On the subject of the Conservative leadership, I think they should go with Kemi.
Yes, she has problems, and there is a risk that she comes over as lightweight and/or implodes. But I believe she is intelligent and - for a politician - broadly moral. Like Gove, I think she has an interest in seeking out solutions to problems.
That said: she has had little experience of actually managing things, and is apparently thin skinned. One can also only hope that her off the cuff comments are just humour.
Not perfect, then, but I consider Jenrick to be morally challenged. And a charisma vacuum.
Jenrick is a better speaker than Badenoch and more likely to hold onto most 2024 Tory voters and more likely to be able to make inroads with redwall Labour voters as Starmer becomes unpopular.
Reform voters will largely stick with Farage over Badenoch or Jenrick, neither will likely win back LD ex Tory voters either
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
It isn't possible to form a rational judgment against the existence of free will, since any such judgment in your mind must, if correct, have arisen by necessity from the operations of the laws of nature beginning before you were were born and so your opinion on the matter arises from necessity not considered judgment, and therefore it is irrational to place any reliance on it. Because you have no free will, you have no choice about placing your reliance on it of course, so the very idea of rationality can be thrown out of the window.
All existing evidence suggest that God, resiling from an infinitude of uneventful timelessness, created the universe for His own entertainment. He enjoys it through the senses of every sentient creature, not just humans. When you crush a fly God experiences the act from both points of view. When a man vanquishes his rival God marks both the triumph and the pity with equanimity. Only humans, with our severely limited perspective, are inclined to take sides. God doesn't care what happens next, as long as it's interesting.
Two important corollaries arise from this: (a) you may logically thank God if something nice happens ... but don't expect Him to help out if something nasty rears its head, and (b) anyone who invokes the name of God in support of their personal opinions about human conduct is either a fool or a charlatan.
It’s certainly true that the debate always circles around whether there is or isn’t a god, and often it seems to be assumed that if the answer is yes, then worship and religion is a given. I strongly doubt the answer is yes, but if it is, there is a whole stack of potential types of gods where worship would be either futile or unjustifiable.
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
It isn't possible to form a rational judgment against the existence of free will, since any such judgment in your mind must, if correct, have arisen by necessity from the operations of the laws of nature beginning before you were were born and so your opinion on the matter arises from necessity not considered judgment, and therefore it is irrational to place any reliance on it. Because you have no free will, you have no choice about placing your reliance on it of course, so the very idea of rationality can be thrown out of the window.
All existing evidence suggest that God, resiling from an infinitude of uneventful timelessness, created the universe for His own entertainment. He enjoys it through the senses of every sentient creature, not just humans. When you crush a fly God experiences the act from both points of view. When a man vanquishes his rival God marks both the triumph and the pity with equanimity. Only humans, with our severely limited perspective, are inclined to take sides. God doesn't care what happens next, as long as it's interesting.
Two important corollaries arise from this: (a) you may logically thank God if something nice happens ... but don't expect Him to help out if something nasty rears its head, and (b) anyone who invokes the name of God in support of their personal opinions about human conduct is either a fool or a charlatan.
It’s certainly true that the debate always circles around whether there is or isn’t a god, and often it seems to be assumed that if the answer is yes, then worship and religion is a given. I strongly doubt the answer is yes, but if it is, there is a whole stack of potential types of gods where worship would be either futile or unjustifiable.
Your comments on PB provide great reassurance to the agnostic dyslexic community about the existence of dog.
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
It isn't possible to form a rational judgment against the existence of free will, since any such judgment in your mind must, if correct, have arisen by necessity from the operations of the laws of nature beginning before you were were born and so your opinion on the matter arises from necessity not considered judgment, and therefore it is irrational to place any reliance on it. Because you have no free will, you have no choice about placing your reliance on it of course, so the very idea of rationality can be thrown out of the window.
All existing evidence suggest that God, resiling from an infinitude of uneventful timelessness, created the universe for His own entertainment. He enjoys it through the senses of every sentient creature, not just humans. When you crush a fly God experiences the act from both points of view. When a man vanquishes his rival God marks both the triumph and the pity with equanimity. Only humans, with our severely limited perspective, are inclined to take sides. God doesn't care what happens next, as long as it's interesting.
Two important corollaries arise from this: (a) you may logically thank God if something nice happens ... but don't expect Him to help out if something nasty rears its head, and (b) anyone who invokes the name of God in support of their personal opinions about human conduct is either a fool or a charlatan.
It’s certainly true that the debate always circles around whether there is or isn’t a god, and often it seems to be assumed that if the answer is yes, then worship and religion is a given. I strongly doubt the answer is yes, but if it is, there is a whole stack of potential types of gods where worship would be either futile or unjustifiable.
Alternatively even some atheists would agree with much of the teaching of Jesus Christ. Even if they don't believe he is God.
Most of the Ten Commandments are also the foundation of a civilised society
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
It isn't possible to form a rational judgment against the existence of free will, since any such judgment in your mind must, if correct, have arisen by necessity from the operations of the laws of nature beginning before you were were born and so your opinion on the matter arises from necessity not considered judgment, and therefore it is irrational to place any reliance on it. Because you have no free will, you have no choice about placing your reliance on it of course, so the very idea of rationality can be thrown out of the window.
All existing evidence suggest that God, resiling from an infinitude of uneventful timelessness, created the universe for His own entertainment. He enjoys it through the senses of every sentient creature, not just humans. When you crush a fly God experiences the act from both points of view. When a man vanquishes his rival God marks both the triumph and the pity with equanimity. Only humans, with our severely limited perspective, are inclined to take sides. God doesn't care what happens next, as long as it's interesting.
