If Rishi Sunak hadn’t got into bed with Suella Braverman, which was her price for his leadership, and IF he had tacked central and attacked the Far Right instead from the outset I don’t think this would have been the catastrophic result it’s likely to be. I don’t think Sunak was a bad Chancellor. They should have laid into Reform long ago.
John Redwood in his inimitable fashion is claiming the truth is the opposite of this, but what else do you expect from him?
Reform seemed irrelevant until very recently. A year ago, they were polling 4-5%.
Reform is just a new name for what was already an electoral force within the conservative goverment and the key reason it couldn't govern or legislate. Reform didn't spring into existance out of nothing. In fact I see it as a retreat for the populist movement. It failed in its attemt to take over the conservative party from within after 2019. Now it is shuffling to another party, where it will slowly shrink into insignificance, due to the extreme high age of its supporters. Populism cannot govern... it can get elected on the back of high emotion and divisive politics, but it falters as soon as it is in office as the last many years have shown in the UK.
Ref is more popular than the Tories with voters aged 18-49, and is equally popular with voters 50-64.
Applying the old LLG vs RefCon logic (which I know you all love) to the national results in France, they are:
LLG 52, RefCon 45
As they don’t have SNP or Plaid equivalents this is closer to 100% than the GB version.
The difference being that “RefCon” is dominated by the Reform equivalent, and the Liberal bit is a larger chunk of LLG.
Much of the French Left, however, would lump Macron in with the Right. And, the Republicans probably divide evenly between RN and Macron, if forced to choose, but probably 90/10 in favour of RN or Macron, against the Left.
Parts of the French left think Macron is a fascist. It’s like the worst of the Corbynistas at their peak when faced with Lib Dems on their patch.
Yes. I don’t think left wing PB understands what the far left in France is like. They can make Corbyn appear reasonable
They still have actual communists out in the field don't they?
I saw a brilliant line in either the guardian or the FT this morning - it said
“there may be an alliance between France Insoumise… and the more moderate parties, like the communists”
It's why I'm gratified that a solid 45% of the good people of St Vincent des Pres continue to put their trust in the yellows of Ensemble. Even my eco-lefty neighbours grudgingly accept Macron's a reasonable politician. They are more Waveney Valley or North Herefordshire than Bristol Central or Rochdale in their attitudes.
It's one of the last liberal redoubts, perched atop its liberal cow-grazed ridge, the golden stone farmhouses and ruins reflecting back the gentle amber light of their Jupiterian president. The Kingston and Surbiton or Westmorland and Lonsdale of the French political scene.
As far as I know the Rassemblement National runs no major city or any of France's powerful regions. If it does comes to power nationally it will be without any track record of government at the local and national level.
I really dislike Theresa May's politics in many respects, but as a person she seems alright. I like to see former PMs who don't think that the daily grind of politics is beneath them.
One of the reasons I ended up voting for Labour in this election, was for Ed Miliband to be in charge of energy and climate in the next Cabinet. I didn't vote for his local candidate at GE 2015, but I think he has a real interest in this area of policy, and I hope good will come of his time as a Cabinet Minister.
I agree. Whilst her politics are not mine, she comes across as a decent public servant.
A mixed bag. She campaigned against institutionalised racism, and for GRC Reform, but was also behind the "Hostile Environment" and Windrush scandal.
Better than most recent Tory Prime Ministers isn't a very high bar.
She was the worst. Her “red line” speech - entirely unwanted - made sure Brexit would be hideously painful and costly
Nah, your hero Farage did that - along with the other Europhobes - when they did not set what Brexit meant for the referendum. A central lie that led to this mess.
As ever with you, it's someone else's fault.
Believe it or not I partly agree with you here
A failure to define Brexit before the referendum WAS a fundamental error, but the responsibility lies not with Farage - he’s a blustering populist who was never in charge and therefore decided nothing. PM Cameron should have imposed this stipulation
The whole vote was a shambolic disgrace. We should have had a formal national discussion about what Brexit might mean on both sides. We should have had a two stage vote. Remain or Leave, then, if Leave - what kind
Cameron fucked the whole thing, just as he fucked the “renegotiations” and then lost the vote with his ineptitude. Quite why @TSE worships him escapes me. A mediocrity
There's zero way Cameron could have defined what Brexit meant. And if he had, then Farage and the Europhobes within the party would have railed against it, whatever it was. He could only give his side of the argument.
I LOL at you calling Cameron inept. I mean, the Europhobes have hardly shone, have they? A bunch of nasty incompetent fuckwits.
And Cameron let them in by being a conceited second rater. So your point is a strong one but against rather than for him.
Nah. Cameron's head nad shoulders above people like Farage, both in intellect and ability.
His issue was that it's really, really hard to argue against lies and falsehoods - as we see so often on here. If someone's idea of the truth is fluid (as was the Europhobe's definition of Brexit), then it's like squeezing a balloon - you demolish one argument, only for the arguer to inflate a different argument. Lies can also be very persuasive, as the truth is messy.
He is no good at arguing against lies and falsehoods sounds to me like He is no good at politics
I have despised him since AV ref where he allowed the contemptibly fallacious and dishonest Let's give the money to the NHS instead argument to be advanced. Contemptibly dishonest because that's not how budgeting works. As a country we are trying to achieve multiple aims. If an aim is worthless, prove that on the merits. And it was exactly this bit of smarmy dishonesty which came back to bite him in the arse in 2016.
The disturbing reports are that the Biden family are robustly telling him that he is absolutely right to remain the candidate and that its the fault of his advisors for letting him go on stage "over prepared" whatever that is supposed to mean.
If they let him continue, Trump wins and the hard right across the world will smash and invade whatever they like, with the so-called leader of the "free world" cheering them on.
If the DNC face down the Biden family and say "its over" then surely its over? Forget the election for a minute and assume that he wins. That is not the end. Its the beginning of 4 more years where the CinC isn't capable.
It is beyond ridiculous and extremely, wildly irresponsible and dangerous to now run Biden.
But does anyone in the Dems have the guts at this late hour to stand up against his family?
I fear not.
Who though? Even if Biden stands, or rather lurches unsteadily, aside then Harris doesn't automatically get Biden's delegates and become the candidate. It would go to a brokered convention where anything could happen.
The Dems probably think they have a less than 50% and more than 20% shot by running the microwaved remains of Biden against Trump. If they ditch the senile old fucker then chaos ensues, probably to the great benefit of Trump. It's all too late now.
I really dislike Theresa May's politics in many respects, but as a person she seems alright. I like to see former PMs who don't think that the daily grind of politics is beneath them.
One of the reasons I ended up voting for Labour in this election, was for Ed Miliband to be in charge of energy and climate in the next Cabinet. I didn't vote for his local candidate at GE 2015, but I think he has a real interest in this area of policy, and I hope good will come of his time as a Cabinet Minister.
I agree. Whilst her politics are not mine, she comes across as a decent public servant.
A mixed bag. She campaigned against institutionalised racism, and for GRC Reform, but was also behind the "Hostile Environment" and Windrush scandal.
Better than most recent Tory Prime Ministers isn't a very high bar.
She was the worst. Her “red line” speech - entirely unwanted - made sure Brexit would be hideously painful and costly
Nah, your hero Farage did that - along with the other Europhobes - when they did not set what Brexit meant for the referendum. A central lie that led to this mess.
As ever with you, it's someone else's fault.
Believe it or not I partly agree with you here
A failure to define Brexit before the referendum WAS a fundamental error, but the responsibility lies not with Farage - he’s a blustering populist who was never in charge and therefore decided nothing. PM Cameron should have imposed this stipulation
The whole vote was a shambolic disgrace. We should have had a formal national discussion about what Brexit might mean on both sides. We should have had a two stage vote. Remain or Leave, then, if Leave - what kind
Cameron fucked the whole thing, just as he fucked the “renegotiations” and then lost the vote with his ineptitude. Quite why @TSE worships him escapes me. A mediocrity
Very, very, rarely do I agree with you but you are spot on about this.
I voted Leave and I’m still glad we Left and I’d vote Leave again - but I deeply regret the division Brexit has wrought. And the amateurish way we handled everything has made a tough time much more painful than it needed to be
And I now have more respect for the people who say referendums are dangerous and often damaging. After indyref and Brexit who does not think that?
Sometimes they are unavoidable - and matters as big as Indy or Brexit do require a public vote. But if we are going to have them - rarely - we need to develop a more mature way of handling them. The Irish seem to do them quite well. They have a big national debate first. We could learn from that
The Swiss are very good at referendums as well, because they do so many of them they stick strictly to the subject.
The problem is the major constitutional change, as much as it’s the methodology. By its very nature it’s always going to be rather divisive.
And because they are a tiny little nation.... far more intimate national setting and hence much higher levels of trust. Also, the living and educational standards are much much higher. We have far too many desperate low income people for that system to work here.
As far as education is concerned, Switzerland has a Pisa Ranking of 498 and is 10th in the world, whereas the UK has 494 and is 14th. The UK has a better GINI coefficient at 32,6 than Switzerland at 33.1.
The biggest difference is social trust which is 58.5% in Switzerland versus 43,4% in the UK.
Despite a slightly smaller gap, sub 20 makes defending seats tough for the Tories.
The very small Green number and lack of London Green surge implies their strength is elsewhere, which is very interesting. I am keeping a beady eye on the Greens in this election. They caused quite a few shocks in rural council seats at the locals. Watch out for the rural NIMBY Greens.
The 'others' in London will principally be the left wing Indys standing in Islington, Chingford, and Ilford - as their campaigns have got going they've picked up a lot of former Labour voters in those few areas. Whereas the drop in the Tory vote is likely evenly spread, with the shift to Reform making Tory candidates' tasks more difficult across the capital.
1% would give all 3 of those indies nearly 40% of the vote each. Its therefore likely a mix of them, the Newham Indies, other indies and Workers, 5% of Londons vote is a sizeable chunk, 200,000 votes or so, 3000 per constituency
Corbyn will poll well, and I doubt the votes for the Indys in Chingford and Ilford will be negligible. Yes, there are some other small parties - but my point is that the -6% for Labour is going to be heavily concentrated whereas the -3% for the Tories is probably all over. So it doesn't back a strategy of hunting out Tory holds.
UNS it's 7.5% from 2019, so up to Uxbridge. So even on these numbers the top level outer London seats (and Sutton with a weak LD score) are fairly likely holds. But they are losing probably half or more of the 20 London seats
The B'ham rally may have been another mistake by Farage. Generally speaking British voters don't like that type of event, as we saw in 1992 with Kinnock.
This is not good for Biden. This guy is influential - and relatively neutral
“I just spoke to one of the most respected doctors in the world. He says that it is eminently apparent that @POTUS Biden has lewy body dementia, Parkinson’s and/or Alzheimer’s and that his decline will not be linear. It will accelerate.”
Isn't it unethical to encourage someone with these conditions to take on, or continue to have, a responsible job when you know they're not up to it?
The instructive thing to listen to over the weekend, has been the more conservative US commentators.
Their attitude has wavered between “Brilliant, please stick with the doddery old man rather than twisting for someone sensible like Whitmer”, and “Seriously, on a human level, it’s really not right to keep this guy up there when he should be enjoying retirement with his family”.
It also begs the question of who’s actually running the country at the moment, and who’s been in charge for the past three years?
I really dislike Theresa May's politics in many respects, but as a person she seems alright. I like to see former PMs who don't think that the daily grind of politics is beneath them.
One of the reasons I ended up voting for Labour in this election, was for Ed Miliband to be in charge of energy and climate in the next Cabinet. I didn't vote for his local candidate at GE 2015, but I think he has a real interest in this area of policy, and I hope good will come of his time as a Cabinet Minister.
I agree. Whilst her politics are not mine, she comes across as a decent public servant.
Agreed and genuinely pained to see the direction her Party has travelled
I also think this country would have been better off economically had they voted for her Brexit deal.
Whilst I agree about her Brexit version, she really was an awful PM and Home Secretary. She was a Twin set and Pearls version of Patel or Braverman, authoritarian in the extreme and responsible for a huge amount of misery for a lot of innocent people. I was delighted when she fell, even if far less delighted with the choice of successor.
In any traditional Conservative government, May occupies a position similar to Sunak. On the bus, but to the right of that bus.
