Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Could be a plan. If he does that and applies VAT to private school fees then Labour will be left scrambling to devise a completely new economic policy in time for the election.
But. Ali has been disowned and isn't the Labour candidate. So the loyal Labour vote would ordinarily split, with some of them voting for him and others staying home.
The wildcard is Galloway. He will win the crank vote and the young muslim vote and terrify a lot of mainstream voters. Ordinarily he would get the Stop Galloway vote motivated.
But for whom are they voting to stop the discredited former Labour candidate? The discredited former Labour candidate? The discredited former Labour candidate? Or the LibDem who appears not have bothered or the Tory who went on holiday to make sure everyone knew he hasn't bothered.
Honestly don't know who will win. Unless we have a shock the winner will almost certainly be awful. For politics, for Rochdale...
I think we can think about likely vote share ranges in Rochdale, but with a lesser degree of confidence than usual.
Galloway: A successful Galloway campaign broadly equates to the Muslim vote in a constituency, even if the Venn circles are separated a bit. 55% vote in 51% Muslim Bradford West, 35/35 in Bethnal Green, 21/18 in Batley and Spen. Rochdale is around 24% Muslim, so 20-30% is his likely target range.
Conservative: Broadly do capture their local election vote share, but probably won't pick up too many loose votes beyond that. Got 21% in LE23, so 18-21% a likely target range.
LD: Even without much of a last minute, bus people in from Stockport, type campaign, they should expect to pick up their LE voters of 17.5% plus a decent number of moderate Labourites, so for me 22-27% is a likely target range.
Reform: Danczuk dampens the expectations here, but might still hope to better their GE19 showing of 8%. 8-14% target range.
Ali: Gets the residual vote up to around 95% of the total vote share not absorbed elsewhere, and sympathy for him will hit Galloway the most. If everyone else hits their target, leaves around 16% for Ali, if people drop to the low end of range could be up at 30%. Widest target range of 15-30%.
That LD share looks too high for me, bearing in mind they don't appear to have made much of an effort. Which they really do for LE's.
They still have a significant base vote, 4.5k turned out for them at the locals within the constituency boundaries, especially in the M62 adjacent more commutery bits. Where else are those votes going? Are LE voters really staying home with the alternatives they might get? I don't think they have to try THAT hard to edge into the 20s.
Could the LibDems not find a morbidly obese paedophile to run in the byelection?
I know, they're spoiling the general ambience, aren't they?
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Could be a plan. If he does that and applies VAT to private school fees then Labour will be left scrambling to devise a completely new economic policy in time for the election.
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
But they have. They're called civil marriages.
So still have the word 'marriage' in them then
So marriage has not been a "religious institution" in this country since 1837.
Quite unbelievable that anyone in this day and age would have banned people from getting married unless they were "religious".
Marriage still is a religious institution, it was created by religions after all and for most it is limited only to one man and woman for life.
Civil unions would have been fine for the non religious and those who did not meet the above criteria
Maybe there's a valid distinction between marriage and holy matrimony?
Which is the C of E argument with only the latter applying to a man and woman ideally for life
How is that a Christian argument and not just bigotry
Read Christ's definition of marriage in the Bible
Christ's parents weren't married to one another.
They were certainly at least betrothed
The Lord God was definitely NOT married to the mother of His only begotten son.
Hyufd has definitely not understood this Christianity lark. Tush tush.
It was a virgin birth, so still no sex before marriage
Er, how can virgins give birth?
As Jesus was the son of God
Jesus is one part of the Holy Trinity that is God, surely.
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Could be a plan. If he does that and applies VAT to private school fees then Labour will be left scrambling to devise a completely new economic policy in time for the election.
Is Rochdale the most unpredictable by election in living memory?
Yes, I think it probably is. I’m marginally predicting Ali wins it.
A shame the Lib Dems didn’t put in more effort. Also a shame in hindsight they didn’t - as they have in several recent by-elections - stand a female candidate given the list in this election is 100% male.
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Could be a plan. If he does that and applies VAT to private school fees then Labour will be left scrambling to devise a completely new economic policy in time for the election.
Peston is suggesting?
It's on the front page of the FT tonight.
What's the gist of the rumour? Does it suggest that Hunt intends to spend the money on public services, or recycle it into a tax cut elsewhere?
But. Ali has been disowned and isn't the Labour candidate. So the loyal Labour vote would ordinarily split, with some of them voting for him and others staying home.
The wildcard is Galloway. He will win the crank vote and the young muslim vote and terrify a lot of mainstream voters. Ordinarily he would get the Stop Galloway vote motivated.
But for whom are they voting to stop the discredited former Labour candidate? The discredited former Labour candidate? The discredited former Labour candidate? Or the LibDem who appears not have bothered or the Tory who went on holiday to make sure everyone knew he hasn't bothered.
Honestly don't know who will win. Unless we have a shock the winner will almost certainly be awful. For politics, for Rochdale...
I think we can think about likely vote share ranges in Rochdale, but with a lesser degree of confidence than usual.
Galloway: A successful Galloway campaign broadly equates to the Muslim vote in a constituency, even if the Venn circles are separated a bit. 55% vote in 51% Muslim Bradford West, 35/35 in Bethnal Green, 21/18 in Batley and Spen. Rochdale is around 24% Muslim, so 20-30% is his likely target range.
Conservative: Broadly do capture their local election vote share, but probably won't pick up too many loose votes beyond that. Got 21% in LE23, so 18-21% a likely target range.
LD: Even without much of a last minute, bus people in from Stockport, type campaign, they should expect to pick up their LE voters of 17.5% plus a decent number of moderate Labourites, so for me 22-27% is a likely target range.
Reform: Danczuk dampens the expectations here, but might still hope to better their GE19 showing of 8%. 8-14% target range.
Ali: Gets the residual vote up to around 95% of the total vote share not absorbed elsewhere, and sympathy for him will hit Galloway the most. If everyone else hits their target, leaves around 16% for Ali, if people drop to the low end of range could be up at 30%. Widest target range of 15-30%.
That LD share looks too high for me, bearing in mind they don't appear to have made much of an effort. Which they really do for LE's.
They still have a significant base vote, 4.5k turned out for them at the locals within the constituency boundaries, especially in the M62 adjacent more commutery bits. Where else are those votes going? Are LE voters really staying home with the alternatives they might get? I don't think they have to try THAT hard to edge into the 20s.
I guess with a pitifully low turnout. But LD voters tend to turn out. So I it's possible. I've really no idea tbh. It's a shit show all round really.
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Could be a plan. If he does that and applies VAT to private school fees then Labour will be left scrambling to devise a completely new economic policy in time for the election.
Peston is suggesting?
It's on the front page of the FT tonight.
What's the gist of the rumour? Does it suggest that Hunt intends to spend the money on public services, or recycle it into a tax cut elsewhere?
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Could be a plan. If he does that and applies VAT to private school fees then Labour will be left scrambling to devise a completely new economic policy in time for the election.
Peston is suggesting?
It's on the front page of the FT tonight.
What's the gist of the rumour? Does it suggest that Hunt intends to spend the money on public services, or recycle it into a tax cut elsewhere?
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Could be a plan. If he does that and applies VAT to private school fees then Labour will be left scrambling to devise a completely new economic policy in time for the election.
