Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
Judaism the faith was essentially irrelevant to Nazi Antisemitism. They considered the Jews to be an alien ethnic group. They defined a Jew as someone with one Jewish grandparent. Which is why Catholic Nuns deemed ethnically Jewish were murdered -
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
First like Ian Blackford as the SNP's first member of the House of Lords.
The question is whether he'd even be an SNP member by the time he gets the vermin fur on. An interesting point.
AIUI, the SNP constitution (or rules?) bans their representatives from taking 'foreign' UK honours, or some such. But presumably they'd accept a defection from an existing peer who joined them, or an hereditary who was elected to the Lords.
ISTR it's possibly happened before - but a very long time ago. I can't remember the name. Possibly before the current rules?
I think so. James Graham, 6th Duke of Montrose was a founding member of the Scottish Party while a member of the Lords, and he then supported the merger with the National Party of Scotland that created the SNP in 1934. He was indeed the first President of the SNP, a party that at the time wanted home rule rather than independence. However, he defected to the Liberals in 1936.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
Sounds like a wishful thinking conclusion to me - more relevant is that it's an even split of whether they think Biden won in 2020, even in a group that self describes as 64% non-MAGA.
CNN’s exit poll from the New Hampshire Republican primary:
Party registration: Registered Republicans-49% Registered undeclared-47% Unregistered before today-3%
Ideology Very conservative-24% Somewhat conservative-39% Modrate-31% Liberal-6%
Are you part of the MAGA movement? Yes-32% No-64%
Do you think Biden won legitimately in 2020? Yes-49% No-49%
Today @Conservatives need to unite. Really extremely serious events are unfolding and our country needs leadership. @RishiSunak is the right person to assume the immense responsibility of being Prime Minister and he will have my full support.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
Very true. Fair comment.
If you only have anti-discrimination laws against characteristics which cannot be changed and where you had no choice, then the only ones you'd keep would be age, race, sex, sexuality and disability you were born with ie not as a result of a driving or similar accident. Everything else would go.
Which would please those who want to discriminate against pregnant women, those with children, gender reassignees, people believing you can change sex, vegans, those believing in Scottish independence (the latter 2 have been declared "philosophical beliefs"), the married, people falling off horses or driving stupidly or smokers or those getting diabetes because they eat too much etc, Muslims, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists etc.
There's a political programme there - not a winning one, mind. I expect the Tories will adopt it about 3 weeks before the next election when they are at 11% in the polls.
What time do we start getting results from NH? (I mean the rest of the the votes, not just the first 6)
OK, answering my own question as I looked it up on the internet:
Polling places will start to close at 7 p.m. and all locations will close by 8 p.m. The Associated Press said it first reported some nighttime results for the 2020 primary at 7:32 p.m. ET, and finished tabulating at 1:14 a.m.
The AP declared the winner of the 2016 primaries—when both the Democratic and Republican races were competitive—at 8 p.m.
17:40 in NH right now. I guess they'll do the GOP ones first as the Dem ones need to be individually scrutinized to check whether they wrote in "Biden" or "Lizard People".
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
Some things are too serious for your point scoring. Jews are an ethnoreligious group. Secular, even atheist, Jews are a significant part of that group and many were Holocaust victims -
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
What has that got to do with anything I said?
Only freedom of religion would protect Jews under the Equality Act, Judaism is not a race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marriage state, age or gender reassignment
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
Some things are too serious for your point scoring. Jews are an ethnoreligious group. Secular, even atheist, Jews are a significant part of that group and many were Holocaust victims -
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
Very true. Fair comment.
If you only have anti-discrimination laws against characteristics which cannot be changed and where you had no choice, then the only ones you'd keep would be age, race, sex, sexuality and disability you were born with ie not as a result of a driving or similar accident. Everything else would go.
Which would please those who want to discriminate against pregnant women, those with children, gender reassignees, people believing you can change sex, vegans, those believing in Scottish independence (the latter 2 have been declared "philosophical beliefs"), the married, people falling off horses or driving stupidly or smokers or those getting diabetes because they eat too much etc, Muslims, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists etc.
There's a political programme there - not a winning one, mind. I expect the Tories will adopt it about 3 weeks before the next election when they are at 11% in the polls.
And gingers would be faced with discrimination or forcible hair dying.
Charles to refuse to swear in the new PM and tell them it is high time for a GE?
Not his job.
Um, not sure about that...
Which bit? Charles is a figurehead. It’s not up to him to tell someone who can command a majority in the house that they shouldn’t, and should hold an election.
Precedent. You only have to go back to 1834 when William IV dismissed Melbourne's government.
Also it's in the Cabinet Manual:
2.9 Historically, the Sovereign has made use of reserve powers to dismiss a Prime Minister or to make a personal choice of successor, although this was last used in 1834..."
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
"Races" don't exist. They are thus nothing or anything, whatever people call them. UK law says you can be racist against Jews (and Sikhs), so in that sense they are a race. One could describe the Jewish people as an ethnoreligious group, like Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis etc. There is no agreed, overarching rule for who is or is not Jewish from a religious perspective, as there isn't for any religion.
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
What has that got to do with anything I said?