At the moment, both of them are somewhere on the left, probably hanging on to the outside for grim life. I'm sure some people see that change as a good thing, but I struggle to ee it myself.
No one forced May to send out vans telling immigrants to go home. No one forced her to develop a culture at the Home Office that led to the Windrush scandal. This was all in the Cameron/Coalition years - held up by many to be a period of centralism at least as far as social issues are concerned - and was entirely self inflicted.
My prediction for Theresa May is that she'll spend a few years doing something like Churchwarden of her Church of England Parish (which is a surprisingly big job in a lot of cases), or other pivotal role in the local community.
Our last-but-two churchwarden was the retired Quartermaster-General to the Forces. At one point the diocese decided it wanted to amalgamate our parish with a few neighbouring ones. Lt Gen Sir Retired Quartermaster-General was not having any of it. I don't know exactly what transpired in the negotiations but let's just say we are still a single parish.
This always happens irrespective of former rank. Amalgamation of 5 parishes means 4 sets of redundancies.
The way it usually works – round here at least - is that when a vicar retires or goes off to a new job, someone in the diocese sits down with a map and shifts parishes between benefices, such that each one goes from four to five churches, or similar, and there's no need to fill the vacancy.
(There is a name for this approach - can't remember it offhand but it's a placename + "Principle", I think.)
We were particularly vulnerable as the only remaining single parish for miles around. But we've survived because we're the sort of place that Quartermasters-General of the Forces tend to retire to.
This review from the LRB, while fairly long, lists quite well every one of the 247 reasons for not voting Tory this time. The glance at Dorries is very funny.
I really dislike Theresa May's politics in many respects, but as a person she seems alright. I like to see former PMs who don't think that the daily grind of politics is beneath them.
One of the reasons I ended up voting for Labour in this election, was for Ed Miliband to be in charge of energy and climate in the next Cabinet. I didn't vote for his local candidate at GE 2015, but I think he has a real interest in this area of policy, and I hope good will come of his time as a Cabinet Minister.
I agree. Whilst her politics are not mine, she comes across as a decent public servant.
A mixed bag. She campaigned against institutionalised racism, and for GRC Reform, but was also behind the "Hostile Environment" and Windrush scandal.
Better than most recent Tory Prime Ministers isn't a very high bar.
She was the worst. Her “red line” speech - entirely unwanted - made sure Brexit would be hideously painful and costly
Nah, your hero Farage did that - along with the other Europhobes - when they did not set what Brexit meant for the referendum. A central lie that led to this mess.
As ever with you, it's someone else's fault.
Believe it or not I partly agree with you here
A failure to define Brexit before the referendum WAS a fundamental error, but the responsibility lies not with Farage - he’s a blustering populist who was never in charge and therefore decided nothing. PM Cameron should have imposed this stipulation
The whole vote was a shambolic disgrace. We should have had a formal national discussion about what Brexit might mean on both sides. We should have had a two stage vote. Remain or Leave, then, if Leave - what kind
Cameron fucked the whole thing, just as he fucked the “renegotiations” and then lost the vote with his ineptitude. Quite why @TSE worships him escapes me. A mediocrity
Unfortunately, that would have been a non-starter. A debate before the Brexit vote would have descended into even more of
"If we want the freedom to do X, it will have bad consequence Y, because that's how the EU operates."
"No, that's just Project Fear. Once we have a proper negotiator in place, they will back down."
Narrator: The "proper negotiator" was David Frost.
The one who went into the negotiating room with no papers?
I really dislike Theresa May's politics in many respects, but as a person she seems alright. I like to see former PMs who don't think that the daily grind of politics is beneath them.
One of the reasons I ended up voting for Labour in this election, was for Ed Miliband to be in charge of energy and climate in the next Cabinet. I didn't vote for his local candidate at GE 2015, but I think he has a real interest in this area of policy, and I hope good will come of his time as a Cabinet Minister.
I agree. Whilst her politics are not mine, she comes across as a decent public servant.
Agreed and genuinely pained to see the direction her Party has travelled
I also think this country would have been better off economically had they voted for her Brexit deal.
Whilst I agree about her Brexit version, she really was an awful PM and Home Secretary. She was a Twin set and Pearls version of Patel or Braverman, authoritarian in the extreme and responsible for a huge amount of misery for a lot of innocent people. I was delighted when she fell, even if far less delighted with the choice of successor.
In any traditional Conservative government, May occupies a position similar to Sunak. On the bus, but to the right of that bus.
At the moment, both of them are somewhere on the left, probably hanging on to the outside for grim life. I'm sure some people see that change as a good thing, but I struggle to ee it myself.
No one forced May to send out vans telling immigrants to go home. No one forced her to develop a culture at the Home Office that led to the Windrush scandal. This was all in the Cameron/Coalition years - held up by many to be a period of centralism at least as far as social issues are concerned - and was entirely self inflicted.
My prediction for Theresa May is that she'll spend a few years doing something like Churchwarden of her Church of England Parish (which is a surprisingly big job in a lot of cases), or other pivotal role in the local community.
Our last-but-two churchwarden was the retired Quartermaster-General to the Forces. At one point the diocese decided it wanted to amalgamate our parish with a few neighbouring ones. Lt Gen Sir Retired Quartermaster-General was not having any of it. I don't know exactly what transpired in the negotiations but let's just say we are still a single parish.
15 odd years ago I carefully ensured that the parish I was Deanery Synod rep on was kept well away from the merger plans - did take a bit of work but it's remained that way through 2 further consolidation attempts (the fact it contains over 1/3 of the towns population makes it a difficult argument to combat).
Given that Church attendances are falling, as are the numbers describing themselves as CofE, and consequently costs per parishioner are riser, was that really in the best interests of the organisation?
Markets had been worrying the outcome would be worse. A hung parliament is better than MLP or Mechelon having the reins of power. Basically, things looking slightly less bad than the central eatimate yesterday.
The B'ham rally may have been another mistake by Farage. Generally speaking British voters don't like that type of event, as we saw in 1992 with Kinnock.
This is not good for Biden. This guy is influential - and relatively neutral
“I just spoke to one of the most respected doctors in the world. He says that it is eminently apparent that @POTUS Biden has lewy body dementia, Parkinson’s and/or Alzheimer’s and that his decline will not be linear. It will accelerate.”
Isn't it unethical to encourage someone with these conditions to take on, or continue to have, a responsible job when you know they're not up to it?
Absolutely yes. And given that the job is “most powerful man in the world” it is also immensely reckless and dangerous
And of course as this logic sinks in with Americans they will be forced to vote for Trump. So we get Trump
It’s a catastrophe and all those who willingly lied to themselves and the world about Biden - including plenty on here - have a tiny bit of responsibility for this
Nonetheless there is still time - just - for the Dems to shunt Biden aside and throw open the Convention. Roll the dice on democracy
There were investor fears over a united left majority or a RN majority, both of which have some populist anti-business policies in there (the left particularly) so I expect hung parliament represents the best chance of nothing too radical happening.
Despite a slightly smaller gap, sub 20 makes defending seats tough for the Tories.
The very small Green number and lack of London Green surge implies their strength is elsewhere, which is very interesting. I am keeping a beady eye on the Greens in this election. They caused quite a few shocks in rural council seats at the locals. Watch out for the rural NIMBY Greens.
The 'others' in London will principally be the left wing Indys standing in Islington, Chingford, and Ilford - as their campaigns have got going they've picked up a lot of former Labour voters in those few areas. Whereas the drop in the Tory vote is likely evenly spread, with the shift to Reform making Tory candidates' tasks more difficult across the capital.
1% would give all 3 of those indies nearly 40% of the vote each. Its therefore likely a mix of them, the Newham Indies, other indies and Workers, 5% of Londons vote is a sizeable chunk, 200,000 votes or so, 3000 per constituency
Corbyn will poll well, and I doubt the votes for the Indys in Chingford and Ilford will be negligible. Yes, there are some other small parties - but my point is that the -6% for Labour is going to be heavily concentrated whereas the -3% for the Tories is probably all over. So it doesn't back a strategy of hunting out Tory holds.
Harrow East is probably a Tory hold on these numbers.
He is no good at arguing against lies and falsehoods sounds to me like He is no good at politics
Cameron specifically called a press conference at which he said "The Leave campaign are telling lies"
Which they were.
Which people voted for anyway.
Remain had the simple task of explaining why the status quo was brilliant, coherent, economically sound and politically what we needed, and why the EU, which Labour and Tory governments had shaped for decades so self evidently well that there was no point in asking us whether we liked it, was obviously what we all wanted.
How on earth could a few Leave slogans get in the way of this political, economic and national success?
Despite a slightly smaller gap, sub 20 makes defending seats tough for the Tories.
I disagree with Ref on 11%. More likely they'll get around 7-8% imo.
If they get anywhere near 11% in London then the Sunderland South count will be interesting.
I would have thought 5-6%
Man 11% in London and 8% in Scotland really helps to explain the inefficiency of Reforms vote. They need it to collapse in those places and go up in others.
This is not good for Biden. This guy is influential - and relatively neutral
“I just spoke to one of the most respected doctors in the world. He says that it is eminently apparent that @POTUS Biden has lewy body dementia, Parkinson’s and/or Alzheimer’s and that his decline will not be linear. It will accelerate.”
He is no good at arguing against lies and falsehoods sounds to me like He is no good at politics
Cameron specifically called a press conference at which he said "The Leave campaign are telling lies"
Which they were.
Which people voted for anyway.
When all sides are telling lies, and the public know it, accusing one side or the other has no cut through. Cameron told the biggest lie of the campaign which was that there had been a meaningful renegotiation of UK membership of the EU. Everyone knew that was a whopper and even Cameron didn't have the heart to really push it.
He is no good at arguing against lies and falsehoods sounds to me like He is no good at politics
Cameron specifically called a press conference at which he said "The Leave campaign are telling lies"
Which they were.
Which people voted for anyway.
Remain had the simple task of explaining why the status quo was brilliant, coherent, economically sound and politically what we needed, and why the EU, which Labour and Tory governments had shaped for decades so self evidently well that there was no point in asking us whether we liked it, was obviously what we all wanted.
How on earth could a few Leave slogans get in the way of this political, economic and national success?
"Outwitted by morons", "beaten by a bus" are not great excuses.
The disturbing reports are that the Biden family are robustly telling him that he is absolutely right to remain the candidate and that its the fault of his advisors for letting him go on stage "over prepared" whatever that is supposed to mean.
If they let him continue, Trump wins and the hard right across the world will smash and invade whatever they like, with the so-called leader of the "free world" cheering them on.
If the DNC face down the Biden family and say "its over" then surely its over? Forget the election for a minute and assume that he wins. That is not the end. Its the beginning of 4 more years where the CinC isn't capable.
It is beyond ridiculous and extremely, wildly irresponsible and dangerous to now run Biden.
But does anyone in the Dems have the guts at this late hour to stand up against his family?
I fear not.
The problem is Kamala Harris. She can't beat Trump but if she is dumped then black Americans will boycott and the Dems cannot win without them. They seem to have snookered themselves.
I really dislike Theresa May's politics in many respects, but as a person she seems alright. I like to see former PMs who don't think that the daily grind of politics is beneath them.
One of the reasons I ended up voting for Labour in this election, was for Ed Miliband to be in charge of energy and climate in the next Cabinet. I didn't vote for his local candidate at GE 2015, but I think he has a real interest in this area of policy, and I hope good will come of his time as a Cabinet Minister.
I agree. Whilst her politics are not mine, she comes across as a decent public servant.
Agreed and genuinely pained to see the direction her Party has travelled
I also think this country would have been better off economically had they voted for her Brexit deal.
Whilst I agree about her Brexit version, she really was an awful PM and Home Secretary. She was a Twin set and Pearls version of Patel or Braverman, authoritarian in the extreme and responsible for a huge amount of misery for a lot of innocent people. I was delighted when she fell, even if far less delighted with the choice of successor.
In any traditional Conservative government, May occupies a position similar to Sunak. On the bus, but to the right of that bus.
At the moment, both of them are somewhere on the left, probably hanging on to the outside for grim life. I'm sure some people see that change as a good thing, but I struggle to ee it myself.
No one forced May to send out vans telling immigrants to go home. No one forced her to develop a culture at the Home Office that led to the Windrush scandal. This was all in the Cameron/Coalition years - held up by many to be a period of centralism at least as far as social issues are concerned - and was entirely self inflicted.
