion, Islam, everyone else, is "What do you actually think which results in your self identification". On this we have rather a lot of silence.
A recent big book on Humanism (Sarah Bakewell) includes all manner of believers in God in their ranks, including the great Erasmus, a giant of Christian history. Whereas to most people Humanists are people like Dawkins who are specifically atheist or agnostic. These issues are hard.
You are making them needlessly difficult.
See simple flowchart below.
Do you believe in the Christian God?
1) Yes 2) No
If 1 go to A.
If 2 go to B.
A.) You are a Christian B.) You are not a Christian
The Christian God is the same God of Abraham as the Muslim and Jewish God.
Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian
Where do Unitarians fit in to that?
Not really Christian as they don't believe in the Trinity
I think the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy applies.
It would be interesting to know whether HYUFD thinks there were any Christians before the doctrine of the Trinity was developed in the late second century!
Maybe the idea is that Jesus was just too modest to mention it.
Well as Jesus is and was God by definition if you followed him you were a Christian.
Do you ever think before you write?
Do you remember saying a short time ago that someone who doesn't believe in the Trinity isn't "really" a Christian?
Yes and no early Christians rejected the fact Jesus was God
Generally quite a lot of hate for Guildford, and Liverpool Catholic cathedral (which is unfair, i reckon it’s OK)
And this is a very good contender for THE ugliest cathedral on earth. Rio
Works better if you think of each of these apertures filled with the decapitated heads of your human sacrifices (yes, I know Rio is further south than the more excessive South American civilisations, but still..).
Apparently that was the inspiration. Mesoamerican pyramids. Pagan sites of brutal human sacrifice
Tho if you’ve been to Palenque or Chichen Itza or Teotihuacan they are a lot nicer than THAT
@RachelReevesMP · 1h After 13 years of the Tories, people are asking themselves - am I any better off?
The answer is a resounding no.
I think After 13 years of the Tories, people are asking themselves - am I going to be any better off under SKS/Reeves Labour?
The answer is a resounding no.
Personally, I'm much, much better off than I was in 2010. The years 2010-2023 have, materially (and indeed in other ways) been far, far better for me than 1997-2010.
Of course, you can't generalise from one person. But my suburb and my city are both doing far better than they were in 2010.
(Granted, 2010 we were just coming out of the GFC. But If you're going to say that wasn't Labour's fault I would also say that Covid and Ukraine weren't the Tories' fault.)
Generally quite a lot of hate for Guildford, and Liverpool Catholic cathedral (which is unfair, i reckon it’s OK)
And this is a very good contender for THE ugliest cathedral on earth. Rio
Works better if you think of each of these apertures filled with the decapitated heads of your human sacrifices (yes, I know Rio is further south than the more excessive South American civilisations, but still..).
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/apr/28/eva-green-wins-high-court-battle-over-collapse-of-sci-fi-film ...Her victory follows a case in which Green gave evidence, saying it was “humiliating” that private Whatsapp messages she had sent were revealed in court. Those messages included her comments about being “obliged to take [the producer’s] shitty peasant crew members from Hampshire” after the location was switched from Ireland. They also included her description of the production as a “B-shitty-movie” and the executive producer, Jake Seal, as “pure vomit,” a “devious sociopath” and “evil”...
The judge rightly stood up for the rights of potty mouths everywhere. ...“I take account of her evident emotional and forthright personality in explaining her more extreme comments about Mr Seal, whom she clearly detested even though she only met him once,”..
Generally quite a lot of hate for Guildford, and Liverpool Catholic cathedral (which is unfair, i reckon it’s OK)
And this is a very good contender for THE ugliest cathedral on earth. Rio
Works better if you think of each of these apertures filled with the decapitated heads of your human sacrifices (yes, I know Rio is further south than the more excessive South American civilisations, but still..).
Apparently that was the inspiration. Mesoamerican pyramids. Pagan sites of brutal human sacrifice
Tho if you’ve been to Palenque or Chichen Itza or Teotihuacan they are a lot nicer than THAT
It’s like a non pyramid shaped pyramid.
ISTR watching a travel show and seeing that it's quite nice on the inside (cf Liverpool Catholic Cathedral).
Though not actually as nice as an actual York/Durham/Ely type cathedral. Just nice in a 'ooh, pleasant enough in here, not as horrible as the outside led us to believe' way.