Only freedom of religion would protect Jews under the Equality Act, Judaism is not a race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marriage state, age or gender reassignment
Judaism has effectively been declared to be a race by an English court. By the Supreme Court in a decision on the Jewish Free School which was found to have racially discriminated against a practising Jewish boy because his mother was a Catholic convert to Judaism.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
Some things are too serious for your point scoring. Jews are an ethnoreligious group. Secular, even atheist, Jews are a significant part of that group and many were Holocaust victims -
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
Some things are too serious for your point scoring. Jews are an ethnoreligious group. Secular, even atheist, Jews are a significant part of that group and many were Holocaust victims -
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
Some things are too serious for your point scoring. Jews are an ethnoreligious group. Secular, even atheist, Jews are a significant part of that group and many were Holocaust victims -
So what? Only religious freedom would have saved them
No it wouldn’t. The Nazis killed them because of their ethnic Jewish identity, not their religion. The Nazis really really cared about “race”. Comparatively they couldn’t give a monkeys about religion. It was perfectly possible to convert from Judaism to Catholicism in Nazi Germany. It wouldn’t save you. Read about the Nuremberg Laws.
'When people were asked who they would prefer as prime minister –Sir Keir or a new, tax-cutting Tory leader with a tougher approach to legal and illegal migration – voters in 322 constituencies in England and Wales preferred a new Tory leader, while Sir Keir came out on top in only 164 seats.
In 89 constituencies the most common answer was “not sure”. If the “not sure” respondents are stripped out, a new Tory is most popular in 375 constituencies to 200.'
If you believe that and of course the alternative Tory leader wasn't named....'The poll did not present respondents with names of possible alternative Tory leaders, but asked if they would prefer as prime minister: Sir Keir or a new Tory leader who was stronger on crime and migration, who cut taxes and got NHS waiting lists down.' So basically if Sunak achieved that it could even be him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/23/oust-sunak-election-massacre-warns-cabinet-ally-simon-clark/
SKS fans please explain why your boy can't beat the Telegraph wet dream non existent leader!!
Can anyone beat a wet dream non existent leader? Surely that’s the whole point of wet dream non existent leaders appearing in non serious political polling.
The only serious thing to all this is the damage yougov are doing to themselves - credibility is so important not just in political polling but all market research - are they Ratnering themselves?
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
"Races" don't exist. They are thus nothing or anything, whatever people call them. UK law says you can be racist against Jews (and Sikhs), so in that sense they are a race. One could describe the Jewish people as an ethnoreligious group, like Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis etc. There is no agreed, overarching rule for who is or is not Jewish from a religious perspective, as there isn't for any religion.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
What has that got to do with anything I said?
Only freedom of religion would protect Jews under the Equality Act, Judaism is not a race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marriage state, age or gender reassignment
Operations Save the Little Dog in full swing tonight
They can't save him from the voters.
The joy of this is that after their councillors get reamed on 2nd May, we get to have another one of these putschettes. Perhaps another in the autumn as well.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
"Races" don't exist. They are thus nothing or anything, whatever people call them. UK law says you can be racist against Jews (and Sikhs), so in that sense they are a race. One could describe the Jewish people as an ethnoreligious group, like Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis etc. There is no agreed, overarching rule for who is or is not Jewish from a religious perspective, as there isn't for any religion.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 29m I am picking up speculation from two Conservative MPs that a serving Cabinet minister could be on the verge of quitting to destabilise the Prime Minister further. More at @GBNEWS .
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
"Races" don't exist. They are thus nothing or anything, whatever people call them. UK law says you can be racist against Jews (and Sikhs), so in that sense they are a race. One could describe the Jewish people as an ethnoreligious group, like Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis etc. There is no agreed, overarching rule for who is or is not Jewish from a religious perspective, as there isn't for any religion.
Jews are generally considered racially white
Jews have always been considered a people (an ethic group if you prefer) by themselves and others. You betray a profound and worrying ignorance by confusing the Jewish People with Judaism as a religion.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
"Races" don't exist. They are thus nothing or anything, whatever people call them. UK law says you can be racist against Jews (and Sikhs), so in that sense they are a race. One could describe the Jewish people as an ethnoreligious group, like Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis etc. There is no agreed, overarching rule for who is or is not Jewish from a religious perspective, as there isn't for any religion.
Jews are generally considered racially white
In different places and at different times, ethnic categories shift and change. They are social constructs.
The standard census questions on ethnicity that are widely used in the UK do not have a box for Jewish: I presume most Jews in the UK would tick "White British", but certainly not all.
However, with respect to equality law, the UK legal position is very clear that Jewish counts as a race. The same applies to Sikhs: no box on the census, but the law says they are a race for these purposes.
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
'When people were asked who they would prefer as prime minister –Sir Keir or a new, tax-cutting Tory leader with a tougher approach to legal and illegal migration – voters in 322 constituencies in England and Wales preferred a new Tory leader, while Sir Keir came out on top in only 164 seats.
In 89 constituencies the most common answer was “not sure”. If the “not sure” respondents are stripped out, a new Tory is most popular in 375 constituencies to 200.'
If you believe that and of course the alternative Tory leader wasn't named....'The poll did not present respondents with names of possible alternative Tory leaders, but asked if they would prefer as prime minister: Sir Keir or a new Tory leader who was stronger on crime and migration, who cut taxes and got NHS waiting lists down.' So basically if Sunak achieved that it could even be him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/23/oust-sunak-election-massacre-warns-cabinet-ally-simon-clark/
SKS fans please explain why your boy can't beat the Telegraph wet dream non existent leader!!