My prediction for Theresa May is that she'll spend a few years doing something like Churchwarden of her Church of England Parish (which is a surprisingly big job in a lot of cases), or other pivotal role in the local community.
Our last-but-two churchwarden was the retired Quartermaster-General to the Forces. At one point the diocese decided it wanted to amalgamate our parish with a few neighbouring ones. Lt Gen Sir Retired Quartermaster-General was not having any of it. I don't know exactly what transpired in the negotiations but let's just say we are still a single parish.
15 odd years ago I carefully ensured that the parish I was Deanery Synod rep on was kept well away from the merger plans - did take a bit of work but it's remained that way through 2 further consolidation attempts (the fact it contains over 1/3 of the towns population makes it a difficult argument to combat).
Given that Church attendances are falling, as are the numbers describing themselves as CofE, and consequently costs per parishioner are riser, was that really in the best interests of the organisation?
And Good Morning everyone.
The fact my plan has survived 2 further consolidations (job cuts) would I think say that it was the best plan.
He is no good at arguing against lies and falsehoods sounds to me like He is no good at politics
Cameron specifically called a press conference at which he said "The Leave campaign are telling lies"
Which they were.
Which people voted for anyway.
Remain had the simple task of explaining why the status quo was brilliant, coherent, economically sound and politically what we needed, and why the EU, which Labour and Tory governments had shaped for decades so self evidently well that there was no point in asking us whether we liked it, was obviously what we all wanted.
How on earth could a few Leave slogans get in the way of this political, economic and national success?
The remain argument wasn't that it was brilliant and coherent because that is evidently not true. It was that it was not great but better than the alternative, which whilst true, is far from an easy argument to make.
Damn. The reform vote really is as inefficient as UKIP. In 2105 UKIP got 8% in London and 13% nationally. If UKIP = reform then 11% in London for reform is 16% nationally which is what the national polls are basically saying.
It’s not O/t in the Cole household. Mrs C will be glued to the box for most of the next fortnight. Fortunately electoral coverage is outside daylight hours.
I really dislike Theresa May's politics in many respects, but as a person she seems alright. I like to see former PMs who don't think that the daily grind of politics is beneath them.
One of the reasons I ended up voting for Labour in this election, was for Ed Miliband to be in charge of energy and climate in the next Cabinet. I didn't vote for his local candidate at GE 2015, but I think he has a real interest in this area of policy, and I hope good will come of his time as a Cabinet Minister.
I agree. Whilst her politics are not mine, she comes across as a decent public servant.
Agreed and genuinely pained to see the direction her Party has travelled
I also think this country would have been better off economically had they voted for her Brexit deal.
Whilst I agree about her Brexit version, she really was an awful PM and Home Secretary. She was a Twin set and Pearls version of Patel or Braverman, authoritarian in the extreme and responsible for a huge amount of misery for a lot of innocent people. I was delighted when she fell, even if far less delighted with the choice of successor.
In any traditional Conservative government, May occupies a position similar to Sunak. On the bus, but to the right of that bus.
At the moment, both of them are somewhere on the left, probably hanging on to the outside for grim life. I'm sure some people see that change as a good thing, but I struggle to ee it myself.
No one forced May to send out vans telling immigrants to go home. No one forced her to develop a culture at the Home Office that led to the Windrush scandal. This was all in the Cameron/Coalition years - held up by many to be a period of centralism at least as far as social issues are concerned - and was entirely self inflicted.
My prediction for Theresa May is that she'll spend a few years doing something like Churchwarden of her Church of England Parish (which is a surprisingly big job in a lot of cases), or other pivotal role in the local community.
Our last-but-two churchwarden was the retired Quartermaster-General to the Forces. At one point the diocese decided it wanted to amalgamate our parish with a few neighbouring ones. Lt Gen Sir Retired Quartermaster-General was not having any of it. I don't know exactly what transpired in the negotiations but let's just say we are still a single parish.
15 odd years ago I carefully ensured that the parish I was Deanery Synod rep on was kept well away from the merger plans - did take a bit of work but it's remained that way through 2 further consolidation attempts (the fact it contains over 1/3 of the towns population makes it a difficult argument to combat).
Given that Church attendances are falling, as are the numbers describing themselves as CofE, and consequently costs per parishioner are riser, was that really in the best interests of the organisation?
And Good Morning everyone.
A fork in the road is coming, or may have come.
If the nation (England as a whole) wants a national church, with national coverage, with national duties and obligations then like everything else it will need a proper review of how that will be financed. No different from schools and hospitals, just about 1000 times smaller. It isn't possible for 11 old ladies and a dog to fund ongoing people costs + the million required for the roof of a national treasure.
If the nation doesn't want this, another, and very radical approach is required.
Straw in the wind: The diocese of London has just put on the market a City of London Grade 1 Wren church (St Michael Paternoster).
He is no good at arguing against lies and falsehoods sounds to me like He is no good at politics
Cameron specifically called a press conference at which he said "The Leave campaign are telling lies"
Which they were.
Which people voted for anyway.
Remain had the simple task of explaining why the status quo was brilliant, coherent, economically sound and politically what we needed, and why the EU, which Labour and Tory governments had shaped for decades so self evidently well that there was no point in asking us whether we liked it, was obviously what we all wanted.
How on earth could a few Leave slogans get in the way of this political, economic and national success?
The remain argument wasn't that it was brilliant and coherent because that is evidently not true. It was that it was not great but better than the alternative, which whilst true, is far from an easy argument to make.
Remain offered no reason for staying because it didn't highlight the advantages. It used Project Fear to highlight the disadvantages of leaving but didn't highlight the advantages of remaining. And hope is what wins elections...
Damn. The reform vote really is as inefficient as UKIP. In 2105 UKIP got 8% in London and 13% nationally. If UKIP = reform then 11% in London for reform is 16% nationally which is what the national polls are basically saying.
Well it will be, there is no mechanism for it go grow organically in wedges or clumps, there's no local Reform movements (except I believe in Derby)
The disturbing reports are that the Biden family are robustly telling him that he is absolutely right to remain the candidate and that its the fault of his advisors for letting him go on stage "over prepared" whatever that is supposed to mean.
If they let him continue, Trump wins and the hard right across the world will smash and invade whatever they like, with the so-called leader of the "free world" cheering them on.
If the DNC face down the Biden family and say "its over" then surely its over? Forget the election for a minute and assume that he wins. That is not the end. Its the beginning of 4 more years where the CinC isn't capable.
It is beyond ridiculous and extremely, wildly irresponsible and dangerous to now run Biden.
But does anyone in the Dems have the guts at this late hour to stand up against his family?
I fear not.
The problem is Kamala Harris. She can't beat Trump but if she is dumped then black Americans will boycott and the Dems cannot win without them. They seem to have snookered themselves.
Nope there are 3 problems.
1) removing Kamala Harris because she isn't going to win. 2) convincing Biden to retire now rather than losing badly... 3) finding someone who can win and getting them in place without destroying the party...
He is no good at arguing against lies and falsehoods sounds to me like He is no good at politics
Cameron specifically called a press conference at which he said "The Leave campaign are telling lies"
Which they were.
Which people voted for anyway.
Remain had the simple task of explaining why the status quo was brilliant, coherent, economically sound and politically what we needed, and why the EU, which Labour and Tory governments had shaped for decades so self evidently well that there was no point in asking us whether we liked it, was obviously what we all wanted.
How on earth could a few Leave slogans get in the way of this political, economic and national success?
The remain argument wasn't that it was brilliant and coherent because that is evidently not true. It was that it was not great but better than the alternative, which whilst true, is far from an easy argument to make.
Remain offered no reason for staying because it didn't highlight the advantages. It used Project Fear to highlight the disadvantages of leaving but didn't highlight the advantages of remaining. And hope is what wins elections...
This is not good for Biden. This guy is influential - and relatively neutral
“I just spoke to one of the most respected doctors in the world. He says that it is eminently apparent that @POTUS Biden has lewy body dementia, Parkinson’s and/or Alzheimer’s and that his decline will not be linear. It will accelerate.”
Isn't it unethical to encourage someone with these conditions to take on, or continue to have, a responsible job when you know they're not up to it?
Absolutely yes. And given that the job is “most powerful man in the world” it is also immensely reckless and dangerous
And of course as this logic sinks in with Americans they will be forced to vote for Trump. So we get Trump
It’s a catastrophe and all those who willingly lied to themselves and the world about Biden - including plenty on here - have a tiny bit of responsibility for this
Nonetheless there is still time - just - for the Dems to shunt Biden aside and throw open the Convention. Roll the dice on democracy
The reports of the family conflab are worrying, and Jill Biden's feisty perfomance at the podium the other day makes you wonder who's pulling the strings. It always seemed to me that his vice president was chosen for right-on reasons rather than ability but, faute de mieux, she would do. For god's sake let her run.
"Outwitted by morons", "beaten by a bus" are not great excuses.
The folk who were beaten by the bus were those that voted for it and now regret it
It is, of course, perfectly possible to support leaving the EU but not support the manner in which it was done. Just like it is possible to support the principle of the NHS but think the way it is run is not right.
The disturbing reports are that the Biden family are robustly telling him that he is absolutely right to remain the candidate and that its the fault of his advisors for letting him go on stage "over prepared" whatever that is supposed to mean.
If they let him continue, Trump wins and the hard right across the world will smash and invade whatever they like, with the so-called leader of the "free world" cheering them on.
If the DNC face down the Biden family and say "its over" then surely its over? Forget the election for a minute and assume that he wins. That is not the end. Its the beginning of 4 more years where the CinC isn't capable.
It is beyond ridiculous and extremely, wildly irresponsible and dangerous to now run Biden.
But does anyone in the Dems have the guts at this late hour to stand up against his family?
I fear not.
The problem is Kamala Harris. She can't beat Trump but if she is dumped then black Americans will boycott and the Dems cannot win without them. They seem to have snookered themselves.
Nope there are 3 problems.
1) removing Kamala Harris because she isn't going to win. 2) convincing Biden to retire now rather than losing badly... 3) finding someone who can win and getting them in place without destroying the party...
4) inertia: the inability to convince themselves that Biden’s not the right guy in the first place.
I really dislike Theresa May's politics in many respects, but as a person she seems alright. I like to see former PMs who don't think that the daily grind of politics is beneath them.
One of the reasons I ended up voting for Labour in this election, was for Ed Miliband to be in charge of energy and climate in the next Cabinet. I didn't vote for his local candidate at GE 2015, but I think he has a real interest in this area of policy, and I hope good will come of his time as a Cabinet Minister.
I agree. Whilst her politics are not mine, she comes across as a decent public servant.
Agreed and genuinely pained to see the direction her Party has travelled
I also think this country would have been better off economically had they voted for her Brexit deal.
Whilst I agree about her Brexit version, she really was an awful PM and Home Secretary. She was a Twin set and Pearls version of Patel or Braverman, authoritarian in the extreme and responsible for a huge amount of misery for a lot of innocent people. I was delighted when she fell, even if far less delighted with the choice of successor.
In any traditional Conservative government, May occupies a position similar to Sunak. On the bus, but to the right of that bus.
At the moment, both of them are somewhere on the left, probably hanging on to the outside for grim life. I'm sure some people see that change as a good thing, but I struggle to ee it myself.
No one forced May to send out vans telling immigrants to go home. No one forced her to develop a culture at the Home Office that led to the Windrush scandal. This was all in the Cameron/Coalition years - held up by many to be a period of centralism at least as far as social issues are concerned - and was entirely self inflicted.
My prediction for Theresa May is that she'll spend a few years doing something like Churchwarden of her Church of England Parish (which is a surprisingly big job in a lot of cases), or other pivotal role in the local community.
Our last-but-two churchwarden was the retired Quartermaster-General to the Forces. At one point the diocese decided it wanted to amalgamate our parish with a few neighbouring ones. Lt Gen Sir Retired Quartermaster-General was not having any of it. I don't know exactly what transpired in the negotiations but let's just say we are still a single parish.
15 odd years ago I carefully ensured that the parish I was Deanery Synod rep on was kept well away from the merger plans - did take a bit of work but it's remained that way through 2 further consolidation attempts (the fact it contains over 1/3 of the towns population makes it a difficult argument to combat).
