It's the sort of vibrancy which Welby and the CoE lack
Pentacostalist worship is certainly fun and celebrational, and in the UK drawing crowds too. There are a number of "Big Shed" churches near me, the retail park being the UK equivalent of the US shopping Mall. It isn't just the African diaspora either. There are fellow travellers too, with Holy Trinity in Leicester getting 500 on a Sunday, CoE though not always approved of by the hierarchy because of its informal liturgy.
Pentacostalism has moved a long way from the homespun Appalachian church in the video clip, to the razzmatazz of modern mega-churches. The key is that personal relationship with Jesus, and an acceptance of modern consumerist lifestyles.
I'm sure there are bits of the hierarchy that wince at what goes on, much like the Anglo-Catholic ordinands I saw the day after they had an educational trip somewhere similar.
But one of Welby's big ideas has been a hefty expansion in That Sort Of Thing, by getting Holy Trinity Brompton (and its children and their children) and others to plant new congregations into struggling parishes.
And one of the people behind that is Paul Marshall. Yes, that Paul Marshall.
Except that HTB and it's network of churches is now on its way out of the CofE sphere over the "Prayers of Love and Faith" (that's CofE speak for gay marriage in church). As are virtually all the evangelicals - which are the only bit of the CofE that isn't in free fall decline.
My CofE church is actually voting today* on whether the congregation agrees with the leadership that we should leave. We're a bit unusual, because we're an old congregation that's not a parish church, and own our own building, so we can pretty much tell the Bishop "so long and thanks for all the fish", but that is true of a lot of the new churches planted by outfits like HTB and St Helens Bishopsgate.
Incidentally, I've no real problem personally with gay people being gay. I think it's sinful, active homosexuals are called to repent like all sexual sinners, but ultimately it's God's job to make them give an account of their lives, at his judgment, not mine.
My problem with the CofE blessing gay marriages is that this is the leadership blessing something their doctrine teaches is sinful. I'd say the same if they wanted in church blessings for adultery, gluttony, lying or greed. It's just that in our context, homosexuality is a fashionable sin, unlike the others.
*actually, electronically, over the next two weeks, starting today
HTB isn't leaving the C of E at all, there are a few conservative evangelical churches like St Ebb's or All Souls Langham Place withholding parish share over PLF but they remain in the C of E. PLF also isn't gay marriage in church, just prayers for same sex couples in churches which want to which evangelical churches can still opt out from. Indeed a few pro same sex liberals like Jayne Ozanne left the C of E for the Methodists after Synod rejected full same sex marriages in its churches as the Methodists do now perform same sex marriages in their churches.
All C of E churches are owned by the diocese and C of E and any church which tries to break away and take the building would likely lose a legal battle as happened with conservative in North America Churches which broke away from the Episcopal church.
It is also not true to say that only evangelical churches have big congregations, there are some Anglo Catholic churches which are growing eg St Bartholomew's and of course the C of E has £1 billion in annual income which it can and should put into its Parishes
That's generally about right from @HYUFD , including the comments about ECUSA - though there it was almost a civil war within the Episcopal Church waged by the Presiding Bishop who spent £10s of millions (including much from the missionary budget) on legal fees suing her own denominations' own congregations, which I followed for the best part of a decade on a blog called Anglican Curmudgeon, written by a (very detailed) lawyer. They were 'separatists' or 'orthodox' depending on the side of the argument.
Here it would never run so deep, as in ECUSA congregations own their buildings, the issue was the rabbit warren of law by which the central church organisation deemed it had the right take them away.
Here there are a number of exceptions where CofE churches do own their own buildings for historical reasons (may have been eg created privately, be open to the public, but have a licensed Anglican cleric). One set of exceptions are called Propriety Chapels, such as listed here (below). But they may be perhaps 1% or less of all CofE buildings.
- if you are irreligious/secular, why do you not drink?
This is not a gotcha, I am properly curious. Alcohol, in moderation (heck, in excess, but that's maybe just me) - is one of life's great pleasures. Really really great
Yes it's bad for you in some ways but so is sleeping with dozens of beautiful women, or so I am told by my married and feminist friends
So, why not indulge? You're not going to Islamic hell, there's no one eating up the human-sized kebab skewers, you don't believe in it
It started off as a religious thing, when I arrived at university I fell off the Muslim wagon but I saw people make really bad decisions when drunk.
Then after university I was working 100 plus hours I didn't want any distractions, I would work, go home, watch some sport, sleep.
Then I moved to North Yorkshire and working in Leeds, and had a girlfriend who lived in the Wirral who didn't drive.
I was doing 25,000 miles a year commuting and maintaining a relationship, I was worried about ending up with a drink driving charge because early in my career a colleague ended up with a drink driving conviction despite not drinking much.
I've always managed to have a good time without needing to drink alcohol or consume drugs.
Edit - My mother has forgiven my many transgressions but me being drunk would put her six foot under.
A comprehensive answer. Thankyou
I am always intrigued by teetotallers. My eldest daughter is one
As we dropped her off at St Andrews for her first (nervous) weekend at Uni I did worry about how she would cope without booze to overcome her shyness. I asked her why not try just a glass of wine, she said maybe, but "I don't like booze, because I've seen you and Mum"
TBF to me (and not to her Mum) her mum is quite a bad drunk. Gets querulous and nasty and then falls into a sullen sleep. If that was my one main example of a drinker I too might be teetotal
However the daughter is now havering because she's spent long holdays with me and she's seen that I am a benign drunk, I just become more mellow and cheerful as I drink (except on here)
Of course, she might just be the kind of person that simply doesn't like to drink. Like you. And gets by just fine
I do think you are missing out on something, but then non-drinkers would say exactly the same to me. Each to their own!
I think there's a little bit of fear about it as well.
Since university I have friends who drink a lot, 95% of them are the same people sober as they are drunk, but 5% of them turn in to utter arseholes, from looking for a scrap, touching up anyone they fancy, or other twattish behaviour, I don't want to be that 5%.
Most of my friends want to see me drunk to see if my innuendos/jokes get any more shocking.
Yes, I entirely agree on that. And 5% is about right as a proportion of the total, in my opinion
5% of people are "bad drunks" who should never drink
I've met a few, inc my older daughter's mother. One of them, unfortunately, was one of my many stepmothers. She literally tried to stab me with scissors during one of her sessions. And she became evil and deranged almost EVERY TIME she drank. It flipped some Satanic switch in her and her eyes started to roll
Another was a quite famous writer friend of mine, who would start very funny and witty and then, bang, wanted to kill people. He had the self awareness to give up the evil liquor
I have never drunk, but that is down to finding the smell of alcohol unbearable. Weird genetics - my father couldn't be in the same room as cheese. At least I didn't suffer his peculiar foible. Love cheese.
A lot of people say they don't like it to start with and that I should persevere. But I have an addicitve personality - if I did, it probably wouldn't end well. I'm quite cheery in the company of drunks, although there does get a point where they can be bloody tedious. Usually about two hours before the point where I, their designated driver, is due to take them home....
You could always drink vodka, which has virtually no scent or taste at all, especially if drowned in orange juice
One of THE great alcohol buzzes is the surge you get after three or four hefty shots of vodka, a la Russe
You gotta do them quick, down in one, and within a short space of time (inhale rye bread after each shot to avoid gagging)
Then you get a wild high, more like a hard drug than booze
Does someone end up resigning or are the media going to keep delivering these daily pearl clutching stories until the end of time.
It’s not a good look for Starmer and others but really I’m sure I’m not the only one who is now bored to tears of the whole thing.
And the Tories who are making a huge deal should stfu given what went on during their time in government . Freebiegate is nothing compared to the corruption under Bozo .
The reason this has legs is because Labour came in promising not to be like the last lot and yet here we have them partying away on donor funds who then get plum jobs at the treasury or passes to Number 10 etc...
In fact Labour ran their whole campaign on how they were different to the Tories but to voters they now look just as crooked. If they'd run on policies rather than character it wouldn't be as bad for them, they could just come out and say no more donations from these people and it would be the end of it.
And there was already a terrible, sullen mood in the country that "they are all the same", "just in it for themselves", "nothing gets done" etc etc.
Labour turning out to be exactly as people feared now seriously opens the door to populist challenge of throwing the whole bloody lot of them out.
I think the refusal to admit that, yes, maybe we shouldn't have showered ourselves in donor cash is really hurting them. I understand that the MPs don't want to turn the taps off but they need to do it quickly or the party is finished. They've got a big majority but only 33% of votes, the way down is very, very steep.
The big problem they have, which was in evidence in Rayner’s interview this morning too, is that they’re completely missing the point in the line they’re taking.
“Politicians get donations and it’s all in the rules” might be true, by and large, but the wider question that is being asked is should this be happening.
They look really flat footed here. A better response would be that although in the rules, on reflection we can see why this looks wrong and we’re going to stop doing it because we’re all in the hard economic times together etc etc.
(I am wondering (based on no evidence) if the reason they’re having to dance around all this by the way is because Mr Starmer is actually rather keen on making sure he has his executive box at the Emirates, and if ministers are forced to take a line of giving it all up he’ll lose that).
That's the thing - No company would allow their directors or staff to receive those sort of inducements from third parties...
It'd be interesting to know how many Labour MPs - and the cabinet in particular - have substantial work experience outside the public sector, particularly at high levels.
I don't think working in the public sector for a few years, then going into politics, makes you particularly well-rounded, whatever your class and background.
You don’t think working as a doctor or a teacher can make you well-rounded? Anyway…
Helen Hayes worked as a town planner with an architectural practice for several years.
Sharon Hodgson worked for Northern Rock and then as an accounting clerk.
Alison McGovern worked for Network Rail. Does that count?
Emily Thornberry was a barrister for many years.
Sadik Al-Hassan worked as a pharmacist for Boots and then Well Pharmacy.
Samantha Dixon had a long career at Sotheby’s.
Maureen Burke worked for a tie manufacturer.
Andrew Ranger worked in hospitality.
James Naish began at Accenture and later worked at an auctioneer.
Samantha Niblett had a long career in IT.
But if we’re focusing on the Cabinet…
Reeves spent several years working for HBOS. Cooper had 2 years as a newspaper journalist. Lammy had a private law career, as did Stevens and Mahmood. Haigh had 3 years at Aviva. Murray did various things: fast food, to pensions, to online TV. Reed had a long career in publishing.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 · 36m Education Sec Bridget Phillipson tells @SkyNews that £14k birthday parties funded by Labour donor Lord Alli were 'in a work context'. I seem to remember someone else trying this defence one...
@cazjwheeler covers our latest polling which shows how quickly the Govt’s honeymoon vanished. 17% of Labour voters regret voting for the Party & the public are slightly more likely to think they are exaggerating the state of public finances than being honest
Ironic because the truth is that rather than exaggerating the state of public finances they are severely understating the problem because it is simply too difficult to fix. The £22bn black hole is largely nonsense but the £100bn black hole of a deficit is undisputed fact. The problem Labour, and the outgoing Tory government had, is that they wanted to pretend that wasn't a problem because the implications for what they wanted to do were simply horrendous.
That’s a game which has been going on ever since the ‘black hole’ metaphor was first adopted (can anyone remember when that was ?).
The truth is that there are bigger questions at stake - ie how does our economy cope with the massive transformation (AI; automation; rise of new industrial powers; energy transformation; demographic shift, etc) that we’re in the middle of.
Debt at 100% of GDP ups the stakes in getting policy right, but in itself isn’t a completely insurmountable problem.
Debt at 100% of GDP significantly limits our freedom of manoeuvre. If Truss had started with a balanced budget her proposed budget would probably have been fine, if not entirely wise. But out constant and urgent need to obtain finance from the market to bridge the gap between what we pay in taxes and spend made her and UK plc vulnerable.
But, I largely agree. We need to focus on the more important questions, like how do we earn enough as a country to pay for what we think we are entitled to? How do we make people happier? How do we adapt to AI changes in our economy and what do we do with the millions who will lose out?
There was a time when the shawl weavers of Paisley were so rich that they would go around with £5 notes in their hats. Then came the printed shawl and their standard of living collapsed overnight. So much of our middle classes are in danger of having a similar collision with reality.
Also, the news about rich people leaving the UK is now international, we had dinner with some American friends who are over for the week last night and they brought it up as it's made their news cycle in the last couple of weeks that British millionaires and very high earners are leaving for the US, Dubai and parts of europe. My wife did nothing to disabuse them of that impression when she mentioned that she's begun looking for a house in Switzerland.
If Harris and Walz get in with their tax raising plans for CGT too I would also expect some rich Americans to move to the Bahamas, Dubai, Switzerland, Singapore etc too.
Though as a more Federal system you can also see shift from high tax states like Massachusetts and California to lower tax states like Texas
They have lots of ways to get Americans leaving the US to pay their tax. For a start they... keep taxing them, even though they live overseas. If you're a US citizen you have to pay taxes to the US, to the extent that you're not already paying higher taxes elsewhere. Then there's the exit tax if you leave the US, which basically forces you to realize your capital gains, which is what the Harris proposal would do to a much more limited extent.
What people could do is leave the US and give up their citizenship before they get rich, but generally being in the US is how these people get rich.
Indeed so it is unlikely to be many other than a few super rich Republicans who already have lots of assets moving to Singapore, Monaco etc. Otherwise more moving from blue states to red states within the USA
This is ALL about migration/asylum. SF have fucked the mutt
Open Borders, and "Whiteness" being the worst crime there is, are a leitmotif of being on the radical Left.
They couldn't, can't and will never be able to help it.
Sinn Fein's support has actually halved. They were riding high on 37% in mid 2023. An incredible drop. And migration is driving it
When the lost SF support was going to right-wing anti-immigrant independents that did seem like the obvious explanation, but the latest polls show FF and FG doing very well, despite being the government that has made such a huge mess of the immigration issue, and they don't have any policy to attempt to deal with it.
Other things are clearly going on.
The poll implies that about 20% are planning to vote independent. Sinn Fein lost sight of the fact that many Irish Republicans are in fact, pretty right wing.
Does someone end up resigning or are the media going to keep delivering these daily pearl clutching stories until the end of time.
It’s not a good look for Starmer and others but really I’m sure I’m not the only one who is now bored to tears of the whole thing.
And the Tories who are making a huge deal should stfu given what went on during their time in government . Freebiegate is nothing compared to the corruption under Bozo .
The reason this has legs is because Labour came in promising not to be like the last lot and yet here we have them partying away on donor funds who then get plum jobs at the treasury or passes to Number 10 etc...
In fact Labour ran their whole campaign on how they were different to the Tories but to voters they now look just as crooked. If they'd run on policies rather than character it wouldn't be as bad for them, they could just come out and say no more donations from these people and it would be the end of it.
And there was already a terrible, sullen mood in the country that "they are all the same", "just in it for themselves", "nothing gets done" etc etc.
Labour turning out to be exactly as people feared now seriously opens the door to populist challenge of throwing the whole bloody lot of them out.
I think the refusal to admit that, yes, maybe we shouldn't have showered ourselves in donor cash is really hurting them. I understand that the MPs don't want to turn the taps off but they need to do it quickly or the party is finished. They've got a big majority but only 33% of votes, the way down is very, very steep.
The big problem they have, which was in evidence in Rayner’s interview this morning too, is that they’re completely missing the point in the line they’re taking.
“Politicians get donations and it’s all in the rules” might be true, by and large, but the wider question that is being asked is should this be happening.
They look really flat footed here. A better response would be that although in the rules, on reflection we can see why this looks wrong and we’re going to stop doing it because we’re all in the hard economic times together etc etc.
(I am wondering (based on no evidence) if the reason they’re having to dance around all this by the way is because Mr Starmer is actually rather keen on making sure he has his executive box at the Emirates, and if ministers are forced to take a line of giving it all up he’ll lose that).
That's the thing - No company would allow their directors or staff to receive those sort of inducements from third parties...
It'd be interesting to know how many Labour MPs - and the cabinet in particular - have substantial work experience outside the public sector, particularly at high levels.
I don't think working in the public sector for a few years, then going into politics, makes you particularly well-rounded, whatever your class and background.
That's true but I would add academia and the third sector to what you say about the public sector.
Until you've had to stress about keeping customers happy and making payroll every month it's very difficult to understand an economy, which is doubtless why Reeves is so useless and socialists generally think of the private sector as one huge ATM for them to plunder.
Reeves worked in the private sector, for HBOS, for 4 years, I believe.
It's the sort of vibrancy which Welby and the CoE lack
Pentacostalist worship is certainly fun and celebrational, and in the UK drawing crowds too. There are a number of "Big Shed" churches near me, the retail park being the UK equivalent of the US shopping Mall. It isn't just the African diaspora either. There are fellow travellers too, with Holy Trinity in Leicester getting 500 on a Sunday, CoE though not always approved of by the hierarchy because of its informal liturgy.
Pentacostalism has moved a long way from the homespun Appalachian church in the video clip, to the razzmatazz of modern mega-churches. The key is that personal relationship with Jesus, and an acceptance of modern consumerist lifestyles.
I'm sure there are bits of the hierarchy that wince at what goes on, much like the Anglo-Catholic ordinands I saw the day after they had an educational trip somewhere similar.
But one of Welby's big ideas has been a hefty expansion in That Sort Of Thing, by getting Holy Trinity Brompton (and its children and their children) and others to plant new congregations into struggling parishes.
And one of the people behind that is Paul Marshall. Yes, that Paul Marshall.
Except that HTB and it's network of churches is now on its way out of the CofE sphere over the "Prayers of Love and Faith" (that's CofE speak for gay marriage in church). As are virtually all the evangelicals - which are the only bit of the CofE that isn't in free fall decline.
My CofE church is actually voting today* on whether the congregation agrees with the leadership that we should leave. We're a bit unusual, because we're an old congregation that's not a parish church, and own our own building, so we can pretty much tell the Bishop "so long and thanks for all the fish", but that is true of a lot of the new churches planted by outfits like HTB and St Helens Bishopsgate.
Incidentally, I've no real problem personally with gay people being gay. I think it's sinful, active homosexuals are called to repent like all sexual sinners, but ultimately it's God's job to make them give an account of their lives, at his judgment, not mine.
My problem with the CofE blessing gay marriages is that this is the leadership blessing something their doctrine teaches is sinful. I'd say the same if they wanted in church blessings for adultery, gluttony, lying or greed. It's just that in our context, homosexuality is a fashionable sin, unlike the others.
*actually, electronically, over the next two weeks, starting today
Why is "homosexuality" sinful? I can see arguments for "adultery, gluttony, lying or greed" being sinful, but I can't see how homosexuality can be added to the list?
