Wifey is a Pupil Support Assistant up here (equivalent of a TA). Has stopped working full-time to concentrate on our retail venture, but is still contracted as supply cover. For a whopping £11.40 an hour. And thats a job where you need qualifications to do it.
No wonder there are so many staff shortages. We don't fund any of the public services properly.
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
Wow are we still banging on about religion. I suggested the best way to deal with it last night.
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.
Setting aside the psychoanalysis (I’m obviously right), to have this informed opinion of the Spectator, you must be reading it - which is perplexing, given that you apparently hate it
It’s like those guardian bedwetters who bang on about the Daily Heil so much you realise they secretly adore the Sidebar of Shame
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
To be honest, if it were me, I'd be quite excited about a commission to do Wharfedale. But I do see your point: I suspect those going into travel writing professionally are after something rather more exotic.
I'm looking forward to your reportage. Where are you headed?
Anyway, after the previous post, I remembered that my wife and daughters are away for the weekend next summer, leaving me at large to do what I want: I am going to buy a new bike and cycle the length of Wharfedale. I shall get the train to Lancaster or Oxenholme on Saturday morning, cycle to Hawes and then over to Langstrothdale and down Wharfedale, and possibly find accommodation in Grassington, before continuing down to Ilkley, Otley, Wetherby and Tadcaster on Sunday, then getting the train home from York. Excited already. It might not be the Seychelles, but I can do it in a weekend and for considerably less money than my wife and daughters are spending on their weekend away.
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
Wow are we still banging on about religion. I suggested the best way to deal with it last night.
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
Wow are we still banging on about religion. I suggested the best way to deal with it last night.
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
Wow are we still banging on about religion. I suggested the best way to deal with it last night.
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
To be honest, if it were me, I'd be quite excited about a commission to do Wharfedale. But I do see your point: I suspect those going into travel writing professionally are after something rather more exotic.
I'm looking forward to your reportage. Where are you headed?
Anyway, after the previous post, I remembered that my wife and daughters are away for the weekend next summer, leaving me at large to do what I want: I am going to buy a new bike and cycle the length of Wharfedale. I shall get the train to Lancaster or Oxenholme on Saturday morning, cycle to Hawes and then over to Langstrothdale and down Wharfedale, and possibly find accommodation in Grassington, before continuing down to Ilkley, Otley, Wetherby and Tadcaster on Sunday, then getting the train home from York. Excited already. It might not be the Seychelles, but I can do it in a weekend and for considerably less money than my wife and daughters are spending on their weekend away.
Do you write about your travels? I appreciate we are in the presence of greatness, but my own humble attempts are rewarding for me and my friends seem to find them entertaining. Waist-deep river crossings in the Highlands, head on collisions with trees and things like that.
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
To be honest, if it were me, I'd be quite excited about a commission to do Wharfedale. But I do see your point: I suspect those going into travel writing professionally are after something rather more exotic.
I'm looking forward to your reportage. Where are you headed?
Anyway, after the previous post, I remembered that my wife and daughters are away for the weekend next summer, leaving me at large to do what I want: I am going to buy a new bike and cycle the length of Wharfedale. I shall get the train to Lancaster or Oxenholme on Saturday morning, cycle to Hawes and then over to Langstrothdale and down Wharfedale, and possibly find accommodation in Grassington, before continuing down to Ilkley, Otley, Wetherby and Tadcaster on Sunday, then getting the train home from York. Excited already. It might not be the Seychelles, but I can do it in a weekend and for considerably less money than my wife and daughters are spending on their weekend away.
I’m off to the Welsh Marches. Salop, Hereford, Glos
Symond’s Yat may make an appearance. The Golden Valley certainly will - the romping room of my later childhood. One of the lovelier corners of the world…
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
To be honest, if it were me, I'd be quite excited about a commission to do Wharfedale. But I do see your point: I suspect those going into travel writing professionally are after something rather more exotic.
I'm looking forward to your reportage. Where are you headed?
Anyway, after the previous post, I remembered that my wife and daughters are away for the weekend next summer, leaving me at large to do what I want: I am going to buy a new bike and cycle the length of Wharfedale. I shall get the train to Lancaster or Oxenholme on Saturday morning, cycle to Hawes and then over to Langstrothdale and down Wharfedale, and possibly find accommodation in Grassington, before continuing down to Ilkley, Otley, Wetherby and Tadcaster on Sunday, then getting the train home from York. Excited already. It might not be the Seychelles, but I can do it in a weekend and for considerably less money than my wife and daughters are spending on their weekend away.
I’m off to the Welsh Marches. Salop, Hereford, Glos
Symond’s Yat may make an appearance. The Golden Valley certainly will - the romping room of my later childhood. One of the lovelier corners of the world…
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
To be honest, if it were me, I'd be quite excited about a commission to do Wharfedale. But I do see your point: I suspect those going into travel writing professionally are after something rather more exotic.
I'm looking forward to your reportage. Where are you headed?
Anyway, after the previous post, I remembered that my wife and daughters are away for the weekend next summer, leaving me at large to do what I want: I am going to buy a new bike and cycle the length of Wharfedale. I shall get the train to Lancaster or Oxenholme on Saturday morning, cycle to Hawes and then over to Langstrothdale and down Wharfedale, and possibly find accommodation in Grassington, before continuing down to Ilkley, Otley, Wetherby and Tadcaster on Sunday, then getting the train home from York. Excited already. It might not be the Seychelles, but I can do it in a weekend and for considerably less money than my wife and daughters are spending on their weekend away.
Do you write about your travels? I appreciate we are in the presence of greatness, but my own humble attempts are rewarding for me and my friends seem to find them entertaining. Waist-deep river crossings in the Highlands, head on collisions with trees and things like that.
Not really, no. But I should. Wainwright started writing his books primarily so he would have a way to remember his adventures. Not that my travels have ever been anything like on the scale of his. But I will give it a go.
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
To be honest, if it were me, I'd be quite excited about a commission to do Wharfedale. But I do see your point: I suspect those going into travel writing professionally are after something rather more exotic.
I'm looking forward to your reportage. Where are you headed?
Anyway, after the previous post, I remembered that my wife and daughters are away for the weekend next summer, leaving me at large to do what I want: I am going to buy a new bike and cycle the length of Wharfedale. I shall get the train to Lancaster or Oxenholme on Saturday morning, cycle to Hawes and then over to Langstrothdale and down Wharfedale, and possibly find accommodation in Grassington, before continuing down to Ilkley, Otley, Wetherby and Tadcaster on Sunday, then getting the train home from York. Excited already. It might not be the Seychelles, but I can do it in a weekend and for considerably less money than my wife and daughters are spending on their weekend away.
I’m off to the Welsh Marches. Salop, Hereford, Glos
Symond’s Yat may make an appearance. The Golden Valley certainly will - the romping room of my later childhood. One of the lovelier corners of the world…
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
The author of that piece currently lives in Kuala Lumpur, so for him Yorkshire *is* a distant exotic land... (OK, and also where he grew up.)
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.
Setting aside the psychoanalysis (I’m obviously right), to have this informed opinion of the Spectator, you must be reading it - which is perplexing, given that you apparently hate it
It’s like those guardian bedwetters who bang on about the Daily Heil so much you realise they secretly adore the Sidebar of Shame
No. As I said I was given a subscription and read it for a year - it is nothing if not entertaining - but found its nastiness to be too much in the end.
Like having a dinner party with some friends and then one of them says something deeply inappropriate. Do you put up or shut up.
So I cancelled the subscription (or rather, I asked for them not to renew the sub).
Actually the other day I had such an experience. I was in a tennis group, all friends or friends of friends, and someone made a homophobic remark. Everyone was having a great time, etc. Let's ask PB - what would you have done.
(And I'm right on the psychology and your response to being befuddled btw.)
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
Wow are we still banging on about religion. I suggested the best way to deal with it last night.
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.
Setting aside the psychoanalysis (I’m obviously right), to have this informed opinion of the Spectator, you must be reading it - which is perplexing, given that you apparently hate it
It’s like those guardian bedwetters who bang on about the Daily Heil so much you realise they secretly adore the Sidebar of Shame
No. As I said I was given a subscription and read it for a year - it is nothing if not entertaining - but found its nastiness to be too much in the end.
Like having a dinner party with some friends and then one of them says something deeply inappropriate. Do you put up or shut up.
So I cancelled the subscription (or rather, I asked for them not to renew the sub).
Actually the other day I had such an experience. I was in a tennis group, all friends or friends of friends, and someone made a homophobic remark. Everyone was having a great time, etc. Let's ask PB - what would you have done.
(And I'm right on the psychology and your response to being befuddled btw.)
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
To be honest, if it were me, I'd be quite excited about a commission to do Wharfedale. But I do see your point: I suspect those going into travel writing professionally are after something rather more exotic.
I'm looking forward to your reportage. Where are you headed?
Anyway, after the previous post, I remembered that my wife and daughters are away for the weekend next summer, leaving me at large to do what I want: I am going to buy a new bike and cycle the length of Wharfedale. I shall get the train to Lancaster or Oxenholme on Saturday morning, cycle to Hawes and then over to Langstrothdale and down Wharfedale, and possibly find accommodation in Grassington, before continuing down to Ilkley, Otley, Wetherby and Tadcaster on Sunday, then getting the train home from York. Excited already. It might not be the Seychelles, but I can do it in a weekend and for considerably less money than my wife and daughters are spending on their weekend away.
I’m off to the Welsh Marches. Salop, Hereford, Glos
Symond’s Yat may make an appearance. The Golden Valley certainly will - the romping room of my later childhood. One of the lovelier corners of the world…
My regards to Abbey Dore.
I went to Abbey Dore once, but it was a waste of time. Everywhere was shut.
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.
Setting aside the psychoanalysis (I’m obviously right), to have this informed opinion of the Spectator, you must be reading it - which is perplexing, given that you apparently hate it
It’s like those guardian bedwetters who bang on about the Daily Heil so much you realise they secretly adore the Sidebar of Shame
No. As I said I was given a subscription and read it for a year - it is nothing if not entertaining - but found its nastiness to be too much in the end.