He could nationalise the commanding heights of the economy for the benefit of workers by hand and by brain too I guess.
This is the first explanation of the Rayner controversy I have heard by Kate McCann and apparently Starmer has felt the need to express full confidence in Rayner tonight
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Could be a plan. If he does that and applies VAT to private school fees then Labour will be left scrambling to devise a completely new economic policy in time for the election.
The Telegraph have it too. The problem is that it is the sort of wheeze that politicians like to do to cause problems for the other side, but it just makes you look insincere.
Is Rochdale the most unpredictable by election in living memory?
In terms of betting , No. I think you could have got 8/1 against the Lib Dems winning the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election in 2006, while the returning officer was climbing on to the stage to announce the result.
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Could be a plan. If he does that and applies VAT to private school fees then Labour will be left scrambling to devise a completely new economic policy in time for the election.
Peston is suggesting?
It's on the front page of the FT tonight.
What's the gist of the rumour? Does it suggest that Hunt intends to spend the money on public services, or recycle it into a tax cut elsewhere?
To more relevant political matters and the Savanta/More In Common polls which show in the Lab/LD/Green vs Con/Reform contest 58-36 and 59-37 respectively.
Both these pollsters tend to have higher ratings for the Conservatives - More In Common's 28% is the highest of the current crop of polls but both also have improved Labour ratings and therefore the leads are in the mid teens with More in Common and Opinium having the smallest leads at 15 points.
It remains to be seen whether events in Rochdale tomorrow will impact the weekend polls.
According to bookies, George is hot favourite for Rochdale. Apparently Westminster insiders feel George has this by some distance, the Guardian saying Ali’s campaign has collapsed.
I’m not convinced. If you to look inside voters minds, what are they thinking now, they weren’t thinking four weeks ago when this was an easy Ali gain?
Ali has been a moderate Labour leader in the region for a long time, and now is running free of the baggage of Labour’s pro Netanyahu’s duck shoot position. If I’m right, the bookies are wrong, and Westminster experts are wrong. My working out is, if his conspiracy about Israeli government hadn’t come to light, Ali would be a massive shoe in here. It’s not the case he needs to find votes to beat George, he had them, more than enough, it’s a case he had to lose them over the last three weeks.
Ali is a value bet.
A Galloway win suits Labour best.
Why did the Conservative not even bother to campaign or give interviews? Maybe not a win, but chance in the circumstance to get very credible result.
Yeah, I too think the value is on the Non-Labour Labour guy.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen while they considered the matter.
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
But they have. They're called civil marriages.
So still have the word 'marriage' in them then
So marriage has not been a "religious institution" in this country since 1837.
Quite unbelievable that anyone in this day and age would have banned people from getting married unless they were "religious".
Marriage still is a religious institution, it was created by religions after all and for most it is limited only to one man and woman for life.
Civil unions would have been fine for the non religious and those who did not meet the above criteria
Maybe there's a valid distinction between marriage and holy matrimony?
Which is the C of E argument with only the latter applying to a man and woman ideally for life
How is that a Christian argument and not just bigotry
Read Christ's definition of marriage in the Bible
Christ's parents weren't married to one another.
They were certainly at least betrothed
The Lord God was definitely NOT married to the mother of His only begotten son.
Hyufd has definitely not understood this Christianity lark. Tush tush.
It was a virgin birth, so still no sex before marriage
Er, how can virgins give birth?
As Jesus was the son of God
Jesus is one part of the Holy Trinity that is God, surely.
Not all Christians believe this either.
So long as you define whether someone is a Christian by whether they believe in the Holy Trinity, then yes they do.
Not so long since doing otherwise was seriously subversive treason in England (not sure about rUK). Unitarian churches had to call themselves Presbyterian as protective camouflage. Confused me badly when doing genealogical research once.
Saw Zone of Interest this afternoon, a slow burner that will stick in the memory. Unflinching but not in a gas chambers and beatings kind of way, rather a relentless look at the petit bourgeois banality that kept the Final Solution going. Interested to see if it does anything at the Oscars, not typical Academy fodder,
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen while they considered the matter.
NY Times
They seem to have decided to delay Trump’s trial in order to give him a chance of pardoning himself. Why they felt a case of such importance and urgency should be delayed for two months - other than sheer cynicism - I can’t say.
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
But they have. They're called civil marriages.
So still have the word 'marriage' in them then
So marriage has not been a "religious institution" in this country since 1837.
Quite unbelievable that anyone in this day and age would have banned people from getting married unless they were "religious".
Marriage still is a religious institution, it was created by religions after all and for most it is limited only to one man and woman for life.
Civil unions would have been fine for the non religious and those who did not meet the above criteria
Maybe there's a valid distinction between marriage and holy matrimony?
Which is the C of E argument with only the latter applying to a man and woman ideally for life
How is that a Christian argument and not just bigotry
Read Christ's definition of marriage in the Bible
Christ's parents weren't married to one another.
They were certainly at least betrothed
The Lord God was definitely NOT married to the mother of His only begotten son.
Hyufd has definitely not understood this Christianity lark. Tush tush.
It was a virgin birth, so still no sex before marriage
Er, how can virgins give birth?
As Jesus was the son of God
Jesus is one part of the Holy Trinity that is God, surely.
Not all Christians believe this either.
So long as you define whether someone is a Christian by whether they believe in the Holy Trinity, then yes they do.
Not so long since doing otherwise was seriously subversive treason in England (not sure about rUK). Unitarian churches had to call themselves Presbyterian as protective camouflage. Confused me badly when doing genealogical research once.
Was Jesus particularly interested in dogma ?
He was well versed in scripture, and used it to argue with various authorities etc
A general theme of the Gospels, particularly Matthew, is that formal rules and doctrine as encapsulated by the Pharisees etc was contrary to what God wanted. There are more than a few examples of Jesus breaking dogma in order to demonstrate kindness and mercy, both in the form of parables and also more concrete actions.
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
But they have. They're called civil marriages.
So still have the word 'marriage' in them then
So marriage has not been a "religious institution" in this country since 1837.
Quite unbelievable that anyone in this day and age would have banned people from getting married unless they were "religious".
Marriage still is a religious institution, it was created by religions after all and for most it is limited only to one man and woman for life.
Civil unions would have been fine for the non religious and those who did not meet the above criteria
Maybe there's a valid distinction between marriage and holy matrimony?
Which is the C of E argument with only the latter applying to a man and woman ideally for life
How is that a Christian argument and not just bigotry
Read Christ's definition of marriage in the Bible
Christ's parents weren't married to one another.
They were certainly at least betrothed
The Lord God was definitely NOT married to the mother of His only begotten son.
Hyufd has definitely not understood this Christianity lark. Tush tush.
It was a virgin birth, so still no sex before marriage
Er, how can virgins give birth?
As Jesus was the son of God
Jesus is one part of the Holy Trinity that is God, surely.
Not all Christians believe this either.
So long as you define whether someone is a Christian by whether they believe in the Holy Trinity, then yes they do.
Not so long since doing otherwise was seriously subversive treason in England (not sure about rUK). Unitarian churches had to call themselves Presbyterian as protective camouflage. Confused me badly when doing genealogical research once.
Was Jesus particularly interested in dogma ?