Given that Church attendances are falling, as are the numbers describing themselves as CofE, and consequently costs per parishioner are riser, was that really in the best interests of the organisation?
And Good Morning everyone.
A fork in the road is coming, or may have come.
If the nation (England as a whole) wants a national church, with national coverage, with national duties and obligations then like everything else it will need a proper review of how that will be financed. No different from schools and hospitals, just about 1000 times smaller. It isn't possible for 11 old ladies and a dog to fund ongoing people costs + the million required for the roof of a national treasure.
If the nation doesn't want this, another, and very radical approach is required.
Straw in the wind: The diocese of London has just put on the market a City of London Grade 1 Wren church (St Michael Paternoster).
That's not be used as a parish church for a long time, it was leased to the Mission to Seafarers in 1968 and they handed it back in 2017.
He is no good at arguing against lies and falsehoods sounds to me like He is no good at politics
Cameron specifically called a press conference at which he said "The Leave campaign are telling lies"
Which they were.
Which people voted for anyway.
Remain had the simple task of explaining why the status quo was brilliant, coherent, economically sound and politically what we needed, and why the EU, which Labour and Tory governments had shaped for decades so self evidently well that there was no point in asking us whether we liked it, was obviously what we all wanted.
How on earth could a few Leave slogans get in the way of this political, economic and national success?
Well in hindsight it didn’t help that Cameron went into it having said he would renegotiate, which immediately suggests that there was something “wrong” with the arrangement that needed fixing.
I think this assessment - from someone who's lobbied against Biden running again for longer than most - is correct. If Biden doesn't decide to step down, there's no mechanism to make him do so.
https://thehill.com/elections/4748577-axelrod-biden-replacement-discussion-irrelevant/ Democratic strategist David Axelrod on Saturday called discussions about replacing President Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket “irrelevant,” as the party continues to face the fallout from the Thursday night debate. The former Obama White House senior adviser said the appropriate time to have the discussion would have been last year. “Reality check: @JoeBiden is the nominee of the Democratic Party, nominated by voters in primaries across the country,” Axelrod wrote on the social platform X. “Unless the @POTUS, himself, decides to quit — which he won’t — that issue is settled.” “The discussion that is going on now was timely a year ago, when few wanted to have it. It’s largely irrelevant today,” he continued. Biden’s shaky debate performance on Thursday has spurred conversations among Democrats about whether he should remain atop the ticket. Biden and key allies have launched a fierce campaign to defend Biden and assure the public that he is the right person for the job. In a panel discussion immediately following the debate, Axelrod cast doubt on former President Trump’s ability to inspire the Republican base, and suggested a non-Biden Democrat would likely beat Trump. “If, for whatever reason, there’s a change at the top of the ticket, you guys are in trouble with Donald Trump. Because the guy who was up there tonight is not a guy who’s going to inspire people,” Axelrod said of Trump on CNN. “He did not show in any way that he has changed from the guy who people have a very positive opinion of, for a lot of good reason.” Axelrod said Thursday “there was a sense of shock” about Biden’s performance at the beginning of the debate, pointing to his raspy voice and “disoriented” disposition. He added that Biden “did get stronger as the debate went on.” Axelrod continued: “I think you’re going to hear discussions that I don’t know will lead to anything, but there are going to be discussions about whether he should continue.”..
He is no good at arguing against lies and falsehoods sounds to me like He is no good at politics
Cameron specifically called a press conference at which he said "The Leave campaign are telling lies"
Which they were.
Which people voted for anyway.
When all sides are telling lies, and the public know it, accusing one side or the other has no cut through. Cameron told the biggest lie of the campaign which was that there had been a meaningful renegotiation of UK membership of the EU. Everyone knew that was a whopper and even Cameron didn't have the heart to really push it.
Not to mention this:
a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain.
The analysis also presents a downside scenario, finding that the shock could be much more profound, meaning the effect on the economy would be worse still. The rise in uncertainty could be amplified, the volatility in financial markets more tumultuous, and the extent of the impact to living standards more acute. In this severe scenario, GDP would be 6% smaller, there would be a deeper recession, and the number of people made unemployed would rise by around 800,000 compared with a vote to remain. The hit to wages, inflation, house prices and borrowing would be larger. There is a credible risk that this more acute scenario could materialise.
I really dislike Theresa May's politics in many respects, but as a person she seems alright. I like to see former PMs who don't think that the daily grind of politics is beneath them.
One of the reasons I ended up voting for Labour in this election, was for Ed Miliband to be in charge of energy and climate in the next Cabinet. I didn't vote for his local candidate at GE 2015, but I think he has a real interest in this area of policy, and I hope good will come of his time as a Cabinet Minister.
I agree. Whilst her politics are not mine, she comes across as a decent public servant.
Agreed and genuinely pained to see the direction her Party has travelled
I also think this country would have been better off economically had they voted for her Brexit deal.
Whilst I agree about her Brexit version, she really was an awful PM and Home Secretary. She was a Twin set and Pearls version of Patel or Braverman, authoritarian in the extreme and responsible for a huge amount of misery for a lot of innocent people. I was delighted when she fell, even if far less delighted with the choice of successor.
In any traditional Conservative government, May occupies a position similar to Sunak. On the bus, but to the right of that bus.
At the moment, both of them are somewhere on the left, probably hanging on to the outside for grim life. I'm sure some people see that change as a good thing, but I struggle to ee it myself.
No one forced May to send out vans telling immigrants to go home. No one forced her to develop a culture at the Home Office that led to the Windrush scandal. This was all in the Cameron/Coalition years - held up by many to be a period of centralism at least as far as social issues are concerned - and was entirely self inflicted.
My prediction for Theresa May is that she'll spend a few years doing something like Churchwarden of her Church of England Parish (which is a surprisingly big job in a lot of cases), or other pivotal role in the local community.
Our last-but-two churchwarden was the retired Quartermaster-General to the Forces. At one point the diocese decided it wanted to amalgamate our parish with a few neighbouring ones. Lt Gen Sir Retired Quartermaster-General was not having any of it. I don't know exactly what transpired in the negotiations but let's just say we are still a single parish.
15 odd years ago I carefully ensured that the parish I was Deanery Synod rep on was kept well away from the merger plans - did take a bit of work but it's remained that way through 2 further consolidation attempts (the fact it contains over 1/3 of the towns population makes it a difficult argument to combat).
Given that Church attendances are falling, as are the numbers describing themselves as CofE, and consequently costs per parishioner are riser, was that really in the best interests of the organisation?
And Good Morning everyone.
Another manifestation of the same problem we have with government in the West right now.
We're used to certain things happening- in this case, a vicar in every parish- and haven't enquired too much into what made those things happen. Not enough people are offering themselves for ordination and not enough people are putting enough in the plate (or tax efficient standing orders, please!) to pay the bills.
And it's much easier to say that They Should Keep Things How They Have Been than to acknowledge that that depended on circumstances that are no longer sustainable and that now is when we all have to collectively pay our way. Much easier to pretend that the problem could be solved by cutting diversity officers archdeacons.
See also France- how much of the failure of Macron is because people like the idea of cutting taxes and lowering the pension age?
I really dislike Theresa May's politics in many respects, but as a person she seems alright. I like to see former PMs who don't think that the daily grind of politics is beneath them.
One of the reasons I ended up voting for Labour in this election, was for Ed Miliband to be in charge of energy and climate in the next Cabinet. I didn't vote for his local candidate at GE 2015, but I think he has a real interest in this area of policy, and I hope good will come of his time as a Cabinet Minister.
I agree. Whilst her politics are not mine, she comes across as a decent public servant.
Well being magnanimous in (hoped for) victory, I profoundly disagree with Theresa May, and thought her "Citizen of Nowhere" speech deeply and profoundly wrong, however I have no doubt that her beliefs are sincerely held. I am also prepared to believe that Rishi Sunak is personally a decent man.
Whereas Boris Johnson and Liz Truss were not merely wrong but malign and their selfish political and, lets face it, their personal conduct leaves me pretty cold too.
Seeing Theresa May campaigning like that does not change my views of her policies, but does make me quite proud of our democracy.
Civility and decency are actually the norm in our politics, which is why those -like Johnson, Truss and Farage- who break the unwritten rules of common decency should be shunned.
Noticed she was csmpaigning in Scotland for her former PPS Andrew Bowie. She's actually well respected north of the border, reflected by the Tories gaining 12 seats there in the ill-fated 2017 election. Sobriety and civic duty are seen as a plus in some parts of the kingdom.
I really dislike Theresa May's politics in many respects, but as a person she seems alright. I like to see former PMs who don't think that the daily grind of politics is beneath them.
One of the reasons I ended up voting for Labour in this election, was for Ed Miliband to be in charge of energy and climate in the next Cabinet. I didn't vote for his local candidate at GE 2015, but I think he has a real interest in this area of policy, and I hope good will come of his time as a Cabinet Minister.
I agree. Whilst her politics are not mine, she comes across as a decent public servant.
Agreed and genuinely pained to see the direction her Party has travelled
I also think this country would have been better off economically had they voted for her Brexit deal.
Whilst I agree about her Brexit version, she really was an awful PM and Home Secretary. She was a Twin set and Pearls version of Patel or Braverman, authoritarian in the extreme and responsible for a huge amount of misery for a lot of innocent people. I was delighted when she fell, even if far less delighted with the choice of successor.
In any traditional Conservative government, May occupies a position similar to Sunak. On the bus, but to the right of that bus.
At the moment, both of them are somewhere on the left, probably hanging on to the outside for grim life. I'm sure some people see that change as a good thing, but I struggle to ee it myself.
No one forced May to send out vans telling immigrants to go home. No one forced her to develop a culture at the Home Office that led to the Windrush scandal. This was all in the Cameron/Coalition years - held up by many to be a period of centralism at least as far as social issues are concerned - and was entirely self inflicted.
My prediction for Theresa May is that she'll spend a few years doing something like Churchwarden of her Church of England Parish (which is a surprisingly big job in a lot of cases), or other pivotal role in the local community.
Our last-but-two churchwarden was the retired Quartermaster-General to the Forces. At one point the diocese decided it wanted to amalgamate our parish with a few neighbouring ones. Lt Gen Sir Retired Quartermaster-General was not having any of it. I don't know exactly what transpired in the negotiations but let's just say we are still a single parish.
15 odd years ago I carefully ensured that the parish I was Deanery Synod rep on was kept well away from the merger plans - did take a bit of work but it's remained that way through 2 further consolidation attempts (the fact it contains over 1/3 of the towns population makes it a difficult argument to combat).
Given that Church attendances are falling, as are the numbers describing themselves as CofE, and consequently costs per parishioner are riser, was that really in the best interests of the organisation?
And Good Morning everyone.
Another manifestation of the same problem we have with government in the West right now.
We're used to certain things happening- in this case, a vicar in every parish- and haven't enquired too much into what made those things happen. Not enough people are offering themselves for ordination and not enough people are putting enough in the plate (or tax efficient standing orders, please!) to pay the bills.
And it's much easier to say that They Should Keep Things How They Have Been than to acknowledge that that depended on circumstances that are no longer sustainable and that now is when we all have to collectively pay our way. Much easier to pretend that the problem could be solved by cutting diversity officers archdeacons.
See also France- how much of the failure of Macron is because people like the idea of cutting taxes and lowering the pension age?
There never has been enough in the plate since about 1800s. Before that tithes and gentry patronage funded it.
Presumably they pay churchwardens, otherwise abolishing all but one when the parishes get merged wouldn't make sense.
"Outwitted by morons", "beaten by a bus" are not great excuses.
The folk who were beaten by the bus were those that voted for it and now regret it
It is, of course, perfectly possible to support leaving the EU but not support the manner in which it was done. Just like it is possible to support the principle of the NHS but think the way it is run is not right.
Stop employing nuance - there's no place on PB for such ideas...
I really dislike Theresa May's politics in many respects, but as a person she seems alright. I like to see former PMs who don't think that the daily grind of politics is beneath them.
One of the reasons I ended up voting for Labour in this election, was for Ed Miliband to be in charge of energy and climate in the next Cabinet. I didn't vote for his local candidate at GE 2015, but I think he has a real interest in this area of policy, and I hope good will come of his time as a Cabinet Minister.
I agree. Whilst her politics are not mine, she comes across as a decent public servant.