Like having a dinner party with some friends and then one of them says something deeply inappropriate. Do you put up or shut up.
So I cancelled the subscription (or rather, I asked for them not to renew the sub).
Actually the other day I had such an experience. I was in a tennis group, all friends or friends of friends, and someone made a homophobic remark. Everyone was having a great time, etc. Let's ask PB - what would you have done.
(And I'm right on the psychology and your response to being befuddled btw.)
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
To be honest, if it were me, I'd be quite excited about a commission to do Wharfedale. But I do see your point: I suspect those going into travel writing professionally are after something rather more exotic.
I'm looking forward to your reportage. Where are you headed?
Anyway, after the previous post, I remembered that my wife and daughters are away for the weekend next summer, leaving me at large to do what I want: I am going to buy a new bike and cycle the length of Wharfedale. I shall get the train to Lancaster or Oxenholme on Saturday morning, cycle to Hawes and then over to Langstrothdale and down Wharfedale, and possibly find accommodation in Grassington, before continuing down to Ilkley, Otley, Wetherby and Tadcaster on Sunday, then getting the train home from York. Excited already. It might not be the Seychelles, but I can do it in a weekend and for considerably less money than my wife and daughters are spending on their weekend away.
I’m off to the Welsh Marches. Salop, Hereford, Glos
Symond’s Yat may make an appearance. The Golden Valley certainly will - the romping room of my later childhood. One of the lovelier corners of the world…
My regards to Abbey Dore.
I went to Abbey Dore once, but it was a waste of time. Everywhere was shut.
Even the abbey? Which was what I had in mind, actually - apols for ambiguity. I was very taken with it.
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
To be honest, if it were me, I'd be quite excited about a commission to do Wharfedale. But I do see your point: I suspect those going into travel writing professionally are after something rather more exotic.
I'm looking forward to your reportage. Where are you headed?
Anyway, after the previous post, I remembered that my wife and daughters are away for the weekend next summer, leaving me at large to do what I want: I am going to buy a new bike and cycle the length of Wharfedale. I shall get the train to Lancaster or Oxenholme on Saturday morning, cycle to Hawes and then over to Langstrothdale and down Wharfedale, and possibly find accommodation in Grassington, before continuing down to Ilkley, Otley, Wetherby and Tadcaster on Sunday, then getting the train home from York. Excited already. It might not be the Seychelles, but I can do it in a weekend and for considerably less money than my wife and daughters are spending on their weekend away.
I’m off to the Welsh Marches. Salop, Hereford, Glos
Symond’s Yat may make an appearance. The Golden Valley certainly will - the romping room of my later childhood. One of the lovelier corners of the world…
My regards to Abbey Dore.
I went to Abbey Dore once, but it was a waste of time. Everywhere was shut.
Even the abbey? Which was what I had in mind, actually - apols for ambiguity. I was very taken with it.
My awesome pun was clearly so subtle it was open to misinterpretation.
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.
Setting aside the psychoanalysis (I’m obviously right), to have this informed opinion of the Spectator, you must be reading it - which is perplexing, given that you apparently hate it
It’s like those guardian bedwetters who bang on about the Daily Heil so much you realise they secretly adore the Sidebar of Shame
No. As I said I was given a subscription and read it for a year - it is nothing if not entertaining - but found its nastiness to be too much in the end.
Like having a dinner party with some friends and then one of them says something deeply inappropriate. Do you put up or shut up.
So I cancelled the subscription (or rather, I asked for them not to renew the sub).
Actually the other day I had such an experience. I was in a tennis group, all friends or friends of friends, and someone made a homophobic remark. Everyone was having a great time, etc. Let's ask PB - what would you have done.
(And I'm right on the psychology and your response to being befuddled btw.)
Apparently you just have to say “maaaaaate”
Only if you do contract work in Russian troll farms run by Wagner Group.
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.
Setting aside the psychoanalysis (I’m obviously right), to have this informed opinion of the Spectator, you must be reading it - which is perplexing, given that you apparently hate it
It’s like those guardian bedwetters who bang on about the Daily Heil so much you realise they secretly adore the Sidebar of Shame
No. As I said I was given a subscription and read it for a year - it is nothing if not entertaining - but found its nastiness to be too much in the end.
Like having a dinner party with some friends and then one of them says something deeply inappropriate. Do you put up or shut up.
So I cancelled the subscription (or rather, I asked for them not to renew the sub).
Actually the other day I had such an experience. I was in a tennis group, all friends or friends of friends, and someone made a homophobic remark. Everyone was having a great time, etc. Let's ask PB - what would you have done.
(And I'm right on the psychology and your response to being befuddled btw.)
Apparently you just have to say “maaaaaate”
Does that make them look sheepish?
Well, they should, if they are making goatish comments.
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
To be honest, if it were me, I'd be quite excited about a commission to do Wharfedale. But I do see your point: I suspect those going into travel writing professionally are after something rather more exotic.
I'm looking forward to your reportage. Where are you headed?
Anyway, after the previous post, I remembered that my wife and daughters are away for the weekend next summer, leaving me at large to do what I want: I am going to buy a new bike and cycle the length of Wharfedale. I shall get the train to Lancaster or Oxenholme on Saturday morning, cycle to Hawes and then over to Langstrothdale and down Wharfedale, and possibly find accommodation in Grassington, before continuing down to Ilkley, Otley, Wetherby and Tadcaster on Sunday, then getting the train home from York. Excited already. It might not be the Seychelles, but I can do it in a weekend and for considerably less money than my wife and daughters are spending on their weekend away.
I’m off to the Welsh Marches. Salop, Hereford, Glos
Symond’s Yat may make an appearance. The Golden Valley certainly will - the romping room of my later childhood. One of the lovelier corners of the world…
My regards to Abbey Dore.
I went to Abbey Dore once, but it was a waste of time. Everywhere was shut.
Even the abbey? Which was what I had in mind, actually - apols for ambiguity. I was very taken with it.
My awesome pun was clearly so subtle it was open to misinterpretation.
I automatically check when I read something from you - but in this case, a third look was needed ... argh!
To go back to byelections briefly, there are a three main scenarios: 1. Lab/LD engage in a dick-measuring contest and the Tories win 2. As above only Lab or LD win despite the willy waving 3. One of Lab / LD backs down and the other wins
The general public have shown that they are good at diescerning who the ABC candidate is, and I anticipate that the first proper poll to come out after the GoNads incident will show them the way.
My party (LD) clearly thinks it is winnable. Labour appear to be in the same place. Both with some justification. So the challenge now is what happens if the informal arrangements elsewhere don't happen here...?
It does rather raise the value of the concept of "Christian heritage" being much touted on here in a religious sense, rogether with "blood", "royal" or otherwise, and "ethnicity" and "Anglo"-wotsit, as a central defining mark of being a UK subject.
Not sure holding on to a 23k majority constitutes a shock. I doubt it would shock many on here.
In the current climate it would count as a shock, but the genuine shock (except to HYUFD) of holding Uxbridge puts it into perspective.
Not unprecedented though. Labour held Grimsby in 1977 despite having recently lost Workington and Birmingham Stechford, both of which were, on paper, much safer and losing the stronghold of Ashfield on the same day.
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.
The problem is not pensioners as individuals, it's pensioners en masse. Old people act differently to young people (see my previous posts) but the one I was emphasising here was their consumption profile: they consume, they do not produce. A country dominated by old people does not grow (as China is rapidly finding out) so it's a problem
The Government's proposed solution to this problem is to create growth by importing 500,000 to 1,000,000 young people per year, which will result in the present working class having to compete for fewer wages and smaller/no houses.
As you may have noticed, I'm not best pleased by this.
The 'Christian country' 'cultural Christian' topic is just tedious because people talk past one another even more than usual politics. It depends what one means - I'd have little trouble as an atheist referring to the country that way, depending what someone was trying to assert.
Pretending that common arguments are 'only on PB' as if unique doesn't help either.
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.
1. The president of Gabon shares the name of a comedy magician from back in the day. 2. The same family has held the presidency in Gabon for over 50 years. Sounds like a monarchy.
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.
Goalpost moving apparently being a key doctrine of pseudo-Christianity as preached by the Vicar.
That’s precisely my point. On no sensible basis is a Cultural Christian a Christian. I am a Cultural Christian, I celebrate Christmas, I sing occasional hymns with gusto, etc etc. I also do not believe in God, ergo I am not a Christian.
To go back to byelections briefly, there are a three main scenarios: 1. Lab/LD engage in a dick-measuring contest and the Tories win 2. As above only Lab or LD win despite the willy waving 3. One of Lab / LD backs down and the other wins
The general public have shown that they are good at diescerning who the ABC candidate is, and I anticipate that the first proper poll to come out after the GoNads incident will show them the way.
My party (LD) clearly thinks it is winnable. Labour appear to be in the same place. Both with some justification. So the challenge now is what happens if the informal arrangements elsewhere don't happen here...?
Issue for Labour is they can't give the Lib Dems a clear run because there is no other campaign they can focus their troops on...
Which is the only thing Nadine has done as a favour for Rishi - as Labour need to be seen to campaign they could easily spilit the vote and let a Tory sneak through the middle.
Which is actually a decent result for Labour as the seat would likely be a Labour seat (and probably would become one at the next general election) were the Lib Dems not actively campaigning.
That’s precisely my point. On no sensible basis is a Cultural Christian a Christian. I am a Cultural Christian, I celebrate Christmas, I sing occasional hymns with gusto, etc etc. I also do not believe in God, ergo I am not a Christian.
Which I think you'll find is what the original point was...
... Douglas Murray or Sean Thomas has a Taki and a Charles Moore....
I think we can all agree that Taki is a [REDACTED], but the three others are not necessarily sortable and assessment will differ dependent on viewpoint.
That’s precisely my point. On no sensible basis is a Cultural Christian a Christian. I am a Cultural Christian, I celebrate Christmas, I sing occasional hymns with gusto, etc etc. I also do not believe in God, ergo I am not a Christian.
Which I think you'll find is what the original point was...
Exactly. We agree (by the way apologies for making the same point as you on the PT, you beat me to it!)