Being homosexual isn't sinful, same sex sexual acts is sinful if you read certain Biblical or Koran passages, just as admiring a beautiful woman isn't sinful of itself unless you have sex outside marriage with them
Matthew 5:27-9
Avoiding going full lustfully is the key
You said “unless you have sex outside marriage with them”. Jesus clearly disagrees with you.
There are glaring differences between the teachings of Jesus, what the Old Testament says (which is all over the place), and the various ‘doctrines’ of Christian sects and denominations (also all over the place).
There are notably few modern sects, for instance, which preach selling all you own, to give to the poor (as opposed to their megachurch).
Does someone end up resigning or are the media going to keep delivering these daily pearl clutching stories until the end of time.
It’s not a good look for Starmer and others but really I’m sure I’m not the only one who is now bored to tears of the whole thing.
And the Tories who are making a huge deal should stfu given what went on during their time in government . Freebiegate is nothing compared to the corruption under Bozo .
The reason this has legs is because Labour came in promising not to be like the last lot and yet here we have them partying away on donor funds who then get plum jobs at the treasury or passes to Number 10 etc...
In fact Labour ran their whole campaign on how they were different to the Tories but to voters they now look just as crooked. If they'd run on policies rather than character it wouldn't be as bad for them, they could just come out and say no more donations from these people and it would be the end of it.
And there was already a terrible, sullen mood in the country that "they are all the same", "just in it for themselves", "nothing gets done" etc etc.
Labour turning out to be exactly as people feared now seriously opens the door to populist challenge of throwing the whole bloody lot of them out.
I think the refusal to admit that, yes, maybe we shouldn't have showered ourselves in donor cash is really hurting them. I understand that the MPs don't want to turn the taps off but they need to do it quickly or the party is finished. They've got a big majority but only 33% of votes, the way down is very, very steep.
The big problem they have, which was in evidence in Rayner’s interview this morning too, is that they’re completely missing the point in the line they’re taking.
“Politicians get donations and it’s all in the rules” might be true, by and large, but the wider question that is being asked is should this be happening.
They look really flat footed here. A better response would be that although in the rules, on reflection we can see why this looks wrong and we’re going to stop doing it because we’re all in the hard economic times together etc etc.
(I am wondering (based on no evidence) if the reason they’re having to dance around all this by the way is because Mr Starmer is actually rather keen on making sure he has his executive box at the Emirates, and if ministers are forced to take a line of giving it all up he’ll lose that).
That's the thing - No company would allow their directors or staff to receive those sort of inducements from third parties...
It'd be interesting to know how many Labour MPs - and the cabinet in particular - have substantial work experience outside the public sector, particularly at high levels.
I don't think working in the public sector for a few years, then going into politics, makes you particularly well-rounded, whatever your class and background.
That's true but I would add academia and the third sector to what you say about the public sector.
Until you've had to stress about keeping customers happy and making payroll every month it's very difficult to understand an economy, which is doubtless why Reeves is so useless and socialists generally think of the private sector as one huge ATM for them to plunder.
All my anecdotal evidence from talking to many people is small businesses are really struggling now. This is reflected in the massive drop in consumer confidence.
You'd almost think we'd just elected some incompetent Socialists in a moment of national insanity or something.
This is ALL about migration/asylum. SF have fucked the mutt
Open Borders, and "Whiteness" being the worst crime there is, are a leitmotif of being on the radical Left.
They couldn't, can't and will never be able to help it.
Sinn Fein's support has actually halved. They were riding high on 37% in mid 2023. An incredible drop. And migration is driving it
When the lost SF support was going to right-wing anti-immigrant independents that did seem like the obvious explanation, but the latest polls show FF and FG doing very well, despite being the government that has made such a huge mess of the immigration issue, and they don't have any policy to attempt to deal with it.
Other things are clearly going on.
Housing is the other major issue in Ireland, which is of course firmly linked to immigration
I imagine people angry about housing but not inclined to vote for the anti-immigrant right would shift to the big trad parties
The big trad parties are the parties that created the housing crisis, and are failing to fix the housing crisis, and are in denial about the scale of the housing crisis.
They can't build a children's hospital, the health service is in tatters, the country is dependent on electricity imports from Britain and the government keeps on clashing with local communities over refugee accommodation.
I've yet to read a rational explanation for the FF/FG resurgence.
There have been a lot of posts - and headers - on here about Harris could be on course for a landslide victory which is not been predicted in the polls.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina@kinabalu@ydoethur@Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
- if you are irreligious/secular, why do you not drink?
This is not a gotcha, I am properly curious. Alcohol, in moderation (heck, in excess, but that's maybe just me) - is one of life's great pleasures. Really really great
Yes it's bad for you in some ways but so is sleeping with dozens of beautiful women, or so I am told by my married and feminist friends
So, why not indulge? You're not going to Islamic hell, there's no one eating up the human-sized kebab skewers, you don't believe in it
It started off as a religious thing, when I arrived at university I fell off the Muslim wagon but I saw people make really bad decisions when drunk.
Then after university I was working 100 plus hours I didn't want any distractions, I would work, go home, watch some sport, sleep.
Then I moved to North Yorkshire and working in Leeds, and had a girlfriend who lived in the Wirral who didn't drive.
I was doing 25,000 miles a year commuting and maintaining a relationship, I was worried about ending up with a drink driving charge because early in my career a colleague ended up with a drink driving conviction despite not drinking much.
I've always managed to have a good time without needing to drink alcohol or consume drugs.
Edit - My mother has forgiven my many transgressions but me being drunk would put her six foot under.
A comprehensive answer. Thankyou
I am always intrigued by teetotallers. My eldest daughter is one
As we dropped her off at St Andrews for her first (nervous) weekend at Uni I did worry about how she would cope without booze to overcome her shyness. I asked her why not try just a glass of wine, she said maybe, but "I don't like booze, because I've seen you and Mum"
TBF to me (and not to her Mum) her mum is quite a bad drunk. Gets querulous and nasty and then falls into a sullen sleep. If that was my one main example of a drinker I too might be teetotal
However the daughter is now havering because she's spent long holdays with me and she's seen that I am a benign drunk, I just become more mellow and cheerful as I drink (except on here)
Of course, she might just be the kind of person that simply doesn't like to drink. Like you. And gets by just fine
I do think you are missing out on something, but then non-drinkers would say exactly the same to me. Each to their own!
I'm de facto teetotal: I don't drink except when visiting relatives (it's compulsory) or things like conference dinners (eg the RSS conference dinner). As a rough rule of thumb I really don't like being in groups and drinking helps me get thru it. In my teens and twenties when you are still tied to the school model where being in groups of friends is important, I was drunk every weekend. But as I achieved adulthood the need for friend groups diminished and my alcohol usage followed. In my present job, which is more a consultancy, the requirement for in-office socialisation has gone away and so there is no need to drink alcohol, so I don't.
Nowadays I drink around three, four times a year (Xmas, Easter, Conference, departmental dinners), hence my de facto teetotalism.
“The largest organization representing the Christian faith in Ohio issued a scathing letter in defense of Haitian migrants in Springfield.
“The letter released Friday evening by the Ohio Council of Churches (OCC) decried the false statements from Republican vice presidential nominee and U.S. Sen. JD Vance and running mate, former president Donald Trump, that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were eating pets and wildlife.”
“The Catholic Conference of Ohio, which represents bishops from diocesan groups across the state, published a letter Thursday asking for the public to treat Haitian immigrants in Springfield with respect and dignity, warning against "unfounded gossip" and "scapegoating."”
Setting the bar for scathing a bit low.
These guys have a biological imperative to eat protein, a religious imperative to sacrifice small animals, and no money. How do *you* think they might solve these problems?
Mercator, the claims of pet-eating Haitians have been thoroughly debunked. It never happened. Republican politicians took someone repeating an urban myth on Facebook and just invented a new blood libel. Why are you holding on to the idea? It is pure racism.
They haven't been debunked, statements have been made that there is "no evidence" for them, misunderstanding the meaning of "evidence." Perhaps you think vodou or the requirement of animal sacrifice is an urban myth? It's an official religion.
Animal sacrifice is huge in the US. I can't say I am particularly fussed, I am irreligious but religion tolerant and if I eat animals I am cool with humanely conducted sacrifice. I also agree that talking about it on US facing social media is an uncontroversially bad thing. But truth is independent of how we would like things to be.
More notably, it’s now more than two weeks after the debate and everyone is still talking about immigration, which can only help the Republicans. The story itself has enough plausibility, and people’s actual experiences don’t match with those saying it’s a racist lie.
What actual experiences? No-one had had an experience of an immigrant eating their pet.
How do you know that?
I refer you to the post I made earlier.
What, some bishops issued a press release about it?
I recommend a basic course in epistemology.
I teach a basic course in epistemology, as it happens.
But, no, the post where I went through how the cat-eating story has been debunked.
It really really hasn't been debunked. You are the most credulous fuckwit
One of the groups who are most supportive of Trump are non-churchgoing evangelicals.
Being evangelical once suggested regular church attendance, a focus on salvation and conversion and strongly held views on specific issues such as abortion. Today, it is as often used to describe a cultural and political identity: one in which Christians are considered a persecuted minority, traditional institutions are viewed skeptically and Mr. Trump looms large...
But as Mr. Trump gained ground in the early primaries, his growing strength among white evangelical voters became clear. Polls showed that the future nominee was most popular among one group in particular: white evangelicals who seldom or never went to church
Beyond even the buzz of the megachurch, there is the buzz of the televangelist, which manages to line up with MAGA even more.
Reminiscent of the non-churchgoing Reagan who managed to convince voters he was more religious than Jimmy Carter, a president who even taught Sunday school from the White House.
Carter won evangelicals in 1976 against Ford but lost them in 1980, he is the only Democrat though to have won evangelicals at a presidential election
It depends a little on definition, but Carter was perhaps the second "Born Again" President, with Garfield being the first.
Considering the large number of Evangelicals in the USA, it is a surprisingly small number. Nearly all other presidents have been either traditional denominations or not particularly interested in religion at all.
I think some of the mutual antipathy we see between MAGA Republicans and coastal Democrats arises from this lack of Evangelical representation and priorities on the national stage. Trump being a businessman with no political hinterland prior to 2016 helps him ally with this anti-elite mindset.
Carter was asked "Are you born again", and answered "Yes, I am". I suggest the difference from Trump, and to an extent Reagan, is that Carter was from a liberal (ie tolerant) evangelical background, not an authoritarian one, and regarded it as definitional for him personally, rather than as a convenient marketing strategy. That brings it back to deeds ultimately matter more than words.
Here's a reference from Foreign Policy: Carter’s interest in foreign affairs derived in part from his involvement with the Trilateral Commission, where he met and formed an alliance with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who became Carter’s national security advisor. A larger influence on the president, however, was his evangelical faith. Carter’s declaration that he was a born-again Christian had provoked incredulity from the national press corps, but the statement resonated with many Americans, including evangelicals themselves, who looked for integrity in the White House following the scandals of former U.S. President Richard Nixon’s administration. Carter, a Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher, fit the bill. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/22/jimmy-carter-foreign-policy-america-evangelical-christianity/
A more recent meeting of religious minds and foreign affairs came on dealing with third world debt, between President Bush and our own son of the manse, Gordon Brown.
We have a lot of PMs with such backgrounds - also Blair of course, and Theresa May being a vicar's daughter, and I think quite a number more.
I still like the (apocryphal?) bargee's comment to the PM and ABC sitting together, "Keeping better company I see !"
This is ALL about migration/asylum. SF have fucked the mutt
Open Borders, and "Whiteness" being the worst crime there is, are a leitmotif of being on the radical Left.
They couldn't, can't and will never be able to help it.
The one exception being the Danish Social Democrats, who adopted some of the toughest laws on immigration and integration of any Western democracy, and won back droves of supporters from the Peoples' Party.
Anyway, must dash. About to serve roast lamb with rosemary and garlic with a red wine jus.
After lunch, I'll probably stick on A Bridge Too Far, if I can keep the little terrors away, as it seems appropriate with the 80th anniversary of the Battle of Arnhem.
This is ALL about migration/asylum. SF have fucked the mutt
SNP collapsed in Scotland, Scottish Labour now has more MPs and looks like a Unionist majority in Holyrood next time and SF collapsing in Ireland too. Looks like Unionism is now on the up again, indeed even in NI it is the Alliance making the biggest gains not SF
Labour have fallen back in Scotland, but with the Conservatives and Reform polling 25% between them, a Unionist majority would appear likely.
This is ALL about migration/asylum. SF have fucked the mutt
Open Borders, and "Whiteness" being the worst crime there is, are a leitmotif of being on the radical Left.
They couldn't, can't and will never be able to help it.
The one exception being the Danish Social Democrats, who adopted some of the toughest laws on immigration and integration of any Western democracy, and won back droves of supporters from the Peoples' Party.
After a 2.4 mile swim and a 112-mile bike ride, Kat Matthew (GB) and Laura Phillip (Germany) are both in the lead at the start of the run.
Go Kat!
Just how mad does one have to be, to want do an Ironman Triathlon voluntarily?
'Friends' are trying to persuade me.
I put friends in quotes as they can't be very good friends to want to put me through that.
I've done four sprints now, in far from world-changing time, and an Ironman is essentially eight times the distance. I will try an Olympic distance or two next year, and see if I can get reasonable times. But the problem is the training: it just takes up so much time. Leaving aside all the physical and mental efforts required, I don't know if I can afford the time training per week.
A woman I know from the pool won her age group at an Ironman race in Italy yesterday. I'm in awe.
Id love to have ago at sprint triathlon but I really, really hate swimming, so I'm toying with the idea of a duathlon. I dont have a road bike, only have a couple of mountain bikes and an old Specialized 3 speed hub geared courier bike I ride around town on. I've found out there's a thing called Off Road Duathalon which is run/mountain bike/run and there's one at Sherwood Pines in December. Part of me thinks I should just sign up and have a go. The other part thinks "Grow up, you daft old sod!"
“The largest organization representing the Christian faith in Ohio issued a scathing letter in defense of Haitian migrants in Springfield.
“The letter released Friday evening by the Ohio Council of Churches (OCC) decried the false statements from Republican vice presidential nominee and U.S. Sen. JD Vance and running mate, former president Donald Trump, that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were eating pets and wildlife.”
“The Catholic Conference of Ohio, which represents bishops from diocesan groups across the state, published a letter Thursday asking for the public to treat Haitian immigrants in Springfield with respect and dignity, warning against "unfounded gossip" and "scapegoating."”
Setting the bar for scathing a bit low.
These guys have a biological imperative to eat protein, a religious imperative to sacrifice small animals, and no money. How do *you* think they might solve these problems?
Mercator, the claims of pet-eating Haitians have been thoroughly debunked. It never happened. Republican politicians took someone repeating an urban myth on Facebook and just invented a new blood libel. Why are you holding on to the idea? It is pure racism.
They haven't been debunked, statements have been made that there is "no evidence" for them, misunderstanding the meaning of "evidence." Perhaps you think vodou or the requirement of animal sacrifice is an urban myth? It's an official religion.
Animal sacrifice is huge in the US. I can't say I am particularly fussed, I am irreligious but religion tolerant and if I eat animals I am cool with humanely conducted sacrifice. I also agree that talking about it on US facing social media is an uncontroversially bad thing. But truth is independent of how we would like things to be.
It has been debunked. We know how the story started. There was a Facebook post: we know who made that Facebook post and on what evidence (a friend of a friend of an acquaintance said… stuff). I.e., nothing. Defenders of the idea then rushed to find evidence. There was the bodycam video of someone being arrested for killing and eating a cat… and this turned out to be some mad woman, not in Springfield, not Haitian, not an immigrant, not a vodou practitioner. There was the photo of a guy with two dead geese… not an immigrant, not a Haitian, not in Springfield, he hadn’t killed the geese but was carrying them away from a car accident and there’s no evidence he was intending to eat them.
What we do have evidence for is how MAGAts have used this falsehood for propaganda and a long history of racist propaganda that takes the same form, othering people by connecting them to some disgusting food source and a threat they pose to the family.
The women who posted on Facebook about her cat being stolen, who subsequently discovered it alive and well in her basement, is a Trump voter. She’s a better person than either of the shitheads she’ll still vote for, as she has apologised to the immigrants in Springfield.
Indeed. The person who took the photo of the guy with 2 dead geese is also horrified at what has happened.
But still some want to argue that one time a cat was killed by someone who wasn’t a Haitian or an immigrant in an entirely different part of the world, therefore JD Vance is right… or something.
(When I like a government it's a sure sign that the voters will kill it and bury it in a hole at the first opportunity they get.)
All wind. The current system is already default permission. You have to prove that there are valid reasons why houses should not be built. The issue of course is who decides what reasons are valid.
So this changes absolutely nothing in prcatice whilst sounding like they are doing something.
Other bits are better - high density is good if it means building 4 and 5 stories rather than 2. Copy the Europeans or the way we used to build pre 20th century.
My personal prescription (https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4941411#Comment_4941411 ) includes as a key point the use of LDOs to provide key reports up front for an area (or "zone," if you will), so that permission is automatic as long as it complies with a given set of conditions.
And in this paper:
5.4 Area-wide permissions
Finally, while the options set out above could be used only to give greater support to individual applications, an additional approach would be to combine the options for the scale and form of development with Local Development Orders (LDOs), in order to provide upfront consent to developments that meet the specified criteria.
LDOs are an existing tool, prepared by local planning authorities, which give upfront planning permission for specified forms of development across all or part of an authority’s area.
Combining them with criteria on the scale and/or form of development as suggested above would allow a local planning authority to effectively establish one or more zones in which particular types of development had planning permission without the need for individual applications.
Now, they're probably going to need to provide a little funding for this - the various reports still need to be done - but it could both provide almost auto-permissions for development in a given large site (saving time, risk, and money for developers and possibly making it more feasible for smaller developers to get in on the act) AND allow for local control (people get much grumpier about development away from allocated sites than they do at allocated sites, and this would focus development at the latter - because it would be much cheaper and easier).
I've got a lot I'm critical about with this Government, but this might actually be a good move.
All this already exists. Look at the Growth Point programme that has been in place for the last 20 years or more. This is all smoke and mirrors to make it seem like they are doing something when in fact they have changed nothing - at least with regard to planning.
There have been a lot of posts - and headers - on here about Harris could be on course for a landslide victory which is not been predicted in the polls.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina@kinabalu@ydoethur@Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
We have one bit of hard data, the Washington Primary. As Sean Trende pointed out, that's consistent with Harris winning about 48%, on the day. Win or lose, that implies a very tight result.
