Lab’s by-election record has been mediocre – politicalbetting.com
There is a row starting to develop between LAB and the Lib Dems about the upcoming Mid Bedfordshire by-election created of course by the resignation of Nadine Dorries.
The LDs are experts at winning by elections whatever their national poll rating, as they flood the seat with activists and Focus leaflets and promise the voters everything and are a natural protest for voters disillusioned with the government without Tory voters having to cross the Rubicon to Labour or Labour voters to Tory.
Labour's by election record is much more patchy however they can gain seats when well ahead in the polls, as they did in Selby and thus will fancy their chances in Mid Beds too which Labour would gain on the same swing as they got in the Selby by election
It will depend on whether Tory voters stay at home. I suspect they will, but I'm not sure. So I'm not backing Tories but have been laying LibDems below 1.9 (inc one bet at a ridiculously short 1.45).
First...... What I take fom this is that Labour collectively have become rather big-headed, and think they can win everywhere.
They have failed to learn the lesson from Selby - where the Lib Dems put on a distinctly pathetic performance, and Labour won the seat. This was not because Labour were particularly brilliant there, but because the Lib Dems did not put on a strong campaign.
Labour is not going to win a large number of seats unless other parties effectively stand aside to help them win. And as OGH points out, even then they failed to win Uxbridge.
Personally, I cannot wait to see the end of this pathetic incompetent government. But does that mean that I hate it so much that I would vote Labour if I lived in the right kind of seat. No, it does not. Labour have let us down time after time in the past, and on present showing they continue to be just out for themselves.
Labour really ought to go "full gas" for this. The swing needed to win it is below the swing they achieved to win Selby.
Best case scenario they win and can put it down as a massive marker that they can take on the Tories anywhere and are serious contenders for the next election.
Worst case the Tories hold on and it can be dismissed as a safe Tory seat with a 23k majority anyway.
First...... What I take fom this is that Labour collectively have become rather big-headed, and think they can win everywhere.
They have failed to learn the lesson from Selby - where the Lib Dems put on a distinctly pathetic performance, and Labour won the seat. This was not because Labour were particularly brilliant there, but because the Lib Dems did not put on a strong campaign.
Labour is not going to win a large number of seats unless other parties effectively stand aside to help them win. And as OGH points out, even then they failed to win Uxbridge.
Personally, I cannot wait to see the end of this pathetic incompetent government. But does that mean that I hate it so much that I would vote Labour if I lived in the right kind of seat. No, it does not. Labour have let us down time after time in the past, and on present showing they continue to be just out for themselves.
First...... What I take fom this is that Labour collectively have become rather big-headed, and think they can win everywhere.
They have failed to learn the lesson from Selby - where the Lib Dems put on a distinctly pathetic performance, and Labour won the seat. This was not because Labour were particularly brilliant there, but because the Lib Dems did not put on a strong campaign.
Labour is not going to win a large number of seats unless other parties effectively stand aside to help them win. And as OGH points out, even then they failed to win Uxbridge.
Personally, I cannot wait to see the end of this pathetic incompetent government. But does that mean that I hate it so much that I would vote Labour if I lived in the right kind of seat. No, it does not. Labour have let us down time after time in the past, and on present showing they continue to be just out for themselves.
Every party and every voters should be out for themselves and trying their best.
Any party can win any seat, you just need to secure more votes than the opposition.
The idea that any party should "stand aside" is as ridiculous as the idea Lib Dem or Green vogers should belong to Labour as "progressive" voters.
If Lib Dems and Labour had the same beliefs and wanted the same thing, they'd be the same party. They're not.
Everyone should put their best foot forward and may the best one win.
I have no idea who will win Mid Bedfordshire. Possibly a SHOCK CON hold?!
I don't know who will win but they should all try their best and stop trying to game the system.
I admit that I'm a bit sniffy about individual tactical voting - but parties standing aside verges on the corrupt in my view.
More stupid.
The Liberal Democrats stood aside in Cannock Chase and told me to vote Green instead.
Did I?
No, I tore up my ballot paper.
Because while the Liberal Democrats were a reasonable fit for what I was looking for, the Greens were not, and I did not think Brexit trumped all the things I didn't agree with in their national manifesto.
I mean, if they wanted a paper candidate I'd have stood for them myself, but they didn't even go through the motions.
I have no idea who will win Mid Bedfordshire. Possibly a SHOCK CON hold?!
Looking that way. Every result from shock con hold, lab victory, lib victory and tories third is conceivable. But I think con hold is the most likely.
The LibDems remain favourites in the betting, with Lab and Con about the same (both 3:1 with many bookies). If you think Con hold is the most likely, 3:1 should be attractive to you. I think 3:1 on Labour is the more attractive bet.
I have no idea who will win Mid Bedfordshire. Possibly a SHOCK CON hold?!
I don't know who will win but they should all try their best and stop trying to game the system.
For that, we will need to change the system.
Then they'll game the new one instead, but it would end tactical voting (unless we went with AV).
Blair had the chance, and swerved it. I don't think the system will change in my lifetime.
(I have no plans to die soon.)
Catch is only the Liberal Democrats want a change, and they can't realistically force one on Labour, who will just say 'well, vote us out and Jones the Tories come back.'
So it needs to be another Tory/Lib Dem coalition.
And the conditions for that including hell freezing over are just not there.
I have no idea who will win Mid Bedfordshire. Possibly a SHOCK CON hold?!
I don't know who will win but they should all try their best and stop trying to game the system.
I admit that I'm a bit sniffy about individual tactical voting - but parties standing aside verges on the corrupt in my view.
More stupid.
The Liberal Democrats stood aside in Cannock Chase and told me to vote Green instead.
Did I?
No, I tore up my ballot paper.
Because while the Liberal Democrats were a reasonable fit for what I was looking for, the Greens were not, and I did not think Brexit trumped all the things I didn't agree with in their national manifesto.
I mean, if they wanted a paper candidate I'd have stood for them myself, but they didn't even go through the motions.
Parties trying to game the system, or blame the system, do so as a comfort blanket.
If you aren't winning the most voters then try looking inwards and asking what you can do to improve, to reach out to more. Don't cry that it's unfair, or that others should step aside for you. Everyone operates under the same rules, either attract voters or don't.
I have no idea who will win Mid Bedfordshire. Possibly a SHOCK CON hold?!
Looking that way. Every result from shock con hold, lab victory, lib victory and tories third is conceivable. But I think con hold is the most likely.
The LibDems remain favourites in the betting, with Lab and Con about the same (both 3:1 with many bookies). If you think Con hold is the most likely, 3:1 should be attractive to you. I think 3:1 on Labour is the more attractive bet.
I'd make the LD's third favourite. Laying them as advised upthread seems the astute course.
I have no idea who will win Mid Bedfordshire. Possibly a SHOCK CON hold?!
Looking that way. Every result from shock con hold, lab victory, lib victory and tories third is conceivable. But I think con hold is the most likely.
The LibDems remain favourites in the betting, with Lab and Con about the same (both 3:1 with many bookies). If you think Con hold is the most likely, 3:1 should be attractive to you. I think 3:1 on Labour is the more attractive bet.
I agree, so long as they put the effort in.
I'm not sure if they're going to or not, so no bet for me.
I am starting to doubt if the MB byelection is going to be important WRT to GE 2024.
1) The national mood is firm: time for a change. A Tory win won't alter that.
2) A Labour win says: systems are on track to dispose of the Tory government
3) LD win says: C and A, Shropshire North all over again. Remind yourself to vote tactically if you live in Guildford or Harrogate, but Bootle and South Holland are as you were.
The only upset to this would be a really clear and decisive Tory win, or of course the Independent coming through.
The interest therefore is in the betting. Labour are currently value, but P G Wodehouse would describe this as like the Fathers' Obstacle Race: very hard to assess form.
I have no idea who will win Mid Bedfordshire. Possibly a SHOCK CON hold?!
I don't know who will win but they should all try their best and stop trying to game the system.
I admit that I'm a bit sniffy about individual tactical voting - but parties standing aside verges on the corrupt in my view.
More stupid.
The Liberal Democrats stood aside in Cannock Chase and told me to vote Green instead.
Did I?
No, I tore up my ballot paper.
Because while the Liberal Democrats were a reasonable fit for what I was looking for, the Greens were not, and I did not think Brexit trumped all the things I didn't agree with in their national manifesto.
I mean, if they wanted a paper candidate I'd have stood for them myself, but they didn't even go through the motions.
Start the British Space Program Party - "Exporting centres of National Excellence to the stars!"
One would reasonably assume that one must believe in the Christian God to be a Christian. As most British people do not, it’s fair to say we are no longer a Christian country (nor a religious one).
Given 53.5% of people in England and Wales said they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish in the 2021 census then it is also fair to say we are still a religious nation that believes in the God of Abraham, even if only a plurality still believe in Christianity and the Trinity and that Jesus was Messiah
Many who put that down do so because of cultural/legacy factors rather than serious belief.
And of those who do believe, considering many of those would view other believers you have mentioned as either heretics or heathens, uniting them all together as "Abrahamic" is as preposterous as linking Corbynistas, and Blairites, and Orange Boomers and everyone else together as united "progressives".
So, they still define themselves as Christian. While some of those defining themselves as non religious will be agnostic not atheist.
Muslims and Christians and Jews also share a distinct belief in the God of Abraham, arguably more distinct than the agreement between Corbynites, Blairites and Orange Bookers on the power the state should have in the economy and outside
LOL^2
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
I have no idea who will win Mid Bedfordshire. Possibly a SHOCK CON hold?!
I don't know who will win but they should all try their best and stop trying to game the system.
I admit that I'm a bit sniffy about individual tactical voting - but parties standing aside verges on the corrupt in my view.
More stupid.
The Liberal Democrats stood aside in Cannock Chase and told me to vote Green instead.
Did I?
No, I tore up my ballot paper.
Because while the Liberal Democrats were a reasonable fit for what I was looking for, the Greens were not, and I did not think Brexit trumped all the things I didn't agree with in their national manifesto.
I mean, if they wanted a paper candidate I'd have stood for them myself, but they didn't even go through the motions.
Start the British Space Program Party - "Exporting centres of National Excellence to the stars!"
I am starting to doubt if the MB byelection is going to be important WRT to GE 2024.
1) The national mood is firm: time for a change. A Tory win won't alter that.
2) A Labour win says: systems are on track to dispose of the Tory government
3) LD win says: C and A, Shropshire North all over again. Remind yourself to vote tactically if you live in Guildford or Harrogate, but Bootle and South Holland are as you were.
The only upset to this would be a really clear and decisive Tory win, or of course the Independent coming through.
The interest therefore is in the betting. Labour are currently value, but P G Wodehouse would describe this as like the Fathers' Obstacle Race: very hard to assess form.
Are by-elections ever that important? I mean, they can be portents of the general election result, but they rarely influence the general election result.
I have no idea who will win Mid Bedfordshire. Possibly a SHOCK CON hold?!
Looking that way. Every result from shock con hold, lab victory, lib victory and tories third is conceivable. But I think con hold is the most likely.
The LibDems remain favourites in the betting, with Lab and Con about the same (both 3:1 with many bookies). If you think Con hold is the most likely, 3:1 should be attractive to you. I think 3:1 on Labour is the more attractive bet.
I'd make the LD's third favourite. Laying them as advised upthread seems the astute course.
I agree. Punters have just got used to Lib Dems winning on massive swings in “rural” constituencies. I don’t think the maths works here.
