politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

This explains why the Selzer poll is different to others – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,212
edited November 10 in General
imageThis explains why the Selzer poll is different to others – politicalbetting.com

We’re going to find out in around 72 hours time if the Selzer approach is right, if it is then I think we will see this outside of Iowa and that portends a bigly Harris victory and makes playing the spreads attractive but if I am wrong then you could end up in the poorhouse which makes spread betting so exciting.

Read the full story here

«134567…10

Comments

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972
    (Insert Max Verstappen joke here)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,945
    Mr. Sandpit, being entirely serious, Verstappen to win is one of the many bets I'll be weighing up once Ladbrokes awakens.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,053
    Roll on November 6th, when we can finally stop taking about the US presidential election.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,032
    Sandpit said:

    (Insert Max Verstappen joke here)

    Hoping for a full 26 point gain for Lando in the WDC today!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082
    Start investing in Nikki Haley, for post MAGA Republican nomination?
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 4,089
    In 2020, many expected Biden to walk it based on the polls. It was much narrower.

    This time, the polls are much narrower and people expect it to be very close or for Trump to edge it.

    Have the polls got it wrong, again? And it will actually be a Kamala walkover?

    [My gut still says Trump wins]
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,895
    I want to believe in the Selzer poll, but I look at the approval averages on 538 and the trend is running away from Harris. She's now down to -1.7, with less than a seven-point advantage over Trump, who is on -8.6
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,030
    MarqueeMark said:

    The polling is (arguably) designed to make a close contest to placate the bread and circuses entertainment value of politics. Selzer doesn't play by those rules.

    Some of us have been pointing out the emphasis that past vote ignores those coming into the pool of voters, either young voters or those who normally sit it out. The polling is bound to be off when you only ask a subset of actual voters. If those ignored skew significantly one way, the outcomes are frankly going to be utter shite.

    I find it hard to believe that all other pollsters are conspiring to sell a narrative of a close election, and only one Iowa pollster is telling the truth.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,934
    Malmesbury said:

    Start investing in Nikki Haley, for post MAGA Republican nomination?

    She has a great case to be heard. But I suspect that it will need a clean break though for the Republican Party to reinvent itself.

    The right are going to be a hornery bunch when Trump loses. Vance wiill try to rouse them. He deserves to be thrown to the wolves though. His cats and dogs stuff - picked up by Trump for God knows what reasons - was a cornerstone of the ridicule that Trump suffered.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,172
    edited November 3
    MarqueeMark said:

    The polling is (arguably) designed to make a close contest to placate the bread and circuses entertainment value of politics. Selzer doesn't play by those rules.

    Some of us have been pointing out the emphasis that past vote ignores those coming into the pool of voters, either young voters or those who normally sit it out. The polling is bound to be off when you only ask a subset of actual voters. If those ignored skew significantly one way, the outcomes are frankly going to be utter shite.

    That's too cynical, I think.

    It's more about pollsters trying to adjust their techniques on the basis of the mistakes they made at the last election.
    And making a whole new set of mistakes.

    Selzer just ignores all of that and goes from first principles.

    Pretty hard to do that nationally - though if other pollsters weren't churning out quite so many polls (partly, TBF, for the use of the campaigns), they could probably do something similar.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,956
    edited November 3
    Angry crowds confront the King because he's out of touch.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ypgjg2jrpo
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,934
    RobD said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    The polling is (arguably) designed to make a close contest to placate the bread and circuses entertainment value of politics. Selzer doesn't play by those rules.

    Some of us have been pointing out the emphasis that past vote ignores those coming into the pool of voters, either young voters or those who normally sit it out. The polling is bound to be off when you only ask a subset of actual voters. If those ignored skew significantly one way, the outcomes are frankly going to be utter shite.

    I find it hard to believe that all other pollsters are conspiring to sell a narrative of a close election, and only one Iowa pollster is telling the truth.
    I certainly don't find it hard to believe the Republican biased pollsters are working to make it look like Trump is at least competitive. It then comes down to a methodology that appears to have a big hole in it. If it is obvious to many, you have to ask "Why do they persist with it?"

    Fill in the answer to your taste.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,877
    Thanks for the header. A most enjoyable morning on PB from time to time.

    FPT:
    Theuniondivvie said:

    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Meanwhile, the weekend Rawnsley:

    The new Tory leader takes charge with a tepid endorsement from her party’s members, two-thirds of her parliamentary colleagues preferring someone else and prominent names declaring that they have no desire to serve in her shadow cabinet.

    In her acceptance speech, she described the task ahead as “tough”, which is an understatement. The July election was the worst result for the Conservative party, both in terms of vote share and seats won, since 1832. I am not among those who think this means the Tories can never recover. They have been pronounced dead and buried in the past only then to rise from the grave. But they are unlikely to start recovering until – and unless – they have an honest reckoning with themselves about their multiple failings in government.

    Surveys suggest that very few voters think the Conservatives lost the election because they were too left wing while the majority of those with an opinion put it down to their incompetence.

    One of the biggest challenges for the new leader of the opposition, and especially when the Tory parliamentary presence is so small, will be persuading voters to pay them any heed. The case made for Mrs Badenoch by her promoters is that she is “box office” with a gift for grabbing attention. What she has often failed to grasp is that there is such a thing as the wrong kind of attention. “Still in development” is the assessment of one reasonably sympathetic senior Tory.

    Conservatives have displayed next to no interest in atoning for all the things voters came to loathe about them. There has never been a comprehensive repudiation of Boris Johnson for debauching standards in public life. Nor has there been an expression of suitably abject contrition for Liz Truss’s calamitous experiment with the economy. Nor have senior Tories had the humility to acknowledge that they left a super-massive black hole in the Treasury’s books. When you have fouled up as badly and as repeatedly as the Conservatives did in government, the first step to redemption with the electorate is to own your blunders and express regret for them.

    Even if voters become persistently discontented with Sir Keir’s government, the Tories are delusional if they imagine that this means the public will simply collapse back into their embrace and tell the Conservatives all is forgiven. Not least because so far the Tories have been almost completely incapable of recognising how much forgiveness they will need before they are taken seriously again. If Kemi Badenoch wants to get a hearing from the British people, she is first going to have to say sorry. And she is going to have to say it a lot.

    I think this is why Badenoch was the better choice. Jenrick was continuity sleaze.

    Kemi's victory speech was clear that big mistakes were made by the Tories in office and that they need to have a long hard look at themselves.

    Her musings in the past that WFP should be scrapped (which she rowed back on when it became Labour policy) and on Maternity pay being too generous shows a real willingness to make deep cuts to welfare and pensions in order to move to a low tax country.

    I wonder if she has the courage to scrap the Triple Lock. She just might.
    Badenoch’s weakness is that she is very tribal, aggressively so. The most successful politicians have the ability to look over the party horizon and sympathise without and understand voters that make other choices. She shares Corbyns disdain for the opposition.
    Evangelical self righteousness makes big tent politics far harder.
    Why do you say Evangelical?

    Badenoch however is not a believer, describing herself as a “cultural Christian”; someone without a personal faith, but whose world view is broadly biblical. It may explain why she supports same-sex marriage, although as Equalities’ Minister, she also applauded Christian MSP Kate Forbes’ right to oppose it.
    https://www.womanalive.co.uk/opinion/who-is-kemi-badenoch-is-she-a-christian-and-would-she-be-a-good-leader-for-the-uk/18159.article
    Kemi is more agnostic Catholic than evangelical. Her husband Hamish is Roman Catholic.


    “My mother’s father. My paternal grandmother was a Muslim, though to be fair she did convert in later life. My family’s sort of Anglican and Methodist. My maternal grandfather was a Methodist reverend.”

    ConHome: “And where did he practice?”

    Badenoch: “In Nigeria. I was born here [in Wimbledon], but I call myself first generation, because I grew up in Nigeria and I chose to come back here. So I’m agnostic really, but I was brought up with cultural Christian values.”

    ConHome: “Have you had your children baptised?”

    Badenoch: “Yes, because I’m married to a Catholic [she and Hamish Badenoch, whose mother emigrated from Ireland, have two children].”

    ConHome: “They’re being brought up as Catholics, are they?”

    Badenoch: “Yes. So I’m an honorary or associate member of the Catholic Church. That’s what I call it.”
    https://conservativehome.com/2017/12/21/interview-kemi-badenoch-im-not-really-left-leaning-on-anything-i-always-lean-right-instinctively/
    That's interesting - I had not seen that.

    Nominal Roman Catholic, with Anglican quantities of Fudge. :smile:

    This is interesting:

    My paternal grandmother was a Muslim, though to be fair she did convert in later life. My family’s sort of Anglican and Methodist. My maternal grandfather was a Methodist reverend.

    Both her parents were Yoruba, which is (roughly or in part - open to correction on details) a large but not dominant tribe which went from traditional African religion to part Muslim, predominantly Christian, is mainly urban, was on the winning side in the Biafran War, and in the past was active as slavers. The new religion would incorporate elements of the old, usually.

    Fascinating mix. Heritage formed mainly in the 1910 to 1940 period by the look of it.
    Slavers you say?
    Even less keen on reparations than your average right wing Tory then.
    The nature of the African Slave Trade was that coastal tribes were sometimes middlemen, where they would raid other tribes and sell their captives to the European slave traders, or would take members of other tribes as slaves as tribute.

    The Yoruba wiki article mentions both Yoruba enslaved, and the Yoruba as enslavers. Some major places were built on a slave economy, such as (not Yoruba but an example) Kano.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoruba_people

    It's not really my specialist subject, so I tend to limit comments to pointing out that it is more complicated than "reparations NOW, paid to US, NOW" or "nothing to do with us, Guv".

    I'm quite impressed with how Justin Welby and CofE are dealing with it, over a period of years and carefully, for the longer term.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,268
    MarqueeMark said:

    The polling is (arguably) designed to make a close contest to placate the bread and circuses entertainment value of politics. Selzer doesn't play by those rules.

    Her business slogan is: "The best news I can give to any client is the truth"
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,895
    RobD said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    The polling is (arguably) designed to make a close contest to placate the bread and circuses entertainment value of politics. Selzer doesn't play by those rules.

    Some of us have been pointing out the emphasis that past vote ignores those coming into the pool of voters, either young voters or those who normally sit it out. The polling is bound to be off when you only ask a subset of actual voters. If those ignored skew significantly one way, the outcomes are frankly going to be utter shite.

    I find it hard to believe that all other pollsters are conspiring to sell a narrative of a close election, and only one Iowa pollster is telling the truth.
    My instinct is to agree with you, but if all the other polls are using essentially the same methodology - including discounting people who didn't vote last time - then there's a good reason why a single pollster with a different methodology would show a different result, *if* this election is a rare exception where turnout rises significantly.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,114
    Fairliered said:

    Roll on November 6th, when we can finally stop taking about the US presidential election.

    You know this is a political betting site right? :smile:

    We can't discuss Leon's holidays all the time.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,213
    It pains me to say it, but never bank on expanded voter turnout.

    Even the famous Corbyn youthquake in 2017 turned out to be nothing of the sort when the stats came in.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,114
    TimS said:

    It pains me to say it, but never bank on expanded voter turnout.

    Even the famous Corbyn youthquake in 2017 turned out to be nothing of the sort when the stats came in.

    Corbyn didn't have the Swifties.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972
    Fairliered said:

    Roll on November 6th, when we can finally stop taking about the US presidential election.

    If it’s as close as many of the polls suggest, we’ll be talking about it up to January 6th.

    Hopefully it’s a clear win one way or the other.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,012
    MarqueeMark said:

    The polling is (arguably) designed to make a close contest to placate the bread and circuses entertainment value of politics. Selzer doesn't play by those rules.

    Some of us have been pointing out the emphasis that past vote ignores those coming into the pool of voters, either young voters or those who normally sit it out. The polling is bound to be off when you only ask a subset of actual voters. If those ignored skew significantly one way, the outcomes are frankly going to be utter shite.

    I find the explanation as to why Selzer is different quite persuasive. I suspect that those who are swinging this to Harris, particularly the young in general and young women in particular, are amongst the hardest to poll. They don't even have land lines. They don't engage in politics as a generality. They will be wary of those seeking their views on social media. They probably bear some similarities to those who were found by Cambridge Analytica but not by the pollsters in the Brexit vote.

    But they are seriously pissed by Dobbs and being encouraged to the polls by a GOTV operation for the ages.