He was well versed in scripture, and used it to argue with various authorities etc
A general theme of the Gospels, particularly Matthew, is that formal rules and doctrine as encapsulated by the Pharisees etc was contrary to what God wanted. There are more than a few examples of Jesus breaking dogma in order to demonstrate kindness and mercy, both in the form of parables and also more concrete actions.
Saw Zone of Interest this afternoon, a slow burner that will stick in the memory. Unflinching but not in a gas chambers and beatings kind of way, rather a relentless look at the petit bourgeois banality that kept the Final Solution going. Interested to see if it does anything at the Oscars, not typical Academy fodder,
It should win the sound design category. One of my favourite three films of the year. Did you see it at the cinema?
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
But they have. They're called civil marriages.
So still have the word 'marriage' in them then
So marriage has not been a "religious institution" in this country since 1837.
Quite unbelievable that anyone in this day and age would have banned people from getting married unless they were "religious".
Marriage still is a religious institution, it was created by religions after all and for most it is limited only to one man and woman for life.
Civil unions would have been fine for the non religious and those who did not meet the above criteria
Maybe there's a valid distinction between marriage and holy matrimony?
Which is the C of E argument with only the latter applying to a man and woman ideally for life
How is that a Christian argument and not just bigotry
Read Christ's definition of marriage in the Bible
Christ's parents weren't married to one another.
They were certainly at least betrothed
The Lord God was definitely NOT married to the mother of His only begotten son.
Hyufd has definitely not understood this Christianity lark. Tush tush.
It was a virgin birth, so still no sex before marriage
Er, how can virgins give birth?
As Jesus was the son of God
Jesus is one part of the Holy Trinity that is God, surely.
Not all Christians believe this either.
So long as you define whether someone is a Christian by whether they believe in the Holy Trinity, then yes they do.
Not so long since doing otherwise was seriously subversive treason in England (not sure about rUK). Unitarian churches had to call themselves Presbyterian as protective camouflage. Confused me badly when doing genealogical research once.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen while they considered the matter.
NY Times
They seem to have decided to delay Trump’s trial in order to give him a chance of pardoning himself. Why they felt a case of such importance and urgency should be delayed for two months - other than sheer cynicism - I can’t say.
What was the status of the trial thus far in the lower courts ?
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen while they considered the matter.
NY Times
They seem to have decided to delay Trump’s trial in order to give him a chance of pardoning himself. Why they felt a case of such importance and urgency should be delayed for two months - other than sheer cynicism - I can’t say.
What was the status of the trial thus far in the lower courts ?
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
But they have. They're called civil marriages.
So still have the word 'marriage' in them then
So marriage has not been a "religious institution" in this country since 1837.
Quite unbelievable that anyone in this day and age would have banned people from getting married unless they were "religious".
Marriage still is a religious institution, it was created by religions after all and for most it is limited only to one man and woman for life.
Civil unions would have been fine for the non religious and those who did not meet the above criteria
Maybe there's a valid distinction between marriage and holy matrimony?
Which is the C of E argument with only the latter applying to a man and woman ideally for life
How is that a Christian argument and not just bigotry
Read Christ's definition of marriage in the Bible
Christ's parents weren't married to one another.
They were certainly at least betrothed
The Lord God was definitely NOT married to the mother of His only begotten son.
Hyufd has definitely not understood this Christianity lark. Tush tush.
It was a virgin birth, so still no sex before marriage
Er, how can virgins give birth?
As Jesus was the son of God
Jesus is one part of the Holy Trinity that is God, surely.
Not all Christians believe this either.
So long as you define whether someone is a Christian by whether they believe in the Holy Trinity, then yes they do.
Not so long since doing otherwise was seriously subversive treason in England (not sure about rUK). Unitarian churches had to call themselves Presbyterian as protective camouflage. Confused me badly when doing genealogical research once.
Was Jesus particularly interested in dogma ?
He preferred Clerks.
Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.
Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier...
My hunch is Anderson is far more likely to defect if Reform win the Rochdale by-election tomorrow. (Maybe a statement of the obvious).
He can't defect yet, needs time for the hubbub to stop. I'd go just before parliament returns from the summer. Maybe time it with Nige's big reveal? Start the Reform momentum with 3-5ish months 'till the big day.
Saw Zone of Interest this afternoon, a slow burner that will stick in the memory. Unflinching but not in a gas chambers and beatings kind of way, rather a relentless look at the petit bourgeois banality that kept the Final Solution going. Interested to see if it does anything at the Oscars, not typical Academy fodder,
It should win the sound design category. One of my favourite three films of the year. Did you see it at the cinema?
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
But they have. They're called civil marriages.
So still have the word 'marriage' in them then
So marriage has not been a "religious institution" in this country since 1837.
Quite unbelievable that anyone in this day and age would have banned people from getting married unless they were "religious".
Marriage still is a religious institution, it was created by religions after all and for most it is limited only to one man and woman for life.
Civil unions would have been fine for the non religious and those who did not meet the above criteria
Maybe there's a valid distinction between marriage and holy matrimony?
Which is the C of E argument with only the latter applying to a man and woman ideally for life
How is that a Christian argument and not just bigotry
Read Christ's definition of marriage in the Bible
Christ's parents weren't married to one another.
They were certainly at least betrothed
The Lord God was definitely NOT married to the mother of His only begotten son.
Hyufd has definitely not understood this Christianity lark. Tush tush.
It was a virgin birth, so still no sex before marriage
Er, how can virgins give birth?
As Jesus was the son of God
Jesus is one part of the Holy Trinity that is God, surely.
Not all Christians believe this either.
So long as you define whether someone is a Christian by whether they believe in the Holy Trinity, then yes they do.
Not so long since doing otherwise was seriously subversive treason in England (not sure about rUK). Unitarian churches had to call themselves Presbyterian as protective camouflage. Confused me badly when doing genealogical research once.
Was Jesus particularly interested in dogma ?
He was well versed in scripture, and used it to argue with various authorities etc
A general theme of the Gospels, particularly Matthew, is that formal rules and doctrine as encapsulated by the Pharisees etc was contrary to what God wanted. There are more than a few examples of Jesus breaking dogma in order to demonstrate kindness and mercy, both in the form of parables and also more concrete actions.
When I said this a few months ago, you disagreed with me. 🤷♀️ It’s there is PB annals, search on Pharisee should spot it.
The attack on the temple, which was a militia attack backed by a mob of supporters to be as successful as was due to the armed guards and number of people there, was because Jesus believed the bourgeoisie were exploiting everyone with sacrificial bathing and bird slaughtering costs through using bogus scripture. The bourgeoisie, living very comfortably off the exploitation, had previous taken control of defining scripture.
PBers should get into this more, it’s timeless and very raw class politics that led to Jesus death.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen while they considered the matter.
NY Times
They seem to have decided to delay Trump’s trial in order to give him a chance of pardoning himself. Why they felt a case of such importance and urgency should be delayed for two months - other than sheer cynicism - I can’t say.
His criminal case for falsifying business records still starts next month though, remember Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion in the end rather than all his other gangster activities
What exactly do you expect to happen in Ukraine, when agriculture is 8% of our GDP and Poland actively sabotages what's left of a functional economy during our war for existence?
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
But they have. They're called civil marriages.
