"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
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
I'm not convinced Selzer is wrong, but it would be interesting if she were right and at the same time there were no Kamala landslide nationally.
"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
Show me a DNA test confirming God is the one true father of Jesus!
"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..
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
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.
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?”
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.
You and HY playing socio-political ping-pong is one of the many joys of PB.
"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
"We have painting evidence ...". Biblical scholars, eat your hearts out! (Particularly as they are non-vegan.)
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.
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?”
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
They don't stay for the tea and biscuits afterwards?!? That's the best bit of an Anglican church service.
Although the last time I went there was marble cake, because it was my daughter's birthday and she baked cake for it.
"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!
With AI you can't guarantee it's authentic footage.😂
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
Emerson was almost spot on in their final 2020 poll, it was Biden 50% and Trump 45% so had Biden's margin about right but just underestimated Biden's final national voteshare by 1% and Trump's by just over 1%.
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
"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...
I'd say it is unlikely to need a revisit; vegan food is already at 40% in the NT so it is a marginal change.
The numbers are that the vote was won at a 3:1 ratio, and that half of the country are considering moving more towards a less meat-intensive diet, so they are following the membership and the market.
This is just some Captain Mainwarings trying to manufacture a faked up culture war, or pull the National Trust into a culture war they want to broaden.
Piece in the Telegraph, with the headline line "National Trust pushes through vegan overhaul of cafes despite membership backlash" rather than the more accurate "National Trust members vote for ...". https://archive.ph/QfRH0
Whatever you do, don't tell them that the NT now has a Cyclists Welcome Manager (misnamed: he actually does cycling, wheeling, walking) with a Hungarian name, or they will all become timelords to be able to have 2 simultaneous heart attacks, and will start blaming Nurse Gladys Emmanuel.
F1: blog to follow but tip is Verstappen to win at 13, hedged at 3.
Edited: not an official blog tip, but for my own amusement I've backed Hulkenberg each way at 1,001 on Ladbrokes. I reserve the right to cite this in the very slightly unlikely event it comes off.
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Young Bart: Fancy a drink? Young Sunil: Got any Quorn? Young Bart: If you want. [goes to fridge and takes a bottle of Quorn for Sunil, and a bottle of meat for himself] Young Sunil: Meat? UGH! Young Bart: It's what Ian Rush drinks! Young Sunil: Ian Rush?? Young Bart: Yeah, and he said, when I grow up, if I didn't drink lots of meat, I wouldn't be good enough to play for the Liberal Democrats! Young Sunil: Liberal Democrats? Who are they? Young Bart: Exactly!
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.
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?”
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.
You and HY playing socio-political ping-pong is one of the many joys of PB.
And I have not joined in yet
Bless him @HYUFD is so Evangical Old School and subservient to Royalty it is quite amusing
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
If God didn't want us to eat animals, he would not have made them delicious.
There is more to this than a joke. We have sense of taste to ensure that we eat what our bodies need, and avoid what will harm us: sour for acids (like Vitamin C), sweet (for energy), savoury (for salt), umami (for protein), bitter (for avoiding poisons), and oleogustus (for fats).
If God didn't want us to eat animals, he would not have made them delicious.
There is more to this than a joke. We have sense of taste to ensure that we eat what our bodies need, and avoid what will harm us: sour for acids (like Vitamin C), sweet (for energy), savoury (for salt), umami (for protein), bitter (for avoiding poisons), and oleogustus (for fats).
"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
One of the Caravaggio suppers at Emmaus has the saviour presiding over a rather nice looking roast chicken iirc.
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.
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?”
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.
You and HY playing socio-political ping-pong is one of the many joys of PB.
And I have not joined in yet
Bless him @HYUFD is so Evangical Old School and subservient to Royalty it is quite amusing
I don't think he is, TBH - but I don't think I can tell enough from his comments to stick an accurate label on.
"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!
With AI you can't guarantee it's authentic footage.😂
God was an earlier adopter of technology. He did write the commandments on a tablet so there would be video footage. I understand he movies in mysterious ways.
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
'Pedro Sánchez and his entourage are "well" after they had to be evacuated from the town of Paiporta earlier this afternoon, according to Spanish officials.
In a statement to Spanish broadcaster La Sexta, officials say Spain's prime minister was "heckled and attacked" while some people "threw mud balls and other objects at him". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvg4p0y3xlpt
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.
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?”