Two important corollaries arise from this: (a) you may logically thank God if something nice happens ... but don't expect Him to help out if something nasty rears its head, and (b) anyone who invokes the name of God in support of their personal opinions about human conduct is either a fool or a charlatan.
It’s certainly true that the debate always circles around whether there is or isn’t a god, and often it seems to be assumed that if the answer is yes, then worship and religion is a given. I strongly doubt the answer is yes, but if it is, there is a whole stack of potential types of gods where worship would be either futile or unjustifiable.
Alternatively even some atheists would agree with much of the teaching of Jesus Christ. Even if they don't believe he is God.
Most of the Ten Commandments are also the foundation of a civilised society
You don’t need to invent a Santa in the sky to understand that killing other people is bad.
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
It isn't possible to form a rational judgment against the existence of free will, since any such judgment in your mind must, if correct, have arisen by necessity from the operations of the laws of nature beginning before you were were born and so your opinion on the matter arises from necessity not considered judgment, and therefore it is irrational to place any reliance on it. Because you have no free will, you have no choice about placing your reliance on it of course, so the very idea of rationality can be thrown out of the window.
All existing evidence suggest that God, resiling from an infinitude of uneventful timelessness, created the universe for His own entertainment. He enjoys it through the senses of every sentient creature, not just humans. When you crush a fly God experiences the act from both points of view. When a man vanquishes his rival God marks both the triumph and the pity with equanimity. Only humans, with our severely limited perspective, are inclined to take sides. God doesn't care what happens next, as long as it's interesting.
Two important corollaries arise from this: (a) you may logically thank God if something nice happens ... but don't expect Him to help out if something nasty rears its head, and (b) anyone who invokes the name of God in support of their personal opinions about human conduct is either a fool or a charlatan.
It’s certainly true that the debate always circles around whether there is or isn’t a god, and often it seems to be assumed that if the answer is yes, then worship and religion is a given. I strongly doubt the answer is yes, but if it is, there is a whole stack of potential types of gods where worship would be either futile or unjustifiable.
Alternatively even some atheists would agree with much of the teaching of Jesus Christ. Even if they don't believe he is God.
Most of the Ten Commandments are also the foundation of a civilised society
You don’t need to invent a Santa in the sky to understand that killing other people is bad.
Although fear of the fiery depths of hell may help stop people doing bad things
"The Tories have a chance – but only if they elect a leader willing to disrupt Questioning bankrupt orthodoxies is a step towards devising workable solutions."
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
It isn't possible to form a rational judgment against the existence of free will, since any such judgment in your mind must, if correct, have arisen by necessity from the operations of the laws of nature beginning before you were were born and so your opinion on the matter arises from necessity not considered judgment, and therefore it is irrational to place any reliance on it. Because you have no free will, you have no choice about placing your reliance on it of course, so the very idea of rationality can be thrown out of the window.
All existing evidence suggest that God, resiling from an infinitude of uneventful timelessness, created the universe for His own entertainment. He enjoys it through the senses of every sentient creature, not just humans. When you crush a fly God experiences the act from both points of view. When a man vanquishes his rival God marks both the triumph and the pity with equanimity. Only humans, with our severely limited perspective, are inclined to take sides. God doesn't care what happens next, as long as it's interesting.
Two important corollaries arise from this: (a) you may logically thank God if something nice happens ... but don't expect Him to help out if something nasty rears its head, and (b) anyone who invokes the name of God in support of their personal opinions about human conduct is either a fool or a charlatan.
It’s certainly true that the debate always circles around whether there is or isn’t a god, and often it seems to be assumed that if the answer is yes, then worship and religion is a given. I strongly doubt the answer is yes, but if it is, there is a whole stack of potential types of gods where worship would be either futile or unjustifiable.
Alternatively even some atheists would agree with much of the teaching of Jesus Christ. Even if they don't believe he is God.
Most of the Ten Commandments are also the foundation of a civilised society
I agree with almost all the teaching of Jesus Christ. Except that bit about a camel's eye. That bit, I'm not that keen on.
"The Tories have a chance – but only if they elect a leader willing to disrupt Questioning bankrupt orthodoxies is a step towards devising workable solutions."
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Everyone on this site should be a deist, based on Pascal’s wager if nothing else
An omniscient deity isn’t going to be impressed by that.
Apparently omniscient deities are super concerned by things like arcane ecclesiastical procedures and not eating certain foods, so I wouldn't be so sure.
The eating certain foods were just elf’n’safety regulations, but they knew that people alway ignore the rules so they asked God to promulgate them
On the subject of the Conservative leadership, I think they should go with Kemi.
Yes, she has problems, and there is a risk that she comes over as lightweight and/or implodes. But I believe she is intelligent and - for a politician - broadly moral. Like Gove, I think she has an interest in seeking out solutions to problems.
That said: she has had little experience of actually managing things, and is apparently thin skinned. One can also only hope that her off the cuff comments are just humour.
Not perfect, then, but I consider Jenrick to be morally challenged. And a charisma vacuum.
I agree. What a pair! But that is the pair and Badenoch is the least bad of the two - whoever is not Jenrick will always be the least bad of the two.
A quibble where you say she has had little experience of managing things. That's because she didn't bother, not because of a lack of opportunity. She's had several high profile ministerial posts, in which she did very little.
Yes, that rather belies Robert's idea that "Like Gove, I think she has an interest in seeking out solutions to problems."
Like Gove, she has some very fixed opinions about particular issues, which seem unlikely to be modified by experience, I think ?
One other reason to vote for Kemi is the somewhat delicious spectre of the BBC hailing her as the first black person to become leader of a UK political party, and then her immediately telling them to fuck off and end identity politics.
