If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.
I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.
Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔
Because they either don't share her - out of mainstream opinion - views on religious/moral matters or are smart/dishonest enough to keep those views hidden?
I know Yousaf missed the equal marriage vote, for example, but he has been public about his support for it.
Bollox, easy to lie after the fact. he dodged the vote due to religious pressure and then blatantly lied through his teeth. He could could have seen a man about a dog anytime , despite months of notice he inadvertently arranged a meeting at the same time as the vote to discuss a non topic. You boys are easily led by the nose when it is a favoured religious sect. Also her religion is as mainstream as Yousaf's certainly from a Scottish perspective, speaking as a non religious person. Methinks you doth protest too much, bigotry is not pleasant.
Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔
Yousaf has his personal beliefs and had no desire to enshrine those in law, whereas the suggestion from Forbes is she would. What politician's faith is and how they vote / what policies they push are two different things, and it is more than fair to judge them on how they vote or what policy positions they take. It is my view, and the view of most I would think, that the law should be secular. Abortion, same sex marriage, transition etc. should be legal and available for those who want or need it and no one is forced to have them (by the state or private actors).
I (personally) do disagree with the idea of "conscience votes" - all votes should be informed by ones conscience. I also disagree with whipping votes, so I guess it doesn't matter at the end of the day, but the idea that some issues (like abortion or equal marriage) are somehow issues of "religious conscience" and voting on, say, social spending cuts (that mostly hit low income families, single mothers, the ill and disabled, etc.) are somehow separate from conscience, religious or otherwise, is absurd.
So, it looks like we’re going to be doing this whole bunch of guys (or at least people siding with a guy) monster the young woman and parade her as some sort of witch thing, again …. how enlightened
I see the sexist witch hunt against Kate Forbes is in full swing again this morning amongst some of our male commentariat. Cynical misrepresentation of her positions positively dripping with misogyny.
Hard to know how much yesterday’s tragic events might effect the vote . It would have been good to see what yesterday’s fieldwork results were rather than the full 5 day period .
Given SNP voters preference for Swinney over Forbes it does certainly look like SNP MPs and MSPs and members would elect Swinney leader too.
However even if he wins and stays FM after the next Holyrood election it does at least look like the SNP will lack a majority even with the Greens if they attempted to restore that deal and would require Unionist support to get measures passed
In the medium and long run this will be one of the worst policies of this ridiculous government. It is beyond a bad idea.
It's a curious policy decision to understand because the Right (e.g. on PB) is always going on about multiculturalism, segregation, ghettoes, etc. etc. and separate schooling can be a factor in sectarianism.
On the other hand, that 50% was for *new* faith schools, though. 100% is already OK for, for instance, C of E and RC schools unless I misunderstand? So it's unfair on (let's say) Jedi Knights for the new (say) Han Solo College to be restricted to 50% JKs when St Aloysius or St Michael's down the road aren't.
It was a messy but probably justifiable compromise. Forcing long established Catholic schools to abandon their status was a battle governments didn't want (or were scared) to fight. Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?
The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.
Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔
Though Kate is no Ash Regan (who only an idiot would have plumped for as leader), whiff off getting their excuses in early.
Going for Swinney will be the final nail in the coffin for the moribund SNP. Mediocrity is their only mantra nowadays. Who would have thought that Paddy the Helmet and Slater would be running the SNP.
A question for the Scottish Experts. So on topic. Ish.
Does there exist a right to swim in any river or lake in Scotland, under Right to Roam?
I ask because I was looking into our local Open Water swimming location (Kings Mill Lake) and someone seems to think they have the right to control who swims there.
It's not a plan (I pick up too many snuffles swimming in public venues and do not recover from them very well), but I was intrigued by the idea of being charged £6.50 to run up and down a public footpath, and swim in a Council managed lake.
(I suspect that this has stopped now, as it seems a bit edgy commercially. People round here would not buy that unless it added significant value to what they can do anyway.)
The SNP just need to ask themselves whether they are likely to lose more voters to Labour/Greens under Forbes or Tories/Alba under Swinney.
Sturgeon's genius was converting a pre-2014 rural SNP into a central belt winning political machine. Going for Forbes = abandoning the central belt and a reversion to their former role as Tartan Tories.
There simply aren't enough rural constituencies for that to work, though perhaps Yousaf's failure to count is contagious?
Like the conservative party the SNP need an extended period in opposition
It's wrong to pool them with the Tories - it's not like the SNP are 20 points behind. They are tied with Labour.
Sorry to break the PB consensus but given they have been in power (more or less) since 2007, their former CEO has been charged with embezzlement, former leader arrested, a campervan has gone missing, forensic tent on the drive, unable to recycle plastic bottles, and TRANS, that's rather astonishing.
Polis Scotland have lost the campervan? Jings.
Chief Constable last seen on a fact-finding tour of the 500...?
No I believe in parental choice. Faith schools get above average results on average, the more faith schools, grammars and free schools the better for a conservative like me
If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.
I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.
What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?
Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.
Are you saying I am lying about my voting habits ? I have already pledged my support to Kim McGuinness for Thursday. I won't vote in the PCC election and won't vote after that.
Do you have to like every elected political representative of the party you support or vote for. Crikey, many of them don't even like each other.
Why don't you stick to posting TRUSS every five minutes.
In the medium and long run this will be one of the worst policies of this ridiculous government. It is beyond a bad idea.
It's a curious policy decision to understand because the Right (e.g. on PB) is always going on about multiculturalism, segregation, ghettoes, etc. etc. and separate schooling can be a factor in sectarianism.
On the other hand, that 50% was for *new* faith schools, though. 100% is already OK for, for instance, C of E and RC schools unless I misunderstand? So it's unfair on (let's say) Jedi Knights for the new (say) Han Solo College to be restricted to 50% JKs when St Aloysius or St Michael's down the road aren't.
It was a messy but probably justifiable compromise. Forcing long established Catholic schools to abandon their status was a battle governments didn't want (or were scared) to fight. Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?
The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.
It's notable that RC school expansion seems to be a motive in the rule change, as reported, although [edit] IIRC in general, RC affiliation and attendance at church have been declining for years. Which poses particular questions about the move to SEND: daily transit times and transport are an obvious issue, and are worsened on average if some SEND provision is not permissible on sectarian grounds. (The argument that more SEND is needed isn't relevant here, as the state should be providing it one way or another anyway).
Someone from @piersmorgan's staff asked if I would like to come onto Pier's show, Piers Morgan Uncensored, to talk about the state of his attire. Since he invited feedback, I thought I'd do a thread comparing his style to menswear icon Kermit the Frog. 🧵.. https://twitter.com/dieworkwear/status/1785413336366293002
A masterly dissection (of the redfaced toad, not the frog). Assume Derek will be going on the shitlist along with Harry & Megs.
I'd honestly no idea of just how stylish Kermit is.
If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.
I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.
What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?
Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.
Khan has managed to really, really upset a number of voters. Not just anti-ULEZ types - I've seen it among the Hampstead dinner party types.
Don't really get it, myself. He is the Hollywood casting of the "London Mayor" - maybe one speaking line, then ignored for the rest of the film.
No I believe in parental choice. Faith schools get above average results on average, the more faith schools, grammars and free schools the better for a conservative like me
Fair comment, though whether selective schools really respect parental choice is debatable…the question you need to answer is: how much spare capacity should the government pay for in order to give genuine parental choice?
A question for the Scottish Experts. So on topic. Ish.
Does there exist a right to swim in any river or lake in Scotland, under Right to Roam?
I ask because I was looking into our local Open Water swimming location (Kings Mill Lake) and someone seems to think they have the right to control who swims there.
It's not a plan (I pick up too many snuffles swimming in public venues and do not recover from them very well), but I was intrigued by the idea of being charged £6.50 to run up and down a public footpath, and swim in a Council managed lake.
(I suspect that this has stopped now, as it seems a bit edgy commercially. People round here would not buy that unless it added significant value to what they can do anyway.)
In the medium and long run this will be one of the worst policies of this ridiculous government. It is beyond a bad idea.
It's a curious policy decision to understand because the Right (e.g. on PB) is always going on about multiculturalism, segregation, ghettoes, etc. etc. and separate schooling can be a factor in sectarianism.
On the other hand, that 50% was for *new* faith schools, though. 100% is already OK for, for instance, C of E and RC schools unless I misunderstand? So it's unfair on (let's say) Jedi Knights for the new (say) Han Solo College to be restricted to 50% JKs when St Aloysius or St Michael's down the road aren't.
It was a messy but probably justifiable compromise. Forcing long established Catholic schools to abandon their status was a battle governments didn't want (or were scared) to fight. Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?
The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.
This bit concerns me as well: "The consultation opened by the government on Wednesday would also allow churches and religious groups to open faith schools for children with special educational needs, which campaigners warned could raise ethical concerns."
If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.
I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.
What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?
Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.
Are you saying I am lying about my voting habits ? I have already pledged my support to Kim McGuinness for Thursday.
Why don't you stick to posting TRUSS every five minutes.
If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.
I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.
What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?
Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.
Khan has managed to really, really upset a number of voters. Not just anti-ULEZ types - I've seen it among the Hampstead dinner party types.
Don't really get it, myself. He is the Hollywood casting of the "London Mayor" - maybe one speaking line, then ignored for the rest of the film.
I can understand people thinking him a bit meh. But obnoxious is a bizarre take: as you imply, he’s a very MOR mayor.
No I believe in parental choice. Faith schools get above average results on average, the more faith schools, grammars and free schools the better for a conservative like me
Fair comment, though whether selective schools really respect parental choice is debatable…the question you need to answer is: how much spare capacity should the government pay for in order to give genuine parental choice?
Inefficiency; shortage of teachers; shortage of specialist teachers; expansion of buraucracy.
In the medium and long run this will be one of the worst policies of this ridiculous government. It is beyond a bad idea.
It's a curious policy decision to understand because the Right (e.g. on PB) is always going on about multiculturalism, segregation, ghettoes, etc. etc. and separate schooling can be a factor in sectarianism.
On the other hand, that 50% was for *new* faith schools, though. 100% is already OK for, for instance, C of E and RC schools unless I misunderstand? So it's unfair on (let's say) Jedi Knights for the new (say) Han Solo College to be restricted to 50% JKs when St Aloysius or St Michael's down the road aren't.
It was a messy but probably justifiable compromise. Forcing long established Catholic schools to abandon their status was a battle governments didn't want (or were scared) to fight. Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?
The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.
I'm trying to imagine an aggressively sectarian CoE school.
"Every child will drink a cup of tea, each morning after assembly. The tea will be weak with lots of milk. Failure to do so, more than 5 times in a school year, will result in exclusion."
If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.
I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.
What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?
Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.
Khan has managed to really, really upset a number of voters. Not just anti-ULEZ types - I've seen it among the Hampstead dinner party types.
Don't really get it, myself. He is the Hollywood casting of the "London Mayor" - maybe one speaking line, then ignored for the rest of the film.
He's been on the scene for a long time - 8 years is getting very close to the maximum shelf life for any politician in one particular job.
The only reason this isn't a "time for a change" Mayoral contest is because the the Conservatives have been in government even longer, but this will be Khan's final stint and Con will win the 2028 London Mayoral contest, IMO.
Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔
Because they either don't share her - out of mainstream opinion - views on religious/moral matters or are smart/dishonest enough to keep those views hidden?
I know Yousaf missed the equal marriage vote, for example, but he has been public about his support for it.
Bollox, easy to lie after the fact. he dodged the vote due to religious pressure and then blatantly lied through his teeth. He could could have seen a man about a dog anytime , despite months of notice he inadvertently arranged a meeting at the same time as the vote to discuss a non topic. You boys are easily led by the nose when it is a favoured religious sect. Also her religion is as mainstream as Yousaf's certainly from a Scottish perspective, speaking as a non religious person. Methinks you doth protest too much, bigotry is not pleasant.
I mean there are almost 8 times the number of Muslims in Scotland than members of the Free Church of Scotland - 2011 census data puts FCoS at ~10k and Muslims at ~77k. So it is a much smaller population. And even if it wasn't - the difference is Yousaf didn't try to impose beliefs through law / votes whereas we can't say the same for Forbes. Worst case scenario, Yousaf was a coward who didn't vote when equal marriage was passed - but worst case scenario in the case of Forbes is a SFM who actively campaigns to remove the legal ability to get an abortion, or to remove the legal status of equal marriages. These are entirely different things. It was a big issue for the LDs in the UK GE, as it should have been, and it is a big issue for Forbes - because the majority of people in society don't trust people with these fixations on weird cultural issues and are generally small l libertarian about the whole thing (it should be legal, but an individual persons choice).
No I believe in parental choice. Faith schools get above average results on average, the more faith schools, grammars and free schools the better for a conservative like me
Fair comment, though whether selective schools really respect parental choice is debatable…the question you need to answer is: how much spare capacity should the government pay for in order to give genuine parental choice?
If anything parental choice is loaded against grammars at present, you can petition to ballot to end selection in your area (though the only ballots held so far in areas like Ripon have been defeated) but not open new grammars.
If we greatly expand free schools and introduce education vouchers then capacity would just move to reflect demand, let parents choose. The more who can choose from private schools, free schools, faith schools and grammar schools and not just their local comprehensive or academy the better for most conservatives
No I believe in parental choice. Faith schools get above average results on average, the more faith schools, grammars and free schools the better for a conservative like me
Fair comment, though whether selective schools really respect parental choice is debatable…the question you need to answer is: how much spare capacity should the government pay for in order to give genuine parental choice?
The current 98% (or something like) is a failure.
Operational Research has long shown that an organisation running with no spare capacity results in - a breakdown in staff moral, operational failures, quality failures, increased levels of accidents. Oh, and a collapse in productivity.
That's not the first time Richard Madeley has been described as a forensic inquisitor.
It’s a sad day when RM gives politicians a harder time than the so called political correspondents.
I always get the impression that the political correspondents and interviewers are part of a game. They aren’t actually overly interested in shedding light into policies or the motives behind politicians and politics, more that they are all meeting up for drinks, on mutual WhatsApp groups where they are all comparing the way they pushed the interviewee to walk out, refuse to answer, catch them out.
It’s competitive school and uni debating which means that it’s not important to actually change minds, believe in something just to manoeuvre the argument so that you win the debate.
RM, and others like them, isn’t part of that cabal and is just a bit more into asking a question to find out what’s going on as it’s sort of the point of being a reporter and journalist, as he was trained to do.
In the medium and long run this will be one of the worst policies of this ridiculous government. It is beyond a bad idea.
It's a curious policy decision to understand because the Right (e.g. on PB) is always going on about multiculturalism, segregation, ghettoes, etc. etc. and separate schooling can be a factor in sectarianism.
On the other hand, that 50% was for *new* faith schools, though. 100% is already OK for, for instance, C of E and RC schools unless I misunderstand? So it's unfair on (let's say) Jedi Knights for the new (say) Han Solo College to be restricted to 50% JKs when St Aloysius or St Michael's down the road aren't.
It was a messy but probably justifiable compromise. Forcing long established Catholic schools to abandon their status was a battle governments didn't want (or were scared) to fight. Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?
The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.
Wait till the Saudis fund chains of madrassas like they did in Pakistan.
Morning all. Savanta versus YouGov naked mud wrestling for all. I wonder if Thursdays results will prompt any methodology tinkering one way or another? Last night I was pondering the Glorious George effect. Now WPB look like standing in most constituencies then what of the effect? I don't think it controversial to suggest their biggest support/target group will be the Muslim population (although I'm not suggesting they are an Islamic party). I reckon George will be targeting 10 to 20% of the Muslim vote, netting him perhaps 350,000? That's maybe 1 and a bit percent of the national vote so let's give him 2% with all in and tge fact they will get TV coverage etc standing that widely and attract Gaza related protest votes. At that level I think no real effect (he might hold Rochdale if WPB get some good council gains there tomorrow to continue traction), however if he gets to 3% in polling then he starts to influence seat totals (I think) as the vote will be disproportionately scattered. He's already standing far more than I expected, I think he has potential to become a factor here. I may be overstating things of course but WPB will do better than Natural Law 92 and probably run Brexit 19 close in raw vote and % (accepting of course BXP did not stand everywhere)
A question for the Scottish Experts. So on topic. Ish.
Does there exist a right to swim in any river or lake in Scotland, under Right to Roam?
I ask because I was looking into our local Open Water swimming location (Kings Mill Lake) and someone seems to think they have the right to control who swims there.
It's not a plan (I pick up too many snuffles swimming in public venues and do not recover from them very well), but I was intrigued by the idea of being charged £6.50 to run up and down a public footpath, and swim in a Council managed lake.
(I suspect that this has stopped now, as it seems a bit edgy commercially. People round here would not buy that unless it added significant value to what they can do anyway.)
Yes, though I vaguely recall some controversy over marine reserves where all human activity was to be prohibited, including swimming (following the Australian example, I think).
I was recently denied access to a beach/river and I'm delighted to say the Local Authority did a full Brexit tackle on the landowner (to the extent they now advertise the beach on the council's website).
Miss Vance, the line against Forbes may not be misogyny, as a similar approach was taken against the Lib Dem chap whose name escapes me.
Farron (whom I felt a bit sorry for).
There are different approaches, but it's fine, in my opinion, to have personal views for oneself that are out of step with the party line, but not really possible to have personal views on what other people should do (or call them sinners) that are out of step with party line.
Take me - I don't think I would ever want an abortion for a child of mine, under any circumstances except danger to the mother or (possibly - and I'm not sure about this) knowing the foetus had severe abnormalities that would dramatically shorten life and lead to a poor quality of life in that time. But I absolutely believe in the rights of women to have control over their bodies and have abortions up to [some date - which is debatable, but I think the current UK threshold is reasoonable] for any reason. I could lead the Lib Dems with that viewpoint, but I don't think I could lead the Lib Dems if I thought abortion was a sin and quietly wanted it banned for others.
This is absolutely the crux of it. The acid test for me is how you'd vote if a bill came along with a free 'personal conscience' vote on banning (say) abortion or gay marriage. If you'd vote for that bill you should not be leading (or even be in) a progressive party. If you'd vote against it despite believing these things to be sinful on account of your religious faith you're fine.
Miss Vance, the line against Forbes may not be misogyny, as a similar approach was taken against the Lib Dem chap whose name escapes me.
Farron (whom I felt a bit sorry for).
There are different approaches, but it's fine, in my opinion, to have personal views for oneself that are out of step with the party line, but not really possible to have personal views on what other people should do (or call them sinners) that are out of step with party line.
Take me - I don't think I would ever want an abortion for a child of mine, under any circumstances except danger to the mother or (possibly - and I'm not sure about this) knowing the foetus had severe abnormalities that would dramatically shorten life and lead to a poor quality of life in that time. But I absolutely believe in the rights of women to have control over their bodies and have abortions up to [some date - which is debatable, but I think the current UK threshold is reasoonable] for any reason. I could lead the Lib Dems with that viewpoint, but I don't think I could lead the Lib Dems if I thought abortion was a sin and quietly wanted it banned for others.
IIRC I think it was JRM (?) who was an example of a personal Chinese Wall on this - no belief in abortion in basically any circumstances but would not use my position to attempt to impose an extreme policy.
One of the more extreme examples in the USA (Texas) recently was a mum who would be forced to carry a child that was going to die, because it was still alive, which is how a hard line policy with tin ears can be a hole in the political boat. This was a Biden advert. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrtvE4bSwKY
TBF I have known very few in the UK taking this type of position.
In the medium and long run this will be one of the worst policies of this ridiculous government. It is beyond a bad idea.
It's a curious policy decision to understand because the Right (e.g. on PB) is always going on about multiculturalism, segregation, ghettoes, etc. etc. and separate schooling can be a factor in sectarianism.
On the other hand, that 50% was for *new* faith schools, though. 100% is already OK for, for instance, C of E and RC schools unless I misunderstand? So it's unfair on (let's say) Jedi Knights for the new (say) Han Solo College to be restricted to 50% JKs when St Aloysius or St Michael's down the road aren't.
It was a messy but probably justifiable compromise. Forcing long established Catholic schools to abandon their status was a battle governments didn't want (or were scared) to fight. Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?
The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.
Wait till the Saudis fund chains of madrassas like they did in Pakistan.
You could leave her out with the bins and she wouldn't get collected.
Has there been a more calamitous fall from grace of a politician since, oh, I don't know - Jeremy Thorpe?
Salmond went from being the undoubted master of the political scene, to being less popular than Boris Johnson in Scotland.
The court case starting next month should be interesting , Sturgeon and her witches coven will not be looking forward to a 3rd thrashing by Salmond. i wonder if the Crown Office will allow all the evidence or ban it to protect the guilty as per previous cases.
If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.
I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.
I do wonder how many Londoners have forgotten that London Mayor is now FPTP - I know my grandparents only realised when their postal vote came through.
I assume she out polls Khan than Tories outpoll Labour because Khan is the incumbent and has been for a long time and people can point out his negatives more clearly. I also think that Tories in London are more willing to want to see change in the GLA than to continue this shitshow of a national government. A ten point lead is still pretty overwhelming, and I think Khan will win easily.
If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.
I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.
What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?
Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.
Khan has managed to really, really upset a number of voters. Not just anti-ULEZ types - I've seen it among the Hampstead dinner party types.
Don't really get it, myself. He is the Hollywood casting of the "London Mayor" - maybe one speaking line, then ignored for the rest of the film.
He's seems entirely reasonable in media appearances. You can criticise his policies, record, but his general character does not deserve the opprobrium he gets.
Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔
Though Kate is no Ash Regan (who only an idiot would have plumped for as leader), whiff off getting their excuses in early.
Going for Swinney will be the final nail in the coffin for the moribund SNP. Mediocrity is their only mantra nowadays. Who would have thought that Paddy the Helmet and Slater would be running the SNP.
A person has typically only two chances to apply for a particular position.
Accordingly Kate Forbes should wait until after the Scotland Election 2026. SNP will probably be in opposition then and the leader will probably step down after the Election. She doesn't want to be in that position so should wait until then.
If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.
I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.
What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?
Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.
Khan has managed to really, really upset a number of voters. Not just anti-ULEZ types - I've seen it among the Hampstead dinner party types.