    I believe.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,521
    Much of the commentary I’ve read hitherto, predicting a big Harris victory, is that she does well among voters with a high propensity to vote (essentially, the college-educated), whereas Trump gets the less educated, who vote less.

    I’d be wary of assuming that high turnout favours one side or the other.

  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,877
    edited November 3
    This is my photo for the day. An interesting comparison between Tokyo and New York.


    The 15 minute video is a follow up to the previous one I posted some weeks ago about Planning and Street Size in Tokyo.

    My thought is that perhaps we need K-Cars or something similar in the UK, to try and deal further with the oversized domestic vehicles we have in many places.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV6c2p3PQQA
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468
    MarqueeMark said:

    The polling is (arguably) designed to make a close contest to placate the bread and circuses entertainment value of politics. Selzer doesn't play by those rules.

    Some of us have been pointing out the emphasis that past vote ignores those coming into the pool of voters, either young voters or those who normally sit it out. The polling is bound to be off when you only ask a subset of actual voters. If those ignored skew significantly one way, the outcomes are frankly going to be utter shite.

    Not sure it is that cynical. Rather the tendency IMO is that the top pollsters are so afraid of being the ONE pollster that got it badly wrong that they each surreptitiously adjust their models to cluster around each other so that, if they are wrong, they are not the only one. CYA on a huge scale.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585
    DavidL said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    The polling is (arguably) designed to make a close contest to placate the bread and circuses entertainment value of politics. Selzer doesn't play by those rules.

    Some of us have been pointing out the emphasis that past vote ignores those coming into the pool of voters, either young voters or those who normally sit it out. The polling is bound to be off when you only ask a subset of actual voters. If those ignored skew significantly one way, the outcomes are frankly going to be utter shite.

    I find the explanation as to why Selzer is different quite persuasive. I suspect that those who are swinging this to Harris, particularly the young in general and young women in particular, are amongst the hardest to poll. They don't even have land lines. They don't engage in politics as a generality. They will be wary of those seeking their views on social media. They probably bear some similarities to those who were found by Cambridge Analytica but not by the pollsters in the Brexit vote.

    But they are seriously pissed by Dobbs and being encouraged to the polls by a GOTV operation for the ages.

    I believe.
    Remember US mobile phone numbers are local numbers so you it's not like the UK where regional polling is impossible...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972
    Lewis Hamilton driving Ayrton Senna’s old McLaren around Interlagos. Happening live now.

    https://www.youtube.com/live/qYJwq64aQ0M?si=s64CWtuFOkAAMg_y
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,030
    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    The polling is (arguably) designed to make a close contest to placate the bread and circuses entertainment value of politics. Selzer doesn't play by those rules.

    Some of us have been pointing out the emphasis that past vote ignores those coming into the pool of voters, either young voters or those who normally sit it out. The polling is bound to be off when you only ask a subset of actual voters. If those ignored skew significantly one way, the outcomes are frankly going to be utter shite.

    I find the explanation as to why Selzer is different quite persuasive. I suspect that those who are swinging this to Harris, particularly the young in general and young women in particular, are amongst the hardest to poll. They don't even have land lines. They don't engage in politics as a generality. They will be wary of those seeking their views on social media. They probably bear some similarities to those who were found by Cambridge Analytica but not by the pollsters in the Brexit vote.

    But they are seriously pissed by Dobbs and being encouraged to the polls by a GOTV operation for the ages.

    I believe.
    Remember US mobile phone numbers are local numbers so you it's not like the UK where regional polling is impossible...
    Works for people who don’t move, but for those that do there’s no requirement to change their number.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,645
    BartholomewRoberts said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    OldKingCole said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    occasionalranter said:

    Anabobazina said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Oh, FFS...

    @KevinASchofield

    Kemi Badenoch tells @bbclaurak that Boris Johnson was a "great" prime minister and partygate was "overblown".

    Badenoch's interview on Kuenssberg was very interesting and she is quite impressive

    I think she may well surprise her opponents, even confound them

    I would suggest it would be foolhardy to underestimate her
    Good to see you on board. I think she is in principle okay, but Cleverly would have moved the dial very much more in your favour.
    It is the first time I have heard her interviewed, and she was confident and very much pro business and anti big government which is a breath of fresh air from some previous conservatives
    She needs to get a grip on facts though. It has taken her less than 24 hours to make her first blunder. The increase in Employer NICs will NOT be levied on the NHS. She really should have known that.
    That's not strictly correct, is it ? AIUI the law will apply the same rates to all employers but NHS trusts "will be effectively protected from the rise through scheduled back-payments from the Treasury": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79z87wzv2no#:~:text=NHS hospitals, like other parts,back-payments from the Treasury.
    But it’s true Kemi Badenoch’s famed laziness could be her Achilles Heel now she’s much more in the spotlight.

    You could argue LOTO have pretty much nothing to actually do, apart from get out of bed Wednesday mornings and not turn up at cenotaph in Donkey Jacket. But truth is, LOTO have to be spot on in what they are saying in every media appearance and PMQ. And my experience lazy people are lazy people, and you can never ever change them in their lives. It’s who they are.

    Poor old Michael Foot. Turned up at the Cenotaph forty years ago in a British Warm Coat, presented to him by admirer, allegedly, and it's been misrepresented by the Right ever since!
    Political folklore, almost metaphor and allegory - like tanks on the lawn, winter of discontent, beer and sandwiches at number 10.

    It was actually Lord Ali’s Great Uncle who gave Foot the coat, if you want a 110% true fact.

    So what you're saying is that Labour leaders being unable to dress themselves and taking clothes off others is a tradition that predates Starmer by decades?
    Decades? No. I would say a CENTURY of it. Take a look at the first elected Labour government. They didn’t have the clothes for the job, like meeting the King - so ALL the Labour governments clothes were donated to them to spruce them up, not just a random LOTO or PM wife.

    To play fair, Starmer was a mere lawyer and public servant and Foot a journalist, so we can’t expect them to be able to clothe themselves, or their families.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864
    edited November 3
    This Iowa poll shows nothing other than what the ABC poll shows ie Harris and Walz doing better with white voters than Biden and Hillary, especially white women in an overwhelmingly white state and white rural voters helped by Walz.

    However on no grounds does that mean a Harris landslide as ABC also has Trump doing better with hispanic voters than he did in 2016 and 2020 and with black men than he did in 2016 and 2020.

    It is perfectly possible therefore Harris wins mostly more white than the US average Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Iowa on Tuesday but Trump wins Hispanic heavy Nevada, Arizona and maybe even New Mexico and Black heavy North Carolina and Georgia ie all states George W Bush won, giving a Harris scrape home win 271-267

    https://www.270towin.com/
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468
    DavidL said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    The polling is (arguably) designed to make a close contest to placate the bread and circuses entertainment value of politics. Selzer doesn't play by those rules.

    Some of us have been pointing out the emphasis that past vote ignores those coming into the pool of voters, either young voters or those who normally sit it out. The polling is bound to be off when you only ask a subset of actual voters. If those ignored skew significantly one way, the outcomes are frankly going to be utter shite.

    I find the explanation as to why Selzer is different quite persuasive. I suspect that those who are swinging this to Harris, particularly the young in general and young women in particular, are amongst the hardest to poll. They don't even have land lines. They don't engage in politics as a generality. They will be wary of those seeking their views on social media. They probably bear some similarities to those who were found by Cambridge Analytica but not by the pollsters in the Brexit vote.

    But they are seriously pissed by Dobbs and being encouraged to the polls by a GOTV operation for the ages.

    I believe.
    100%. The scale of the Dem door knocking in PA is mind blowing. The Gen Z organization I referenced earlier has made 20 million contacts with first time eligible voters in key states. The use of pop and sports icons by the Dems aimed specifically at the young vote is on a scale I’ve not witnessed anywhere before. Harris’ events are huge and rocking. Everyone assumed MAGA had the enthusiasm advantage; from the videos you see on Twitter, I don’t believe that is true.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,945
    F1: at this rate Ladbrokes will have the F1 markets up after the race....
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,956
    Fairliered said:

    Roll on November 6th, when we can finally stop taking about the US presidential election.

    By my reckoning after this election the next biggie will be the Scottish Parliament election in 2026.

    PB will be wall to wall Scotland coverage.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864
    edited November 3
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Angry crowds confront the King because he's out of touch.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ypgjg2jrpo

    It has sod all to do with him but Spain's useless Socialist PM who was booed and faced calls to resign when he visited Valencia but unlike the King has been too gutless to visit Paiporta which is one of the worst hit areas
    https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/spain-storm-disaster-sanchez-faces-mounting-criticism-over-response/
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,778
    TSE

    Just to clarify - have you changed your opinion that "this feels like an outlier"?
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468
    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    The polling is (arguably) designed to make a close contest to placate the bread and circuses entertainment value of politics. Selzer doesn't play by those rules.

    Some of us have been pointing out the emphasis that past vote ignores those coming into the pool of voters, either young voters or those who normally sit it out. The polling is bound to be off when you only ask a subset of actual voters. If those ignored skew significantly one way, the outcomes are frankly going to be utter shite.

    I find the explanation as to why Selzer is different quite persuasive. I suspect that those who are swinging this to Harris, particularly the young in general and young women in particular, are amongst the hardest to poll. They don't even have land lines. They don't engage in politics as a generality. They will be wary of those seeking their views on social media. They probably bear some similarities to those who were found by Cambridge Analytica but not by the pollsters in the Brexit vote.

    But they are seriously pissed by Dobbs and being encouraged to the polls by a GOTV operation for the ages.

    I believe.
    Remember US mobile phone numbers are local numbers so you it's not like the UK where regional polling is impossible...
    Nah. You carry your number wherever you go. My mobile number is an Annapolis one. I have never lived in Annapolis but very briefly lived just across the Bay Bridge in Queenstown MD on the Eastern Shore (solid Red as opposed to Annapolis solid Blue). Since, I have lived mostly in northern MD and now in VA. My cell phone number has never been indicative of the political district in which I live.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,916
    I trust Selzer.

    I think the enthusiasm gap and the female vote are going to deliver this for Harris. She might not win Iowa, or even every swing state, but I think it’ll be enough.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    HYUFD said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Angry crowds confront the King because he's out of touch.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ypgjg2jrpo

    It has sod all to do with him but Spain's useless Socialist PM who was booed and faced calls to resign when he visited
    https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/spain-storm-disaster-sanchez-faces-mounting-criticism-over-response/
    Yes 200,% correct. I drive through the city last night. It's devastating and in all the places we saw no sign of any official help.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,956
    Chris said:

    TSE

    Just to clarify - have you changed your opinion that "this feels like an outlier"?

    I don't know.

    1) I want it to be true so my initial betting view is to be sceptical

    but

    2) Ann Selzer is the gold standard, she knows what she is doing
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468
    TimT said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    The polling is (arguably) designed to make a close contest to placate the bread and circuses entertainment value of politics. Selzer doesn't play by those rules.

    Some of us have been pointing out the emphasis that past vote ignores those coming into the pool of voters, either young voters or those who normally sit it out. The polling is bound to be off when you only ask a subset of actual voters. If those ignored skew significantly one way, the outcomes are frankly going to be utter shite.

    I find the explanation as to why Selzer is different quite persuasive. I suspect that those who are swinging this to Harris, particularly the young in general and young women in particular, are amongst the hardest to poll. They don't even have land lines. They don't engage in politics as a generality. They will be wary of those seeking their views on social media. They probably bear some similarities to those who were found by Cambridge Analytica but not by the pollsters in the Brexit vote.

    But they are seriously pissed by Dobbs and being encouraged to the polls by a GOTV operation for the ages.

    I believe.
    Remember US mobile phone numbers are local numbers so you it's not like the UK where regional polling is impossible...
    Nah. You carry your number wherever you go. My mobile number is an Annapolis one. I have never lived in Annapolis but very briefly lived just across the Bay Bridge in Queenstown MD on the Eastern Shore (solid Red as opposed to Annapolis solid Blue). Since, I have lived mostly in northern MD and now in VA. My cell phone number has never been indicative of the political district in which I live.
    The average American moves every 6-7 years. What percentage of Americans do you reckon still live in the political district in which they got their cell phone number?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,945
    Page 7 of today's Sunday Times.

    "Riot fear delayed Southport ricin charge statement"
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,114
    If he wins, many Trump voters are likely to experience buyer’s remorse.