One other reason to vote for Kemi is the somewhat delicious spectre of the BBC hailing her as the first black person to become leader of a UK political party, and then her immediately telling them to fuck off and end identity politics.
I'm LOLling at the fact Labour MPs are now in trouble over Taylor Swift tickets.
Here's what an intelligent person would do: tell the person offering them that you would accept them, but only if the tickets go to a local children's home. Let a couple of children (and, of course, helper...) have the experience.
It'd be interesting to know if the person offering would accept the transfer...
That way you could appear blameless, *and* give some kids a great experience.
I respect everyone who posts on PB (honest) but two people I feel a lot of political affinity with are Sandpit and Cookie. And they are both opposite to me in the Tory candidate they favour, for what it seems are the same reasons. We are suspicious that our less liked candidate isn't sincere in their intentions to challenge the establishment and create a secure country and a dynamic economy, and is actually a creature of the party establishment. With our more-liked candidate we feel optimistic that they will challenge Labour, cease hemorrhaging votes to Reform (and come to an accommodation with them if necessary), and present right wing solutions in a thoughtful way that will have wide apeal. Hopefully we are both wrong (and right).
Sorry I'm caught in the double negatives. Who is the candidate that you prefer, and who is the candidate that Sandpit/Cookie prefer?
I'm LOLling at the fact Labour MPs are now in trouble over Taylor Swift tickets.
Here's what an intelligent person would do: tell the person offering them that you would accept them, but only if the tickets go to a local children's home. Let a couple of children (and, of course, helper...) have the experience.
It'd be interesting to know if the person offering would accept the transfer...
That way you could appear blameless, *and* give some kids a great experience.
Surely the children in the home have suffered enough.
(in other betting news, I just backed tim walz as next president - obviously not for much - at an average price slighly better than 950. That's value imo in the current situation with the hurricaine)
Is Kamala anywhere near the high winds?
More to the point perhaps, is Chump's Gin Palace at Mar-a-Lago at risk?
I'm LOLling at the fact Labour MPs are now in trouble over Taylor Swift tickets.
Here's what an intelligent person would do: tell the person offering them that you would accept them, but only if the tickets go to a local children's home. Let a couple of children (and, of course, helper...) have the experience.
It'd be interesting to know if the person offering would accept the transfer...
That way you could appear blameless, *and* give some kids a great experience.
Though to paraphrase Swift: grifters gonna grift, grift, grift.
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
It isn't possible to form a rational judgment against the existence of free will, since any such judgment in your mind must, if correct, have arisen by necessity from the operations of the laws of nature beginning before you were were born and so your opinion on the matter arises from necessity not considered judgment, and therefore it is irrational to place any reliance on it. Because you have no free will, you have no choice about placing your reliance on it of course, so the very idea of rationality can be thrown out of the window.
All existing evidence suggest that God, resiling from an infinitude of uneventful timelessness, created the universe for His own entertainment. He enjoys it through the senses of every sentient creature, not just humans. When you crush a fly God experiences the act from both points of view. When a man vanquishes his rival God marks both the triumph and the pity with equanimity. Only humans, with our severely limited perspective, are inclined to take sides. God doesn't care what happens next, as long as it's interesting.
Two important corollaries arise from this: (a) you may logically thank God if something nice happens ... but don't expect Him to help out if something nasty rears its head, and (b) anyone who invokes the name of God in support of their personal opinions about human conduct is either a fool or a charlatan.
It’s certainly true that the debate always circles around whether there is or isn’t a god, and often it seems to be assumed that if the answer is yes, then worship and religion is a given. I strongly doubt the answer is yes, but if it is, there is a whole stack of potential types of gods where worship would be either futile or unjustifiable.
Alternatively even some atheists would agree with much of the teaching of Jesus Christ. Even if they don't believe he is God.
Most of the Ten Commandments are also the foundation of a civilised society
I agree with almost all the teaching of Jesus Christ. Except that bit about a camel's eye. That bit, I'm not that keen on.
Not sure about not appreciating your neighbour's ass either.
On the subject of the Conservative leadership, I think they should go with Kemi.
Yes, she has problems, and there is a risk that she comes over as lightweight and/or implodes. But I believe she is intelligent and - for a politician - broadly moral. Like Gove, I think she has an interest in seeking out solutions to problems.
That said: she has had little experience of actually managing things, and is apparently thin skinned. One can also only hope that her off the cuff comments are just humour.
Not perfect, then, but I consider Jenrick to be morally challenged. And a charisma vacuum.
I agree. What a pair! But that is the pair and Badenoch is the least bad of the two - whoever is not Jenrick will always be the least bad of the two.
A quibble where you say she has had little experience of managing things. That's because she didn't bother, not because of a lack of opportunity. She's had several high profile ministerial posts, in which she did very little.
Yes, that rather belies Robert's idea that "Like Gove, I think she has an interest in seeking out solutions to problems."
Like Gove, she has some very fixed opinions about particular issues, which seem unlikely to be modified by experience, I think ?
I think Badenoch's core problem, leaving aside her aggression, obsessions and random WTFs, is her laziness. You can't be a politician operating at the highest level and be lazy at the same time. Not even Boris Johnson got away with it in the end.
A long time ago a former partner and I decided we wanted to live abroad for a year.
We had no ties whatsoever (apart from somewhere we could teach English) and yet, through a process of eliminating all the options that one or other of us couldn't accept, we ended up in Machala in Ecuador: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machala
Those feeling generous about Machala call it the banana capital of the world. Those feeling less generous call it a gang- and drug - infested hellhole (you routinely had to go through a metal detector just to get on a bus because so many buses were hijacked at gunpoint). In reality it was somewhere in between.