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 was wondering whether you'd done a spell moonlighting as a scriptwriter on last night's SNL Kamala skit.
If God didn't want us to eat animals, he would not have made them delicious.
There is more to this than a joke. We have sense of taste to ensure that we eat what our bodies need, and avoid what will harm us: sour for acids (like Vitamin C), sweet (for energy), savoury (for salt), umami (for protein), bitter (for avoiding poisons), and oleogustus (for fats).
There should be a papal bull condemning MSG.
Too right! Too many racist jokes at Madison Square Garden rally!
If God didn't want us to eat animals, he would not have made them delicious.
I think I would question the strength of that argument.
If you are pitting animal flesh verses plants, which I guess you are, I would disagree that animals are tastier. In fact I would strongly disagree.
I mean, what do I enjoy most and what has the most flavour of anything that we eat? Spices, herbs, chilis, cheese, strawberries, mushrooms, asparagus, garlic, onions, pineapples, pizza. No animal flesh there.
Don't we use plants to cook with meats to give the latter the flavour the dish would otherwise lack?
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
If God didn't want us to eat animals, he would not have made them delicious.
I think I would question the strength of that argument.
If you are pitting animal flesh verses plants, which I guess you are, I would disagree that animals are tastier. In fact I would strongly disagree.
I mean, what do I enjoy most and what has the most flavour of anything that we eat? Spices, herbs, chilis, cheese, strawberries, mushrooms, asparagus, garlic, onions, pineapples, pizza. No animal flesh there.
Don't we use plants to cook with meats to give the latter the flavour the dish would otherwise lack?
"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
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
Can't say fairer than half and half, then?
If its half and half based on that's what people choose, I have no qualms with that.
If half the options are just making up the numbers for the sake of it then getting binned while the other half are much more popular and there's better choices not going on the menu because they're crowded out by a stupid policy, then its a stupid policy.
I'm free to think its a stupid policy and take my custom elsewhere. Went to a restaurant yesterday where there was a token vegan/vegetarian meal in each section of the menu which is probably the least popular option there but is there as a token to give vegans/vegetarians an option. Sensible way to do it given who their customers are.
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
If God didn't want us to eat animals, he would not have made them delicious.
I think I would question the strength of that argument.
If you are pitting animal flesh verses plants, which I guess you are, I would disagree that animals are tastier. In fact I would strongly disagree.
I mean, what do I enjoy most and what has the most flavour of anything that we eat? Spices, herbs, chilis, cheese, strawberries, mushrooms, asparagus, garlic, onions, pineapples, pizza. No animal flesh there.
Don't we use plants to cook with meats to give the latter the flavour the dish would otherwise lack?
If God didn't want us to eat animals, he would not have made them delicious.
I think I would question the strength of that argument.
If you are pitting animal flesh verses plants, which I guess you are, I would disagree that animals are tastier. In fact I would strongly disagree.
I mean, what do I enjoy most and what has the most flavour of anything that we eat? Spices, herbs, chilis, cheese, strawberries, mushrooms, asparagus, garlic, onions, pineapples, pizza. No animal flesh there.
Don't we use plants to cook with meats to give the latter the flavour the dish would otherwise lack?
I mean, taste is subjective, but I would say absolutely not. Love many dishes that are enhanced with other ingredients, but bacon, steak, roast chicken, game, etc. need nothing added.
Legislation can also help the dam removal process, though it differs from country to country. Spain, where rivers are public, is at the vanguard of dismantling dams in Europe, with 133 removals carried out in 2022, followed by Sweden and France. River connectivity is also a central topic of the European Commission's Nature Restoration Law: in November 2023, European member states reached a provisional agreement that includes an obligation to remove man-made barriers to reach a goal of 25,000km (15,530 miles) of free-flowing rivers by 2030. The law was then approved on the 27 February by the European Parliament. Dam removal advocates hope it will help make the case for more action.
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
How do you feel about cannibalism?
Are your girl scout cookies made from real girls scouts?
With Kemi as Tory Party leader, where does it leave the ongoing project, supported by a protruding rump of PB posters, that Britain should remain majority white British?
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
If God didn't want us to eat animals, he would not have made them delicious.
I think I would question the strength of that argument.
If you are pitting animal flesh verses plants, which I guess you are, I would disagree that animals are tastier. In fact I would strongly disagree.
I mean, what do I enjoy most and what has the most flavour of anything that we eat? Spices, herbs, chilis, cheese, strawberries, mushrooms, asparagus, garlic, onions, pineapples, pizza. No animal flesh there.