    Will they express their disappointment at the ballot box in 2028? They will if they can. But that assumes a free and fair election. Trump has given us plenty of reason to believe that if he wins, 2024 may be the last time America has anything resembling that.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/31/opinion/trump-musk-mike-johnson.html
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,153
    MattW said:

    This is my photo for the day. An interesting comparison between Tokyo and New York.


    The 15 minute video is a follow up to the previous one I posted some weeks ago about Planning and Street Size in Tokyo.

    My thought is that perhaps we need K-Cars or something similar in the UK, to try and deal further with the oversized domestic vehicles we have in many places.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV6c2p3PQQA

    The reason the category is popular in Japan is I think in large part due to them being cheaper to tax and insure if they stay within given size and engine capacity limits. We could probably adjust our tax regime like that if we wanted to. I do wonder though whether motor manufacturers would be interested enough to produce a range of cars within the specification -- unlike Japan we don't have a big domestic industry that caters to us as a specific market.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,956
    I told you Kemi Badenoch was utterly useless lacking any judgment.

    She has already offered Lord Houchen of High Leven, the Tees Valley mayor who did not back either candidate, the deputy leadership.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/kemi-badenoch-makes-history-as-new-tory-leader-rzgjpzkn9
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864
    felix said:

    HYUFD said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Angry crowds confront the King because he's out of touch.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ypgjg2jrpo

    It has sod all to do with him but Spain's useless Socialist PM who was booed and faced calls to resign when he visited
    https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/spain-storm-disaster-sanchez-faces-mounting-criticism-over-response/
    Yes 200,% correct. I drive through the city last night. It's devastating and in all the places we saw no sign of any official help.
    It was of course Sanchez who ordered dams to be destroyed following EU directive rulings
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,443
    TimT said:

    FPT:

    I am not so sure that this Selzer poll is an outlier. Iowa has passed, against popular wishes, a draconian anti-abortion law. Women are pissed.

    I may well be wish-projecting, but I think the pollsters have got it horribly wrong again:
    1. There are no shy Trump voters. Any correction for this is wrong. Indeed, there may be GOPers who are scared to admit they are not voting for him (I see significant numbers of properties with GOP Senate race signs but no Trump signs) or scared to admit they are voting for Harris. My non-scientific hunch is this is overstating Trump by as much as 3%
    2. The pollster have the wrong electorate - there is a massive surge in both woman and young voters. This too, benefits Harris.

    Check out this projection from a Gen-Z organization getting out the first-time eligible voters: https://x.com/voterstomorrow/status/1852437651934126526?s=61

    FWIW, and I am fully prepared for the egg on my face come the end of the week, I think:
    1. Harris will sweep the recognized swing states with the possible exception of AZ
    2. She may well take IA and OH (abortion-related) and even, though less likely, TX
    3. She could get very close in FL but I doubt it falls
    4. I would not be surprised if there were some totally shocking results from States that have enacted the worst anti-abortion bills
    5. GOP takes the Senate (alas), but Dems take the House.

    All in all, I think it is a comfortable Harris win, with her EC range 300-420, depending on just how wrong the pollsters are.

    Welcome back! Been a long time
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,645
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I told you Kemi Badenoch was utterly useless lacking any judgment.

    She has already offered Lord Houchen of High Leven, the Tees Valley mayor who did not back either candidate, the deputy leadership.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/kemi-badenoch-makes-history-as-new-tory-leader-rzgjpzkn9

    You serious? That a great move from Kemi.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972
    pm215 said:

    MattW said:

    This is my photo for the day. An interesting comparison between Tokyo and New York.


    The 15 minute video is a follow up to the previous one I posted some weeks ago about Planning and Street Size in Tokyo.

    My thought is that perhaps we need K-Cars or something similar in the UK, to try and deal further with the oversized domestic vehicles we have in many places.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV6c2p3PQQA

    The reason the category is popular in Japan is I think in large part due to them being cheaper to tax and insure if they stay within given size and engine capacity limits. We could probably adjust our tax regime like that if we wanted to. I do wonder though whether motor manufacturers would be interested enough to produce a range of cars within the specification -- unlike Japan we don't have a big domestic industry that caters to us as a specific market.
    Yes, they’re known as Kei Cars, and have a number of restrictions related to vehicle size and engine capacity.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car

    Somewhere around a third of cars sold in Japan meet this specification, which comes with significant tax advantages.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,956
    MoonRabbit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I told you Kemi Badenoch was utterly useless lacking any judgment.

    She has already offered Lord Houchen of High Leven, the Tees Valley mayor who did not back either candidate, the deputy leadership.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/kemi-badenoch-makes-history-as-new-tory-leader-rzgjpzkn9

    You serious? That a great move from Kemi.
    Teesworks.

    He makes Bobby J look like a model of probity.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I told you Kemi Badenoch was utterly useless lacking any judgment.

    She has already offered Lord Houchen of High Leven, the Tees Valley mayor who did not back either candidate, the deputy leadership.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/kemi-badenoch-makes-history-as-new-tory-leader-rzgjpzkn9

    You serious? That a great move from Kemi.
    Teesworks.

    He makes Bobby J look like a model of probity.
    He won 54% of the vote in May

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Tees_Valley_mayoral_election
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,141
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Angry crowds confront the King because he's out of touch.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ypgjg2jrpo

    He has the balls and sense of duty to get down with them though.

    I read on twitter (I know) that the Generalitat Valenciana led by PP went into coalition with Vox, and part of their price was public service cuts including to the flood warning service. I bet these wankers aren't speaking face to face with the punters.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,778
    Sean_F said:

    Much of the commentary I’ve read hitherto, predicting a big Harris victory, is that she does well among voters with a high propensity to vote (essentially, the college-educated), whereas Trump gets the less educated, who vote less.

    I’d be wary of assuming that high turnout favours one side or the other.

    I suppose that whatever the average, both candidates will have support among voters with a range of propensity to vote. And it will be different low-propensity groups for the different candidates. What would throw the accuracy of the polls off is if Harris-supporting low-propensity groups are turning out this time, whereas Trump-supporting low-propensity groups aren't.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,112
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I told you Kemi Badenoch was utterly useless lacking any judgment.

    She has already offered Lord Houchen of High Leven, the Tees Valley mayor who did not back either candidate, the deputy leadership.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/kemi-badenoch-makes-history-as-new-tory-leader-rzgjpzkn9

    The KEMBOT!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,632
    edited November 3
    TimS said:

    It pains me to say it, but never bank on expanded voter turnout.

    Even the famous Corbyn youthquake in 2017 turned out to be nothing of the sort when the stats came in.

    Trump is also banking on new voters - in his case alienated nihilistic young men. Harris has solid poll leads amongst 'engaged' citizens, ie people who always vote.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,888
    Fairliered said:

    Roll on November 6th, when we can finally stop taking about the US presidential election.

    If Trump wins we won't stop talking about the election. If Harris wins Trump won't stop talking about it.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,778
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Chris said:

    TSE

    Just to clarify - have you changed your opinion that "this feels like an outlier"?

    I don't know.

    1) I want it to be true so my initial betting view is to be sceptical

    but

    2) Ann Selzer is the gold standard, she knows what she is doing
    Thanks. I was just curious as to whether the headline indicated that you were endorsing Levine's explanation to the extent that there was no longer any reason to think it was an outlier.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I told you Kemi Badenoch was utterly useless lacking any judgment.

    She has already offered Lord Houchen of High Leven, the Tees Valley mayor who did not back either candidate, the deputy leadership.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/kemi-badenoch-makes-history-as-new-tory-leader-rzgjpzkn9

    You serious? That a great move from Kemi.
    Teesworks.

    He makes Bobby J look like a model of probity.
    That's an insult to Bobby J.

    Ben Houchen makes T. Dan Smith look honest and competent...
  • highwayparadise306highwayparadise306 Posts: 1,274
    StillWaters said:

    TimT said:

    FPT:

    I am not so sure that this Selzer poll is an outlier. Iowa has passed, against popular wishes, a draconian anti-abortion law. Women are pissed.

    I may well be wish-projecting, but I think the pollsters have got it horribly wrong again:
    1. There are no shy Trump voters. Any correction for this is wrong. Indeed, there may be GOPers who are scared to admit they are not voting for him (I see significant numbers of properties with GOP Senate race signs but no Trump signs) or scared to admit they are voting for Harris. My non-scientific hunch is this is overstating Trump by as much as 3%
    2. The pollster have the wrong electorate - there is a massive surge in both woman and young voters. This too, benefits Harris.

    Check out this projection from a Gen-Z organization getting out the first-time eligible voters: https://x.com/voterstomorrow/status/1852437651934126526?s=61

    FWIW, and I am fully prepared for the egg on my face come the end of the week, I think:
    1. Harris will sweep the recognized swing states with the possible exception of AZ
    2. She may well take IA and OH (abortion-related) and even, though less likely, TX
    3. She could get very close in FL but I doubt it falls
    4. I would not be surprised if there were some totally shocking results from States that have enacted the worst anti-abortion bills
    5. GOP takes the Senate (alas), but Dems take the House.

    All in all, I think it is a comfortable Harris win, with her EC range 300-420, depending on just how wrong the pollsters are.

    Welcome back! Been a long time
    Great Analysis. I agree with you!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,945
    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,012
    Morris_Dancer said:

    F1: at this rate Ladbrokes will have the F1 markets up after the race....

    That would definitely improve your chances.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,945
    Mr. L, knowing my luck this year I'd back the winner then the stewards would give him a 20s penalty.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,268
    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    It pains me to say it, but never bank on expanded voter turnout.

    Even the famous Corbyn youthquake in 2017 turned out to be nothing of the sort when the stats came in.

    Trump is also banking on new voters - in his case alienated nihilistic young men. Harris has solid poll leads amongst 'engaged' citizens, ie people who always vote.
    Has Selzer missed them for some reason or do they exist but not in Iowa?
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468
    StillWaters said:

    TimT said:

    FPT:

    I am not so sure that this Selzer poll is an outlier. Iowa has passed, against popular wishes, a draconian anti-abortion law. Women are pissed.

    I may well be wish-projecting, but I think the pollsters have got it horribly wrong again:
    1. There are no shy Trump voters. Any correction for this is wrong. Indeed, there may be GOPers who are scared to admit they are not voting for him (I see significant numbers of properties with GOP Senate race signs but no Trump signs) or scared to admit they are voting for Harris. My non-scientific hunch is this is overstating Trump by as much as 3%
    2. The pollster have the wrong electorate - there is a massive surge in both woman and young voters. This too, benefits Harris.

    Check out this projection from a Gen-Z organization getting out the first-time eligible voters: https://x.com/voterstomorrow/status/1852437651934126526?s=61

    FWIW, and I am fully prepared for the egg on my face come the end of the week, I think:
    1. Harris will sweep the recognized swing states with the possible exception of AZ
    2. She may well take IA and OH (abortion-related) and even, though less likely, TX
    3. She could get very close in FL but I doubt it falls
    4. I would not be surprised if there were some totally shocking results from States that have enacted the worst anti-abortion bills
    5. GOP takes the Senate (alas), but Dems take the House.

    All in all, I think it is a comfortable Harris win, with her EC range 300-420, depending on just how wrong the pollsters are.

    Welcome back! Been a long time
    Thanks. My interests have strayed somewhat from PB.com for a while. But with US election now almost upon us, thought I’d check out the pulse on here. Good to be back with so many familiar old names!
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,877
    HYUFD said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I told you Kemi Badenoch was utterly useless lacking any judgment.

    She has already offered Lord Houchen of High Leven, the Tees Valley mayor who did not back either candidate, the deputy leadership.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/kemi-badenoch-makes-history-as-new-tory-leader-rzgjpzkn9

    You serious? That a great move from Kemi.
    Teesworks.

    He makes Bobby J look like a model of probity.
    He won 54% of the vote in May

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Tees_Valley_mayoral_election
    Which was just under 20% down on last time.

    I think he has problems at the edges, but we shall see.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,125
    edited November 3
    Mexicanpete said:

    Fairliered said:

    Roll on November 6th, when we can finally stop taking about the US presidential election.

    If Trump wins we won't stop talking about the election. If Harris wins Trump won't stop talking about it.
    ... and if there's no clear winner no-one will stop talking about it. For months if ever.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,632
    Chris said:

    Sean_F said:

    Much of the commentary I’ve read hitherto, predicting a big Harris victory, is that she does well among voters with a high propensity to vote (essentially, the college-educated), whereas Trump gets the less educated, who vote less.