This Tory party contest is triggering flashbacks for me. The party had free choice of leader and has somehow ended up with a choice between Machala and somewhere else even worse.
I'm no longer with my former partner. It was the only sane thing to do. PB Tories, I am available for relationship advice for a small hourly retainer.
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
It isn't possible to form a rational judgment against the existence of free will, since any such judgment in your mind must, if correct, have arisen by necessity from the operations of the laws of nature beginning before you were were born and so your opinion on the matter arises from necessity not considered judgment, and therefore it is irrational to place any reliance on it. Because you have no free will, you have no choice about placing your reliance on it of course, so the very idea of rationality can be thrown out of the window.
All existing evidence suggest that God, resiling from an infinitude of uneventful timelessness, created the universe for His own entertainment. He enjoys it through the senses of every sentient creature, not just humans. When you crush a fly God experiences the act from both points of view. When a man vanquishes his rival God marks both the triumph and the pity with equanimity. Only humans, with our severely limited perspective, are inclined to take sides. God doesn't care what happens next, as long as it's interesting.
Two important corollaries arise from this: (a) you may logically thank God if something nice happens ... but don't expect Him to help out if something nasty rears its head, and (b) anyone who invokes the name of God in support of their personal opinions about human conduct is either a fool or a charlatan.
It’s certainly true that the debate always circles around whether there is or isn’t a god, and often it seems to be assumed that if the answer is yes, then worship and religion is a given. I strongly doubt the answer is yes, but if it is, there is a whole stack of potential types of gods where worship would be either futile or unjustifiable.
Alternatively even some atheists would agree with much of the teaching of Jesus Christ. Even if they don't believe he is God.
Most of the Ten Commandments are also the foundation of a civilised society
I agree with almost all the teaching of Jesus Christ. Except that bit about a camel's eye. That bit, I'm not that keen on.
It's probably a mistranslation, the Aramaic for camel and fishing rope being written identically.
One other reason to vote for Kemi is the somewhat delicious spectre of the BBC hailing her as the first black person to become leader of a UK political party, and then her immediately telling them to fuck off and end identity politics.
Might be worth it just for that.
To paraphrase the current president of the USA “if you are voting Tory, you ain’t black” will be the BBC position. Remember Lady T was never a ‘proper woman’, the normalisation of none white people in cabinet positions under Cameron and even more so Boris is barely remarked on as mostly the latter but occasionally the former are denounced as racist. We had a local anti racist pressure group defend quite stridently Diane Abbot when she said some racist things saying that it wasn’t possible for a black person to be racist because racism was about structural powers etc etc.
Such subtleties however abandoned them with their denouncements of Pritti Patel and Suella Braverman.
I respect everyone who posts on PB (honest) but two people I feel a lot of political affinity with are Sandpit and Cookie. And they are both opposite to me in the Tory candidate they favour, for what it seems are the same reasons. We are suspicious that our less liked candidate isn't sincere in their intentions to challenge the establishment and create a secure country and a dynamic economy, and is actually a creature of the party establishment. With our more-liked candidate we feel optimistic that they will challenge Labour, cease hemorrhaging votes to Reform (and come to an accommodation with them if necessary), and present right wing solutions in a thoughtful way that will have wide apeal. Hopefully we are both wrong (and right).
Why does it have to be so factional/binary?
We are all Conservatives and there will be lots of things we agree on, and others where we perhaps prioritise or place more importance on slightly different things.
There are no litmus tests.
For the past thirty years the question "is he/she one of us?" gets asked by every Tory leader. For all her undoubted gifts and charisma, Margaret Thatcher was extremely polarising, even within the Conservative Party. All subsequent leaders from Major to Hague, to Duncan Smith, to Howard often faced open rebellion. Cameron managed to squeak a victory in 2010 and faced less resistance, until his Brexit vote allowed the fruit cakes and loonies (and closet racists) to get their revenge. May was initially ruthless with her "citizen of nowhere" speech and in purging Osborne and other prominent Cameroons, but more than misread the room as far as previously Tory Remainers were concerned. Johnson, of course, smashed the folk memory of CCHQ and purged an awful lot of genuine Conservatives and in doing so may have destroyed the well educated, middle class core of the party. Truss was so inept that she was purged herself, like Duncan Smith. Sunak was still dealing with the Johnson legacy and was constantly dealing with "the letters" to the point that July 4th was more or less forced on him, with catastrophic results.
The Tories obsession with talismanic leadership has been mostly disastrous. The choice of Jenrick v Badenoch is not going to recover the aspirational middle class. It may be too soon to say the oldest and most successful political party in Western Europe is over, but it is not looking good. Chaotic and inept, out of touch and increasingly detached from wealth creators, it is hard to think of a single effective policy proposal in recent years that was not simply an ill conceived gimmick.
I see no ideological core, like that which, for example, Keith Joseph once provided. All I see is second rate ineptitude offered by dishonest, unprincipled chancers.
Granted the Tories are not Labour, but what, in fact, are they? If any Tory MP even says the word "Rwanda", then they should be sent there with a one way ticket. The Party needs to get a grip and offer a coherent and workable set of economic policies, and I see no one on the current front bench that can even understand economic policy, let alone craft a position on the issues of the day.
Under the circumstances the fact that neither Badenoch nor Jenrick are likely ever to become PM is a small mercy.