Don't really get it, myself. He is the Hollywood casting of the "London Mayor" - maybe one speaking line, then ignored for the rest of the film.
He's been on the scene for a long time - 8 years is getting very close to the maximum shelf life for any politician in one particular job.
The only reason this isn't a "time for a change" Mayoral contest is because the the Conservatives have been in government even longer, but this will be Khan's final stint and Con will win the 2028 London Mayoral contest, IMO.
In the medium and long run this will be one of the worst policies of this ridiculous government. It is beyond a bad idea.
It's a curious policy decision to understand because the Right (e.g. on PB) is always going on about multiculturalism, segregation, ghettoes, etc. etc. and separate schooling can be a factor in sectarianism.
On the other hand, that 50% was for *new* faith schools, though. 100% is already OK for, for instance, C of E and RC schools unless I misunderstand? So it's unfair on (let's say) Jedi Knights for the new (say) Han Solo College to be restricted to 50% JKs when St Aloysius or St Michael's down the road aren't.
It was a messy but probably justifiable compromise. Forcing long established Catholic schools to abandon their status was a battle governments didn't want (or were scared) to fight. Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?
The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.
I'm trying to imagine an aggressively sectarian CoE school.
"Every child will drink a cup of tea, each morning after assembly. The tea will be weak with lots of milk. Failure to do so, more than 5 times in a school year, will result in exclusion."
Yebbut we will also burn the Catholics if they dare to continue to believe in the Eucharist.
Morning all. Savanta versus YouGov naked mud wrestling for all. I wonder if Thursdays results will prompt any methodology tinkering one way or another?
Yeah, it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
For the general election, Savanta (and Opinium) have tended to have more modest Labour leads while YouGov have tended to be one of the pollsters (along with IPSOS) that have the largest Lab leads...
Now to see this divergence in the London Mayoral election, too. So it's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out.
To me, Savanta (10% Lab/Khan lead) looks much more on the money than YouGov (22% Lab/Khan lead) but we shall see.
In the medium and long run this will be one of the worst policies of this ridiculous government. It is beyond a bad idea.
It's a curious policy decision to understand because the Right (e.g. on PB) is always going on about multiculturalism, segregation, ghettoes, etc. etc. and separate schooling can be a factor in sectarianism.
On the other hand, that 50% was for *new* faith schools, though. 100% is already OK for, for instance, C of E and RC schools unless I misunderstand? So it's unfair on (let's say) Jedi Knights for the new (say) Han Solo College to be restricted to 50% JKs when St Aloysius or St Michael's down the road aren't.
It was a messy but probably justifiable compromise. Forcing long established Catholic schools to abandon their status was a battle governments didn't want (or were scared) to fight. Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?
The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.
I'm trying to imagine an aggressively sectarian CoE school.
"Every child will drink a cup of tea, each morning after assembly. The tea will be weak with lots of milk. Failure to do so, more than 5 times in a school year, will result in exclusion."
Yebbut we will also burn the Catholics if they dare to continue to believe in the Eucharist.
IIRC the official CoE position is that all faiths are valid, just that the CoE gets it more right than the others.
If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.
I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.
What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?
Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.
Khan has managed to really, really upset a number of voters. Not just anti-ULEZ types - I've seen it among the Hampstead dinner party types.
Don't really get it, myself. He is the Hollywood casting of the "London Mayor" - maybe one speaking line, then ignored for the rest of the film.
He's been on the scene for a long time - 8 years is getting very close to the maximum shelf life for any politician in one particular job.
The only reason this isn't a "time for a change" Mayoral contest is because the the Conservatives have been in government even longer, but this will be Khan's final stint and Con will win the 2028 London Mayoral contest, IMO.
If Labour win the GE, there is a high probability that the Tories will win the 2028 london mayoral contest, also they probably won't pick someone as bad as Susan Hall
If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.
I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.
What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?
Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.
Khan has managed to really, really upset a number of voters. Not just anti-ULEZ types - I've seen it among the Hampstead dinner party types.
Don't really get it, myself. He is the Hollywood casting of the "London Mayor" - maybe one speaking line, then ignored for the rest of the film.
He's seems entirely reasonable in media appearances. You can criticise his policies, record, but his general character does not deserve the opprobrium he gets.
His policies have upset a number of people, it seems.
In the medium and long run this will be one of the worst policies of this ridiculous government. It is beyond a bad idea.
It's a curious policy decision to understand because the Right (e.g. on PB) is always going on about multiculturalism, segregation, ghettoes, etc. etc. and separate schooling can be a factor in sectarianism.
On the other hand, that 50% was for *new* faith schools, though. 100% is already OK for, for instance, C of E and RC schools unless I misunderstand? So it's unfair on (let's say) Jedi Knights for the new (say) Han Solo College to be restricted to 50% JKs when St Aloysius or St Michael's down the road aren't.
It was a messy but probably justifiable compromise. Forcing long established Catholic schools to abandon their status was a battle governments didn't want (or were scared) to fight. Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?
The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.
I'm trying to imagine an aggressively sectarian CoE school.
"Every child will drink a cup of tea, each morning after assembly. The tea will be weak with lots of milk. Failure to do so, more than 5 times in a school year, will result in exclusion."
Yebbut we will also burn the Catholics if they dare to continue to believe in the Eucharist.
All Christians believe in the Eucharist. Roman Catholics also believe in transubstantiation (at least officially).
The SNP just need to ask themselves whether they are likely to lose more voters to Labour/Greens under Forbes or Tories/Alba under Swinney.
Sturgeon's genius was converting a pre-2014 rural SNP into a central belt winning political machine. Going for Forbes = abandoning the central belt and a reversion to their former role as Tartan Tories.
There simply aren't enough rural constituencies for that to work, though perhaps Yousaf's failure to count is contagious?
The "rural" constituencies, i.e anything not in the central belt, are not only fewer in number but historically more marginal. The big fight is still in the central belt, and the SNP are losing the arm wrestle to Scottish Labour, so while I think that Forbes could be a more effective FM in the longer term, I think she will be kept off balance by "events". From the longer point of view of the SNP, it may be better to keep Kate in reserve to lead the recovery, on the grounds that the die is cast for the next GE,
However, Forbes herself thinks that she can limit the losses at the GE and maintain power at Holyrood after the next elections for the Scottish Parliament. Well, all politicians have plenty of ego, but the tide is running, and however skilled Kate Forbes may be, she is probably not ^that^ skilled,
Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔
Because they either don't share her - out of mainstream opinion - views on religious/moral matters or are smart/dishonest enough to keep those views hidden?
I know Yousaf missed the equal marriage vote, for example, but he has been public about his support for it.
Bollox, easy to lie after the fact. he dodged the vote due to religious pressure and then blatantly lied through his teeth. He could could have seen a man about a dog anytime , despite months of notice he inadvertently arranged a meeting at the same time as the vote to discuss a non topic. You boys are easily led by the nose when it is a favoured religious sect. Also her religion is as mainstream as Yousaf's certainly from a Scottish perspective, speaking as a non religious person. Methinks you doth protest too much, bigotry is not pleasant.
I mean there are almost 8 times the number of Muslims in Scotland than members of the Free Church of Scotland - 2011 census data puts FCoS at ~10k and Muslims at ~77k. So it is a much smaller population. And even if it wasn't - the difference is Yousaf didn't try to impose beliefs through law / votes whereas we can't say the same for Forbes. Worst case scenario, Yousaf was a coward who didn't vote when equal marriage was passed - but worst case scenario in the case of Forbes is a SFM who actively campaigns to remove the legal ability to get an abortion, or to remove the legal status of equal marriages. These are entirely different things. It was a big issue for the LDs in the UK GE, as it should have been, and it is a big issue for Forbes - because the majority of people in society don't trust people with these fixations on weird cultural issues and are generally small l libertarian about the whole thing (it should be legal, but an individual persons choice).
Neither did Forbes you numpty, she gave a pesonal opinion, he chickened out of an actual vote due to his religion , a craven coward. She at least has some principles and morals and a backbone whether right or wrong. I would take the Wee Free any time and that as a non religious person. No time for cowardly unprincipled no morals wasters , who say one thing and do the opposite themselves.
In the medium and long run this will be one of the worst policies of this ridiculous government. It is beyond a bad idea.
It's a curious policy decision to understand because the Right (e.g. on PB) is always going on about multiculturalism, segregation, ghettoes, etc. etc. and separate schooling can be a factor in sectarianism.
On the other hand, that 50% was for *new* faith schools, though. 100% is already OK for, for instance, C of E and RC schools unless I misunderstand? So it's unfair on (let's say) Jedi Knights for the new (say) Han Solo College to be restricted to 50% JKs when St Aloysius or St Michael's down the road aren't.
It was a messy but probably justifiable compromise. Forcing long established Catholic schools to abandon their status was a battle governments didn't want (or were scared) to fight. Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?
The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.
I'm trying to imagine an aggressively sectarian CoE school.
"Every child will drink a cup of tea, each morning after assembly. The tea will be weak with lots of milk. Failure to do so, more than 5 times in a school year, will result in exclusion."
Yebbut we will also burn the Catholics if they dare to continue to believe in the Eucharist.
All Christians believe in the Eucharist. Roman Catholics also believe in transubstantiation (at least officially).
This is the bit I find weird - because if you don't believe in transubstantiation you really can't be a Roman Catholic; it's a pretty big deal theologically!
Miss Vance, the line against Forbes may not be misogyny, as a similar approach was taken against the Lib Dem chap whose name escapes me.
Farron (whom I felt a bit sorry for).
There are different approaches, but it's fine, in my opinion, to have personal views for oneself that are out of step with the party line, but not really possible to have personal views on what other people should do (or call them sinners) that are out of step with party line.
Take me - I don't think I would ever want an abortion for a child of mine, under any circumstances except danger to the mother or (possibly - and I'm not sure about this) knowing the foetus had severe abnormalities that would dramatically shorten life and lead to a poor quality of life in that time. But I absolutely believe in the rights of women to have control over their bodies and have abortions up to [some date - which is debatable, but I think the current UK threshold is reasoonable] for any reason. I could lead the Lib Dems with that viewpoint, but I don't think I could lead the Lib Dems if I thought abortion was a sin and quietly wanted it banned for others.
This is absolutely the crux of it. The acid test for me is how you'd vote if a bill came along with a free 'personal conscience' vote on banning (say) abortion or gay marriage. If you'd vote for that bill you should not be leading (or even be in) a progressive party. If you'd vote against it despite believing these things to be sinful on account of your religious faith you're fine.
Did Farron pass this test? Does Forbes?
The SNP, though, is primarily a party seeking independence for Scotland. There's still something of a tussle about its position in the political spectrum, AFAIK. Certainly is attract votes from the right as well as left of centre.
Having a debate about the ideological position of the next leader seems entirely fair to me (and the suggestion that's 'misogyny' little more than a smear(.
The difference with Hamza is that he was never likely to have any real impact on what the party professes to believe in, and everyone knew that.
If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.
I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.
What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?
Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.
Khan has managed to really, really upset a number of voters. Not just anti-ULEZ types - I've seen it among the Hampstead dinner party types.
Don't really get it, myself. He is the Hollywood casting of the "London Mayor" - maybe one speaking line, then ignored for the rest of the film.