Can anyone beat a wet dream non existent leader? Surely that’s the whole point of wet dream non existent leaders appearing in non serious political polling.
The only serious thing to all this is the damage yougov are doing to themselves - credibility is so important not just in political polling but all market research - are they Ratnering themselves?
Truss could. She’s unbeaten in the leadership votes she’s competed in this decade.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 29m I am picking up speculation from two Conservative MPs that a serving Cabinet minister could be on the verge of quitting to destabilise the Prime Minister further. More at @GBNEWS .
That’s a really weak statement.
Two MPs SPECULATE That a cabinet minister COULD Be on the VERGE of quitting
'When people were asked who they would prefer as prime minister –Sir Keir or a new, tax-cutting Tory leader with a tougher approach to legal and illegal migration – voters in 322 constituencies in England and Wales preferred a new Tory leader, while Sir Keir came out on top in only 164 seats.
In 89 constituencies the most common answer was “not sure”. If the “not sure” respondents are stripped out, a new Tory is most popular in 375 constituencies to 200.'
If you believe that and of course the alternative Tory leader wasn't named....'The poll did not present respondents with names of possible alternative Tory leaders, but asked if they would prefer as prime minister: Sir Keir or a new Tory leader who was stronger on crime and migration, who cut taxes and got NHS waiting lists down.' So basically if Sunak achieved that it could even be him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/23/oust-sunak-election-massacre-warns-cabinet-ally-simon-clark/
SKS fans please explain why your boy can't beat the Telegraph wet dream non existent leader!!
Can anyone beat a wet dream non existent leader? Surely that’s the whole point of wet dream non existent leaders appearing in non serious political polling.
The only serious thing to all this is the damage yougov are doing to themselves - credibility is so important not just in political polling but all market research - are they Ratnering themselves?
Truss could. She’s unbeaten in the leadership votes she’s competed in this decade.
She wasn't beaten at a general election either. She didn't have any bad local election results under her leadership. I don't think she even lost a by-election.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 29m I am picking up speculation from two Conservative MPs that a serving Cabinet minister could be on the verge of quitting to destabilise the Prime Minister further. More at @GBNEWS .
That’s a really weak statement.
Two MPs SPECULATE That a cabinet minister COULD Be on the VERGE of quitting
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 29m I am picking up speculation from two Conservative MPs that a serving Cabinet minister could be on the verge of quitting to destabilise the Prime Minister further. More at @GBNEWS .
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 29m I am picking up speculation from two Conservative MPs that a serving Cabinet minister could be on the verge of quitting to destabilise the Prime Minister further. More at @GBNEWS .
That's often the case with state v national polls.
The point has been made, though, that Biden has focused pretty relentlessly on swing states, and the assumption that if the win in November goes to the candidate with fewer votes, that necessarily means GOP, is perhaps rather flawed.
gabyhinsliff @gabyhinsliff · 17m Tories trying to start another leadership contest is v much that one incredibly over dramatic friend you have where eventually you just start hiding from their calls. Fine, you go off if you want to, but it’s just too exhausting
If Yougov really asked such a skewed question then they will be the laughing stock of the polling world. That's Trafalgar bad!
Meet him at the crossroads.
Noele says no
Noele Reizwäsche from the German ‘schmutzig reden’ folk takes, who refused to sell her soul to the devil to save her husbands life? When he died she married the baker because she liked the way he frosted buns? 🤔
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
"Races" don't exist. They are thus nothing or anything, whatever people call them. UK law says you can be racist against Jews (and Sikhs), so in that sense they are a race. One could describe the Jewish people as an ethnoreligious group, like Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis etc. There is no agreed, overarching rule for who is or is not Jewish from a religious perspective, as there isn't for any religion.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
What has that got to do with anything I said?
Only freedom of religion would protect Jews under the Equality Act, Judaism is not a race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marriage state, age or gender reassignment
Judaism has effectively been declared to be a race by an English court. By the Supreme Court in a decision on the Jewish Free School which was found to have racially discriminated against a practising Jewish boy because his mother was a Catholic convert to Judaism.
That is religious discrimination against Catholic converts, nothing racial about it
That's often the case with state v national polls.
The point has been made, though, that Biden has focused pretty relentlessly on swing states, and the assumption that if the win in November goes to the candidate with fewer votes, that necessarily means GOP, is perhaps rather flawed.
Can you imagine if Biden won against the popular vote? It would be both hilarious and also very dangerous given what Trump did last time.
Replacing Rishi with a lanky streak of cat waz isn't going to make any significant difference.
Of course it has no validity as a poll, but it is quite an interesting psephological exercise. Presumably the 'blankety blank' candidate was still labelled as a Tory, so it goes to show that the participants are not carrying implacable resentment about the Tories into the election - as most voters do, they will act rationally thinking about the future, rather than based on the past.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
What has that got to do with anything I said?
Only freedom of religion would protect Jews under the Equality Act, Judaism is not a race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marriage state, age or gender reassignment
Judaism has effectively been declared to be a race by an English court. By the Supreme Court in a decision on the Jewish Free School which was found to have racially discriminated against a practising Jewish boy because his mother was a Catholic convert to Judaism.