Don't we use plants to cook with meats to give the latter the flavour the dish would otherwise lack?
Bacon. Top trumps.
Friend of mine is a Muslim vegetarian, who can be occasionally persuaded by a bacon sandwich!
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
How do you feel about cannibalism?
Are your girl scout cookies made from real girls scouts?
Am I just naive? I refuse to believe that corruption is rampant across our body politics. I’ve been in positions at a local government level where it might have been worth bunging me something, never got offered anything or even hinted at. The police do not mess around with this kind of stuff. If there was dodgy stuff going on they wouldn’t be able to stop falling over themselves to chase it down. Careers are made on taking down dodgy politicians. I always think it’s worth remembering that a cabinet minister went to jail, yes, went to jail for getting his wife to take his three speeding points. An act in itself if we are being honest is trivial and could have been swept under the carpet with a telling off and not be so stupid. But no he was pursued and went to jail. It will be the same if anything comes out of Covid. Jail. Back to Covid, we had a pm and a chancellor. Two of the three highest offices of state of HMG who got fixed penalties for been present when someone else presented them some cake whilst they were at work. The chancellor even left the room a few minutes after it started, yet still got a fine.
If something stinks the police either are on it, will be on it, or it didn’t really stink after all.
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.
Quite a bit. Eg the podcast with Rogan, lots of targeted SM activity, the idea being to get these 'bro' types out and voting for male supremacy. No doubt it will have paid a dividend but at the price of putting off others. Much of Trump's campaign has been of an "oh yuck" nature. In any case, just looking at the low propensity side of things, I think as an army the bros will be overwhelmed by Harris's female equivalent.
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
How do you feel about cannibalism?
According to Peter Singer, it would be speciesist not to consider it.
But even then would be enhanced by some chilli jam.
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
Can't say fairer than half and half, then?
If its half and half based on that's what people choose, I have no qualms with that.
If half the options are just making up the numbers for the sake of it then getting binned while the other half are much more popular and there's better choices not going on the menu because they're crowded out by a stupid policy, then its a stupid policy.
I'm free to think its a stupid policy and take my custom elsewhere. Went to a restaurant yesterday where there was a token vegan/vegetarian meal in each section of the menu which is probably the least popular option there but is there as a token to give vegans/vegetarians an option. Sensible way to do it given who their customers are.
Unless you undertake a systematic study of National Trust bins, I suspect you'll never know exactly how well the 50-50 policy corresponds to demand.
If God didn't want us to eat animals, he would not have made them delicious.
I think I would question the strength of that argument.
If you are pitting animal flesh verses plants, which I guess you are, I would disagree that animals are tastier. In fact I would strongly disagree.
I mean, what do I enjoy most and what has the most flavour of anything that we eat? Spices, herbs, chilis, cheese, strawberries, mushrooms, asparagus, garlic, onions, pineapples, pizza. No animal flesh there.
Don't we use plants to cook with meats to give the latter the flavour the dish would otherwise lack?
Bacon. Top trumps.
Friend of mine is a Muslim vegetarian, who can be occasionally persuaded by a bacon sandwich!
A friend of mine is a vegan who, three pints in, will happily go for a scotch egg or sausage roll as a bar snack. It’s hard wired.
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
How do you feel about cannibalism?
According to Peter Singer, it would be speciesist not to consider it.
But even them would be enhanced by some chilli jam.
I suspect humans need a long, slow cook. I’d say pulled pork style with a good bbq sauce.
Legislation can also help the dam removal process, though it differs from country to country. Spain, where rivers are public, is at the vanguard of dismantling dams in Europe, with 133 removals carried out in 2022, followed by Sweden and France. River connectivity is also a central topic of the European Commission's Nature Restoration Law: in November 2023, European member states reached a provisional agreement that includes an obligation to remove man-made barriers to reach a goal of 25,000km (15,530 miles) of free-flowing rivers by 2030. The law was then approved on the 27 February by the European Parliament. Dam removal advocates hope it will help make the case for more action.
Being bit of a big island, we are spared a lot of politics of Rivers. Even if brexited like we did, being landlocked in EU would have mattered diddly squat to the arguments of pollution flowing into UK from actions in countries next door or up stream, and even where are rivers no longer flow anymore.
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.
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?”
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.
You and HY playing socio-political ping-pong is one of the many joys of PB.