Nothing suggests to me that Harris will win a landslide.
There have been a lot of posts - and headers - on here about Harris could be on course for a landslide victory which is not been predicted in the polls.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina@kinabalu@ydoethur@Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
We have one bit of hard data, the Washington Primary. As Sean Trende pointed out, that's consistent with Harris winning about 48%, on the day. Win or lose, that implies a very tight result.
Nothing suggests to me that Harris will win a landslide.
I hope Harris will win a landslide. I don’t think Harris or Trump will win a landslide. I don’t see any obvious betting value in the markets. They say it’s close and it probably will be close.
One of the groups who are most supportive of Trump are non-churchgoing evangelicals.
Being evangelical once suggested regular church attendance, a focus on salvation and conversion and strongly held views on specific issues such as abortion. Today, it is as often used to describe a cultural and political identity: one in which Christians are considered a persecuted minority, traditional institutions are viewed skeptically and Mr. Trump looms large...
But as Mr. Trump gained ground in the early primaries, his growing strength among white evangelical voters became clear. Polls showed that the future nominee was most popular among one group in particular: white evangelicals who seldom or never went to church
Beyond even the buzz of the megachurch, there is the buzz of the televangelist, which manages to line up with MAGA even more.
Reminiscent of the non-churchgoing Reagan who managed to convince voters he was more religious than Jimmy Carter, a president who even taught Sunday school from the White House.
Carter won evangelicals in 1976 against Ford but lost them in 1980, he is the only Democrat though to have won evangelicals at a presidential election
It depends a little on definition, but Carter was perhaps the second "Born Again" President, with Garfield being the first.
Considering the large number of Evangelicals in the USA, it is a surprisingly small number. Nearly all other presidents have been either traditional denominations or not particularly interested in religion at all.
I think some of the mutual antipathy we see between MAGA Republicans and coastal Democrats arises from this lack of Evangelical representation and priorities on the national stage. Trump being a businessman with no political hinterland prior to 2016 helps him ally with this anti-elite mindset.
Carter was asked "Are you born again", and answered "Yes, I am". I suggest the difference from Trump, and to an extent Reagan, is that Carter was from a liberal (ie tolerant) evangelical background, not an authoritarian one, and regarded it as definitional for him personally, rather than as a convenient marketing strategy. That brings it back to deeds ultimately matter more than words.
Here's a reference from Foreign Policy: Carter’s interest in foreign affairs derived in part from his involvement with the Trilateral Commission, where he met and formed an alliance with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who became Carter’s national security advisor. A larger influence on the president, however, was his evangelical faith. Carter’s declaration that he was a born-again Christian had provoked incredulity from the national press corps, but the statement resonated with many Americans, including evangelicals themselves, who looked for integrity in the White House following the scandals of former U.S. President Richard Nixon’s administration. Carter, a Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher, fit the bill. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/22/jimmy-carter-foreign-policy-america-evangelical-christianity/
A more recent meeting of religious minds and foreign affairs came on dealing with third world debt, between President Bush and our own son of the manse, Gordon Brown.
We have a lot of PMs with such backgrounds - also Blair of course, and Theresa May being a vicar's daughter, and I think quite a number more.
I still like the (apocryphal?) bargee's comment to the PM and ABC sitting together, "Keeping better company I see !"
There have been a lot of posts - and headers - on here about Harris could be on course for a landslide victory which is not been predicted in the polls.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina@kinabalu@ydoethur@Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
The US is too divided for either of them to win a landslide, it will likely be close either way.
Haley, a moderate Republican, is the only presidential candidate this year who might have won a landslide, Trump won't.
Independents also lean Republican now eg Romney won Independents in 2012 but Obama was re elected with massive Black turnout which Harris will also aim for
I've long felt donations - from anyone to any party or politician - should be severely capped.
If the job is well remunerated - never mind the benefits of holding a position of political power or influence - then there is no personal need for it, and it inevitably raises questions about the potential for undue influence, even unintended influence.
If that requires something to cut down on individual candidate costs somehow, fine, that's a better trade off than opening yourself to potential conflicts. And as for parties, they don't need most of their donations either - if they cannot survive on member donations then they are spending a lot of money, and is that even necessary?
Say a limit of £10000 per year per organisation (including unions) to a party, and a limit of £1000 per per person to a candidate (and a minimum to the number of candidates you can donate to).
Oh, and while we are at it, no honours/peerages for any person who makes a political donation until two partliamentary terms have passed. As I've said before, it is not a punishment, people do not have to donate money to a party, and if they really want an honour they can focus solely on doing good works.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 · 36m Education Sec Bridget Phillipson tells @SkyNews that £14k birthday parties funded by Labour donor Lord Alli were 'in a work context'. I seem to remember someone else trying this defence one...
@cazjwheeler covers our latest polling which shows how quickly the Govt’s honeymoon vanished. 17% of Labour voters regret voting for the Party & the public are slightly more likely to think they are exaggerating the state of public finances than being honest
Ironic because the truth is that rather than exaggerating the state of public finances they are severely understating the problem because it is simply too difficult to fix. The £22bn black hole is largely nonsense but the £100bn black hole of a deficit is undisputed fact. The problem Labour, and the outgoing Tory government had, is that they wanted to pretend that wasn't a problem because the implications for what they wanted to do were simply horrendous.
That’s a game which has been going on ever since the ‘black hole’ metaphor was first adopted (can anyone remember when that was ?).
The truth is that there are bigger questions at stake - ie how does our economy cope with the massive transformation (AI; automation; rise of new industrial powers; energy transformation; demographic shift, etc) that we’re in the middle of.
Debt at 100% of GDP ups the stakes in getting policy right, but in itself isn’t a completely insurmountable problem.
Debt at 100% of GDP significantly limits our freedom of manoeuvre. If Truss had started with a balanced budget her proposed budget would probably have been fine, if not entirely wise. But out constant and urgent need to obtain finance from the market to bridge the gap between what we pay in taxes and spend made her and UK plc vulnerable.
But, I largely agree. We need to focus on the more important questions, like how do we earn enough as a country to pay for what we think we are entitled to? How do we make people happier? How do we adapt to AI changes in our economy and what do we do with the millions who will lose out?
There was a time when the shawl weavers of Paisley were so rich that they would go around with £5 notes in their hats. Then came the printed shawl and their standard of living collapsed overnight. So much of our middle classes are in danger of having a similar collision with reality.
Debt at 100% of gdp would be ok if we ran a budget surplus. But theres virtually no chance of that as any attempt to remove peoples entitlements leads to wailing and a collapse in popularity. With more than 100% debt to gdp and a big budget deficit decline is assured.
There have been a lot of posts - and headers - on here about Harris could be on course for a landslide victory which is not been predicted in the polls.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina@kinabalu@ydoethur@Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
We have one bit of hard data, the Washington Primary. As Sean Trende pointed out, that's consistent with Harris winning about 48%, on the day. Win or lose, that implies a very tight result.
Nothing suggests to me that Harris will win a landslide.
I hope Harris will win a landslide. I don’t think Harris or Trump will win a landslide. I don’t see any obvious betting value in the markets. They say it’s close and it probably will be close.
Yes, it was within half a percent in several states last time, and things don't appear to have changed much.
That's why the legal shenanigans, much more planned for this time, will be critical, which is never a good sign for a democracy.
If anyone knows of a cracking well-paid job in the US or the Middle East (not Saudi) in infrastructure, then please let me know.
I'm interested.
Noted, will keep an ear to the ground. Etihad Rail might be worth a look.
I have decided to leave my current position, and am currently active in the job market.
@JohnO was great counsel when we had drinks the other night.
Congratulations on your decision. I know I counseled you to stay but that was some time ago and I think you've been in post for enough time to justify a move. Plus it was making you very unhappy and ratty, and jobs that do that aren't the right job. Good luck in your next post.
It's the sort of vibrancy which Welby and the CoE lack
Pentacostalist worship is certainly fun and celebrational, and in the UK drawing crowds too. There are a number of "Big Shed" churches near me, the retail park being the UK equivalent of the US shopping Mall. It isn't just the African diaspora either. There are fellow travellers too, with Holy Trinity in Leicester getting 500 on a Sunday, CoE though not always approved of by the hierarchy because of its informal liturgy.
Pentacostalism has moved a long way from the homespun Appalachian church in the video clip, to the razzmatazz of modern mega-churches. The key is that personal relationship with Jesus, and an acceptance of modern consumerist lifestyles.
I'm sure there are bits of the hierarchy that wince at what goes on, much like the Anglo-Catholic ordinands I saw the day after they had an educational trip somewhere similar.
But one of Welby's big ideas has been a hefty expansion in That Sort Of Thing, by getting Holy Trinity Brompton (and its children and their children) and others to plant new congregations into struggling parishes.
And one of the people behind that is Paul Marshall. Yes, that Paul Marshall.
Except that HTB and it's network of churches is now on its way out of the CofE sphere over the "Prayers of Love and Faith" (that's CofE speak for gay marriage in church). As are virtually all the evangelicals - which are the only bit of the CofE that isn't in free fall decline.
My CofE church is actually voting today* on whether the congregation agrees with the leadership that we should leave. We're a bit unusual, because we're an old congregation that's not a parish church, and own our own building, so we can pretty much tell the Bishop "so long and thanks for all the fish", but that is true of a lot of the new churches planted by outfits like HTB and St Helens Bishopsgate.
Incidentally, I've no real problem personally with gay people being gay. I think it's sinful, active homosexuals are called to repent like all sexual sinners, but ultimately it's God's job to make them give an account of their lives, at his judgment, not mine.
My problem with the CofE blessing gay marriages is that this is the leadership blessing something their doctrine teaches is sinful. I'd say the same if they wanted in church blessings for adultery, gluttony, lying or greed. It's just that in our context, homosexuality is a fashionable sin, unlike the others.
*actually, electronically, over the next two weeks, starting today
Why is "homosexuality" sinful? I can see arguments for "adultery, gluttony, lying or greed" being sinful, but I can't see how homosexuality can be added to the list?
Being homosexual isn't sinful, same sex sexual acts is sinful if you read certain Biblical or Koran passages, just as admiring a beautiful woman isn't sinful of itself unless you have sex outside marriage with them
This raises a few questions:
If homosexuality isn't sinful but same sex sexual acts are where do you draw the line? Is masturbating while thinking about someone who is the same sex ok?
And is the bible that bothered? It's not even in the 10 commandments, and Jesus doesn't seem to say much.
It would be more in tune with God's wishes to refuse to bless marriages of people who don't keep the sabbath holy, or who take the Lord's name in vain, in my opinion.
There have been a lot of posts - and headers - on here about Harris could be on course for a landslide victory which is not been predicted in the polls.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina@kinabalu@ydoethur@Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
Why on earth haven't you bet on it!? The very best opportunities in the world of betting (bar having inside info) arise when you have a strong minority view.
Get yourself on the Donald to romp it if that's what you think. The EC bands markets are up on betfair and liquidity is building.
Interesting from @foxy - yes to try and get the appeal of Trump you have to dispense with facts and reason and plunge into the netherworld of primitive brain chemistries.
YES! Voting intention is not rational but emotional or instinctive: people vote with their gut and their head, it isn't necessarily transactional.
Thanks for everyone's kind thoughts on the header. I agree that a lot of life including politics is not very transactional, it is about self-image and emotional and instinctive.
The affinity of Evangelicals to Trump is not purely transactional either (indeed many will lose health care etc if he wins), but culturally based. Even non-observant Evangelicals retain a lot of the cultural baggage, of class, attitudes, guns and country music that also developed on the American frontier in the 19th Century.
Athiests/agnostics/unobservant people do differ from religious ones (and trend heavily Democrat) but are still shaped by the religious background of their culture. That can be retained attitudes to alcohol, family, work, hierarchy or almost conscious reaction to these things, or even a cocktail of the two. I was brought up Athiest by a father reacting against the Presbyterian upbringing of his parents, but I see now that we were very Presbyterian Athiests, sure of which God we didn't believe in.
There have been a lot of posts - and headers - on here about Harris could be on course for a landslide victory which is not been predicted in the polls.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina@kinabalu@ydoethur@Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
Can you list the lot of headers predicting a Harris landslide?
One of the groups who are most supportive of Trump are non-churchgoing evangelicals.
Being evangelical once suggested regular church attendance, a focus on salvation and conversion and strongly held views on specific issues such as abortion. Today, it is as often used to describe a cultural and political identity: one in which Christians are considered a persecuted minority, traditional institutions are viewed skeptically and Mr. Trump looms large...
But as Mr. Trump gained ground in the early primaries, his growing strength among white evangelical voters became clear. Polls showed that the future nominee was most popular among one group in particular: white evangelicals who seldom or never went to church
Beyond even the buzz of the megachurch, there is the buzz of the televangelist, which manages to line up with MAGA even more.
Reminiscent of the non-churchgoing Reagan who managed to convince voters he was more religious than Jimmy Carter, a president who even taught Sunday school from the White House.
Carter won evangelicals in 1976 against Ford but lost them in 1980, he is the only Democrat though to have won evangelicals at a presidential election
It depends a little on definition, but Carter was perhaps the second "Born Again" President, with Garfield being the first.
Considering the large number of Evangelicals in the USA, it is a surprisingly small number. Nearly all other presidents have been either traditional denominations or not particularly interested in religion at all.
I think some of the mutual antipathy we see between MAGA Republicans and coastal Democrats arises from this lack of Evangelical representation and priorities on the national stage. Trump being a businessman with no political hinterland prior to 2016 helps him ally with this anti-elite mindset.
Carter was asked "Are you born again", and answered "Yes, I am". I suggest the difference from Trump, and to an extent Reagan, is that Carter was from a liberal (ie tolerant) evangelical background, not an authoritarian one, and regarded it as definitional for him personally, rather than as a convenient marketing strategy. That brings it back to deeds ultimately matter more than words.
Here's a reference from Foreign Policy: Carter’s interest in foreign affairs derived in part from his involvement with the Trilateral Commission, where he met and formed an alliance with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who became Carter’s national security advisor. A larger influence on the president, however, was his evangelical faith. Carter’s declaration that he was a born-again Christian had provoked incredulity from the national press corps, but the statement resonated with many Americans, including evangelicals themselves, who looked for integrity in the White House following the scandals of former U.S. President Richard Nixon’s administration. Carter, a Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher, fit the bill. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/22/jimmy-carter-foreign-policy-america-evangelical-christianity/
A more recent meeting of religious minds and foreign affairs came on dealing with third world debt, between President Bush and our own son of the manse, Gordon Brown.
We have a lot of PMs with such backgrounds - also Blair of course, and Theresa May being a vicar's daughter, and I think quite a number more.
I still like the (apocryphal?) bargee's comment to the PM and ABC sitting together, "Keeping better company I see !"
Thatcher (de facto), Brown and May were daughters and sons of the manse, ie their fathers were vicars or equivalent. Blair was himself religious but not from his family iirc.
One of the groups who are most supportive of Trump are non-churchgoing evangelicals.
Being evangelical once suggested regular church attendance, a focus on salvation and conversion and strongly held views on specific issues such as abortion. Today, it is as often used to describe a cultural and political identity: one in which Christians are considered a persecuted minority, traditional institutions are viewed skeptically and Mr. Trump looms large...
But as Mr. Trump gained ground in the early primaries, his growing strength among white evangelical voters became clear. Polls showed that the future nominee was most popular among one group in particular: white evangelicals who seldom or never went to church
Beyond even the buzz of the megachurch, there is the buzz of the televangelist, which manages to line up with MAGA even more.
Reminiscent of the non-churchgoing Reagan who managed to convince voters he was more religious than Jimmy Carter, a president who even taught Sunday school from the White House.
Carter won evangelicals in 1976 against Ford but lost them in 1980, he is the only Democrat though to have won evangelicals at a presidential election
It depends a little on definition, but Carter was perhaps the second "Born Again" President, with Garfield being the first.
Considering the large number of Evangelicals in the USA, it is a surprisingly small number. Nearly all other presidents have been either traditional denominations or not particularly interested in religion at all.
I think some of the mutual antipathy we see between MAGA Republicans and coastal Democrats arises from this lack of Evangelical representation and priorities on the national stage. Trump being a businessman with no political hinterland prior to 2016 helps him ally with this anti-elite mindset.
Carter was asked "Are you born again", and answered "Yes, I am". I suggest the difference from Trump, and to an extent Reagan, is that Carter was from a liberal (ie tolerant) evangelical background, not an authoritarian one, and regarded it as definitional for him personally, rather than as a convenient marketing strategy. That brings it back to deeds ultimately matter more than words.
Here's a reference from Foreign Policy: Carter’s interest in foreign affairs derived in part from his involvement with the Trilateral Commission, where he met and formed an alliance with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who became Carter’s national security advisor. A larger influence on the president, however, was his evangelical faith. Carter’s declaration that he was a born-again Christian had provoked incredulity from the national press corps, but the statement resonated with many Americans, including evangelicals themselves, who looked for integrity in the White House following the scandals of former U.S. President Richard Nixon’s administration. Carter, a Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher, fit the bill. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/22/jimmy-carter-foreign-policy-america-evangelical-christianity/
A more recent meeting of religious minds and foreign affairs came on dealing with third world debt, between President Bush and our own son of the manse, Gordon Brown.
We have a lot of PMs with such backgrounds - also Blair of course, and Theresa May being a vicar's daughter, and I think quite a number more.
I still like the (apocryphal?) bargee's comment to the PM and ABC sitting together, "Keeping better company I see !"
It's the sort of vibrancy which Welby and the CoE lack
Pentacostalist worship is certainly fun and celebrational, and in the UK drawing crowds too. There are a number of "Big Shed" churches near me, the retail park being the UK equivalent of the US shopping Mall. It isn't just the African diaspora either. There are fellow travellers too, with Holy Trinity in Leicester getting 500 on a Sunday, CoE though not always approved of by the hierarchy because of its informal liturgy.
Pentacostalism has moved a long way from the homespun Appalachian church in the video clip, to the razzmatazz of modern mega-churches. The key is that personal relationship with Jesus, and an acceptance of modern consumerist lifestyles.
I'm sure there are bits of the hierarchy that wince at what goes on, much like the Anglo-Catholic ordinands I saw the day after they had an educational trip somewhere similar.
But one of Welby's big ideas has been a hefty expansion in That Sort Of Thing, by getting Holy Trinity Brompton (and its children and their children) and others to plant new congregations into struggling parishes.