I can easily see Badenoch becoming PM. Labour can't beat her on racism because she's a black woman, they can't beat her on immigration because Labour likes immigration, they can't beat her on anti-trans because they are on the same side, they can't beat her on economic competence because they gave Ed Milliband 22bn to spunk up the wall on forfuckssake carbon capture, they can't beat her on benefits because they are on the same side, that can't beat her on corruption because Starmer is also corrupt...in short, what can Labour beat her *with*?
They can beat her by being apparently normal people with normal people's concerns. Labour wouldn't be able to do so against Cleverly and may not be able to do so against Jenrick, although he has other character flaws.
Yup. Badenoch will be off fighting imported American culture war nonsense that no real people give a shit about, leaving Labour to focus on trying to make the country work again and the Lib Dems to pick off more Tory seats next time around.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Everyone on this site should be a deist, based on Pascal’s wager if nothing else
An omniscient deity isn’t going to be impressed by that.
Apparently omniscient deities are super concerned by things like arcane ecclesiastical procedures and not eating certain foods, so I wouldn't be so sure.
The eating certain foods were just elf’n’safety regulations, but they knew that people alway ignore the rules so they asked God to promulgate them
Do you think if God decided to have another child and he came to earth with new instructions on foods that you should avoid. Hydrogenated vegetable fat and high fructose corn syrup would be on the list.
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
It isn't possible to form a rational judgment against the existence of free will, since any such judgment in your mind must, if correct, have arisen by necessity from the operations of the laws of nature beginning before you were were born and so your opinion on the matter arises from necessity not considered judgment, and therefore it is irrational to place any reliance on it. Because you have no free will, you have no choice about placing your reliance on it of course, so the very idea of rationality can be thrown out of the window.
All existing evidence suggest that God, resiling from an infinitude of uneventful timelessness, created the universe for His own entertainment. He enjoys it through the senses of every sentient creature, not just humans. When you crush a fly God experiences the act from both points of view. When a man vanquishes his rival God marks both the triumph and the pity with equanimity. Only humans, with our severely limited perspective, are inclined to take sides. God doesn't care what happens next, as long as it's interesting.
Two important corollaries arise from this: (a) you may logically thank God if something nice happens ... but don't expect Him to help out if something nasty rears its head, and (b) anyone who invokes the name of God in support of their personal opinions about human conduct is either a fool or a charlatan.
It’s certainly true that the debate always circles around whether there is or isn’t a god, and often it seems to be assumed that if the answer is yes, then worship and religion is a given. I strongly doubt the answer is yes, but if it is, there is a whole stack of potential types of gods where worship would be either futile or unjustifiable.
Alternatively even some atheists would agree with much of the teaching of Jesus Christ. Even if they don't believe he is God.
Most of the Ten Commandments are also the foundation of a civilised society
I agree with almost all the teaching of Jesus Christ. Except that bit about a camel's eye. That bit, I'm not that keen on.
It's probably a mistranslation, the Aramaic for camel and fishing rope being written identically.
I respect everyone who posts on PB (honest) but two people I feel a lot of political affinity with are Sandpit and Cookie. And they are both opposite to me in the Tory candidate they favour, for what it seems are the same reasons. We are suspicious that our less liked candidate isn't sincere in their intentions to challenge the establishment and create a secure country and a dynamic economy, and is actually a creature of the party establishment. With our more-liked candidate we feel optimistic that they will challenge Labour, cease hemorrhaging votes to Reform (and come to an accommodation with them if necessary), and present right wing solutions in a thoughtful way that will have wide apeal. Hopefully we are both wrong (and right).
Why does it have to be so factional/binary?
We are all Conservatives and there will be lots of things we agree on, and others where we perhaps prioritise or place more importance on slightly different things.
There are no litmus tests.
For the past thirty years the question "is he/she one of us?" gets asked by every Tory leader. For all her undoubted gifts and charisma, Margaret Thatcher was extremely polarising, even within the Conservative Party. All subsequent leaders from Major to Hague, to Duncan Smith, to Howard often faced open rebellion. Cameron managed to squeak a victory in 2010 and faced less resistance, until his Brexit vote allowed the fruit cakes and loonies (and closet racists) to get their revenge. May was initially ruthless with her "citizen of nowhere" speech and in purging Osborne and other prominent Cameroons, but more than misread the room as far as previously Tory Remainers were concerned. Johnson, of course, smashed the folk memory of CCHQ and purged an awful lot of genuine Conservatives and in doing so may have destroyed the well educated, middle class core of the party. Truss was so inept that she was purged herself, like Duncan Smith. Sunak was still dealing with the Johnson legacy and was constantly dealing with "the letters" to the point that July 4th was more or less forced on him, with catastrophic results.
The Tories obsession with talismanic leadership has been mostly disastrous. The choice of Jenrick v Badenoch is not going to recover the aspirational middle class. It may be too soon to say the oldest and most successful political party in Western Europe is over, but it is not looking good. Chaotic and inept, out of touch and increasingly detached from wealth creators, it is hard to think of a single effective policy proposal in recent years that was not simply an ill conceived gimmick.
I see no ideological core, like that which, for example, Keith Joseph once provided. All I see is second rate ineptitude offered by dishonest, unprincipled chancers.
Granted the Tories are not Labour, but what, in fact, are they? If any Tory MP even says the word "Rwanda", then they should be sent there with a one way ticket. The Party needs to get a grip and offer a coherent and workable set of economic policies, and I see no one on the current front bench that can even understand economic policy, let alone craft a position on the issues of the day.
Under the circumstances the fact that neither Badenoch nor Jenrick are likely ever to become PM is a small mercy.