That is religious discrimination against Catholic converts, nothing racial about it
Oh read the judgment for heaven's sake instead of pretending, as always, that you know more about the law than the Supreme Court.
'When people were asked who they would prefer as prime minister –Sir Keir or a new, tax-cutting Tory leader with a tougher approach to legal and illegal migration – voters in 322 constituencies in England and Wales preferred a new Tory leader, while Sir Keir came out on top in only 164 seats.
In 89 constituencies the most common answer was “not sure”. If the “not sure” respondents are stripped out, a new Tory is most popular in 375 constituencies to 200.'
If you believe that and of course the alternative Tory leader wasn't named....'The poll did not present respondents with names of possible alternative Tory leaders, but asked if they would prefer as prime minister: Sir Keir or a new Tory leader who was stronger on crime and migration, who cut taxes and got NHS waiting lists down.' So basically if Sunak achieved that it could even be him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/23/oust-sunak-election-massacre-warns-cabinet-ally-simon-clark/
SKS fans please explain why your boy can't beat the Telegraph wet dream non existent leader!!
Can anyone beat a wet dream non existent leader? Surely that’s the whole point of wet dream non existent leaders appearing in non serious political polling.
The only serious thing to all this is the damage yougov are doing to themselves - credibility is so important not just in political polling but all market research - are they Ratnering themselves?
Truss could. She’s unbeaten in the leadership votes she’s competed in this decade.
She wasn't beaten at a general election either. She didn't have any bad local election results under her leadership. I don't think she even lost a by-election.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
What has that got to do with anything I said?
Only freedom of religion would protect Jews under the Equality Act, Judaism is not a race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marriage state, age or gender reassignment
Judaism has effectively been declared to be a race by an English court. By the Supreme Court in a decision on the Jewish Free School which was found to have racially discriminated against a practising Jewish boy because his mother was a Catholic convert to Judaism.
That is religious discrimination against Catholic converts, nothing racial about it
Oh read the judgment for heaven's sake instead of pretending, as always, that you know more about the law than the Supreme Court.
Replacing Rishi with a lanky streak of cat waz isn't going to make any significant difference.
Of course it has no validity as a poll, but it is quite an interesting psephological exercise. Presumably the 'blankety blank' candidate was still labelled as a Tory, so it goes to show that the participants are not carrying implacable resentment about the Tories into the election - as most voters do, they will act rationally thinking about the future, rather than based on the past.
I agree. Both the Tory and Labour core brands are strong enough to withstand temporary issues. We saw this after ‘92, ‘97, ‘15, and ‘19 when one or other was said to be gone forever.
The circumstances that killed off the old Liberal Party were pretty unique. Otherwise, the old guard usually endures.
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
I don't think 35 year olds should be knighted, generally speaking. Thinking of Simon Clarke.
Andy Murray knighted at 29. I'd suggest a better idea would be not knighting people who were only given a cabinet post by a newspaper satirist to troll Rishi Sunak over his height.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
What has that got to do with anything I said?
Only freedom of religion would protect Jews under the Equality Act, Judaism is not a race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marriage state, age or gender reassignment
Judaism has effectively been declared to be a race by an English court. By the Supreme Court in a decision on the Jewish Free School which was found to have racially discriminated against a practising Jewish boy because his mother was a Catholic convert to Judaism.
That is religious discrimination against Catholic converts, nothing racial about it
Oh read the judgment for heaven's sake instead of pretending, as always, that you know more about the law than the Supreme Court.
1 What the flippety flip does The Telegraph think it's playing at?
2 Is there any precedent for a government just shrivelling up out of sheer embarrassment? In theory, things can carry on like this for about a year, but how?
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 29m I am picking up speculation from two Conservative MPs that a serving Cabinet minister could be on the verge of quitting to destabilise the Prime Minister further. More at @GBNEWS .
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
"Races" don't exist. They are thus nothing or anything, whatever people call them. UK law says you can be racist against Jews (and Sikhs), so in that sense they are a race. One could describe the Jewish people as an ethnoreligious group, like Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis etc. There is no agreed, overarching rule for who is or is not Jewish from a religious perspective, as there isn't for any religion.
Jews are generally considered racially white
In different places and at different times, ethnic categories shift and change. They are social constructs.
The standard census questions on ethnicity that are widely used in the UK do not have a box for Jewish: I presume most Jews in the UK would tick "White British", but certainly not all.
However, with respect to equality law, the UK legal position is very clear that Jewish counts as a race. The same applies to Sikhs: no box on the census, but the law says they are a race for these purposes.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
What has that got to do with anything I said?
Only freedom of religion would protect Jews under the Equality Act, Judaism is not a race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marriage state, age or gender reassignment
Judaism has effectively been declared to be a race by an English court. By the Supreme Court in a decision on the Jewish Free School which was found to have racially discriminated against a practising Jewish boy because his mother was a Catholic convert to Judaism.
That is religious discrimination against Catholic converts, nothing racial about it
That’s not what the court said. We’ve provided multiple links where you can check this stuff.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
"Races" don't exist. They are thus nothing or anything, whatever people call them. UK law says you can be racist against Jews (and Sikhs), so in that sense they are a race. One could describe the Jewish people as an ethnoreligious group, like Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis etc. There is no agreed, overarching rule for who is or is not Jewish from a religious perspective, as there isn't for any religion.