And one of the people behind that is Paul Marshall. Yes, that Paul Marshall.
Except that HTB and it's network of churches is now on its way out of the CofE sphere over the "Prayers of Love and Faith" (that's CofE speak for gay marriage in church). As are virtually all the evangelicals - which are the only bit of the CofE that isn't in free fall decline.
My CofE church is actually voting today* on whether the congregation agrees with the leadership that we should leave. We're a bit unusual, because we're an old congregation that's not a parish church, and own our own building, so we can pretty much tell the Bishop "so long and thanks for all the fish", but that is true of a lot of the new churches planted by outfits like HTB and St Helens Bishopsgate.
Incidentally, I've no real problem personally with gay people being gay. I think it's sinful, active homosexuals are called to repent like all sexual sinners, but ultimately it's God's job to make them give an account of their lives, at his judgment, not mine.
My problem with the CofE blessing gay marriages is that this is the leadership blessing something their doctrine teaches is sinful. I'd say the same if they wanted in church blessings for adultery, gluttony, lying or greed. It's just that in our context, homosexuality is a fashionable sin, unlike the others.
*actually, electronically, over the next two weeks, starting today
Why is "homosexuality" sinful? I can see arguments for "adultery, gluttony, lying or greed" being sinful, but I can't see how homosexuality can be added to the list?
Slow reply (I've been at church) but I think this one is worth un-packing, because that's a good question, and one where traditional Christians tend to be misunderstood.
The answer lies in the purpose of marriage and sexuality. The Bible teaches that marriage functions as a picture which points to Jesus's loving, sacrificial, relationship with his people, the church, and actually that's why God made people male and female, to show his relational pattern. Homosexuality is problematic because it goes against that pattern - for exactly the same reason adultery is problematic.
So it's not a superficial issue - it actually goes very deep into the "works" of Christian theology.
It's also very obviously not just an Old Testament issue - it's scattered all over the New Testament too - just go and read Romans 1 as a prime example.
Incidentally @Cookie I'm with you on the ridiculousness of the idea that God changes his mind every 30 years depending on the fashionable morals of the age - that the current CofE leadership can't see this is a good part of why I (and the church of which I'm a part) want an out.
It's the sort of vibrancy which Welby and the CoE lack
Pentacostalist worship is certainly fun and celebrational, and in the UK drawing crowds too. There are a number of "Big Shed" churches near me, the retail park being the UK equivalent of the US shopping Mall. It isn't just the African diaspora either. There are fellow travellers too, with Holy Trinity in Leicester getting 500 on a Sunday, CoE though not always approved of by the hierarchy because of its informal liturgy.
Pentacostalism has moved a long way from the homespun Appalachian church in the video clip, to the razzmatazz of modern mega-churches. The key is that personal relationship with Jesus, and an acceptance of modern consumerist lifestyles.
I'm sure there are bits of the hierarchy that wince at what goes on, much like the Anglo-Catholic ordinands I saw the day after they had an educational trip somewhere similar.
But one of Welby's big ideas has been a hefty expansion in That Sort Of Thing, by getting Holy Trinity Brompton (and its children and their children) and others to plant new congregations into struggling parishes.
And one of the people behind that is Paul Marshall. Yes, that Paul Marshall.
Except that HTB and it's network of churches is now on its way out of the CofE sphere over the "Prayers of Love and Faith" (that's CofE speak for gay marriage in church). As are virtually all the evangelicals - which are the only bit of the CofE that isn't in free fall decline.
My CofE church is actually voting today* on whether the congregation agrees with the leadership that we should leave. We're a bit unusual, because we're an old congregation that's not a parish church, and own our own building, so we can pretty much tell the Bishop "so long and thanks for all the fish", but that is true of a lot of the new churches planted by outfits like HTB and St Helens Bishopsgate.
Incidentally, I've no real problem personally with gay people being gay. I think it's sinful, active homosexuals are called to repent like all sexual sinners, but ultimately it's God's job to make them give an account of their lives, at his judgment, not mine.
My problem with the CofE blessing gay marriages is that this is the leadership blessing something their doctrine teaches is sinful. I'd say the same if they wanted in church blessings for adultery, gluttony, lying or greed. It's just that in our context, homosexuality is a fashionable sin, unlike the others.
*actually, electronically, over the next two weeks, starting today
Why is "homosexuality" sinful? I can see arguments for "adultery, gluttony, lying or greed" being sinful, but I can't see how homosexuality can be added to the list?
Being homosexual isn't sinful, same sex sexual acts is sinful if you read certain Biblical or Koran passages, just as admiring a beautiful woman isn't sinful of itself unless you have sex outside marriage with them
This raises a few questions:
If homosexuality isn't sinful but same sex sexual acts are where do you draw the line? Is masturbating while thinking about someone who is the same sex ok?
And is the bible that bothered? It's not even in the 10 commandments, and Jesus doesn't seem to say much.
It would be more in tune with God's wishes to refuse to bless marriages of people who don't keep the sabbath holy, or who take the Lord's name in vain, in my opinion.
Jesus and the New Testament are very down on divorce. People like to overlook that one.
There have been a lot of posts - and headers - on here about Harris could be on course for a landslide victory which is not been predicted in the polls.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina@kinabalu@ydoethur@Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
We have one bit of hard data, the Washington Primary. As Sean Trende pointed out, that's consistent with Harris winning about 48%, on the day. Win or lose, that implies a very tight result.
Nothing suggests to me that Harris will win a landslide.
I hope Harris will win a landslide. I don’t think Harris or Trump will win a landslide. I don’t see any obvious betting value in the markets. They say it’s close and it probably will be close.
Some of the state markets might offer value. NC certainly did at 2.6, but it’s shortened considerably in the last week (for obvious reasons).
With only a month and a bit to go, it might also be worth considering some of the shorter odds, fairly certain states for Harris (I think most of that category for Trump are just too short odds to be interesting).
I don't know what others mean with their terms but when I say I think a 'big' Harris win is quite likely (about a 30% chance) what I mean is her winning both the PV and the EC by more than Biden did.
- if you are irreligious/secular, why do you not drink?
This is not a gotcha, I am properly curious. Alcohol, in moderation (heck, in excess, but that's maybe just me) - is one of life's great pleasures. Really really great
Yes it's bad for you in some ways but so is sleeping with dozens of beautiful women, or so I am told by my married and feminist friends
So, why not indulge? You're not going to Islamic hell, there's no one eating up the human-sized kebab skewers, you don't believe in it
It started off as a religious thing, when I arrived at university I fell off the Muslim wagon but I saw people make really bad decisions when drunk.
Then after university I was working 100 plus hours I didn't want any distractions, I would work, go home, watch some sport, sleep.
Then I moved to North Yorkshire and working in Leeds, and had a girlfriend who lived in the Wirral who didn't drive.
I was doing 25,000 miles a year commuting and maintaining a relationship, I was worried about ending up with a drink driving charge because early in my career a colleague ended up with a drink driving conviction despite not drinking much.
I've always managed to have a good time without needing to drink alcohol or consume drugs.
Edit - My mother has forgiven my many transgressions but me being drunk would put her six foot under.
A comprehensive answer. Thankyou
I am always intrigued by teetotallers. My eldest daughter is one
As we dropped her off at St Andrews for her first (nervous) weekend at Uni I did worry about how she would cope without booze to overcome her shyness. I asked her why not try just a glass of wine, she said maybe, but "I don't like booze, because I've seen you and Mum"
TBF to me (and not to her Mum) her mum is quite a bad drunk. Gets querulous and nasty and then falls into a sullen sleep. If that was my one main example of a drinker I too might be teetotal
However the daughter is now havering because she's spent long holdays with me and she's seen that I am a benign drunk, I just become more mellow and cheerful as I drink (except on here)
Of course, she might just be the kind of person that simply doesn't like to drink. Like you. And gets by just fine
I do think you are missing out on something, but then non-drinkers would say exactly the same to me. Each to their own!
I'm de facto teetotal: I don't drink except when visiting relatives (it's compulsory) or things like conference dinners (eg the RSS conference dinner). As a rough rule of thumb I really don't like being in groups and drinking helps me get thru it. In my teens and twenties when you are still tied to the school model where being in groups of friends is important, I was drunk every weekend. But as I achieved adulthood the need for friend groups diminished and my alcohol usage followed. In my present job, which is more a consultancy, the requirement for in-office socialisation has gone away and so there is no need to drink alcohol, so I don't.
Nowadays I drink around three, four times a year (Xmas, Easter, Conference, departmental dinners), hence my de facto teetotalism.
I just never got into the habit of drinking alcohol. I don't think my parents were big drinkers, certainly not anywhere I witnessed it, though they also never lectured me against it and allowed me to taste some wine at a young age.
As I've always been pretty antisocial those events I've attended which might have led to significant peer pressure to drink have been limited, and once I was an adult even events others drink at I just never felt any desire to do the same, since part of the point of being an adult is telling people to bugger off if they pressure you. Unless people are planning to get blitzed it's easy to have social enjoyment without booze, and you don't have to be a buzzkill to those who are drinking.
Now it's become kind of a thing, and I don't really think about it. My brother enjoys a bit of whisky, I've thought maybe it would be worth trying.
I contrast it with my lack of drug use, in that whilst I am fairly liberal on the idea in general, I also have experience of relatives who have ruined themselves through drug use, so I'm much firmer in just not wanting to go down that kind of path.
@Renegade_pollster , @Sean_F : yes I agree the polls will be wrong (they are always wrong) and as I keep saying Trump has a three-point hat. But I disagree that fundamentals will be a better indicator: as I said before voting intention is emotional and instinctive and not necessarily transactional.
@Foxy: I occasionally download PB articles and convert them to speech via text-to-speech tools like https://luvvoice.com/ . It took a bit of work but I got your article down to 6000 characters and will now listen to it periodically. Thank you.
It's the sort of vibrancy which Welby and the CoE lack
Pentacostalist worship is certainly fun and celebrational, and in the UK drawing crowds too. There are a number of "Big Shed" churches near me, the retail park being the UK equivalent of the US shopping Mall. It isn't just the African diaspora either. There are fellow travellers too, with Holy Trinity in Leicester getting 500 on a Sunday, CoE though not always approved of by the hierarchy because of its informal liturgy.
Pentacostalism has moved a long way from the homespun Appalachian church in the video clip, to the razzmatazz of modern mega-churches. The key is that personal relationship with Jesus, and an acceptance of modern consumerist lifestyles.
I'm sure there are bits of the hierarchy that wince at what goes on, much like the Anglo-Catholic ordinands I saw the day after they had an educational trip somewhere similar.
But one of Welby's big ideas has been a hefty expansion in That Sort Of Thing, by getting Holy Trinity Brompton (and its children and their children) and others to plant new congregations into struggling parishes.
And one of the people behind that is Paul Marshall. Yes, that Paul Marshall.
Except that HTB and it's network of churches is now on its way out of the CofE sphere over the "Prayers of Love and Faith" (that's CofE speak for gay marriage in church). As are virtually all the evangelicals - which are the only bit of the CofE that isn't in free fall decline.
My CofE church is actually voting today* on whether the congregation agrees with the leadership that we should leave. We're a bit unusual, because we're an old congregation that's not a parish church, and own our own building, so we can pretty much tell the Bishop "so long and thanks for all the fish", but that is true of a lot of the new churches planted by outfits like HTB and St Helens Bishopsgate.
Incidentally, I've no real problem personally with gay people being gay. I think it's sinful, active homosexuals are called to repent like all sexual sinners, but ultimately it's God's job to make them give an account of their lives, at his judgment, not mine.
My problem with the CofE blessing gay marriages is that this is the leadership blessing something their doctrine teaches is sinful. I'd say the same if they wanted in church blessings for adultery, gluttony, lying or greed. It's just that in our context, homosexuality is a fashionable sin, unlike the others.
*actually, electronically, over the next two weeks, starting today
Why is "homosexuality" sinful? I can see arguments for "adultery, gluttony, lying or greed" being sinful, but I can't see how homosexuality can be added to the list?
Being homosexual isn't sinful, same sex sexual acts is sinful if you read certain Biblical or Koran passages, just as admiring a beautiful woman isn't sinful of itself unless you have sex outside marriage with them
This raises a few questions:
If homosexuality isn't sinful but same sex sexual acts are where do you draw the line? Is masturbating while thinking about someone who is the same sex ok?
And is the bible that bothered? It's not even in the 10 commandments, and Jesus doesn't seem to say much.
It would be more in tune with God's wishes to refuse to bless marriages of people who don't keep the sabbath holy, or who take the Lord's name in vain, in my opinion.
Jesus and the New Testament are very down on divorce. People like to overlook that one.
It's impossible to adhere to every single part of course.
After a 2.4 mile swim and a 112-mile bike ride, Kat Matthew (GB) and Laura Phillip (Germany) are both in the lead at the start of the run.
Go Kat!
Just how mad does one have to be, to want do an Ironman Triathlon voluntarily?
'Friends' are trying to persuade me.
I put friends in quotes as they can't be very good friends to want to put me through that.
I've done four sprints now, in far from world-changing time, and an Ironman is essentially eight times the distance. I will try an Olympic distance or two next year, and see if I can get reasonable times. But the problem is the training: it just takes up so much time. Leaving aside all the physical and mental efforts required, I don't know if I can afford the time training per week.
A woman I know from the pool won her age group at an Ironman race in Italy yesterday. I'm in awe.
Id love to have ago at sprint triathlon but I really, really hate swimming, so I'm toying with the idea of a duathlon. I dont have a road bike, only have a couple of mountain bikes and an old Specialized 3 speed hub geared courier bike I ride around town on. I've found out there's a thing called Off Road Duathalon which is run/mountain bike/run and there's one at Sherwood Pines in December. Part of me thinks I should just sign up and have a go. The other part thinks "Grow up, you daft old sod!"
Go for it!
I hated swimming as well, and I've taught myself to swim front crawl 'properly' since January. Since I've been going to the pool three or four times a week, I've started loving it. I'm no good - I went to see a coach in an endless pool a couple of weeks ago, and just about everything in my stroke is 'wrong' - but I can improve, and I can do 1,500 metre in open water, or 3km in the pool.
I've not done a duathlon yet, but there's a couple coming up later in the year that look interesting.
As for bikes: last Sunday I was on my £450 Halfords bike when I overtook a couple of athletes on much more expensive tribikes pushing them up the one steep hill. That made me feel moderately competent...
I don't know what others mean with their terms but when I say I think a 'big' Harris win is quite likely (about a 30% chance) what I mean is her winning both the PV and the EC by more than Biden did.
My headcanon says that UK landslide is a majority of 100 seats or more.
It's the sort of vibrancy which Welby and the CoE lack
Pentacostalist worship is certainly fun and celebrational, and in the UK drawing crowds too. There are a number of "Big Shed" churches near me, the retail park being the UK equivalent of the US shopping Mall. It isn't just the African diaspora either. There are fellow travellers too, with Holy Trinity in Leicester getting 500 on a Sunday, CoE though not always approved of by the hierarchy because of its informal liturgy.
Pentacostalism has moved a long way from the homespun Appalachian church in the video clip, to the razzmatazz of modern mega-churches. The key is that personal relationship with Jesus, and an acceptance of modern consumerist lifestyles.
I'm sure there are bits of the hierarchy that wince at what goes on, much like the Anglo-Catholic ordinands I saw the day after they had an educational trip somewhere similar.
But one of Welby's big ideas has been a hefty expansion in That Sort Of Thing, by getting Holy Trinity Brompton (and its children and their children) and others to plant new congregations into struggling parishes.
And one of the people behind that is Paul Marshall. Yes, that Paul Marshall.
Except that HTB and it's network of churches is now on its way out of the CofE sphere over the "Prayers of Love and Faith" (that's CofE speak for gay marriage in church). As are virtually all the evangelicals - which are the only bit of the CofE that isn't in free fall decline.
My CofE church is actually voting today* on whether the congregation agrees with the leadership that we should leave. We're a bit unusual, because we're an old congregation that's not a parish church, and own our own building, so we can pretty much tell the Bishop "so long and thanks for all the fish", but that is true of a lot of the new churches planted by outfits like HTB and St Helens Bishopsgate.
Incidentally, I've no real problem personally with gay people being gay. I think it's sinful, active homosexuals are called to repent like all sexual sinners, but ultimately it's God's job to make them give an account of their lives, at his judgment, not mine.
My problem with the CofE blessing gay marriages is that this is the leadership blessing something their doctrine teaches is sinful. I'd say the same if they wanted in church blessings for adultery, gluttony, lying or greed. It's just that in our context, homosexuality is a fashionable sin, unlike the others.
*actually, electronically, over the next two weeks, starting today
Why is "homosexuality" sinful? I can see arguments for "adultery, gluttony, lying or greed" being sinful, but I can't see how homosexuality can be added to the list?
Being homosexual isn't sinful, same sex sexual acts is sinful if you read certain Biblical or Koran passages, just as admiring a beautiful woman isn't sinful of itself unless you have sex outside marriage with them
This raises a few questions:
If homosexuality isn't sinful but same sex sexual acts are where do you draw the line? Is masturbating while thinking about someone who is the same sex ok?
And is the bible that bothered? It's not even in the 10 commandments, and Jesus doesn't seem to say much.
It would be more in tune with God's wishes to refuse to bless marriages of people who don't keep the sabbath holy, or who take the Lord's name in vain, in my opinion.
Again, there’s a very large difference between doctrine, and “what the bible says” (which is in any case inconsistent, hence, partly at least, ‘doctrine’).
There have been a lot of posts - and headers - on here about Harris could be on course for a landslide victory which is not been predicted in the polls.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina@kinabalu@ydoethur@Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
We have one bit of hard data, the Washington Primary. As Sean Trende pointed out, that's consistent with Harris winning about 48%, on the day. Win or lose, that implies a very tight result.
Nothing suggests to me that Harris will win a landslide.
A win slightly bigger than Biden got - for example all Biden states plus North Carolina - should just about be enough to undermine Trump's inevitable "Stolen - again!! schtick.
The greater hope is that she can have majorities in both Houses too. The Senate will be tough - but Florida and Texas are in play to counter the loss of Montana.
There have been a lot of posts - and headers - on here about Harris could be on course for a landslide victory which is not been predicted in the polls.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina@kinabalu@ydoethur@Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
We have one bit of hard data, the Washington Primary. As Sean Trende pointed out, that's consistent with Harris winning about 48%, on the day. Win or lose, that implies a very tight result.