He's seems entirely reasonable in media appearances. You can criticise his policies, record, but his general character does not deserve the opprobrium he gets.
I see Khan as a competent administrator. But he is not one thing that London desperately needs - a salesman. I don't see him selling London; shouting out its brilliance from the rooftops. This matters.
But I'd rather have a competent administrator who isn't a salesman, over a salesman who is an incompetent administator. Like Boris...
If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.
I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.
What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?
Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.
Khan has managed to really, really upset a number of voters. Not just anti-ULEZ types - I've seen it among the Hampstead dinner party types.
Don't really get it, myself. He is the Hollywood casting of the "London Mayor" - maybe one speaking line, then ignored for the rest of the film.
He's seems entirely reasonable in media appearances. You can criticise his policies, record, but his general character does not deserve the opprobrium he gets.
What are the Hampstead Dinner Party types upset about?
is he proposing to nationalise the Holly Bush, or the Giraffe Cafe, or something?
Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔
Because they either don't share her - out of mainstream opinion - views on religious/moral matters or are smart/dishonest enough to keep those views hidden?
I know Yousaf missed the equal marriage vote, for example, but he has been public about his support for it.
Bollox, easy to lie after the fact. he dodged the vote due to religious pressure and then blatantly lied through his teeth. He could could have seen a man about a dog anytime , despite months of notice he inadvertently arranged a meeting at the same time as the vote to discuss a non topic. You boys are easily led by the nose when it is a favoured religious sect. Also her religion is as mainstream as Yousaf's certainly from a Scottish perspective, speaking as a non religious person. Methinks you doth protest too much, bigotry is not pleasant.
I mean there are almost 8 times the number of Muslims in Scotland than members of the Free Church of Scotland - 2011 census data puts FCoS at ~10k and Muslims at ~77k. So it is a much smaller population. And even if it wasn't - the difference is Yousaf didn't try to impose beliefs through law / votes whereas we can't say the same for Forbes. Worst case scenario, Yousaf was a coward who didn't vote when equal marriage was passed - but worst case scenario in the case of Forbes is a SFM who actively campaigns to remove the legal ability to get an abortion, or to remove the legal status of equal marriages. These are entirely different things. It was a big issue for the LDs in the UK GE, as it should have been, and it is a big issue for Forbes - because the majority of people in society don't trust people with these fixations on weird cultural issues and are generally small l libertarian about the whole thing (it should be legal, but an individual persons choice).
Neither did Forbes you numpty, she gave a pesonal opinion, he chickened out of an actual vote due to his religion , a craven coward. She at least has some principles and morals and a backbone whether right or wrong. I would take the Wee Free any time and that as a non religious person. No time for cowardly unprincipled no morals wasters , who say one thing and do the opposite themselves.
I would take someone who is willing to be pushed to do the right thing by public opinion, whether that is cowardice or not, than a zealot who would vote in ways that would harm more people. I don't value people who hold firm to their principles if their principles are bad.
Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔
Because they either don't share her - out of mainstream opinion - views on religious/moral matters or are smart/dishonest enough to keep those views hidden?
I know Yousaf missed the equal marriage vote, for example, but he has been public about his support for it.
Bollox, easy to lie after the fact. he dodged the vote due to religious pressure and then blatantly lied through his teeth. He could could have seen a man about a dog anytime , despite months of notice he inadvertently arranged a meeting at the same time as the vote to discuss a non topic. You boys are easily led by the nose when it is a favoured religious sect. Also her religion is as mainstream as Yousaf's certainly from a Scottish perspective, speaking as a non religious person. Methinks you doth protest too much, bigotry is not pleasant.
I mean there are almost 8 times the number of Muslims in Scotland than members of the Free Church of Scotland - 2011 census data puts FCoS at ~10k and Muslims at ~77k. So it is a much smaller population. And even if it wasn't - the difference is Yousaf didn't try to impose beliefs through law / votes whereas we can't say the same for Forbes. Worst case scenario, Yousaf was a coward who didn't vote when equal marriage was passed - but worst case scenario in the case of Forbes is a SFM who actively campaigns to remove the legal ability to get an abortion, or to remove the legal status of equal marriages. These are entirely different things. It was a big issue for the LDs in the UK GE, as it should have been, and it is a big issue for Forbes - because the majority of people in society don't trust people with these fixations on weird cultural issues and are generally small l libertarian about the whole thing (it should be legal, but an individual persons choice).
Neither did Forbes you numpty, she gave a pesonal opinion, he chickened out of an actual vote due to his religion , a craven coward. She at least has some principles and morals and a backbone whether right or wrong. I would take the Wee Free any time and that as a non religious person. No time for cowardly unprincipled no morals wasters , who say one thing and do the opposite themselves.
I rather like Kate, Malcolm, I think she stands the best chance of holding a good number of seats
Two scenarios 1) Lab take West Mids and Teeside, Khan wins by 15%, 500 council losses
2) Con just hold on in WM and Tees, Khan wins by single figures (say 8%), losses under 400
Very different stories and narrative emerges. Fag packet - 1 leads to landslide 2 leads to a very tricky term in Office for Starmer
If it's 2, Rishi may be tempted to head to the Palace next week, because that's probably about as good as it'll get for him/Con before January 2025....
If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.
I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.
What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?
Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.
Khan has managed to really, really upset a number of voters. Not just anti-ULEZ types - I've seen it among the Hampstead dinner party types.
Don't really get it, myself. He is the Hollywood casting of the "London Mayor" - maybe one speaking line, then ignored for the rest of the film.
He's seems entirely reasonable in media appearances. You can criticise his policies, record, but his general character does not deserve the opprobrium he gets.
What are the Hampstead Dinner Party types upset about?
is he proposing to nationalise the Holly Bush, or the Giraffe Cafe, or something?
I'm not upset with him and I haven't picked up any upset in and around the crepe van.
In the medium and long run this will be one of the worst policies of this ridiculous government. It is beyond a bad idea.
It's a curious policy decision to understand because the Right (e.g. on PB) is always going on about multiculturalism, segregation, ghettoes, etc. etc. and separate schooling can be a factor in sectarianism.
On the other hand, that 50% was for *new* faith schools, though. 100% is already OK for, for instance, C of E and RC schools unless I misunderstand? So it's unfair on (let's say) Jedi Knights for the new (say) Han Solo College to be restricted to 50% JKs when St Aloysius or St Michael's down the road aren't.
It was a messy but probably justifiable compromise. Forcing long established Catholic schools to abandon their status was a battle governments didn't want (or were scared) to fight. Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?
The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.
I'm trying to imagine an aggressively sectarian CoE school.
"Every child will drink a cup of tea, each morning after assembly. The tea will be weak with lots of milk. Failure to do so, more than 5 times in a school year, will result in exclusion."
Yebbut we will also burn the Catholics if they dare to continue to believe in the Eucharist.
All Christians believe in the Eucharist. Roman Catholics also believe in transubstantiation (at least officially).
This is the bit I find weird - because if you don't believe in transubstantiation you really can't be a Roman Catholic; it's a pretty big deal theologically!
Lots of people can be lots of things with slightly less than 100 per cent adherence. In practice, I doubt the question arises very often.
Two scenarios 1) Lab take West Mids and Teeside, Khan wins by 15%, 500 council losses
2) Con just hold on in WM and Tees, Khan wins by single figures (say 8%), losses under 400
Very different stories and narrative emerges. Fag packet - 1 leads to landslide 2 leads to a very tricky term in Office for Starmer
If it's 2, Rishi may be tempted to head to the Palace next week, because that's probably about as good as it'll get for him/Con before January 2025....
Forgive me, I have just arrived and don't really have time to go through all of your "inspired" and "thoughtful" discussions on Church Schools, but I have an anecdote for you. I was Chair of Governors of a Church of England primary school for nearly 30 years. For about 15 of those years, the specific and stated Admissions Policy of the school was that children of Church attenders went to the BOTTOM of the admissions queue, not the top. That's because the Church regarded its job - including the provision of Primary School education - as being for the benefit of its non-members, not the faithful.
(The only reason we changed it was because of pressure from the Teachers - they wanted to increase the relationship with the Church.)
Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔
Because they either don't share her - out of mainstream opinion - views on religious/moral matters or are smart/dishonest enough to keep those views hidden?
I know Yousaf missed the equal marriage vote, for example, but he has been public about his support for it.
Bollox, easy to lie after the fact. he dodged the vote due to religious pressure and then blatantly lied through his teeth. He could could have seen a man about a dog anytime , despite months of notice he inadvertently arranged a meeting at the same time as the vote to discuss a non topic. You boys are easily led by the nose when it is a favoured religious sect. Also her religion is as mainstream as Yousaf's certainly from a Scottish perspective, speaking as a non religious person. Methinks you doth protest too much, bigotry is not pleasant.
I mean there are almost 8 times the number of Muslims in Scotland than members of the Free Church of Scotland - 2011 census data puts FCoS at ~10k and Muslims at ~77k. So it is a much smaller population. And even if it wasn't - the difference is Yousaf didn't try to impose beliefs through law / votes whereas we can't say the same for Forbes. Worst case scenario, Yousaf was a coward who didn't vote when equal marriage was passed - but worst case scenario in the case of Forbes is a SFM who actively campaigns to remove the legal ability to get an abortion, or to remove the legal status of equal marriages. These are entirely different things. It was a big issue for the LDs in the UK GE, as it should have been, and it is a big issue for Forbes - because the majority of people in society don't trust people with these fixations on weird cultural issues and are generally small l libertarian about the whole thing (it should be legal, but an individual persons choice).
It's mystifying to me how 'politicians of faith' can on the one hand say their faith is an integral part of them and on the other it's something that can be switched on and off at opportune moments. It's a circle that can't be squared except with equivocating and dishonesty, hardly a principled position.
Two scenarios 1) Lab take West Mids and Teeside, Khan wins by 15%, 500 council losses
2) Con just hold on in WM and Tees, Khan wins by single figures (say 8%), losses under 400
Very different stories and narrative emerges. Fag packet - 1 leads to landslide 2 leads to a very tricky term in Office for Starmer
If it's 2, Rishi may be tempted to head to the Palace next week, because that's probably about as good as it'll get for him/Con before January 2025....
Oh, definitely. July is underpriced (maybe, lol)
27 June! Loads of time for it to be then if Rishi calls it next week
Thur night/Friday/Saturday - not too bad results for CON
Sat/Sun/Mon - speculation, speculation and speculation
Tues - Rishi goes round to the Palace and the podium is out!
Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔
Because they either don't share her - out of mainstream opinion - views on religious/moral matters or are smart/dishonest enough to keep those views hidden?
I know Yousaf missed the equal marriage vote, for example, but he has been public about his support for it.
Bollox, easy to lie after the fact. he dodged the vote due to religious pressure and then blatantly lied through his teeth. He could could have seen a man about a dog anytime , despite months of notice he inadvertently arranged a meeting at the same time as the vote to discuss a non topic. You boys are easily led by the nose when it is a favoured religious sect. Also her religion is as mainstream as Yousaf's certainly from a Scottish perspective, speaking as a non religious person. Methinks you doth protest too much, bigotry is not pleasant.