You know how much people hate ID cards because it in theory allows all databases to be merged into 1
Well I've just seen a job advert for the Government's new GOV.UK One Login Programme - which means you login in once it it connects you to all the Government databases you use.
Reverse of that is it means each database has a unique identifier that can be used to join distinct databases together if you understand the key.
"There is no leader in the world who more deserves to be overthrown than Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, the President of Equatorial Guinea for the last quarter of a century. By rights, his brutality, corruption and venality should not go unpunished; yet I doubt that the mercenaries who planned to overthrow him, and whom Sir Mark Thatcher is accused of having backed financially, were motivated by a burning ambition to bring democracy and clean government to the volcanoes of Fernando Poo and the jungles of Rio Muni. ...................................................................................................... When I visited in 1986, it had not recovered from the trauma. Macias Nguema had killed or driven into exile a third of the population. His successor was his nephew, Teodoro Obiang Nguema, who is still president 25 years after his coup. He is less bizarre than his uncle, but is certainly no man of the people. In those days, they turned the electricity off whenever the President left the capital, as being no longer necessary. The telephone directory, a slim volume, had a fulsome, and obligatory, dedication to him."
Probably only a fraction of these will watch large chunks or the whole thing. But even if it’s just 20% that’s 12 million people
For comparison, he used to get ~4m for his Fox show, and he was the most popular host by far
This is potentially revolutionary for news media
Noteworthy persistence with something nobody gives a fuck about. Two right wing shitbags giving each other one speed hand jobs with eye contact.
I'd rather watch Adrian Chiles interview Lucy Letby.
Perhaps it takes a professional journalist to see the significance of this. Thirty long years at the Knappers' Gazette have taught me to notice: when the media paradigm shifts
The politics are irrelevant here. Carlson may be a dangerous idiot, Orban even more so, whatevs
Twitter has enormous news power. We already know that, it's why lefties get in such a hissy fit about Musk taking over "their" site. But the power has never been exploited before, not in this way, not with a dedicated news programme, with a famous host
Here we are. Tucker Carlson. One deeply political interview with Viktor Orban. 62 million views, and rising
Musk has probably given him the biggest pulpit on earth
This would be major if it was Owen Jones interviewing Hugo Chavez, and not because Chavez is dead
To go back to byelections briefly, there are a three main scenarios: 1. Lab/LD engage in a dick-measuring contest and the Tories win 2. As above only Lab or LD win despite the willy waving 3. One of Lab / LD backs down and the other wins
The general public have shown that they are good at diescerning who the ABC candidate is, and I anticipate that the first proper poll to come out after the GoNads incident will show them the way.
My party (LD) clearly thinks it is winnable. Labour appear to be in the same place. Both with some justification. So the challenge now is what happens if the informal arrangements elsewhere don't happen here...?
Issue for Labour is they can't give the Lib Dems a clear run because there is no other campaign they can focus their troops on...
Which is the only thing Nadine has done as a favour for Rishi - as Labour need to be seen to campaign they could easily spilit the vote and let a Tory sneak through the middle.
Which is actually a decent result for Labour as the seat would likely be a Labour seat (and probably would become one at the next general election) were the Lib Dems not actively campaigning.
There is a blindness / arrogance / stupidity with some Labour activists that their way is the only way. That everyone should vote Labour and therefore all seats could be won. Whats more they point to results like winning Canterbury or Kensington and Chelski as proof of this.
Whilst its true that seats can swing in previously unthinkable ways, you also have to accept that your way is not the only way and that Other People may see things differently. But if Mid Beds voters put us 1st and them 2nd I can't them accepting it. If the Tories then hold the seat that would be blamed on us...
The 'Christian country' 'cultural Christian' topic is just tedious because people talk past one another even more than usual politics. It depends what one means - I'd have little trouble as an atheist referring to the country that way, depending what someone was trying to assert.
Pretending that common arguments are 'only on PB' as if unique doesn't help either.
It’s rot though. How can this be a Christian country when the majority of its population disbelieve in the Christian God?
Clue: it isn’t. Hence why even PRIESTS now say it isn’t!
You know how much people hate ID cards because it in theory allows all databases to be merged into 1
Well I've just seen a job advert for the Government's new GOV.UK One Login Programme - which means you login in once it it connects you to all the Government databases you use.
Reverse of that is it means each database has a unique identifier that can be used to join distinct databases together if you understand the key.
Words cannot describe how bad most of the choices are...
If it is just Single Sign On then not necessarily an issue. The issue was if you could query a name and it would give you all data on someone including health records, police records, tax records etc. Single Sign On does not imply they can link data between databases and can still only access the databases they have been granted access for.
Probably only a fraction of these will watch large chunks or the whole thing. But even if it’s just 20% that’s 12 million people
For comparison, he used to get ~4m for his Fox show, and he was the most popular host by far
This is potentially revolutionary for news media
Noteworthy persistence with something nobody gives a fuck about. Two right wing shitbags giving each other one speed hand jobs with eye contact.
I'd rather watch Adrian Chiles interview Lucy Letby.
Perhaps it takes a professional journalist to see the significance of this. Thirty long years at the Knappers' Gazette have taught me to notice: when the media paradigm shifts
The politics are irrelevant here. Carlson may be a dangerous idiot, Orban even more so, whatevs
Twitter has enormous news power. We already know that, it's why lefties get in such a hissy fit about Musk taking over "their" site. But the power has never been exploited before, not in this way, not with a dedicated news programme, with a famous host
Here we are. Tucker Carlson. One deeply political interview with Viktor Orban. 62 million views, and rising
Musk has probably given him the biggest pulpit on earth
This would be major if it was Owen Jones interviewing Hugo Chavez, and not because Chavez is dead
The Lord Elon excites people in all kinds of crazy ways. With X he has a very clear vision for the platform which an awful lot of people hate. They also hate that the people they think are crazy are now allowed back on. That the crazy people think the righteous people are crazy and they are righteous is the point - who gets to police thought? The mob?
The challenge for progressives is that our wing of politics has less money than the other side. So in a battle of ideas we start from a position of being outspent and outthought by the right.
From Tucker Carlson's perspective this is great! As a Fux News gob he had an audience. Amongst a certain demographic. In America. But now he has the ability to influence on a global scale. With X being the platform that can reach the whole world in a way that no news outlet ever could. X being the personal plaything of The Lord Musk.
But no, he was clearly mad spending $44bn, so booooooo etc
Probably only a fraction of these will watch large chunks or the whole thing. But even if it’s just 20% that’s 12 million people
For comparison, he used to get ~4m for his Fox show, and he was the most popular host by far
This is potentially revolutionary for news media
Noteworthy persistence with something nobody gives a fuck about. Two right wing shitbags giving each other one speed hand jobs with eye contact.
I'd rather watch Adrian Chiles interview Lucy Letby.
Perhaps it takes a professional journalist to see the significance of this. Thirty long years at the Knappers' Gazette have taught me to notice: when the media paradigm shifts
The politics are irrelevant here. Carlson may be a dangerous idiot, Orban even more so, whatevs
Twitter has enormous news power. We already know that, it's why lefties get in such a hissy fit about Musk taking over "their" site. But the power has never been exploited before, not in this way, not with a dedicated news programme, with a famous host
Here we are. Tucker Carlson. One deeply political interview with Viktor Orban. 62 million views, and rising
Musk has probably given him the biggest pulpit on earth
This would be major if it was Owen Jones interviewing Hugo Chavez, and not because Chavez is dead
He only seems to get big views with really big names though. Which is not a critucidm, but that's not sustainable for him or them since he wont get big names mostvif the time, which means sure he gets mass attention and influence for that, but nothing enduring. How many others who his western audience have heard of will be next? Putin would be huge but we can watch one man fellate another already if we want. If we compare to big YouTube stars their influence is mostly consistent.
Still, it'd be churlish to deny the big numbers that are possible when he has the right subject.
You know how much people hate ID cards because it in theory allows all databases to be merged into 1
Well I've just seen a job advert for the Government's new GOV.UK One Login Programme - which means you login in once it it connects you to all the Government databases you use.
Reverse of that is it means each database has a unique identifier that can be used to join distinct databases together if you understand the key.
Words cannot describe how bad most of the choices are...
If it is just Single Sign On then not necessarily an issue. The issue was if you could query a name and it would give you all data on someone including health records, police records, tax records etc. Single Sign On does not imply they can link data between databases and can still only access the databases they have been granted access for.
Until the usual suspects at the Home Orifice get done with their Extra Special Double Secret Unique Requirements* version of SSO. Which will break GDPR, security, SSO, common sense, the Law of Gravity... to name but a few.
*When I am unDictator, anyone specifying Unique Requirements in this sense, will be crucified with really, really unique nails.
I don't take my cue from priests, so i don't see why people should be bound by their view on anything to be honest. That even applies to religion, given history shows us most priests are hardly deep theologians for example and just followed whatever doctrines and mandates were orthodox at the time, yet today would advance ideas as universal their church once repudiated.
To go back to byelections briefly, there are a three main scenarios: 1. Lab/LD engage in a dick-measuring contest and the Tories win 2. As above only Lab or LD win despite the willy waving 3. One of Lab / LD backs down and the other wins
The general public have shown that they are good at diescerning who the ABC candidate is, and I anticipate that the first proper poll to come out after the GoNads incident will show them the way.
My party (LD) clearly thinks it is winnable. Labour appear to be in the same place. Both with some justification. So the challenge now is what happens if the informal arrangements elsewhere don't happen here...?
Issue for Labour is they can't give the Lib Dems a clear run because there is no other campaign they can focus their troops on...
Which is the only thing Nadine has done as a favour for Rishi - as Labour need to be seen to campaign they could easily spilit the vote and let a Tory sneak through the middle.
Which is actually a decent result for Labour as the seat would likely be a Labour seat (and probably would become one at the next general election) were the Lib Dems not actively campaigning.
"as the seat would likely be a Labour seat (and probably would become one at the next general election)"
It is number 245 in Labours target list, giving them 450 odd seats!!!!. If this were a Labour target and they won it in a GE (rather than the knock on from a by election) and if the LDs have a decent election the Tories would likely be under 100 seats.