For balance, a much more positive take on the Ukrainian war. I sincerely hope this is right
“Some significant developments of the last days of Russo-Ukrainian war: - The Ukrainians advanced in strategic direction to Melitopol and Tokmak, Ukrainian gains look very solid and sustainable; - Massive usage of drones by Ukraine against Russian military targets in multiply Russian cities, hundreds kilometers from the border; - The Russian army losses on equipment have reached levels unseen before, with dozens of artillery pieces and trucks every day for days. This points out that the Ukrainians have mastered hunt for artillery (dangerous for the Ukrainian offensive) and logistics (vital for the Russian defence); - The Ukrainians most probably cut through the 2nd line of Russian defence. All together these signs say that the Ukrainians' strategy is effective and starts to bring results. If nothing changes in this dynamics, I expect a major Ukrainian breakthrough within 2-3 weeks. /1”
I have no idea who will win Mid Bedfordshire. Possibly a SHOCK CON hold?!
I don't know who will win but they should all try their best and stop trying to game the system.
For that, we will need to change the system.
Then they'll game the new one instead, but it would end tactical voting (unless we went with AV).
Blair had the chance, and swerved it. I don't think the system will change in my lifetime.
(I have no plans to die soon.)
I suspect FPTP is here to stay because I think it will be politically difficult to implement a new voting system without a referendum, and I think it is much easier in such a referendum for people to lean towards the status quo. The only way I can see it getting through is in a situation where the two party system really breaks down. If we have four or five parties winning 15-30% of the vote between them then FPTP starts to go a bit bonkers. Even then we see from countries like Canada where it often produces some quirky results that it is retained.
One would reasonably assume that one must believe in the Christian God to be a Christian. As most British people do not, it’s fair to say we are no longer a Christian country (nor a religious one).
Given 53.5% of people in England and Wales said they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish in the 2021 census then it is also fair to say we are still a religious nation that believes in the God of Abraham, even if only a plurality still believe in Christianity and the Trinity and that Jesus was Messiah
Many who put that down do so because of cultural/legacy factors rather than serious belief.
And of those who do believe, considering many of those would view other believers you have mentioned as either heretics or heathens, uniting them all together as "Abrahamic" is as preposterous as linking Corbynistas, and Blairites, and Orange Boomers and everyone else together as united "progressives".
So, they still define themselves as Christian. While some of those defining themselves as non religious will be agnostic not atheist.
Muslims and Christians and Jews also share a distinct belief in the God of Abraham, arguably more distinct than the agreement between Corbynites, Blairites and Orange Bookers on the power the state should have in the economy and outside
LOL^2
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
If you believe in the God of Abraham you ain't an atheist, tough.
The question was solely about how many in the UK say they are religious v non religious, not about previous religious wars in centuries past
I fear I am the only PB-er who can’t even muster a semi-demi-tumescence about the “mid Bedfordshire by-election”
Maybe but you are unusual, as per the title of this site the average PBer would get excited about a Parish council by election in August in Middle Wallop.
I am starting to doubt if the MB byelection is going to be important WRT to GE 2024.
1) The national mood is firm: time for a change. A Tory win won't alter that.
2) A Labour win says: systems are on track to dispose of the Tory government
3) LD win says: C and A, Shropshire North all over again. Remind yourself to vote tactically if you live in Guildford or Harrogate, but Bootle and South Holland are as you were.
The only upset to this would be a really clear and decisive Tory win, or of course the Independent coming through.
The interest therefore is in the betting. Labour are currently value, but P G Wodehouse would describe this as like the Fathers' Obstacle Race: very hard to assess form.
Are by-elections ever that important? I mean, they can be portents of the general election result, but they rarely influence the general election result.
The Tories lost seven seats in by-elections from 1987 to 1992. They got them all back on the Election night.
Bizarrely, even in 1997 they regained one seat lost in a by-election - Christchurch. Which is a shame because that utter bellend Chope was the MP elected.
One would reasonably assume that one must believe in the Christian God to be a Christian. As most British people do not, it’s fair to say we are no longer a Christian country (nor a religious one).
Given 53.5% of people in England and Wales said they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish in the 2021 census then it is also fair to say we are still a religious nation that believes in the God of Abraham, even if only a plurality still believe in Christianity and the Trinity and that Jesus was Messiah
Many who put that down do so because of cultural/legacy factors rather than serious belief.
And of those who do believe, considering many of those would view other believers you have mentioned as either heretics or heathens, uniting them all together as "Abrahamic" is as preposterous as linking Corbynistas, and Blairites, and Orange Boomers and everyone else together as united "progressives".
So, they still define themselves as Christian. While some of those defining themselves as non religious will be agnostic not atheist.
Muslims and Christians and Jews also share a distinct belief in the God of Abraham, arguably more distinct than the agreement between Corbynites, Blairites and Orange Bookers on the power the state should have in the economy and outside
LOL^2
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
If you believe in the God of Abraham you ain't an atheist, tough.
The question was solely about how many in the UK say they are religious v non religious, not about previous religious wars in centuries past
I couldn't give a damn how many are atheists or not. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's an absence of one, that's what you don't understand. I don't believe what other atheists believe any more than Haredi Jews are the same as Jehovah's Witnesses are the same as Shi'ites who are fighting Sunnis.
I have no idea who will win Mid Bedfordshire. Possibly a SHOCK CON hold?!
I don't know who will win but they should all try their best and stop trying to game the system.
For that, we will need to change the system.
Then they'll game the new one instead, but it would end tactical voting (unless we went with AV).
Blair had the chance, and swerved it. I don't think the system will change in my lifetime.
(I have no plans to die soon.)
I suspect FPTP is here to stay because I think it will be politically difficult to implement a new voting system without a referendum, and I think it is much easier in such a referendum for people to lean towards the status quo. The only way I can see it getting through is in a situation where the two party system really breaks down. If we have four or five parties winning 15-30% of the vote between them then FPTP starts to go a bit bonkers. Even then we see from countries like Canada where it often produces some quirky results that it is retained.
The reasoning makes sense, but I do note that the UK does see changes in voting systems and not that infrequently. STV was introduced for Scottish local elections, and might come in for Welsh ones too. (What’s happening about the Welsh local elections?) SV was replaced by FPTP very recently for the English mayoral and PCC elections.
I think future changes to voting systems for everything except the Commons could readily occur and without referendums. The biggest change would be Lords reform.
I have no idea who will win Mid Bedfordshire. Possibly a SHOCK CON hold?!
I don't know who will win but they should all try their best and stop trying to game the system.
I admit that I'm a bit sniffy about individual tactical voting - but parties standing aside verges on the corrupt in my view.
More stupid.
The Liberal Democrats stood aside in Cannock Chase and told me to vote Green instead.
Did I?
No, I tore up my ballot paper.
Because while the Liberal Democrats were a reasonable fit for what I was looking for, the Greens were not, and I did not think Brexit trumped all the things I didn't agree with in their national manifesto.
I mean, if they wanted a paper candidate I'd have stood for them myself, but they didn't even go through the motions.
For me, the fact that the Lib Dems could stand on a joint ticket with the Greens (who I view as pretty extreme) pushes them from the category of 'maybe' to 'no'.
I fear I am the only PB-er who can’t even muster a semi-demi-tumescence about the “mid Bedfordshire by-election”
Maybe but you are unusual, as per the title of this site the average PBer would get excited about a Parish council by election in August in Middle Wallop.
I fear it’s a symptom of a larger problem. British politics, right now, is the politics of decline. How to manage it. How to mitigate it. All Labour offer is a slightly different way of doing this. Ditto the LDs
In that light, it’s hard to get excited by a General Election, let alone “mid Bedfordshire”
One would reasonably assume that one must believe in the Christian God to be a Christian. As most British people do not, it’s fair to say we are no longer a Christian country (nor a religious one).
Given 53.5% of people in England and Wales said they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish in the 2021 census then it is also fair to say we are still a religious nation that believes in the God of Abraham, even if only a plurality still believe in Christianity and the Trinity and that Jesus was Messiah
Many who put that down do so because of cultural/legacy factors rather than serious belief.
And of those who do believe, considering many of those would view other believers you have mentioned as either heretics or heathens, uniting them all together as "Abrahamic" is as preposterous as linking Corbynistas, and Blairites, and Orange Boomers and everyone else together as united "progressives".
So, they still define themselves as Christian. While some of those defining themselves as non religious will be agnostic not atheist.
Muslims and Christians and Jews also share a distinct belief in the God of Abraham, arguably more distinct than the agreement between Corbynites, Blairites and Orange Bookers on the power the state should have in the economy and outside
LOL^2
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
If you believe in the God of Abraham you ain't an atheist, tough.
The question was solely about how many in the UK say they are religious v non religious, not about previous religious wars in centuries past
I couldn't give a damn how many are atheists or not. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's an absence of one, that's what you don't understand. I don't believe what other atheists believe any more than Haredi Jews are the same as Jehovah's Witnesses are the same as Shi'ites who are fighting Sunnis.
Atheism is a non belief in religion, so in a comparison of how many atheists v believers in a religion there are obviously the percentage of them is relevant
I fear I am the only PB-er who can’t even muster a semi-demi-tumescence about the “mid Bedfordshire by-election”
Maybe but you are unusual, as per the title of this site the average PBer would get excited about a Parish council by election in August in Middle Wallop.
I fear it’s a symptom of a larger problem. British politics, right now, is the politics of decline. How to manage it. How to mitigate it. All Labour offer is a slightly different way of doing this. Ditto the LDs
In that light, it’s hard to get excited by a General Election, let alone “mid Bedfordshire”
Some truth in that, we are heading for a similar period politically as the late 1960s and 1970s
One would reasonably assume that one must believe in the Christian God to be a Christian. As most British people do not, it’s fair to say we are no longer a Christian country (nor a religious one).
Given 53.5% of people in England and Wales said they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish in the 2021 census then it is also fair to say we are still a religious nation that believes in the God of Abraham, even if only a plurality still believe in Christianity and the Trinity and that Jesus was Messiah
Many who put that down do so because of cultural/legacy factors rather than serious belief.
And of those who do believe, considering many of those would view other believers you have mentioned as either heretics or heathens, uniting them all together as "Abrahamic" is as preposterous as linking Corbynistas, and Blairites, and Orange Boomers and everyone else together as united "progressives".
So, they still define themselves as Christian. While some of those defining themselves as non religious will be agnostic not atheist.
Muslims and Christians and Jews also share a distinct belief in the God of Abraham, arguably more distinct than the agreement between Corbynites, Blairites and Orange Bookers on the power the state should have in the economy and outside
LOL^2
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
If you believe in the God of Abraham you ain't an atheist, tough.
The question was solely about how many in the UK say they are religious v non religious, not about previous religious wars in centuries past
I couldn't give a damn how many are atheists or not. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's an absence of one, that's what you don't understand. I don't believe what other atheists believe any more than Haredi Jews are the same as Jehovah's Witnesses are the same as Shi'ites who are fighting Sunnis.
Atheism is absolutely a belief system. It comes in different flavours - materialism, existentialism, nihilism, scientism - the same way Christianity comes in different denominations
One would reasonably assume that one must believe in the Christian God to be a Christian. As most British people do not, it’s fair to say we are no longer a Christian country (nor a religious one).
Given 53.5% of people in England and Wales said they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish in the 2021 census then it is also fair to say we are still a religious nation that believes in the God of Abraham, even if only a plurality still believe in Christianity and the Trinity and that Jesus was Messiah
Many who put that down do so because of cultural/legacy factors rather than serious belief.