I mean there are almost 8 times the number of Muslims in Scotland than members of the Free Church of Scotland - 2011 census data puts FCoS at ~10k and Muslims at ~77k. So it is a much smaller population. And even if it wasn't - the difference is Yousaf didn't try to impose beliefs through law / votes whereas we can't say the same for Forbes. Worst case scenario, Yousaf was a coward who didn't vote when equal marriage was passed - but worst case scenario in the case of Forbes is a SFM who actively campaigns to remove the legal ability to get an abortion, or to remove the legal status of equal marriages. These are entirely different things. It was a big issue for the LDs in the UK GE, as it should have been, and it is a big issue for Forbes - because the majority of people in society don't trust people with these fixations on weird cultural issues and are generally small l libertarian about the whole thing (it should be legal, but an individual persons choice).
It's mystifying to me how 'politicians of faith' can on the one hand say their faith is an integral part of them and on the other it's something that can be switched on and off at opportune moments. It's a circle that can't be squared except with equivocating and dishonesty, hardly a principled position.
I have a variety of circles I can sell you - square, triangular, octagonal....
The difference between a true fundamentalist and regular people, is the not bending "principal" to reality.
No I believe in parental choice. Faith schools get above average results on average, the more faith schools, grammars and free schools the better for a conservative like me
Doesn't the 100% rule restrict paternal choice, atheist parents, Muslim parents, Sikh parents and Hindu parents are taxpayers too, funding schools that their children are now not allowed to attend.
The SNP just need to ask themselves whether they are likely to lose more voters to Labour/Greens under Forbes or Tories/Alba under Swinney.
Sturgeon's genius was converting a pre-2014 rural SNP into a central belt winning political machine. Going for Forbes = abandoning the central belt and a reversion to their former role as Tartan Tories.
There simply aren't enough rural constituencies for that to work, though perhaps Yousaf's failure to count is contagious?
The "rural" constituencies, i.e anything not in the central belt, are not only fewer in number but historically more marginal. The big fight is still in the central belt, and the SNP are losing the arm wrestle to Scottish Labour, so while I think that Forbes could be a more effective FM in the longer term, I think she will be kept off balance by "events". From the longer point of view of the SNP, it may be better to keep Kate in reserve to lead the recovery, on the grounds that the die is cast for the next GE,
However, Forbes herself thinks that she can limit the losses at the GE and maintain power at Holyrood after the next elections for the Scottish Parliament. Well, all politicians have plenty of ego, but the tide is running, and however skilled Kate Forbes may be, she is probably not ^that^ skilled,
I don't understand - if Forbes is such a good politician, why did she lose to Hamza the first time around?
Two scenarios 1) Lab take West Mids and Teeside, Khan wins by 15%, 500 council losses
2) Con just hold on in WM and Tees, Khan wins by single figures (say 8%), losses under 400
Very different stories and narrative emerges. Fag packet - 1 leads to landslide 2 leads to a very tricky term in Office for Starmer
If it's 2, Rishi may be tempted to head to the Palace next week, because that's probably about as good as it'll get for him/Con before January 2025....
Oh, definitely. July is underpriced (maybe, lol)
27 June! Loads of time for it to be then if Rishi calls it next week
Thur night/Friday/Saturday - not too bad results for CON
Sat/Sun/Mon - speculation, speculation and speculation
Tues - Rishi goes round to the Palace and the podium is out!
He's going to leave it an extra week or two if it is imminent so 1) it's 'second half of the year' so he doesn't get 'what's changed?' Coverage and 2) chance of a plane load getting deported just as polling day approaches
Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔
Because they either don't share her - out of mainstream opinion - views on religious/moral matters or are smart/dishonest enough to keep those views hidden?
I know Yousaf missed the equal marriage vote, for example, but he has been public about his support for it.
Bollox, easy to lie after the fact. he dodged the vote due to religious pressure and then blatantly lied through his teeth. He could could have seen a man about a dog anytime , despite months of notice he inadvertently arranged a meeting at the same time as the vote to discuss a non topic. You boys are easily led by the nose when it is a favoured religious sect. Also her religion is as mainstream as Yousaf's certainly from a Scottish perspective, speaking as a non religious person. Methinks you doth protest too much, bigotry is not pleasant.
I mean there are almost 8 times the number of Muslims in Scotland than members of the Free Church of Scotland - 2011 census data puts FCoS at ~10k and Muslims at ~77k. So it is a much smaller population. And even if it wasn't - the difference is Yousaf didn't try to impose beliefs through law / votes whereas we can't say the same for Forbes. Worst case scenario, Yousaf was a coward who didn't vote when equal marriage was passed - but worst case scenario in the case of Forbes is a SFM who actively campaigns to remove the legal ability to get an abortion, or to remove the legal status of equal marriages. These are entirely different things. It was a big issue for the LDs in the UK GE, as it should have been, and it is a big issue for Forbes - because the majority of people in society don't trust people with these fixations on weird cultural issues and are generally small l libertarian about the whole thing (it should be legal, but an individual persons choice).
It's mystifying to me how 'politicians of faith' can on the one hand say their faith is an integral part of them and on the other it's something that can be switched on and off at opportune moments. It's a circle that can't be squared except with equivocating and dishonesty, hardly a principled position.
Exactly. I don't think I could say the same thing about my moral underpinning (humanism) - it's there and it will always impact my political views.
Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔
Because they either don't share her - out of mainstream opinion - views on religious/moral matters or are smart/dishonest enough to keep those views hidden?
I know Yousaf missed the equal marriage vote, for example, but he has been public about his support for it.
Bollox, easy to lie after the fact. he dodged the vote due to religious pressure and then blatantly lied through his teeth. He could could have seen a man about a dog anytime , despite months of notice he inadvertently arranged a meeting at the same time as the vote to discuss a non topic. You boys are easily led by the nose when it is a favoured religious sect. Also her religion is as mainstream as Yousaf's certainly from a Scottish perspective, speaking as a non religious person. Methinks you doth protest too much, bigotry is not pleasant.
He may have dodged it at the time, either out of personal conviction or cowardice about the views of others. But when it came to the leadership election he set out either his views of the views that he thought would get him elected, taking the hit from the more conservative people in his and others' religions. so he got elected.
I'd like to have honest politicians, but it's a fact that someone openly opposed to same sex marriage is unlikely to lead a major party in the UK at present, because they are so out of step with public opinion.
I admire those with the guts to take a step against many in their own party/voters and not for obvious political gain - e.g. Cameron on same sex marriage. I'll not withhold support from those who either truly believe in such things or are willing to keep quiet about their true beliefs, because I can't tell between the two, not being able to look into their souls. And people do change their minds on social issues- look at Nigel Adams, former Selby MP (can't find the video at present), not a person I had a great deal of time for, but I admire him for this. Adams, also after his initial vote, wrote a very thoughtful response to a gay constituent I know, setting out his reasons for opposing it at the time.
Yousaf was not pursued on social issues because during the leadership campaign he set out, very clearly, a position that was in step with many in the SNP, not because of his religion or ethnic group. He might have had an easier time than Forbes had he taken a socially conservative stance, but he did not (and I don't think he would have got elected).
If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.
I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.
What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?
Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.
Khan has managed to really, really upset a number of voters. Not just anti-ULEZ types - I've seen it among the Hampstead dinner party types.
Don't really get it, myself. He is the Hollywood casting of the "London Mayor" - maybe one speaking line, then ignored for the rest of the film.
He's seems entirely reasonable in media appearances. You can criticise his policies, record, but his general character does not deserve the opprobrium he gets.
What are the Hampstead Dinner Party types upset about?
is he proposing to nationalise the Holly Bush, or the Giraffe Cafe, or something?
Let's be honest most Londoners don't spend more than a few seconds per month even remembering the mayor exists. Highly politically engaged people will of course focus on him because he's an incumbent administrator from the Labour Party - a rare thing at the moment. Lefties find him wishywashy and not dynamic enough, right wingers can focus all their gripes about London and lefties on him as a sort of vector.
Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔
Because they either don't share her - out of mainstream opinion - views on religious/moral matters or are smart/dishonest enough to keep those views hidden?
I know Yousaf missed the equal marriage vote, for example, but he has been public about his support for it.
Bollox, easy to lie after the fact. he dodged the vote due to religious pressure and then blatantly lied through his teeth. He could could have seen a man about a dog anytime , despite months of notice he inadvertently arranged a meeting at the same time as the vote to discuss a non topic. You boys are easily led by the nose when it is a favoured religious sect. Also her religion is as mainstream as Yousaf's certainly from a Scottish perspective, speaking as a non religious person. Methinks you doth protest too much, bigotry is not pleasant.
I mean there are almost 8 times the number of Muslims in Scotland than members of the Free Church of Scotland - 2011 census data puts FCoS at ~10k and Muslims at ~77k. So it is a much smaller population. And even if it wasn't - the difference is Yousaf didn't try to impose beliefs through law / votes whereas we can't say the same for Forbes. Worst case scenario, Yousaf was a coward who didn't vote when equal marriage was passed - but worst case scenario in the case of Forbes is a SFM who actively campaigns to remove the legal ability to get an abortion, or to remove the legal status of equal marriages. These are entirely different things. It was a big issue for the LDs in the UK GE, as it should have been, and it is a big issue for Forbes - because the majority of people in society don't trust people with these fixations on weird cultural issues and are generally small l libertarian about the whole thing (it should be legal, but an individual persons choice).
It's mystifying to me how 'politicians of faith' can on the one hand say their faith is an integral part of them and on the other it's something that can be switched on and off at opportune moments. It's a circle that can't be squared except with equivocating and dishonesty, hardly a principled position.
Exactly. I don't think I could say the same thing about my moral underpinning (humanism) - it's there and it will always impact my political views.
Not letting religion get in the way of your faith works too
No I believe in parental choice. Faith schools get above average results on average, the more faith schools, grammars and free schools the better for a conservative like me
That’s not the argument; this time anyway. Personally I don’t like the idea of ‘faith’ schools; IMO, and indeed experience from long ago, they’re divisive. It might be worth some sociological or educational researcher examining why they get better results…… if of course they really do, and it’s not some sort of ‘received wisdom’ or urban myth. As one who, EVER so many years ago, attended a grammar school I’m by no means convinced of their overall benefit.
Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔
Because they either don't share her - out of mainstream opinion - views on religious/moral matters or are smart/dishonest enough to keep those views hidden?
I know Yousaf missed the equal marriage vote, for example, but he has been public about his support for it.
Bollox, easy to lie after the fact. he dodged the vote due to religious pressure and then blatantly lied through his teeth. He could could have seen a man about a dog anytime , despite months of notice he inadvertently arranged a meeting at the same time as the vote to discuss a non topic. You boys are easily led by the nose when it is a favoured religious sect. Also her religion is as mainstream as Yousaf's certainly from a Scottish perspective, speaking as a non religious person. Methinks you doth protest too much, bigotry is not pleasant.