I can easily see Badenoch becoming PM. Labour can't beat her on racism because she's a black woman, they can't beat her on immigration because Labour likes immigration, they can't beat her on anti-trans because they are on the same side, they can't beat her on economic competence because they gave Ed Milliband 22bn to spunk up the wall on forfuckssake carbon capture, they can't beat her on benefits because they are on the same side, that can't beat her on corruption because Starmer is also corrupt...in short, what can Labour beat her *with*?
They can beat her by being apparently normal people with normal people's concerns. Labour wouldn't be able to do so against Cleverly and may not be able to do so against Jenrick, although he has other character flaws.
Yup. Badenoch will be off fighting imported American culture war nonsense that no real people give a shit about, leaving Labour to focus on trying to make the country work again and the Lib Dems to pick off more Tory seats next time around.
I think people do care about it, but it’s way down the list from the big things.
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
It isn't possible to form a rational judgment against the existence of free will, since any such judgment in your mind must, if correct, have arisen by necessity from the operations of the laws of nature beginning before you were were born and so your opinion on the matter arises from necessity not considered judgment, and therefore it is irrational to place any reliance on it. Because you have no free will, you have no choice about placing your reliance on it of course, so the very idea of rationality can be thrown out of the window.
All existing evidence suggest that God, resiling from an infinitude of uneventful timelessness, created the universe for His own entertainment. He enjoys it through the senses of every sentient creature, not just humans. When you crush a fly God experiences the act from both points of view. When a man vanquishes his rival God marks both the triumph and the pity with equanimity. Only humans, with our severely limited perspective, are inclined to take sides. God doesn't care what happens next, as long as it's interesting.
Two important corollaries arise from this: (a) you may logically thank God if something nice happens ... but don't expect Him to help out if something nasty rears its head, and (b) anyone who invokes the name of God in support of their personal opinions about human conduct is either a fool or a charlatan.
It’s certainly true that the debate always circles around whether there is or isn’t a god, and often it seems to be assumed that if the answer is yes, then worship and religion is a given. I strongly doubt the answer is yes, but if it is, there is a whole stack of potential types of gods where worship would be either futile or unjustifiable.
Alternatively even some atheists would agree with much of the teaching of Jesus Christ. Even if they don't believe he is God.
Most of the Ten Commandments are also the foundation of a civilised society
I agree with almost all the teaching of Jesus Christ. Except that bit about a camel's eye. That bit, I'm not that keen on.
It's probably a mistranslation, the Aramaic for camel and fishing rope being written identically.
Eye of a needle could be metaphorical......
It was a narrow gate into Jerusalem that had that shape. Camels loaded with wears struggled to get through it without a lot of complaining on their part. Hence the metaphor.
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
It isn't possible to form a rational judgment against the existence of free will, since any such judgment in your mind must, if correct, have arisen by necessity from the operations of the laws of nature beginning before you were were born and so your opinion on the matter arises from necessity not considered judgment, and therefore it is irrational to place any reliance on it. Because you have no free will, you have no choice about placing your reliance on it of course, so the very idea of rationality can be thrown out of the window.
All existing evidence suggest that God, resiling from an infinitude of uneventful timelessness, created the universe for His own entertainment. He enjoys it through the senses of every sentient creature, not just humans. When you crush a fly God experiences the act from both points of view. When a man vanquishes his rival God marks both the triumph and the pity with equanimity. Only humans, with our severely limited perspective, are inclined to take sides. God doesn't care what happens next, as long as it's interesting.
Two important corollaries arise from this: (a) you may logically thank God if something nice happens ... but don't expect Him to help out if something nasty rears its head, and (b) anyone who invokes the name of God in support of their personal opinions about human conduct is either a fool or a charlatan.
It’s certainly true that the debate always circles around whether there is or isn’t a god, and often it seems to be assumed that if the answer is yes, then worship and religion is a given. I strongly doubt the answer is yes, but if it is, there is a whole stack of potential types of gods where worship would be either futile or unjustifiable.
Alternatively even some atheists would agree with much of the teaching of Jesus Christ. Even if they don't believe he is God.
Most of the Ten Commandments are also the foundation of a civilised society
I agree with almost all the teaching of Jesus Christ. Except that bit about a camel's eye. That bit, I'm not that keen on.
It's probably a mistranslation, the Aramaic for camel and fishing rope being written identically.
Eye of a needle could be metaphorical......
My RE teacher told us it was the name of a narrow gate in Jerusalem (or some such West Bank place) that camels struggled to squeeze through. Probably making it up.
My immediate reaction to the result yesterday was that it made it more likely Cleverly would lead the Tories into the next election. But then I had another think about it. In contriving to lose from a winning position of such strength he exhibited a level of political skill so low that he has surely disqualified himself from ever competing for the top job again. I always thought he was the best of the bad bunch. But maybe there really wasn't ever a best choice at all.
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
It isn't possible to form a rational judgment against the existence of free will, since any such judgment in your mind must, if correct, have arisen by necessity from the operations of the laws of nature beginning before you were were born and so your opinion on the matter arises from necessity not considered judgment, and therefore it is irrational to place any reliance on it. Because you have no free will, you have no choice about placing your reliance on it of course, so the very idea of rationality can be thrown out of the window.
All existing evidence suggest that God, resiling from an infinitude of uneventful timelessness, created the universe for His own entertainment. He enjoys it through the senses of every sentient creature, not just humans. When you crush a fly God experiences the act from both points of view. When a man vanquishes his rival God marks both the triumph and the pity with equanimity. Only humans, with our severely limited perspective, are inclined to take sides. God doesn't care what happens next, as long as it's interesting.
Two important corollaries arise from this: (a) you may logically thank God if something nice happens ... but don't expect Him to help out if something nasty rears its head, and (b) anyone who invokes the name of God in support of their personal opinions about human conduct is either a fool or a charlatan.