And of those who do believe, considering many of those would view other believers you have mentioned as either heretics or heathens, uniting them all together as "Abrahamic" is as preposterous as linking Corbynistas, and Blairites, and Orange Boomers and everyone else together as united "progressives".
So, they still define themselves as Christian. While some of those defining themselves as non religious will be agnostic not atheist.
Muslims and Christians and Jews also share a distinct belief in the God of Abraham, arguably more distinct than the agreement between Corbynites, Blairites and Orange Bookers on the power the state should have in the economy and outside
LOL^2
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
If you believe in the God of Abraham you ain't an atheist, tough.
The question was solely about how many in the UK say they are religious v non religious, not about previous religious wars in centuries past
I couldn't give a damn how many are atheists or not. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's an absence of one, that's what you don't understand. I don't believe what other atheists believe any more than Haredi Jews are the same as Jehovah's Witnesses are the same as Shi'ites who are fighting Sunnis.
Not quite. Atheists are committed (unlike agnostics) to a specific opinion that there is no god under any description. It has to have specificity of belief to some extent - the clue is in the name. The universe has a non-divine nature. That's an important belief.
I agree that within that limit atheists differ - people can be atheists and moral objectivists for example, though I suspect most are not, but excluding god as an option is a belief and a belief system. Quite unlike agnosticism which makes no exclusions.
One would reasonably assume that one must believe in the Christian God to be a Christian. As most British people do not, it’s fair to say we are no longer a Christian country (nor a religious one).
Given 53.5% of people in England and Wales said they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish in the 2021 census then it is also fair to say we are still a religious nation that believes in the God of Abraham, even if only a plurality still believe in Christianity and the Trinity and that Jesus was Messiah
Many who put that down do so because of cultural/legacy factors rather than serious belief.
And of those who do believe, considering many of those would view other believers you have mentioned as either heretics or heathens, uniting them all together as "Abrahamic" is as preposterous as linking Corbynistas, and Blairites, and Orange Boomers and everyone else together as united "progressives".
So, they still define themselves as Christian. While some of those defining themselves as non religious will be agnostic not atheist.
Muslims and Christians and Jews also share a distinct belief in the God of Abraham, arguably more distinct than the agreement between Corbynites, Blairites and Orange Bookers on the power the state should have in the economy and outside
LOL^2
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
If you believe in the God of Abraham you ain't an atheist, tough.
The question was solely about how many in the UK say they are religious v non religious, not about previous religious wars in centuries past
I couldn't give a damn how many are atheists or not. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's an absence of one, that's what you don't understand. I don't believe what other atheists believe any more than Haredi Jews are the same as Jehovah's Witnesses are the same as Shi'ites who are fighting Sunnis.
Atheism is a non belief in religion, so in a comparison of how many atheists v believers in a religion there are obviously the percentage of them is relevant
No, it's not, because the claim was we are a Christian or Abrahamic nation. We are not.
We are not an atheist nation either.
We are a nation. No more, no less. We have great diversity in this country. We have people of all sorts of beliefs, and none, and people who don't care about belief either way. None of those are homogeneous groups or identities to claim as your own.
I honestly don’t understand how that is meant to work. Can you really compel someone? It feels to me like this will just create unintended consequences eg criminals decide to play up/become all performative about being forced to attend court, disrupting the proceedings etc. Then what happens if someone gets injured in the process?
Practically the sentence is the sentence. Hearing it in open court doesn’t make a tremendous amount of difference. If Lucy Letby, for instance, wants to eventually engage with hearing or reading the judges comments then she’s got a long time in prison to get round to it.
I fear I am the only PB-er who can’t even muster a semi-demi-tumescence about the “mid Bedfordshire by-election”
Maybe but you are unusual, as per the title of this site the average PBer would get excited about a Parish council by election in August in Middle Wallop.
I fear it’s a symptom of a larger problem. British politics, right now, is the politics of decline. How to manage it. How to mitigate it. All Labour offer is a slightly different way of doing this. Ditto the LDs
In that light, it’s hard to get excited by a General Election, let alone “mid Bedfordshire”
The Baroness of Mid-Bedfordshire seems quite excited.
One would reasonably assume that one must believe in the Christian God to be a Christian. As most British people do not, it’s fair to say we are no longer a Christian country (nor a religious one).
Given 53.5% of people in England and Wales said they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish in the 2021 census then it is also fair to say we are still a religious nation that believes in the God of Abraham, even if only a plurality still believe in Christianity and the Trinity and that Jesus was Messiah
Many who put that down do so because of cultural/legacy factors rather than serious belief.
And of those who do believe, considering many of those would view other believers you have mentioned as either heretics or heathens, uniting them all together as "Abrahamic" is as preposterous as linking Corbynistas, and Blairites, and Orange Boomers and everyone else together as united "progressives".
So, they still define themselves as Christian. While some of those defining themselves as non religious will be agnostic not atheist.
Muslims and Christians and Jews also share a distinct belief in the God of Abraham, arguably more distinct than the agreement between Corbynites, Blairites and Orange Bookers on the power the state should have in the economy and outside
LOL^2
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
If you believe in the God of Abraham you ain't an atheist, tough.
The question was solely about how many in the UK say they are religious v non religious, not about previous religious wars in centuries past
I couldn't give a damn how many are atheists or not. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's an absence of one, that's what you don't understand. I don't believe what other atheists believe any more than Haredi Jews are the same as Jehovah's Witnesses are the same as Shi'ites who are fighting Sunnis.
Atheism is absolutely a belief system. It comes in different flavours - materialism, existentialism, nihilism, scientism - the same way Christianity comes in different denominations
Materialism is not a form of atheism, it is entirely tangential.
One would reasonably assume that one must believe in the Christian God to be a Christian. As most British people do not, it’s fair to say we are no longer a Christian country (nor a religious one).
Given 53.5% of people in England and Wales said they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish in the 2021 census then it is also fair to say we are still a religious nation that believes in the God of Abraham, even if only a plurality still believe in Christianity and the Trinity and that Jesus was Messiah
Many who put that down do so because of cultural/legacy factors rather than serious belief.
And of those who do believe, considering many of those would view other believers you have mentioned as either heretics or heathens, uniting them all together as "Abrahamic" is as preposterous as linking Corbynistas, and Blairites, and Orange Boomers and everyone else together as united "progressives".
So, they still define themselves as Christian. While some of those defining themselves as non religious will be agnostic not atheist.
Muslims and Christians and Jews also share a distinct belief in the God of Abraham, arguably more distinct than the agreement between Corbynites, Blairites and Orange Bookers on the power the state should have in the economy and outside
LOL^2
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
If you believe in the God of Abraham you ain't an atheist, tough.
The question was solely about how many in the UK say they are religious v non religious, not about previous religious wars in centuries past
No. You made the question about religious vs non-religious. It was originally about the UK being a Christian country.
I fear I am the only PB-er who can’t even muster a semi-demi-tumescence about the “mid Bedfordshire by-election”
Maybe but you are unusual, as per the title of this site the average PBer would get excited about a Parish council by election in August in Middle Wallop.
I fear it’s a symptom of a larger problem. British politics, right now, is the politics of decline. How to manage it. How to mitigate it. All Labour offer is a slightly different way of doing this. Ditto the LDs
In that light, it’s hard to get excited by a General Election, let alone “mid Bedfordshire”
Some truth in that, we are heading for a similar period politically as the late 1960s and 1970s
I think @Casino_Royale 's (I think it was him: apols if misattributed) formulation is correct: Starmer will be one-term and things will switch back-and-forth until people understand the problem and come up with solutions, instead of the current sticking-plaster route.
Worst case scenario is Pensionerism dominates UK politics for the next 15-20 years, and because Pensionerism is inherently negative (old people consume, not produce), we don't really come out of the slump until the 2040's
I honestly don’t understand how that is meant to work. Can you really compel someone? It feels to me like this will just create unintended consequences eg criminals decide to play up/become all performative about being forced to attend court, disrupting the proceedings etc. Then what happens if someone gets injured in the process?
Practically the sentence is the sentence. Hearing it in open court doesn’t make a tremendous amount of difference. If Lucy Letby, for instance, wants to eventually engage with hearing or reading the judges comments then she’s got a long time in prison to get round to it.
It's just a very easy way to throw red meat. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference in real terms.
I have no idea who will win Mid Bedfordshire. Possibly a SHOCK CON hold?!
I don't know who will win but they should all try their best and stop trying to game the system.
For that, we will need to change the system.
Then they'll game the new one instead, but it would end tactical voting (unless we went with AV).
Blair had the chance, and swerved it. I don't think the system will change in my lifetime.
(I have no plans to die soon.)
I suspect FPTP is here to stay because I think it will be politically difficult to implement a new voting system without a referendum, and I think it is much easier in such a referendum for people to lean towards the status quo. The only way I can see it getting through is in a situation where the two party system really breaks down. If we have four or five parties winning 15-30% of the vote between them then FPTP starts to go a bit bonkers. Even then we see from countries like Canada where it often produces some quirky results that it is retained.
The reasoning makes sense, but I do note that the UK does see changes in voting systems and not that infrequently. STV was introduced for Scottish local elections, and might come in for Welsh ones too. (What’s happening about the Welsh local elections?) SV was replaced by FPTP very recently for the English mayoral and PCC elections.
I think future changes to voting systems for everything except the Commons could readily occur and without referendums. The biggest change would be Lords reform.
Yes, it does feel like we’ve got ourselves into a situation whereby voting systems can be changed for any other election without a referendum, but that it feels like Westminster is somewhat different.
I am not sure it should be, to be honest. I think any change in voting system should probably be approved by the people, because it affects the type of government/leadership/council they get out of it.
“Almost half of NHS workers surveyed have left their role or are considering it”
Every sane person in the world has “considered leaving their job”. It’s called *the human condition*
You mean, the way you gave up flint knapping to become a travel writer?
Fair play. Travel writing might be one of the vanishingly few exceptions. But even there you have days of doubt, as you do another hotel tour in the Canaries
Speaking of travel writing, the Guardian travel pages have become, for me, a secret source of delight. They are so scared of their puritanical, eco-loon readers, they are reduced, almost entirely, to writing about massively boring things to do in the UK. Another gem today:
I thought Davey and Starmer were supposed to be cosying up to each other, doesn't bode well for the GE, if they can't agree on one seat,ffs this country has to get rid of the Tories, an informal/formal pact is as good as way as any, for pitys sake, bang your heads together, and one of them stepaside
One would reasonably assume that one must believe in the Christian God to be a Christian. As most British people do not, it’s fair to say we are no longer a Christian country (nor a religious one).
Given 53.5% of people in England and Wales said they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish in the 2021 census then it is also fair to say we are still a religious nation that believes in the God of Abraham, even if only a plurality still believe in Christianity and the Trinity and that Jesus was Messiah
Many who put that down do so because of cultural/legacy factors rather than serious belief.
And of those who do believe, considering many of those would view other believers you have mentioned as either heretics or heathens, uniting them all together as "Abrahamic" is as preposterous as linking Corbynistas, and Blairites, and Orange Boomers and everyone else together as united "progressives".
So, they still define themselves as Christian. While some of those defining themselves as non religious will be agnostic not atheist.
Muslims and Christians and Jews also share a distinct belief in the God of Abraham, arguably more distinct than the agreement between Corbynites, Blairites and Orange Bookers on the power the state should have in the economy and outside
LOL^2
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
If you believe in the God of Abraham you ain't an atheist, tough.