I mean there are almost 8 times the number of Muslims in Scotland than members of the Free Church of Scotland - 2011 census data puts FCoS at ~10k and Muslims at ~77k. So it is a much smaller population. And even if it wasn't - the difference is Yousaf didn't try to impose beliefs through law / votes whereas we can't say the same for Forbes. Worst case scenario, Yousaf was a coward who didn't vote when equal marriage was passed - but worst case scenario in the case of Forbes is a SFM who actively campaigns to remove the legal ability to get an abortion, or to remove the legal status of equal marriages. These are entirely different things. It was a big issue for the LDs in the UK GE, as it should have been, and it is a big issue for Forbes - because the majority of people in society don't trust people with these fixations on weird cultural issues and are generally small l libertarian about the whole thing (it should be legal, but an individual persons choice).
It's mystifying to me how 'politicians of faith' can on the one hand say their faith is an integral part of them and on the other it's something that can be switched on and off at opportune moments. It's a circle that can't be squared except with equivocating and dishonesty, hardly a principled position.
I have a variety of circles I can sell you - square, triangular, octagonal....
The difference between a true fundamentalist and regular people, is the not bending "principal" to reality.
Well exactly. 'I am a true believer with unbreakable principles, except when it comes to wanting to lead a party of non believers with different principles.'
In the medium and long run this will be one of the worst policies of this ridiculous government. It is beyond a bad idea.
It's a curious policy decision to understand because the Right (e.g. on PB) is always going on about multiculturalism, segregation, ghettoes, etc. etc. and separate schooling can be a factor in sectarianism.
On the other hand, that 50% was for *new* faith schools, though. 100% is already OK for, for instance, C of E and RC schools unless I misunderstand? So it's unfair on (let's say) Jedi Knights for the new (say) Han Solo College to be restricted to 50% JKs when St Aloysius or St Michael's down the road aren't.
It was a messy but probably justifiable compromise. Forcing long established Catholic schools to abandon their status was a battle governments didn't want (or were scared) to fight. Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?
The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.
Wait till the Saudis fund chains of madrassas like they did in Pakistan.
AIUI in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s they did a lot of that via a different route. Supporting Mosques which all had madrassas / education programmes of various types attached. The sectarian issue was around control of the training and appointment of Imams, also around the competition between Saudi and Iran to influence the Muslim community.
Do you remember how in the Bosnian / Serbian / Croatian etc wars Iran offered to accept 10k children to be safely educated in Iran.
I don't think the latter is necessarily a problem, but I could see some of our populist right trying to use it as a not-quite-racist concern trolling wedge issue. I won't be telling Mr Anderson.
Kate Forbes is welcome to her private beliefs - nothing wrong with that. But it's not quite as simple as saying that as long as she doesn't seek to legislate in line with her beliefs it's all fine, if you lead a (currently) progressive party.
To give an analogy, imagine if Starmer had said when he was running for leader that although he was personally against gay marriage he would definitely not undo the current law. He'd have lost the leadership election.
Miss Vance, the line against Forbes may not be misogyny, as a similar approach was taken against the Lib Dem chap whose name escapes me.
Farron (whom I felt a bit sorry for).
There are different approaches, but it's fine, in my opinion, to have personal views for oneself that are out of step with the party line, but not really possible to have personal views on what other people should do (or call them sinners) that are out of step with party line.
Take me - I don't think I would ever want an abortion for a child of mine, under any circumstances except danger to the mother or (possibly - and I'm not sure about this) knowing the foetus had severe abnormalities that would dramatically shorten life and lead to a poor quality of life in that time. But I absolutely believe in the rights of women to have control over their bodies and have abortions up to [some date - which is debatable, but I think the current UK threshold is reasoonable] for any reason. I could lead the Lib Dems with that viewpoint, but I don't think I could lead the Lib Dems if I thought abortion was a sin and quietly wanted it banned for others.
This is absolutely the crux of it. The acid test for me is how you'd vote if a bill came along with a free 'personal conscience' vote on banning (say) abortion or gay marriage. If you'd vote for that bill you should not be leading (or even be in) a progressive party. If you'd vote against it despite believing these things to be sinful on account of your religious faith you're fine.
Did Farron pass this test? Does Forbes?
The SNP, though, is primarily a party seeking independence for Scotland. There's still something of a tussle about its position in the political spectrum, AFAIK. Certainly is attract votes from the right as well as left of centre.
Having a debate about the ideological position of the next leader seems entirely fair to me (and the suggestion that's 'misogyny' little more than a smear(.
The difference with Hamza is that he was never likely to have any real impact on what the party professes to believe in, and everyone knew that.
Of course, under PR there would be room for independence parties both socially progressive and socially conservative (and economically left and right).
Popcorn might be needed to watch them actually governing together.
In the event of independence, the SNP support would presumably fracture in different directions - the unifying glue of independence would have been broken (much like the Con's 2019 unifying glue of Brexit)
The SNP just need to ask themselves whether they are likely to lose more voters to Labour/Greens under Forbes or Tories/Alba under Swinney.
Sturgeon's genius was converting a pre-2014 rural SNP into a central belt winning political machine. Going for Forbes = abandoning the central belt and a reversion to their former role as Tartan Tories.
There simply aren't enough rural constituencies for that to work, though perhaps Yousaf's failure to count is contagious?
The "rural" constituencies, i.e anything not in the central belt, are not only fewer in number but historically more marginal. The big fight is still in the central belt, and the SNP are losing the arm wrestle to Scottish Labour, so while I think that Forbes could be a more effective FM in the longer term, I think she will be kept off balance by "events". From the longer point of view of the SNP, it may be better to keep Kate in reserve to lead the recovery, on the grounds that the die is cast for the next GE,
However, Forbes herself thinks that she can limit the losses at the GE and maintain power at Holyrood after the next elections for the Scottish Parliament. Well, all politicians have plenty of ego, but the tide is running, and however skilled Kate Forbes may be, she is probably not ^that^ skilled,
I don't understand - if Forbes is such a good politician, why did she lose to Hamza the first time around?
Miss Vance, the line against Forbes may not be misogyny, as a similar approach was taken against the Lib Dem chap whose name escapes me.
Farron (whom I felt a bit sorry for).
There are different approaches, but it's fine, in my opinion, to have personal views for oneself that are out of step with the party line, but not really possible to have personal views on what other people should do (or call them sinners) that are out of step with party line.
Take me - I don't think I would ever want an abortion for a child of mine, under any circumstances except danger to the mother or (possibly - and I'm not sure about this) knowing the foetus had severe abnormalities that would dramatically shorten life and lead to a poor quality of life in that time. But I absolutely believe in the rights of women to have control over their bodies and have abortions up to [some date - which is debatable, but I think the current UK threshold is reasoonable] for any reason. I could lead the Lib Dems with that viewpoint, but I don't think I could lead the Lib Dems if I thought abortion was a sin and quietly wanted it banned for others.
This is absolutely the crux of it. The acid test for me is how you'd vote if a bill came along with a free 'personal conscience' vote on banning (say) abortion or gay marriage. If you'd vote for that bill you should not be leading (or even be in) a progressive party. If you'd vote against it despite believing these things to be sinful on account of your religious faith you're fine.
Did Farron pass this test? Does Forbes?
At the time, I thought Farron did and therefore felt him badly treated (although he also handled it badly). Since then I've seen suggestions that his voting record was less clear cut than he suggested.
The SNP just need to ask themselves whether they are likely to lose more voters to Labour/Greens under Forbes or Tories/Alba under Swinney.
Sturgeon's genius was converting a pre-2014 rural SNP into a central belt winning political machine. Going for Forbes = abandoning the central belt and a reversion to their former role as Tartan Tories.
There simply aren't enough rural constituencies for that to work, though perhaps Yousaf's failure to count is contagious?
The "rural" constituencies, i.e anything not in the central belt, are not only fewer in number but historically more marginal. The big fight is still in the central belt, and the SNP are losing the arm wrestle to Scottish Labour, so while I think that Forbes could be a more effective FM in the longer term, I think she will be kept off balance by "events". From the longer point of view of the SNP, it may be better to keep Kate in reserve to lead the recovery, on the grounds that the die is cast for the next GE,
However, Forbes herself thinks that she can limit the losses at the GE and maintain power at Holyrood after the next elections for the Scottish Parliament. Well, all politicians have plenty of ego, but the tide is running, and however skilled Kate Forbes may be, she is probably not ^that^ skilled,
I don't understand - if Forbes is such a good politician, why did she lose to Hamza the first time around?
One particularly deranged theory floating about on here was that the company running the SNP leadership contest was complicit in a corrupt electoral process. So there is that.
Miss Vance, the line against Forbes may not be misogyny, as a similar approach was taken against the Lib Dem chap whose name escapes me.
Farron (whom I felt a bit sorry for).
There are different approaches, but it's fine, in my opinion, to have personal views for oneself that are out of step with the party line, but not really possible to have personal views on what other people should do (or call them sinners) that are out of step with party line.
Take me - I don't think I would ever want an abortion for a child of mine, under any circumstances except danger to the mother or (possibly - and I'm not sure about this) knowing the foetus had severe abnormalities that would dramatically shorten life and lead to a poor quality of life in that time. But I absolutely believe in the rights of women to have control over their bodies and have abortions up to [some date - which is debatable, but I think the current UK threshold is reasoonable] for any reason. I could lead the Lib Dems with that viewpoint, but I don't think I could lead the Lib Dems if I thought abortion was a sin and quietly wanted it banned for others.
This is absolutely the crux of it. The acid test for me is how you'd vote if a bill came along with a free 'personal conscience' vote on banning (say) abortion or gay marriage. If you'd vote for that bill you should not be leading (or even be in) a progressive party. If you'd vote against it despite believing these things to be sinful on account of your religious faith you're fine.
Did Farron pass this test? Does Forbes?
The SNP, though, is primarily a party seeking independence for Scotland. There's still something of a tussle about its position in the political spectrum, AFAIK. Certainly is attract votes from the right as well as left of centre.
Having a debate about the ideological position of the next leader seems entirely fair to me (and the suggestion that's 'misogyny' little more than a smear(.
The difference with Hamza is that he was never likely to have any real impact on what the party professes to believe in, and everyone knew that.
Yes perhaps the SNP will reverse much of the direction taken under Sturgeon. Choosing Forbes would indicate they intend to. There's no law that says they have to be a progressive party of the left. They haven't always been after all. This is an opportunity to thrash that out, I guess.
Misogyny towards Forbes? There will be plenty (since she's a high profile woman of power and influence) but I don't think raising her religious views in the context of her leadership bid is evidence of that.
In the medium and long run this will be one of the worst policies of this ridiculous government. It is beyond a bad idea.
It's a curious policy decision to understand because the Right (e.g. on PB) is always going on about multiculturalism, segregation, ghettoes, etc. etc. and separate schooling can be a factor in sectarianism.
On the other hand, that 50% was for *new* faith schools, though. 100% is already OK for, for instance, C of E and RC schools unless I misunderstand? So it's unfair on (let's say) Jedi Knights for the new (say) Han Solo College to be restricted to 50% JKs when St Aloysius or St Michael's down the road aren't.
It was a messy but probably justifiable compromise. Forcing long established Catholic schools to abandon their status was a battle governments didn't want (or were scared) to fight. Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?
The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.
Wait till the Saudis fund chains of madrassas like they did in Pakistan.
AIUI in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s they did a lot of that via a different route. Supporting Mosques which all had madrassas / education programmes of various types attached. The sectarian issue was around control of the training and appointment of Imams, also around the competition between Saudi and Iran to influence the Muslim community.