Much as I would enjoy that I really don't see this as a target seat for anyone. If Lab or the LDs win this in a by election they are going to struggle to keep hold of it (although might) unless the Tories really do crash and burn.
Probably only a fraction of these will watch large chunks or the whole thing. But even if it’s just 20% that’s 12 million people
For comparison, he used to get ~4m for his Fox show, and he was the most popular host by far
This is potentially revolutionary for news media
Noteworthy persistence with something nobody gives a fuck about. Two right wing shitbags giving each other one speed hand jobs with eye contact.
I'd rather watch Adrian Chiles interview Lucy Letby.
Perhaps it takes a professional journalist to see the significance of this. Thirty long years at the Knappers' Gazette have taught me to notice: when the media paradigm shifts
The politics are irrelevant here. Carlson may be a dangerous idiot, Orban even more so, whatevs
Twitter has enormous news power. We already know that, it's why lefties get in such a hissy fit about Musk taking over "their" site. But the power has never been exploited before, not in this way, not with a dedicated news programme, with a famous host
Here we are. Tucker Carlson. One deeply political interview with Viktor Orban. 62 million views, and rising
Musk has probably given him the biggest pulpit on earth
This would be major if it was Owen Jones interviewing Hugo Chavez, and not because Chavez is dead
The Lord Elon excites people in all kinds of crazy ways. With X he has a very clear vision for the platform which an awful lot of people hate. They also hate that the people they think are crazy are now allowed back on. That the crazy people think the righteous people are crazy and they are righteous is the point - who gets to police thought? The mob?
The challenge for progressives is that our wing of politics has less money than the other side. So in a battle of ideas we start from a position of being outspent and outthought by the right.
From Tucker Carlson's perspective this is great! As a Fux News gob he had an audience. Amongst a certain demographic. In America. But now he has the ability to influence on a global scale. With X being the platform that can reach the whole world in a way that no news outlet ever could. X being the personal plaything of The Lord Musk.
But no, he was clearly mad spending $44bn, so booooooo etc
I'm really not sure that progressives have less money/clout. I'd say they have more
In America, for every Fox there is a New York Times (the biggest paper in America). CNN. MSNBC, and on
Facebook is mildly progressive, and is much more willing to censor the right than the left (Cf Lab Leak). Facebook is enormous
THAT is why Musk taking on Twitter is cat::pigeons time. It is because online (now the biggest and most important arena) was previously dominated by progressive views. Musk is changing that
I agree he sends people mad. Musk Derangement Syndrome
If this Tucker Carlson experiment pays off (we can't know yet, as @kle4 says he won't always be interviewing an Orban) he will send them ever madder
You know how much people hate ID cards because it in theory allows all databases to be merged into 1
Well I've just seen a job advert for the Government's new GOV.UK One Login Programme - which means you login in once it it connects you to all the Government databases you use.
Reverse of that is it means each database has a unique identifier that can be used to join distinct databases together if you understand the key.
Words cannot describe how bad most of the choices are...
If it is just Single Sign On then not necessarily an issue. The issue was if you could query a name and it would give you all data on someone including health records, police records, tax records etc. Single Sign On does not imply they can link data between databases and can still only access the databases they have been granted access for.
Until the usual suspects at the Home Orifice get done with their Extra Special Double Secret Unique Requirements* version of SSO. Which will break GDPR, security, SSO, common sense, the Law of Gravity... to name but a few.
*When I am unDictator, anyone specifying Unique Requirements in this sense, will be crucified with really, really unique nails.
Yes I agree they are probably going to fuck it up whether through incompetence or through deliberate actions. I was merely saying SSO does not have to be sinister. I have it for all the dbs at the company I work for that I have been granted access to but I cannot link searches over them all else we would get in trouble.
Apparently the Lib Dems say they have called in over 40,000 residencies in the constituency since Nadine's first announcement. This is where Labour cannot compete. Independent vote will probably break to the Lib Dems and they should be home and dry.
Probably only a fraction of these will watch large chunks or the whole thing. But even if it’s just 20% that’s 12 million people
For comparison, he used to get ~4m for his Fox show, and he was the most popular host by far
This is potentially revolutionary for news media
Noteworthy persistence with something nobody gives a fuck about. Two right wing shitbags giving each other one speed hand jobs with eye contact.
I'd rather watch Adrian Chiles interview Lucy Letby.
Perhaps it takes a professional journalist to see the significance of this. Thirty long years at the Knappers' Gazette have taught me to notice: when the media paradigm shifts
The politics are irrelevant here. Carlson may be a dangerous idiot, Orban even more so, whatevs
Twitter has enormous news power. We already know that, it's why lefties get in such a hissy fit about Musk taking over "their" site. But the power has never been exploited before, not in this way, not with a dedicated news programme, with a famous host
Here we are. Tucker Carlson. One deeply political interview with Viktor Orban. 62 million views, and rising
Musk has probably given him the biggest pulpit on earth
This would be major if it was Owen Jones interviewing Hugo Chavez, and not because Chavez is dead
It seems to have received another 400,000 views in just the last 10 minutes.
Apparently the Lib Dems say they have called in over 40,000 residencies in the constituency since Nadine's first announcement. This is where Labour cannot compete. Independent vote will probably break to the Lib Dems and they should be home and dry.
Probably only a fraction of these will watch large chunks or the whole thing. But even if it’s just 20% that’s 12 million people
For comparison, he used to get ~4m for his Fox show, and he was the most popular host by far
This is potentially revolutionary for news media
Noteworthy persistence with something nobody gives a fuck about. Two right wing shitbags giving each other one speed hand jobs with eye contact.
I'd rather watch Adrian Chiles interview Lucy Letby.
Perhaps it takes a professional journalist to see the significance of this. Thirty long years at the Knappers' Gazette have taught me to notice: when the media paradigm shifts
The politics are irrelevant here. Carlson may be a dangerous idiot, Orban even more so, whatevs
Twitter has enormous news power. We already know that, it's why lefties get in such a hissy fit about Musk taking over "their" site. But the power has never been exploited before, not in this way, not with a dedicated news programme, with a famous host
Here we are. Tucker Carlson. One deeply political interview with Viktor Orban. 62 million views, and rising
Musk has probably given him the biggest pulpit on earth
This would be major if it was Owen Jones interviewing Hugo Chavez, and not because Chavez is dead
It seems to have received another 400,000 views in just the last 10 minutes.
His Trump interview was "viewed" by 235 million (we don't know how many actually watched the video, or for how long)
But that can be written off as a unique event, deliberately timed to coincide with the GOP debate (which was watched by 12m, for comparison)
A long, quite intellectual inerview with Viktor Orban is a very different beast, and yet here he is again, slamming it. 64m and rising
Granted, that was from a few months ago (see poll detail) but even if he fails to win as many votes in the actual by-election (ditto) what % would you consider "significant"?
One question I have is, what share of whatever vote the Mid-Beds Indy gets, comes out of the hide of the Tory, as opposed to Lab or LibDem?
You know how much people hate ID cards because it in theory allows all databases to be merged into 1
Well I've just seen a job advert for the Government's new GOV.UK One Login Programme - which means you login in once it it connects you to all the Government databases you use.
Reverse of that is it means each database has a unique identifier that can be used to join distinct databases together if you understand the key.
Words cannot describe how bad most of the choices are...
If it is just Single Sign On then not necessarily an issue. The issue was if you could query a name and it would give you all data on someone including health records, police records, tax records etc. Single Sign On does not imply they can link data between databases and can still only access the databases they have been granted access for.
Until the usual suspects at the Home Orifice get done with their Extra Special Double Secret Unique Requirements* version of SSO. Which will break GDPR, security, SSO, common sense, the Law of Gravity... to name but a few.
*When I am unDictator, anyone specifying Unique Requirements in this sense, will be crucified with really, really unique nails.
Yes I agree they are probably going to fuck it up whether through incompetence or through deliberate actions. I was merely saying SSO does not have to be sinister. I have it for all the dbs at the company I work for that I have been granted access to but I cannot link searches over them all else we would get in trouble.
Indeed. In most organisations I have worked in, SSO is a sign that the IT infrastructure team have their shit done right.
The unique requirements stuff is something that needs to be tortured out of government officials.
Apparently the Lib Dems say they have called in over 40,000 residencies in the constituency since Nadine's first announcement. This is where Labour cannot compete. Independent vote will probably break to the Lib Dems and they should be home and dry.
Yep. Posted that earlier today. Similarly with the leaflet and posterboard war. The initial posterboard war should give the initial indication of who is ahead and be a deciding factor for many who can't make up their mind who to vote for to oust the Tories.
The 'Christian country' 'cultural Christian' topic is just tedious because people talk past one another even more than usual politics. It depends what one means - I'd have little trouble as an atheist referring to the country that way, depending what someone was trying to assert.
Pretending that common arguments are 'only on PB' as if unique doesn't help either.
It’s rot though. How can this be a Christian country when the majority of its population disbelieve in the Christian God?
Clue: it isn’t. Hence why even PRIESTS now say it isn’t!
You are saying it is impossible to be agnostic about existence of a God, and a Cultural Christian at the same time? Really?
I think what Dawkins explained in the link Dr Y gave us seemed very plausible. A religion like Christianity isn’t just a philosophical concept, it’s cultural/tribal too.
I’m sure I have read on PB very good stuff about Cultural Folkways in Britain, their relation to the English Civil war, how these same cultural behaviours travelled to the United States and played role in their Civil War too.
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 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'.
Most Greens are liberals that like a thriving environment. You have nothing to fear.
A likely scenario in Mid Beds is something like Con 38%, LD 36%, Lab 22%.
Isn't there a prominent local independent running, as well?
Percentage gained by all non-Con/Lab/LD candidates in recent English by-elections
Somerton & Frome 19.2% Selby & Ainsty 16.5% Uxbridge & South Ruislip 9.6% West Lancashire 8.2% Stretford and Urmston 10.9% Chester 8.6% Wakefield 20.2% Tiverton & Honiton 4.9%
Or, in other words, even in seats with big swings and third party squeezes, the combined others often do pretty well in by-elections. 9% is more likely than the 4% implied by Andy's scenario.