Agreed and genuinely pained to see the direction her Party has travelled
I also think this country would have been better off economically had they voted for her Brexit deal.
Whilst I agree about her Brexit version, she really was an awful PM and Home Secretary. She was a Twin set and Pearls version of Patel or Braverman, authoritarian in the extreme and responsible for a huge amount of misery for a lot of innocent people. I was delighted when she fell, even if far less delighted with the choice of successor.
In any traditional Conservative government, May occupies a position similar to Sunak. On the bus, but to the right of that bus.
At the moment, both of them are somewhere on the left, probably hanging on to the outside for grim life. I'm sure some people see that change as a good thing, but I struggle to ee it myself.
No one forced May to send out vans telling immigrants to go home. No one forced her to develop a culture at the Home Office that led to the Windrush scandal. This was all in the Cameron/Coalition years - held up by many to be a period of centralism at least as far as social issues are concerned - and was entirely self inflicted.
My prediction for Theresa May is that she'll spend a few years doing something like Churchwarden of her Church of England Parish (which is a surprisingly big job in a lot of cases), or other pivotal role in the local community.
Our last-but-two churchwarden was the retired Quartermaster-General to the Forces. At one point the diocese decided it wanted to amalgamate our parish with a few neighbouring ones. Lt Gen Sir Retired Quartermaster-General was not having any of it. I don't know exactly what transpired in the negotiations but let's just say we are still a single parish.
15 odd years ago I carefully ensured that the parish I was Deanery Synod rep on was kept well away from the merger plans - did take a bit of work but it's remained that way through 2 further consolidation attempts (the fact it contains over 1/3 of the towns population makes it a difficult argument to combat).
Given that Church attendances are falling, as are the numbers describing themselves as CofE, and consequently costs per parishioner are riser, was that really in the best interests of the organisation?
And Good Morning everyone.
A fork in the road is coming, or may have come.
If the nation (England as a whole) wants a national church, with national coverage, with national duties and obligations then like everything else it will need a proper review of how that will be financed. No different from schools and hospitals, just about 1000 times smaller. It isn't possible for 11 old ladies and a dog to fund ongoing people costs + the million required for the roof of a national treasure.
If the nation doesn't want this, another, and very radical approach is required.
Straw in the wind: The diocese of London has just put on the market a City of London Grade 1 Wren church (St Michael Paternoster).
I’m no longer a Christian, or indeed a theist of any sort, but I’ve been to our local church several times recently, mostly for funerals. I’m pretty sure, from what I recall of the deceased, that they weren’t churchgoers either. But, as I was once told by a former Bishop of Chelmsford, the Church of England has an obligation to christen, marry or bury any resident of the parish who asks for their services.
Those who say that Brexit voters now wish the country had voted to stay in neglect the counterfactual that if the vote had been to Remain the clamour to leave now would be larger than before.
The disturbing reports are that the Biden family are robustly telling him that he is absolutely right to remain the candidate and that its the fault of his advisors for letting him go on stage "over prepared" whatever that is supposed to mean.
If they let him continue, Trump wins and the hard right across the world will smash and invade whatever they like, with the so-called leader of the "free world" cheering them on.
If the DNC face down the Biden family and say "its over" then surely its over? Forget the election for a minute and assume that he wins. That is not the end. Its the beginning of 4 more years where the CinC isn't capable.
It is beyond ridiculous and extremely, wildly irresponsible and dangerous to now run Biden.
But does anyone in the Dems have the guts at this late hour to stand up against his family?
I fear not.
The problem is Kamala Harris. She can't beat Trump but if she is dumped then black Americans will boycott and the Dems cannot win without them. They seem to have snookered themselves.
Nope there are 3 problems.
1) removing Kamala Harris because she isn't going to win. 2) convincing Biden to retire now rather than losing badly... 3) finding someone who can win and getting them in place without destroying the party...
There seems to be an increasing number of people that think KH can win - NYT over last few days for example.
I really dislike Theresa May's politics in many respects, but as a person she seems alright. I like to see former PMs who don't think that the daily grind of politics is beneath them.
One of the reasons I ended up voting for Labour in this election, was for Ed Miliband to be in charge of energy and climate in the next Cabinet. I didn't vote for his local candidate at GE 2015, but I think he has a real interest in this area of policy, and I hope good will come of his time as a Cabinet Minister.
I agree. Whilst her politics are not mine, she comes across as a decent public servant.
Agreed and genuinely pained to see the direction her Party has travelled
I also think this country would have been better off economically had they voted for her Brexit deal.
Whilst I agree about her Brexit version, she really was an awful PM and Home Secretary. She was a Twin set and Pearls version of Patel or Braverman, authoritarian in the extreme and responsible for a huge amount of misery for a lot of innocent people. I was delighted when she fell, even if far less delighted with the choice of successor.
In any traditional Conservative government, May occupies a position similar to Sunak. On the bus, but to the right of that bus.
At the moment, both of them are somewhere on the left, probably hanging on to the outside for grim life. I'm sure some people see that change as a good thing, but I struggle to ee it myself.
No one forced May to send out vans telling immigrants to go home. No one forced her to develop a culture at the Home Office that led to the Windrush scandal. This was all in the Cameron/Coalition years - held up by many to be a period of centralism at least as far as social issues are concerned - and was entirely self inflicted.
My prediction for Theresa May is that she'll spend a few years doing something like Churchwarden of her Church of England Parish (which is a surprisingly big job in a lot of cases), or other pivotal role in the local community.
Our last-but-two churchwarden was the retired Quartermaster-General to the Forces. At one point the diocese decided it wanted to amalgamate our parish with a few neighbouring ones. Lt Gen Sir Retired Quartermaster-General was not having any of it. I don't know exactly what transpired in the negotiations but let's just say we are still a single parish.
15 odd years ago I carefully ensured that the parish I was Deanery Synod rep on was kept well away from the merger plans - did take a bit of work but it's remained that way through 2 further consolidation attempts (the fact it contains over 1/3 of the towns population makes it a difficult argument to combat).
Given that Church attendances are falling, as are the numbers describing themselves as CofE, and consequently costs per parishioner are riser, was that really in the best interests of the organisation?
And Good Morning everyone.
A fork in the road is coming, or may have come.
If the nation (England as a whole) wants a national church, with national coverage, with national duties and obligations then like everything else it will need a proper review of how that will be financed. No different from schools and hospitals, just about 1000 times smaller. It isn't possible for 11 old ladies and a dog to fund ongoing people costs + the million required for the roof of a national treasure.
If the nation doesn't want this, another, and very radical approach is required.
Straw in the wind: The diocese of London has just put on the market a City of London Grade 1 Wren church (St Michael Paternoster).
That's not be used as a parish church for a long time, it was leased to the Mission to Seafarers in 1968 and they handed it back in 2017.
Yes. Few of the nearly 40 City churches are used in the conventional way. However they are an amazing example of a vital function of the Church of England: custodian of a collective national historic building trust which put together is greater than Oxford, Cambridge, York, Stamford and twenty other great towns all put together. (The old 2 volume Betjeman lists 4000 churches and there are fine ones omitted. Some have already been destroyed).
Which is a crucial reason why a new approach is needed, not salami slicing of both the function and the historic treasure. I am sure Oxford can do without Wadham, and Cambridge can do without Pembroke but as a policy it won't do.
I really dislike Theresa May's politics in many respects, but as a person she seems alright. I like to see former PMs who don't think that the daily grind of politics is beneath them.
One of the reasons I ended up voting for Labour in this election, was for Ed Miliband to be in charge of energy and climate in the next Cabinet. I didn't vote for his local candidate at GE 2015, but I think he has a real interest in this area of policy, and I hope good will come of his time as a Cabinet Minister.
I agree. Whilst her politics are not mine, she comes across as a decent public servant.
Agreed and genuinely pained to see the direction her Party has travelled
I also think this country would have been better off economically had they voted for her Brexit deal.
Whilst I agree about her Brexit version, she really was an awful PM and Home Secretary. She was a Twin set and Pearls version of Patel or Braverman, authoritarian in the extreme and responsible for a huge amount of misery for a lot of innocent people. I was delighted when she fell, even if far less delighted with the choice of successor.
In any traditional Conservative government, May occupies a position similar to Sunak. On the bus, but to the right of that bus.
At the moment, both of them are somewhere on the left, probably hanging on to the outside for grim life. I'm sure some people see that change as a good thing, but I struggle to ee it myself.
No one forced May to send out vans telling immigrants to go home. No one forced her to develop a culture at the Home Office that led to the Windrush scandal. This was all in the Cameron/Coalition years - held up by many to be a period of centralism at least as far as social issues are concerned - and was entirely self inflicted.
My prediction for Theresa May is that she'll spend a few years doing something like Churchwarden of her Church of England Parish (which is a surprisingly big job in a lot of cases), or other pivotal role in the local community.
Our last-but-two churchwarden was the retired Quartermaster-General to the Forces. At one point the diocese decided it wanted to amalgamate our parish with a few neighbouring ones. Lt Gen Sir Retired Quartermaster-General was not having any of it. I don't know exactly what transpired in the negotiations but let's just say we are still a single parish.
15 odd years ago I carefully ensured that the parish I was Deanery Synod rep on was kept well away from the merger plans - did take a bit of work but it's remained that way through 2 further consolidation attempts (the fact it contains over 1/3 of the towns population makes it a difficult argument to combat).
Given that Church attendances are falling, as are the numbers describing themselves as CofE, and consequently costs per parishioner are riser, was that really in the best interests of the organisation?
And Good Morning everyone.
A fork in the road is coming, or may have come.
If the nation (England as a whole) wants a national church, with national coverage, with national duties and obligations then like everything else it will need a proper review of how that will be financed. No different from schools and hospitals, just about 1000 times smaller. It isn't possible for 11 old ladies and a dog to fund ongoing people costs + the million required for the roof of a national treasure.
If the nation doesn't want this, another, and very radical approach is required.
Straw in the wind: The diocese of London has just put on the market a City of London Grade 1 Wren church (St Michael Paternoster).
I’m no longer a Christian, or indeed a theist of any sort, but I’ve been to our local church several times recently, mostly for funerals. I’m pretty sure, from what I recall of the deceased, that they weren’t churchgoers either. But, as I was once told by a former Bishop of Chelmsford, the Church of England has an obligation to christen, marry or bury any resident of the parish who asks for their services.
The church for millennia has served as the focus for western civilization - all the key steps in a life's journey (christening, marriage, death) mediated by the church. And now we are an ever more secular society we have yet to replace the church. Many of my friends have had church weddings despite not being religious. I am passionately anti religion, and do not belief in any god, so could never make the commitment to my wife in a church, but others have fewer scruples.
"Outwitted by morons", "beaten by a bus" are not great excuses.
The folk who were beaten by the bus were those that voted for it and now regret it
It is, of course, perfectly possible to support leaving the EU but not support the manner in which it was done. Just like it is possible to support the principle of the NHS but think the way it is run is not right.
I'm currently trying to navigate NHS (and council) beaurocracy on behalf of my dad's care. Though the medical side was excellent I'm aghast at the non-medical side - highly inefficient, no sense of urgency, lethargic.
He is no good at arguing against lies and falsehoods sounds to me like He is no good at politics
Cameron specifically called a press conference at which he said "The Leave campaign are telling lies"
Which they were.
Which people voted for anyway.
Remain had the simple task of explaining why the status quo was brilliant, coherent, economically sound and politically what we needed, and why the EU, which Labour and Tory governments had shaped for decades so self evidently well that there was no point in asking us whether we liked it, was obviously what we all wanted.
How on earth could a few Leave slogans get in the way of this political, economic and national success?
The remain argument wasn't that it was brilliant and coherent because that is evidently not true. It was that it was not great but better than the alternative, which whilst true, is far from an easy argument to make.
Remain offered no reason for staying because it didn't highlight the advantages. It used Project Fear to highlight the disadvantages of leaving but didn't highlight the advantages of remaining. And hope is what wins elections...
Most of the advantages, at least for persuadable voters rather than fans on either side, were its not great but a bit better than being outside. For every good bit there is a bad bit, its just not an easy sell compared to being able to offer a series of different fantasies as leave could to appeal to the Singapore on Thames, Corbynite socialists and protectionist Englanders all at the same time.