Generally quite a lot of hate for Guildford, and Liverpool Catholic cathedral (which is unfair, i reckon it’s OK)
And this is a very good contender for THE ugliest cathedral on earth. Rio
I quite like that actually.
It looks like a boldly designed Nazi gas chamber
No. It’s like a place of worship rising out of an ancient landscape.
Like the moles have got big and caught religion?
This one looks evil church dystopia to me, but I didn't mind some of the others in the article (including some of the others in Brazil and the one in NZ, which I imagine is pretty stunning inside)
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Labour Party Conference last year voted overwhelmingly for it.
SKS doesnt do Party Democracy though
Or Socialism for that matter despite being leader of a Democratic Socialist Party
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
I think this isn't the first time you've said this. Why do you say it?
I know tactical voting is a thing, but this isn't true. In a Lab/Con marginal, a vote for Labour would add one to Labour. A vote for Con would add one to Con. A vote for someone else DOESN'T do either, but it doesn't support either side either. It's a wasted vote (but then again, a lot of votes are wasted aren't they?).
It really depends on the day on what is the most important issue for you, and what the state of your seat is.
For me, the most important issue is likely to be the introduction of Proportional Representation (as it has been for most of my GE voting intentions). I would therefore vote Liberal Democrat. I do not think it will help, or hinder, in my constituency, because Labour will get 20billion votes, and the others will get 1 vote each (the candidate) and the Lib Dems will get 2 (the candidate plus my vote).
If the most important issue is 'get Party X out' then voting tactically MAY be useful.
But again, its a simple failure of the Labour Party to look past tribalism. The Liberal Democrats (and the Greens) are not traitors because their votes stop Labour winning. They support different policies to Labour, and are not the Labour party.
If Labour wants to win, it needs to put forward a better case than 'Vote for us, else the baby eating evil Tories will win and eat your babies'.
If they want to attract LD voters, try considering PR. It really would help.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Quite a large proportion of the electorate favour it.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/apr/28/eva-green-wins-high-court-battle-over-collapse-of-sci-fi-film ...Her victory follows a case in which Green gave evidence, saying it was “humiliating” that private Whatsapp messages she had sent were revealed in court. Those messages included her comments about being “obliged to take [the producer’s] shitty peasant crew members from Hampshire” after the location was switched from Ireland. They also included her description of the production as a “B-shitty-movie” and the executive producer, Jake Seal, as “pure vomit,” a “devious sociopath” and “evil”...
The judge rightly stood up for the rights of potty mouths everywhere. ...“I take account of her evident emotional and forthright personality in explaining her more extreme comments about Mr Seal, whom she clearly detested even though she only met him once,”..
Although he did temper this with "She said it was ‘humiliating’ but some of her explanations for the language she used and the feelings she expressed – such as they were down to her ‘Frenchness’ – were not credible or adequate."
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
Actually people are forgetting just how far behind the Conservatives start from, as of today.
But they don't, do they?
They start from 160 seats ahead.
Polls are not where elections start from in this country.
If there is an election today Labour will.win a majority of about 150 seats. Elections are a zero sum exercises. If Labour get some more votes than the Conservatives, they will get some more seats; if they get more again votes., they will get a lot more seats. The seat distribution last time is irrelevant.
It's.entirely possible Sunak will be able to reduce or even overturn the current Labour advantage. But the starting point, as of today, is a large Labour majority verging on a landslide. That's simply a mechanic of the electoral system.
They really will not. Elections are anything but zero sum games. Incumbency, resource spread, candidate quality, local factors, vote stickiness all play significant parts in the outcome. It is much harder to take a seat than to hold it, and it takes a lot of effort.
Even in 1945, which comes closest, the Conservatives were able to keep Labour's majority to 146. In 1997, Labour won a majority of 179. A similar swing today would see them win a majority of exactly one.
And polls are not starting points. They are indicators.
Focus on the swings required, and use the polls as a guide to where they will lead.
And polls are not starting points. They are indicators.
Exactly. They are point in time indicators. Currently indicating a very substantial majority for Labour. Sunak could change that, and predictions turn on how successful he will be in doing that. But he has to do the work. Hence my original.remark.
But your original remark assumes a clean slate every time. Which is simply not the case.
I'm starting to feel a thread header coming on although with the amount of work I've got right now goodness only knows when I would have time to write it.