The question was solely about how many in the UK say they are religious v non religious, not about previous religious wars in centuries past
I couldn't give a damn how many are atheists or not. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's an absence of one, that's what you don't understand. I don't believe what other atheists believe any more than Haredi Jews are the same as Jehovah's Witnesses are the same as Shi'ites who are fighting Sunnis.
Atheism is absolutely a belief system. It comes in different flavours - materialism, existentialism, nihilism, scientism - the same way Christianity comes in different denominations
Materialism is not a form of atheism, it is entirely tangential.
It does characterise a number of atheists' position. Thomas Hobbes for example, and probably Democritus and Epicurus. And popular versions of it are widely held including by Marxists and the general public, more among the young, in western Europe.
However theistic materialism is not contrary to logic; probably quite rare.
One would reasonably assume that one must believe in the Christian God to be a Christian. As most British people do not, it’s fair to say we are no longer a Christian country (nor a religious one).
Given 53.5% of people in England and Wales said they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish in the 2021 census then it is also fair to say we are still a religious nation that believes in the God of Abraham, even if only a plurality still believe in Christianity and the Trinity and that Jesus was Messiah
Many who put that down do so because of cultural/legacy factors rather than serious belief.
And of those who do believe, considering many of those would view other believers you have mentioned as either heretics or heathens, uniting them all together as "Abrahamic" is as preposterous as linking Corbynistas, and Blairites, and Orange Boomers and everyone else together as united "progressives".
So, they still define themselves as Christian. While some of those defining themselves as non religious will be agnostic not atheist.
Muslims and Christians and Jews also share a distinct belief in the God of Abraham, arguably more distinct than the agreement between Corbynites, Blairites and Orange Bookers on the power the state should have in the economy and outside
LOL^2
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
If you believe in the God of Abraham you ain't an atheist, tough.
The question was solely about how many in the UK say they are religious v non religious, not about previous religious wars in centuries past
I couldn't give a damn how many are atheists or not. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's an absence of one, that's what you don't understand. I don't believe what other atheists believe any more than Haredi Jews are the same as Jehovah's Witnesses are the same as Shi'ites who are fighting Sunnis.
Atheism is absolutely a belief system. It comes in different flavours - materialism, existentialism, nihilism, scientism - the same way Christianity comes in different denominations
Oh gawd here we go. It is not a belief system. It is an absence of belief in anything Lord God Above-related.
This tack is often used in a nah, nah you believe just as much as I do kind of way.
Which imo shows a lack of confidence in your own belief. You believe in god that's fantastic, good luck with it all I hope it gives you the peace and comfort you need. I don't believe in god and by all means pity me, dislike me, look down on me, all that stuff I couldn't give a hoot. There is no god but if you know that I'm wrong, or point to five thousand learned texts about why I am certainly wrong or why I am actually a believer just like you are, then knock yourself out. Couldn't bother me less.
Sitting in church twice in the last six months (1x wedding, 1x don't ask) I probably inadvertently adopted a wtf face for the entire time. These blokes in long flowing robes talking about he died for you and is risen and the lord god almighty and whatnot. Absolutely bizarre.
But if you believe then go with my best wishes.
Oh and the Speccie has for years been a nasty, bigoted, small-minded rag which for every Douglas Murray or Sean Thomas has a Taki and a Charles Moore. I was given a subscription some years ago for my birthday and had to politely decline its renewal.
One would reasonably assume that one must believe in the Christian God to be a Christian. As most British people do not, it’s fair to say we are no longer a Christian country (nor a religious one).
Given 53.5% of people in England and Wales said they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish in the 2021 census then it is also fair to say we are still a religious nation that believes in the God of Abraham, even if only a plurality still believe in Christianity and the Trinity and that Jesus was Messiah
Many who put that down do so because of cultural/legacy factors rather than serious belief.
And of those who do believe, considering many of those would view other believers you have mentioned as either heretics or heathens, uniting them all together as "Abrahamic" is as preposterous as linking Corbynistas, and Blairites, and Orange Boomers and everyone else together as united "progressives".
So, they still define themselves as Christian. While some of those defining themselves as non religious will be agnostic not atheist.
Muslims and Christians and Jews also share a distinct belief in the God of Abraham, arguably more distinct than the agreement between Corbynites, Blairites and Orange Bookers on the power the state should have in the economy and outside
LOL^2
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
If you believe in the God of Abraham you ain't an atheist, tough.
The question was solely about how many in the UK say they are religious v non religious, not about previous religious wars in centuries past
No. You made the question about religious vs non-religious. It was originally about the UK being a Christian country.
Which I said was correct historically not now, we are only Christian plurality now.
I was correcting the incorrect statement that was made on the previous thread by a poster that we were majority non religious.
And Bart has decided to carry on the argument to this thread
I have no idea who will win Mid Bedfordshire. Possibly a SHOCK CON hold?!
I don't know who will win but they should all try their best and stop trying to game the system.
For that, we will need to change the system.
Then they'll game the new one instead, but it would end tactical voting (unless we went with AV).
Blair had the chance, and swerved it. I don't think the system will change in my lifetime.
(I have no plans to die soon.)
I suspect FPTP is here to stay because I think it will be politically difficult to implement a new voting system without a referendum, and I think it is much easier in such a referendum for people to lean towards the status quo. The only way I can see it getting through is in a situation where the two party system really breaks down. If we have four or five parties winning 15-30% of the vote between them then FPTP starts to go a bit bonkers. Even then we see from countries like Canada where it often produces some quirky results that it is retained.
The reasoning makes sense, but I do note that the UK does see changes in voting systems and not that infrequently. STV was introduced for Scottish local elections, and might come in for Welsh ones too. (What’s happening about the Welsh local elections?) SV was replaced by FPTP very recently for the English mayoral and PCC elections.
I think future changes to voting systems for everything except the Commons could readily occur and without referendums. The biggest change would be Lords reform.
Yes, it does feel like we’ve got ourselves into a situation whereby voting systems can be changed for any other election without a referendum, but that it feels like Westminster is somewhat different.
I am not sure it should be, to be honest. I think any change in voting system should probably be approved by the people, because it affects the type of government/leadership/council they get out of it.
We've just had a fundamental change in the way we elect Mayors. Without a vote in Parliament, let alone a referendum. The Tories have laid the groundwork.
I am starting to doubt if the MB byelection is going to be important WRT to GE 2024.
1) The national mood is firm: time for a change. A Tory win won't alter that.
2) A Labour win says: systems are on track to dispose of the Tory government
3) LD win says: C and A, Shropshire North all over again. Remind yourself to vote tactically if you live in Guildford or Harrogate, but Bootle and South Holland are as you were.
The only upset to this would be a really clear and decisive Tory win, or of course the Independent coming through.
The interest therefore is in the betting. Labour are currently value, but P G Wodehouse would describe this as like the Fathers' Obstacle Race: very hard to assess form.
I think this is a battle for the tactical vote in southern seats. A strong Labour showing may drive a greater proportion of tactical votes their way in a greater number of Southern seats, in a way that might get them over the line in an additional 6-8 seats, but also might lose LDs a couple of chances.
I am starting to doubt if the MB byelection is going to be important WRT to GE 2024.
1) The national mood is firm: time for a change. A Tory win won't alter that.
2) A Labour win says: systems are on track to dispose of the Tory government
3) LD win says: C and A, Shropshire North all over again. Remind yourself to vote tactically if you live in Guildford or Harrogate, but Bootle and South Holland are as you were.
The only upset to this would be a really clear and decisive Tory win, or of course the Independent coming through.
The interest therefore is in the betting. Labour are currently value, but P G Wodehouse would describe this as like the Fathers' Obstacle Race: very hard to assess form.
“Carry on, Bingo. Where do we go from there?”
“Mothers’ Sack Race.”
“Ah! that’s better. This is where you know something.”
“A gift for Mrs. Penworthy, the tobacconist’s wife,” said Bingo, confidently. “I was in at her shop yesterday, buying cigarettes, and she told me she had won three times at fairs in Worcestershire. She only moved to these parts a short time ago, so nobody knows about her. She promised me she would keep herself dark, and I think we could get a good price.”
“Risk a tenner each way, Jeeves, what?”
“I think so, sir.”
“Girls’ Open Egg and Spoon Race,” read Bingo.
“How about that?”
“I doubt if it would be worth while to invest, sir,” said Jeeves. “I am told it is a certainty for last year’s winner, Sarah Mills, who will doubtless start an odds-on favourite.”
“Good, is she?”
“They tell me in the village that she carries a beautiful egg, sir.”
“Then there’s the Obstacle Race,” said Bingo. “Risky, in my opinion. Like betting on the Grand National. Fathers’ Hat-Trimming Contest—another speculative event. That’s all, except the Choir Boys’ Hundred Yards Handicap, for a pewter mug presented by the vicar—open to all whose voices have not broken before the second Sunday in Epiphany. Willie Chambers won last year, in a canter, receiving fifteen yards. This time he will probably be handicapped out of the race. I don’t know what to advise.”
One would reasonably assume that one must believe in the Christian God to be a Christian. As most British people do not, it’s fair to say we are no longer a Christian country (nor a religious one).
Given 53.5% of people in England and Wales said they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish in the 2021 census then it is also fair to say we are still a religious nation that believes in the God of Abraham, even if only a plurality still believe in Christianity and the Trinity and that Jesus was Messiah
Many who put that down do so because of cultural/legacy factors rather than serious belief.
And of those who do believe, considering many of those would view other believers you have mentioned as either heretics or heathens, uniting them all together as "Abrahamic" is as preposterous as linking Corbynistas, and Blairites, and Orange Boomers and everyone else together as united "progressives".
So, they still define themselves as Christian. While some of those defining themselves as non religious will be agnostic not atheist.
Muslims and Christians and Jews also share a distinct belief in the God of Abraham, arguably more distinct than the agreement between Corbynites, Blairites and Orange Bookers on the power the state should have in the economy and outside
LOL^2
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
If you believe in the God of Abraham you ain't an atheist, tough.
The question was solely about how many in the UK say they are religious v non religious, not about previous religious wars in centuries past
I couldn't give a damn how many are atheists or not. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's an absence of one, that's what you don't understand. I don't believe what other atheists believe any more than Haredi Jews are the same as Jehovah's Witnesses are the same as Shi'ites who are fighting Sunnis.
Atheism is absolutely a belief system. It comes in different flavours - materialism, existentialism, nihilism, scientism - the same way Christianity comes in different denominations
Oh gawd here we go. It is not a belief system. It is an absence of belief in anything Lord God Above-related.
This tack is often used in a nah, nah you believe just as much as I do kind of way.
Which imo shows a lack of confidence in your own belief. You believe in god that's fantastic, good luck with it all I hope it gives you the peace and comfort you need. I don't believe in god and by all means pity me, dislike me, look down on me, all that stuff I couldn't give a hoot. There is no god but if you know that I'm wrong, or point to five thousand learned texts about why I am certainly wrong or why I am actually a believer just like you are, then knock yourself out. Couldn't bother me less.
Sitting in church twice in the last six months (1x wedding, 1x don't ask) I probably inadvertently adopted a wtf face for the entire time. These blokes in long flowing robes talking about he died for you and is risen and the lord god almighty and whatnot. Absolutely bizarre.
But if you believe then go with my best wishes.
Oh and the Speccie has for years been a nasty, bigoted, small-minded rag which for every Douglas Murray or Sean Thomas has a Taki and a Charles Moore. I was given a subscription some years ago for my birthday and had to politely decline its renewal.
One would reasonably assume that one must believe in the Christian God to be a Christian. As most British people do not, it’s fair to say we are no longer a Christian country (nor a religious one).