It’s certainly true that the debate always circles around whether there is or isn’t a god, and often it seems to be assumed that if the answer is yes, then worship and religion is a given. I strongly doubt the answer is yes, but if it is, there is a whole stack of potential types of gods where worship would be either futile or unjustifiable.
Alternatively even some atheists would agree with much of the teaching of Jesus Christ. Even if they don't believe he is God.
Most of the Ten Commandments are also the foundation of a civilised society
I agree with almost all the teaching of Jesus Christ. Except that bit about a camel's eye. That bit, I'm not that keen on.
It's probably a mistranslation, the Aramaic for camel and fishing rope being written identically.
Eye of a needle could be metaphorical......
My RE teacher told us it was the name of a narrow gate in Jerusalem (or some such West Bank place) that camels struggled to squeeze through. Probably making it up.
Well, if he was he certainly wasn't alone. I got taught the same.
One other reason to vote for Kemi is the somewhat delicious spectre of the BBC hailing her as the first black person to become leader of a UK political party, and then her immediately telling them to fuck off and end identity politics.
Might be worth it just for that.
I'm not a Tory, never have voted Tory and my main interest in this is the 6.47 I put on Kemi when her odds drifted.
However, in the words of Kevin Keegan, I would love it, just love it, if she was leader simply due to the contortions the trendy, right on, left would have to go through. An Afro-Caribbean woman as leader of one of the two main parties when Labour has always been boring white men. Delicious.
No doubt she would be labelled a "coconut" and this deemed "satire"
But it would still be worth it for the LOL's (as the young people say)
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Everyone on this site should be a deist, based on Pascal’s wager if nothing else
An omniscient deity isn’t going to be impressed by that.
Apparently omniscient deities are super concerned by things like arcane ecclesiastical procedures and not eating certain foods, so I wouldn't be so sure.
The eating certain foods were just elf’n’safety regulations, but they knew that people alway ignore the rules so they asked God to promulgate them
Do you think if God decided to have another child and he came to earth with new instructions on foods that you should avoid. Hydrogenated vegetable fat and high fructose corn syrup would be on the list.
A few thoughts on the atheism debate. Firstly on agnosticism:
- In common usage, agnosticism generally means being on the fence on whether God exists. And generally about a specific version of God, e.g. the Christian God may or may not exist. I'm sure people put different probabilities, but somewhere around 50:50. Maybe 75:25 one month and 25:75 another. - As defined above, agnosticism is a helpful description. - This has sometimes been taken too literally to mean anyone with any lack of certainty in their position (which is by definition unknowable) - even if you assign it a 0.01% chance - is agnostic. That makes the term utterly meaningless, as it would surely cover most religious people as well as most atheists.
I think atheism is therefore best described as anyone who lacks a belief in any God or a religion, nor do they have a belief they 'on-the-fence' about. Certainty is not required.
For example: - I'm not on the fence as to whether vampires exist. I am vampire atheist. - I'm uncertain as to whether there is intelligent alien life in the Milky Way more advanced that humans. I am agnostic on that point. - I believe there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe somewhere, despite no explicit evidence. I'm theist there.
But in any case, atheism is not a belief system in the same way religion is. But atheists may choose alternative belief systems or philosophies unrelated to any God. Or they may not.
I like your post. But I somewhat disagree with 'a belief system the same way religion is', as I don't think religion is (necessarily mainly) a belief system.
Yes, I agree. Few adherents are clear on theology and fairly often do not believe in key teachings. Many Christians do not believe in hell, many Catholics are comfortable with abortion, etc.
Theology is only one aspect of religion, with other aspects that are social, liturgical, mystical and cultural. For many or most people religion is simply a way of life without deep analysis of belief. The vast majority of people are the religion that they were born to, they don't choose it by deep philosophical dive into theology.
Pakistan have created a few more chances this morning, notably a catch that really should have been taken against Root. But this is tedious cricket and Pakistan are making it even worse with some negative bowling down the leg side that the umpires eventually called wide on.
England will try to get far enough ahead to put some pressure on Pakistan's second innings but unless this pitch suddenly starts doing a lot more this match is heading for a very dull draw, a rare event in test matches these days.
My immediate reaction to the result yesterday was that it made it more likely Cleverly would lead the Tories into the next election. But then I had another think about it. In contriving to lose from a winning position of such strength he exhibited a level of political skill so low that he has surely disqualified himself from ever competing for the top job again. I always thought he was the best of the bad bunch. But maybe there really wasn't ever a best choice at all.
I think the Tories made a big mistake not choosing Cleverly if their objective is to get back into power in the foreseeable future. He was their only plausible candidate to replace Starmer. But I agree if whoever is selected is subsequently replaced by someone more appealing to the voting public it won't now be Cleverly. Apart from anything else he will have more attractive opportunities than waiting in vain to be called back.
I’m just catching up with the news after a whole day driving. Torrential rain from Calais all the way to Chalon sur Saone. And now it seems hurricane Milton is avoiding Tampa Bay and hitting Burgundy instead.
What fun. Badenoch will win, and that will make for an entertaining 5 years. Her personality will divide opinion but it’ll leave less room for Farage’s own brand of charisma.
Good point.
Nigel will not be wanting Kemi to come through the vote.
She's gotta be his worst opponent.
Yougov has Jenrick with a -9% rating with 2024 Reform voters but Badenoch with a -1% rating. Both miles behind Farage on +82% with Reform voters.
Labour voters though give Jenrick a -36% rating to -49% for Badenoch and LD voters Jenrick -32% to -46% for Badenoch.