Idly wondering if Americans have lasting powers of attorney. If they do, what triggers them, and is withdrawing from the election within the attorney's power?
Not that it's relevant as the wife would presumably be the attorney and she wants to carry on.
He is no good at arguing against lies and falsehoods sounds to me like He is no good at politics
Cameron specifically called a press conference at which he said "The Leave campaign are telling lies"
Which they were.
Which people voted for anyway.
When all sides are telling lies, and the public know it, accusing one side or the other has no cut through. Cameron told the biggest lie of the campaign which was that there had been a meaningful renegotiation of UK membership of the EU. Everyone knew that was a whopper and even Cameron didn't have the heart to really push it.
Not to mention this:
a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain.
The analysis also presents a downside scenario, finding that the shock could be much more profound, meaning the effect on the economy would be worse still. The rise in uncertainty could be amplified, the volatility in financial markets more tumultuous, and the extent of the impact to living standards more acute. In this severe scenario, GDP would be 6% smaller, there would be a deeper recession, and the number of people made unemployed would rise by around 800,000 compared with a vote to remain. The hit to wages, inflation, house prices and borrowing would be larger. There is a credible risk that this more acute scenario could materialise.
Note that when a pharma succeeds in clinical trials with a new drug, which is likely to be a big seller, they have very little time to get a new factory up and running, and any delay can cost them hundreds of millions.
I really dislike Theresa May's politics in many respects, but as a person she seems alright. I like to see former PMs who don't think that the daily grind of politics is beneath them.
One of the reasons I ended up voting for Labour in this election, was for Ed Miliband to be in charge of energy and climate in the next Cabinet. I didn't vote for his local candidate at GE 2015, but I think he has a real interest in this area of policy, and I hope good will come of his time as a Cabinet Minister.
I agree. Whilst her politics are not mine, she comes across as a decent public servant.
Agreed and genuinely pained to see the direction her Party has travelled
I also think this country would have been better off economically had they voted for her Brexit deal.
Whilst I agree about her Brexit version, she really was an awful PM and Home Secretary. She was a Twin set and Pearls version of Patel or Braverman, authoritarian in the extreme and responsible for a huge amount of misery for a lot of innocent people. I was delighted when she fell, even if far less delighted with the choice of successor.
In any traditional Conservative government, May occupies a position similar to Sunak. On the bus, but to the right of that bus.
At the moment, both of them are somewhere on the left, probably hanging on to the outside for grim life. I'm sure some people see that change as a good thing, but I struggle to ee it myself.
No one forced May to send out vans telling immigrants to go home. No one forced her to develop a culture at the Home Office that led to the Windrush scandal. This was all in the Cameron/Coalition years - held up by many to be a period of centralism at least as far as social issues are concerned - and was entirely self inflicted.
My prediction for Theresa May is that she'll spend a few years doing something like Churchwarden of her Church of England Parish (which is a surprisingly big job in a lot of cases), or other pivotal role in the local community.
Our last-but-two churchwarden was the retired Quartermaster-General to the Forces. At one point the diocese decided it wanted to amalgamate our parish with a few neighbouring ones. Lt Gen Sir Retired Quartermaster-General was not having any of it. I don't know exactly what transpired in the negotiations but let's just say we are still a single parish.
15 odd years ago I carefully ensured that the parish I was Deanery Synod rep on was kept well away from the merger plans - did take a bit of work but it's remained that way through 2 further consolidation attempts (the fact it contains over 1/3 of the towns population makes it a difficult argument to combat).
Given that Church attendances are falling, as are the numbers describing themselves as CofE, and consequently costs per parishioner are riser, was that really in the best interests of the organisation?
And Good Morning everyone.
A fork in the road is coming, or may have come.
If the nation (England as a whole) wants a national church, with national coverage, with national duties and obligations then like everything else it will need a proper review of how that will be financed. No different from schools and hospitals, just about 1000 times smaller. It isn't possible for 11 old ladies and a dog to fund ongoing people costs + the million required for the roof of a national treasure.
If the nation doesn't want this, another, and very radical approach is required.
Straw in the wind: The diocese of London has just put on the market a City of London Grade 1 Wren church (St Michael Paternoster).
I’m no longer a Christian, or indeed a theist of any sort, but I’ve been to our local church several times recently, mostly for funerals. I’m pretty sure, from what I recall of the deceased, that they weren’t churchgoers either. But, as I was once told by a former Bishop of Chelmsford, the Church of England has an obligation to christen, marry or bury any resident of the parish who asks for their services.
The church for millennia has served as the focus for western civilization - all the key steps in a life's journey (christening, marriage, death) mediated by the church. And now we are an ever more secular society we have yet to replace the church. Many of my friends have had church weddings despite not being religious. I am passionately anti religion, and do not belief in any god, so could never make the commitment to my wife in a church, but others have fewer scruples.
I know people who think the church shouldn't just be a place for social occasions. It's a really stupid thing to say imo. Throughout history, going to church has probably been more of a social occasion for most people than anything to do with deeply held beliefs, and it's silly to pretend otherwise.
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes North Korea was supported by the Soviets, not China, at the time of the invasion. China joined later when MacArthur started threatening to invade them as well.
The South Korean Dictatorship at the time was far nastier and more bloodthirsty than the north and the North Korean invasion was in response to the Souths openly stated aim to invade and conquer it with US aid
Are you already on page two of Putinist talking points?
If Putin´s only friend is now North Korea, I think we can judge a man by that friendship.
I don't support the IRA and happily condemn what they did but I can quite understand why someone growing up in West Belfast in the 50s/60s would join them.
The catholic community was (sorely) provoked.
Unless you can get into the other sides head and see why thy are doing what they are doing (yes Putin took the decision but he couldn't have done it without mass support in Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, due to a greviance), you end up being a black and white woodentop spouting black and white goodies and baddies views.
Similarly. The German people were also sorely provoked by the west rubbing their noses in it at Versailles. Thats why they voted for Hitler in the first place.
So you think the creation of Poland was another of these 'historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for vengeance'.
I get the impression that you would prefer it if all the countries between Germany and Russia ceased to exist.
If Rishi Sunak hadn’t got into bed with Suella Braverman, which was her price for his leadership, and IF he had tacked central and attacked the Far Right instead from the outset I don’t think this would have been the catastrophic result it’s likely to be. I don’t think Sunak was a bad Chancellor. They should have laid into Reform long ago.
John Redwood in his inimitable fashion is claiming the truth is the opposite of this, but what else do you expect from him?
Reform seemed irrelevant until very recently. A year ago, they were polling 4-5%.
Reform is just a new name for what was already an electoral force within the conservative goverment and the key reason it couldn't govern or legislate. Reform didn't spring into existance out of nothing. In fact I see it as a retreat for the populist movement. It failed in its attemt to take over the conservative party from within after 2019. Now it is shuffling to another party, where it will slowly shrink into insignificance, due to the extreme high age of its supporters. Populism cannot govern... it can get elected on the back of high emotion and divisive politics, but it falters as soon as it is in office as the last many years have shown in the UK.
Ref is more popular than the Tories with voters aged 18-49, and is equally popular with voters 50-64.
The epiphany comes when young white women realise that multiculturalism is bad news for them: as it makes the streets less hospitable for them, and in some cases, much more dangerous. Cf Sweden. There is a reason the two most important hard right leaders in Europe are women
That’s when the shift to the hard right begins in the young. The young white men are already ahead of them, as society tells them they are toxic and unwanted
This pattern is being repeated across Europe and America
I really dislike Theresa May's politics in many respects, but as a person she seems alright. I like to see former PMs who don't think that the daily grind of politics is beneath them.
One of the reasons I ended up voting for Labour in this election, was for Ed Miliband to be in charge of energy and climate in the next Cabinet. I didn't vote for his local candidate at GE 2015, but I think he has a real interest in this area of policy, and I hope good will come of his time as a Cabinet Minister.
I agree. Whilst her politics are not mine, she comes across as a decent public servant.
Agreed and genuinely pained to see the direction her Party has travelled
I also think this country would have been better off economically had they voted for her Brexit deal.
Whilst I agree about her Brexit version, she really was an awful PM and Home Secretary. She was a Twin set and Pearls version of Patel or Braverman, authoritarian in the extreme and responsible for a huge amount of misery for a lot of innocent people. I was delighted when she fell, even if far less delighted with the choice of successor.
In any traditional Conservative government, May occupies a position similar to Sunak. On the bus, but to the right of that bus.
At the moment, both of them are somewhere on the left, probably hanging on to the outside for grim life. I'm sure some people see that change as a good thing, but I struggle to ee it myself.
No one forced May to send out vans telling immigrants to go home. No one forced her to develop a culture at the Home Office that led to the Windrush scandal. This was all in the Cameron/Coalition years - held up by many to be a period of centralism at least as far as social issues are concerned - and was entirely self inflicted.
My prediction for Theresa May is that she'll spend a few years doing something like Churchwarden of her Church of England Parish (which is a surprisingly big job in a lot of cases), or other pivotal role in the local community.
Our last-but-two churchwarden was the retired Quartermaster-General to the Forces. At one point the diocese decided it wanted to amalgamate our parish with a few neighbouring ones. Lt Gen Sir Retired Quartermaster-General was not having any of it. I don't know exactly what transpired in the negotiations but let's just say we are still a single parish.
15 odd years ago I carefully ensured that the parish I was Deanery Synod rep on was kept well away from the merger plans - did take a bit of work but it's remained that way through 2 further consolidation attempts (the fact it contains over 1/3 of the towns population makes it a difficult argument to combat).
Given that Church attendances are falling, as are the numbers describing themselves as CofE, and consequently costs per parishioner are riser, was that really in the best interests of the organisation?
And Good Morning everyone.
A fork in the road is coming, or may have come.
If the nation (England as a whole) wants a national church, with national coverage, with national duties and obligations then like everything else it will need a proper review of how that will be financed. No different from schools and hospitals, just about 1000 times smaller. It isn't possible for 11 old ladies and a dog to fund ongoing people costs + the million required for the roof of a national treasure.
If the nation doesn't want this, another, and very radical approach is required.
Straw in the wind: The diocese of London has just put on the market a City of London Grade 1 Wren church (St Michael Paternoster).
I’m no longer a Christian, or indeed a theist of any sort, but I’ve been to our local church several times recently, mostly for funerals. I’m pretty sure, from what I recall of the deceased, that they weren’t churchgoers either. But, as I was once told by a former Bishop of Chelmsford, the Church of England has an obligation to christen, marry or bury any resident of the parish who asks for their services.
The church for millennia has served as the focus for western civilization - all the key steps in a life's journey (christening, marriage, death) mediated by the church. And now we are an ever more secular society we have yet to replace the church. Many of my friends have had church weddings despite not being religious. I am passionately anti religion, and do not belief in any god, so could never make the commitment to my wife in a church, but others have fewer scruples.
Its decline is at the bottom of the culture wars. We are as a civilisation minus an anchor bobbing up and down on the waves, desperately clinging to driftwood (for example eco driftwood or socialism driftwood) to replace the Church but finding it wanting and increasingly with the view that this life is s short, hard, preparation for the next life discounted, unable to endure the hardships necessary for success as a society.
The disturbing reports are that the Biden family are robustly telling him that he is absolutely right to remain the candidate and that its the fault of his advisors for letting him go on stage "over prepared" whatever that is supposed to mean.
If they let him continue, Trump wins and the hard right across the world will smash and invade whatever they like, with the so-called leader of the "free world" cheering them on.
If the DNC face down the Biden family and say "its over" then surely its over? Forget the election for a minute and assume that he wins. That is not the end. Its the beginning of 4 more years where the CinC isn't capable.
It is beyond ridiculous and extremely, wildly irresponsible and dangerous to now run Biden.
But does anyone in the Dems have the guts at this late hour to stand up against his family?
I fear not.
The problem is Kamala Harris. She can't beat Trump but if she is dumped then black Americans will boycott and the Dems cannot win without them. They seem to have snookered themselves.
Nope there are 3 problems.
1) removing Kamala Harris because she isn't going to win. 2) convincing Biden to retire now rather than losing badly... 3) finding someone who can win and getting them in place without destroying the party...
1) is simply wrong. 2) is the problem, and if it's solved, then 3) isn't really a problem. If it isn't, 3) is irrelevant.