Jews are generally considered racially white
In different places and at different times, ethnic categories shift and change. They are social constructs.
The standard census questions on ethnicity that are widely used in the UK do not have a box for Jewish: I presume most Jews in the UK would tick "White British", but certainly not all.
However, with respect to equality law, the UK legal position is very clear that Jewish counts as a race. The same applies to Sikhs: no box on the census, but the law says they are a race for these purposes.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
"Races" don't exist. They are thus nothing or anything, whatever people call them. UK law says you can be racist against Jews (and Sikhs), so in that sense they are a race. One could describe the Jewish people as an ethnoreligious group, like Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis etc. There is no agreed, overarching rule for who is or is not Jewish from a religious perspective, as there isn't for any religion.
Jews are generally considered racially white
Jews have always been considered a people (an ethic group if you prefer) by themselves and others. You betray a profound and worrying ignorance by confusing the Jewish People with Judaism as a religion.
Judaism is a religion, even more concerning is your ludicrous left liberal assertion that the descendants of the followers of Moses do not belong to a religion!
'When people were asked who they would prefer as prime minister –Sir Keir or a new, tax-cutting Tory leader with a tougher approach to legal and illegal migration – voters in 322 constituencies in England and Wales preferred a new Tory leader, while Sir Keir came out on top in only 164 seats.
In 89 constituencies the most common answer was “not sure”. If the “not sure” respondents are stripped out, a new Tory is most popular in 375 constituencies to 200.'
If you believe that and of course the alternative Tory leader wasn't named....'The poll did not present respondents with names of possible alternative Tory leaders, but asked if they would prefer as prime minister: Sir Keir or a new Tory leader who was stronger on crime and migration, who cut taxes and got NHS waiting lists down.' So basically if Sunak achieved that it could even be him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/23/oust-sunak-election-massacre-warns-cabinet-ally-simon-clark/
All he needs to do is cut taxes, deport half the NHS staff, then cut waiting times.
It’s a hilarious poll, but it does demonstrate that the Conservative brand is not totally destroyed. Just as the Labour brand wasn’t destroyed under Corbyn or Foot.
It would be very interesting to run a poll comparing a fantasy perfect Tory leader with a fantasy perfect Labour leader. But with each having a different party-appropriate imaginary superpower. So for example the Tory would cut taxes for everyone, abolish wokery and slash immigration. The Labour PM would cut NHS waiting lists, abolish homelessness and make the trains go on time.
I’m being serious in saying you are on to something. Tonight’s poll was comedy time comparing reality with longed for fantasy - but fantasy versus fantasy highlighting the slant political parties bring Would be an inspired black mirror we could actually learn about the electorate from. And why limit it to just political research?
Copyright the idea immediately under the title Unicorn Deathmatch Research Theory.
@HYUFD — This is from the Crown Prosecution Service:
“There has been a legal ruling that Sikhs can be included in the definition of a racial group (Mandla v Dowell-Lee [1983] 2 AC 548). In the Mandla case, reference is made to the judgment in King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531 as being a persuasive authority for Jews being included in the definition of a racial group as well as a religious group. Although not criminal cases, further support for this proposition can be found in the cases of R v JFS [2009] UKSC 15 which related to the legality of the admission policy of a Jewish secondary school and Seide v Gillette Industries Ltd [1980] IRLR 427 in which an Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that anti-Semitic comments made by a fellow-worker were made because he was a member of the Jewish race, not because of his religion.”
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
The Nazis killed non practicing, atheist and converted Jews enthusiastically. They viewed Jews as an ethnic group, rather than primarily a religion.
Judaism is a religion however, not a nationality (even in Israel) or a race
"Races" don't exist. They are thus nothing or anything, whatever people call them. UK law says you can be racist against Jews (and Sikhs), so in that sense they are a race. One could describe the Jewish people as an ethnoreligious group, like Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis etc. There is no agreed, overarching rule for who is or is not Jewish from a religious perspective, as there isn't for any religion.
Jews are generally considered racially white
'Generally' by the eight remaining active members of your local party association?
1 What the flippety flip does The Telegraph think it's playing at?
2 Is there any precedent for a government just shrivelling up out of sheer embarrassment? In theory, things can carry on like this for about a year, but how?
Wait. That is actually an MP with the post it on his head?
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
Clarke cannot really think that he is going to succeed in removing Sunak before the General Election. This is about preparing to pin the blame on Sunak for the General Election defeat as part of a strategy to move the party further to the right in opposition.
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
'When people were asked who they would prefer as prime minister –Sir Keir or a new, tax-cutting Tory leader with a tougher approach to legal and illegal migration – voters in 322 constituencies in England and Wales preferred a new Tory leader, while Sir Keir came out on top in only 164 seats.
In 89 constituencies the most common answer was “not sure”. If the “not sure” respondents are stripped out, a new Tory is most popular in 375 constituencies to 200.'
If you believe that and of course the alternative Tory leader wasn't named....'The poll did not present respondents with names of possible alternative Tory leaders, but asked if they would prefer as prime minister: Sir Keir or a new Tory leader who was stronger on crime and migration, who cut taxes and got NHS waiting lists down.' So basically if Sunak achieved that it could even be him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/23/oust-sunak-election-massacre-warns-cabinet-ally-simon-clark/
SKS fans please explain why your boy can't beat the Telegraph wet dream non existent leader!!