Nothing suggests to me that Harris will win a landslide.
I hope Harris will win a landslide. I don’t think Harris or Trump will win a landslide. I don’t see any obvious betting value in the markets. They say it’s close and it probably will be close.
Yes, it was within half a percent in several states last time, and things don't appear to have changed much.
That's why the legal shenanigans, much more planned for this time, will be critical, which is never a good sign for a democracy.
The amount of legal shenanigans aand micromanagement of the elections already is totally mad. They’re still arguing about candidate eligibility and the election process.
This is ALL about migration/asylum. SF have fucked the mutt
Open Borders, and "Whiteness" being the worst crime there is, are a leitmotif of being on the radical Left.
They couldn't, can't and will never be able to help it.
The one exception being the Danish Social Democrats, who adopted some of the toughest laws on immigration and integration of any Western democracy, and won back droves of supporters from the Peoples' Party.
A lesson there, that I fear few will learn.
The public rarely show gratitude, and political parties rarely learn anything, story as old as time (or representational politics at least).
“The largest organization representing the Christian faith in Ohio issued a scathing letter in defense of Haitian migrants in Springfield.
“The letter released Friday evening by the Ohio Council of Churches (OCC) decried the false statements from Republican vice presidential nominee and U.S. Sen. JD Vance and running mate, former president Donald Trump, that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were eating pets and wildlife.”
“The Catholic Conference of Ohio, which represents bishops from diocesan groups across the state, published a letter Thursday asking for the public to treat Haitian immigrants in Springfield with respect and dignity, warning against "unfounded gossip" and "scapegoating."”
Setting the bar for scathing a bit low.
These guys have a biological imperative to eat protein, a religious imperative to sacrifice small animals, and no money. How do *you* think they might solve these problems?
Mercator, the claims of pet-eating Haitians have been thoroughly debunked. It never happened. Republican politicians took someone repeating an urban myth on Facebook and just invented a new blood libel. Why are you holding on to the idea? It is pure racism.
They haven't been debunked, statements have been made that there is "no evidence" for them, misunderstanding the meaning of "evidence." Perhaps you think vodou or the requirement of animal sacrifice is an urban myth? It's an official religion.
Animal sacrifice is huge in the US. I can't say I am particularly fussed, I am irreligious but religion tolerant and if I eat animals I am cool with humanely conducted sacrifice. I also agree that talking about it on US facing social media is an uncontroversially bad thing. But truth is independent of how we would like things to be.
It has been debunked. We know how the story started. There was a Facebook post: we know who made that Facebook post and on what evidence (a friend of a friend of an acquaintance said… stuff). I.e., nothing. Defenders of the idea then rushed to find evidence. There was the bodycam video of someone being arrested for killing and eating a cat… and this turned out to be some mad woman, not in Springfield, not Haitian, not an immigrant, not a vodou practitioner. There was the photo of a guy with two dead geese… not an immigrant, not a Haitian, not in Springfield, he hadn’t killed the geese but was carrying them away from a car accident and there’s no evidence he was intending to eat them.
What we do have evidence for is how MAGAts have used this falsehood for propaganda and a long history of racist propaganda that takes the same form, othering people by connecting them to some disgusting food source and a threat they pose to the family.
The women who posted on Facebook about her cat being stolen, who subsequently discovered it alive and well in her basement, is a Trump voter. She’s a better person than either of the shitheads she’ll still vote for, as she has apologised to the immigrants in Springfield.
Indeed. The person who took the photo of the guy with 2 dead geese is also horrified at what has happened.
But still some want to argue that one time a cat was killed by someone who wasn’t a Haitian or an immigrant in an entirely different part of the world, therefore JD Vance is right… or something.
To sum up
1) the original stories about immigrants eating pets turned out to be Twatter grade bullshit. Demonstrably false.
2) no subsequent actual evidence has been presented that immigrant are/were eating pets.
There is more evidence that a certain Spectator journalist was guilty of rape than there is that immigrants in Springfield are trashing their diets by eating Bubbles.
Anyway, must dash. About to serve roast lamb with rosemary and garlic with a red wine jus.
After lunch, I'll probably stick on A Bridge Too Far, if I can keep the little terrors away, as it seems appropriate with the 80th anniversary of the Battle of Arnhem.
And mightily bored they will be. The best telling of Arnhem imo is in Jeremy Clarkson's documentary about the Victoria Cross. About half follows one particular recipient at Arnhem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbS4Ivl85GQ&t=30s
There have been a lot of posts - and headers - on here about Harris could be on course for a landslide victory which is not been predicted in the polls.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina@kinabalu@ydoethur@Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
We have one bit of hard data, the Washington Primary. As Sean Trende pointed out, that's consistent with Harris winning about 48%, on the day. Win or lose, that implies a very tight result.
Nothing suggests to me that Harris will win a landslide.
I hope Harris will win a landslide. I don’t think Harris or Trump will win a landslide. I don’t see any obvious betting value in the markets. They say it’s close and it probably will be close.
Yes, it was within half a percent in several states last time, and things don't appear to have changed much.
That's why the legal shenanigans, much more planned for this time, will be critical, which is never a good sign for a democracy.
The amount of legal shenanigans aand micromanagement of the elections already is totally mad. They’re still arguing about candidate eligibility and the election process.
This honestly reminds me of the excuses I once heard when I was banged up. From robbers. "Well, 'e was just wanderin around with that ten grand watch on his arm, it was a hard one to turn down"
"Inside her department Reeves asked for her personal donor to be handed a senior Civil Service job. She compounded the error by failing to declare his donation. The Chancellor also seemingly asked for her former Parliamentary staffer to be promoted. Treasury eyebrows have been raised about her lack of judgement."
This is ALL about migration/asylum. SF have fucked the mutt
Open Borders, and "Whiteness" being the worst crime there is, are a leitmotif of being on the radical Left.
They couldn't, can't and will never be able to help it.
Sinn Fein's support has actually halved. They were riding high on 37% in mid 2023. An incredible drop. And migration is driving it
When the lost SF support was going to right-wing anti-immigrant independents that did seem like the obvious explanation, but the latest polls show FF and FG doing very well, despite being the government that has made such a huge mess of the immigration issue, and they don't have any policy to attempt to deal with it.
Other things are clearly going on.
The poll implies that about 20% are planning to vote independent. Sinn Fein lost sight of the fact that many Irish Republicans are in fact, pretty right wing.
Independents are only up 2pp in that poll, while SF are down 9pp. It's not unusual for independents to poll well in Ireland.
Aontú have set themselves up explicitly as a socially conservative Irish Republican party and they aren't making a large amount of headway at the moment.
There have been a lot of posts - and headers - on here about Harris could be on course for a landslide victory which is not been predicted in the polls.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina@kinabalu@ydoethur@Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
We have one bit of hard data, the Washington Primary. As Sean Trende pointed out, that's consistent with Harris winning about 48%, on the day. Win or lose, that implies a very tight result.
Nothing suggests to me that Harris will win a landslide.
I hope Harris will win a landslide. I don’t think Harris or Trump will win a landslide. I don’t see any obvious betting value in the markets. They say it’s close and it probably will be close.
Yes, it was within half a percent in several states last time, and things don't appear to have changed much.
That's why the legal shenanigans, much more planned for this time, will be critical, which is never a good sign for a democracy.
The amount of legal shenanigans aand micromanagement of the elections already is totally mad. They’re still arguing about candidate eligibility and the election process.
I get part of the reason is because of the variations in different states - which is ridiculous in itself but that's one of the downsides of federalism for you - and the inherent politicisation of much of the adminsitrative processes, but it is still absurd even on top of that.
Of course last time there were dozens of baseless and frivilous legal challenges after the result (which is demonstrated by nearly all being tossed out very simply), but they've all learned somewhat from that in that some of them failed last time because the challenges were to processes already agreed to, and couldn't be tossed out part way through. So sides are trying to get some wins in advance.
One theory now is that the Trump appointed postal service chap is deliberately cocking things up to form the basis of some challenges. Could well be just a silly conspiracy theory from the Dems, but that there will be challenges is not. And I suspect Democrats will have plenty of their own to file this time too, they don't want to be caught out.
There have been a lot of posts - and headers - on here about Harris could be on course for a landslide victory which is not been predicted in the polls.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina@kinabalu@ydoethur@Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
Can you list the lot of headers predicting a Harris landslide?
Even below the line Harris landslide is a minority view.
On 3. Most of the recent polling has Harris well ahead of Trump on favorability with Independents
On 4. The only poll of union members generally that I have seen had Harris well ahead.
Of course Trump might win but cherry picking the one poll that agrees with you as @Renegade_pollster has done isn't an objective way of looking at the race.
It's the sort of vibrancy which Welby and the CoE lack
Pentacostalist worship is certainly fun and celebrational, and in the UK drawing crowds too. There are a number of "Big Shed" churches near me, the retail park being the UK equivalent of the US shopping Mall. It isn't just the African diaspora either. There are fellow travellers too, with Holy Trinity in Leicester getting 500 on a Sunday, CoE though not always approved of by the hierarchy because of its informal liturgy.
Pentacostalism has moved a long way from the homespun Appalachian church in the video clip, to the razzmatazz of modern mega-churches. The key is that personal relationship with Jesus, and an acceptance of modern consumerist lifestyles.
I'm sure there are bits of the hierarchy that wince at what goes on, much like the Anglo-Catholic ordinands I saw the day after they had an educational trip somewhere similar.
But one of Welby's big ideas has been a hefty expansion in That Sort Of Thing, by getting Holy Trinity Brompton (and its children and their children) and others to plant new congregations into struggling parishes.
And one of the people behind that is Paul Marshall. Yes, that Paul Marshall.
Except that HTB and it's network of churches is now on its way out of the CofE sphere over the "Prayers of Love and Faith" (that's CofE speak for gay marriage in church). As are virtually all the evangelicals - which are the only bit of the CofE that isn't in free fall decline.
My CofE church is actually voting today* on whether the congregation agrees with the leadership that we should leave. We're a bit unusual, because we're an old congregation that's not a parish church, and own our own building, so we can pretty much tell the Bishop "so long and thanks for all the fish", but that is true of a lot of the new churches planted by outfits like HTB and St Helens Bishopsgate.
Incidentally, I've no real problem personally with gay people being gay. I think it's sinful, active homosexuals are called to repent like all sexual sinners, but ultimately it's God's job to make them give an account of their lives, at his judgment, not mine.
My problem with the CofE blessing gay marriages is that this is the leadership blessing something their doctrine teaches is sinful. I'd say the same if they wanted in church blessings for adultery, gluttony, lying or greed. It's just that in our context, homosexuality is a fashionable sin, unlike the others.
*actually, electronically, over the next two weeks, starting today
Why is "homosexuality" sinful? I can see arguments for "adultery, gluttony, lying or greed" being sinful, but I can't see how homosexuality can be added to the list?
Slow reply (I've been at church) but I think this one is worth un-packing, because that's a good question, and one where traditional Christians tend to be misunderstood.
The answer lies in the purpose of marriage and sexuality. The Bible teaches that marriage functions as a picture which points to Jesus's loving, sacrificial, relationship with his people, the church, and actually that's why God made people male and female, to show his relational pattern. Homosexuality is problematic because it goes against that pattern - for exactly the same reason adultery is problematic.
So it's not a superficial issue - it actually goes very deep into the "works" of Christian theology.
It's also very obviously not just an Old Testament issue - it's scattered all over the New Testament too - just go and read Romans 1 as a prime example.
Incidentally @Cookie I'm with you on the ridiculousness of the idea that God changes his mind every 30 years depending on the fashionable morals of the age - that the current CofE leadership can't see this is a good part of why I (and the church of which I'm a part) want an out.
Except the C of E hasn't voted for same sex marriage, Synod voted that down, PLF merely prayers for same sex couples married in English civil law. The Methodists, Quakers and Church of Scotland now perform same sex marriages in their churches, the C of E still does not
There have been a lot of posts - and headers - on here about Harris could be on course for a landslide victory which is not been predicted in the polls.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina@kinabalu@ydoethur@Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
We have one bit of hard data, the Washington Primary. As Sean Trende pointed out, that's consistent with Harris winning about 48%, on the day. Win or lose, that implies a very tight result.
Nothing suggests to me that Harris will win a landslide.
A win slightly bigger than Biden got - for example all Biden states plus North Carolina - should just about be enough to undermine Trump's inevitable "Stolen - again!! schtick.
The greater hope is that she can have majorities in both Houses too. The Senate will be tough - but Florida and Texas are in play to counter the loss of Montana.
It does need to be a big win in order to get through without violence I think.
People last time were less prepared to contest Biden's win, so several key officials held firm, and the courts did too. The former are definitely more up for contesting this time around, but it's one thing to intend it, but if facing an obvious loss many will lose the will to follow through on that.
Now if Trump wins I wouldn't expect Harris herself to go full 2020 Trump on it, but I can see some Dems being tempted to toss spanners into the gears where they can - that is the effect of the taboo on refusing to concede being broken.
From now on, if any of us get caught being a bit light fingered, maybe ripping an iPhone 16 from a stranger then running away with it, or accepting twenty million from Vladimir Putin to post on PB, we can just say "well, it was a hard one to turn down"
A fascinating header, thanks Foxy. I've just finished reading "Lone Survivor" by ex SEAL Marcus Luttrell. Top tip: don't bother, Markie Mark ( no, not that one) in the film is much more likeable) I got offered it free on a kindle deal, a couple of nights of my life I won't get back. The link between god, guns and US patriotism is a large theme in the book. God is on the US Navy SEAL team and they pray to him all the time. The SEAL teams do god's work via Uncle Sam. Luttrell spent most of the battle falling down the Afghan mountainside and because god was watching over him he avoided death many times. No matter what happened, his rifle landed never more than two feet away, because god wanted him to keep it. God gave him the strength to carry on, god made his aim true, even when badly injured. All of his SEAL buddies were/are deeply religious and hate the "liberal media ". He more or less blames the liberals for the death of his team- they didn't kill the goatherds who discovered them because the liberal media in the US would slaughter them and they'd do time for murdering innocents. Basically, God is a Navy Seal, The US is god's chosen land and ultimately God is a Republican. I'd say the MAGA movement would be in agreement.
Not my sort of read, but I do get the picture.
In a capricious world without much apparent individual control such as a battlefield there is a strong affinity for the supernatural, whether luck, superstition or religion. The direct personal relationship with Jesus of American Evangelicals is then at the fore, particularly in the demographics that the armed forces recruit from. That direct relationship includes anything positive that happens and is heavily infused with patriotic and military values.
Johnny Cash gets it over better than I can in this classic:
This honestly reminds me of the excuses I once heard when I was banged up. From robbers. "Well, 'e was just wanderin around with that ten grand watch on his arm, it was a hard one to turn down"
Did she really say it was hard to turn down? What a silly way to explain it.
The occasional concert ticket or day at Lord's is not exactly intense corruption, we have gifts registers for politicians high and low and though we need to be morally strict with those in power over us we don't expect never accepting anything, but that's not a good way of defending the practice.
Interesting from @foxy - yes to try and get the appeal of Trump you have to dispense with facts and reason and plunge into the netherworld of primitive brain chemistries.
YES! Voting intention is not rational but emotional or instinctive: people vote with their gut and their head, it isn't necessarily transactional.
Apparently a poll of Teamsters Union members found Trump getting a clear majority in favour of him . But it was the Dems who voted to save Teamsters pensions by voting for the American Rescue Act in 2021.
Not a single GOP House member voted for that .
And Trump said striking workers should be fired .
This is what you’re up against , turkeys voting for Christmas.
This honestly reminds me of the excuses I once heard when I was banged up. From robbers. "Well, 'e was just wanderin around with that ten grand watch on his arm, it was a hard one to turn down"
Did she really say it was hard to turn down? What a silly way to explain it.
The occasional concert ticket or day at Lord's is not exactly intense corruption, we have gifts registers for politicians high and low and though we need to be morally strict with those in power over us we don't expect never accepting anything, but that's not a good way of defending the practice.
Watch the clip, it's only 50 seconds, and that's exactly what she says."It was a hard one to turn down, one of my kids really wanted to go" - she's kinda blaming her children, and her essential excuse is "this bribe was hard to turn down, because it was a really nice bribe, if it had been an afternoon on Great Yarmouth pier, I might well have said no"
Fucking unbelieveable, they are not only venal they are really bad at being venal, they haven't got any good excuses ready to go. And the SMILING as she explains her free 14k birthday party!!
All of them, they're all doing it, and they've all just spent ten years slamming the Tories for the same
There have been a lot of posts - and headers - on here about Harris could be on course for a landslide victory which is not been predicted in the polls.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina@kinabalu@ydoethur@Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
We have one bit of hard data, the Washington Primary. As Sean Trende pointed out, that's consistent with Harris winning about 48%, on the day. Win or lose, that implies a very tight result.
Nothing suggests to me that Harris will win a landslide.
I hope Harris will win a landslide. I don’t think Harris or Trump will win a landslide. I don’t see any obvious betting value in the markets. They say it’s close and it probably will be close.
It won't be a landslide in popular vote, but could be in the Electoral College. The 12 or so States that are in reasonable contention are very highly correlated. They will very likely all go the same way, so anything from a narrow Trump win to Harris EC landslide.
Psst.. everyone, you're trying to sell yourself to and connect with the everyday members of the public right now, OK? Might not be the best sell to be grinning inanely whilst talking about throwing a £14k jolly for journos and lobbyists....
Apparently a poll of Teamsters Union members found Trump getting a clear majority in favour of him . But it was the Dems who voted to save Teamsters pensions by voting for the American Rescue Act in 2021.
Not a single GOP House member voted for that .
And Trump said striking workers should be fired .
This is what you’re up against , turkeys voting for Christmas.
Yes, but aren't Teamsters the sort of demographic that I tried to cover in the header?
Politics is very much about identity and values.
Which is incidentally where Starmer and Reeves are going wrong. They are being transactional with people.
This honestly reminds me of the excuses I once heard when I was banged up. From robbers. "Well, 'e was just wanderin around with that ten grand watch on his arm, it was a hard one to turn down"
Did she really say it was hard to turn down? What a silly way to explain it.
The occasional concert ticket or day at Lord's is not exactly intense corruption, we have gifts registers for politicians high and low and though we need to be morally strict with those in power over us we don't expect never accepting anything, but that's not a good way of defending the practice.