Do you remember how in the Bosnian / Serbian / Croatian etc wars Iran offered to accept 10k children to be safely educated in Iran.
I don't think the latter is necessarily a problem, but I could see some of our populist right trying to use it as a not-quite-racist concern trolling wedge issue. I won't be telling Mr Anderson.
Not to mention the funding of certain, interesting, preachers into prisons.
When prison staff complained about such people being let in, they were told that it was a Foreign Office matter.
If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.
I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.
What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?
Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.
Are you saying I am lying about my voting habits ? I have already pledged my support to Kim McGuinness for Thursday.
Why don't you stick to posting TRUSS every five minutes.
If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.
I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.
What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?
Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.
Khan has managed to really, really upset a number of voters. Not just anti-ULEZ types - I've seen it among the Hampstead dinner party types.
Don't really get it, myself. He is the Hollywood casting of the "London Mayor" - maybe one speaking line, then ignored for the rest of the film.
I can understand people thinking him a bit meh. But obnoxious is a bizarre take: as you imply, he’s a very MOR mayor.
He does come across as a bit obnoxious to me. Difficult to say why exactly.
Starmer's position wasn't that bad, he just delivered it badly.
He also looked tired and not that healthy, which might be an interesting contrast with Sunak in any debates - for all his faults, Sunak looks pretty healthy and energetic, even if he has no good ideas.
Forgive me, I have just arrived and don't really have time to go through all of your "inspired" and "thoughtful" discussions on Church Schools, but I have an anecdote for you. I was Chair of Governors of a Church of England primary school for nearly 30 years. For about 15 of those years, the specific and stated Admissions Policy of the school was that children of Church attenders went to the BOTTOM of the admissions queue, not the top. That's because the Church regarded its job - including the provision of Primary School education - as being for the benefit of its non-members, not the faithful.
(The only reason we changed it was because of pressure from the Teachers - they wanted to increase the relationship with the Church.)
So, pick the bones out of that.
That doesn't surprise me.
Attacking and denigrating its own supporters is a pretty fundamental principle for the CoE clergy.
I suspect his vote will mainly come from Muslim voters but we shall see
He’s a Sikh, is there much evidence of cross voting between Sikhs and Muslims?
I thought that, but I suppose it could still be argued that the majority of Workers Party voters would be Muslim, given Galloway’s agenda. There’s a lot of Sikhs in Southwell, but would they necessarily vote for the workers Party?
I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't call the WP policies especially Muslim in flavour. They include
* referendum on Net Zero * referendum on NATO membership * 0% income tax up to £21K * stonking IHT on estates of >£10M * one secular Palestinian state
One of those, isn’t like all the others.
The WP itself didn't make that list of 5. I selected them to give a flavour and bearing in mind Isam's suggestion that the majority of WP voters might be Muslims.
3 of the 5 are on home policy incl. 2 on fiscal policy, and 2 are on foreign policy.
They have many other policies, incl.
* free school meals for all school pupils * fan-controlled football * not taking any nonsense from NIMBYs, and * in the sphere of foreign policy, developing friendly relations with the BRICS countries * "heightened" (sic) maritime and coastal patrols * removing charity status from all "private educational establishments" * investment in training for refugees
Some of the policies are quite ridiculous, e.g. making cryptocurrency operate in the interests of the working class.
The manifesto strikes me as a bit rambly, rather like other parties' manifestos in that respect, quite amusing in places ("We are not Luddites when it comes to digital currency and fintech"), and not particularly aimed at Muslim voters.
The SNP just need to ask themselves whether they are likely to lose more voters to Labour/Greens under Forbes or Tories/Alba under Swinney.
Sturgeon's genius was converting a pre-2014 rural SNP into a central belt winning political machine. Going for Forbes = abandoning the central belt and a reversion to their former role as Tartan Tories.
There simply aren't enough rural constituencies for that to work, though perhaps Yousaf's failure to count is contagious?
The "rural" constituencies, i.e anything not in the central belt, are not only fewer in number but historically more marginal. The big fight is still in the central belt, and the SNP are losing the arm wrestle to Scottish Labour, so while I think that Forbes could be a more effective FM in the longer term, I think she will be kept off balance by "events". From the longer point of view of the SNP, it may be better to keep Kate in reserve to lead the recovery, on the grounds that the die is cast for the next GE,
However, Forbes herself thinks that she can limit the losses at the GE and maintain power at Holyrood after the next elections for the Scottish Parliament. Well, all politicians have plenty of ego, but the tide is running, and however skilled Kate Forbes may be, she is probably not ^that^ skilled,
I don't understand - if Forbes is such a good politician, why did she lose to Hamza the first time around?
Humza
Apologies - my typing error rate is awful and I am worst with names (I keep typing Forbes as Frobes and it's only the red squiggly line that makes me go back and change it)
Miss Vance, the line against Forbes may not be misogyny, as a similar approach was taken against the Lib Dem chap whose name escapes me.
Farron (whom I felt a bit sorry for).
There are different approaches, but it's fine, in my opinion, to have personal views for oneself that are out of step with the party line, but not really possible to have personal views on what other people should do (or call them sinners) that are out of step with party line.
Take me - I don't think I would ever want an abortion for a child of mine, under any circumstances except danger to the mother or (possibly - and I'm not sure about this) knowing the foetus had severe abnormalities that would dramatically shorten life and lead to a poor quality of life in that time. But I absolutely believe in the rights of women to have control over their bodies and have abortions up to [some date - which is debatable, but I think the current UK threshold is reasoonable] for any reason. I could lead the Lib Dems with that viewpoint, but I don't think I could lead the Lib Dems if I thought abortion was a sin and quietly wanted it banned for others.
This is absolutely the crux of it. The acid test for me is how you'd vote if a bill came along with a free 'personal conscience' vote on banning (say) abortion or gay marriage. If you'd vote for that bill you should not be leading (or even be in) a progressive party. If you'd vote against it despite believing these things to be sinful on account of your religious faith you're fine.
Did Farron pass this test? Does Forbes?
The SNP, though, is primarily a party seeking independence for Scotland. There's still something of a tussle about its position in the political spectrum, AFAIK. Certainly is attract votes from the right as well as left of centre.
Having a debate about the ideological position of the next leader seems entirely fair to me (and the suggestion that's 'misogyny' little more than a smear(.
The difference with Hamza is that he was never likely to have any real impact on what the party professes to believe in, and everyone knew that.
Yes perhaps the SNP will reverse much of the direction taken under Sturgeon. Choosing Forbes would indicate they intend to. There's no law that says they have to be a progressive party of the left. They haven't always been after all. This is an opportunity to thrash that out, I guess.
Misogyny towards Forbes? There will be plenty (since she's a high profile woman of power and influence) but I don't think raising her religious views in the context of her leadership bid is evidence of that.
It's possible but it's notable that it's the angry old men faction that are Forbes's biggest backers - Fergus Ewing, Alex Neil, Jim Sillars, and likely the angriest old man of them all, Salmond. I don't see many cohorts of shiny faced, young (or even middle aged) idealists going Forbesy.
The SNP just need to ask themselves whether they are likely to lose more voters to Labour/Greens under Forbes or Tories/Alba under Swinney.
Sturgeon's genius was converting a pre-2014 rural SNP into a central belt winning political machine. Going for Forbes = abandoning the central belt and a reversion to their former role as Tartan Tories.
There simply aren't enough rural constituencies for that to work, though perhaps Yousaf's failure to count is contagious?
The "rural" constituencies, i.e anything not in the central belt, are not only fewer in number but historically more marginal. The big fight is still in the central belt, and the SNP are losing the arm wrestle to Scottish Labour, so while I think that Forbes could be a more effective FM in the longer term, I think she will be kept off balance by "events". From the longer point of view of the SNP, it may be better to keep Kate in reserve to lead the recovery, on the grounds that the die is cast for the next GE,
However, Forbes herself thinks that she can limit the losses at the GE and maintain power at Holyrood after the next elections for the Scottish Parliament. Well, all politicians have plenty of ego, but the tide is running, and however skilled Kate Forbes may be, she is probably not ^that^ skilled,
I don't understand - if Forbes is such a good politician, why did she lose to Hamza the first time around?
My highly analytical, and carefully nuanced, answer to that question, is that she was swimming in a shark-infested custard.
Miss Vance, the line against Forbes may not be misogyny, as a similar approach was taken against the Lib Dem chap whose name escapes me.
Farron (whom I felt a bit sorry for).
There are different approaches, but it's fine, in my opinion, to have personal views for oneself that are out of step with the party line, but not really possible to have personal views on what other people should do (or call them sinners) that are out of step with party line.
Take me - I don't think I would ever want an abortion for a child of mine, under any circumstances except danger to the mother or (possibly - and I'm not sure about this) knowing the foetus had severe abnormalities that would dramatically shorten life and lead to a poor quality of life in that time. But I absolutely believe in the rights of women to have control over their bodies and have abortions up to [some date - which is debatable, but I think the current UK threshold is reasoonable] for any reason. I could lead the Lib Dems with that viewpoint, but I don't think I could lead the Lib Dems if I thought abortion was a sin and quietly wanted it banned for others.
This is absolutely the crux of it. The acid test for me is how you'd vote if a bill came along with a free 'personal conscience' vote on banning (say) abortion or gay marriage. If you'd vote for that bill you should not be leading (or even be in) a progressive party. If you'd vote against it despite believing these things to be sinful on account of your religious faith you're fine.
Did Farron pass this test? Does Forbes?
The SNP, though, is primarily a party seeking independence for Scotland. There's still something of a tussle about its position in the political spectrum, AFAIK. Certainly is attract votes from the right as well as left of centre.
Having a debate about the ideological position of the next leader seems entirely fair to me (and the suggestion that's 'misogyny' little more than a smear(.
The difference with Hamza is that he was never likely to have any real impact on what the party professes to believe in, and everyone knew that.
Yes perhaps the SNP will reverse much of the direction taken under Sturgeon. Choosing Forbes would indicate they intend to. There's no law that says they have to be a progressive party of the left. They haven't always been after all. This is an opportunity to thrash that out, I guess.
Misogyny towards Forbes? There will be plenty (since she's a high profile woman of power and influence) but I don't think raising her religious views in the context of her leadership bid is evidence of that.
It’s a fundamental problem for Nationalist parties, isn’t it! “We want independence! What do we do after we’ve got it? Worry about that when we’ve got it!” Plaid Cymru regularly navel-gaze over the question. The debate in their case is encouraged by that over the language.
It's fascinating how many people, both on here and elsewhere, regard Sadiq Khan as a bit obnoxious but can't quite put their finger on why he's obnoxious. Curious.
The SNP just need to ask themselves whether they are likely to lose more voters to Labour/Greens under Forbes or Tories/Alba under Swinney.
Sturgeon's genius was converting a pre-2014 rural SNP into a central belt winning political machine. Going for Forbes = abandoning the central belt and a reversion to their former role as Tartan Tories.
There simply aren't enough rural constituencies for that to work, though perhaps Yousaf's failure to count is contagious?