Can anyone beat a wet dream non existent leader? Surely that’s the whole point of wet dream non existent leaders appearing in non serious political polling.
The only serious thing to all this is the damage yougov are doing to themselves - credibility is so important not just in political polling but all market research - are they Ratnering themselves?
Truss could. She’s unbeaten in the leadership votes she’s competed in this decade.
Replacing Rishi with a lanky streak of cat waz isn't going to make any significant difference.
Of course it has no validity as a poll, but it is quite an interesting psephological exercise. Presumably the 'blankety blank' candidate was still labelled as a Tory, so it goes to show that the participants are not carrying implacable resentment about the Tories into the election - as most voters do, they will act rationally thinking about the future, rather than based on the past.
I agree. Both the Tory and Labour core brands are strong enough to withstand temporary issues. We saw this after ‘92, ‘97, ‘15, and ‘19 when one or other was said to be gone forever.
The circumstances that killed off the old Liberal Party were pretty unique. Otherwise, the old guard usually endures.
I have always said that a new leader could still emerge at this stage, and with a strong, popular platform, and sufficient determination to acheive some of it, they could get a very different GE outcome than the one Sunak is cruising toward. It is no surprise that our SKS supporters are against this happening, because they realise that his election victory depends on Tory shitness continuing.
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
What has that got to do with anything I said?
Only freedom of religion would protect Jews under the Equality Act, Judaism is not a race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marriage state, age or gender reassignment
Judaism has effectively been declared to be a race by an English court. By the Supreme Court in a decision on the Jewish Free School which was found to have racially discriminated against a practising Jewish boy because his mother was a Catholic convert to Judaism.
That is religious discrimination against Catholic converts, nothing racial about it
That’s not what the court said. We’ve provided multiple links where you can check this stuff.
Clarke cannot really think that he is going to succeed in removing Sunak before the General Election. This is about preparing to pin the blame on Sunak for the General Election defeat as part of a strategy to move the party further to the right in opposition.
'Pin the blame' for an election defeat on the serving Prime Minister?
Who cares how tall Clarkey and Rishy are? Both are 100% helmet and that is the only measurement that matters
I have no idea why race, religion etc are protected characteristics, but people think it’s fine to mock someone over their height. You get the hand you get.
Making religion a protected characteristic was a terrible mistake.
People choose their beliefs.
No it wasn't, ask the survivors of the Holocaust for starters what happened when their religious freedom to be Jewish was not respected by the State
What has that got to do with anything I said?
Only freedom of religion would protect Jews under the Equality Act, Judaism is not a race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marriage state, age or gender reassignment
Judaism has effectively been declared to be a race by an English court. By the Supreme Court in a decision on the Jewish Free School which was found to have racially discriminated against a practising Jewish boy because his mother was a Catholic convert to Judaism.
That is religious discrimination against Catholic converts, nothing racial about it
Oh read the judgment for heaven's sake instead of pretending, as always, that you know more about the law than the Supreme Court.
Replacing Rishi with a lanky streak of cat waz isn't going to make any significant difference.
Of course it has no validity as a poll, but it is quite an interesting psephological exercise. Presumably the 'blankety blank' candidate was still labelled as a Tory, so it goes to show that the participants are not carrying implacable resentment about the Tories into the election - as most voters do, they will act rationally thinking about the future, rather than based on the past.
I agree. Both the Tory and Labour core brands are strong enough to withstand temporary issues. We saw this after ‘92, ‘97, ‘15, and ‘19 when one or other was said to be gone forever.
The circumstances that killed off the old Liberal Party were pretty unique. Otherwise, the old guard usually endures.
I have always said that a new leader could still emerge at this stage, and with a strong, popular platform, and sufficient determination to acheive some of it, they could get a very different GE outcome than the one Sunak is cruising toward. It is no surprise that our SKS supporters are against this happening, because they realise that his election victory depends on Tory shitness continuing.
Not really. This Labour supporter would be more than happy to see a debilitating Tory leadership election this year, and couldn't really give a toss who wins it.
@HYUFD — This is from the Crown Prosecution Service:
“There has been a legal ruling that Sikhs can be included in the definition of a racial group (Mandla v Dowell-Lee [1983] 2 AC 548). In the Mandla case, reference is made to the judgment in King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531 as being a persuasive authority for Jews being included in the definition of a racial group as well as a religious group. Although not criminal cases, further support for this proposition can be found in the cases of R v JFS [2009] UKSC 15 which related to the legality of the admission policy of a Jewish secondary school and Seide v Gillette Industries Ltd [1980] IRLR 427 in which an Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that anti-Semitic comments made by a fellow-worker were made because he was a member of the Jewish race, not because of his religion.”
' A woman seeking housing in east London who alleged racial discrimination when a housing charity reserved its properties for Orthodox Jewish people has lost her case at the supreme court...
In a ruling that cements positive discrimination as a legitimate way to tackle social disadvantage, the UK’s highest court of appeal found in favour of the Agudas Israel housing association in Stamford Hill after it listed its homes for rent with the caveat of “consideration only to the Orthodox Jewish community”.Handing down judgment, Lord Sales said the lower courts were right that the charity’s use of positive discrimination was proportionate and lawful, under the Equality Act 2010, in order to correct the disadvantage faced by the community. He said the issue was not one of racism as the housing charity discriminated on the grounds of religious observance.' https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/oct/16/uk-supreme-court-backs-housing-charitys-jewish-only-rule
I don't think 35 year olds should be knighted, generally speaking. Thinking of Simon Clarke.