Actually it is more or less a clean sheet every time because competitive first past the post elections make it so. But definitely interested in your header if you have the time to write it. I may realise I got it wrong!
Yes, my view is that where you were last time is largely irrelevant nowadays. Loyalty to a party is a thing of the past. And also, the landscape has changed. No Corbyn, no Boris. The fact that a given voter preferred Boris to Corbyn last time implies almost nothing for their views on Rish v SKS (though I'd suggest if we know what that voter thought about Cameron v EdM we might get a better idea).
Approx 1 in 3 people who vote in a British general election vote differently to the previous one*. Volatile.
* Source: Read it the other day somewhere.
And from your source, have you any idea how that has changed over time? My guess is that it is rather higher than it was 20 years ago and much higher than it was 40 years ago. But you're the man with the source.
Generally quite a lot of hate for Guildford, and Liverpool Catholic cathedral (which is unfair, i reckon it’s OK)
And this is a very good contender for THE ugliest cathedral on earth. Rio
Works better if you think of each of these apertures filled with the decapitated heads of your human sacrifices (yes, I know Rio is further south than the more excessive South American civilisations, but still..).
Rio? Is that not Guildford?
I didn't know the local elections in Guildford this year were that vicious? I mean I know the wars over LD bar charts and Tory local plans are tough but human sacrifice is a little excessive
Comments
https://christiantoday.com/article/could.this.be.the.end.for.britains.ugliest.cathedral/104787.htm
It reminds me of a huge, industrial-sized crematorium
So he could be a cultural Christian even if a non believer
But the much more interesting question for all groups, Christian, No religion, Islam, everyone else, is "What do you actually think which results in your self identification". On this we have rather a lot of silence.
A recent big book on Humanism (Sarah Bakewell) includes all manner of believers in God in their ranks, including the great Erasmus, a giant of Christian history. Whereas to most people Humanists are people like Dawkins who are specifically atheist or agnostic. These issues are hard.
Apparently Derby, Bradford and Sheffield are rubbish, but I just checked them out and they look ok. Merely a bit meh. Adapted parish churches
Nothing in the Anglican list matches the horror of Guildford. Tho there are some truly hideous Catholic jobs
And yes, what was going through my mind earlier was that Guildford looked like a Catholic cathedral.
No wealth taxes, No Nationalisation, No abolition of University fees.
Literally nothing has survived labour promised an end to austerity they are now promising austerity.
The 2017 Manifesto offered hope of something better and different, SKS now says we cant afford to do anything and offers the square root of FA
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/07/11/why-people-voted-labour-or-conservative-2017-gener
Professor Richard Dawkins says he himself is a 'cultural Christian' because he is of that tradition and likes to sing hymns.
But he's not a Christian either.
To be a Christian you must believe in the Christian God, otherwise you are not a Christian. Simple as that.
Otherwise, it's rather like calling someone a supporter of Nottingham Forest because they live in Nottingham, even though they actually support Notts County.
Though technically yes to be a Christian you do need to believe in God and the Trinity
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Trinity_Church,_Guildford
See simple flowchart below.
Do you believe in the Christian God?
1) Yes
2) No
If 1 go to A.
If 2 go to B.
A.) You are a Christian
B.) You are not a Christian
Not so keen about some of the very modern ones though!
Doesn't make me a Christian either.
Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
There is still a respectable number of conservative councillors.
https://democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx?bcr=1
In fact, what is 'beauty' in any building or structure?
Is it proportion, fitting into location, form, materials?
As an example, I am not a fan of concrete as a 'beautiful' material. But I'd strongly argue that the Kylesku Bridge in the northwest of Scotland isn't a stunning addition to the landscape. Or, to a slightly lesser extent, the Glenfinnan Viaduct.
The Skye Bridge, on the other hand, whilst useful, is just fugly.
https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/ugliest-cathedrals-in-the-world
Generally quite a lot of hate for Guildford, and Liverpool Catholic cathedral (which is unfair, i reckon it’s OK)
And this is a very good contender for THE ugliest cathedral on earth. Rio
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
https://www.rfi.fr/en/business-and-tech/20230428-eurozone-gdp-grows-0-1-in-first-three-months-of-2023
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brentwood_Cathedral
Bit harsh to knock Manchester (and Bradford too) for their cathedrals; Manchester's is actually subtly quite lovely, though St Ann's church is nicer still. And let's not forget that York Minster took longer to build than the time Manchester has actually been a city of any note.