This is not good for Biden. This guy is influential - and relatively neutral
“I just spoke to one of the most respected doctors in the world. He says that it is eminently apparent that @POTUS Biden has lewy body dementia, Parkinson’s and/or Alzheimer’s and that his decline will not be linear. It will accelerate.”
He set himself this test with an early debate and he failed it massively.
FFS quit the stage with dignity Joe.
Before the debate it was all about how Biden spent a week preparing to polish his performance, and how inevitably Trump would say a load of crazy nonsense and lose his rag. The debate was meant to show Biden at his best and Trump at his worst.
Well Trump was awful, but Biden managed to steal the show with the worst debate performance in living memory.
There's another debate planned, and Trump now has no reason to fear it.
Ireland presents a challenge to the narrative that incumbent governments everywhere will get a kicking due to inflation.
Fine Gael, who are currently in coalition with Fianna Fáil and the Greens, have been in government since 2011, but the latest opinion poll puts them in the lead: FG 21% FF 19% SF 20% The three-party coalition is only 5pp down on the 50% they received at the last election (though they didn't stand as a coalition).
This is almost* entirely because SF have managed to upset the public more on immigration than the government have, despite the government response being a total shambles.
Migration is definitely a focus of voters' unhappiness, and it would be an act of self-deception to pretend otherwise.
* FG are also benefiting from Simon Harris replacing Leo Varadkar as Taoiseach. Turns out Varadkar was pretty unpopular. Who knew?
Note that when a pharma succeeds in clinical trials with a new drug, which is likely to be a big seller, they have very little time to get a new factory up and running, and any delay can cost them hundreds of millions.
If Labour do nothing else than they must reform planning so that economically vital infrastructure is built in a timely manner
Unlike in 2019 with the nonsense "I will be PM" stuff, they accepted long ago they'd do well to win 50 seats and have gone all in on that outcome. It seems so far to be working.
The disturbing reports are that the Biden family are robustly telling him that he is absolutely right to remain the candidate and that its the fault of his advisors for letting him go on stage "over prepared" whatever that is supposed to mean.
If they let him continue, Trump wins and the hard right across the world will smash and invade whatever they like, with the so-called leader of the "free world" cheering them on.
If the DNC face down the Biden family and say "its over" then surely its over? Forget the election for a minute and assume that he wins. That is not the end. Its the beginning of 4 more years where the CinC isn't capable.
It is beyond ridiculous and extremely, wildly irresponsible and dangerous to now run Biden.
But does anyone in the Dems have the guts at this late hour to stand up against his family?
I fear not.
Who though? Even if Biden stands, or rather lurches unsteadily, aside then Harris doesn't automatically get Biden's delegates and become the candidate. It would go to a brokered convention where anything could happen.
The Dems probably think they have a less than 50% and more than 20% shot by running the microwaved remains of Biden against Trump. If they ditch the senile old fucker then chaos ensues, probably to the great benefit of Trump. It's all too late now.
Yep. I came to the conclusion this morning that a Trump win is the best of a number of bad options. If Biden does win, he'll win by a whisker and we'll have turbo-charged 'steal' conspiracies with the additional hideousness of a mentally compromised president and then we'll have an even bigger risk of a capitol storming/coup/civil war.
I appreciate that this is anti-democratic, but with the state the US is in now, some Realpolitik needs to be brought to bear. Americans survived 4 years of Trump before, they'll survive another 4 years. Of course, whether the Ukrainians, Taiwanese, Palestinians, Baltic States or even the South Koreans do is an entirely different question. Interesting times indeed.
Idly wondering if Americans have lasting powers of attorney. If they do, what triggers them, and is withdrawing from the election within the attorney's power?
Not that it's relevant as the wife would presumably be the attorney and she wants to carry on.
Any such exercise (entirely imaginary though it is), would pretty well automatically trigger the 25th Amendment procedure.
Ireland presents a challenge to the narrative that incumbent governments everywhere will get a kicking due to inflation.
Fine Gael, who are currently in coalition with Fianna Fáil and the Greens, have been in government since 2011, but the latest opinion poll puts them in the lead: FG 21% FF 19% SF 20% The three-party coalition is only 5pp down on the 50% they received at the last election (though they didn't stand as a coalition).
This is almost* entirely because SF have managed to upset the public more on immigration than the government have, despite the government response being a total shambles.
Migration is definitely a focus of voters' unhappiness, and it would be an act of self-deception to pretend otherwise.
* FG are also benefiting from Simon Harris replacing Leo Varadkar as Taoiseach. Turns out Varadkar was pretty unpopular. Who knew?
When Sinn Fein is the alternative, that probably leads people to stick with the devil they know. If Ireland had a mainstream left party, or right populist party, it might be different.
I really dislike Theresa May's politics in many respects, but as a person she seems alright. I like to see former PMs who don't think that the daily grind of politics is beneath them.
One of the reasons I ended up voting for Labour in this election, was for Ed Miliband to be in charge of energy and climate in the next Cabinet. I didn't vote for his local candidate at GE 2015, but I think he has a real interest in this area of policy, and I hope good will come of his time as a Cabinet Minister.
I agree. Whilst her politics are not mine, she comes across as a decent public servant.
Agreed and genuinely pained to see the direction her Party has travelled
I also think this country would have been better off economically had they voted for her Brexit deal.
Whilst I agree about her Brexit version, she really was an awful PM and Home Secretary. She was a Twin set and Pearls version of Patel or Braverman, authoritarian in the extreme and responsible for a huge amount of misery for a lot of innocent people. I was delighted when she fell, even if far less delighted with the choice of successor.
In any traditional Conservative government, May occupies a position similar to Sunak. On the bus, but to the right of that bus.
At the moment, both of them are somewhere on the left, probably hanging on to the outside for grim life. I'm sure some people see that change as a good thing, but I struggle to ee it myself.
No one forced May to send out vans telling immigrants to go home. No one forced her to develop a culture at the Home Office that led to the Windrush scandal. This was all in the Cameron/Coalition years - held up by many to be a period of centralism at least as far as social issues are concerned - and was entirely self inflicted.
My prediction for Theresa May is that she'll spend a few years doing something like Churchwarden of her Church of England Parish (which is a surprisingly big job in a lot of cases), or other pivotal role in the local community.
Our last-but-two churchwarden was the retired Quartermaster-General to the Forces. At one point the diocese decided it wanted to amalgamate our parish with a few neighbouring ones. Lt Gen Sir Retired Quartermaster-General was not having any of it. I don't know exactly what transpired in the negotiations but let's just say we are still a single parish.
15 odd years ago I carefully ensured that the parish I was Deanery Synod rep on was kept well away from the merger plans - did take a bit of work but it's remained that way through 2 further consolidation attempts (the fact it contains over 1/3 of the towns population makes it a difficult argument to combat).
Given that Church attendances are falling, as are the numbers describing themselves as CofE, and consequently costs per parishioner are riser, was that really in the best interests of the organisation?
And Good Morning everyone.
A fork in the road is coming, or may have come.
If the nation (England as a whole) wants a national church, with national coverage, with national duties and obligations then like everything else it will need a proper review of how that will be financed. No different from schools and hospitals, just about 1000 times smaller. It isn't possible for 11 old ladies and a dog to fund ongoing people costs + the million required for the roof of a national treasure.
If the nation doesn't want this, another, and very radical approach is required.
Straw in the wind: The diocese of London has just put on the market a City of London Grade 1 Wren church (St Michael Paternoster).
I’m no longer a Christian, or indeed a theist of any sort, but I’ve been to our local church several times recently, mostly for funerals. I’m pretty sure, from what I recall of the deceased, that they weren’t churchgoers either. But, as I was once told by a former Bishop of Chelmsford, the Church of England has an obligation to christen, marry or bury any resident of the parish who asks for their services.
The church for millennia has served as the focus for western civilization - all the key steps in a life's journey (christening, marriage, death) mediated by the church. And now we are an ever more secular society we have yet to replace the church. Many of my friends have had church weddings despite not being religious. I am passionately anti religion, and do not belief in any god, so could never make the commitment to my wife in a church, but others have fewer scruples.
Nations are all different. England has a distinctive history. It is perfectly possible if you are French to be a Christian and also approve of the secular, non theist, state with its strict separation. In the same in England you can be a non theist but approve of the establishment of the Church of England, with duties to the entire nation.
I think it is time to decide if this should carry on, properly funded, or go in a new direction. At the moment too much about the funding and the roof depends on 11 old ladies and the dog.
I really dislike Theresa May's politics in many respects, but as a person she seems alright. I like to see former PMs who don't think that the daily grind of politics is beneath them.
One of the reasons I ended up voting for Labour in this election, was for Ed Miliband to be in charge of energy and climate in the next Cabinet. I didn't vote for his local candidate at GE 2015, but I think he has a real interest in this area of policy, and I hope good will come of his time as a Cabinet Minister.
I agree. Whilst her politics are not mine, she comes across as a decent public servant.
Agreed and genuinely pained to see the direction her Party has travelled
I also think this country would have been better off economically had they voted for her Brexit deal.
Whilst I agree about her Brexit version, she really was an awful PM and Home Secretary. She was a Twin set and Pearls version of Patel or Braverman, authoritarian in the extreme and responsible for a huge amount of misery for a lot of innocent people. I was delighted when she fell, even if far less delighted with the choice of successor.
In any traditional Conservative government, May occupies a position similar to Sunak. On the bus, but to the right of that bus.
At the moment, both of them are somewhere on the left, probably hanging on to the outside for grim life. I'm sure some people see that change as a good thing, but I struggle to ee it myself.
No one forced May to send out vans telling immigrants to go home. No one forced her to develop a culture at the Home Office that led to the Windrush scandal. This was all in the Cameron/Coalition years - held up by many to be a period of centralism at least as far as social issues are concerned - and was entirely self inflicted.
My prediction for Theresa May is that she'll spend a few years doing something like Churchwarden of her Church of England Parish (which is a surprisingly big job in a lot of cases), or other pivotal role in the local community.
Our last-but-two churchwarden was the retired Quartermaster-General to the Forces. At one point the diocese decided it wanted to amalgamate our parish with a few neighbouring ones. Lt Gen Sir Retired Quartermaster-General was not having any of it. I don't know exactly what transpired in the negotiations but let's just say we are still a single parish.
15 odd years ago I carefully ensured that the parish I was Deanery Synod rep on was kept well away from the merger plans - did take a bit of work but it's remained that way through 2 further consolidation attempts (the fact it contains over 1/3 of the towns population makes it a difficult argument to combat).
Given that Church attendances are falling, as are the numbers describing themselves as CofE, and consequently costs per parishioner are riser, was that really in the best interests of the organisation?
And Good Morning everyone.
A fork in the road is coming, or may have come.
If the nation (England as a whole) wants a national church, with national coverage, with national duties and obligations then like everything else it will need a proper review of how that will be financed. No different from schools and hospitals, just about 1000 times smaller. It isn't possible for 11 old ladies and a dog to fund ongoing people costs + the million required for the roof of a national treasure.
If the nation doesn't want this, another, and very radical approach is required.
Straw in the wind: The diocese of London has just put on the market a City of London Grade 1 Wren church (St Michael Paternoster).
I'm not sure what sort of straw or what sort of wind.
Here are the details - Grade I listed, 10,000 sq ft of Open Plan offices with Class E business use, on a 125 year lease, by Cannon Street Tube, including a one bed flat. 2 minutes from Cannon Street Tube. Formerly part used as offices for the Bishop of London.
I'm not actually sure whether it is quite all of it; it may well be. I wonder where the offices of BoL and the Mission to Seamen have relocated - Deanery Court, perhaps?
What's that worth, and how will it cope with "leasehold reform"?
Note that when a pharma succeeds in clinical trials with a new drug, which is likely to be a big seller, they have very little time to get a new factory up and running, and any delay can cost them hundreds of millions.
If Labour do nothing else than they must reform planning so that economically vital infrastructure is built in a timely manner
The Tories, under five different PMs, have proved themselves utterly useless in this respect. I hope Labour can surprise us.
It’s not O/t in the Cole household. Mrs C will be glued to the box for most of the next fortnight. Fortunately electoral coverage is outside daylight hours.
Huge fan here too. For a few years I used to take the first week of the tournament off, but recently have too much to do. Will be following though!