Andy Murray knighted at 29. I'd suggest a better idea would be not knighting people who were only given a cabinet post by a newspaper satirist to troll Rishi Sunak over his height.
How about not knighting anybody? That would seem to solve the problem, no bloody messing.
Calling for 'a new PM' is all very well but 'generic Tory' isn't an option. Indeed, 'generic Tory' is pretty much the incumbent. If you want a replacement, you really ought to say who that replacement should be.
This is from last month.
— plots to oust Sunak are bubbling away under the surface
— allies of Liz Truss have held talks about coordinating letters
— some of them want Simon Clarke to be the candidate to replace him
— Truss denies plotting. Clarke says he wants govt to succeed
If the answer is Simon Clarke then you're asking the wrong question. Unless the question is name a tall Tory who nobody approaching normal has ever heard of?
And who divorced his wife for a Westminster colleague
'The 6ft 7in Tory nicknamed Stilts stepped down as minister for regional growth and local government “for personal reasons”.
But the MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is “head over heels in lust”.
His teary wife Hannah looked devastated outside their Teesside home yesterday.
For a moment I thought you were talking about Boris Johnson.
You don't choose who you love, love chooses you.
You do when you are married, you take your vows for life (and Boris at least had charisma for all his flaws in his personal life, unlike Clarke)
In our case 60 years in May, but if you genuinely believe marriage vows bind you for life then you are incredibly naive and does not reflect reality
If you aren't committed to keeping them, what is the point of making the vows in the first place?
You are incredibly naive on this subject
Of course people making wedding vows are entirely committed to them but circumstances change, relationships change, life changes, and nobody can predict events that overtake relationships often decades after
It isn't naivety, it is the traditional view of the sacred nature of marriage, also espoused as the ideal by most major religions.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
And women aren't treated as chattel, raping your wife is no longer legal, and the world is a far better place, yes.
In terms of family break and the decline of marriage it most certainly isn't
People no longer being forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages absolutely is a good improvement.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
More children being deprived of 2 parent families is absolutely not a good thing.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
More children having 2 happy parents in separate abodes instead of 2 unhappy parents in one is a good thing.
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
No it isn't except in your narcissistic libertarian utopia.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
What the flippety flip are you on about?
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
Replacing Rishi with a lanky streak of cat waz isn't going to make any significant difference.
Of course it has no validity as a poll, but it is quite an interesting psephological exercise. Presumably the 'blankety blank' candidate was still labelled as a Tory, so it goes to show that the participants are not carrying implacable resentment about the Tories into the election - as most voters do, they will act rationally thinking about the future, rather than based on the past.
I agree. Both the Tory and Labour core brands are strong enough to withstand temporary issues. We saw this after ‘92, ‘97, ‘15, and ‘19 when one or other was said to be gone forever.
The circumstances that killed off the old Liberal Party were pretty unique. Otherwise, the old guard usually endures.
I have always said that a new leader could still emerge at this stage, and with a strong, popular platform, and sufficient determination to acheive some of it, they could get a very different GE outcome than the one Sunak is cruising toward. It is no surprise that our SKS supporters are against this happening, because they realise that his election victory depends on Tory shitness continuing.
They said that when they changed leader to Truss. They said it again when they changed leader to Sunak. And now they’re saying it again. How many times until they get the hint?
Comments
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/12/world/pope-canonizes-jew-who-became-nun-and-died-at-auschwitz.html
https://www.auschwitz.org/en/museum/news/80th-anniversary-of-the-death-of-edith-stein,1570.html
Meet him at the crossroads.
Or at least it was until the 1960s since when broken families and divorce have surged and many more children don't live with both their biological parents
That's a piss take isn't it ?
Replacing Rishi with a lanky streak of cat waz isn't going to make any significant difference.
Sorry, what?
I'll allow it if we get a Munro, or better, several.
Only 49% registered republicans and 32% MAGA suggest a high Independent turnout too
Oct 24, 2022
Today @Conservatives need to unite. Really extremely serious events are unfolding and our country needs leadership. @RishiSunak is the right person to assume the immense responsibility of being Prime Minister and he will have my full support.
Which would please those who want to discriminate against pregnant women, those with children, gender reassignees, people believing you can change sex, vegans, those believing in Scottish independence (the latter 2 have been declared "philosophical beliefs"), the married, people falling off horses or driving stupidly or smokers or those getting diabetes because they eat too much etc, Muslims, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists etc.
There's a political programme there - not a winning one, mind. I expect the Tories will adopt it about 3 weeks before the next election when they are at 11% in the polls.
Polling places will start to close at 7 p.m. and all locations will close by 8 p.m. The Associated Press said it first reported some nighttime results for the 2020 primary at 7:32 p.m. ET, and finished tabulating at 1:14 a.m.
The AP declared the winner of the 2016 primaries—when both the Democratic and Republican races were competitive—at 8 p.m.
17:40 in NH right now. I guess they'll do the GOP ones first as the Dem ones need to be individually scrutinized to check whether they wrote in "Biden" or "Lizard People".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_atheists_and_agnostics?wprov=sfti1
Also it's in the Cabinet Manual:
2.9 Historically, the Sovereign has made use of reserve powers to dismiss a Prime Minister or to make a personal choice of successor, although this was last used in 1834..."