    I’d be wary of assuming that high turnout favours one side or the other.

    I suppose that whatever the average, both candidates will have support among voters with a range of propensity to vote. And it will be different low-propensity groups for the different candidates. What would throw the accuracy of the polls off is if Harris-supporting low-propensity groups are turning out this time, whereas Trump-supporting low-propensity groups aren't.
    That's right.

    (1) Her low propensities seriously outvoting his.
    (2) Independents breaking heavily for her.
    (3) Far more Republicans defecting/abstaining than Democrats.

    These are the ingredients of the big Harris win if it happens. I sense it will but I'll take any win.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864
    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,198
    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    Can’t be right. Scones aren’t vegan.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,632
    williamglenn said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    It pains me to say it, but never bank on expanded voter turnout.

    Even the famous Corbyn youthquake in 2017 turned out to be nothing of the sort when the stats came in.

    Trump is also banking on new voters - in his case alienated nihilistic young men. Harris has solid poll leads amongst 'engaged' citizens, ie people who always vote.
    Has Selzer missed them for some reason or do they exist but not in Iowa?
    They exist all over, I'd have thought, but as an electoral force will perhaps not be quite the gamechanger for Donald Trump that he's been counting on.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,161
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Fairliered said:

    Roll on November 6th, when we can finally stop taking about the US presidential election.

    By my reckoning after this election the next biggie will be the Scottish Parliament election in 2026.

    PB will be wall to wall Scotland coverage.
    Hadrian's Wall to Antonine Wall coverage?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,934
    edited November 3
    MoonRabbit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I told you Kemi Badenoch was utterly useless lacking any judgment.

    She has already offered Lord Houchen of High Leven, the Tees Valley mayor who did not back either candidate, the deputy leadership.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/kemi-badenoch-makes-history-as-new-tory-leader-rzgjpzkn9

    You serious? That a great move from Kemi.
    Better than offering it to Jenrick for sure.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,945
    F1: if the markets don't get going soon I might have to just make do with what's there. I do have a bet in mind but would prefer to see the full set.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864
    BartholomewRoberts said:

    HYUFD said:

    bondegezou said:

    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anabobazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Meanwhile, the weekend Rawnsley:

    The new Tory leader takes charge with a tepid endorsement from her party’s members, two-thirds of her parliamentary colleagues preferring someone else and prominent names declaring that they have no desire to serve in her shadow cabinet.

    In her acceptance speech, she described the task ahead as “tough”, which is an understatement. The July election was the worst result for the Conservative party, both in terms of vote share and seats won, since 1832. I am not among those who think this means the Tories can never recover. They have been pronounced dead and buried in the past only then to rise from the grave. But they are unlikely to start recovering until – and unless – they have an honest reckoning with themselves about their multiple failings in government.

    Surveys suggest that very few voters think the Conservatives lost the election because they were too left wing while the majority of those with an opinion put it down to their incompetence.

    One of the biggest challenges for the new leader of the opposition, and especially when the Tory parliamentary presence is so small, will be persuading voters to pay them any heed. The case made for Mrs Badenoch by her promoters is that she is “box office” with a gift for grabbing attention. What she has often failed to grasp is that there is such a thing as the wrong kind of attention. “Still in development” is the assessment of one reasonably sympathetic senior Tory.

    Conservatives have displayed next to no interest in atoning for all the things voters came to loathe about them. There has never been a comprehensive repudiation of Boris Johnson for debauching standards in public life. Nor has there been an expression of suitably abject contrition for Liz Truss’s calamitous experiment with the economy. Nor have senior Tories had the humility to acknowledge that they left a super-massive black hole in the Treasury’s books. When you have fouled up as badly and as repeatedly as the Conservatives did in government, the first step to redemption with the electorate is to own your blunders and express regret for them.

    Even if voters become persistently discontented with Sir Keir’s government, the Tories are delusional if they imagine that this means the public will simply collapse back into their embrace and tell the Conservatives all is forgiven. Not least because so far the Tories have been almost completely incapable of recognising how much forgiveness they will need before they are taken seriously again. If Kemi Badenoch wants to get a hearing from the British people, she is first going to have to say sorry. And she is going to have to say it a lot.

    I think this is why Badenoch was the better choice. Jenrick was continuity sleaze.

    Kemi's victory speech was clear that big mistakes were made by the Tories in office and that they need to have a long hard look at themselves.

    Her musings in the past that WFP should be scrapped (which she rowed back on when it became Labour policy) and on Maternity pay being too generous shows a real willingness to make deep cuts to welfare and pensions in order to move to a low tax country.

    I wonder if she has the courage to scrap the Triple Lock. She just might.
    Badenoch’s weakness is that she is very tribal, aggressively so. The most successful politicians have the ability to look over the party horizon and sympathise without and understand voters that make other choices. She shares Corbyns disdain for the opposition.
    Evangelical self righteousness makes big tent politics far harder.
    Why do you say Evangelical?

    Badenoch however is not a believer, describing herself as a “cultural Christian”; someone without a personal faith, but whose world view is broadly biblical. It may explain why she supports same-sex marriage, although as Equalities’ Minister, she also applauded Christian MSP Kate Forbes’ right to oppose it.
    https://www.womanalive.co.uk/opinion/who-is-kemi-badenoch-is-she-a-christian-and-would-she-be-a-good-leader-for-the-uk/18159.article
    Kemi is more agnostic Catholic than evangelical. Her husband Hamish is Roman Catholic.


    “My mother’s father. My paternal grandmother was a Muslim, though to be fair she did convert in later life. My family’s sort of Anglican and Methodist. My maternal grandfather was a Methodist reverend.”

    ConHome: “And where did he practice?”

    Badenoch: “In Nigeria. I was born here [in Wimbledon], but I call myself first generation, because I grew up in Nigeria and I chose to come back here. So I’m agnostic really, but I was brought up with cultural Christian values.”

    ConHome: “Have you had your children baptised?”

    Badenoch: “Yes, because I’m married to a Catholic [she and Hamish Badenoch, whose mother emigrated from Ireland, have two children].”

    ConHome: “They’re being brought up as Catholics, are they?”

    Badenoch: “Yes. So I’m an honorary or associate member of the Catholic Church. That’s what I call it.”
    https://conservativehome.com/2017/12/21/interview-kemi-badenoch-im-not-really-left-leaning-on-anything-i-always-lean-right-instinctively/
    I mean she doesn’t believe in God. So the rest is gravy. Let’s not go there again. First time we have had atheists leading both big parties.
    No, agnostics are not atheists and as she is married to a Roman Catholic and bringing up her children as Roman Catholic she is more religious than secular atheist. Even Starmer while an atheist, not even agnostic, is married to a Jewish lady and bringing up his children Jewish.

    Cleverly was an atheist too but was knocked out in the MPs round
    There's a difference between religion-as-culture and religion-as-belief. I realise England is the country that invented Anglicanism to give agnostics a nice place to sit, but even so belief is the dividing line
    Agnostics by definition neither don't believe in God or have belief in God, they are like Independent swing voters on religion and often culturally religious even if not believers.

    Atheists are anti religion as well as not believing in God, active religious believe in God and are culturally religious and worshippers too
    Agnostics generally don’t do religion, however. They might go to Xmas carols, but atheists do that too. They are functionally closer to atheists.
    No they aren't, most atheists never go to any religious service on principle
    You don't know jack.

    Its quite funny how you insist "atheists" do this or that without being one yourself based on your own suppositions and prejudices.

    For an atheist, religion is just fiction. I have no more principled an objection to going to a Christmas Carol service, or Nativity, than I would a principled objection going to a performance of Les Misérables or Wicked.

    I'll as happily go to a singalong of Oh Come All Ye Faithful as I will Defying Gravity.

    There's no principled reason why you need to believe fiction is real to enjoy it.

    Atheists up and down the country will enjoy Christmas Carols this year like every year. Because we're not miserable shits.
    Oh I do know jack, you are an atheist Labour voting, pensioner hater. The fact you might go to the odd school Nativity play or carol service doesn't mean you will be going to church, even at Christmas or Easter
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,934
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
    How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,112
    biggles said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    Can’t be right. Scones aren’t vegan.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/vegan_lemon_and_52790
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585
    biggles said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    Can’t be right. Scones aren’t vegan.
    They are - the National Trust hasn't used butter for years..
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864
    MarqueeMark said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
    How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
    Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 22,355
    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    It pains me to say it, but never bank on expanded voter turnout.

    Even the famous Corbyn youthquake in 2017 turned out to be nothing of the sort when the stats came in.

    Trump is also banking on new voters - in his case alienated nihilistic young men. Harris has solid poll leads amongst 'engaged' citizens, ie people who always vote.
    What has Trump done to engage nihilistic young men that he hadn't done in 2016 or 2020 though? Surely that vein is tapped out already.

    Whereas young (and elderly) women concerned about their freedom is a change from 2020.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,877
    pm215 said:

    MattW said:

    This is my photo for the day. An interesting comparison between Tokyo and New York.


    The 15 minute video is a follow up to the previous one I posted some weeks ago about Planning and Street Size in Tokyo.

    My thought is that perhaps we need K-Cars or something similar in the UK, to try and deal further with the oversized domestic vehicles we have in many places.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV6c2p3PQQA

    The reason the category is popular in Japan is I think in large part due to them being cheaper to tax and insure if they stay within given size and engine capacity limits. We could probably adjust our tax regime like that if we wanted to. I do wonder though whether motor manufacturers would be interested enough to produce a range of cars within the specification -- unlike Japan we don't have a big domestic industry that caters to us as a specific market.
    Yep - we've seen some modest VED changes this last budget, which tip the incentive against the ultra-tonka wagons, but to me categories seem a little incoherent at the lower end.

    We've always had arrangements which nudge for particular uses or penalise others, whether cyclecars, mopeds, 3 wheelers or others, and I think there's a spot for something about K-car size with limited length and power - say the Smart Car slot.

    At a time of a more elderly population mix, and a move back to town centre living, it would be a good inexpensive option for people who don't want a full-size vehicle.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,112
    MarqueeMark said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
    How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/vegan_shepherds_pie_05111
    https://www.kathysvegankitchen.com/vegan-blt/
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,895
    BartholomewRoberts said:

    HYUFD said:

    bondegezou said:

    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anabobazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Meanwhile, the weekend Rawnsley:

    The new Tory leader takes charge with a tepid endorsement from her party’s members, two-thirds of her parliamentary colleagues preferring someone else and prominent names declaring that they have no desire to serve in her shadow cabinet.

    In her acceptance speech, she described the task ahead as “tough”, which is an understatement. The July election was the worst result for the Conservative party, both in terms of vote share and seats won, since 1832. I am not among those who think this means the Tories can never recover. They have been pronounced dead and buried in the past only then to rise from the grave. But they are unlikely to start recovering until – and unless – they have an honest reckoning with themselves about their multiple failings in government.

    Surveys suggest that very few voters think the Conservatives lost the election because they were too left wing while the majority of those with an opinion put it down to their incompetence.

    One of the biggest challenges for the new leader of the opposition, and especially when the Tory parliamentary presence is so small, will be persuading voters to pay them any heed. The case made for Mrs Badenoch by her promoters is that she is “box office” with a gift for grabbing attention. What she has often failed to grasp is that there is such a thing as the wrong kind of attention. “Still in development” is the assessment of one reasonably sympathetic senior Tory.

    Conservatives have displayed next to no interest in atoning for all the things voters came to loathe about them. There has never been a comprehensive repudiation of Boris Johnson for debauching standards in public life. Nor has there been an expression of suitably abject contrition for Liz Truss’s calamitous experiment with the economy. Nor have senior Tories had the humility to acknowledge that they left a super-massive black hole in the Treasury’s books. When you have fouled up as badly and as repeatedly as the Conservatives did in government, the first step to redemption with the electorate is to own your blunders and express regret for them.

    Even if voters become persistently discontented with Sir Keir’s government, the Tories are delusional if they imagine that this means the public will simply collapse back into their embrace and tell the Conservatives all is forgiven. Not least because so far the Tories have been almost completely incapable of recognising how much forgiveness they will need before they are taken seriously again. If Kemi Badenoch wants to get a hearing from the British people, she is first going to have to say sorry. And she is going to have to say it a lot.

    I think this is why Badenoch was the better choice. Jenrick was continuity sleaze.

    Kemi's victory speech was clear that big mistakes were made by the Tories in office and that they need to have a long hard look at themselves.