The "rural" constituencies, i.e anything not in the central belt, are not only fewer in number but historically more marginal. The big fight is still in the central belt, and the SNP are losing the arm wrestle to Scottish Labour, so while I think that Forbes could be a more effective FM in the longer term, I think she will be kept off balance by "events". From the longer point of view of the SNP, it may be better to keep Kate in reserve to lead the recovery, on the grounds that the die is cast for the next GE,
However, Forbes herself thinks that she can limit the losses at the GE and maintain power at Holyrood after the next elections for the Scottish Parliament. Well, all politicians have plenty of ego, but the tide is running, and however skilled Kate Forbes may be, she is probably not ^that^ skilled,
I don't understand - if Forbes is such a good politician, why did she lose to Hamza the first time around?
My highly analytical, and carefully nuanced, answer to that question, is that she was swimming in a shark-infested custard.
Doesn't that come with the territory? And wouldn't managing that also be testament to political skill?
Comments
Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a5b5ceaa-7996-437c-9e38-da2f8c7b0212?shareToken=2e76a67b684fb13cac22bd66e5d5d9fd
You boys are easily led by the nose when it is a favoured religious sect. Also her religion is as mainstream as Yousaf's certainly from a Scottish perspective, speaking as a non religious person.
Methinks you doth protest too much, bigotry is not pleasant.
I (personally) do disagree with the idea of "conscience votes" - all votes should be informed by ones conscience. I also disagree with whipping votes, so I guess it doesn't matter at the end of the day, but the idea that some issues (like abortion or equal marriage) are somehow issues of "religious conscience" and voting on, say, social spending cuts (that mostly hit low income families, single mothers, the ill and disabled, etc.) are somehow separate from conscience, religious or otherwise, is absurd.
Has there been a more calamitous fall from grace of a politician since, oh, I don't know - Jeremy Thorpe?
However even if he wins and stays FM after the next Holyrood election it does at least look like the SNP will lack a majority even with the Greens if they attempted to restore that deal and would require Unionist support to get measures passed
Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?
The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.
Thank-you for the header.
A question for the Scottish Experts. So on topic. Ish.
Does there exist a right to swim in any river or lake in Scotland, under Right to Roam?
I ask because I was looking into our local Open Water swimming location (Kings Mill Lake) and someone seems to think they have the right to control who swims there.
It's not a plan (I pick up too many snuffles swimming in public venues and do not recover from them very well), but I was intrigued by the idea of being charged £6.50 to run up and down a public footpath, and swim in a Council managed lake.
https://nowca.org/new-venue-love-open-water-mansfield-joins-the-nowca-network/
(I suspect that this has stopped now, as it seems a bit edgy commercially. People round here would not buy that unless it added significant value to what they can do anyway.)
Do you have to like every elected political representative of the party you support or vote for. Crikey, many of them don't even like each other.
Why don't you stick to posting TRUSS every five minutes.
And then out on her arse.
Don't really get it, myself. He is the Hollywood casting of the "London Mayor" - maybe one speaking line, then ignored for the rest of the film.
https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/practical-guide-all/watersports/swimming
"The consultation opened by the government on Wednesday would also allow churches and religious groups to open faith schools for children with special educational needs, which campaigners warned could raise ethical concerns."
All profoundly non-Conservative.
"Every child will drink a cup of tea, each morning after assembly. The tea will be weak with lots of milk. Failure to do so, more than 5 times in a school year, will result in exclusion."
The only reason this isn't a "time for a change" Mayoral contest is because the the Conservatives have been in government even longer, but this will be Khan's final stint and Con will win the 2028 London Mayoral contest, IMO.
If we greatly expand free schools and introduce education vouchers then capacity would just move to reflect demand, let parents choose. The more who can choose from private schools, free schools, faith schools and grammar schools and not just their local comprehensive or academy the better for most conservatives
Operational Research has long shown that an organisation running with no spare capacity results in - a breakdown in staff moral, operational failures, quality failures, increased levels of accidents. Oh, and a collapse in productivity.
It’s competitive school and uni debating which means that it’s not important to actually change minds, believe in something just to manoeuvre the argument so that you win the debate.
RM, and others like them, isn’t part of that cabal and is just a bit more into asking a question to find out what’s going on as it’s sort of the point of being a reporter and journalist, as he was trained to do.
Last night I was pondering the Glorious George effect. Now WPB look like standing in most constituencies then what of the effect? I don't think it controversial to suggest their biggest support/target group will be the Muslim population (although I'm not suggesting they are an Islamic party). I reckon George will be targeting 10 to 20% of the Muslim vote, netting him perhaps 350,000? That's maybe 1 and a bit percent of the national vote so let's give him 2% with all in and tge fact they will get TV coverage etc standing that widely and attract Gaza related protest votes. At that level I think no real effect (he might hold Rochdale if WPB get some good council gains there tomorrow to continue traction), however if he gets to 3% in polling then he starts to influence seat totals (I think) as the vote will be disproportionately scattered.
He's already standing far more than I expected, I think he has potential to become a factor here. I may be overstating things of course but WPB will do better than Natural Law 92 and probably run Brexit 19 close in raw vote and % (accepting of course BXP did not stand everywhere)
I was recently denied access to a beach/river and I'm delighted to say the Local Authority did a full Brexit tackle on the landowner (to the extent they now advertise the beach on the council's website).
Did Farron pass this test? Does Forbes?
One of the more extreme examples in the USA (Texas) recently was a mum who would be forced to carry a child that was going to die, because it was still alive, which is how a hard line policy with tin ears can be a hole in the political boat. This was a Biden advert.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrtvE4bSwKY
TBF I have known very few in the UK taking this type of position.
I assume she out polls Khan than Tories outpoll Labour because Khan is the incumbent and has been for a long time and people can point out his negatives more clearly. I also think that Tories in London are more willing to want to see change in the GLA than to continue this shitshow of a national government. A ten point lead is still pretty overwhelming, and I think Khan will win easily.
Accordingly Kate Forbes should wait until after the Scotland Election 2026. SNP will probably be in opposition then and the leader will probably step down after the Election. She doesn't want to be in that position so should wait until then.
For the general election, Savanta (and Opinium) have tended to have more modest Labour leads while YouGov have tended to be one of the pollsters (along with IPSOS) that have the largest Lab leads...
Now to see this divergence in the London Mayoral election, too. So it's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out.
To me, Savanta (10% Lab/Khan lead) looks much more on the money than YouGov (22% Lab/Khan lead) but we shall see.
However, Forbes herself thinks that she can limit the losses at the GE and maintain power at Holyrood after the next elections for the Scottish Parliament. Well, all politicians have plenty of ego, but the tide is running, and however skilled Kate Forbes may be, she is probably not ^that^ skilled,
I would take the Wee Free any time and that as a non religious person. No time for cowardly unprincipled no morals wasters , who say one thing and do the opposite themselves.
1) Lab take West Mids and Teeside, Khan wins by 15%, 500 council losses
2) Con just hold on in WM and Tees, Khan wins by single figures (say 8%), losses under 400
Very different stories and narrative emerges. Fag packet - 1 leads to landslide 2 leads to a very tricky term in Office for Starmer
There's still something of a tussle about its position in the political spectrum, AFAIK. Certainly is attract votes from the right as well as left of centre.
Having a debate about the ideological position of the next leader seems entirely fair to me (and the suggestion that's 'misogyny' little more than a smear(.
The difference with Hamza is that he was never likely to have any real impact on what the party professes to believe in, and everyone knew that.
But I'd rather have a competent administrator who isn't a salesman, over a salesman who is an incompetent administator. Like Boris...
is he proposing to nationalise the Holly Bush, or the Giraffe Cafe, or something?
(The only reason we changed it was because of pressure from the Teachers - they wanted to increase the relationship with the Church.)
So, pick the bones out of that.
Thur night/Friday/Saturday - not too bad results for CON
Sat/Sun/Mon - speculation, speculation and speculation
Tues - Rishi goes round to the Palace and the podium is out!
The difference between a true fundamentalist and regular people, is the not bending "principal" to reality.
I'd like to have honest politicians, but it's a fact that someone openly opposed to same sex marriage is unlikely to lead a major party in the UK at present, because they are so out of step with public opinion.
I admire those with the guts to take a step against many in their own party/voters and not for obvious political gain - e.g. Cameron on same sex marriage. I'll not withhold support from those who either truly believe in such things or are willing to keep quiet about their true beliefs, because I can't tell between the two, not being able to look into their souls. And people do change their minds on social issues- look at Nigel Adams, former Selby MP (can't find the video at present), not a person I had a great deal of time for, but I admire him for this. Adams, also after his initial vote, wrote a very thoughtful response to a gay constituent I know, setting out his reasons for opposing it at the time.
Yousaf was not pursued on social issues because during the leadership campaign he set out, very clearly, a position that was in step with many in the SNP, not because of his religion or ethnic group. He might have had an easier time than Forbes had he taken a socially conservative stance, but he did not (and I don't think he would have got elected).
As one who, EVER so many years ago, attended a grammar school I’m by no means convinced of their overall benefit.
'I am a true believer with unbreakable principles, except when it comes to wanting to lead a party of non believers with different principles.'
Do you remember how in the Bosnian / Serbian / Croatian etc wars Iran offered to accept 10k children to be safely educated in Iran.
Even today the trustees of the Regents Park Mosque are 22 ambassadors from muslim countries:
https://www.iccuk.org/page.php?section=about&page=news280
I don't think the latter is necessarily a problem, but I could see some of our populist right trying to use it as a not-quite-racist concern trolling wedge issue. I won't be telling Mr Anderson.
To give an analogy, imagine if Starmer had said when he was running for leader that although he was personally against gay marriage he would definitely not undo the current law. He'd have lost the leadership election.
Popcorn might be needed to watch them actually governing together.
In the event of independence, the SNP support would presumably fracture in different directions - the unifying glue of independence would have been broken (much like the Con's 2019 unifying glue of Brexit)
Misogyny towards Forbes? There will be plenty (since she's a high profile woman of power and influence) but I don't think raising her religious views in the context of her leadership bid is evidence of that.
When prison staff complained about such people being let in, they were told that it was a Foreign Office matter.
He also looked tired and not that healthy, which might be an interesting contrast with Sunak in any debates - for all his faults, Sunak looks pretty healthy and energetic, even if he has no good ideas.
Attacking and denigrating its own supporters is a pretty fundamental principle for the CoE clergy.
3 of the 5 are on home policy incl. 2 on fiscal policy, and 2 are on foreign policy.
They have many other policies, incl.
* free school meals for all school pupils
* fan-controlled football
* not taking any nonsense from NIMBYs, and
* in the sphere of foreign policy, developing friendly relations with the BRICS countries
* "heightened" (sic) maritime and coastal patrols
* removing charity status from all "private educational establishments"
* investment in training for refugees
Some of the policies are quite ridiculous, e.g. making cryptocurrency operate in the interests of the working class.
The manifesto strikes me as a bit rambly, rather like other parties' manifestos in that respect, quite amusing in places ("We are not Luddites when it comes to digital currency and fintech"), and not particularly aimed at Muslim voters.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/01/ukraine-russia-war-latest-news14/
“We want independence! What do we do after we’ve got it? Worry about that when we’ve got it!”
Plaid Cymru regularly navel-gaze over the question. The debate in their case is encouraged by that over the language.
Curious.