So still have the word 'marriage' in them then
So marriage has not been a "religious institution" in this country since 1837.
Quite unbelievable that anyone in this day and age would have banned people from getting married unless they were "religious".
Marriage still is a religious institution, it was created by religions after all and for most it is limited only to one man and woman for life.
Civil unions would have been fine for the non religious and those who did not meet the above criteria
Maybe there's a valid distinction between marriage and holy matrimony?
Which is the C of E argument with only the latter applying to a man and woman ideally for life
How is that a Christian argument and not just bigotry
Read Christ's definition of marriage in the Bible
Christ's parents weren't married to one another.
They were certainly at least betrothed
The Lord God was definitely NOT married to the mother of His only begotten son.
Hyufd has definitely not understood this Christianity lark. Tush tush.
It was a virgin birth, so still no sex before marriage
Er, how can virgins give birth?
As Jesus was the son of God
Jesus is one part of the Holy Trinity that is God, surely.
Not all Christians believe this either.
So long as you define whether someone is a Christian by whether they believe in the Holy Trinity, then yes they do.
Not so long since doing otherwise was seriously subversive treason in England (not sure about rUK). Unitarian churches had to call themselves Presbyterian as protective camouflage. Confused me badly when doing genealogical research once.
Was Jesus particularly interested in dogma ?
He preferred Clerks.
Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.
Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier...
Eh, we all have beliefs. Can't avoid that.
For example, I believe that most people are mostly reasonable most of the time, and this colours a lot of how I interact with people and approach disagreements and conflict.
It's not a belief in a creed, or a spiritualism, but it is a belief - as in it's not a rational conclusion based on careful observation, but a view of the world that it's hard for experience to challenge, and it would probably be a painful psychological event if I ever lost that belief.
So - has the non-dom thing been leaked to try and stop Hunt doing it?
No - recommended by none other than George Osborne
That does surprise me, because Osborne is very smart, yet abolishing non Don status to raise money is very very dum.
Numerous times I’ve called out Labours non dom policy fallacy as financial and political illiteracy. There is zero money to be made from scrapping non dom status.
Non dom status is a deal between government and non doms to bring in some money from them to fund government, if government scraps the deal the non doms change their status to “not obliged to pay anything”. It won’t bring in nothing, but bring in between whatever it is now and nothing.
This has the whiff of one of those political wheeze that blows up in your own face. Labour, wedded to the economic and political illiteracy of scrapping this for years, can’t call the Tories out, but an awful lot of the centre and right can call Hunt and Sunak out for being economically and politically illiterate if they do this, especially in their own client media. It’s not that long ago Tory’s were attacking this policy as Labours class war, so how will the Tory right react to Hunt and Sunak adopting it?
If this is just a small insight into what’s to come, the Tory election campaign is clearly being drawn up by 3 year olds 😃
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
But they have. They're called civil marriages.
So still have the word 'marriage' in them then
So marriage has not been a "religious institution" in this country since 1837.
Quite unbelievable that anyone in this day and age would have banned people from getting married unless they were "religious".
Marriage still is a religious institution, it was created by religions after all and for most it is limited only to one man and woman for life.
Civil unions would have been fine for the non religious and those who did not meet the above criteria
Maybe there's a valid distinction between marriage and holy matrimony?
Which is the C of E argument with only the latter applying to a man and woman ideally for life
How is that a Christian argument and not just bigotry
Read Christ's definition of marriage in the Bible
Christ's parents weren't married to one another.
They were certainly at least betrothed
The Lord God was definitely NOT married to the mother of His only begotten son.
Hyufd has definitely not understood this Christianity lark. Tush tush.
It was a virgin birth, so still no sex before marriage
Er, how can virgins give birth?
As Jesus was the son of God
Jesus is one part of the Holy Trinity that is God, surely.
Not all Christians believe this either.
So long as you define whether someone is a Christian by whether they believe in the Holy Trinity, then yes they do.
If you say you are a Christian but don't believe in the Trinity there is little difference between you and a Muslim, who believe Jesus was the Messiah but also not God
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
But they have. They're called civil marriages.
So still have the word 'marriage' in them then
So marriage has not been a "religious institution" in this country since 1837.
Quite unbelievable that anyone in this day and age would have banned people from getting married unless they were "religious".
Marriage still is a religious institution, it was created by religions after all and for most it is limited only to one man and woman for life.
Civil unions would have been fine for the non religious and those who did not meet the above criteria
Maybe there's a valid distinction between marriage and holy matrimony?
Which is the C of E argument with only the latter applying to a man and woman ideally for life
How is that a Christian argument and not just bigotry
Read Christ's definition of marriage in the Bible
Christ's parents weren't married to one another.
They were certainly at least betrothed
The Lord God was definitely NOT married to the mother of His only begotten son.
Hyufd has definitely not understood this Christianity lark. Tush tush.
It was a virgin birth, so still no sex before marriage
Er, how can virgins give birth?
As Jesus was the son of God
Jesus is one part of the Holy Trinity that is God, surely.
Not all Christians believe this either.
So long as you define whether someone is a Christian by whether they believe in the Holy Trinity, then yes they do.
Not so long since doing otherwise was seriously subversive treason in England (not sure about rUK). Unitarian churches had to call themselves Presbyterian as protective camouflage. Confused me badly when doing genealogical research once.
Was Jesus particularly interested in dogma ?
He was well versed in scripture, and used it to argue with various authorities etc
A general theme of the Gospels, particularly Matthew, is that formal rules and doctrine as encapsulated by the Pharisees etc was contrary to what God wanted. There are more than a few examples of Jesus breaking dogma in order to demonstrate kindness and mercy, both in the form of parables and also more concrete actions.
When I said this a few months ago, you disagreed with me. 🤷♀️ It’s there is PB annals, search on Pharisee should spot it.
The attack on the temple, which was a militia attack back by a mob of supporters to be as successful as was due to the armed guards and number of people there, was because Jesus believed the bourgeoisie were exploiting everyone with sacrificial bathing and bird slaughtering costs through using bogus scripture. The bourgeoisie, living very comfortably off the exploitation, had previous taken control of defining scripture.
PBers should get into this more, it’s timeless and very raw class politics that led to Jesus death.
To more relevant political matters and the Savanta/More In Common polls which show in the Lab/LD/Green vs Con/Reform contest 58-36 and 59-37 respectively.
Both these pollsters tend to have higher ratings for the Conservatives - More In Common's 28% is the highest of the current crop of polls but both also have improved Labour ratings and therefore the leads are in the mid teens with More in Common and Opinium having the smallest leads at 15 points.
It remains to be seen whether events in Rochdale tomorrow will impact the weekend polls.
According to bookies, George is hot favourite for Rochdale. Apparently Westminster insiders feel George has this by some distance, the Guardian saying Ali’s campaign has collapsed.
I’m not convinced. If you to look inside voters minds, what are they thinking now, they weren’t thinking four weeks ago when this was an easy Ali gain?
Ali has been a moderate Labour leader in the region for a long time, and now is running free of the baggage of Labour’s pro Netanyahu’s duck shoot position. If I’m right, the bookies are wrong, and Westminster experts are wrong. My working out is, if his conspiracy about Israeli government hadn’t come to light, Ali would be a massive shoe in here. It’s not the case he needs to find votes to beat George, he had them, more than enough, it’s a case he had to lose them over the last three weeks.