    Her musings in the past that WFP should be scrapped (which she rowed back on when it became Labour policy) and on Maternity pay being too generous shows a real willingness to make deep cuts to welfare and pensions in order to move to a low tax country.

    I wonder if she has the courage to scrap the Triple Lock. She just might.
    Badenoch’s weakness is that she is very tribal, aggressively so. The most successful politicians have the ability to look over the party horizon and sympathise without and understand voters that make other choices. She shares Corbyns disdain for the opposition.
    Evangelical self righteousness makes big tent politics far harder.
    Why do you say Evangelical?

    Badenoch however is not a believer, describing herself as a “cultural Christian”; someone without a personal faith, but whose world view is broadly biblical. It may explain why she supports same-sex marriage, although as Equalities’ Minister, she also applauded Christian MSP Kate Forbes’ right to oppose it.
    https://www.womanalive.co.uk/opinion/who-is-kemi-badenoch-is-she-a-christian-and-would-she-be-a-good-leader-for-the-uk/18159.article
    Kemi is more agnostic Catholic than evangelical. Her husband Hamish is Roman Catholic.


    “My mother’s father. My paternal grandmother was a Muslim, though to be fair she did convert in later life. My family’s sort of Anglican and Methodist. My maternal grandfather was a Methodist reverend.”

    ConHome: “And where did he practice?”

    Badenoch: “In Nigeria. I was born here [in Wimbledon], but I call myself first generation, because I grew up in Nigeria and I chose to come back here. So I’m agnostic really, but I was brought up with cultural Christian values.”

    ConHome: “Have you had your children baptised?”

    Badenoch: “Yes, because I’m married to a Catholic [she and Hamish Badenoch, whose mother emigrated from Ireland, have two children].”

    ConHome: “They’re being brought up as Catholics, are they?”

    Badenoch: “Yes. So I’m an honorary or associate member of the Catholic Church. That’s what I call it.”
    https://conservativehome.com/2017/12/21/interview-kemi-badenoch-im-not-really-left-leaning-on-anything-i-always-lean-right-instinctively/
    I mean she doesn’t believe in God. So the rest is gravy. Let’s not go there again. First time we have had atheists leading both big parties.
    No, agnostics are not atheists and as she is married to a Roman Catholic and bringing up her children as Roman Catholic she is more religious than secular atheist. Even Starmer while an atheist, not even agnostic, is married to a Jewish lady and bringing up his children Jewish.

    Cleverly was an atheist too but was knocked out in the MPs round
    There's a difference between religion-as-culture and religion-as-belief. I realise England is the country that invented Anglicanism to give agnostics a nice place to sit, but even so belief is the dividing line
    Agnostics by definition neither don't believe in God or have belief in God, they are like Independent swing voters on religion and often culturally religious even if not believers.

    Atheists are anti religion as well as not believing in God, active religious believe in God and are culturally religious and worshippers too
    Agnostics generally don’t do religion, however. They might go to Xmas carols, but atheists do that too. They are functionally closer to atheists.
    No they aren't, most atheists never go to any religious service on principle
    You don't know jack.

    Its quite funny how you insist "atheists" do this or that without being one yourself based on your own suppositions and prejudices.

    For an atheist, religion is just fiction. I have no more principled an objection to going to a Christmas Carol service, or Nativity, than I would a principled objection going to a performance of Les Misérables or Wicked.

    I'll as happily go to a singalong of Oh Come All Ye Faithful as I will Defying Gravity.

    There's no principled reason why you need to believe fiction is real to enjoy it.

    Atheists up and down the country will enjoy Christmas Carols this year like every year. Because we're not miserable shits.
    Also, I went to a normal Sunday church service with my daughter, because I was visiting her and it's something she does now.

    HYUFD would probably be surprised by the number of atheists in the weekly pew numbers. I don't suppose there are lots of them, but there will be more than zero.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,268
    Labour’s one word plan to defeat Badenoch

    https://sw1politics.com/2024/11/02/labours-one-word-plan-to-defeat-badenoch/
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,112
    HYUFD said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
    How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
    Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
    God doesn't eat meat!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,032
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I told you Kemi Badenoch was utterly useless lacking any judgment.

    She has already offered Lord Houchen of High Leven, the Tees Valley mayor who did not back either candidate, the deputy leadership.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/kemi-badenoch-makes-history-as-new-tory-leader-rzgjpzkn9

    Blair had Prescott. It's a shrewd move.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,153
    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    Presumably this means "half the menu", not "half the sold food", though. They're not going to stock a load of food they don't sell or do the meat options in smaller volume that they then sell out by 11am every day. I bet most of the stuff sold by volume is tea and cake, anyway.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 22,355
    edited November 3
    HYUFD said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    HYUFD said:

    bondegezou said:

    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anabobazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Meanwhile, the weekend Rawnsley:

    The new Tory leader takes charge with a tepid endorsement from her party’s members, two-thirds of her parliamentary colleagues preferring someone else and prominent names declaring that they have no desire to serve in her shadow cabinet.

    In her acceptance speech, she described the task ahead as “tough”, which is an understatement. The July election was the worst result for the Conservative party, both in terms of vote share and seats won, since 1832. I am not among those who think this means the Tories can never recover. They have been pronounced dead and buried in the past only then to rise from the grave. But they are unlikely to start recovering until – and unless – they have an honest reckoning with themselves about their multiple failings in government.

    Surveys suggest that very few voters think the Conservatives lost the election because they were too left wing while the majority of those with an opinion put it down to their incompetence.

    One of the biggest challenges for the new leader of the opposition, and especially when the Tory parliamentary presence is so small, will be persuading voters to pay them any heed. The case made for Mrs Badenoch by her promoters is that she is “box office” with a gift for grabbing attention. What she has often failed to grasp is that there is such a thing as the wrong kind of attention. “Still in development” is the assessment of one reasonably sympathetic senior Tory.

    Conservatives have displayed next to no interest in atoning for all the things voters came to loathe about them. There has never been a comprehensive repudiation of Boris Johnson for debauching standards in public life. Nor has there been an expression of suitably abject contrition for Liz Truss’s calamitous experiment with the economy. Nor have senior Tories had the humility to acknowledge that they left a super-massive black hole in the Treasury’s books. When you have fouled up as badly and as repeatedly as the Conservatives did in government, the first step to redemption with the electorate is to own your blunders and express regret for them.

    Even if voters become persistently discontented with Sir Keir’s government, the Tories are delusional if they imagine that this means the public will simply collapse back into their embrace and tell the Conservatives all is forgiven. Not least because so far the Tories have been almost completely incapable of recognising how much forgiveness they will need before they are taken seriously again. If Kemi Badenoch wants to get a hearing from the British people, she is first going to have to say sorry. And she is going to have to say it a lot.

    I think this is why Badenoch was the better choice. Jenrick was continuity sleaze.

    Kemi's victory speech was clear that big mistakes were made by the Tories in office and that they need to have a long hard look at themselves.

    Her musings in the past that WFP should be scrapped (which she rowed back on when it became Labour policy) and on Maternity pay being too generous shows a real willingness to make deep cuts to welfare and pensions in order to move to a low tax country.

    I wonder if she has the courage to scrap the Triple Lock. She just might.
    Badenoch’s weakness is that she is very tribal, aggressively so. The most successful politicians have the ability to look over the party horizon and sympathise without and understand voters that make other choices. She shares Corbyns disdain for the opposition.
    Evangelical self righteousness makes big tent politics far harder.
    Why do you say Evangelical?

    Badenoch however is not a believer, describing herself as a “cultural Christian”; someone without a personal faith, but whose world view is broadly biblical. It may explain why she supports same-sex marriage, although as Equalities’ Minister, she also applauded Christian MSP Kate Forbes’ right to oppose it.
    https://www.womanalive.co.uk/opinion/who-is-kemi-badenoch-is-she-a-christian-and-would-she-be-a-good-leader-for-the-uk/18159.article
    Kemi is more agnostic Catholic than evangelical. Her husband Hamish is Roman Catholic.


    “My mother’s father. My paternal grandmother was a Muslim, though to be fair she did convert in later life. My family’s sort of Anglican and Methodist. My maternal grandfather was a Methodist reverend.”

    ConHome: “And where did he practice?”

    Badenoch: “In Nigeria. I was born here [in Wimbledon], but I call myself first generation, because I grew up in Nigeria and I chose to come back here. So I’m agnostic really, but I was brought up with cultural Christian values.”

    ConHome: “Have you had your children baptised?”

    Badenoch: “Yes, because I’m married to a Catholic [she and Hamish Badenoch, whose mother emigrated from Ireland, have two children].”

    ConHome: “They’re being brought up as Catholics, are they?”

    Badenoch: “Yes. So I’m an honorary or associate member of the Catholic Church. That’s what I call it.”
    https://conservativehome.com/2017/12/21/interview-kemi-badenoch-im-not-really-left-leaning-on-anything-i-always-lean-right-instinctively/
    I mean she doesn’t believe in God. So the rest is gravy. Let’s not go there again. First time we have had atheists leading both big parties.
    No, agnostics are not atheists and as she is married to a Roman Catholic and bringing up her children as Roman Catholic she is more religious than secular atheist. Even Starmer while an atheist, not even agnostic, is married to a Jewish lady and bringing up his children Jewish.

    Cleverly was an atheist too but was knocked out in the MPs round
    There's a difference between religion-as-culture and religion-as-belief. I realise England is the country that invented Anglicanism to give agnostics a nice place to sit, but even so belief is the dividing line
    Agnostics by definition neither don't believe in God or have belief in God, they are like Independent swing voters on religion and often culturally religious even if not believers.

    Atheists are anti religion as well as not believing in God, active religious believe in God and are culturally religious and worshippers too
    Agnostics generally don’t do religion, however. They might go to Xmas carols, but atheists do that too. They are functionally closer to atheists.
    No they aren't, most atheists never go to any religious service on principle
    You don't know jack.

    Its quite funny how you insist "atheists" do this or that without being one yourself based on your own suppositions and prejudices.

    For an atheist, religion is just fiction. I have no more principled an objection to going to a Christmas Carol service, or Nativity, than I would a principled objection going to a performance of Les Misérables or Wicked.

    I'll as happily go to a singalong of Oh Come All Ye Faithful as I will Defying Gravity.

    There's no principled reason why you need to believe fiction is real to enjoy it.

    Atheists up and down the country will enjoy Christmas Carols this year like every year. Because we're not miserable shits.
    Oh I do know jack, you are an atheist Labour voting, pensioner hater. The fact you might go to the odd school Nativity play or carol service doesn't mean you will be going to church, even at Christmas or Easter
    I'm not a pensioner hater, I just think pensioners should be treated the same as everyone else. Get benefits only if they actually need them, and pay the same tax rate as working people (including NI on all their earnings including pensions).

    As for the latter, why would I go to Church? I'll go if I'm invited, eg for a wedding, and have no more an objection to that than any other venue. I'll also go to see my kids perform in Brownies/Guides which is hosted by the Church and their Christmas services has religious elements to it.

    You claimed we object in principle to religious services and won't go to carols etc - that's bollocks. I'll go to a religious service, I'll just think of it as the same as any other fiction - a work of fiction not to be taken seriously.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,112
    HYUFD said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    HYUFD said:

    bondegezou said:

    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anabobazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Meanwhile, the weekend Rawnsley:

    The new Tory leader takes charge with a tepid endorsement from her party’s members, two-thirds of her parliamentary colleagues preferring someone else and prominent names declaring that they have no desire to serve in her shadow cabinet.

    In her acceptance speech, she described the task ahead as “tough”, which is an understatement. The July election was the worst result for the Conservative party, both in terms of vote share and seats won, since 1832. I am not among those who think this means the Tories can never recover. They have been pronounced dead and buried in the past only then to rise from the grave. But they are unlikely to start recovering until – and unless – they have an honest reckoning with themselves about their multiple failings in government.

    Surveys suggest that very few voters think the Conservatives lost the election because they were too left wing while the majority of those with an opinion put it down to their incompetence.

    One of the biggest challenges for the new leader of the opposition, and especially when the Tory parliamentary presence is so small, will be persuading voters to pay them any heed. The case made for Mrs Badenoch by her promoters is that she is “box office” with a gift for grabbing attention. What she has often failed to grasp is that there is such a thing as the wrong kind of attention. “Still in development” is the assessment of one reasonably sympathetic senior Tory.