Given 53.5% of people in England and Wales said they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish in the 2021 census then it is also fair to say we are still a religious nation that believes in the God of Abraham, even if only a plurality still believe in Christianity and the Trinity and that Jesus was Messiah
Many who put that down do so because of cultural/legacy factors rather than serious belief.
And of those who do believe, considering many of those would view other believers you have mentioned as either heretics or heathens, uniting them all together as "Abrahamic" is as preposterous as linking Corbynistas, and Blairites, and Orange Boomers and everyone else together as united "progressives".
So, they still define themselves as Christian. While some of those defining themselves as non religious will be agnostic not atheist.
Muslims and Christians and Jews also share a distinct belief in the God of Abraham, arguably more distinct than the agreement between Corbynites, Blairites and Orange Bookers on the power the state should have in the economy and outside
LOL^2
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
If you believe in the God of Abraham you ain't an atheist, tough.
The question was solely about how many in the UK say they are religious v non religious, not about previous religious wars in centuries past
I couldn't give a damn how many are atheists or not. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's an absence of one, that's what you don't understand. I don't believe what other atheists believe any more than Haredi Jews are the same as Jehovah's Witnesses are the same as Shi'ites who are fighting Sunnis.
Atheism is absolutely a belief system. It comes in different flavours - materialism, existentialism, nihilism, scientism - the same way Christianity comes in different denominations
Oh gawd here we go. It is not a belief system. It is an absence of belief in anything Lord God Above-related.
This tack is often used in a nah, nah you believe just as much as I do kind of way.
Which imo shows a lack of confidence in your own belief. You believe in god that's fantastic, good luck with it all I hope it gives you the peace and comfort you need. I don't believe in god and by all means pity me, dislike me, look down on me, all that stuff I couldn't give a hoot. There is no god but if you know that I'm wrong, or point to five thousand learned texts about why I am certainly wrong or why I am actually a believer just like you are, then knock yourself out. Couldn't bother me less.
Sitting in church twice in the last six months (1x wedding, 1x don't ask) I probably inadvertently adopted a wtf face for the entire time. These blokes in long flowing robes talking about he died for you and is risen and the lord god almighty and whatnot. Absolutely bizarre.
But if you believe then go with my best wishes.
Oh and the Speccie has for years been a nasty, bigoted, small-minded rag which for every Douglas Murray or Sean Thomas has a Taki and a Charles Moore. I was given a subscription some years ago for my birthday and had to politely decline its renewal.
Charles Moore is excellent
I can well believe that you think Charles Moore is excellent.
I honestly don’t understand how that is meant to work. Can you really compel someone? It feels to me like this will just create unintended consequences eg criminals decide to play up/become all performative about being forced to attend court, disrupting the proceedings etc. Then what happens if someone gets injured in the process?
Practically the sentence is the sentence. Hearing it in open court doesn’t make a tremendous amount of difference. If Lucy Letby, for instance, wants to eventually engage with hearing or reading the judges comments then she’s got a long time in prison to get round to it.
I agree dragging the convicted into court isn't civilised, Its performative and crude. It'll only give us future problems when officers are hurt by recalcitrant convicts. Statements will be interrupted and the procedures mocked.
I fear I am the only PB-er who can’t even muster a semi-demi-tumescence about the “mid Bedfordshire by-election”
Maybe but you are unusual, as per the title of this site the average PBer would get excited about a Parish council by election in August in Middle Wallop.
I fear it’s a symptom of a larger problem. British politics, right now, is the politics of decline. How to manage it. How to mitigate it. All Labour offer is a slightly different way of doing this. Ditto the LDs
In that light, it’s hard to get excited by a General Election, let alone “mid Bedfordshire”
Some truth in that, we are heading for a similar period politically as the late 1960s and 1970s
I think @Casino_Royale 's (I think it was him: apols if misattributed) formulation is correct: Starmer will be one-term and things will switch back-and-forth until people understand the problem and come up with solutions, instead of the current sticking-plaster route.
Worst case scenario is Pensionerism dominates UK politics for the next 15-20 years, and because Pensionerism is inherently negative (old people consume, not produce), we don't really come out of the slump until the 2040's
Hold on, I should be collecting my pension in the 2040s.
One would reasonably assume that one must believe in the Christian God to be a Christian. As most British people do not, it’s fair to say we are no longer a Christian country (nor a religious one).
Given 53.5% of people in England and Wales said they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish in the 2021 census then it is also fair to say we are still a religious nation that believes in the God of Abraham, even if only a plurality still believe in Christianity and the Trinity and that Jesus was Messiah
Many who put that down do so because of cultural/legacy factors rather than serious belief.
And of those who do believe, considering many of those would view other believers you have mentioned as either heretics or heathens, uniting them all together as "Abrahamic" is as preposterous as linking Corbynistas, and Blairites, and Orange Boomers and everyone else together as united "progressives".
So, they still define themselves as Christian. While some of those defining themselves as non religious will be agnostic not atheist.
Muslims and Christians and Jews also share a distinct belief in the God of Abraham, arguably more distinct than the agreement between Corbynites, Blairites and Orange Bookers on the power the state should have in the economy and outside
LOL^2
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
If you believe in the God of Abraham you ain't an atheist, tough.
The question was solely about how many in the UK say they are religious v non religious, not about previous religious wars in centuries past
I couldn't give a damn how many are atheists or not. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's an absence of one, that's what you don't understand. I don't believe what other atheists believe any more than Haredi Jews are the same as Jehovah's Witnesses are the same as Shi'ites who are fighting Sunnis.
Atheism is absolutely a belief system. It comes in different flavours - materialism, existentialism, nihilism, scientism - the same way Christianity comes in different denominations
No it is not a belief system. It is a simple denial of the supernatural - no gods, no ghosts. Of course, there are many ways of how an individual develops their thoughts from that one premise.
One would reasonably assume that one must believe in the Christian God to be a Christian. As most British people do not, it’s fair to say we are no longer a Christian country (nor a religious one).
Given 53.5% of people in England and Wales said they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish in the 2021 census then it is also fair to say we are still a religious nation that believes in the God of Abraham, even if only a plurality still believe in Christianity and the Trinity and that Jesus was Messiah
Many who put that down do so because of cultural/legacy factors rather than serious belief.
And of those who do believe, considering many of those would view other believers you have mentioned as either heretics or heathens, uniting them all together as "Abrahamic" is as preposterous as linking Corbynistas, and Blairites, and Orange Boomers and everyone else together as united "progressives".
So, they still define themselves as Christian. While some of those defining themselves as non religious will be agnostic not atheist.
Muslims and Christians and Jews also share a distinct belief in the God of Abraham, arguably more distinct than the agreement between Corbynites, Blairites and Orange Bookers on the power the state should have in the economy and outside
LOL^2
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
If you believe in the God of Abraham you ain't an atheist, tough.
The question was solely about how many in the UK say they are religious v non religious, not about previous religious wars in centuries past
I couldn't give a damn how many are atheists or not. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's an absence of one, that's what you don't understand. I don't believe what other atheists believe any more than Haredi Jews are the same as Jehovah's Witnesses are the same as Shi'ites who are fighting Sunnis.
Atheism is absolutely a belief system. It comes in different flavours - materialism, existentialism, nihilism, scientism - the same way Christianity comes in different denominations
Oh gawd here we go. It is not a belief system. It is an absence of belief in anything Lord God Above-related.
This tack is often used in a nah, nah you believe just as much as I do kind of way.
Which imo shows a lack of confidence in your own belief. You believe in god that's fantastic, good luck with it all I hope it gives you the peace and comfort you need. I don't believe in god and by all means pity me, dislike me, look down on me, all that stuff I couldn't give a hoot. There is no god but if you know that I'm wrong, or point to five thousand learned texts about why I am certainly wrong or why I am actually a believer just like you are, then knock yourself out. Couldn't bother me less.
Sitting in church twice in the last six months (1x wedding, 1x don't ask) I probably inadvertently adopted a wtf face for the entire time. These blokes in long flowing robes talking about he died for you and is risen and the lord god almighty and whatnot. Absolutely bizarre.
But if you believe then go with my best wishes.
Oh and the Speccie has for years been a nasty, bigoted, small-minded rag which for every Douglas Murray or Sean Thomas has a Taki and a Charles Moore. I was given a subscription some years ago for my birthday and had to politely decline its renewal.
“Couldn’t give a hoot”, “couldn’t care less”, and here are six paragraphs of commentary to show how little I care
Plus a bizarre tangential reference to the Spectator
I am starting to doubt if the MB byelection is going to be important WRT to GE 2024.
1) The national mood is firm: time for a change. A Tory win won't alter that.
2) A Labour win says: systems are on track to dispose of the Tory government
3) LD win says: C and A, Shropshire North all over again. Remind yourself to vote tactically if you live in Guildford or Harrogate, but Bootle and South Holland are as you were.
The only upset to this would be a really clear and decisive Tory win, or of course the Independent coming through.
The interest therefore is in the betting. Labour are currently value, but P G Wodehouse would describe this as like the Fathers' Obstacle Race: very hard to assess form.
“Carry on, Bingo. Where do we go from there?”
“Mothers’ Sack Race.”
“Ah! that’s better. This is where you know something.”
“A gift for Mrs. Penworthy, the tobacconist’s wife,” said Bingo, confidently. “I was in at her shop yesterday, buying cigarettes, and she told me she had won three times at fairs in Worcestershire. She only moved to these parts a short time ago, so nobody knows about her. She promised me she would keep herself dark, and I think we could get a good price.”
“Risk a tenner each way, Jeeves, what?”
“I think so, sir.”
“Girls’ Open Egg and Spoon Race,” read Bingo.
“How about that?”
“I doubt if it would be worth while to invest, sir,” said Jeeves. “I am told it is a certainty for last year’s winner, Sarah Mills, who will doubtless start an odds-on favourite.”
“Good, is she?”
“They tell me in the village that she carries a beautiful egg, sir.”
“Then there’s the Obstacle Race,” said Bingo. “Risky, in my opinion. Like betting on the Grand National. Fathers’ Hat-Trimming Contest—another speculative event. That’s all, except the Choir Boys’ Hundred Yards Handicap, for a pewter mug presented by the vicar—open to all whose voices have not broken before the second Sunday in Epiphany. Willie Chambers won last year, in a canter, receiving fifteen yards. This time he will probably be handicapped out of the race. I don’t know what to advise.”
Thanks! The Inimitable Jeeves is 100 years old this year - published 1923. I have a first edition. Comic masterpiece to stand with Mozart operas and Pride and Prejudice.
I honestly don’t understand how that is meant to work. Can you really compel someone? It feels to me like this will just create unintended consequences eg criminals decide to play up/become all performative about being forced to attend court, disrupting the proceedings etc. Then what happens if someone gets injured in the process?
Practically the sentence is the sentence. Hearing it in open court doesn’t make a tremendous amount of difference. If Lucy Letby, for instance, wants to eventually engage with hearing or reading the judges comments then she’s got a long time in prison to get round to it.
I agree dragging the convicted into court isn't civilised, Its performative and crude. It'll only give us future problems when officers are hurt by recalcitrant convicts. Statements will be interrupted and the procedures mocked.
Suppose the convicted faints, or has a stroke or heart attack (real or feigned)? Are proceedings postponed so that the ritual may be completed as foretold and the God of the Daily Express appeased?
One would reasonably assume that one must believe in the Christian God to be a Christian. As most British people do not, it’s fair to say we are no longer a Christian country (nor a religious one).