Ali is a value bet.
A Galloway win suits Labour best.
Why did the Conservative not even bother to campaign or give interviews? Maybe not a win, but chance in the circumstance to get very credible result.
You'd say the basic reason is no Labour machine helping. People expect Galloway to win on a low turnout because he can probably get 8,000 or so people riled up enough about Gaza and his sectarian poison. Ali would have cruised past that with Labour door knocking, phoning and getting people to the polls to just vote Labour to signal support and a desire for change. That now won't happen so you'd have thought outside Ali's personal and political connections to communities and personal vote, the generic Labour vote won't turn up in the numbers it would have.
Unless the journos are totally wrong, Galloway is hoovering up most of the 30% of the electorate who are Muslim. Say Ali holds on to 5% because of his traditional connections - he's apparently well regarded locally apart from his lapse. But that leaves him needing a huge chunk of the non-Muslim electorate to go and vote. Seems unlikely. An interesting test of how much a party machine actually matters, though.
George back in the house then. Not a great outcome.
To be elected to four different constituencies at the first attempt each time would be a remarkable record, probably unique.
Churchill represented five constituencies in his time
Although Woodford was essentially the more Tory part of Epping.
I think he was elected at the first attempt in all four though? Oldham in 1900, Manchester NW in 1906, Dundee in 1908 and Epping in 1924.
Epping and its rural surroundings to the north was the most Tory part of Epping, just at the time it also included Harlow
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen while they considered the matter.
NY Times
They seem to have decided to delay Trump’s trial in order to give him a chance of pardoning himself. Why they felt a case of such importance and urgency should be delayed for two months - other than sheer cynicism - I can’t say.
His criminal case for falsifying business records still starts next month though, remember Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion in the end rather than all his other gangster activities
Sure, but of all the cases that one is the most minor, and apparently the one on trickiest ground, legally speaking.
So notwithstanding difficulties in the civil judgements against him Trump is having a very good time when it comes to his criminal cases at the moment - one has very little chance of happening before the election, another may go that way depending on much the SC drag their feet (and they'd probably love for the question to be made moot), another wasn't due to start until August anyway and is being bogged down at the moment, and the one remaining one is risky, but Trump's best chance of avoiding a conviction out of the four cases.
So really a very bad day in terms of determining whether or not Trump will face consequences ahead of the election, and therefore a good day for his prospects of re-election - much easier to argue malicious prosecution when the casual Trump fan can close their ears to it because it's not being blasted out day in day out of a trial.
The paritcular decision today seems to have caught more optimistic commentators by surprise, I think they were really thinking a trial might happen in June or early July, and now that one is August or later.
A question I would like to know the answer to is: are there more people under 50/40/30 in the UK than Germany? Because although Germany's population is about 15 million higher than the UK, their population is significantly older.
To more relevant political matters and the Savanta/More In Common polls which show in the Lab/LD/Green vs Con/Reform contest 58-36 and 59-37 respectively.
Both these pollsters tend to have higher ratings for the Conservatives - More In Common's 28% is the highest of the current crop of polls but both also have improved Labour ratings and therefore the leads are in the mid teens with More in Common and Opinium having the smallest leads at 15 points.
It remains to be seen whether events in Rochdale tomorrow will impact the weekend polls.
According to bookies, George is hot favourite for Rochdale. Apparently Westminster insiders feel George has this by some distance, the Guardian saying Ali’s campaign has collapsed.
I’m not convinced. If you to look inside voters minds, what are they thinking now, they weren’t thinking four weeks ago when this was an easy Ali gain?
Ali has been a moderate Labour leader in the region for a long time, and now is running free of the baggage of Labour’s pro Netanyahu’s duck shoot position. If I’m right, the bookies are wrong, and Westminster experts are wrong. My working out is, if his conspiracy about Israeli government hadn’t come to light, Ali would be a massive shoe in here. It’s not the case he needs to find votes to beat George, he had them, more than enough, it’s a case he had to lose them over the last three weeks.
Ali is a value bet.
A Galloway win suits Labour best.
Why did the Conservative not even bother to campaign or give interviews? Maybe not a win, but chance in the circumstance to get very credible result.
Yeah, I too think the value is on the Non-Labour Labour guy.
Everyone has Galloway mopping up all the Muslim vote like previous by election insurgency, but why this time with Ali on the ticket? Campaigning didn’t start the moment Ali was suspended from Labour, he’s already known to Labour voters, known as a political moderate compared to Galloways politics and previous history, it’s a question of how many of the voters Ali already had in the bag for the win, understand the mistake he made - that was despicable conspiracy to push, worthy of suspension imo, but wasn’t anti semitism, and he’s not alone in believing that same conspiracy in this climate, whilst for non Muslim labour support is just the one blot on a pretty solid copy book supportive of what Jews went through in the Corbyn years, so could give him the benefit of the doubt.
Saw Zone of Interest this afternoon, a slow burner that will stick in the memory. Unflinching but not in a gas chambers and beatings kind of way, rather a relentless look at the petit bourgeois banality that kept the Final Solution going. Interested to see if it does anything at the Oscars, not typical Academy fodder,
It should win the sound design category. One of my favourite three films of the year. Did you see it at the cinema?
Have you seen Happening Roger? I really liked it, seemed real.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen while they considered the matter.
NY Times
They seem to have decided to delay Trump’s trial in order to give him a chance of pardoning himself. Why they felt a case of such importance and urgency should be delayed for two months - other than sheer cynicism - I can’t say.
His criminal case for falsifying business records still starts next month though, remember Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion in the end rather than all his other gangster activities
Sure, but of all the cases that one is the most minor, and apparently the one on trickiest ground, legally speaking.
So notwithstanding difficulties in the civil judgements against him Trump is having a very good time when it comes to his criminal cases at the moment - one has very little chance of happening before the election, another may go that way depending on much the SC drag their feet (and they'd probably love for the question to be made moot), another wasn't due to start until August anyway and is being bogged down at the moment, and the one remaining one is risky, but Trump's best chance of avoiding a conviction out of the four cases.
So really a very bad day in terms of determining whether or not Trump will face consequences ahead of the election, and therefore a good day for his prospects of re-election - much easier to argue malicious prosecution when the casual Trump fan can close their ears to it because it's not being blasted out day in day out of a trial.
The paritcular decision today seems to have caught more optimistic commentators by surprise, I think they were really thinking a trial might happen in June or early July, and now that one is August or later.
Each of the 34 charges Trump faces next month has a maximum 4 year jail sentence, if convicted of all of them Trump could conceivably be jailed for the rest of his life by election day. Even if convicted on just 1 of 34 counts he could face up to 4 years in prison by the autumn
Saw Zone of Interest this afternoon, a slow burner that will stick in the memory. Unflinching but not in a gas chambers and beatings kind of way, rather a relentless look at the petit bourgeois banality that kept the Final Solution going. Interested to see if it does anything at the Oscars, not typical Academy fodder,
It should win the sound design category. One of my favourite three films of the year. Did you see it at the cinema?
Yep, Everyman in Glasgow. Cinema 3, very snug!