Watch the clip, it's only 50 seconds, and that's exactly what she says."It was a hard one to turn down, one of my kids really wanted to go" - she's kinda blaming her children, and her essential excuse is "this bribe was hard to turn down, because it was a really nice bribe, if it had been an afternoon on Great Yarmouth pier, I might well have said no"
Fucking unbelieveable, they are not only venal they are really bad at being venal, they haven't got any good excuses ready to go. And the SMILING as she explains her free 14k birthday party!!
All of them, they're all doing it, and they've all just spent ten years slamming the Tories for the same
What a shower
It's OK, though, because they are Labour and thus it's totally different.
This honestly reminds me of the excuses I once heard when I was banged up. From robbers. "Well, 'e was just wanderin around with that ten grand watch on his arm, it was a hard one to turn down"
Did she really say it was hard to turn down? What a silly way to explain it.
The occasional concert ticket or day at Lord's is not exactly intense corruption, we have gifts registers for politicians high and low and though we need to be morally strict with those in power over us we don't expect never accepting anything, but that's not a good way of defending the practice.
Watch the clip, it's only 50 seconds, and that's exactly what she says."It was a hard one to turn down, one of my kids really wanted to go" - she's kinda blaming her children, and her essential excuse is "this bribe was hard to turn down, because it was a really nice bribe, if it had been an afternoon on Great Yarmouth pier, I might well have said no"
Reminds me of one of my favourite lines from the last episode of the Timothy Olyphant show Justified, where a fugitive protests they've not been going around robbing banks or the like.
"Every longtime fugitive I've ever run down expects me to congratulate them for not doing what no one is supposed to be doing anyhow"
(He does actually let the con go in that case though)
He almost injured himself trying not to say "white"...
Is that fair though? The interviewer hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist.
I think Jenrick acquits himself pretty well.
I have watched the clip linked to above again, carefully. The interviewer at no point says anything remotely like @Gardenwalker ’s claim. He does not say there is no such thing as English identity. He does not say the word “racist” or anything like it.
Gardenwalker, could you explain yourself? Why are you making things up?
Nope Gardenwalker is right on this one. Watch the full 8 minute interview and you will see that, although he may not say it directly, the interviewer clearly indicates that he believes it doesn't exist. I bow to no one in my dislike for Jenrick but this interviewer is being a typical gotcha fuckwit.
That doesn't mean I actually agree with Jenrick and hs claims about migration. In this instance they are both being fuckwits.
I have watched the clip linked to. If there's a longer version I can watch, can you point me to it?
Thank you for that longer clip. I watched it with interest. It proves Gardenwalker’s claims are fabrications. The journalist never calls Jenrick or anyone else or any idea racist or anything similar. At no point does the journalist evince any hostility to the idea that English identity exists. The journalist gives Jenrick plenty of time to put forward his views.
Jenrick, notably, at one point seeks to suggest that the journalist has an antipathy to the idea of English identity. You and Gardenwalker appear to be swallowing Jenrick’s rhetoric. But nothing the journalist says backs this up. Point me to a specific time point where you think the journalist “hostilely suggests there’s no such thing as English identity, or that the very idea of it is somehow racist”.
It is impossible to imagine an interviewer attempting such a hostile line of questioning about American identity, or - as Jenrick actually suggests himself - Scottish or Welsh identity.
Why?
Because there is a subtext here from the interviewer that English identity either doesn’t exist, or if it does, is some kind of code for whiteness. About half way through the interviewer attempts directly to expose Jenrick with a supposed gotcha, asking whether immigrants have contributed to English history.
Stop gaslighting the thread, @bondegezou, it’s quite obvious how the interviewer feels about English identity.
Some years ago, at a party, an argument got a bit heated. The guy (white, English) was getting increasingly irate in his instance there was no English identity, culture or even art.
The bit that had a number of us in stitches was that the French lady he was arguing with was an professional Art & Culture historian who taught in university, along with working at the Wallace, the British Museum and several others, in her career.
We all kept quiet and let the demolition proceed.
You see this sort of thing more online - often in the fallacious approach of if something is hard to precisely define it must therefore not be a real thing - and I typically regard it as a kind of English exceptionalism.
In paritcular the type of exceptionalism that sees England as exceptionally bad, or pretty bog standard national tropes and trends, seen in a lot of places, as being very unusual and an example of England thinking itself to be exceptional.
Or more pithily, that there is nothing very exceptional about exceptionalism.
I called this the other day (and alluded to it in the header.)
No 10 was flat-footed in explaining the details in a way that would have muted the criticism. Reports that Starmer has been given an entire corporate box by Arsenal, worth about £8,000 a game, for security reasons were inaccurate.
The prime minister owns season tickets for him and his son, which he continues to pay for. He has been able to take two seats in a box, moving around each game so he is never in the same place twice, a requirement of his security team. Starmer has already twice paid the difference between the value of his seats and those he has been given. The sums are “a few hundred pounds”.
More understandably, his team has not been able to brief about the security threat, which sources say is much higher than it was when Cameron or Sunak sat in the stands. This is because Islamist extremists are targeting Starmer and senior cabinet ministers over the government’s approach to the war in Gaza.
A comprehensive explanation. I'm sure the Telegraph will be composing their apology as we speak....
If they had come out with that day 1 then people would have shrugged and moved on
Taking a week… I’m disinclined to believe them at this point
Who to believe... SKS or the Telegraph?
Given their recent record, that's easy.
Not the Telegraph.
When this first started I thought it was a bit pervy that the PM was letting another man dress his wife.
Now I find its a gay man dressing the PM like a toy.
Sir Ken Starmer.
I think clobbergate is very overdone. And I found the 'another man dressing his wife' angle very daft - as if normally it would be Starmer 'dressing his wife'. Pretty sure it's usually wives who run their husbands' wardobes, not the other way round.
'Shagpad-gate' on the other hand I find far more serious, because it involves the donor knowing absolutely intimate details of Ministers' lives. How regularly did they stay? Did they stay with anyone else consistently? These are 'stories', and if there were any stories, they would mean the noble Lord has Starmer's balls in a bag.
Which is exactly why big donors love the “invite the right mix of people for a weekend” at their country mansion.
Once you get inside people’s friendship groups….
If there was not a personal benefit to 'donating' to get really intimate access to the great and the good, why does it cost so much to get that access in the first place?
(I suppose if you are fortunate your parents paid the cost by paying the schools fees at Eton or wherever, so you are in the friend group early on).
There have been a lot of posts - and headers - on here about Harris could be on course for a landslide victory which is not been predicted in the polls.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina@kinabalu@ydoethur@Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
We have one bit of hard data, the Washington Primary. As Sean Trende pointed out, that's consistent with Harris winning about 48%, on the day. Win or lose, that implies a very tight result.
Nothing suggests to me that Harris will win a landslide.
I hope Harris will win a landslide. I don’t think Harris or Trump will win a landslide. I don’t see any obvious betting value in the markets. They say it’s close and it probably will be close.
It won't be a landslide in popular vote, but could be in the Electoral College. The 12 or so States that are in reasonable contention are very highly correlated. They will very likely all go the same way, so anything from a narrow Trump win to Harris EC landslide.
Yes, it's quite remarkable what variance is possible on very little voteshare change, in the right places. Way more than trying to game 50k votes across the right 150 constituencies or something.
This honestly reminds me of the excuses I once heard when I was banged up. From robbers. "Well, 'e was just wanderin around with that ten grand watch on his arm, it was a hard one to turn down"
Did she really say it was hard to turn down? What a silly way to explain it.
The occasional concert ticket or day at Lord's is not exactly intense corruption, we have gifts registers for politicians high and low and though we need to be morally strict with those in power over us we don't expect never accepting anything, but that's not a good way of defending the practice.
Watch the clip, it's only 50 seconds, and that's exactly what she says."It was a hard one to turn down, one of my kids really wanted to go" - she's kinda blaming her children, and her essential excuse is "this bribe was hard to turn down, because it was a really nice bribe, if it had been an afternoon on Great Yarmouth pier, I might well have said no"
Fucking unbelieveable, they are not only venal they are really bad at being venal, they haven't got any good excuses ready to go. And the SMILING as she explains her free 14k birthday party!!
All of them, they're all doing it, and they've all just spent ten years slamming the Tories for the same
What a shower
It's OK, though, because they are Labour and thus it's totally different.
Unluckily for Labour, the polls show that the voters do not see them as any different, and Starmer has suffered the worst polling drop of any post-election-winning PM in history
Labour are painting a portrait of themselves as clueless, smirking, hypocritical grifters which is going to be REALLY hard to change, now that it is set in place
This honestly reminds me of the excuses I once heard when I was banged up. From robbers. "Well, 'e was just wanderin around with that ten grand watch on his arm, it was a hard one to turn down"
Did she really say it was hard to turn down? What a silly way to explain it.
The occasional concert ticket or day at Lord's is not exactly intense corruption, we have gifts registers for politicians high and low and though we need to be morally strict with those in power over us we don't expect never accepting anything, but that's not a good way of defending the practice.
I don't know - I'm pretty relaxed about it and I suspect her reaction wouldn't be atypical of other parents put in a similar position.
Once again, a whole lot of faux outrage from a party with huge experience of venality and corruption when in Government in the preceding decade or so. Indeed, plenty were happy to defend Johnson in the ditch until the very end but that was fine because it was "good old Boris".
Not true of course and the key point isn't or aren't the gifts themselves but a) what Starmer, Reeves and others said before the election about how they were going to comport themselves once in Government and b) the juxtaposition of ministers going to parties and concerts for free while taking away the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, some of whom admittedly don't need it but many others do and the cliff edge of a claiming process meaning for having as much as £3 too much, you lose £250 which is absurd.
There have been a lot of posts - and headers - on here about Harris could be on course for a landslide victory which is not been predicted in the polls.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina@kinabalu@ydoethur@Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
We have one bit of hard data, the Washington Primary. As Sean Trende pointed out, that's consistent with Harris winning about 48%, on the day. Win or lose, that implies a very tight result.
Nothing suggests to me that Harris will win a landslide.
A win slightly bigger than Biden got - for example all Biden states plus North Carolina - should just about be enough to undermine Trump's inevitable "Stolen - again!! schtick.
The greater hope is that she can have majorities in both Houses too. The Senate will be tough - but Florida and Texas are in play to counter the loss of Montana.
It does need to be a big win in order to get through without violence I think.
People last time were less prepared to contest Biden's win, so several key officials held firm, and the courts did too. The former are definitely more up for contesting this time around, but it's one thing to intend it, but if facing an obvious loss many will lose the will to follow through on that.
Now if Trump wins I wouldn't expect Harris herself to go full 2020 Trump on it, but I can see some Dems being tempted to toss spanners into the gears where they can - that is the effect of the taboo on refusing to concede being broken.
You shouldn't need to be a hero to certify a valid election result in a swing state but that's what some of those Republican officials were in the aftermath of WH20. They were heroes.
Biden ought to go down as one of America’s best presidents, contd.
Private sector has announced ~$60B in projects in battery mfg, critical minerals and supply chain. DOE MESC office announced $5B in grants to support 39 more projects. We are on track to go from a negligible share of extraction and processing in 2021, to 50-80% of the supply we need for US deployment in 2030. https://x.com/JigarShahDC/status/1837687725144539382
From now on, if any of us get caught being a bit light fingered, maybe ripping an iPhone 16 from a stranger then running away with it, or accepting twenty million from Vladimir Putin to post on PB, we can just say "well, it was a hard one to turn down"
And then it's fine. Because Ministers do it
Don't rely on it as a legal defence. There was that chap in the USA who got in trouble for taking out his shotgun and blasting it in the air to repel people, who defended himself on the basis that was then Vice-President Biden had explicitly told people to do.
There have been a lot of posts - and headers - on here about Harris could be on course for a landslide victory which is not been predicted in the polls.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina@kinabalu@ydoethur@Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
We have one bit of hard data, the Washington Primary. As Sean Trende pointed out, that's consistent with Harris winning about 48%, on the day. Win or lose, that implies a very tight result.
Nothing suggests to me that Harris will win a landslide.
A win slightly bigger than Biden got - for example all Biden states plus North Carolina - should just about be enough to undermine Trump's inevitable "Stolen - again!! schtick.
The greater hope is that she can have majorities in both Houses too. The Senate will be tough - but Florida and Texas are in play to counter the loss of Montana.
It does need to be a big win in order to get through without violence I think.
People last time were less prepared to contest Biden's win, so several key officials held firm, and the courts did too. The former are definitely more up for contesting this time around, but it's one thing to intend it, but if facing an obvious loss many will lose the will to follow through on that.
Now if Trump wins I wouldn't expect Harris herself to go full 2020 Trump on it, but I can see some Dems being tempted to toss spanners into the gears where they can - that is the effect of the taboo on refusing to concede being broken.
You shouldn't need to be a hero to certify a valid election result in a swing state but that's what some of those Republican officials were in the aftermath of WH20. They were heroes.
Apparently a poll of Teamsters Union members found Trump getting a clear majority in favour of him . But it was the Dems who voted to save Teamsters pensions by voting for the American Rescue Act in 2021.
Not a single GOP House member voted for that .
And Trump said striking workers should be fired .
This is what you’re up against , turkeys voting for Christmas.
Yes, but aren't Teamsters the sort of demographic that I tried to cover in the header?
Politics is very much about identity and values.
Which is incidentally where Starmer and Reeves are going wrong. They are being transactional with people.
Yes I very much appreciated your header . Very interesting but there surely must be a point where identity/values collide with actions .
If a party votes against laws that seek to help you or puts in place laws that make your life harder then surely there must come a point where you question that.
This honestly reminds me of the excuses I once heard when I was banged up. From robbers. "Well, 'e was just wanderin around with that ten grand watch on his arm, it was a hard one to turn down"
Did she really say it was hard to turn down? What a silly way to explain it.
The occasional concert ticket or day at Lord's is not exactly intense corruption, we have gifts registers for politicians high and low and though we need to be morally strict with those in power over us we don't expect never accepting anything, but that's not a good way of defending the practice.
I don't know - I'm pretty relaxed about it and I suspect her reaction wouldn't be atypical of other parents put in a similar position.
Once again, a whole lot of faux outrage from a party with huge experience of venality and corruption when in Government in the preceding decade or so. Indeed, plenty were happy to defend Johnson in the ditch until the very end but that was fine because it was "good old Boris".
Not true of course and the key point isn't or aren't the gifts themselves but a) what Starmer, Reeves and others said before the election about how they were going to comport themselves once in Government and b) the juxtaposition of ministers going to parties and concerts for free while taking away the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, some of whom admittedly don't need it but many others do and the cliff edge of a claiming process meaning for having as much as £3 too much, you lose £250 which is absurd.
Well, yes, the key is the hypocrisy
Unfortunately for Ms Phillipson, she was one of the most vocal critics of Boris' lockdown parties, when he tried to use the same excuse as her - "actually, it was just a work event"
Oh dear, oh dear
I wonder if part of the problem for Labour is that the Tories have been so chaotic and shite for so long Labour have not received anything like enough press scrutiny, so Labour are
1. Totally unused to criticism and interrogation and thrown by it when it happens, and
2. Have developed a feeling that people don't mind if they do dodgy stuff, as no one has complained YET
There have been a lot of posts - and headers - on here about Harris could be on course for a landslide victory which is not been predicted in the polls.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina@kinabalu@ydoethur@Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
We have one bit of hard data, the Washington Primary. As Sean Trende pointed out, that's consistent with Harris winning about 48%, on the day. Win or lose, that implies a very tight result.
Nothing suggests to me that Harris will win a landslide.
I hope Harris will win a landslide. I don’t think Harris or Trump will win a landslide. I don’t see any obvious betting value in the markets. They say it’s close and it probably will be close.
Yes, it was within half a percent in several states last time, and things don't appear to have changed much.
That's why the legal shenanigans, much more planned for this time, will be critical, which is never a good sign for a democracy.
The amount of legal shenanigans aand micromanagement of the elections already is totally mad. They’re still arguing about candidate eligibility and the election process.
I get part of the reason is because of the variations in different states - which is ridiculous in itself but that's one of the downsides of federalism for you - and the inherent politicisation of much of the adminsitrative processes, but it is still absurd even on top of that.
Of course last time there were dozens of baseless and frivilous legal challenges after the result (which is demonstrated by nearly all being tossed out very simply), but they've all learned somewhat from that in that some of them failed last time because the challenges were to processes already agreed to, and couldn't be tossed out part way through. So sides are trying to get some wins in advance.
One theory now is that the Trump appointed postal service chap is deliberately cocking things up to form the basis of some challenges. Could well be just a silly conspiracy theory from the Dems, but that there will be challenges is not. And I suspect Democrats will have plenty of their own to file this time too, they don't want to be caught out.
Both main parties have already spent millions on lawyers trying to gain an advantage, and no doubt they will have millions more to spend after 5th November.
The Dems tried their best to get RFK Jr off the ballot in many states, only to then go back to court to force his name to remain on the ballot after he backed Trump.
Last time there were a number of states within 1%, which makes recounts and challenges almost inevitable. My hope is that there’s enough of a margin to one candidate or the other, that there’s a clear winner as soon as possible after Election Day. That the whole process can run for days or even weeks, doesn’t help with the perception of underhandedness.
Sadly we can probably expect political violence at some point, the candidates themselves have for months been using terrible language to describe each other.
This honestly reminds me of the excuses I once heard when I was banged up. From robbers. "Well, 'e was just wanderin around with that ten grand watch on his arm, it was a hard one to turn down"
Did she really say it was hard to turn down? What a silly way to explain it.
The occasional concert ticket or day at Lord's is not exactly intense corruption, we have gifts registers for politicians high and low and though we need to be morally strict with those in power over us we don't expect never accepting anything, but that's not a good way of defending the practice.
Watch the clip, it's only 50 seconds, and that's exactly what she says."It was a hard one to turn down, one of my kids really wanted to go" - she's kinda blaming her children, and her essential excuse is "this bribe was hard to turn down, because it was a really nice bribe, if it had been an afternoon on Great Yarmouth pier, I might well have said no"
Fucking unbelieveable, they are not only venal they are really bad at being venal, they haven't got any good excuses ready to go. And the SMILING as she explains her free 14k birthday party!!
All of them, they're all doing it, and they've all just spent ten years slamming the Tories for the same
What a shower
It's OK, though, because they are Labour and thus it's totally different.
Unluckily for Labour, the polls show that the voters do not see them as any different, and Starmer has suffered the worst polling drop of any post-election-winning PM in history
Labour are painting a portrait of themselves as clueless, smirking, hypocritical grifters which is going to be REALLY hard to change, now that it is set in place
The Left (because they are assumed to be better people) are held to higher standards. It comes with the territory.