Given 53.5% of people in England and Wales said they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish in the 2021 census then it is also fair to say we are still a religious nation that believes in the God of Abraham, even if only a plurality still believe in Christianity and the Trinity and that Jesus was Messiah
Many who put that down do so because of cultural/legacy factors rather than serious belief.
And of those who do believe, considering many of those would view other believers you have mentioned as either heretics or heathens, uniting them all together as "Abrahamic" is as preposterous as linking Corbynistas, and Blairites, and Orange Boomers and everyone else together as united "progressives".
So, they still define themselves as Christian. While some of those defining themselves as non religious will be agnostic not atheist.
Muslims and Christians and Jews also share a distinct belief in the God of Abraham, arguably more distinct than the agreement between Corbynites, Blairites and Orange Bookers on the power the state should have in the economy and outside
LOL^2
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
If you believe in the God of Abraham you ain't an atheist, tough.
The question was solely about how many in the UK say they are religious v non religious, not about previous religious wars in centuries past
I couldn't give a damn how many are atheists or not. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's an absence of one, that's what you don't understand. I don't believe what other atheists believe any more than Haredi Jews are the same as Jehovah's Witnesses are the same as Shi'ites who are fighting Sunnis.
Atheism is absolutely a belief system. It comes in different flavours - materialism, existentialism, nihilism, scientism - the same way Christianity comes in different denominations
No it is not a belief system. It is a simple denial of the supernatural - no gods, no ghosts. Of course, there are many ways of how an individual develops their thoughts from that one premise.
It is absolutely a belief system. You believe in something you cannot prove: there is no God
The only position for a real non-believer is agnosticism. “I just don’t know. I have no belief either way”
Tho this might be Peak Puritanical Guardian Travel
I saw this earlier and thought of you. Can imagine you snorting in derision.
...there is a moral superiority attached to the well-travelled, too. Those who stay at home have failed to “break the bounds of their everyday experience and beg[un] to ‘live’”. Yet this belief that international travel will always expand our mental horizons – especially given the proliferation of commercialised and sheltered touristic experiences wherever you go – doesn’t bear much scrutiny.
... As the climate crisis intensifies, the moral aspect of travel becomes even harder to defend. International travel may give us, as individuals, a sense of connection and purpose within the maelstrom of modernity. But how can we square engaging in ritualistic pilgrimage to Giza’s pyramids, or the hot air balloons of Cappadocia, with a keen awareness of just exactly what mass tourism means for the very sites we have been taught to worship?
Tourism is responsible for 8-10% of annual global CO2 emissions. The rise of cheap flights opened up access to international travel, and yet is surely no longer sustainable...
We need a substantial and widespread shift in both understanding why we travel – beyond simply “for leisure” – and unpicking our feelings of personal entitlement to the self-actualisation and connection we expect to find in far-flung places...
Tho this might be Peak Puritanical Guardian Travel
Walking the length of the Wharfe sounds pleasant enough. Some nice scenery and a few very pleasant towns. And I like Bolton Abbey very much. Happy memories of hearing a child fall into the Wharfe while crossing the surprisingly treacherous stepping stones. Happy because improbably it wasn't my child, and I hadn't brought a change of clothes in case of that eventuality. Though more pleasant still to cycle it. The Dales are agreeably conducive to cycling, until you reach the end of the dale you're in and have to haul your fat arse over into the next dale. Though I'd quibble that the Wharfe is Yorkshire's most famous river. Strikes me as no more famous than the Ouse, Don, Nidd, Aire, Calder, Swale, Derwent, Tees or Hull.
I rather like British travel writing, as my MSN feed at work has clearly twigged. I like to read about places I might reasonably go - or, even better, about places I have been, and I can enjoy feeling cheerfully exasperated with the writer who has clearly Got It Wrong.
Tho this might be Peak Puritanical Guardian Travel
I saw this earlier and thought of you. Can imagine you snorting in derision.
...there is a moral superiority attached to the well-travelled, too. Those who stay at home have failed to “break the bounds of their everyday experience and beg[un] to ‘live’”. Yet this belief that international travel will always expand our mental horizons – especially given the proliferation of commercialised and sheltered touristic experiences wherever you go – doesn’t bear much scrutiny.
... As the climate crisis intensifies, the moral aspect of travel becomes even harder to defend. International travel may give us, as individuals, a sense of connection and purpose within the maelstrom of modernity. But how can we square engaging in ritualistic pilgrimage to Giza’s pyramids, or the hot air balloons of Cappadocia, with a keen awareness of just exactly what mass tourism means for the very sites we have been taught to worship?
Tourism is responsible for 8-10% of annual global CO2 emissions. The rise of cheap flights opened up access to international travel, and yet is surely no longer sustainable...
We need a substantial and widespread shift in both understanding why we travel – beyond simply “for leisure” – and unpicking our feelings of personal entitlement to the self-actualisation and connection we expect to find in far-flung places...
Tho this might be Peak Puritanical Guardian Travel
I saw this earlier and thought of you. Can imagine you snorting in derision.
...there is a moral superiority attached to the well-travelled, too. Those who stay at home have failed to “break the bounds of their everyday experience and beg[un] to ‘live’”. Yet this belief that international travel will always expand our mental horizons – especially given the proliferation of commercialised and sheltered touristic experiences wherever you go – doesn’t bear much scrutiny.
... As the climate crisis intensifies, the moral aspect of travel becomes even harder to defend. International travel may give us, as individuals, a sense of connection and purpose within the maelstrom of modernity. But how can we square engaging in ritualistic pilgrimage to Giza’s pyramids, or the hot air balloons of Cappadocia, with a keen awareness of just exactly what mass tourism means for the very sites we have been taught to worship?
Tourism is responsible for 8-10% of annual global CO2 emissions. The rise of cheap flights opened up access to international travel, and yet is surely no longer sustainable...
We need a substantial and widespread shift in both understanding why we travel – beyond simply “for leisure” – and unpicking our feelings of personal entitlement to the self-actualisation and connection we expect to find in far-flung places...
Lol. It is the logical endpoint of their position. The Guardian will have to abandon virtually all foreign travel journalism
I picture their travel editor reading that and clutching his head in bleak despair, as he contemplates a future comprised entirely of yurting in Staffordshire
I thought Davey and Starmer were supposed to be cosying up to each other, doesn't bode well for the GE, if they can't agree on one seat,ffs this country has to get rid of the Tories, an informal/formal pact is as good as way as any, for pitys sake, bang your heads together, and one of them stepaside
Neither party can stand aside for the other in this seat. It's high-profile and both have a case that they can win it. That may well help the Tories, but it won't have much impact on the actual GE where both parties will take a much wider and more pragmatic view about where to focus their efforts. Put it this way, if either Labour or the LibDems win in mid-Beds do you think the losing party will throw a huge amount at trying to take it come a GE? Likewise, if the Tories sneak through the middle, do you think the third place party is going to be massively focused on improving its vote share?
He really hasn't got a clue, has he? Hardly a grand narrative.
According to the report, if they refuse to attend court for sentencing they could "face the prospect of longer in prison". Don't think that would have worked for Lucy Letby.
I fear I am the only PB-er who can’t even muster a semi-demi-tumescence about the “mid Bedfordshire by-election”
Maybe but you are unusual, as per the title of this site the average PBer would get excited about a Parish council by election in August in Middle Wallop.
I fear it’s a symptom of a larger problem. British politics, right now, is the politics of decline. How to manage it. How to mitigate it. All Labour offer is a slightly different way of doing this. Ditto the LDs
In that light, it’s hard to get excited by a General Election, let alone “mid Bedfordshire”
Some truth in that, we are heading for a similar period politically as the late 1960s and 1970s
I think @Casino_Royale 's (I think it was him: apols if misattributed) formulation is correct: Starmer will be one-term and things will switch back-and-forth until people understand the problem and come up with solutions, instead of the current sticking-plaster route.
Worst case scenario is Pensionerism dominates UK politics for the next 15-20 years, and because Pensionerism is inherently negative (old people consume, not produce), we don't really come out of the slump until the 2040's
A key factor in what happens in two GEs' time is how the Tories react if they lose the next one.
In the actual GE Starmer can galvanise the left, the Greens, traditional Lib Dems and others by committing to Westminster PR.
It’s there for the taking…
Why when he is heading for No 10 as PM with an absolute Labour majority of 100+ on most polls with FPTP would Starmer want to commit to PR meaning a weaker coalition government where he is reliant on the whims of the LDs and Greens to get legislation through?
I honestly don’t understand how that is meant to work. Can you really compel someone? It feels to me like this will just create unintended consequences eg criminals decide to play up/become all performative about being forced to attend court, disrupting the proceedings etc. Then what happens if someone gets injured in the process?
Practically the sentence is the sentence. Hearing it in open court doesn’t make a tremendous amount of difference. If Lucy Letby, for instance, wants to eventually engage with hearing or reading the judges comments then she’s got a long time in prison to get round to it.
I agree dragging the convicted into court isn't civilised, Its performative and crude. It'll only give us future problems when officers are hurt by recalcitrant convicts. Statements will be interrupted and the procedures mocked.
Suppose the convicted faints, or has a stroke or heart attack (real or feigned)? Are proceedings postponed so that the ritual may be completed as foretold and the God of the Daily Express appeased?
Hog-tied to the chair as his lordship (Eton, Oxon) passes judgment.
One would reasonably assume that one must believe in the Christian God to be a Christian. As most British people do not, it’s fair to say we are no longer a Christian country (nor a religious one).
Given 53.5% of people in England and Wales said they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish in the 2021 census then it is also fair to say we are still a religious nation that believes in the God of Abraham, even if only a plurality still believe in Christianity and the Trinity and that Jesus was Messiah
Many who put that down do so because of cultural/legacy factors rather than serious belief.
And of those who do believe, considering many of those would view other believers you have mentioned as either heretics or heathens, uniting them all together as "Abrahamic" is as preposterous as linking Corbynistas, and Blairites, and Orange Boomers and everyone else together as united "progressives".
So, they still define themselves as Christian. While some of those defining themselves as non religious will be agnostic not atheist.
Muslims and Christians and Jews also share a distinct belief in the God of Abraham, arguably more distinct than the agreement between Corbynites, Blairites and Orange Bookers on the power the state should have in the economy and outside
LOL^2
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
If you believe in the God of Abraham you ain't an atheist, tough.
The question was solely about how many in the UK say they are religious v non religious, not about previous religious wars in centuries past
I couldn't give a damn how many are atheists or not. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's an absence of one, that's what you don't understand. I don't believe what other atheists believe any more than Haredi Jews are the same as Jehovah's Witnesses are the same as Shi'ites who are fighting Sunnis.
Atheism is absolutely a belief system. It comes in different flavours - materialism, existentialism, nihilism, scientism - the same way Christianity comes in different denominations
Oh gawd here we go. It is not a belief system. It is an absence of belief in anything Lord God Above-related.
This tack is often used in a nah, nah you believe just as much as I do kind of way.
Which imo shows a lack of confidence in your own belief. You believe in god that's fantastic, good luck with it all I hope it gives you the peace and comfort you need. I don't believe in god and by all means pity me, dislike me, look down on me, all that stuff I couldn't give a hoot. There is no god but if you know that I'm wrong, or point to five thousand learned texts about why I am certainly wrong or why I am actually a believer just like you are, then knock yourself out. Couldn't bother me less.
Sitting in church twice in the last six months (1x wedding, 1x don't ask) I probably inadvertently adopted a wtf face for the entire time. These blokes in long flowing robes talking about he died for you and is risen and the lord god almighty and whatnot. Absolutely bizarre.