It won the top award at Cannes last year which doesn't usually transmit to the Oscars (though I think Pulp Fiction won both). It could win something like best foreign language film as well as original music/sound design -wahatever they're calling the category. A very subtle and clever film by one of the best English Commercials Directors around.
Years ago I concluded that American cities with foreign policies were more likely to have potholes in their streets. (And I was pleased more than I should have been when Miami -- which then had an anti-Castro foreign policy - had problems with providign basic services, just like the cities with leftist foreign policies.)
Years ago I concluded that American cities with foreign policies were more likely to have potholes in their streets. (And I was pleased more than I should have been when Miami -- which then had an anti-Castro foreign policy - had problems with providign basic services, just like the cities with leftist foreign policies.)
Could something similar be true in the UK?
Well, UK cities I presume have far less power and money than american cities so some of their issues may be less their own fault, but as a rule of thumb I think it would stand up pretty well. Local politicians love to focus on national issues as its simpler and more fun for them.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen while they considered the matter.
NY Times
They seem to have decided to delay Trump’s trial in order to give him a chance of pardoning himself. Why they felt a case of such importance and urgency should be delayed for two months - other than sheer cynicism - I can’t say.
His criminal case for falsifying business records still starts next month though, remember Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion in the end rather than all his other gangster activities
Sure, but of all the cases that one is the most minor, and apparently the one on trickiest ground, legally speaking.
So notwithstanding difficulties in the civil judgements against him Trump is having a very good time when it comes to his criminal cases at the moment - one has very little chance of happening before the election, another may go that way depending on much the SC drag their feet (and they'd probably love for the question to be made moot), another wasn't due to start until August anyway and is being bogged down at the moment, and the one remaining one is risky, but Trump's best chance of avoiding a conviction out of the four cases.
So really a very bad day in terms of determining whether or not Trump will face consequences ahead of the election, and therefore a good day for his prospects of re-election - much easier to argue malicious prosecution when the casual Trump fan can close their ears to it because it's not being blasted out day in day out of a trial.
The paritcular decision today seems to have caught more optimistic commentators by surprise, I think they were really thinking a trial might happen in June or early July, and now that one is August or later.
The decision to hear the case necessarily implies they (or rather a majority on the court) takes seriously Trump’s assertion that not only is he entitled to absolute presidential immunity, but that the immunity applied regardless of his intent in engaging in the conduct described in the indictment in question.
The flies in the face of the Constitution, and the lower appeals court rejected the idea out of hand.
Note that you don’t have to believe Trump guilty of the charges to be horrified by this decision. Trump’s immunity argument says in plain terms that even if he were guilty of subverting an election, his is immune from any charges simply by virtue of having been President. That the Supreme Court is taking that claim seriously marks them as the worst court since the days of Chief Justice Roger B Taney.
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Could be a plan. If he does that and applies VAT to private school fees then Labour will be left scrambling to devise a completely new economic policy in time for the election.
Peston is suggesting?
It's on the front page of the FT tonight.
What's the gist of the rumour? Does it suggest that Hunt intends to spend the money on public services, or recycle it into a tax cut elsewhere?
Tax cuts.
I might be saying some things in this post that need to be challenged and corrected.
However, Wherever a news media reports scrapping non dom brings in £3.5B - know that amount of money is not at all guaranteed, because non doms can change their status.
For example, if you said you now have £3.5B for income tax cut, and scrapping non dom doesn’t bring in £3.5B every year from now on, the government income is in shortfall. It’s not just think tanks who will call out a tax cut/boost for public spending based on cutting non dom status, as being not secure funding, a mirage, OBR and the city will see this too.
It’s for precisely this reason Labour no longer have a scrap non dom policy. Yep. ITS ANOTHER STARMER U TURN Sunak and George Osborne, and everyone seem to have missed* 😄 Having scrapped the “scrap non doms” policy, Labours new policy is a tax on people genuinely living in UK for short periods - a new scheme effectively, that’s a bit of a compromise in that it brings in only half the amount of non dom scrapping and has a 4 year exemption period.
Times and Telegraph quite warm to this Tory wheeze this evening. I’m 100% sure that’s going to change. 🙂
*Fair enough to launch political attack on Starmer for u turns, but in reality are they Starmer u-turns, or are they Rachel Reeves saying, nope, you are not allowed to have it - and taken the policy and money off him? Each one of these u turns actually make the Labour economic policy that bit saner. And it is playing havoc with the Tory attack - despite ripping into Starmer weeks ago on the green u turn from £28B a year down to £4B a year, in todays PMQs Sunak was attacking the £28B commitment 🤭
**Sue Gray saying no to Starmer too? Labour are definitely different since she took up the job. Is Starmer as a puppet in the control of these two ladies an attack line for Tories, or a vote winner for Labour?
German frigate "Hessen" mistakenly fired at a U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drone over the Red Sea on Monday; both missiles malfunctioned and fell into the sea — BILD
This is the first explanation of the Rayner controversy I have heard by Kate McCann and apparently Starmer has felt the need to express full confidence in Rayner tonight
An S92 has gone down off Norway. Thankfully they have picked up the 6 crew/passengers from the sea and taken them to hospital but Bristows have immediately grounded all S92s in Norway and the UK.
Not what you want to hear when you are stuck on a rig in the North Atlantic and the S92 is the only avalable means of getting home. I am half way through a 3 week hitch so hoping they will have sorted it by the time I am due to crew change but they won't let them fly again until they know exactly what has happened.
An S92 has gone down off Norway. Thankfully they have picked up the 6 crew/passengers from the sea and taken them to hospital but Bristows have immediately grounded all S92s in Norway and the UK.
Not what you want to hear when you are stuck on a rig in the North Atlantic and the S92 is the only avalable means of getting home. I am half way through a 3 week hitch so hoping they will have sorted it by the time I am due to crew change but they won't let them fly again until they know exactly what has happened.
British soldiers in Ukraine helping fire missiles, Olaf Scholz reveals
German chancellor criticised for ‘flagrant abuse of intelligence’ that could endanger UK personnel on the ground and help the Russians
I wonder if this claim is actually true?
There have been reports of equipment trainers and special forces being in Ukraine, but not on the front lines of the war. Obviously it would be a major coup for the Russians if they killed or captured foreign soldiers.
Irrespective of the veracity of the reports, to say that Herr Scholz was speaking out of turn would be a gross understatement. Loose lips sink ships.
Years ago I concluded that American cities with foreign policies were more likely to have potholes in their streets. (And I was pleased more than I should have been when Miami -- which then had an anti-Castro foreign policy - had problems with providign basic services, just like the cities with leftist foreign policies.)
Could something similar be true in the UK?
Well, UK cities I presume have far less power and money than american cities so some of their issues may be less their own fault, but as a rule of thumb I think it would stand up pretty well. Local politicians love to focus on national issues as its simpler and more fun for them.
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Haven't the Tories been arguing that it is essential in order to attract entrepreneurs and other thrusting wealth creators to our shores?
But suddenly it isn't.
Yep. Scrapping non-Dom status will raise very little in tax, and deter an awful lot of FDI into the UK.
There appears to be little understanding, among the political class or the general public, as to what non-Dom status actually is and how it works in practice. Much better to sling the term across the Commons as an insult, than look to actually maximise tax receipts.