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 am not sure about 1 term Labour government, as it stands the Tories will not only be reduced to a rump of seats, but will have reputation for being chaos and useless in government and managing the economy. Reputations like that can be just as effectual 10 years after being thrown out as the day thrown out. Being led by Badenoch isn’t going to encourage voters back either.
Likewise in Scotland, the SNP can be thought of as being corrupt and shambolic when they had power, fifteen years or more after their popularity collapses and holding power comes to an end.
Probably only a fraction of these will watch large chunks or the whole thing. But even if it’s just 20% that’s 12 million people
For comparison, he used to get ~4m for his Fox show, and he was the most popular host by far
This is potentially revolutionary for news media
Noteworthy persistence with something nobody gives a fuck about. Two right wing shitbags giving each other one speed hand jobs with eye contact.
I'd rather watch Adrian Chiles interview Lucy Letby.
Perhaps it takes a professional journalist to see the significance of this. Thirty long years at the Knappers' Gazette have taught me to notice: when the media paradigm shifts
The politics are irrelevant here. Carlson may be a dangerous idiot, Orban even more so, whatevs
Twitter has enormous news power. We already know that, it's why lefties get in such a hissy fit about Musk taking over "their" site. But the power has never been exploited before, not in this way, not with a dedicated news programme, with a famous host
Here we are. Tucker Carlson. One deeply political interview with Viktor Orban. 62 million views, and rising
Musk has probably given him the biggest pulpit on earth
This would be major if it was Owen Jones interviewing Hugo Chavez, and not because Chavez is dead
The Lord Elon excites people in all kinds of crazy ways. With X he has a very clear vision for the platform which an awful lot of people hate. They also hate that the people they think are crazy are now allowed back on. That the crazy people think the righteous people are crazy and they are righteous is the point - who gets to police thought? The mob?
The challenge for progressives is that our wing of politics has less money than the other side. So in a battle of ideas we start from a position of being outspent and outthought by the right.
From Tucker Carlson's perspective this is great! As a Fux News gob he had an audience. Amongst a certain demographic. In America. But now he has the ability to influence on a global scale. With X being the platform that can reach the whole world in a way that no news outlet ever could. X being the personal plaything of The Lord Musk.
But no, he was clearly mad spending $44bn, so booooooo etc
I'm really not sure that progressives have less money/clout. I'd say they have more
In America, for every Fox there is a New York Times (the biggest paper in America). CNN. MSNBC, and on
Facebook is mildly progressive, and is much more willing to censor the right than the left (Cf Lab Leak). Facebook is enormous
THAT is why Musk taking on Twitter is cat::pigeons time. It is because online (now the biggest and most important arena) was previously dominated by progressive views. Musk is changing that
I agree he sends people mad. Musk Derangement Syndrome
If this Tucker Carlson experiment pays off (we can't know yet, as @kle4 says he won't always be interviewing an Orban) he will send them ever madder
The problem with the notion of progressives controlling the old media is that it is old. Decreasing reach and influence, in a market where they are forced to compete with the likes of Fox who in turn are having to compete with the hard right lunatics like "News" Max.
I have no problem at all with other people's opinions being broadcast. It only becomes a problem when it becomes alt-facts and total lies are propagandised as the truth that they don't want you to hear.
So Musk is right not to gag people like Trump. We need to hear them, call out their bullshit, and laugh at them. Nick Griffin and the whole movement collapsed spectacularly when exposed to the air. BNP councillors in places like Burnley then Nick Griffin on Question Time exposed racist bullshit for what it is. The same needs to happen with Trumpism because if it gets censored or buried it just burns hotter.
Probably only a fraction of these will watch large chunks or the whole thing. But even if it’s just 20% that’s 12 million people
For comparison, he used to get ~4m for his Fox show, and he was the most popular host by far
This is potentially revolutionary for news media
Noteworthy persistence with something nobody gives a fuck about. Two right wing shitbags giving each other one speed hand jobs with eye contact.
I'd rather watch Adrian Chiles interview Lucy Letby.
Perhaps it takes a professional journalist to see the significance of this. Thirty long years at the Knappers' Gazette have taught me to notice: when the media paradigm shifts
The politics are irrelevant here. Carlson may be a dangerous idiot, Orban even more so, whatevs
Twitter has enormous news power. We already know that, it's why lefties get in such a hissy fit about Musk taking over "their" site. But the power has never been exploited before, not in this way, not with a dedicated news programme, with a famous host
Here we are. Tucker Carlson. One deeply political interview with Viktor Orban. 62 million views, and rising
Musk has probably given him the biggest pulpit on earth
This would be major if it was Owen Jones interviewing Hugo Chavez, and not because Chavez is dead
The Lord Elon excites people in all kinds of crazy ways. With X he has a very clear vision for the platform which an awful lot of people hate. They also hate that the people they think are crazy are now allowed back on. That the crazy people think the righteous people are crazy and they are righteous is the point - who gets to police thought? The mob?
The challenge for progressives is that our wing of politics has less money than the other side. So in a battle of ideas we start from a position of being outspent and outthought by the right.
From Tucker Carlson's perspective this is great! As a Fux News gob he had an audience. Amongst a certain demographic. In America. But now he has the ability to influence on a global scale. With X being the platform that can reach the whole world in a way that no news outlet ever could. X being the personal plaything of The Lord Musk.
But no, he was clearly mad spending $44bn, so booooooo etc
I'm really not sure that progressives have less money/clout. I'd say they have more
In America, for every Fox there is a New York Times (the biggest paper in America). CNN. MSNBC, and on
Facebook is mildly progressive, and is much more willing to censor the right than the left (Cf Lab Leak). Facebook is enormous
THAT is why Musk taking on Twitter is cat::pigeons time. It is because online (now the biggest and most important arena) was previously dominated by progressive views. Musk is changing that
I agree he sends people mad. Musk Derangement Syndrome
If this Tucker Carlson experiment pays off (we can't know yet, as @kle4 says he won't always be interviewing an Orban) he will send them ever madder
The problem with the notion of progressives controlling the old media is that it is old. Decreasing reach and influence, in a market where they are forced to compete with the likes of Fox who in turn are having to compete with the hard right lunatics like "News" Max.
I have no problem at all with other people's opinions being broadcast. It only becomes a problem when it becomes alt-facts and total lies are propagandised as the truth that they don't want you to hear.
So Musk is right not to gag people like Trump. We need to hear them, call out their bullshit, and laugh at them. Nick Griffin and the whole movement collapsed spectacularly when exposed to the air. BNP councillors in places like Burnley then Nick Griffin on Question Time exposed racist bullshit for what it is. The same needs to happen with Trumpism because if it gets censored or buried it just burns hotter.
Probably only a fraction of these will watch large chunks or the whole thing. But even if it’s just 20% that’s 12 million people
For comparison, he used to get ~4m for his Fox show, and he was the most popular host by far
This is potentially revolutionary for news media
Noteworthy persistence with something nobody gives a fuck about. Two right wing shitbags giving each other one speed hand jobs with eye contact.
I'd rather watch Adrian Chiles interview Lucy Letby.
Perhaps it takes a professional journalist to see the significance of this. Thirty long years at the Knappers' Gazette have taught me to notice: when the media paradigm shifts
The politics are irrelevant here. Carlson may be a dangerous idiot, Orban even more so, whatevs
Twitter has enormous news power. We already know that, it's why lefties get in such a hissy fit about Musk taking over "their" site. But the power has never been exploited before, not in this way, not with a dedicated news programme, with a famous host
Here we are. Tucker Carlson. One deeply political interview with Viktor Orban. 62 million views, and rising
Musk has probably given him the biggest pulpit on earth
This would be major if it was Owen Jones interviewing Hugo Chavez, and not because Chavez is dead
It seems to have received another 400,000 views in just the last 10 minutes.
His Trump interview was "viewed" by 235 million (we don't know how many actually watched the video, or for how long)
But that can be written off as a unique event, deliberately timed to coincide with the GOP debate (which was watched by 12m, for comparison)
A long, quite intellectual inerview with Viktor Orban is a very different beast, and yet here he is again, slamming it. 64m and rising
Potential game-changer for media
In general the quality and production values of content on YouTube has dramtically increased in the last few years, probably kick-started by the pandemic. It's a big challenge for legacy media.
Probably only a fraction of these will watch large chunks or the whole thing. But even if it’s just 20% that’s 12 million people
For comparison, he used to get ~4m for his Fox show, and he was the most popular host by far
This is potentially revolutionary for news media
Noteworthy persistence with something nobody gives a fuck about. Two right wing shitbags giving each other one speed hand jobs with eye contact.
I'd rather watch Adrian Chiles interview Lucy Letby.
Perhaps it takes a professional journalist to see the significance of this. Thirty long years at the Knappers' Gazette have taught me to notice: when the media paradigm shifts
The politics are irrelevant here. Carlson may be a dangerous idiot, Orban even more so, whatevs
Twitter has enormous news power. We already know that, it's why lefties get in such a hissy fit about Musk taking over "their" site. But the power has never been exploited before, not in this way, not with a dedicated news programme, with a famous host
Here we are. Tucker Carlson. One deeply political interview with Viktor Orban. 62 million views, and rising
Musk has probably given him the biggest pulpit on earth
This would be major if it was Owen Jones interviewing Hugo Chavez, and not because Chavez is dead
It seems to have received another 400,000 views in just the last 10 minutes.
His Trump interview was "viewed" by 235 million (we don't know how many actually watched the video, or for how long)
But that can be written off as a unique event, deliberately timed to coincide with the GOP debate (which was watched by 12m, for comparison)
A long, quite intellectual inerview with Viktor Orban is a very different beast, and yet here he is again, slamming it. 64m and rising
Potential game-changer for media
I'm not dissing your comment which I think is very valid indeed but with regard to the Trump interview there will be a huge number just watching Trump for the fun of it. I did. I watched the whole thing. Great entertainment. Mad as a box of frogs.
The 'Christian country' 'cultural Christian' topic is just tedious because people talk past one another even more than usual politics. It depends what one means - I'd have little trouble as an atheist referring to the country that way, depending what someone was trying to assert.