But if you believe then go with my best wishes.
Oh and the Speccie has for years been a nasty, bigoted, small-minded rag which for every Douglas Murray or Sean Thomas has a Taki and a Charles Moore. I was given a subscription some years ago for my birthday and had to politely decline its renewal.
“Couldn’t give a hoot”, “couldn’t care less”, and here are six paragraphs of commentary to show how little I care
Plus a bizarre tangential reference to the Spectator
I am super interested in the history and socio-anthropological-economic (not sure that word exists) implications of religion, from Anubis to the Albgensian crusades to the celibacy of the clerics to the religious core of the Enlightenment to the bloke in church the other day telling me about how god is risen.
Love it all. Super interesting and as I say absolutely riveting if bizarre to my mind, albeit understandable as B Russell has explained to you so yes, religion bring it on. But not as a believer, sadly.
As for the Speccie its core is horrible, nasty, snide, sneering, and bigoted, as I'm sure is much of its readership albeit they have some interesting articles.
Tho this might be Peak Puritanical Guardian Travel
Walking the length of the Wharfe sounds pleasant enough. Some nice scenery and a few very pleasant towns. And I like Bolton Abbey very much. Happy memories of hearing a child fall into the Wharfe while crossing the surprisingly treacherous stepping stones. Happy because improbably it wasn't my child, and I hadn't brought a change of clothes in case of that eventuality. Though more pleasant still to cycle it. The Dales are agreeably conducive to cycling, until you reach the end of the dale you're in and have to haul your fat arse over into the next dale. Though I'd quibble that the Wharfe is Yorkshire's most famous river. Strikes me as no more famous than the Ouse, Don, Nidd, Aire, Calder, Swale, Derwent, Tees or Hull.
I rather like British travel writing, as my MSN feed at work has clearly twigged. I like to read about places I might reasonably go - or, even better, about places I have been, and I can enjoy feeling cheerfully exasperated with the writer who has clearly Got It Wrong.
I like domestic British travel. We still live in a beautiful, historic country, for all our problems
Indeed I am about to set off on a mini UK road trip (expect pics of drinks in woods)
I am just empathising with the poor Guardian travel writers, forbidden to go anywhere exotic. My guess is the more talented ones will simply leave
I fear I am the only PB-er who can’t even muster a semi-demi-tumescence about the “mid Bedfordshire by-election”
Maybe but you are unusual, as per the title of this site the average PBer would get excited about a Parish council by election in August in Middle Wallop.
I fear it’s a symptom of a larger problem. British politics, right now, is the politics of decline. How to manage it. How to mitigate it. All Labour offer is a slightly different way of doing this. Ditto the LDs
In that light, it’s hard to get excited by a General Election, let alone “mid Bedfordshire”
Some truth in that, we are heading for a similar period politically as the late 1960s and 1970s
I think @Casino_Royale 's (I think it was him: apols if misattributed) formulation is correct: Starmer will be one-term and things will switch back-and-forth until people understand the problem and come up with solutions, instead of the current sticking-plaster route.
Worst case scenario is Pensionerism dominates UK politics for the next 15-20 years, and because Pensionerism is inherently negative (old people consume, not produce), we don't really come out of the slump until the 2040's
A key factor in what happens in two GEs' time is how the Tories react if they lose the next one.
How they react depends on the scale of the defeat. Close one and it's "one more heave"?
I thought Davey and Starmer were supposed to be cosying up to each other, doesn't bode well for the GE, if they can't agree on one seat,ffs this country has to get rid of the Tories, an informal/formal pact is as good as way as any, for pitys sake, bang your heads together, and one of them stepaside
I think this is useful for both of them, even if it means a Tory hold. It’s a test of the margins and swings. Like a pre-season friendly.
One would reasonably assume that one must believe in the Christian God to be a Christian. As most British people do not, it’s fair to say we are no longer a Christian country (nor a religious one).
Given 53.5% of people in England and Wales said they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish in the 2021 census then it is also fair to say we are still a religious nation that believes in the God of Abraham, even if only a plurality still believe in Christianity and the Trinity and that Jesus was Messiah
Many who put that down do so because of cultural/legacy factors rather than serious belief.
And of those who do believe, considering many of those would view other believers you have mentioned as either heretics or heathens, uniting them all together as "Abrahamic" is as preposterous as linking Corbynistas, and Blairites, and Orange Boomers and everyone else together as united "progressives".
So, they still define themselves as Christian. While some of those defining themselves as non religious will be agnostic not atheist.
Muslims and Christians and Jews also share a distinct belief in the God of Abraham, arguably more distinct than the agreement between Corbynites, Blairites and Orange Bookers on the power the state should have in the economy and outside
LOL^2
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
If you believe in the God of Abraham you ain't an atheist, tough.
The question was solely about how many in the UK say they are religious v non religious, not about previous religious wars in centuries past
I couldn't give a damn how many are atheists or not. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's an absence of one, that's what you don't understand. I don't believe what other atheists believe any more than Haredi Jews are the same as Jehovah's Witnesses are the same as Shi'ites who are fighting Sunnis.
Atheism is absolutely a belief system. It comes in different flavours - materialism, existentialism, nihilism, scientism - the same way Christianity comes in different denominations
Oh gawd here we go. It is not a belief system. It is an absence of belief in anything Lord God Above-related.
This tack is often used in a nah, nah you believe just as much as I do kind of way.
Which imo shows a lack of confidence in your own belief. You believe in god that's fantastic, good luck with it all I hope it gives you the peace and comfort you need. I don't believe in god and by all means pity me, dislike me, look down on me, all that stuff I couldn't give a hoot. There is no god but if you know that I'm wrong, or point to five thousand learned texts about why I am certainly wrong or why I am actually a believer just like you are, then knock yourself out. Couldn't bother me less.
Sitting in church twice in the last six months (1x wedding, 1x don't ask) I probably inadvertently adopted a wtf face for the entire time. These blokes in long flowing robes talking about he died for you and is risen and the lord god almighty and whatnot. Absolutely bizarre.
But if you believe then go with my best wishes.
Oh and the Speccie has for years been a nasty, bigoted, small-minded rag which for every Douglas Murray or Sean Thomas has a Taki and a Charles Moore. I was given a subscription some years ago for my birthday and had to politely decline its renewal.
“Couldn’t give a hoot”, “couldn’t care less”, and here are six paragraphs of commentary to show how little I care
Plus a bizarre tangential reference to the Spectator
I am super interested in the history and socio-anthropological-economic (not sure that word exists) implications of religion, from Anubis to the Albgensian crusades to the celibacy of the clerics to the religious core of the Enlightenment to the bloke in church the other day telling me about how god is risen.
Love it all. Super interesting and as I say absolutely riveting if bizarre to my mind, albeit understandable as B Russell has explained to you so yes, religion bring it on. But not as a believer, sadly.
As for the Speccie its core is horrible, nasty, snide, sneering, and bigoted, as I'm sure is much of its readership albeit they have some interesting articles.
Boy, you really do have issues. A posh-ish but unhappy upbringing lurks in the background?
But then again, I too have issues, and so do we all
One would reasonably assume that one must believe in the Christian God to be a Christian. As most British people do not, it’s fair to say we are no longer a Christian country (nor a religious one).
Given 53.5% of people in England and Wales said they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish in the 2021 census then it is also fair to say we are still a religious nation that believes in the God of Abraham, even if only a plurality still believe in Christianity and the Trinity and that Jesus was Messiah
Many who put that down do so because of cultural/legacy factors rather than serious belief.
And of those who do believe, considering many of those would view other believers you have mentioned as either heretics or heathens, uniting them all together as "Abrahamic" is as preposterous as linking Corbynistas, and Blairites, and Orange Boomers and everyone else together as united "progressives".
So, they still define themselves as Christian. While some of those defining themselves as non religious will be agnostic not atheist.
Muslims and Christians and Jews also share a distinct belief in the God of Abraham, arguably more distinct than the agreement between Corbynites, Blairites and Orange Bookers on the power the state should have in the economy and outside
LOL^2
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
If you believe in the God of Abraham you ain't an atheist, tough.
The question was solely about how many in the UK say they are religious v non religious, not about previous religious wars in centuries past
I couldn't give a damn how many are atheists or not. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's an absence of one, that's what you don't understand. I don't believe what other atheists believe any more than Haredi Jews are the same as Jehovah's Witnesses are the same as Shi'ites who are fighting Sunnis.
Atheism is absolutely a belief system. It comes in different flavours - materialism, existentialism, nihilism, scientism - the same way Christianity comes in different denominations
Oh gawd here we go. It is not a belief system. It is an absence of belief in anything Lord God Above-related.
This tack is often used in a nah, nah you believe just as much as I do kind of way.
Which imo shows a lack of confidence in your own belief. You believe in god that's fantastic, good luck with it all I hope it gives you the peace and comfort you need. I don't believe in god and by all means pity me, dislike me, look down on me, all that stuff I couldn't give a hoot. There is no god but if you know that I'm wrong, or point to five thousand learned texts about why I am certainly wrong or why I am actually a believer just like you are, then knock yourself out. Couldn't bother me less.
Sitting in church twice in the last six months (1x wedding, 1x don't ask) I probably inadvertently adopted a wtf face for the entire time. These blokes in long flowing robes talking about he died for you and is risen and the lord god almighty and whatnot. Absolutely bizarre.
But if you believe then go with my best wishes.
Oh and the Speccie has for years been a nasty, bigoted, small-minded rag which for every Douglas Murray or Sean Thomas has a Taki and a Charles Moore. I was given a subscription some years ago for my birthday and had to politely decline its renewal.
“Couldn’t give a hoot”, “couldn’t care less”, and here are six paragraphs of commentary to show how little I care
Plus a bizarre tangential reference to the Spectator
I am super interested in the history and socio-anthropological-economic (not sure that word exists) implications of religion, from Anubis to the Albgensian crusades to the celibacy of the clerics to the religious core of the Enlightenment to the bloke in church the other day telling me about how god is risen.
Love it all. Super interesting and as I say absolutely riveting if bizarre to my mind, albeit understandable as B Russell has explained to you so yes, religion bring it on. But not as a believer, sadly.
As for the Speccie its core is horrible, nasty, snide, sneering, and bigoted, as I'm sure is much of its readership albeit they have some interesting articles.
Boy, you really do have issues. A posh-ish but unhappy upbringing lurks in the background?
But then again, I too have issues, and so do we all
May we all find peace in our own way
LOL thank you for your sympathy. I do not recognise my upbringing in the terms you describe but that is just a testimony to how deeply I have attempted to bury it. You have, as ever, seen through me completely.
I always appreciate it when you bring your profound understanding of the human psyche to help PB posters. Something for some reason you are motivated to do when you are foundering in a discussion but I'm sure that is just coincidence.
I'm right about the Speccie, that said, and you know it. But a dollar is a dollar and take you away from it and it would be even worse.
Comments
Labour's by election record is much more patchy however they can gain seats when well ahead in the polls, as they did in Selby and thus will fancy their chances in Mid Beds too which Labour would gain on the same swing as they got in the Selby by election
I doubt it would shock many on here.
They have failed to learn the lesson from Selby - where the Lib Dems put on a distinctly pathetic performance, and Labour won the seat. This was not because Labour were particularly brilliant there, but because the Lib Dems did not put on a strong campaign.
Labour is not going to win a large number of seats unless other parties effectively stand aside to help them win. And as OGH points out, even then they failed to win Uxbridge.