    Conservatives have displayed next to no interest in atoning for all the things voters came to loathe about them. There has never been a comprehensive repudiation of Boris Johnson for debauching standards in public life. Nor has there been an expression of suitably abject contrition for Liz Truss’s calamitous experiment with the economy. Nor have senior Tories had the humility to acknowledge that they left a super-massive black hole in the Treasury’s books. When you have fouled up as badly and as repeatedly as the Conservatives did in government, the first step to redemption with the electorate is to own your blunders and express regret for them.

    Even if voters become persistently discontented with Sir Keir’s government, the Tories are delusional if they imagine that this means the public will simply collapse back into their embrace and tell the Conservatives all is forgiven. Not least because so far the Tories have been almost completely incapable of recognising how much forgiveness they will need before they are taken seriously again. If Kemi Badenoch wants to get a hearing from the British people, she is first going to have to say sorry. And she is going to have to say it a lot.

    I think this is why Badenoch was the better choice. Jenrick was continuity sleaze.

    Kemi's victory speech was clear that big mistakes were made by the Tories in office and that they need to have a long hard look at themselves.

    Her musings in the past that WFP should be scrapped (which she rowed back on when it became Labour policy) and on Maternity pay being too generous shows a real willingness to make deep cuts to welfare and pensions in order to move to a low tax country.

    I wonder if she has the courage to scrap the Triple Lock. She just might.
    Badenoch’s weakness is that she is very tribal, aggressively so. The most successful politicians have the ability to look over the party horizon and sympathise without and understand voters that make other choices. She shares Corbyns disdain for the opposition.
    Evangelical self righteousness makes big tent politics far harder.
    Why do you say Evangelical?

    Badenoch however is not a believer, describing herself as a “cultural Christian”; someone without a personal faith, but whose world view is broadly biblical. It may explain why she supports same-sex marriage, although as Equalities’ Minister, she also applauded Christian MSP Kate Forbes’ right to oppose it.
    https://www.womanalive.co.uk/opinion/who-is-kemi-badenoch-is-she-a-christian-and-would-she-be-a-good-leader-for-the-uk/18159.article
    Kemi is more agnostic Catholic than evangelical. Her husband Hamish is Roman Catholic.


    “My mother’s father. My paternal grandmother was a Muslim, though to be fair she did convert in later life. My family’s sort of Anglican and Methodist. My maternal grandfather was a Methodist reverend.”

    ConHome: “And where did he practice?”

    Badenoch: “In Nigeria. I was born here [in Wimbledon], but I call myself first generation, because I grew up in Nigeria and I chose to come back here. So I’m agnostic really, but I was brought up with cultural Christian values.”

    ConHome: “Have you had your children baptised?”

    Badenoch: “Yes, because I’m married to a Catholic [she and Hamish Badenoch, whose mother emigrated from Ireland, have two children].”

    ConHome: “They’re being brought up as Catholics, are they?”

    Badenoch: “Yes. So I’m an honorary or associate member of the Catholic Church. That’s what I call it.”
    https://conservativehome.com/2017/12/21/interview-kemi-badenoch-im-not-really-left-leaning-on-anything-i-always-lean-right-instinctively/
    I mean she doesn’t believe in God. So the rest is gravy. Let’s not go there again. First time we have had atheists leading both big parties.
    No, agnostics are not atheists and as she is married to a Roman Catholic and bringing up her children as Roman Catholic she is more religious than secular atheist. Even Starmer while an atheist, not even agnostic, is married to a Jewish lady and bringing up his children Jewish.

    Cleverly was an atheist too but was knocked out in the MPs round
    There's a difference between religion-as-culture and religion-as-belief. I realise England is the country that invented Anglicanism to give agnostics a nice place to sit, but even so belief is the dividing line
    Agnostics by definition neither don't believe in God or have belief in God, they are like Independent swing voters on religion and often culturally religious even if not believers.

    Atheists are anti religion as well as not believing in God, active religious believe in God and are culturally religious and worshippers too
    Agnostics generally don’t do religion, however. They might go to Xmas carols, but atheists do that too. They are functionally closer to atheists.
    No they aren't, most atheists never go to any religious service on principle
    You don't know jack.

    Its quite funny how you insist "atheists" do this or that without being one yourself based on your own suppositions and prejudices.

    For an atheist, religion is just fiction. I have no more principled an objection to going to a Christmas Carol service, or Nativity, than I would a principled objection going to a performance of Les Misérables or Wicked.

    I'll as happily go to a singalong of Oh Come All Ye Faithful as I will Defying Gravity.

    There's no principled reason why you need to believe fiction is real to enjoy it.

    Atheists up and down the country will enjoy Christmas Carols this year like every year. Because we're not miserable shits.
    Oh I do know jack, you are an atheist Labour voting, pensioner hater. The fact you might go to the odd school Nativity play or carol service doesn't mean you will be going to church, even at Christmas or Easter
    In my only acting credit to date, I played one of the Three Wise Men (the one wot delivered myrrh) at a school Nativity Play way back in 1982!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    HYUFD said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
    How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
    Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
    God doesn't eat meat!
    Uh yes he does, the passover meal for starters was lamb
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,888
    ...
    williamglenn said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    It pains me to say it, but never bank on expanded voter turnout.

    Even the famous Corbyn youthquake in 2017 turned out to be nothing of the sort when the stats came in.

    Trump is also banking on new voters - in his case alienated nihilistic young men. Harris has solid poll leads amongst 'engaged' citizens, ie people who always vote.
    Has Selzer missed them for some reason or do they exist but not in Iowa?
    Why are you so convinced Selzer is wrong yet a Rasmussen push poll with a healthy Trump lead is accurate?

    Of course you may be correct on both metrics
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 22,355
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    HYUFD said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
    How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
    Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
    God doesn't eat meat!
    Fictional characters tend not to be hungry IRL.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,012
    BartholomewRoberts said:

    HYUFD said:

    bondegezou said:

    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anabobazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Meanwhile, the weekend Rawnsley:

    The new Tory leader takes charge with a tepid endorsement from her party’s members, two-thirds of her parliamentary colleagues preferring someone else and prominent names declaring that they have no desire to serve in her shadow cabinet.

    In her acceptance speech, she described the task ahead as “tough”, which is an understatement. The July election was the worst result for the Conservative party, both in terms of vote share and seats won, since 1832. I am not among those who think this means the Tories can never recover. They have been pronounced dead and buried in the past only then to rise from the grave. But they are unlikely to start recovering until – and unless – they have an honest reckoning with themselves about their multiple failings in government.

    Surveys suggest that very few voters think the Conservatives lost the election because they were too left wing while the majority of those with an opinion put it down to their incompetence.

    One of the biggest challenges for the new leader of the opposition, and especially when the Tory parliamentary presence is so small, will be persuading voters to pay them any heed. The case made for Mrs Badenoch by her promoters is that she is “box office” with a gift for grabbing attention. What she has often failed to grasp is that there is such a thing as the wrong kind of attention. “Still in development” is the assessment of one reasonably sympathetic senior Tory.

    Conservatives have displayed next to no interest in atoning for all the things voters came to loathe about them. There has never been a comprehensive repudiation of Boris Johnson for debauching standards in public life. Nor has there been an expression of suitably abject contrition for Liz Truss’s calamitous experiment with the economy. Nor have senior Tories had the humility to acknowledge that they left a super-massive black hole in the Treasury’s books. When you have fouled up as badly and as repeatedly as the Conservatives did in government, the first step to redemption with the electorate is to own your blunders and express regret for them.

    Even if voters become persistently discontented with Sir Keir’s government, the Tories are delusional if they imagine that this means the public will simply collapse back into their embrace and tell the Conservatives all is forgiven. Not least because so far the Tories have been almost completely incapable of recognising how much forgiveness they will need before they are taken seriously again. If Kemi Badenoch wants to get a hearing from the British people, she is first going to have to say sorry. And she is going to have to say it a lot.

    I think this is why Badenoch was the better choice. Jenrick was continuity sleaze.

    Kemi's victory speech was clear that big mistakes were made by the Tories in office and that they need to have a long hard look at themselves.

    Her musings in the past that WFP should be scrapped (which she rowed back on when it became Labour policy) and on Maternity pay being too generous shows a real willingness to make deep cuts to welfare and pensions in order to move to a low tax country.

    I wonder if she has the courage to scrap the Triple Lock. She just might.
    Badenoch’s weakness is that she is very tribal, aggressively so. The most successful politicians have the ability to look over the party horizon and sympathise without and understand voters that make other choices. She shares Corbyns disdain for the opposition.
    Evangelical self righteousness makes big tent politics far harder.
    Why do you say Evangelical?

    Badenoch however is not a believer, describing herself as a “cultural Christian”; someone without a personal faith, but whose world view is broadly biblical. It may explain why she supports same-sex marriage, although as Equalities’ Minister, she also applauded Christian MSP Kate Forbes’ right to oppose it.
    https://www.womanalive.co.uk/opinion/who-is-kemi-badenoch-is-she-a-christian-and-would-she-be-a-good-leader-for-the-uk/18159.article
    Kemi is more agnostic Catholic than evangelical. Her husband Hamish is Roman Catholic.


    “My mother’s father. My paternal grandmother was a Muslim, though to be fair she did convert in later life. My family’s sort of Anglican and Methodist. My maternal grandfather was a Methodist reverend.”

    ConHome: “And where did he practice?”

    Badenoch: “In Nigeria. I was born here [in Wimbledon], but I call myself first generation, because I grew up in Nigeria and I chose to come back here. So I’m agnostic really, but I was brought up with cultural Christian values.”

    ConHome: “Have you had your children baptised?”

    Badenoch: “Yes, because I’m married to a Catholic [she and Hamish Badenoch, whose mother emigrated from Ireland, have two children].”

    ConHome: “They’re being brought up as Catholics, are they?”

    Badenoch: “Yes. So I’m an honorary or associate member of the Catholic Church. That’s what I call it.”
    https://conservativehome.com/2017/12/21/interview-kemi-badenoch-im-not-really-left-leaning-on-anything-i-always-lean-right-instinctively/
    I mean she doesn’t believe in God. So the rest is gravy. Let’s not go there again. First time we have had atheists leading both big parties.
    No, agnostics are not atheists and as she is married to a Roman Catholic and bringing up her children as Roman Catholic she is more religious than secular atheist. Even Starmer while an atheist, not even agnostic, is married to a Jewish lady and bringing up his children Jewish.

    Cleverly was an atheist too but was knocked out in the MPs round
    There's a difference between religion-as-culture and religion-as-belief. I realise England is the country that invented Anglicanism to give agnostics a nice place to sit, but even so belief is the dividing line
    Agnostics by definition neither don't believe in God or have belief in God, they are like Independent swing voters on religion and often culturally religious even if not believers.

    Atheists are anti religion as well as not believing in God, active religious believe in God and are culturally religious and worshippers too
    Agnostics generally don’t do religion, however. They might go to Xmas carols, but atheists do that too. They are functionally closer to atheists.
    No they aren't, most atheists never go to any religious service on principle
    You don't know jack.

    Its quite funny how you insist "atheists" do this or that without being one yourself based on your own suppositions and prejudices.

    For an atheist, religion is just fiction. I have no more principled an objection to going to a Christmas Carol service, or Nativity, than I would a principled objection going to a performance of Les Misérables or Wicked.

    I'll as happily go to a singalong of Oh Come All Ye Faithful as I will Defying Gravity.

    There's no principled reason why you need to believe fiction is real to enjoy it.

    Atheists up and down the country will enjoy Christmas Carols this year like every year. Because we're not miserable shits.
    An extract from my favourite Christmas song:

    I don't go in for ancient wisdom
    I don't believe just 'cause ideas are tenacious, it means that they're worthy
    I get freaked out by churches
    Some of the hymns that they sing have nice chords, but the lyrics are dodgy
    And yes, I have all of the usual objections
    To the miseducation of children who, in tax-exempt institutions
    Are taught to externalise blame and to feel ashamed
    And to judge things as plain right or wrong
    But I quite like the songs

    Sorry about the reference to tax exempt institutions, no desire to trigger you!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,112
    HYUFD said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    HYUFD said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
    How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
    Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
    God doesn't eat meat!
    Uh yes he does, the passover meal for starters was lamb
    No, he doesn't. Show me a video of him eating meat, then!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864
    LostPassword said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    HYUFD said:

    bondegezou said:

    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anabobazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Meanwhile, the weekend Rawnsley:

    The new Tory leader takes charge with a tepid endorsement from her party’s members, two-thirds of her parliamentary colleagues preferring someone else and prominent names declaring that they have no desire to serve in her shadow cabinet.