..and was not too popular.
That atheist jews would not be saved from death is incontestable.
Not having a genocidal fascist government would have been more to the point.
The only serious thing to all this is the damage yougov are doing to themselves - credibility is so important not just in political polling but all market research - are they Ratnering themselves?
David Miliband was, is, and always will be a massively overrated gimp.
For a fuller legal analysis, try https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1163&context=ijlse
Latest two National polls (Bullfinch and Morning Consult) have Trump leading Biden by 5%.
But new Susquehana Pennsylvania poll has Biden leading Trump by 8%!
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
The joy of this is that after their councillors get reamed on 2nd May, we get to have another one of these putschettes. Perhaps another in the autumn as well.
Christopher Hope📝
@christopherhope
·
29m
I am picking up speculation from two Conservative MPs that a serving Cabinet minister could be on the verge of quitting to destabilise the Prime Minister further.
More at
@GBNEWS
.
I'm seeing a lot of annoyance being directed at the Clarkist insurrection - but so far not a single positive word about Sunak.
The standard census questions on ethnicity that are widely used in the UK do not have a box for Jewish: I presume most Jews in the UK would tick "White British", but certainly not all.
However, with respect to equality law, the UK legal position is very clear that Jewish counts as a race. The same applies to Sikhs: no box on the census, but the law says they are a race for these purposes.
People remaining to be abused or unhappy is a bad thing, not a good thing.
Two MPs SPECULATE
That a cabinet minister COULD
Be on the VERGE of quitting
How many caveats do you need?
Simon Clarke’s long-anticipated public ‘tantrum’ not causing much worry in government circles tonight.
Reminder: 53 Tory rebels needed to spark a leadership contest - numbers a dozen at most
https://twitter.com/theliamnissan/status/1749879551201550472
The point has been made, though, that Biden has focused pretty relentlessly on swing states, and the assumption that if the win in November goes to the candidate with fewer votes, that necessarily means GOP, is perhaps rather flawed.
gabyhinsliff
@gabyhinsliff
·
17m
Tories trying to start another leadership contest is v much that one incredibly over dramatic friend you have where eventually you just start hiding from their calls. Fine, you go off if you want to, but it’s just too exhausting
Sam Freedman
@Samfr
·
1h
What I want to know is how many magic lamps Starmer has and where he found them all.
The circumstances that killed off the old Liberal Party were pretty unique. Otherwise, the old guard usually endures.
Domestic abuse can be dealt with by criminal law
The Knives of the Long Knight
https://twitter.com/PeterMannionMP/status/1749928587765907732
But seriously folks,
1 What the flippety flip does The Telegraph think it's playing at?
2 Is there any precedent for a government just shrivelling up out of sheer embarrassment? In theory, things can carry on like this for about a year, but how?
Pressure mounts.
https://bod.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Employers-Guide-to-Judaism2.pdf
Copyright the idea immediately under the title Unicorn Deathmatch Research Theory.
“There has been a legal ruling that Sikhs can be included in the definition of a racial group (Mandla v Dowell-Lee [1983] 2 AC 548). In the Mandla case, reference is made to the judgment in King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531 as being a persuasive authority for Jews being included in the definition of a racial group as well as a religious group. Although not criminal cases, further support for this proposition can be found in the cases of R v JFS [2009] UKSC 15 which related to the legality of the admission policy of a Jewish secondary school and Seide v Gillette Industries Ltd [1980] IRLR 427 in which an Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that anti-Semitic comments made by a fellow-worker were made because he was a member of the Jewish race, not because of his religion.”
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance
Is having 2 happy parents at home ideal? Of course it is. But life isn't perfect, and we need to deal with imperfections the best way we can and sometimes that means separation.
By the end of 2024.
As most children will attest, they prefer having both their parents at home, short of domestic violence the odd parental row should be no grounds for divorce
I'm not sure Sunak isn't that bad, and that desperate, that he won't wait until January 2025.
David Gauke
@DavidGauke
·
1h
Clarke cannot really think that he is going to succeed in removing Sunak before the General Election. This is about preparing to pin the blame on Sunak for the General Election defeat as part of a strategy to move the party further to the right in opposition.
Yes children in happy homes want to stay that way.
Divorce is about more than the odd parental row though, you utter dipshit.
And I know many people who were relieved when their parents separated, as it put an end to the hate and the fighting being inside the house constantly.
Its like getting a bad tooth removed. You don't want to lose a tooth, but if you have a painful rotten one, then sometimes extraction is best. Nobody wants divorce, but if you have a painful rotten marriage ...
In a ruling that cements positive discrimination as a legitimate way to tackle social disadvantage, the UK’s highest court of appeal found in favour of the Agudas Israel housing association in Stamford Hill after it listed its homes for rent with the caveat of “consideration only to the Orthodox Jewish community”.Handing down judgment, Lord Sales said the lower courts were right that the charity’s use of positive discrimination was proportionate and lawful, under the Equality Act 2010, in order to correct the disadvantage faced by the community. He said the issue was not one of racism as the housing charity discriminated on the grounds of religious observance.'
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/oct/16/uk-supreme-court-backs-housing-charitys-jewish-only-rule