Personally, I cannot wait to see the end of this pathetic incompetent government. But does that mean that I hate it so much that I would vote Labour if I lived in the right kind of seat. No, it does not. Labour have let us down time after time in the past, and on present showing they continue to be just out for themselves.
Best case scenario they win and can put it down as a massive marker that they can take on the Tories anywhere and are serious contenders for the next election.
Worst case the Tories hold on and it can be dismissed as a safe Tory seat with a 23k majority anyway.
No reason they should be soft pedalling this.
Then they'll game the new one instead, but it would end tactical voting (unless we went with AV).
Any party can win any seat, you just need to secure more votes than the opposition.
The idea that any party should "stand aside" is as ridiculous as the idea Lib Dem or Green vogers should belong to Labour as "progressive" voters.
If Lib Dems and Labour had the same beliefs and wanted the same thing, they'd be the same party. They're not.
Everyone should put their best foot forward and may the best one win.
The Liberal Democrats stood aside in Cannock Chase and told me to vote Green instead.
Did I?
No, I tore up my ballot paper.
Because while the Liberal Democrats were a reasonable fit for what I was looking for, the Greens were not, and I did not think Brexit trumped all the things I didn't agree with in their national manifesto.
I mean, if they wanted a paper candidate I'd have stood for them myself, but they didn't even go through the motions.
(I have no plans to die soon.)
Jonesthe Tories come back.'So it needs to be another Tory/Lib Dem coalition.
And the conditions for that including hell freezing over are just not there.
If you aren't winning the most voters then try looking inwards and asking what you can do to improve, to reach out to more. Don't cry that it's unfair, or that others should step aside for you. Everyone operates under the same rules, either attract voters or don't.
Laying them as advised upthread seems the astute course.
I'm not sure if they're going to or not, so no bet for me.
1) The national mood is firm: time for a change. A Tory win won't alter that.
2) A Labour win says: systems are on track to dispose of the Tory government
3) LD win says: C and A, Shropshire North all over again. Remind yourself to vote tactically if you live in Guildford or Harrogate, but Bootle and South Holland are as you were.
The only upset to this would be a really clear and decisive Tory win, or of course the Independent coming through.
The interest therefore is in the betting. Labour are currently value, but P G Wodehouse would describe this as like the Fathers' Obstacle Race: very hard to assess form.
The hatred the Judean People's Front has for the People's Front of Judea applies even more to religion than it does to left wing British politics.
The idea that people who call others heretics or heathens, or try to kill each other, should all be bundled together as one big happy family is just going against thousands of years of history - and ongoing reality to date.
“Some significant developments of the last days of Russo-Ukrainian war:
- The Ukrainians advanced in strategic direction to Melitopol and Tokmak, Ukrainian gains look very solid and sustainable;
- Massive usage of drones by Ukraine against Russian military targets in multiply Russian cities, hundreds kilometers from the border;
- The Russian army losses on equipment have reached levels unseen before, with dozens of artillery pieces and trucks every day for days. This points out that the Ukrainians have mastered hunt for artillery (dangerous for the Ukrainian offensive) and logistics (vital for the Russian defence);
- The Ukrainians most probably cut through the 2nd line of Russian defence.
All together these signs say that the Ukrainians' strategy is effective and starts to bring results. If nothing changes in this dynamics, I expect a major Ukrainian breakthrough within 2-3 weeks. /1”
https://x.com/sumlenny/status/1696841476477518296?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
The guy is a very partisan pro-Ukraine cheerleader, however
The question was solely about how many in the UK say they are religious v non religious, not about previous religious wars in centuries past
Not sure that by-elections measure much more than the accuracy of the current polling.
Next I will lose interest in Scottish sub-samples
Bizarrely, even in 1997 they regained one seat lost in a by-election - Christchurch. Which is a shame because that utter bellend Chope was the MP elected.
I think future changes to voting systems for everything except the Commons could readily occur and without referendums. The biggest change would be Lords reform.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66660136
In that light, it’s hard to get excited by a General Election, let alone “mid Bedfordshire”
“Almost half of NHS workers surveyed have left their role or are considering it”
'Popular rule is not democracy. It only gives people what they want, not what they need.'
I agree that within that limit atheists differ - people can be atheists and moral objectivists for example, though I suspect most are not, but excluding god as an option is a belief and a belief system. Quite unlike agnosticism which makes no exclusions.
We are not an atheist nation either.
We are a nation. No more, no less. We have great diversity in this country. We have people of all sorts of beliefs, and none, and people who don't care about belief either way. None of those are homogeneous groups or identities to claim as your own.
Practically the sentence is the sentence. Hearing it in open court doesn’t make a tremendous amount of difference. If Lucy Letby, for instance, wants to eventually engage with hearing or reading the judges comments then she’s got a long time in prison to get round to it.
Worst case scenario is Pensionerism dominates UK politics for the next 15-20 years, and because Pensionerism is inherently negative (old people consume, not produce), we don't really come out of the slump until the 2040's
I am not sure it should be, to be honest. I think any change in voting system should probably be approved by the people, because it affects the type of government/leadership/council they get out of it.
Speaking of travel writing, the Guardian travel pages have become, for me, a secret source of delight. They are so scared of their puritanical, eco-loon readers, they are reduced, almost entirely, to writing about massively boring things to do in the UK. Another gem today:
However theistic materialism is not contrary to logic; probably quite rare.
Some poor sub had to conjure that up
This tack is often used in a nah, nah you believe just as much as I do kind of way.
Which imo shows a lack of confidence in your own belief. You believe in god that's fantastic, good luck with it all I hope it gives you the peace and comfort you need. I don't believe in god and by all means pity me, dislike me, look down on me, all that stuff I couldn't give a hoot. There is no god but if you know that I'm wrong, or point to five thousand learned texts about why I am certainly wrong or why I am actually a believer just like you are, then knock yourself out. Couldn't bother me less.
Sitting in church twice in the last six months (1x wedding, 1x don't ask) I probably inadvertently adopted a wtf face for the entire time. These blokes in long flowing robes talking about he died for you and is risen and the lord god almighty and whatnot. Absolutely bizarre.
But if you believe then go with my best wishes.
Oh and the Speccie has for years been a nasty, bigoted, small-minded rag which for every Douglas Murray or Sean Thomas has a Taki and a Charles Moore. I was given a subscription some years ago for my birthday and had to politely decline its renewal.
I was correcting the incorrect statement that was made on the previous thread by a poster that we were majority non religious.
And Bart has decided to carry on the argument to this thread
Without a vote in Parliament, let alone a referendum.
The Tories have laid the groundwork.
I think that is the likely size of it ultimately.
“Mothers’ Sack Race.”
“Ah! that’s better. This is where you know something.”
“A gift for Mrs. Penworthy, the tobacconist’s wife,” said Bingo, confidently. “I was in at her shop yesterday, buying cigarettes, and she told me she had won three times at fairs in Worcestershire. She only moved to these parts a short time ago, so nobody knows about her. She promised me she would keep herself dark, and I think we could get a good price.”
“Risk a tenner each way, Jeeves, what?”
“I think so, sir.”
“Girls’ Open Egg and Spoon Race,” read Bingo.
“How about that?”
“I doubt if it would be worth while to invest, sir,” said Jeeves. “I am told it is a certainty for last year’s winner, Sarah Mills, who will doubtless start an odds-on favourite.”
“Good, is she?”
“They tell me in the village that she carries a beautiful egg, sir.”
“Then there’s the Obstacle Race,” said Bingo. “Risky, in my opinion. Like betting on the Grand National. Fathers’ Hat-Trimming Contest—another speculative event. That’s all, except the Choir Boys’ Hundred Yards Handicap, for a pewter mug presented by the vicar—open to all whose voices have not broken before the second Sunday in Epiphany. Willie Chambers won last year, in a canter, receiving fifteen yards. This time he will probably be handicapped out of the race. I don’t know what to advise.”
Probably less fun for the journalists however. “Hey Phoebe we’ve got a travel commission for you”
Ooh great, Seychelles? Antarctica? A new five star in Bhutan?
“No, walking by a river in Yorkshire”
Of course, there are many ways of how an individual develops their thoughts from that one premise.
Plus a bizarre tangential reference to the Spectator
It’s there for the taking…
Are proceedings postponed so that the ritual may be completed as foretold and the God of the Daily Express appeased?
The only position for a real non-believer is agnosticism. “I just don’t know. I have no belief either way”
...there is a moral superiority attached to the well-travelled, too. Those who stay at home have failed to “break the bounds of their everyday experience and beg[un] to ‘live’”. Yet this belief that international travel will always expand our mental horizons – especially given the proliferation of commercialised and sheltered touristic experiences wherever you go – doesn’t bear much scrutiny.
... As the climate crisis intensifies, the moral aspect of travel becomes even harder to defend. International travel may give us, as individuals, a sense of connection and purpose within the maelstrom of modernity. But how can we square engaging in ritualistic pilgrimage to Giza’s pyramids, or the hot air balloons of Cappadocia, with a keen awareness of just exactly what mass tourism means for the very sites we have been taught to worship?
Tourism is responsible for 8-10% of annual global CO2 emissions. The rise of cheap flights opened up access to international travel, and yet is surely no longer sustainable...
We need a substantial and widespread shift in both understanding why we travel – beyond simply “for leisure” – and unpicking our feelings of personal entitlement to the self-actualisation and connection we expect to find in far-flung places...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/30/tourists-rhodes-maui-burned-travel
Though more pleasant still to cycle it. The Dales are agreeably conducive to cycling, until you reach the end of the dale you're in and have to haul your fat arse over into the next dale.
Though I'd quibble that the Wharfe is Yorkshire's most famous river. Strikes me as no more famous than the Ouse, Don, Nidd, Aire, Calder, Swale, Derwent, Tees or Hull.
I rather like British travel writing, as my MSN feed at work has clearly twigged. I like to read about places I might reasonably go - or, even better, about places I have been, and I can enjoy feeling cheerfully exasperated with the writer who has clearly Got It Wrong.
Better still, three.
Lol. It is the logical endpoint of their position. The Guardian will have to abandon virtually all foreign travel journalism
I picture their travel editor reading that and clutching his head in bleak despair, as he contemplates a future comprised entirely of yurting in Staffordshire
According to the report, if they refuse to attend court for sentencing they could "face the prospect of longer in prison". Don't think that would have worked for Lucy Letby.
And this.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/aug/30/dfe-urges-schools-make-contingency-plans-crumbling-concrete
Love it all. Super interesting and as I say absolutely riveting if bizarre to my mind, albeit understandable as B Russell has explained to you so yes, religion bring it on. But not as a believer, sadly.
As for the Speccie its core is horrible, nasty, snide, sneering, and bigoted, as I'm sure is much of its readership albeit they have some interesting articles.
Indeed I am about to set off on a mini UK road trip (expect pics of drinks in woods)
I am just empathising with the poor Guardian travel writers, forbidden to go anywhere exotic. My guess is the more talented ones will simply leave
‘A spokesperson for the DfE said the safety of pupils and teachers was its “utmost” priority.’
Covering their useless fat drunken arses is their utmost priority. Which is why they’ve tried to duck out of doing anything for five years.
But then again, I too have issues, and so do we all
May we all find peace in our own way
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/14/sewage-ilkley-river-wharfe-2030-yorkshire-campaign
I always appreciate it when you bring your profound understanding of the human psyche to help PB posters. Something for some reason you are motivated to do when you are foundering in a discussion but I'm sure that is just coincidence.
I'm right about the Speccie, that said, and you know it. But a dollar is a dollar and take you away from it and it would be even worse.