Pretending that common arguments are 'only on PB' as if unique doesn't help either.
It’s rot though. How can this be a Christian country when the majority of its population disbelieve in the Christian God?
Clue: it isn’t. Hence why even PRIESTS now say it isn’t!
You are saying it is impossible to be agnostic about existence of a God, and a Cultural Christian at the same time? Really?
I think what Dawkins explained in the link Dr Y gave us seemed very plausible. A religion like Christianity isn’t just a philosophical concept, it’s cultural/tribal too.
I’m sure I have read on PB very good stuff about Cultural Folkways in Britain, their relation to the English Civil war, how these same cultural behaviours travelled to the United States and played role in their Civil War too.
Probably only a fraction of these will watch large chunks or the whole thing. But even if it’s just 20% that’s 12 million people
For comparison, he used to get ~4m for his Fox show, and he was the most popular host by far
This is potentially revolutionary for news media
Noteworthy persistence with something nobody gives a fuck about. Two right wing shitbags giving each other one speed hand jobs with eye contact.
I'd rather watch Adrian Chiles interview Lucy Letby.
Perhaps it takes a professional journalist to see the significance of this. Thirty long years at the Knappers' Gazette have taught me to notice: when the media paradigm shifts
The politics are irrelevant here. Carlson may be a dangerous idiot, Orban even more so, whatevs
Twitter has enormous news power. We already know that, it's why lefties get in such a hissy fit about Musk taking over "their" site. But the power has never been exploited before, not in this way, not with a dedicated news programme, with a famous host
Here we are. Tucker Carlson. One deeply political interview with Viktor Orban. 62 million views, and rising
Musk has probably given him the biggest pulpit on earth
This would be major if it was Owen Jones interviewing Hugo Chavez, and not because Chavez is dead
It seems to have received another 400,000 views in just the last 10 minutes.
His Trump interview was "viewed" by 235 million (we don't know how many actually watched the video, or for how long)
But that can be written off as a unique event, deliberately timed to coincide with the GOP debate (which was watched by 12m, for comparison)
A long, quite intellectual inerview with Viktor Orban is a very different beast, and yet here he is again, slamming it. 64m and rising
Potential game-changer for media
64 million people watching anyone interview Viktor Orban on any platform sounds like too many. It does not pass the sniff test. Does X clip the video for people's feeds then autoplay it, for instance? Hungary has the same population as London and I doubt many Americans would get out of bed for Sadiq Khan, or Londoners.
Re: the Mid-Beds "Independent" he is a member of Gina Miller's True and Fair Party.
AND note that it's now official, Mad Nad no longer MP, having been appointed the latest (if hardly greatest) Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds:
Probably only a fraction of these will watch large chunks or the whole thing. But even if it’s just 20% that’s 12 million people
For comparison, he used to get ~4m for his Fox show, and he was the most popular host by far
This is potentially revolutionary for news media
Noteworthy persistence with something nobody gives a fuck about. Two right wing shitbags giving each other one speed hand jobs with eye contact.
I'd rather watch Adrian Chiles interview Lucy Letby.
Perhaps it takes a professional journalist to see the significance of this. Thirty long years at the Knappers' Gazette have taught me to notice: when the media paradigm shifts
The politics are irrelevant here. Carlson may be a dangerous idiot, Orban even more so, whatevs
Twitter has enormous news power. We already know that, it's why lefties get in such a hissy fit about Musk taking over "their" site. But the power has never been exploited before, not in this way, not with a dedicated news programme, with a famous host
Here we are. Tucker Carlson. One deeply political interview with Viktor Orban. 62 million views, and rising
Musk has probably given him the biggest pulpit on earth
This would be major if it was Owen Jones interviewing Hugo Chavez, and not because Chavez is dead
It seems to have received another 400,000 views in just the last 10 minutes.
His Trump interview was "viewed" by 235 million (we don't know how many actually watched the video, or for how long)
But that can be written off as a unique event, deliberately timed to coincide with the GOP debate (which was watched by 12m, for comparison)
A long, quite intellectual inerview with Viktor Orban is a very different beast, and yet here he is again, slamming it. 64m and rising
Potential game-changer for media
64 million people watching anyone interview Viktor Orban on any platform sounds like too many. It does not pass the sniff test. Does X clip the video for people's feeds then autoplay it, for instance? Hungary has the same population as London and I doubt many Americans would get out of bed for Sadiq Khan, or Londoners.
And it's an intellectual interview too apparently. Are there 64m intellectuals on the far right? That sounds like a big big sell to me.
Probably only a fraction of these will watch large chunks or the whole thing. But even if it’s just 20% that’s 12 million people
For comparison, he used to get ~4m for his Fox show, and he was the most popular host by far
This is potentially revolutionary for news media
Noteworthy persistence with something nobody gives a fuck about. Two right wing shitbags giving each other one speed hand jobs with eye contact.
I'd rather watch Adrian Chiles interview Lucy Letby.
Perhaps it takes a professional journalist to see the significance of this. Thirty long years at the Knappers' Gazette have taught me to notice: when the media paradigm shifts
The politics are irrelevant here. Carlson may be a dangerous idiot, Orban even more so, whatevs
Twitter has enormous news power. We already know that, it's why lefties get in such a hissy fit about Musk taking over "their" site. But the power has never been exploited before, not in this way, not with a dedicated news programme, with a famous host
Here we are. Tucker Carlson. One deeply political interview with Viktor Orban. 62 million views, and rising
Musk has probably given him the biggest pulpit on earth
This would be major if it was Owen Jones interviewing Hugo Chavez, and not because Chavez is dead
It seems to have received another 400,000 views in just the last 10 minutes.
His Trump interview was "viewed" by 235 million (we don't know how many actually watched the video, or for how long)
But that can be written off as a unique event, deliberately timed to coincide with the GOP debate (which was watched by 12m, for comparison)
A long, quite intellectual inerview with Viktor Orban is a very different beast, and yet here he is again, slamming it. 64m and rising
Potential game-changer for media
64 million people watching anyone interview Viktor Orban on any platform sounds like too many. It does not pass the sniff test. Does X clip the video for people's feeds then autoplay it, for instance? Hungary has the same population as London and I doubt many Americans would get out of bed for Sadiq Khan, or Londoners.
"Twitter has 450 million monthly active users. Twitter has 237.8 million monetizable daily active users. This number was just 115 million in 2017"
Musk completely controls TwitterX (obvs). He can promote material on the site like no one else. If he really gets behind Carlson (and he seems to be) I reckon it is quite possible Carlson will get tens of millions of viewers
The video is very slick - as @williamglenn notes, this arena has becone much more professional of late, and is therefore a major challenge to old media
TwitterX is the perfect venue for news/politics content
To go back to byelections briefly, there are a three main scenarios: 1. Lab/LD engage in a dick-measuring contest and the Tories win 2. As above only Lab or LD win despite the willy waving 3. One of Lab / LD backs down and the other wins
The general public have shown that they are good at diescerning who the ABC candidate is, and I anticipate that the first proper poll to come out after the GoNads incident will show them the way.
My party (LD) clearly thinks it is winnable. Labour appear to be in the same place. Both with some justification. So the challenge now is what happens if the informal arrangements elsewhere don't happen here...?
Issue for Labour is they can't give the Lib Dems a clear run because there is no other campaign they can focus their troops on...
Which is the only thing Nadine has done as a favour for Rishi - as Labour need to be seen to campaign they could easily spilit the vote and let a Tory sneak through the middle.
Which is actually a decent result for Labour as the seat would likely be a Labour seat (and probably would become one at the next general election) were the Lib Dems not actively campaigning.
There is a blindness / arrogance / stupidity with some Labour activists that their way is the only way. That everyone should vote Labour and therefore all seats could be won. Whats more they point to results like winning Canterbury or Kensington and Chelski as proof of this.
Whilst its true that seats can swing in previously unthinkable ways, you also have to accept that your way is not the only way and that Other People may see things differently. But if Mid Beds voters put us 1st and them 2nd I can't them accepting it. If the Tories then hold the seat that would be blamed on us...
In general voters inclined to vote tactically will do so for the party previously in second place, unless the level of campaigning makes it obvious that they aren't bothering. I don't think it's arrogant to suggest that the LibDems really didn't need to go all out in a seat where their vote in the last two election was 6% and 12% - after all, at the GE, if they designate everywhere where they came second in 2019 as targets, they will be more than busy, without also trying for seats where they came third. In the same spirit, Labour didn't make Somerton and Frome a priority - Labour had 12% there in 2019 and quite rightly didn't make a significant effort in the by-election, just as the LibDems in Selby (on 8.6% in 2019) didn't bother much there.
The problem, which we could all see coming, is that this isn't being fought at the same time as other by-elections, so the unofficial division of attention that happened with Somerton/Selby isn't possible. If the Tories win as a result, it will damage efforts for tactical voting elsewhere, which IMO isn't in anyone's interest but the Conservatives.
Re: the Mid-Beds "Independent" he is a member of Gina Miller's True and Fair Party.
AND note that it's now official, Mad Nad no longer MP, having been appointed the latest (if hardly greatest) Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds:
Re: the Mid-Beds "Independent" he is a member of Gina Miller's True and Fair Party.
Interesting. Quite hard to guess who that will help. Fed-up Tories might find him an acceptable alternative where they'd otherwise have gone Lab or LD?
PB Pop Quiz - Who(m) were the only two UK PMs never ever elected to the House of Commons?
Only two? I thought there were a lot of Lords in the early days.
Plenty with "courtesy" titles who served in House of Commons BEFORE inheriting or otherwise obtaining peerages.
But only two PMs who were never MPs.
Going to take a punt at the Duke of Wellington as one. Seem to recall he refused to be PM once because he wasn't in the Commons. Probably was an Irish MP, though, if that counts.
Re: the Mid-Beds "Independent" he is a member of Gina Miller's True and Fair Party.
AND note that it's now official, Mad Nad no longer MP, having been appointed the latest (if hardly greatest) Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds:
Re: the Mid-Beds "Independent" he is a member of Gina Miller's True and Fair Party.