    In her acceptance speech, she described the task ahead as “tough”, which is an understatement. The July election was the worst result for the Conservative party, both in terms of vote share and seats won, since 1832. I am not among those who think this means the Tories can never recover. They have been pronounced dead and buried in the past only then to rise from the grave. But they are unlikely to start recovering until – and unless – they have an honest reckoning with themselves about their multiple failings in government.

    Surveys suggest that very few voters think the Conservatives lost the election because they were too left wing while the majority of those with an opinion put it down to their incompetence.

    One of the biggest challenges for the new leader of the opposition, and especially when the Tory parliamentary presence is so small, will be persuading voters to pay them any heed. The case made for Mrs Badenoch by her promoters is that she is “box office” with a gift for grabbing attention. What she has often failed to grasp is that there is such a thing as the wrong kind of attention. “Still in development” is the assessment of one reasonably sympathetic senior Tory.

    Conservatives have displayed next to no interest in atoning for all the things voters came to loathe about them. There has never been a comprehensive repudiation of Boris Johnson for debauching standards in public life. Nor has there been an expression of suitably abject contrition for Liz Truss’s calamitous experiment with the economy. Nor have senior Tories had the humility to acknowledge that they left a super-massive black hole in the Treasury’s books. When you have fouled up as badly and as repeatedly as the Conservatives did in government, the first step to redemption with the electorate is to own your blunders and express regret for them.

    Even if voters become persistently discontented with Sir Keir’s government, the Tories are delusional if they imagine that this means the public will simply collapse back into their embrace and tell the Conservatives all is forgiven. Not least because so far the Tories have been almost completely incapable of recognising how much forgiveness they will need before they are taken seriously again. If Kemi Badenoch wants to get a hearing from the British people, she is first going to have to say sorry. And she is going to have to say it a lot.

    I think this is why Badenoch was the better choice. Jenrick was continuity sleaze.

    Kemi's victory speech was clear that big mistakes were made by the Tories in office and that they need to have a long hard look at themselves.

    Her musings in the past that WFP should be scrapped (which she rowed back on when it became Labour policy) and on Maternity pay being too generous shows a real willingness to make deep cuts to welfare and pensions in order to move to a low tax country.

    I wonder if she has the courage to scrap the Triple Lock. She just might.
    Badenoch’s weakness is that she is very tribal, aggressively so. The most successful politicians have the ability to look over the party horizon and sympathise without and understand voters that make other choices. She shares Corbyns disdain for the opposition.
    Evangelical self righteousness makes big tent politics far harder.
    Why do you say Evangelical?

    Badenoch however is not a believer, describing herself as a “cultural Christian”; someone without a personal faith, but whose world view is broadly biblical. It may explain why she supports same-sex marriage, although as Equalities’ Minister, she also applauded Christian MSP Kate Forbes’ right to oppose it.
    https://www.womanalive.co.uk/opinion/who-is-kemi-badenoch-is-she-a-christian-and-would-she-be-a-good-leader-for-the-uk/18159.article
    Kemi is more agnostic Catholic than evangelical. Her husband Hamish is Roman Catholic.


    “My mother’s father. My paternal grandmother was a Muslim, though to be fair she did convert in later life. My family’s sort of Anglican and Methodist. My maternal grandfather was a Methodist reverend.”

    ConHome: “And where did he practice?”

    Badenoch: “In Nigeria. I was born here [in Wimbledon], but I call myself first generation, because I grew up in Nigeria and I chose to come back here. So I’m agnostic really, but I was brought up with cultural Christian values.”

    ConHome: “Have you had your children baptised?”

    Badenoch: “Yes, because I’m married to a Catholic [she and Hamish Badenoch, whose mother emigrated from Ireland, have two children].”

    ConHome: “They’re being brought up as Catholics, are they?”

    Badenoch: “Yes. So I’m an honorary or associate member of the Catholic Church. That’s what I call it.”
    https://conservativehome.com/2017/12/21/interview-kemi-badenoch-im-not-really-left-leaning-on-anything-i-always-lean-right-instinctively/
    I mean she doesn’t believe in God. So the rest is gravy. Let’s not go there again. First time we have had atheists leading both big parties.
    No, agnostics are not atheists and as she is married to a Roman Catholic and bringing up her children as Roman Catholic she is more religious than secular atheist. Even Starmer while an atheist, not even agnostic, is married to a Jewish lady and bringing up his children Jewish.

    Cleverly was an atheist too but was knocked out in the MPs round
    There's a difference between religion-as-culture and religion-as-belief. I realise England is the country that invented Anglicanism to give agnostics a nice place to sit, but even so belief is the dividing line
    Agnostics by definition neither don't believe in God or have belief in God, they are like Independent swing voters on religion and often culturally religious even if not believers.

    Atheists are anti religion as well as not believing in God, active religious believe in God and are culturally religious and worshippers too
    Agnostics generally don’t do religion, however. They might go to Xmas carols, but atheists do that too. They are functionally closer to atheists.
    No they aren't, most atheists never go to any religious service on principle
    You don't know jack.

    Its quite funny how you insist "atheists" do this or that without being one yourself based on your own suppositions and prejudices.

    For an atheist, religion is just fiction. I have no more principled an objection to going to a Christmas Carol service, or Nativity, than I would a principled objection going to a performance of Les Misérables or Wicked.

    I'll as happily go to a singalong of Oh Come All Ye Faithful as I will Defying Gravity.

    There's no principled reason why you need to believe fiction is real to enjoy it.

    Atheists up and down the country will enjoy Christmas Carols this year like every year. Because we're not miserable shits.
    Also, I went to a normal Sunday church service with my daughter, because I was visiting her and it's something she does now.

    HYUFD would probably be surprised by the number of atheists in the weekly pew numbers. I don't suppose there are lots of them, but there will be more than zero.
    We have 1 or 2 atheist bellringers but they leave before the main service
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,934
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    HYUFD said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    HYUFD said:

    bondegezou said:

    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anabobazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Meanwhile, the weekend Rawnsley:

    The new Tory leader takes charge with a tepid endorsement from her party’s members, two-thirds of her parliamentary colleagues preferring someone else and prominent names declaring that they have no desire to serve in her shadow cabinet.

    In her acceptance speech, she described the task ahead as “tough”, which is an understatement. The July election was the worst result for the Conservative party, both in terms of vote share and seats won, since 1832. I am not among those who think this means the Tories can never recover. They have been pronounced dead and buried in the past only then to rise from the grave. But they are unlikely to start recovering until – and unless – they have an honest reckoning with themselves about their multiple failings in government.

    Surveys suggest that very few voters think the Conservatives lost the election because they were too left wing while the majority of those with an opinion put it down to their incompetence.

    One of the biggest challenges for the new leader of the opposition, and especially when the Tory parliamentary presence is so small, will be persuading voters to pay them any heed. The case made for Mrs Badenoch by her promoters is that she is “box office” with a gift for grabbing attention. What she has often failed to grasp is that there is such a thing as the wrong kind of attention. “Still in development” is the assessment of one reasonably sympathetic senior Tory.

    Conservatives have displayed next to no interest in atoning for all the things voters came to loathe about them. There has never been a comprehensive repudiation of Boris Johnson for debauching standards in public life. Nor has there been an expression of suitably abject contrition for Liz Truss’s calamitous experiment with the economy. Nor have senior Tories had the humility to acknowledge that they left a super-massive black hole in the Treasury’s books. When you have fouled up as badly and as repeatedly as the Conservatives did in government, the first step to redemption with the electorate is to own your blunders and express regret for them.

    Even if voters become persistently discontented with Sir Keir’s government, the Tories are delusional if they imagine that this means the public will simply collapse back into their embrace and tell the Conservatives all is forgiven. Not least because so far the Tories have been almost completely incapable of recognising how much forgiveness they will need before they are taken seriously again. If Kemi Badenoch wants to get a hearing from the British people, she is first going to have to say sorry. And she is going to have to say it a lot.

    I think this is why Badenoch was the better choice. Jenrick was continuity sleaze.

    Kemi's victory speech was clear that big mistakes were made by the Tories in office and that they need to have a long hard look at themselves.

    Her musings in the past that WFP should be scrapped (which she rowed back on when it became Labour policy) and on Maternity pay being too generous shows a real willingness to make deep cuts to welfare and pensions in order to move to a low tax country.

    I wonder if she has the courage to scrap the Triple Lock. She just might.
    Badenoch’s weakness is that she is very tribal, aggressively so. The most successful politicians have the ability to look over the party horizon and sympathise without and understand voters that make other choices. She shares Corbyns disdain for the opposition.
    Evangelical self righteousness makes big tent politics far harder.
    Why do you say Evangelical?

    Badenoch however is not a believer, describing herself as a “cultural Christian”; someone without a personal faith, but whose world view is broadly biblical. It may explain why she supports same-sex marriage, although as Equalities’ Minister, she also applauded Christian MSP Kate Forbes’ right to oppose it.
    https://www.womanalive.co.uk/opinion/who-is-kemi-badenoch-is-she-a-christian-and-would-she-be-a-good-leader-for-the-uk/18159.article
    Kemi is more agnostic Catholic than evangelical. Her husband Hamish is Roman Catholic.


    “My mother’s father. My paternal grandmother was a Muslim, though to be fair she did convert in later life. My family’s sort of Anglican and Methodist. My maternal grandfather was a Methodist reverend.”

    ConHome: “And where did he practice?”

    Badenoch: “In Nigeria. I was born here [in Wimbledon], but I call myself first generation, because I grew up in Nigeria and I chose to come back here. So I’m agnostic really, but I was brought up with cultural Christian values.”

    ConHome: “Have you had your children baptised?”

    Badenoch: “Yes, because I’m married to a Catholic [she and Hamish Badenoch, whose mother emigrated from Ireland, have two children].”

    ConHome: “They’re being brought up as Catholics, are they?”

    Badenoch: “Yes. So I’m an honorary or associate member of the Catholic Church. That’s what I call it.”
    https://conservativehome.com/2017/12/21/interview-kemi-badenoch-im-not-really-left-leaning-on-anything-i-always-lean-right-instinctively/
    I mean she doesn’t believe in God. So the rest is gravy. Let’s not go there again. First time we have had atheists leading both big parties.
    No, agnostics are not atheists and as she is married to a Roman Catholic and bringing up her children as Roman Catholic she is more religious than secular atheist. Even Starmer while an atheist, not even agnostic, is married to a Jewish lady and bringing up his children Jewish.

    Cleverly was an atheist too but was knocked out in the MPs round
    There's a difference between religion-as-culture and religion-as-belief. I realise England is the country that invented Anglicanism to give agnostics a nice place to sit, but even so belief is the dividing line
    Agnostics by definition neither don't believe in God or have belief in God, they are like Independent swing voters on religion and often culturally religious even if not believers.

    Atheists are anti religion as well as not believing in God, active religious believe in God and are culturally religious and worshippers too
    Agnostics generally don’t do religion, however. They might go to Xmas carols, but atheists do that too. They are functionally closer to atheists.
    No they aren't, most atheists never go to any religious service on principle
    You don't know jack.

    Its quite funny how you insist "atheists" do this or that without being one yourself based on your own suppositions and prejudices.

    For an atheist, religion is just fiction. I have no more principled an objection to going to a Christmas Carol service, or Nativity, than I would a principled objection going to a performance of Les Misérables or Wicked.

    I'll as happily go to a singalong of Oh Come All Ye Faithful as I will Defying Gravity.

    There's no principled reason why you need to believe fiction is real to enjoy it.

    Atheists up and down the country will enjoy Christmas Carols this year like every year. Because we're not miserable shits.
    Oh I do know jack, you are an atheist Labour voting, pensioner hater. The fact you might go to the odd school Nativity play or carol service doesn't mean you will be going to church, even at Christmas or Easter
    In my only acting credit to date, I played one of the Three Wise Men (the one wot delivered myrrh) at a school Nativity Play way back in 1982!
    I played the cowboy. A central figure in the Nativity.