There have been a lot of posts - and headers - on here about Harris could be on course for a landslide victory which is not been predicted in the polls.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina@kinabalu@ydoethur@Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
Trump is consistently behind by quite large margins in every national poll.
It is possible to see him overcoming that to win the electoral college by say 50-60.
It is very hard to see him overcoming that gap to win a landslide.
Meanwhile, there a plausible pathways for Harris to do so, although it isn't by any means the likeliest outcome.
I've been hoping to have time for a thread header on why the decline in split ticketing might hurt Trump more than the down ballot races in this election. Alas, not yet.
It's the sort of vibrancy which Welby and the CoE lack
Pentacostalist worship is certainly fun and celebrational, and in the UK drawing crowds too. There are a number of "Big Shed" churches near me, the retail park being the UK equivalent of the US shopping Mall. It isn't just the African diaspora either. There are fellow travellers too, with Holy Trinity in Leicester getting 500 on a Sunday, CoE though not always approved of by the hierarchy because of its informal liturgy.
Pentacostalism has moved a long way from the homespun Appalachian church in the video clip, to the razzmatazz of modern mega-churches. The key is that personal relationship with Jesus, and an acceptance of modern consumerist lifestyles.
I'm sure there are bits of the hierarchy that wince at what goes on, much like the Anglo-Catholic ordinands I saw the day after they had an educational trip somewhere similar.
But one of Welby's big ideas has been a hefty expansion in That Sort Of Thing, by getting Holy Trinity Brompton (and its children and their children) and others to plant new congregations into struggling parishes.
And one of the people behind that is Paul Marshall. Yes, that Paul Marshall.
Except that HTB and it's network of churches is now on its way out of the CofE sphere over the "Prayers of Love and Faith" (that's CofE speak for gay marriage in church). As are virtually all the evangelicals - which are the only bit of the CofE that isn't in free fall decline.
My CofE church is actually voting today* on whether the congregation agrees with the leadership that we should leave. We're a bit unusual, because we're an old congregation that's not a parish church, and own our own building, so we can pretty much tell the Bishop "so long and thanks for all the fish", but that is true of a lot of the new churches planted by outfits like HTB and St Helens Bishopsgate.
Incidentally, I've no real problem personally with gay people being gay. I think it's sinful, active homosexuals are called to repent like all sexual sinners, but ultimately it's God's job to make them give an account of their lives, at his judgment, not mine.
My problem with the CofE blessing gay marriages is that this is the leadership blessing something their doctrine teaches is sinful. I'd say the same if they wanted in church blessings for adultery, gluttony, lying or greed. It's just that in our context, homosexuality is a fashionable sin, unlike the others.
*actually, electronically, over the next two weeks, starting today
Why is "homosexuality" sinful? I can see arguments for "adultery, gluttony, lying or greed" being sinful, but I can't see how homosexuality can be added to the list?
Slow reply (I've been at church) but I think this one is worth un-packing, because that's a good question, and one where traditional Christians tend to be misunderstood.
The answer lies in the purpose of marriage and sexuality. The Bible teaches that marriage functions as a picture which points to Jesus's loving, sacrificial, relationship with his people, the church, and actually that's why God made people male and female, to show his relational pattern. Homosexuality is problematic because it goes against that pattern - for exactly the same reason adultery is problematic.
So it's not a superficial issue - it actually goes very deep into the "works" of Christian theology.
It's also very obviously not just an Old Testament issue - it's scattered all over the New Testament too - just go and read Romans 1 as a prime example.
Incidentally @Cookie I'm with you on the ridiculousness of the idea that God changes his mind every 30 years depending on the fashionable morals of the age - that the current CofE leadership can't see this is a good part of why I (and the church of which I'm a part) want an out.
Except the C of E hasn't voted for same sex marriage, Synod voted that down, PLF merely prayers for same sex couples married in English civil law. The Methodists, Quakers and Church of Scotland now perform same sex marriages in their churches, the C of E still does not
PLF is still saying that the church is willing to bless something which its doctrine say is sinful.
Whatever one thinks on the issue, the CofE position is patently ridiculous.
This honestly reminds me of the excuses I once heard when I was banged up. From robbers. "Well, 'e was just wanderin around with that ten grand watch on his arm, it was a hard one to turn down"
Did she really say it was hard to turn down? What a silly way to explain it.
The occasional concert ticket or day at Lord's is not exactly intense corruption, we have gifts registers for politicians high and low and though we need to be morally strict with those in power over us we don't expect never accepting anything, but that's not a good way of defending the practice.
I don't know - I'm pretty relaxed about it and I suspect her reaction wouldn't be atypical of other parents put in a similar position.
Once again, a whole lot of faux outrage from a party with huge experience of venality and corruption when in Government in the preceding decade or so. Indeed, plenty were happy to defend Johnson in the ditch until the very end but that was fine because it was "good old Boris".
Not true of course and the key point isn't or aren't the gifts themselves but a) what Starmer, Reeves and others said before the election about how they were going to comport themselves once in Government and b) the juxtaposition of ministers going to parties and concerts for free while taking away the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, some of whom admittedly don't need it but many others do and the cliff edge of a claiming process meaning for having as much as £3 too much, you lose £250 which is absurd.
Not faux, not from a party. I live here, don't know about you, and am choosy an who gets to govern me.
Apparently a poll of Teamsters Union members found Trump getting a clear majority in favour of him . But it was the Dems who voted to save Teamsters pensions by voting for the American Rescue Act in 2021.
Not a single GOP House member voted for that .
And Trump said striking workers should be fired .
This is what you’re up against , turkeys voting for Christmas.
Yes, but aren't Teamsters the sort of demographic that I tried to cover in the header?
Politics is very much about identity and values.
Which is incidentally where Starmer and Reeves are going wrong. They are being transactional with people.
Yes I very much appreciated your header . Very interesting but there surely must be a point where identity/values collide with actions .
If a party votes against laws that seek to help you or puts in place laws that make your life harder then surely there must come a point where you question that.
Yes, there is cognitive dissonance but the way to get past it as a politician is not to attack those values, but rather to frame the plan in a way that fits those values better. To get them to see unions as battling for the little guy against elitist corporations, providing financial safety to blue collar workers.
It's why Walz was such a clever pick. He gets this over in a way that Shapiro etc could not.
This honestly reminds me of the excuses I once heard when I was banged up. From robbers. "Well, 'e was just wanderin around with that ten grand watch on his arm, it was a hard one to turn down"
Did she really say it was hard to turn down? What a silly way to explain it.
The occasional concert ticket or day at Lord's is not exactly intense corruption, we have gifts registers for politicians high and low and though we need to be morally strict with those in power over us we don't expect never accepting anything, but that's not a good way of defending the practice.
Watch the clip, it's only 50 seconds, and that's exactly what she says."It was a hard one to turn down, one of my kids really wanted to go" - she's kinda blaming her children, and her essential excuse is "this bribe was hard to turn down, because it was a really nice bribe, if it had been an afternoon on Great Yarmouth pier, I might well have said no"
Fucking unbelieveable, they are not only venal they are really bad at being venal, they haven't got any good excuses ready to go. And the SMILING as she explains her free 14k birthday party!!
All of them, they're all doing it, and they've all just spent ten years slamming the Tories for the same
What a shower
It's OK, though, because they are Labour and thus it's totally different.
Unluckily for Labour, the polls show that the voters do not see them as any different, and Starmer has suffered the worst polling drop of any post-election-winning PM in history
Labour are painting a portrait of themselves as clueless, smirking, hypocritical grifters which is going to be REALLY hard to change, now that it is set in place
The Left (because they are assumed to be better people) are held to higher standards. It comes with the territory.
And to think I loaned my vote to that girning, squirming, midwit, piggy-eyed hypocritical twat-of-all-twats, Skyr Toolmakersson
This honestly reminds me of the excuses I once heard when I was banged up. From robbers. "Well, 'e was just wanderin around with that ten grand watch on his arm, it was a hard one to turn down"
Did she really say it was hard to turn down? What a silly way to explain it.
The occasional concert ticket or day at Lord's is not exactly intense corruption, we have gifts registers for politicians high and low and though we need to be morally strict with those in power over us we don't expect never accepting anything, but that's not a good way of defending the practice.
Watch the clip, it's only 50 seconds, and that's exactly what she says."It was a hard one to turn down, one of my kids really wanted to go" - she's kinda blaming her children, and her essential excuse is "this bribe was hard to turn down, because it was a really nice bribe, if it had been an afternoon on Great Yarmouth pier, I might well have said no"
Fucking unbelieveable, they are not only venal they are really bad at being venal, they haven't got any good excuses ready to go. And the SMILING as she explains her free 14k birthday party!!
All of them, they're all doing it, and they've all just spent ten years slamming the Tories for the same
What a shower
It's OK, though, because they are Labour and thus it's totally different.
Unluckily for Labour, the polls show that the voters do not see them as any different, and Starmer has suffered the worst polling drop of any post-election-winning PM in history
Labour are painting a portrait of themselves as clueless, smirking, hypocritical grifters which is going to be REALLY hard to change, now that it is set in place
The Left (because they are assumed to be better people) are held to higher standards. It comes with the territory.
No.
It’s because if you make something a policy plank, you will be judged by your own policy.
It's the sort of vibrancy which Welby and the CoE lack
Pentacostalist worship is certainly fun and celebrational, and in the UK drawing crowds too. There are a number of "Big Shed" churches near me, the retail park being the UK equivalent of the US shopping Mall. It isn't just the African diaspora either. There are fellow travellers too, with Holy Trinity in Leicester getting 500 on a Sunday, CoE though not always approved of by the hierarchy because of its informal liturgy.
Pentacostalism has moved a long way from the homespun Appalachian church in the video clip, to the razzmatazz of modern mega-churches. The key is that personal relationship with Jesus, and an acceptance of modern consumerist lifestyles.
I'm sure there are bits of the hierarchy that wince at what goes on, much like the Anglo-Catholic ordinands I saw the day after they had an educational trip somewhere similar.
But one of Welby's big ideas has been a hefty expansion in That Sort Of Thing, by getting Holy Trinity Brompton (and its children and their children) and others to plant new congregations into struggling parishes.
And one of the people behind that is Paul Marshall. Yes, that Paul Marshall.
I think there's a risk that we try to define Welby (and HTB) too narrowly, and there are plenty in politics / media who want to use those misrepresentations for their own purposes.
National Conservatives and Faragistes want to fit him up as a raving, transgenderism-imposing, extreme liberal. Whilst others want to frame Welby as a vacuous, zonked-out, hands-waving, happy-clappy charismatic evangelical from HTB.
We are all human beings, and Welby is - for example - illegitimate and he only found out in 2016 that his dad was not his mum's husband and he came from a drunken tumble in the hay, but he has also done things such as spent 5 years as Canon for Reconciliation at Coventry Cathedral which involves being responsible the Community of the Cross of Nails. Wearing that hat he used to travel the world working in conflict resolution. There's always more than meets the eye.
For another one from the HTB orbit, the famous Vicar of Baghdad, Canon Andrew White, was a Curate at an HTB Church Plant called St Marks, Battersea Rise. Then he went to be a priest in Baghdad.
Similarly HTB. This for example, is a leaflet from an organisation set up there in the late 1980s called Grandmas to support children affected by their parents having AIDS, in London. They used to send volunteers to give parents respite, and to do handyman jobs. It was an idea of a congregation member, who HTB supported in setting up a charity. They ended up working across London. There are scores of such organisations. Again - more than meets the eye. https://wellcomecollection.org/works/bfm8p4ys/items
This honestly reminds me of the excuses I once heard when I was banged up. From robbers. "Well, 'e was just wanderin around with that ten grand watch on his arm, it was a hard one to turn down"
Did she really say it was hard to turn down? What a silly way to explain it.
The occasional concert ticket or day at Lord's is not exactly intense corruption, we have gifts registers for politicians high and low and though we need to be morally strict with those in power over us we don't expect never accepting anything, but that's not a good way of defending the practice.
I don't know - I'm pretty relaxed about it and I suspect her reaction wouldn't be atypical of other parents put in a similar position.
Once again, a whole lot of faux outrage from a party with huge experience of venality and corruption when in Government in the preceding decade or so. Indeed, plenty were happy to defend Johnson in the ditch until the very end but that was fine because it was "good old Boris".
Not true of course and the key point isn't or aren't the gifts themselves but a) what Starmer, Reeves and others said before the election about how they were going to comport themselves once in Government and b) the juxtaposition of ministers going to parties and concerts for free while taking away the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, some of whom admittedly don't need it but many others do and the cliff edge of a claiming process meaning for having as much as £3 too much, you lose £250 which is absurd.
Not faux, not from a party. I live here, don't know about you, and am choosy an who gets to govern me.
Yes, all the reaction I am seeing on social media is not from parents saying "awww bless, she's a young mum, who wouldn't do the same for the little uns, take the free £800 Taylor Swift tickets, luv, you have a good time"
It is, shall we say, quite a lot more negative than that
This honestly reminds me of the excuses I once heard when I was banged up. From robbers. "Well, 'e was just wanderin around with that ten grand watch on his arm, it was a hard one to turn down"
Did she really say it was hard to turn down? What a silly way to explain it.
The occasional concert ticket or day at Lord's is not exactly intense corruption, we have gifts registers for politicians high and low and though we need to be morally strict with those in power over us we don't expect never accepting anything, but that's not a good way of defending the practice.
Watch the clip, it's only 50 seconds, and that's exactly what she says."It was a hard one to turn down, one of my kids really wanted to go" - she's kinda blaming her children, and her essential excuse is "this bribe was hard to turn down, because it was a really nice bribe, if it had been an afternoon on Great Yarmouth pier, I might well have said no"
Fucking unbelieveable, they are not only venal they are really bad at being venal, they haven't got any good excuses ready to go. And the SMILING as she explains her free 14k birthday party!!
All of them, they're all doing it, and they've all just spent ten years slamming the Tories for the same
What a shower
It's OK, though, because they are Labour and thus it's totally different.
Unluckily for Labour, the polls show that the voters do not see them as any different, and Starmer has suffered the worst polling drop of any post-election-winning PM in history
Labour are painting a portrait of themselves as clueless, smirking, hypocritical grifters which is going to be REALLY hard to change, now that it is set in place
The Left (because they are assumed to be better people) are held to higher standards. It comes with the territory.
Or, they're just held to the same and act with incredulity when they realise that to be the case.
This honestly reminds me of the excuses I once heard when I was banged up. From robbers. "Well, 'e was just wanderin around with that ten grand watch on his arm, it was a hard one to turn down"
Did she really say it was hard to turn down? What a silly way to explain it.
The occasional concert ticket or day at Lord's is not exactly intense corruption, we have gifts registers for politicians high and low and though we need to be morally strict with those in power over us we don't expect never accepting anything, but that's not a good way of defending the practice.
Watch the clip, it's only 50 seconds, and that's exactly what she says."It was a hard one to turn down, one of my kids really wanted to go" - she's kinda blaming her children, and her essential excuse is "this bribe was hard to turn down, because it was a really nice bribe, if it had been an afternoon on Great Yarmouth pier, I might well have said no"
Fucking unbelieveable, they are not only venal they are really bad at being venal, they haven't got any good excuses ready to go. And the SMILING as she explains her free 14k birthday party!!
All of them, they're all doing it, and they've all just spent ten years slamming the Tories for the same
What a shower
It's OK, though, because they are Labour and thus it's totally different.
Unluckily for Labour, the polls show that the voters do not see them as any different, and Starmer has suffered the worst polling drop of any post-election-winning PM in history
Labour are painting a portrait of themselves as clueless, smirking, hypocritical grifters which is going to be REALLY hard to change, now that it is set in place
The Left (because they are assumed to be better people) are held to higher standards. It comes with the territory.
And to think I loaned my vote to that girning, squirming, midwit, piggy-eyed hypocritical twat-of-all-twats, Skyr Toolmakersson
It's the sort of vibrancy which Welby and the CoE lack
Pentacostalist worship is certainly fun and celebrational, and in the UK drawing crowds too. There are a number of "Big Shed" churches near me, the retail park being the UK equivalent of the US shopping Mall. It isn't just the African diaspora either. There are fellow travellers too, with Holy Trinity in Leicester getting 500 on a Sunday, CoE though not always approved of by the hierarchy because of its informal liturgy.
Pentacostalism has moved a long way from the homespun Appalachian church in the video clip, to the razzmatazz of modern mega-churches. The key is that personal relationship with Jesus, and an acceptance of modern consumerist lifestyles.
I'm sure there are bits of the hierarchy that wince at what goes on, much like the Anglo-Catholic ordinands I saw the day after they had an educational trip somewhere similar.
But one of Welby's big ideas has been a hefty expansion in That Sort Of Thing, by getting Holy Trinity Brompton (and its children and their children) and others to plant new congregations into struggling parishes.
And one of the people behind that is Paul Marshall. Yes, that Paul Marshall.
Except that HTB and it's network of churches is now on its way out of the CofE sphere over the "Prayers of Love and Faith" (that's CofE speak for gay marriage in church). As are virtually all the evangelicals - which are the only bit of the CofE that isn't in free fall decline.
My CofE church is actually voting today* on whether the congregation agrees with the leadership that we should leave. We're a bit unusual, because we're an old congregation that's not a parish church, and own our own building, so we can pretty much tell the Bishop "so long and thanks for all the fish", but that is true of a lot of the new churches planted by outfits like HTB and St Helens Bishopsgate.
Incidentally, I've no real problem personally with gay people being gay. I think it's sinful, active homosexuals are called to repent like all sexual sinners, but ultimately it's God's job to make them give an account of their lives, at his judgment, not mine.
My problem with the CofE blessing gay marriages is that this is the leadership blessing something their doctrine teaches is sinful. I'd say the same if they wanted in church blessings for adultery, gluttony, lying or greed. It's just that in our context, homosexuality is a fashionable sin, unlike the others.
*actually, electronically, over the next two weeks, starting today
Why is "homosexuality" sinful? I can see arguments for "adultery, gluttony, lying or greed" being sinful, but I can't see how homosexuality can be added to the list?
Slow reply (I've been at church) but I think this one is worth un-packing, because that's a good question, and one where traditional Christians tend to be misunderstood.
The answer lies in the purpose of marriage and sexuality. The Bible teaches that marriage functions as a picture which points to Jesus's loving, sacrificial, relationship with his people, the church, and actually that's why God made people male and female, to show his relational pattern. Homosexuality is problematic because it goes against that pattern - for exactly the same reason adultery is problematic.