Interesting. Quite hard to guess who that will help. Fed-up Tories might find him an acceptable alternative where they'd otherwise have gone Lab or LD?
OPPS - I have made a mistake! As the Independent in Mid-Beds is indeed Gareth Mackey, as noted by Stocky.
My only excuse, is that I'm apparently still waking up (approaching 8am here in Seattle).
The 'Christian country' 'cultural Christian' topic is just tedious because people talk past one another even more than usual politics. It depends what one means - I'd have little trouble as an atheist referring to the country that way, depending what someone was trying to assert.
Pretending that common arguments are 'only on PB' as if unique doesn't help either.
It’s rot though. How can this be a Christian country when the majority of its population disbelieve in the Christian God?
Clue: it isn’t. Hence why even PRIESTS now say it isn’t!
You are saying it is impossible to be agnostic about existence of a God, and a Cultural Christian at the same time? Really?
I think what Dawkins explained in the link Dr Y gave us seemed very plausible. A religion like Christianity isn’t just a philosophical concept, it’s cultural/tribal too.
I’m sure I have read on PB very good stuff about Cultural Folkways in Britain, their relation to the English Civil war, how these same cultural behaviours travelled to the United States and played role in their Civil War too.
Christianity without Christ is sophistical crap.
But being without that philosophical element only allows examples, like Anabob, a perfect example, to, yes, get away with saying they are not strictly a Christian, but by being so culturally Christian they cannot get away with saying they “are in no way Christian, not even a teeny weeny bit.”
Re: the Mid-Beds "Independent" he is a member of Gina Miller's True and Fair Party.
Interesting. Quite hard to guess who that will help. Fed-up Tories might find him an acceptable alternative where they'd otherwise have gone Lab or LD?
He's a very popular local councillor (Flitwick). If he runs - and he said a couple of months back that he will - he will take a chunk out of some party's votes but I can't figure out which.
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 am not sure about 1 term Labour government, as it stands the Tories will not only be reduced to a rump of seats, but will have reputation for being chaos and useless in government and managing the economy. Reputations like that can be just as effectual 10 years after being thrown out as the day thrown out. Being led by Badenoch isn’t going to encourage voters back either.
Likewise in Scotland, the SNP can be thought of as being corrupt and shambolic when they had power, fifteen years or more after their popularity collapses and holding power comes to an end.
I do agree with Codey’s second point, we are entering an age of Grey Wall politics, impacting on elections, I am sure this is already happening. Grey Wall politics has written so much policy for our political parties recently, particularly the Conservatives.
Where I disagree, I don’t see it ever going away, nor it’s economic impact allowing us to ever recover from slump. Viewcode said it “is inherently negative (old people consume, not produce)” which I do agree, but this sounds massively inflationary the way you put it, does it not? Do we have an example right now, impact of triple lock on inflation in the coming months?
Living with aging populations, and their Grey Wall needs, will bake in inflation. The economic future is goodbye to low inflation.
Probably only a fraction of these will watch large chunks or the whole thing. But even if it’s just 20% that’s 12 million people
For comparison, he used to get ~4m for his Fox show, and he was the most popular host by far
This is potentially revolutionary for news media
Noteworthy persistence with something nobody gives a fuck about. Two right wing shitbags giving each other one speed hand jobs with eye contact.
I'd rather watch Adrian Chiles interview Lucy Letby.
Perhaps it takes a professional journalist to see the significance of this. Thirty long years at the Knappers' Gazette have taught me to notice: when the media paradigm shifts
The politics are irrelevant here. Carlson may be a dangerous idiot, Orban even more so, whatevs
Twitter has enormous news power. We already know that, it's why lefties get in such a hissy fit about Musk taking over "their" site. But the power has never been exploited before, not in this way, not with a dedicated news programme, with a famous host
Here we are. Tucker Carlson. One deeply political interview with Viktor Orban. 62 million views, and rising
Musk has probably given him the biggest pulpit on earth
This would be major if it was Owen Jones interviewing Hugo Chavez, and not because Chavez is dead
It seems to have received another 400,000 views in just the last 10 minutes.
His Trump interview was "viewed" by 235 million (we don't know how many actually watched the video, or for how long)
But that can be written off as a unique event, deliberately timed to coincide with the GOP debate (which was watched by 12m, for comparison)
A long, quite intellectual inerview with Viktor Orban is a very different beast, and yet here he is again, slamming it. 64m and rising
Potential game-changer for media
64 million people watching anyone interview Viktor Orban on any platform sounds like too many. It does not pass the sniff test. Does X clip the video for people's feeds then autoplay it, for instance? Hungary has the same population as London and I doubt many Americans would get out of bed for Sadiq Khan, or Londoners.
And it's an intellectual interview too apparently. Are there 64m intellectuals on the far right? That sounds like a big big sell to me.
You should watch it, maybe, instead of instantly sneering
They talk about the engineering of political military strategy, the dangers of Russian interregnums, the definition of "liberalism", and much else
It is simply on a higher level than the 5 minutes of lightweight dross you might get on, say, BBC Newsnight
This is not a major coup by the alt-right. It is all of a piece with the greater depth you find in podcasts, YouTube vids, and so on, and from many different sources. It is, I suggest, a good thing. Serious debates for serious times (even if you hate the debaters, and revile their opinions)
Weirdly it reminds me of the occasional interviews you see from the 1970s, when you'd have Thatcher on a talkshow talking at length and articulately about monetary theory, say. We bemoan the disappearance of this - as manstream TV has become evermore trivial - well, now it might be returning. Airpunch!
Interesting that the ousted President of Gabon has made a video appeal in English given its a francophone country. Focused globally rather than at home I guess?
To go back to byelections briefly, there are a three main scenarios: 1. Lab/LD engage in a dick-measuring contest and the Tories win 2. As above only Lab or LD win despite the willy waving 3. One of Lab / LD backs down and the other wins
The general public have shown that they are good at diescerning who the ABC candidate is, and I anticipate that the first proper poll to come out after the GoNads incident will show them the way.
My party (LD) clearly thinks it is winnable. Labour appear to be in the same place. Both with some justification. So the challenge now is what happens if the informal arrangements elsewhere don't happen here...?
Issue for Labour is they can't give the Lib Dems a clear run because there is no other campaign they can focus their troops on...
Which is the only thing Nadine has done as a favour for Rishi - as Labour need to be seen to campaign they could easily spilit the vote and let a Tory sneak through the middle.
Which is actually a decent result for Labour as the seat would likely be a Labour seat (and probably would become one at the next general election) were the Lib Dems not actively campaigning.
There is a blindness / arrogance / stupidity with some Labour activists that their way is the only way. That everyone should vote Labour and therefore all seats could be won. Whats more they point to results like winning Canterbury or Kensington and Chelski as proof of this.
Whilst its true that seats can swing in previously unthinkable ways, you also have to accept that your way is not the only way and that Other People may see things differently. But if Mid Beds voters put us 1st and them 2nd I can't them accepting it. If the Tories then hold the seat that would be blamed on us...
In general voters inclined to vote tactically will do so for the party previously in second place, unless the level of campaigning makes it obvious that they aren't bothering. I don't think it's arrogant to suggest that the LibDems really didn't need to go all out in a seat where their vote in the last two election was 6% and 12% - after all, at the GE, if they designate everywhere where they came second in 2019 as targets, they will be more than busy, without also trying for seats where they came third. In the same spirit, Labour didn't make Somerton and Frome a priority - Labour had 12% there in 2019 and quite rightly didn't make a significant effort in the by-election, just as the LibDems in Selby (on 8.6% in 2019) didn't bother much there.
The problem, which we could all see coming, is that this isn't being fought at the same time as other by-elections, so the unofficial division of attention that happened with Somerton/Selby isn't possible. If the Tories win as a result, it will damage efforts for tactical voting elsewhere, which IMO isn't in anyone's interest but the Conservatives.
Indeed. Perhaps we need to wait for the first poll coming out now that a byelection is actually happening. Whoever is in the lead should get support of the other.
I get why Labour want this. If you can take Mid Beds you can take *anywhere*. If...
Comments
No wonder there are so many staff shortages. We don't fund any of the public services properly.
It’s like those guardian bedwetters who bang on about the Daily Heil so much you realise they secretly adore the Sidebar of Shame
I'm looking forward to your reportage. Where are you headed?
Anyway, after the previous post, I remembered that my wife and daughters are away for the weekend next summer, leaving me at large to do what I want: I am going to buy a new bike and cycle the length of Wharfedale. I shall get the train to Lancaster or Oxenholme on Saturday morning, cycle to Hawes and then over to Langstrothdale and down Wharfedale, and possibly find accommodation in Grassington, before continuing down to Ilkley, Otley, Wetherby and Tadcaster on Sunday, then getting the train home from York. Excited already.
It might not be the Seychelles, but I can do it in a weekend and for considerably less money than my wife and daughters are spending on their weekend away.
At least it’s not ULEZ
Symond’s Yat may make an appearance. The Golden Valley certainly will - the romping room of my later childhood. One of the lovelier corners of the world…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-africa-66390790
https://x.com/tuckercarlson/status/1696643892253466712?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Probably only a fraction of these will watch large chunks or the whole thing. But even if it’s just 20% that’s 12 million people
For comparison, he used to get ~4m for his Fox show, and he was the most popular host by far
This is potentially revolutionary for news media
Like having a dinner party with some friends and then one of them says something deeply inappropriate. Do you put up or shut up.
So I cancelled the subscription (or rather, I asked for them not to renew the sub).
Actually the other day I had such an experience. I was in a tennis group, all friends or friends of friends, and someone made a homophobic remark. Everyone was having a great time, etc. Let's ask PB - what would you have done.
(And I'm right on the psychology and your response to being befuddled btw.)
England should start favourites, and as I have a sneaking suspicion New Zealand might win, they should be really heavy favourites.
I'd rather watch Adrian Chiles interview Lucy Letby.
We have reached a whole new world of plonkerdom on PB when Professor Richard Dawkins is defined as a Christian.
Yet that is exactly where we are.