    A bit of camel wrangling was required to land the part.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    HYUFD said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
    How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
    Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
    God doesn't eat meat!
    Uh yes he does, the passover meal for starters was lamb
    No, he doesn't. Show me a video of him eating meat, then!
    Jesus Christ ate lamb and is also God and Holy Ghost as well as Son and we have painting and written evidence of him eating lamb at Passover. There were no videos 2000 years ago
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,895
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    HYUFD said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    HYUFD said:

    bondegezou said:

    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anabobazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Meanwhile, the weekend Rawnsley:

    The new Tory leader takes charge with a tepid endorsement from her party’s members, two-thirds of her parliamentary colleagues preferring someone else and prominent names declaring that they have no desire to serve in her shadow cabinet.

    In her acceptance speech, she described the task ahead as “tough”, which is an understatement. The July election was the worst result for the Conservative party, both in terms of vote share and seats won, since 1832. I am not among those who think this means the Tories can never recover. They have been pronounced dead and buried in the past only then to rise from the grave. But they are unlikely to start recovering until – and unless – they have an honest reckoning with themselves about their multiple failings in government.

    Surveys suggest that very few voters think the Conservatives lost the election because they were too left wing while the majority of those with an opinion put it down to their incompetence.

    One of the biggest challenges for the new leader of the opposition, and especially when the Tory parliamentary presence is so small, will be persuading voters to pay them any heed. The case made for Mrs Badenoch by her promoters is that she is “box office” with a gift for grabbing attention. What she has often failed to grasp is that there is such a thing as the wrong kind of attention. “Still in development” is the assessment of one reasonably sympathetic senior Tory.

    Conservatives have displayed next to no interest in atoning for all the things voters came to loathe about them. There has never been a comprehensive repudiation of Boris Johnson for debauching standards in public life. Nor has there been an expression of suitably abject contrition for Liz Truss’s calamitous experiment with the economy. Nor have senior Tories had the humility to acknowledge that they left a super-massive black hole in the Treasury’s books. When you have fouled up as badly and as repeatedly as the Conservatives did in government, the first step to redemption with the electorate is to own your blunders and express regret for them.

    Even if voters become persistently discontented with Sir Keir’s government, the Tories are delusional if they imagine that this means the public will simply collapse back into their embrace and tell the Conservatives all is forgiven. Not least because so far the Tories have been almost completely incapable of recognising how much forgiveness they will need before they are taken seriously again. If Kemi Badenoch wants to get a hearing from the British people, she is first going to have to say sorry. And she is going to have to say it a lot.

    I think this is why Badenoch was the better choice. Jenrick was continuity sleaze.

    Kemi's victory speech was clear that big mistakes were made by the Tories in office and that they need to have a long hard look at themselves.

    Her musings in the past that WFP should be scrapped (which she rowed back on when it became Labour policy) and on Maternity pay being too generous shows a real willingness to make deep cuts to welfare and pensions in order to move to a low tax country.

    I wonder if she has the courage to scrap the Triple Lock. She just might.
    Badenoch’s weakness is that she is very tribal, aggressively so. The most successful politicians have the ability to look over the party horizon and sympathise without and understand voters that make other choices. She shares Corbyns disdain for the opposition.
    Evangelical self righteousness makes big tent politics far harder.
    Why do you say Evangelical?

    Badenoch however is not a believer, describing herself as a “cultural Christian”; someone without a personal faith, but whose world view is broadly biblical. It may explain why she supports same-sex marriage, although as Equalities’ Minister, she also applauded Christian MSP Kate Forbes’ right to oppose it.
    https://www.womanalive.co.uk/opinion/who-is-kemi-badenoch-is-she-a-christian-and-would-she-be-a-good-leader-for-the-uk/18159.article
    Kemi is more agnostic Catholic than evangelical. Her husband Hamish is Roman Catholic.


    “My mother’s father. My paternal grandmother was a Muslim, though to be fair she did convert in later life. My family’s sort of Anglican and Methodist. My maternal grandfather was a Methodist reverend.”

    ConHome: “And where did he practice?”

    Badenoch: “In Nigeria. I was born here [in Wimbledon], but I call myself first generation, because I grew up in Nigeria and I chose to come back here. So I’m agnostic really, but I was brought up with cultural Christian values.”

    ConHome: “Have you had your children baptised?”

    Badenoch: “Yes, because I’m married to a Catholic [she and Hamish Badenoch, whose mother emigrated from Ireland, have two children].”

    ConHome: “They’re being brought up as Catholics, are they?”

    Badenoch: “Yes. So I’m an honorary or associate member of the Catholic Church. That’s what I call it.”
    https://conservativehome.com/2017/12/21/interview-kemi-badenoch-im-not-really-left-leaning-on-anything-i-always-lean-right-instinctively/
    I mean she doesn’t believe in God. So the rest is gravy. Let’s not go there again. First time we have had atheists leading both big parties.
    No, agnostics are not atheists and as she is married to a Roman Catholic and bringing up her children as Roman Catholic she is more religious than secular atheist. Even Starmer while an atheist, not even agnostic, is married to a Jewish lady and bringing up his children Jewish.

    Cleverly was an atheist too but was knocked out in the MPs round
    There's a difference between religion-as-culture and religion-as-belief. I realise England is the country that invented Anglicanism to give agnostics a nice place to sit, but even so belief is the dividing line
    Agnostics by definition neither don't believe in God or have belief in God, they are like Independent swing voters on religion and often culturally religious even if not believers.

    Atheists are anti religion as well as not believing in God, active religious believe in God and are culturally religious and worshippers too
    Agnostics generally don’t do religion, however. They might go to Xmas carols, but atheists do that too. They are functionally closer to atheists.
    No they aren't, most atheists never go to any religious service on principle
    You don't know jack.

    Its quite funny how you insist "atheists" do this or that without being one yourself based on your own suppositions and prejudices.

    For an atheist, religion is just fiction. I have no more principled an objection to going to a Christmas Carol service, or Nativity, than I would a principled objection going to a performance of Les Misérables or Wicked.

    I'll as happily go to a singalong of Oh Come All Ye Faithful as I will Defying Gravity.

    There's no principled reason why you need to believe fiction is real to enjoy it.

    Atheists up and down the country will enjoy Christmas Carols this year like every year. Because we're not miserable shits.
    Oh I do know jack, you are an atheist Labour voting, pensioner hater. The fact you might go to the odd school Nativity play or carol service doesn't mean you will be going to church, even at Christmas or Easter
    In my only acting credit to date, I played one of the Three Wise Men (the one wot delivered myrrh) at a school Nativity Play way back in 1982!
    And there was me thinking that the role of "Sunil Prasannan" was part of an extended thespian project.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,161
    LostPassword said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    HYUFD said:

    bondegezou said:

    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anabobazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Meanwhile, the weekend Rawnsley:

    The new Tory leader takes charge with a tepid endorsement from her party’s members, two-thirds of her parliamentary colleagues preferring someone else and prominent names declaring that they have no desire to serve in her shadow cabinet.

    In her acceptance speech, she described the task ahead as “tough”, which is an understatement. The July election was the worst result for the Conservative party, both in terms of vote share and seats won, since 1832. I am not among those who think this means the Tories can never recover. They have been pronounced dead and buried in the past only then to rise from the grave. But they are unlikely to start recovering until – and unless – they have an honest reckoning with themselves about their multiple failings in government.

    Surveys suggest that very few voters think the Conservatives lost the election because they were too left wing while the majority of those with an opinion put it down to their incompetence.

    One of the biggest challenges for the new leader of the opposition, and especially when the Tory parliamentary presence is so small, will be persuading voters to pay them any heed. The case made for Mrs Badenoch by her promoters is that she is “box office” with a gift for grabbing attention. What she has often failed to grasp is that there is such a thing as the wrong kind of attention. “Still in development” is the assessment of one reasonably sympathetic senior Tory.

    Conservatives have displayed next to no interest in atoning for all the things voters came to loathe about them. There has never been a comprehensive repudiation of Boris Johnson for debauching standards in public life. Nor has there been an expression of suitably abject contrition for Liz Truss’s calamitous experiment with the economy. Nor have senior Tories had the humility to acknowledge that they left a super-massive black hole in the Treasury’s books. When you have fouled up as badly and as repeatedly as the Conservatives did in government, the first step to redemption with the electorate is to own your blunders and express regret for them.

    Even if voters become persistently discontented with Sir Keir’s government, the Tories are delusional if they imagine that this means the public will simply collapse back into their embrace and tell the Conservatives all is forgiven. Not least because so far the Tories have been almost completely incapable of recognising how much forgiveness they will need before they are taken seriously again. If Kemi Badenoch wants to get a hearing from the British people, she is first going to have to say sorry. And she is going to have to say it a lot.

    I think this is why Badenoch was the better choice. Jenrick was continuity sleaze.

    Kemi's victory speech was clear that big mistakes were made by the Tories in office and that they need to have a long hard look at themselves.

    Her musings in the past that WFP should be scrapped (which she rowed back on when it became Labour policy) and on Maternity pay being too generous shows a real willingness to make deep cuts to welfare and pensions in order to move to a low tax country.

    I wonder if she has the courage to scrap the Triple Lock. She just might.
    Badenoch’s weakness is that she is very tribal, aggressively so. The most successful politicians have the ability to look over the party horizon and sympathise without and understand voters that make other choices. She shares Corbyns disdain for the opposition.
    Evangelical self righteousness makes big tent politics far harder.
    Why do you say Evangelical?

    Badenoch however is not a believer, describing herself as a “cultural Christian”; someone without a personal faith, but whose world view is broadly biblical. It may explain why she supports same-sex marriage, although as Equalities’ Minister, she also applauded Christian MSP Kate Forbes’ right to oppose it.
    https://www.womanalive.co.uk/opinion/who-is-kemi-badenoch-is-she-a-christian-and-would-she-be-a-good-leader-for-the-uk/18159.article
    Kemi is more agnostic Catholic than evangelical. Her husband Hamish is Roman Catholic.


    “My mother’s father. My paternal grandmother was a Muslim, though to be fair she did convert in later life. My family’s sort of Anglican and Methodist. My maternal grandfather was a Methodist reverend.”

    ConHome: “And where did he practice?”

    Badenoch: “In Nigeria. I was born here [in Wimbledon], but I call myself first generation, because I grew up in Nigeria and I chose to come back here. So I’m agnostic really, but I was brought up with cultural Christian values.”

    ConHome: “Have you had your children baptised?”

    Badenoch: “Yes, because I’m married to a Catholic [she and Hamish Badenoch, whose mother emigrated from Ireland, have two children].”

    ConHome: “They’re being brought up as Catholics, are they?”

    Badenoch: “Yes. So I’m an honorary or associate member of the Catholic Church. That’s what I call it.”
    https://conservativehome.com/2017/12/21/interview-kemi-badenoch-im-not-really-left-leaning-on-anything-i-always-lean-right-instinctively/
    I mean she doesn’t believe in God. So the rest is gravy. Let’s not go there again. First time we have had atheists leading both big parties.
    No, agnostics are not atheists and as she is married to a Roman Catholic and bringing up her children as Roman Catholic she is more religious than secular atheist. Even Starmer while an atheist, not even agnostic, is married to a Jewish lady and bringing up his children Jewish.

    Cleverly was an atheist too but was knocked out in the MPs round
    There's a difference between religion-as-culture and religion-as-belief. I realise England is the country that invented Anglicanism to give agnostics a nice place to sit, but even so belief is the dividing line
    Agnostics by definition neither don't believe in God or have belief in God, they are like Independent swing voters on religion and often culturally religious even if not believers.

    Atheists are anti religion as well as not believing in God, active religious believe in God and are culturally religious and worshippers too
    Agnostics generally don’t do religion, however. They might go to Xmas carols, but atheists do that too. They are functionally closer to atheists.
    No they aren't, most atheists never go to any religious service on principle
    You don't know jack.

    Its quite funny how you insist "atheists" do this or that without being one yourself based on your own suppositions and prejudices.

    For an atheist, religion is just fiction. I have no more principled an objection to going to a Christmas Carol service, or Nativity, than I would a principled objection going to a performance of Les Misérables or Wicked.

    I'll as happily go to a singalong of Oh Come All Ye Faithful as I will Defying Gravity.

    There's no principled reason why you need to believe fiction is real to enjoy it.

    Atheists up and down the country will enjoy Christmas Carols this year like every year. Because we're not miserable shits.
    Also, I went to a normal Sunday church service with my daughter, because I was visiting her and it's something she does now.

    HYUFD would probably be surprised by the number of atheists in the weekly pew numbers. I don't suppose there are lots of them, but there will be more than zero.
    Plenty of atheists attending Unitarian services. Even leading the services, on occasion.
This discussion has been closed.