So it's not a superficial issue - it actually goes very deep into the "works" of Christian theology.
It's also very obviously not just an Old Testament issue - it's scattered all over the New Testament too - just go and read Romans 1 as a prime example.
Incidentally @Cookie I'm with you on the ridiculousness of the idea that God changes his mind every 30 years depending on the fashionable morals of the age - that the current CofE leadership can't see this is a good part of why I (and the church of which I'm a part) want an out.
Except the C of E hasn't voted for same sex marriage, Synod voted that down, PLF merely prayers for same sex couples married in English civil law. The Methodists, Quakers and Church of Scotland now perform same sex marriages in their churches, the C of E still does not
PLF is still saying that the church is willing to bless something which its doctrine say is sinful.
Whatever one thinks on the issue, the CofE position is patently ridiculous.
The C of E is already established church of a nation where same sex marriage is legal. It also had no problem blessing the civil marriage of the King and Queen Camilla despite their committing adultery with each other
Comments
One of THE great alcohol buzzes is the surge you get after three or four hefty shots of vodka, a la Russe
You gotta do them quick, down in one, and within a short space of time (inhale rye bread after each shot to avoid gagging)
Then you get a wild high, more like a hard drug than booze
Reeves spent several years working for HBOS. Cooper had 2 years as a newspaper journalist. Lammy had a private law career, as did Stevens and Mahmood. Haigh had 3 years at Aviva. Murray did various things: fast food, to pensions, to online TV. Reed had a long career in publishing.
But, I largely agree. We need to focus on the more important questions, like how do we earn enough as a country to pay for what we think we are entitled to? How do we make people happier? How do we adapt to AI changes in our economy and what do we do with the millions who will lose out?
There was a time when the shawl weavers of Paisley were so rich that they would go around with £5 notes in their hats. Then came the printed shawl and their standard of living collapsed overnight. So much of our middle classes are in danger of having a similar collision with reality.
@JohnO was great counsel when we had drinks the other night.
There are notably few modern sects, for instance, which preach selling all you own, to give to the poor (as opposed to their megachurch).
They can't build a children's hospital, the health service is in tatters, the country is dependent on electricity imports from Britain and the government keeps on clashing with local communities over refugee accommodation.
I've yet to read a rational explanation for the FF/FG resurgence.
At the risk of giving @Anabobazina @kinabalu @ydoethur @Nigelb and others heart attacks, let me give you the case why it's possible there may be a surprise Trump landslide:
1. We know the polling companies have changed the methodology of their polls but we do not know whether that has rectified the issues of 2016 and 2020. Nate Cohn stated that the recalled vote methodology more pollsters seems to be boosting Democrat polling averages, making it likely that Trump's support could be understated (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/upshot/polls-trump-harris.html).
2. The fundamentals on how people feel about the economy are not good for an incumbent candidate such as Harris. Voters do not feel well off (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/18/us/politics/fed-economy-harris-trump.html)
3. Independents rate Trump better than Harris according to the latest Gallup poll 44% - 35% (https://news.gallup.com/poll/650774/favorable-ratings-harris-trump-remain.aspx), It will be independents who decide the vote.
4. The results from the Teamsters' vote (https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-release-presidential-endorsement-polling-data/). We don't know the polling methodology used or the numbers but the scale both of Trump's lead and the swing from when Biden was running suggests a significant Working Class (mainly white) to Trump from when Biden dropped out (one other possible reading here is that, in face to face meetings, union members did not want to show support for Trump whilst they would in more anonymous polls - that also points to a potential issue).
5. On the most important issues, Trump has an edge. Of the top 5 issues in the Pew survey (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/), Harris has a +2 lead on health and a tie on the SUpreme Court, Trump has a +4 lead on crime, a +6 lead on foreign policy and a +10 lead on economic issues (he also has a +7 lead on immigration)
I have not bet anything on this election yet but I think there is more chance of a surprise Trump large victory than a Harris one.
Nowadays I drink around three, four times a year (Xmas, Easter, Conference, departmental dinners), hence my de facto teetotalism.
I still like the (apocryphal?) bargee's comment to the PM and ABC sitting together, "Keeping better company I see !"
After lunch, I'll probably stick on A Bridge Too Far, if I can keep the little terrors away, as it seems appropriate with the 80th anniversary of the Battle of Arnhem.
Labour have fallen back in Scotland, but with the Conservatives and Reform polling 25% between them, a Unionist majority would appear likely.
I dont have a road bike, only have a couple of mountain bikes and an old Specialized 3 speed hub geared courier bike I ride around town on.
I've found out there's a thing called Off Road Duathalon which is run/mountain bike/run and there's one at Sherwood Pines in December. Part of me thinks I should just sign up and have a go. The other part thinks "Grow up, you daft old sod!"
But still some want to argue that one time a cat was killed by someone who wasn’t a Haitian or an immigrant in an entirely different part of the world, therefore JD Vance is right… or something.
Nothing suggests to me that Harris will win a landslide.
Haley, a moderate Republican, is the only presidential candidate this year who might have won a landslide, Trump won't.
Independents also lean Republican now eg Romney won Independents in 2012 but Obama was re elected with massive Black turnout which Harris will also aim for
If the job is well remunerated - never mind the benefits of holding a position of political power or influence - then there is no personal need for it, and it inevitably raises questions about the potential for undue influence, even unintended influence.
If that requires something to cut down on individual candidate costs somehow, fine, that's a better trade off than opening yourself to potential conflicts. And as for parties, they don't need most of their donations either - if they cannot survive on member donations then they are spending a lot of money, and is that even necessary?
Say a limit of £10000 per year per organisation (including unions) to a party, and a limit of £1000 per per person to a candidate (and a minimum to the number of candidates you can donate to).
Oh, and while we are at it, no honours/peerages for any person who makes a political donation until two partliamentary terms have passed. As I've said before, it is not a punishment, people do not have to donate money to a party, and if they really want an honour they can focus solely on doing good works.
Starmer is sailing into all kinds of trouble
That's why the legal shenanigans, much more planned for this time, will be critical, which is never a good sign for a democracy.
If homosexuality isn't sinful but same sex sexual acts are where do you draw the line? Is masturbating while thinking about someone who is the same sex ok?
And is the bible that bothered? It's not even in the 10 commandments, and Jesus doesn't seem to say much.
It would be more in tune with God's wishes to refuse to bless marriages of people who don't keep the sabbath holy, or who take the Lord's name in vain, in my opinion.
Get yourself on the Donald to romp it if that's what you think. The EC bands markets are up on betfair and liquidity is building.
Thanks for everyone's kind thoughts on the header. I agree that a lot of life including politics is not very transactional, it is about self-image and emotional and instinctive.
The affinity of Evangelicals to Trump is not purely transactional either (indeed many will lose health care etc if he wins), but culturally based. Even non-observant Evangelicals retain a lot of the cultural baggage, of class, attitudes, guns and country music that also developed on the American frontier in the 19th Century.
Athiests/agnostics/unobservant people do differ from religious ones (and trend heavily Democrat) but are still shaped by the religious background of their culture. That can be retained attitudes to alcohol, family, work, hierarchy or almost conscious reaction to these things, or even a cocktail of the two. I was brought up Athiest by a father reacting against the Presbyterian upbringing of his parents, but I see now that we were very Presbyterian Athiests, sure of which God we didn't believe in.
"This is insane. Labour’s Bridget Phillipson says she took a £14,000 donation, primarily to throw a birthday party.
She’s smiling while she divulges this information. I’m genuinely in awe that they don’t appear to see how bad this looks."
https://x.com/AaronBastani/status/1837775602905997453
The answer lies in the purpose of marriage and sexuality. The Bible teaches that marriage functions as a picture which points to Jesus's loving, sacrificial, relationship with his people, the church, and actually that's why God made people male and female, to show his relational pattern. Homosexuality is problematic because it goes against that pattern - for exactly the same reason adultery is problematic.
So it's not a superficial issue - it actually goes very deep into the "works" of Christian theology.
It's also very obviously not just an Old Testament issue - it's scattered all over the New Testament too - just go and read Romans 1 as a prime example.
Incidentally @Cookie I'm with you on the ridiculousness of the idea that God changes his mind every 30 years depending on the fashionable morals of the age - that the current CofE leadership can't see this is a good part of why I (and the church of which I'm a part) want an out.
NC certainly did at 2.6, but it’s shortened considerably in the last week (for obvious reasons).
With only a month and a bit to go, it might also be worth considering some of the shorter odds, fairly certain states for Harris (I think most of that category for Trump are just too short odds to be interesting).
I don't know what others mean with their terms but when I say I think a 'big' Harris win is quite likely (about a 30% chance) what I mean is her winning both the PV and the EC by more than Biden did.
As I've always been pretty antisocial those events I've attended which might have led to significant peer pressure to drink have been limited, and once I was an adult even events others drink at I just never felt any desire to do the same, since part of the point of being an adult is telling people to bugger off if they pressure you. Unless people are planning to get blitzed it's easy to have social enjoyment without booze, and you don't have to be a buzzkill to those who are drinking.
Now it's become kind of a thing, and I don't really think about it. My brother enjoys a bit of whisky, I've thought maybe it would be worth trying.
I contrast it with my lack of drug use, in that whilst I am fairly liberal on the idea in general, I also have experience of relatives who have ruined themselves through drug use, so I'm much firmer in just not wanting to go down that kind of path.
@Foxy: I occasionally download PB articles and convert them to speech via text-to-speech tools like https://luvvoice.com/ . It took a bit of work but I got your article down to 6000 characters and will now listen to it periodically. Thank you.
I hated swimming as well, and I've taught myself to swim front crawl 'properly' since January. Since I've been going to the pool three or four times a week, I've started loving it. I'm no good - I went to see a coach in an endless pool a couple of weeks ago, and just about everything in my stroke is 'wrong' - but I can improve, and I can do 1,500 metre in open water, or 3km in the pool.
I've not done a duathlon yet, but there's a couple coming up later in the year that look interesting.
As for bikes: last Sunday I was on my £450 Halfords bike when I overtook a couple of athletes on much more expensive tribikes pushing them up the one steep hill. That made me feel moderately competent...
The greater hope is that she can have majorities in both Houses too. The Senate will be tough - but Florida and Texas are in play to counter the loss of Montana.
Today’s stupid story is the election officials who have listed a Republican candidate as a Democrat on the ballot papers in Minnesota. https://x.com/tpostmillennial/status/1837783943937954267
1) the original stories about immigrants eating pets turned out to be Twatter grade bullshit. Demonstrably false.
2) no subsequent actual evidence has been presented that immigrant are/were eating pets.
There is more evidence that a certain Spectator journalist was guilty of rape than there is that immigrants in Springfield are trashing their diets by eating Bubbles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbS4Ivl85GQ&t=30s
'It was a hard one to turn down... one of my children was keen to go'
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson explains why she accepted free @taylorswift13 tickets earlier this year"
https://x.com/ITVNewsPolitics/status/1837828537954238474
This honestly reminds me of the excuses I once heard when I was banged up. From robbers. "Well, 'e was just wanderin around with that ten grand watch on his arm, it was a hard one to turn down"
'He paid for your birthday party.'
'He did.'
'Was that essential to secure a Labour government?'
Aontú have set themselves up explicitly as a socially conservative Irish Republican party and they aren't making a large amount of headway at the moment.
Of course last time there were dozens of baseless and frivilous legal challenges after the result (which is demonstrated by nearly all being tossed out very simply), but they've all learned somewhat from that in that some of them failed last time because the challenges were to processes already agreed to, and couldn't be tossed out part way through. So sides are trying to get some wins in advance.
One theory now is that the Trump appointed postal service chap is deliberately cocking things up to form the basis of some challenges. Could well be just a silly conspiracy theory from the Dems, but that there will be challenges is not. And I suspect Democrats will have plenty of their own to file this time too, they don't want to be caught out.
On 3. Most of the recent polling has Harris well ahead of Trump on favorability with Independents
On 4. The only poll of union members generally that I have seen had Harris well ahead.
Of course Trump might win but cherry picking the one poll that agrees with you as @Renegade_pollster has done isn't an objective way of looking at the race.
People last time were less prepared to contest Biden's win, so several key officials held firm, and the courts did too. The former are definitely more up for contesting this time around, but it's one thing to intend it, but if facing an obvious loss many will lose the will to follow through on that.
Now if Trump wins I wouldn't expect Harris herself to go full 2020 Trump on it, but I can see some Dems being tempted to toss spanners into the gears where they can - that is the effect of the taboo on refusing to concede being broken.
And then it's fine. Because Ministers do it
In a capricious world without much apparent individual control such as a battlefield there is a strong affinity for the supernatural, whether luck, superstition or religion. The direct personal relationship with Jesus of American Evangelicals is then at the fore, particularly in the demographics that the armed forces recruit from. That direct relationship includes anything positive that happens and is heavily infused with patriotic and military values.
Johnny Cash gets it over better than I can in this classic:
https://youtu.be/F5h2GJN09-A?feature=shared
The occasional concert ticket or day at Lord's is not exactly intense corruption, we have gifts registers for politicians high and low and though we need to be morally strict with those in power over us we don't expect never accepting anything, but that's not a good way of defending the practice.
So it's just a matter of degree - eg Trump/MAGA is close to 100% that.
Apparently a poll of Teamsters Union members found Trump getting a clear majority in favour of him . But it was the Dems who voted to save Teamsters pensions by voting for the American Rescue Act in 2021.
Not a single GOP House member voted for that .
And Trump said striking workers should be fired .
This is what you’re up against , turkeys voting for Christmas.
Fucking unbelieveable, they are not only venal they are really bad at being venal, they haven't got any good excuses ready to go. And the SMILING as she explains her free 14k birthday party!!
All of them, they're all doing it, and they've all just spent ten years slamming the Tories for the same
What a shower
Politics is very much about identity and values.
Which is incidentally where Starmer and Reeves are going wrong. They are being transactional with people.
"Every longtime fugitive I've ever run down expects me to congratulate them for not doing what no one is supposed to be doing anyhow"
(He does actually let the con go in that case though)
In paritcular the type of exceptionalism that sees England as exceptionally bad, or pretty bog standard national tropes and trends, seen in a lot of places, as being very unusual and an example of England thinking itself to be exceptional.
Or more pithily, that there is nothing very exceptional about exceptionalism. If there was not a personal benefit to 'donating' to get really intimate access to the great and the good, why does it cost so much to get that access in the first place?
(I suppose if you are fortunate your parents paid the cost by paying the schools fees at Eton or wherever, so you are in the friend group early on).
Labour are painting a portrait of themselves as clueless, smirking, hypocritical grifters which is going to be REALLY hard to change, now that it is set in place
Once again, a whole lot of faux outrage from a party with huge experience of venality and corruption when in Government in the preceding decade or so. Indeed, plenty were happy to defend Johnson in the ditch until the very end but that was fine because it was "good old Boris".
Not true of course and the key point isn't or aren't the gifts themselves but a) what Starmer, Reeves and others said before the election about how they were going to comport themselves once in Government and b) the juxtaposition of ministers going to parties and concerts for free while taking away the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, some of whom admittedly don't need it but many others do and the cliff edge of a claiming process meaning for having as much as £3 too much, you lose £250 which is absurd.
Private sector has announced ~$60B in projects in battery mfg, critical minerals and supply chain. DOE MESC office announced $5B in grants to support 39 more projects. We are on track to go from a negligible share of extraction and processing in 2021, to 50-80% of the supply we need for US deployment in 2030.
https://x.com/JigarShahDC/status/1837687725144539382
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/joe-biden-defense-gun-case-jeffrey-barton-116178
If a party votes against laws that seek to help you or puts in place laws that make your life harder then surely there must come a point where you question that.
Unfortunately for Ms Phillipson, she was one of the most vocal critics of Boris' lockdown parties, when he tried to use the same excuse as her - "actually, it was just a work event"
Oh dear, oh dear
I wonder if part of the problem for Labour is that the Tories have been so chaotic and shite for so long Labour have not received anything like enough press scrutiny, so Labour are
1. Totally unused to criticism and interrogation and thrown by it when it happens, and
2. Have developed a feeling that people don't mind if they do dodgy stuff, as no one has complained YET
Oh dear, oh dear
The Dems tried their best to get RFK Jr off the ballot in many states, only to then go back to court to force his name to remain on the ballot after he backed Trump.
Last time there were a number of states within 1%, which makes recounts and challenges almost inevitable. My hope is that there’s enough of a margin to one candidate or the other, that there’s a clear winner as soon as possible after Election Day. That the whole process can run for days or even weeks, doesn’t help with the perception of underhandedness.
Sadly we can probably expect political violence at some point, the candidates themselves have for months been using terrible language to describe each other.
It is possible to see him overcoming that to win the electoral college by say 50-60.
It is very hard to see him overcoming that gap to win a landslide.
Meanwhile, there a plausible pathways for Harris to do so, although it isn't by any means the likeliest outcome.
I've been hoping to have time for a thread header on why the decline in split ticketing might hurt Trump more than the down ballot races in this election. Alas, not yet.
Whatever one thinks on the issue, the CofE position is patently ridiculous.
It's why Walz was such a clever pick. He gets this over in a way that Shapiro etc could not.
NEVER AGAIN
It’s because if you make something a policy plank, you will be judged by your own policy.
National Conservatives and Faragistes want to fit him up as a raving, transgenderism-imposing, extreme liberal. Whilst others want to frame Welby as a vacuous, zonked-out, hands-waving, happy-clappy charismatic evangelical from HTB.
We are all human beings, and Welby is - for example - illegitimate and he only found out in 2016 that his dad was not his mum's husband and he came from a drunken tumble in the hay, but he has also done things such as spent 5 years as Canon for Reconciliation at Coventry Cathedral which involves being responsible the Community of the Cross of Nails. Wearing that hat he used to travel the world working in conflict resolution. There's always more than meets the eye.
For another one from the HTB orbit, the famous Vicar of Baghdad, Canon Andrew White, was a Curate at an HTB Church Plant called St Marks, Battersea Rise. Then he went to be a priest in Baghdad.
Similarly HTB. This for example, is a leaflet from an organisation set up there in the late 1980s called Grandmas to support children affected by their parents having AIDS, in London. They used to send volunteers to give parents respite, and to do handyman jobs. It was an idea of a congregation member, who HTB supported in setting up a charity. They ended up working across London. There are scores of such organisations. Again - more than meets the eye.
https://wellcomecollection.org/works/bfm8p4ys/items
It is, shall we say, quite a lot more negative than that