One other reason to vote for Kemi is the somewhat delicious spectre of the BBC hailing her as the first black person to become leader of a UK political party, and then her immediately telling them to fuck off and end identity politics.
Might be worth it just for that.
I'm not a Tory, never have voted Tory and my main interest in this is the 6.47 I put on Kemi when her odds drifted.
However, in the words of Kevin Keegan, I would love it, just love it, if she was leader simply due to the contortions the trendy, right on, left would have to go through. An Afro-Caribbean woman as leader of one of the two main parties when Labour has always been boring white men. Delicious.
No doubt she would be labelled a "coconut" and this deemed "satire"
But it would still be worth it for the LOL's (as the young people say)
She isn't Afro-Caribbean, she is Black African.
I don't think Labour will have a problem with that, though it does seem to obsess a few on the right.
One other reason to vote for Kemi is the somewhat delicious spectre of the BBC hailing her as the first black person to become leader of a UK political party, and then her immediately telling them to fuck off and end identity politics.
Might be worth it just for that.
I'm not a Tory, never have voted Tory and my main interest in this is the 6.47 I put on Kemi when her odds drifted.
However, in the words of Kevin Keegan, I would love it, just love it, if she was leader simply due to the contortions the trendy, right on, left would have to go through. An Afro-Caribbean woman as leader of one of the two main parties when Labour has always been boring white men. Delicious.
No doubt she would be labelled a "coconut" and this deemed "satire"
But it would still be worth it for the LOL's (as the young people say)
She isn't Afro-Caribbean, she is Black African.
I don't think Labour will have a problem with that, though it does seem to obsess a few on the right.
A most important clarification on her ethnicity. Greatly appreciated.
I think a fair few on the left will, indeed, have contortions over it. Like you seem to be twisting a little
My immediate reaction to the result yesterday was that it made it more likely Cleverly would lead the Tories into the next election. But then I had another think about it. In contriving to lose from a winning position of such strength he exhibited a level of political skill so low that he has surely disqualified himself from ever competing for the top job again. I always thought he was the best of the bad bunch. But maybe there really wasn't ever a best choice at all.
Well quite. I'm not sure how anyone thinks he's capable of turning the British economy around when basic addition and subtraction have proved beyond him.
Comments
Reform voters will largely stick with Farage over Badenoch or Jenrick, neither will likely win back LD ex Tory voters either
Either dodgy Jenrick or crazy Kemi will be a gift to the other parties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1ulBcFCt-E
Dem +1%
Nevada
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Michigan
GOP +1%
North Carolina
Georgia
Arizona
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/pennsylvania/
Most of the Ten Commandments are also the foundation of a civilised society
"The Tories have a chance – but only if they elect a leader willing to disrupt
Questioning bankrupt orthodoxies is a step towards devising workable solutions."
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2024/10/the-tories-have-a-chance-but-only-if-they-elect-a-leader-willing-to-disrupt
"Wimbledon brings in electronic line calling for 2025"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/articles/ce3zg3y23v7o
https://archive.is/uNYlx
Like Gove, she has some very fixed opinions about particular issues, which seem unlikely to be modified by experience, I think ?
Might be worth it just for that.
Here's what an intelligent person would do: tell the person offering them that you would accept them, but only if the tickets go to a local children's home. Let a couple of children (and, of course, helper...) have the experience.
It'd be interesting to know if the person offering would accept the transfer...
That way you could appear blameless, *and* give some kids a great experience.
We had no ties whatsoever (apart from somewhere we could teach English) and yet, through a process of eliminating all the options that one or other of us couldn't accept, we ended up in Machala in Ecuador: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machala
Those feeling generous about Machala call it the banana capital of the world. Those feeling less generous call it a gang- and drug - infested hellhole (you routinely had to go through a metal detector just to get on a bus because so many buses were hijacked at gunpoint). In reality it was somewhere in between.
This Tory party contest is triggering flashbacks for me. The party had free choice of leader and has somehow ended up with a choice between Machala and somewhere else even worse.
I'm no longer with my former partner. It was the only sane thing to do. PB Tories, I am available for relationship advice for a small hourly retainer.
We had a local anti racist pressure group defend quite stridently Diane Abbot when she said some racist things saying that it wasn’t possible for a black person to be racist because racism was about structural powers etc etc.
Such subtleties however abandoned them with their denouncements of Pritti Patel and Suella Braverman.
Just noticed England are 606 for 3
Some score
However, in the words of Kevin Keegan, I would love it, just love it, if she was leader simply due to the contortions the trendy, right on, left would have to go through. An Afro-Caribbean woman as leader of one of the two main parties when Labour has always been boring white men. Delicious.
No doubt she would be labelled a "coconut" and this deemed "satire"
But it would still be worth it for the LOL's (as the young people say)
Did you assume God's gender
Theology is only one aspect of religion, with other aspects that are social, liturgical, mystical and cultural. For many or most people religion is simply a way of life without deep analysis of belief. The vast majority of people are the religion that they were born to, they don't choose it by deep philosophical dive into theology.
England will try to get far enough ahead to put some pressure on Pakistan's second innings but unless this pitch suddenly starts doing a lot more this match is heading for a very dull draw, a rare event in test matches these days.
NEW THREAD
They are both "Who?"
I don't think Labour will have a problem with that, though it does seem to obsess a few on the right.
I think a fair few on the left will, indeed, have contortions over it. Like you seem to be twisting a little
F1: not a surprise, but some info on Alpine being dysfunctional with half the team it seems not reporting to the team principal.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/former-alpine-chief-szafnauer-claims-he-had-absolutely-nothing-to-do-with.7ahHe9BAUOS8IyMBMCbwgh