An S92 has gone down off Norway. Thankfully they have picked up the 6 crew/passengers from the sea and taken them to hospital but Bristows have immediately grounded all S92s in Norway and the UK.
Not what you want to hear when you are stuck on a rig in the North Atlantic and the S92 is the only avalable means of getting home. I am half way through a 3 week hitch so hoping they will have sorted it by the time I am due to crew change but they won't let them fly again until they know exactly what has happened.
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Haven't the Tories been arguing that it is essential in order to attract entrepreneurs and other thrusting wealth creators to our shores?
But suddenly it isn't.
Yep. Scrapping non-Dom status will raise very little in tax, and deter an awful lot of FDI into the UK.
There appears to be little understanding, among the political class or the general public, as to what non-Dom status actually is and how it works in practice. Much better to sling the term across the Commons as an insult, than look to actually maximise tax receipts.
Put more simply, politicians don’t understand incentives - and how their policies affect incentives.
There’s another great illustration of that in this article about Korea’s birth rate problem. (Incentives aren’t, of course, all financial.) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68402139 … In 50 years time, the number of working age people will have halved, the pool eligible to take part in the country's mandatory military service will have shrunk by 58%, and nearly half the population will be older than 65. This bodes so badly for the country's economy, pension pot, and security that politicians have declared it "a national emergency". For nearly 20 years, successive governments have thrown money at the problem - 379.8 trillion KRW ($286bn; £226bn) to be exact.
Couples who have children are showered with cash, from monthly handouts to subsidised housing and free taxis. Hospital bills and even IVF treatments are covered, though only for those who are married. Such financial incentives have not worked, leading politicians to brainstorm more "creative" solutions, like hiring nannies from South East Asia and paying them below minimum wage, and exempting men from serving in the military service if they have three children before turning 30. Unsurprisingly, policymakers have been accused of not listening to young people - especially women - about their needs. And so, over the past year we have travelled around the country, speaking to women to understand the reasons behind their decision not to have children…
It’s a far better article that hundreds of others on the problem. Some useful lessons in there for our own politics.
Just to add that the idea of a set percentage Muslim population being manageable is totally wrongheaded. The issue isn't the number of people who identify as muslim, it is the number who are intolerant of our way of life.
IMV the problem is not religion as such, but culture. Many people are Christian in this country, without perfectly obeying the most extreme precepts of the religion, or forcing others to obey them. Groups such as the Plymouth Brethren or Jehovah's Witnesses are few and far between.
It is perfectly possible to see yourself as Christian and not force others to live as Christians, or accept those who do not. Likewise there are many Muslims (Mrs J, and I think TSE as examples) who are technically Muslim, but are exceptionally relaxed about their religion. Just as most Christians are here in the UK. (*)
But religion always comes with culture and control. AIUI nothing in Islam calls for FGM; it is a cultural practice (which is why some African Christian groups practice it), yet adherents use religion as a reason it should be allowed. Even if others reading the religious texts see no basis for them.
And IMV many of the arguments, and even wars, between different sects of religions - such as Protestant versus Catholic, or Sunni versus Shia), are often more to do with cultural practices tangential to religion, rather than religion itself. Which is one reason why appealing to religion does little good.
And those are the people who will often be intolerant of our way of life.
The reality is that the only time I pray to Allah is when one of my sporting teams is losing.
There's no atheists in fox holes professional sport.
I was thinking of you earlier TSE and hoping that the extremely sad news about Christian Horner being cleared of all wrongdoing hadn't affected you too much.
There’s plenty of web chatter suggesting that he may have won the battle but lost the war. The Dutch newspaper that broke the story is said to have the text messages that led to the investigation, and that Mrs Horner might not be too happy about them.
That he had pretty much no supporters among the industry press is also telling, it’s clear that there’s been a power struggle and there’s now an organised plan behind the scenes to get him out of the team, possibly from very high up in the parent company.
OT Oddschecker has introduced a £9.99/month subscription.
Lol, because scraping a bunch of public websites and ordering the output definitely isn’t something that a junior dev couldn’t knock up in a few days.
Maybe I should register checktheodds.com?
@rcs1000 might have been involved in a previous rival, now you come to mention it (and if I'm not misremembering). The writing was on the wall when Oddschecker was sold to a PE group.
We declare red lines for ourselves, but not for Russia. We publicly tie our own hands while leaving Putin free to pillage, rape and destroy. We create strategic transparency, not strategic ambiguity. It's time to change course. https://twitter.com/GLandsbergis/status/1762891942176710988
This argument won’t be a welcome one to the peace at any price side of the debate, but I think it’s correct: “ Our unilateral attempts at de-escalation are not leading to the de-escalation of anything. If we do not change our approach, we might find ourselves dealing with a seismic geopolitical disaster. And a global one, at that. ”
Comments
It's on the front page of the FT tonight.
A shame the Lib Dems didn’t put in more effort. Also a shame in hindsight they didn’t - as they have in several recent by-elections - stand a female candidate given the list in this election is 100% male.
But suddenly it isn't.
I've really no idea tbh.
It's a shit show all round really.
I think you could have got 8/1 against the Lib Dems winning the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election in 2006, while the returning officer was climbing on to the stage to announce the result.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen while they considered the matter.
NY Times
Interested to see if it does anything at the Oscars, not typical Academy fodder,
People are perhaps worrying about the wrong Donald.
https://x.com/nexta_tv/status/1762842185961971861
Why they felt a case of such importance and urgency should be delayed for two months - other than sheer cynicism - I can’t say.
A general theme of the Gospels, particularly Matthew, is that formal rules and doctrine as encapsulated by the Pharisees etc was contrary to what God wanted. There are more than a few examples of Jesus breaking dogma in order to demonstrate kindness and mercy, both in the form of parables and also more concrete actions.
I think Reform's aim is to beat the Tories there tbh.
Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.
Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier...
The attack on the temple, which was a militia attack backed by a mob of supporters to be as successful as was due to the armed guards and number of people there, was because Jesus believed the bourgeoisie were exploiting everyone with sacrificial bathing and bird slaughtering costs through using bogus scripture. The bourgeoisie, living very comfortably off the exploitation, had previous taken control of defining scripture.
PBers should get into this more, it’s timeless and very raw class politics that led to Jesus death.
What exactly do you expect to happen in Ukraine, when agriculture is 8% of our GDP and Poland actively sabotages what's left of a functional economy during our war for existence?
For example, I believe that most people are mostly reasonable most of the time, and this colours a lot of how I interact with people and approach disagreements and conflict.
It's not a belief in a creed, or a spiritualism, but it is a belief - as in it's not a rational conclusion based on careful observation, but a view of the world that it's hard for experience to challenge, and it would probably be a painful psychological event if I ever lost that belief.
Numerous times I’ve called out Labours non dom policy fallacy as financial and political illiteracy. There is zero money to be made from scrapping non dom status.
Non dom status is a deal between government and non doms to bring in some money from them to fund government, if government scraps the deal the non doms change their status to “not obliged to pay anything”. It won’t bring in nothing, but bring in between whatever it is now and nothing.
This has the whiff of one of those political wheeze that blows up in your own face. Labour, wedded to the economic and political illiteracy of scrapping this for years, can’t call the Tories out, but an awful lot of the centre and right can call Hunt and Sunak out for being economically and politically illiterate if they do this, especially in their own client media. It’s not that long ago Tory’s were attacking this policy as Labours class war, so how will the Tory right react to Hunt and Sunak adopting it?