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes North Korea was supported by the Soviets, not China, at the time of the invasion. China joined later when MacArthur started threatening to invade them as well.
The South Korean Dictatorship at the time was far nastier and more bloodthirsty than the north and the North Korean invasion was in response to the Souths openly stated aim to invade and conquer it with US aid
Are you already on page two of Putinist talking points?
If Putin´s only friend is now North Korea, I think we can judge a man by that friendship.
I don't support the IRA and happily condemn what they did but I can quite understand why someone growing up in West Belfast in the 50s/60s would join them.
The catholic community was (sorely) provoked.
Unless you can get into the other sides head and see why thy are doing what they are doing (yes Putin took the decision but he couldn't have done it without mass support in Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, due to a greviance), you end up being a black and white woodentop spouting black and white goodies and baddies views.
Similarly. The German people were also sorely provoked by the west rubbing their noses in it at Versailles. Thats why they voted for Hitler in the first place.
So you think the creation of Poland was another of these 'historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for vengeance'.
I get the impression that you would prefer it if all the countries between Germany and Russia ceased to exist.
There was rather more to Versailles than the creation of Poland.
However. one might legitimately wonder if it was wise to include major cities areas that were virtually 100% German in it and in doing so partition Germany with a chunk of Poland between it.
It might have been rather wiser, given that Memel was confiscated, to have given Poland Memel and a land corridor through the east side of East Prussia to give them a Baltic Port.
Instead they gave it to Lithuania.
Not for nothing was the Child of 1940 cartoon showing a bedraggled child looking out at his bombed out city drawn in 1919
Ireland presents a challenge to the narrative that incumbent governments everywhere will get a kicking due to inflation.
Fine Gael, who are currently in coalition with Fianna Fáil and the Greens, have been in government since 2011, but the latest opinion poll puts them in the lead: FG 21% FF 19% SF 20% The three-party coalition is only 5pp down on the 50% they received at the last election (though they didn't stand as a coalition).
This is almost* entirely because SF have managed to upset the public more on immigration than the government have, despite the government response being a total shambles.
Migration is definitely a focus of voters' unhappiness, and it would be an act of self-deception to pretend otherwise.
* FG are also benefiting from Simon Harris replacing Leo Varadkar as Taoiseach. Turns out Varadkar was pretty unpopular. Who knew?
It's funny how Ireland became concerned with immigration the moment they had a slight increase in immigration.
Comments
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1379439/uk-election-polls-by-age/
I would have thought 5-6%
I have despised him since AV ref where he allowed the contemptibly fallacious and dishonest Let's give the money to the NHS instead argument to be advanced. Contemptibly dishonest because that's not how budgeting works. As a country we are trying to achieve multiple aims. If an aim is worthless, prove that on the merits. And it was exactly this bit of smarmy dishonesty which came back to bite him in the arse in 2016.
The Dems probably think they have a less than 50% and more than 20% shot by running the microwaved remains of Biden against Trump. If they ditch the senile old fucker then chaos ensues, probably to the great benefit of Trump. It's all too late now.
The biggest difference is social trust which is 58.5% in Switzerland versus 43,4% in the UK.
None of these ratings are that far apart though.
Their attitude has wavered between “Brilliant, please stick with the doddery old man rather than twisting for someone sensible like Whitmer”, and “Seriously, on a human level, it’s really not right to keep this guy up there when he should be enjoying retirement with his family”.
It also begs the question of who’s actually running the country at the moment, and who’s been in charge for the past three years?
Which they were.
Which people voted for anyway.
Does anyone have tips on how to become unrestricted for about 4 days?
If it new account time?
(There is a name for this approach - can't remember it offhand but it's a placename + "Principle", I think.)
We were particularly vulnerable as the only remaining single parish for miles around. But we've survived because we're the sort of place that Quartermasters-General of the Forces tend to retire to.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n12/tom-crewe/carnival-of-self-harm
"French stock market surges and euro gains as investors eye hung parliament"
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2024/jul/01/euro-dollar-sterling-bond-markets-france-election-marine-le-pen-french-hung-parliament-manufacturing-ecb-business-live
And Good Morning everyone.
https://x.com/ITVNewsPolitics/status/1807696939825148394
Love it
Basically, things looking slightly less bad than the central eatimate yesterday.
And of course as this logic sinks in with Americans they will be forced to vote for Trump. So we get Trump
It’s a catastrophe and all those who willingly lied to themselves and the world about Biden - including plenty on here - have a tiny bit of responsibility for this
Nonetheless there is still time - just - for the Dems to shunt Biden aside and throw open the Convention. Roll the dice on democracy
How on earth could a few Leave slogans get in the way of this political, economic and national success?
My heart says LD; my head says Labour. Especially with Priti Patel only about three percentage points ahead.
There must be some very happy taxi drivers this morning. Providing fumigating the taxi afterwards dosen't wipe out the gains.
"The Preview Day 1
What to look out for on Day 1 of The Championships"
https://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2024-07-01/the_preview_day_1.html
Populists may sell snake oil to the voters, but so do the centrist dads.
In 2105 UKIP got 8% in London and 13% nationally. If UKIP = reform then 11% in London for reform is 16% nationally which is what the national polls are basically saying.
Which is the big lie
If the nation (England as a whole) wants a national church, with national coverage, with national duties and obligations then like everything else it will need a proper review of how that will be financed. No different from schools and hospitals, just about 1000 times smaller. It isn't possible for 11 old ladies and a dog to fund ongoing people costs + the million required for the roof of a national treasure.
If the nation doesn't want this, another, and very radical approach is required.
Straw in the wind: The diocese of London has just put on the market a City of London Grade 1 Wren church (St Michael Paternoster).
1) removing Kamala Harris because she isn't going to win.
2) convincing Biden to retire now rather than losing badly...
3) finding someone who can win and getting them in place without destroying the party...
To be fair he’s fought a good campaign. The stunts are working. I imagine the campaign team are having fun too - “what can we get him to do next”
If Biden doesn't decide to step down, there's no mechanism to make him do so.
https://thehill.com/elections/4748577-axelrod-biden-replacement-discussion-irrelevant/
Democratic strategist David Axelrod on Saturday called discussions about replacing President Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket “irrelevant,” as the party continues to face the fallout from the Thursday night debate.
The former Obama White House senior adviser said the appropriate time to have the discussion would have been last year.
“Reality check: @JoeBiden is the nominee of the Democratic Party, nominated by voters in primaries across the country,” Axelrod wrote on the social platform X. “Unless the @POTUS, himself, decides to quit — which he won’t — that issue is settled.”
“The discussion that is going on now was timely a year ago, when few wanted to have it. It’s largely irrelevant today,” he continued.
Biden’s shaky debate performance on Thursday has spurred conversations among Democrats about whether he should remain atop the ticket. Biden and key allies have launched a fierce campaign to defend Biden and assure the public that he is the right person for the job.
In a panel discussion immediately following the debate, Axelrod cast doubt on former President Trump’s ability to inspire the Republican base, and suggested a non-Biden Democrat would likely beat Trump.
“If, for whatever reason, there’s a change at the top of the ticket, you guys are in trouble with Donald Trump. Because the guy who was up there tonight is not a guy who’s going to inspire people,” Axelrod said of Trump on CNN. “He did not show in any way that he has changed from the guy who people have a very positive opinion of, for a lot of good reason.”
Axelrod said Thursday “there was a sense of shock” about Biden’s performance at the beginning of the debate, pointing to his raspy voice and “disoriented” disposition. He added that Biden “did get stronger as the debate went on.”
Axelrod continued: “I think you’re going to hear discussions that I don’t know will lead to anything, but there are going to be discussions about whether he should continue.”..
a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain.
The analysis also presents a downside scenario, finding that the shock could be much more profound, meaning the effect on the economy would be worse still. The rise in uncertainty could be amplified, the volatility in financial markets more tumultuous, and the extent of the impact to living standards more acute. In this severe scenario, GDP
would be 6% smaller, there would be a deeper recession, and the number of people made unemployed would rise by around 800,000 compared with a vote to remain. The hit to wages, inflation, house prices and borrowing would be larger. There is a credible risk that this more acute scenario could materialise.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80772140f0b62305b8b510/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf
Actual unemployment:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment/timeseries/mgsc/unem
We're used to certain things happening- in this case, a vicar in every parish- and haven't enquired too much into what made those things happen. Not enough people are offering themselves for ordination and not enough people are putting enough in the plate (or tax efficient standing orders, please!) to pay the bills.
And it's much easier to say that They Should Keep Things How They Have Been than to acknowledge that that depended on circumstances that are no longer sustainable and that now is when we all have to collectively pay our way. Much easier to pretend that the problem could be solved by cutting diversity officers archdeacons.
See also France- how much of the failure of Macron is because people like the idea of cutting taxes and lowering the pension age?
Presumably they pay churchwardens, otherwise abolishing all but one when the parishes get merged wouldn't make sense.
But, as I was once told by a former Bishop of Chelmsford, the Church of England has an obligation to christen, marry or bury any resident of the parish who asks for their services.
Which is a crucial reason why a new approach is needed, not salami slicing of both the function and the historic treasure. I am sure Oxford can do without Wadham, and Cambridge can do without Pembroke but as a policy it won't do.
Not that it's relevant as the wife would presumably be the attorney and she wants to carry on.
The hurdles for building new factories are the single biggest deterrent for their choosing the UK as a manufacturing location
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ngq10grgzo
Note that when a pharma succeeds in clinical trials with a new drug, which is likely to be a big seller, they have very little time to get a new factory up and running, and any delay can cost them hundreds of millions.
I get the impression that you would prefer it if all the countries between Germany and Russia ceased to exist.
That’s when the shift to the hard right begins in the young. The young white men are already ahead of them, as society tells them they are toxic and unwanted
This pattern is being repeated across Europe and America
2) is the problem, and if it's solved, then 3) isn't really a problem.
If it isn't, 3) is irrelevant.
Well Trump was awful, but Biden managed to steal the show with the worst debate performance in living memory.
There's another debate planned, and Trump now has no reason to fear it.
Fine Gael, who are currently in coalition with Fianna Fáil and the Greens, have been in government since 2011, but the latest opinion poll puts them in the lead:
FG 21%
FF 19%
SF 20%
The three-party coalition is only 5pp down on the 50% they received at the last election (though they didn't stand as a coalition).
This is almost* entirely because SF have managed to upset the public more on immigration than the government have, despite the government response being a total shambles.
Migration is definitely a focus of voters' unhappiness, and it would be an act of self-deception to pretend otherwise.
* FG are also benefiting from Simon Harris replacing Leo Varadkar as Taoiseach. Turns out Varadkar was pretty unpopular. Who knew?
Unlike in 2019 with the nonsense "I will be PM" stuff, they accepted long ago they'd do well to win 50 seats and have gone all in on that outcome. It seems so far to be working.
I appreciate that this is anti-democratic, but with the state the US is in now, some Realpolitik needs to be brought to bear. Americans survived 4 years of Trump before, they'll survive another 4 years. Of course, whether the Ukrainians, Taiwanese, Palestinians, Baltic States or even the South Koreans do is an entirely different question. Interesting times indeed.
I think it is time to decide if this should carry on, properly funded, or go in a new direction. At the moment too much about the funding and the roof depends on 11 old ladies and the dog.
Here are the details - Grade I listed, 10,000 sq ft of Open Plan offices with Class E business use, on a 125 year lease, by Cannon Street Tube, including a one bed flat. 2 minutes from Cannon Street Tube. Formerly part used as offices for the Bishop of London.
I'm not actually sure whether it is quite all of it; it may well be. I wonder where the offices of BoL and the Mission to Seamen have relocated - Deanery Court, perhaps?
What's that worth, and how will it cope with "leasehold reform"?
https://search.kinneygreen.com/properties/199683-st-michael-paternoster-royal-college-hill-city-of-london
I hope Labour can surprise us.
However. one might legitimately wonder if it was wise to include major cities areas that were virtually 100% German in it and in doing so partition Germany with a chunk of Poland between it.
It might have been rather wiser, given that Memel was confiscated, to have given Poland Memel and a land corridor through the east side of East Prussia to give them a Baltic Port.
Instead they gave it to Lithuania.
Not for nothing was the Child of 1940 cartoon showing a bedraggled child looking out at his bombed out city drawn in 1919