Ely is uniquely spectacular because of it's location in the fens; like stumbling on a cruise liner in a millpond. But my fave is probably Lincoln.
Maybe the idea is that Jesus was just too modest to mention it.
Boring!!
There is, of course, no right answer. Religions are not neatly defined things. Any religion followed by more than a handful of people shows a range of beliefs and practices. Religions are diverse, even if their followers sometimes insist otherwise.
Do you remember saying a short time ago that someone who doesn't believe in the Trinity isn't "really" a Christian?
·
1h
After 13 years of the Tories, people are asking themselves - am I any better off?
The answer is a resounding no.
I think After 13 years of the Tories, people are asking themselves - am I going to be any better off under SKS/Reeves Labour?
The answer is a resounding no.
Tho if you’ve been to Palenque or Chichen Itza or Teotihuacan they are a lot nicer than THAT
Personally I am an Atheist but a cultural Christian. I'm a real sucker for a good Christmas carol.
I honestly don't mind brutalism done right. But there is nothing right about Clifton Cathedral, a building that resembles a dystopian out-of-town shopping centre that belongs in A Clockwork Orange.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/28/e-coli-levels-suffolk-river-therese-coffey-constituency-far-above-legal-limits-data-shows
The years 2010-2023 have, materially (and indeed in other ways) been far, far better for me than 1997-2010.
Of course, you can't generalise from one person. But my suburb and my city are both doing far better than they were in 2010.
(Granted, 2010 we were just coming out of the GFC. But If you're going to say that wasn't Labour's fault I would also say that Covid and Ukraine weren't the Tories' fault.)
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/apr/28/eva-green-wins-high-court-battle-over-collapse-of-sci-fi-film
...Her victory follows a case in which Green gave evidence, saying it was “humiliating” that private Whatsapp messages she had sent were revealed in court.
Those messages included her comments about being “obliged to take [the producer’s] shitty peasant crew members from Hampshire” after the location was switched from Ireland. They also included her description of the production as a “B-shitty-movie” and the executive producer, Jake Seal, as “pure vomit,” a “devious sociopath” and “evil”...
The judge rightly stood up for the rights of potty mouths everywhere.
...“I take account of her evident emotional and forthright personality in explaining her more extreme comments about Mr Seal, whom she clearly detested even though she only met him once,”..
Though not actually as nice as an actual York/Durham/Ely type cathedral. Just nice in a 'ooh, pleasant enough in here, not as horrible as the outside led us to believe' way.
This one looks evil church dystopia to me, but I didn't mind some of the others in the article (including some of the others in Brazil and the one in NZ, which I imagine is pretty stunning inside)
SKS doesnt do Party Democracy though
Or Socialism for that matter despite being leader of a Democratic Socialist Party
I know tactical voting is a thing, but this isn't true.
In a Lab/Con marginal, a vote for Labour would add one to Labour.
A vote for Con would add one to Con.
A vote for someone else DOESN'T do either, but it doesn't support either side either. It's a wasted vote (but then again, a lot of votes are wasted aren't they?).
It really depends on the day on what is the most important issue for you, and what the state of your seat is.
For me, the most important issue is likely to be the introduction of Proportional Representation (as it has been for most of my GE voting intentions). I would therefore vote Liberal Democrat.
I do not think it will help, or hinder, in my constituency, because Labour will get 20billion votes, and the others will get 1 vote each (the candidate) and the Lib Dems will get 2 (the candidate plus my vote).
If the most important issue is 'get Party X out' then voting tactically MAY be useful.
But again, its a simple failure of the Labour Party to look past tribalism.
The Liberal Democrats (and the Greens) are not traitors because their votes stop Labour winning. They support different policies to Labour, and are not the Labour party.
If Labour wants to win, it needs to put forward a better case than 'Vote for us, else the baby eating evil Tories will win and eat your babies'.
If they want to attract LD voters, try considering PR. It really would help.
1 Liberal Democrats
2 Nigel Farage and RefUK
3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR:
All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
Here's the long term trend:
https://bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39477/bsa39_constitutional-reform.pdf
And the last few years;
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-we-change-our-current-british-voting-system
It's the actually the fanatical defenders of FPTP who are the truly odd ones.
The answer to "where is it coming from " is perhaps the generally shitty nature of government we've endured under FPTP. But I speculate.
I would have allowed her the frenchness defence.