Only on PB.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm
1. Lab/LD engage in a dick-measuring contest and the Tories win
2. As above only Lab or LD win despite the willy waving
3. One of Lab / LD backs down and the other wins
The general public have shown that they are good at diescerning who the ABC candidate is, and I anticipate that the first proper poll to come out after the GoNads incident will show them the way.
My party (LD) clearly thinks it is winnable. Labour appear to be in the same place. Both with some justification. So the challenge now is what happens if the informal arrangements elsewhere don't happen here...?
The Government's proposed solution to this problem is to create growth by importing 500,000 to 1,000,000 young people per year, which will result in the present working class having to compete for fewer wages and smaller/no houses.
As you may have noticed, I'm not best pleased by this.
Pretending that common arguments are 'only on PB' as if unique doesn't help either.
1. The president of Gabon shares the name of a comedy magician from back in the day.
2. The same family has held the presidency in Gabon for over 50 years. Sounds like a monarchy.
Which is the only thing Nadine has done as a favour for Rishi - as Labour need to be seen to campaign they could easily spilit the vote and let a Tory sneak through the middle.
Which is actually a decent result for Labour as the seat would likely be a Labour seat (and probably would become one at the next general election) were the Lib Dems not actively campaigning.
Well I've just seen a job advert for the Government's new GOV.UK One Login Programme - which means you login in once it it connects you to all the Government databases you use.
Reverse of that is it means each database has a unique identifier that can be used to join distinct databases together if you understand the key.
Job advert is https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/index.cgi?SID=dXNlcnNlYXJjaGNvbnRleHQ9NDc5MTE4MDEmam9ibGlzdF92aWV3X3ZhYz0xODc0MDc2Jm93bmVydHlwZT1mYWlyJm93bmVyPTUwNzAwMDAmcGFnZWFjdGlvbj12aWV3dmFjYnlqb2JsaXN0JnNlYXJjaHBhZ2U9MSZzZWFyY2hzb3J0PXNjb3JlJnBhZ2VjbGFzcz1Kb2JzJnJlcXNpZz0xNjkzMzE2NDc3LTdkZGFkMzUzMTcyZjA1YjQ0NTZmODgzYjUxZTMwZTNmN2E3NjI2NjE= , pay is low and the technology stack is AWS with Typescript.
Words cannot describe how bad most of the choices are...
"If you think this one's bad you should have seen his uncle
By Anthony Daniels"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3610187/If-you-think-this-ones-bad-you-should-have-seen-his-uncle.html
"There is no leader in the world who more deserves to be overthrown than Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, the President of Equatorial Guinea for the last quarter of a century. By rights, his brutality, corruption and venality should not go unpunished; yet I doubt that the mercenaries who planned to overthrow him, and whom Sir Mark Thatcher is accused of having backed financially, were motivated by a burning ambition to bring democracy and clean government to the volcanoes of Fernando Poo and the jungles of Rio Muni.
......................................................................................................
When I visited in 1986, it had not recovered from the trauma. Macias Nguema had killed or driven into exile a third of the population. His successor was his nephew, Teodoro Obiang Nguema, who is still president 25 years after his coup. He is less bizarre than his uncle, but is certainly no man of the people. In those days, they turned the electricity off whenever the President left the capital, as being no longer necessary. The telephone directory, a slim volume, had a fulsome, and obligatory, dedication to him."
The politics are irrelevant here. Carlson may be a dangerous idiot, Orban even more so, whatevs
Twitter has enormous news power. We already know that, it's why lefties get in such a hissy fit about Musk taking over "their" site. But the power has never been exploited before, not in this way, not with a dedicated news programme, with a famous host
Here we are. Tucker Carlson. One deeply political interview with Viktor Orban. 62 million views, and rising
Musk has probably given him the biggest pulpit on earth
This would be major if it was Owen Jones interviewing Hugo Chavez, and not because Chavez is dead
Whilst its true that seats can swing in previously unthinkable ways, you also have to accept that your way is not the only way and that Other People may see things differently. But if Mid Beds voters put us 1st and them 2nd I can't them accepting it. If the Tories then hold the seat that would be blamed on us...
https://eu.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2023/08/29/arizona-republicans-censure-stephen-richer-kari-lake-maga/70708526007/
Clue: it isn’t. Hence why even PRIESTS now say it isn’t!
The challenge for progressives is that our wing of politics has less money than the other side. So in a battle of ideas we start from a position of being outspent and outthought by the right.
From Tucker Carlson's perspective this is great! As a Fux News gob he had an audience. Amongst a certain demographic. In America. But now he has the ability to influence on a global scale. With X being the platform that can reach the whole world in a way that no news outlet ever could. X being the personal plaything of The Lord Musk.
But no, he was clearly mad spending $44bn, so booooooo etc
Still, it'd be churlish to deny the big numbers that are possible when he has the right subject.
*When I am unDictator, anyone specifying Unique Requirements in this sense, will be crucified with really, really unique nails.
It is number 245 in Labours target list, giving them 450 odd seats!!!!. If this were a Labour target and they won it in a GE (rather than the knock on from a by election) and if the LDs have a decent election the Tories would likely be under 100 seats.
Much as I would enjoy that I really don't see this as a target seat for anyone. If Lab or the LDs win this in a by election they are going to struggle to keep hold of it (although might) unless the Tories really do crash and burn.
In America, for every Fox there is a New York Times (the biggest paper in America). CNN. MSNBC, and on
Facebook is mildly progressive, and is much more willing to censor the right than the left (Cf Lab Leak). Facebook is enormous
THAT is why Musk taking on Twitter is cat::pigeons time. It is because online (now the biggest and most important arena) was previously dominated by progressive views. Musk is changing that
I agree he sends people mad. Musk Derangement Syndrome
If this Tucker Carlson experiment pays off (we can't know yet, as @kle4 says he won't always be interviewing an Orban) he will send them ever madder
But that can be written off as a unique event, deliberately timed to coincide with the GOP debate (which was watched by 12m, for comparison)
A long, quite intellectual inerview with Viktor Orban is a very different beast, and yet here he is again, slamming it. 64m and rising
Potential game-changer for media
https://pollingreport.uk/articles/all-to-play-for-in-mid-bedfordshire-by-election
Granted, that was from a few months ago (see poll detail) but even if he fails to win as many votes in the actual by-election (ditto) what % would you consider "significant"?
One question I have is, what share of whatever vote the Mid-Beds Indy gets, comes out of the hide of the Tory, as opposed to Lab or LibDem?
The unique requirements stuff is something that needs to be tortured out of government officials.
I think what Dawkins explained in the link Dr Y gave us seemed very plausible. A religion like Christianity isn’t just a philosophical concept, it’s cultural/tribal too.
I’m sure I have read on PB very good stuff about Cultural Folkways in Britain, their relation to the English Civil war, how these same cultural behaviours travelled to the United States and played role in their Civil War too.
Somerton & Frome 19.2%
Selby & Ainsty 16.5%
Uxbridge & South Ruislip 9.6%
West Lancashire 8.2%
Stretford and Urmston 10.9%
Chester 8.6%
Wakefield 20.2%
Tiverton & Honiton 4.9%
Or, in other words, even in seats with big swings and third party squeezes, the combined others often do pretty well in by-elections. 9% is more likely than the 4% implied by Andy's scenario.
Likewise in Scotland, the SNP can be thought of as being corrupt and shambolic when they had power, fifteen years or more after their popularity collapses and holding power comes to an end.
I have no problem at all with other people's opinions being broadcast. It only becomes a problem when it becomes alt-facts and total lies are propagandised as the truth that they don't want you to hear.
So Musk is right not to gag people like Trump. We need to hear them, call out their bullshit, and laugh at them. Nick Griffin and the whole movement collapsed spectacularly when exposed to the air. BNP councillors in places like Burnley then Nick Griffin on Question Time exposed racist bullshit for what it is. The same needs to happen with Trumpism because if it gets censored or buried it just burns hotter.
But only two PMs who were never MPs.
AND note that it's now official, Mad Nad no longer MP, having been appointed the latest (if hardly greatest) Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stewards_of_the_Chiltern_Hundreds
https://www.demandsage.com/twitter-statistics/
Musk completely controls TwitterX (obvs). He can promote material on the site like no one else. If he really gets behind Carlson (and he seems to be) I reckon it is quite possible Carlson will get tens of millions of viewers
The video is very slick - as @williamglenn notes, this arena has becone much more professional of late, and is therefore a major challenge to old media
TwitterX is the perfect venue for news/politics content
The problem, which we could all see coming, is that this isn't being fought at the same time as other by-elections, so the unofficial division of attention that happened with Somerton/Selby isn't possible. If the Tories win as a result, it will damage efforts for tactical voting elsewhere, which IMO isn't in anyone's interest but the Conservatives.
Times Radio"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM41p2FzSmQ
https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/directory_record/1996/mackey_gareth_-_flitwick
My only excuse, is that I'm apparently still waking up (approaching 8am here in Seattle).
https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/directory_record/1996/mackey_gareth_-_flitwick
They do need concede this fact.
Where I disagree, I don’t see it ever going away, nor it’s economic impact allowing us to ever recover from slump. Viewcode said it “is inherently negative (old people consume, not produce)” which I do agree, but this sounds massively inflationary the way you put it, does it not? Do we have an example right now, impact of triple lock on inflation in the coming months?
Living with aging populations, and their Grey Wall needs, will bake in inflation. The economic future is goodbye to low inflation.
They talk about the engineering of political military strategy, the dangers of Russian interregnums, the definition of "liberalism", and much else
It is simply on a higher level than the 5 minutes of lightweight dross you might get on, say, BBC Newsnight
This is not a major coup by the alt-right. It is all of a piece with the greater depth you find in podcasts, YouTube vids, and so on, and from many different sources. It is, I suggest, a good thing. Serious debates for serious times (even if you hate the debaters, and revile their opinions)
Weirdly it reminds me of the occasional interviews you see from the 1970s, when you'd have Thatcher on a talkshow talking at length and articulately about monetary theory, say. We bemoan the disappearance of this - as manstream TV has become evermore trivial - well, now it might be returning. Airpunch!
I get why Labour want this. If you can take Mid Beds you can take *anywhere*. If...