If this is just a small insight into what’s to come, the Tory election campaign is clearly being drawn up by 3 year olds 😃
Your own personal Jesus
Someone to hear your prayers, someone who cares
Your own personal Jesus
Someone to hear your prayers, someone who's there
Feeling unknown and you're all alone
Flesh and bone by the telephone
Lift up the receiver, I'll make you a believer
Take second best, put me to the test
Things on your chest you need to confess
I will deliver, you know I'm a forgiver
Reach out and touch faith
Reach out and touch faith
So notwithstanding difficulties in the civil judgements against him Trump is having a very good time when it comes to his criminal cases at the moment - one has very little chance of happening before the election, another may go that way depending on much the SC drag their feet (and they'd probably love for the question to be made moot), another wasn't due to start until August anyway and is being bogged down at the moment, and the one remaining one is risky, but Trump's best chance of avoiding a conviction out of the four cases.
So really a very bad day in terms of determining whether or not Trump will face consequences ahead of the election, and therefore a good day for his prospects of re-election - much easier to argue malicious prosecution when the casual Trump fan can close their ears to it because it's not being blasted out day in day out of a trial.
The paritcular decision today seems to have caught more optimistic commentators by surprise, I think they were really thinking a trial might happen in June or early July, and now that one is August or later.
Google Gemini:
https://x.com/godblesstoto/status/1762979624974246383?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Could something similar be true in the UK?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz7k7gk1gdgo
The flies in the face of the Constitution, and the lower appeals court rejected the idea out of hand.
Note that you don’t have to believe Trump guilty of the charges to be horrified by this decision. Trump’s immunity argument says in plain terms that even if he were guilty of subverting an election, his is immune from any charges simply by virtue of having been President.
That the Supreme Court is taking that claim seriously marks them as the worst court since the days of Chief Justice Roger B Taney.
However, Wherever a news media reports scrapping non dom brings in £3.5B - know that amount of money is not at all guaranteed, because non doms can change their status.
For example, if you said you now have £3.5B for income tax cut, and scrapping non dom doesn’t bring in £3.5B every year from now on, the government income is in shortfall. It’s not just think tanks who will call out a tax cut/boost for public spending based on cutting non dom status, as being not secure funding, a mirage, OBR and the city will see this too.
It’s for precisely this reason Labour no longer have a scrap non dom policy. Yep. ITS ANOTHER STARMER U TURN Sunak and George Osborne, and everyone seem to have missed* 😄 Having scrapped the “scrap non doms” policy, Labours new policy is a tax on people genuinely living in UK for short periods - a new scheme effectively, that’s a bit of a compromise in that it brings in only half the amount of non dom scrapping and has a 4 year exemption period.
Times and Telegraph quite warm to this Tory wheeze this evening. I’m 100% sure that’s going to change. 🙂
*Fair enough to launch political attack on Starmer for u turns, but in reality are they Starmer u-turns, or are they Rachel Reeves saying, nope, you are not allowed to have it - and taken the policy and money off him? Each one of these u turns actually make the Labour economic policy that bit saner. And it is playing havoc with the Tory attack - despite ripping into Starmer weeks ago on the green u turn from £28B a year down to £4B a year, in todays PMQs Sunak was attacking the £28B commitment 🤭
**Sue Gray saying no to Starmer too? Labour are definitely different since she took up the job. Is Starmer as a puppet in the control of these two ladies an attack line for Tories, or a vote winner for Labour?
https://news.sky.com/story/mortgage-rates-budget-inflation-house-prices-latest-sky-news-money-live-blog-13040934
British soldiers in Ukraine helping fire missiles, Olaf Scholz reveals
German chancellor criticised for ‘flagrant abuse of intelligence’ that could endanger UK personnel on the ground and help the Russians
German frigate "Hessen" mistakenly fired at a U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drone over the Red Sea on Monday; both missiles malfunctioned and fell into the sea — BILD
By Julie Bindel"
https://unherd.com/2024/02/rochdale-has-already-lost-this-election/
A blast from the past :-) .
Where's his duckhouse and 500 trees required exclusively because he needs them to do his job in Parliament?
Do they still sign that chitty on every claim?
An S92 has gone down off Norway. Thankfully they have picked up the 6 crew/passengers from the sea and taken them to hospital but Bristows have immediately grounded all S92s in Norway and the UK.
Not what you want to hear when you are stuck on a rig in the North Atlantic and the S92 is the only avalable means of getting home. I am half way through a 3 week hitch so hoping they will have sorted it by the time I am due to crew change but they won't let them fly again until they know exactly what has happened.
https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/all-occupants-rescued-after-norwegian-s-92-accident/157174.article
Thread running on pilots’ forum https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/657874-bristow-s92-down-west-bergen-norway.html
Doesn’t seem to be much information as yet, but hopefully it’s not anything that will require rectification across the fleet.
Irrespective of the veracity of the reports, to say that Herr Scholz was speaking out of turn would be a gross understatement. Loose lips sink ships.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/28/chorley-gaza-pro-palestine-protest-lindsay-hoyle/
There appears to be little understanding, among the political class or the general public, as to what non-Dom status actually is and how it works in practice. Much better to sling the term across the Commons as an insult, than look to actually maximise tax receipts.
Maybe I should register checktheodds.com?
There’s another great illustration of that in this article about Korea’s birth rate problem. (Incentives aren’t, of course, all financial.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68402139
… In 50 years time, the number of working age people will have halved, the pool eligible to take part in the country's mandatory military service will have shrunk by 58%, and nearly half the population will be older than 65.
This bodes so badly for the country's economy, pension pot, and security that politicians have declared it "a national emergency".
For nearly 20 years, successive governments have thrown money at the problem - 379.8 trillion KRW ($286bn; £226bn) to be exact.
Couples who have children are showered with cash, from monthly handouts to subsidised housing and free taxis. Hospital bills and even IVF treatments are covered, though only for those who are married.
Such financial incentives have not worked, leading politicians to brainstorm more "creative" solutions, like hiring nannies from South East Asia and paying them below minimum wage, and exempting men from serving in the military service if they have three children before turning 30.
Unsurprisingly, policymakers have been accused of not listening to young people - especially women - about their needs. And so, over the past year we have travelled around the country, speaking to women to understand the reasons behind their decision not to have children…
It’s a far better article that hundreds of others on the problem.
Some useful lessons in there for our own politics.
That he had pretty much no supporters among the industry press is also telling, it’s clear that there’s been a power struggle and there’s now an organised plan behind the scenes to get him out of the team, possibly from very high up in the parent company.
We declare red lines for ourselves, but not for Russia. We publicly tie our own hands while leaving Putin free to pillage, rape and destroy. We create strategic transparency, not strategic ambiguity. It's time to change course.
https://twitter.com/GLandsbergis/status/1762891942176710988
This argument won’t be a welcome one to the peace at any price side of the debate, but I think it’s correct:
“ Our unilateral attempts at de-escalation are not leading to the de-escalation of anything. If we do not change our approach, we might find ourselves dealing with a seismic geopolitical disaster. And a global one, at that. ”