And I have not joined in yet
Bless him @HYUFD is so Evangical Old School and subservient to Royalty it is quite amusing
I don't think he is, TBH - but I don't think I can tell enough from his comments to stick an accurate label on.
Reflecting, were I to choose a HFUYD-affiliated senior bishop, it would probably be ABC Geoffrey Fisher or Cosmo Gordon-Lang, or ABY David Hope, all of whom are roughly on the doctrinally traditionalist side of Anglo-Catholic, rather than say Robert Runcie or John Hapgood or Michael Ramsey or Rowan Williams as per my current avatar, who would be on the Liberal Catholic side.
All of those are eminently respectable, and I think quite competent.
If God didn't want us to eat animals, he would not have made them delicious.
There is more to this than a joke. We have sense of taste to ensure that we eat what our bodies need, and avoid what will harm us: sour for acids (like Vitamin C), sweet (for energy), savoury (for salt), umami (for protein), bitter (for avoiding poisons), and oleogustus (for fats).
There should be a papal bull condemning MSG.
Why? It's naturally occuring in stuff like parmesan cheese and mushrooms. Sure you can overeat it but it would be like banning salt.
Legislation can also help the dam removal process, though it differs from country to country. Spain, where rivers are public, is at the vanguard of dismantling dams in Europe, with 133 removals carried out in 2022, followed by Sweden and France. River connectivity is also a central topic of the European Commission's Nature Restoration Law: in November 2023, European member states reached a provisional agreement that includes an obligation to remove man-made barriers to reach a goal of 25,000km (15,530 miles) of free-flowing rivers by 2030. The law was then approved on the 27 February by the European Parliament. Dam removal advocates hope it will help make the case for more action.
Being bit of a big island, we are spared a lot of politics of Rivers. Even if brexited like we did, being landlocked in EU would have mattered diddly squat to the arguments of pollution flowing into UK from actions in countries next door or up stream, and even where are rivers no longer flow anymore.
Eh? The Severn/Hafren has plenty arguments about water abstraction actual and potential. Not so much the Tweed, though (I think that's about the occasional disagreement about salmon conservation perhaps?).
If God didn't want us to eat animals, he would not have made them delicious.
There is more to this than a joke. We have sense of taste to ensure that we eat what our bodies need, and avoid what will harm us: sour for acids (like Vitamin C), sweet (for energy), savoury (for salt), umami (for protein), bitter (for avoiding poisons), and oleogustus (for fats).
There should be a papal bull condemning MSG.
Why? It's naturally occuring in stuff like parmesan cheese and mushrooms. Sure you can overeat it but it would be like banning salt.
If God didn't want us to eat animals, he would not have made them delicious.
There is more to this than a joke. We have sense of taste to ensure that we eat what our bodies need, and avoid what will harm us: sour for acids (like Vitamin C), sweet (for energy), savoury (for salt), umami (for protein), bitter (for avoiding poisons), and oleogustus (for fats).
There should be a papal bull condemning MSG.
Why? It's naturally occuring in stuff like parmesan cheese and mushrooms. Sure you can overeat it but it would be like banning salt.
Don’t give parliament ideas.
I'm hearing that Reeves has no plans to implement a salt tax.
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.
Quite a bit. Eg the podcast with Rogan, lots of targeted SM activity, the idea being to get these 'bro' types out and voting for male supremacy. No doubt it will have paid a dividend but at the price of putting off others. Much of Trump's campaign has been of an "oh yuck" nature. In any case, just looking at the low propensity side of things, I think as an army the bros will be overwhelmed by Harris's female equivalent.
Whether or not people think the Selzer poll suffers from a systematic error, it's a significant change (+3 from -4) from the result from the same pollster nearly 8 weeks ago. Suggests the campaign has had an effect.
If God didn't want us to eat animals, he would not have made them delicious.
I think I would question the strength of that argument.
If you are pitting animal flesh verses plants, which I guess you are, I would disagree that animals are tastier. In fact I would strongly disagree.
I mean, what do I enjoy most and what has the most flavour of anything that we eat? Spices, herbs, chilis, cheese, strawberries, mushrooms, asparagus, garlic, onions, pineapples, pizza. No animal flesh there.
Don't we use plants to cook with meats to give the latter the flavour the dish would otherwise lack?
I'd say that in a beef stew most of the flavour is from the beef and not the parsnip/carrots/potatoes, though the two are complimentary.
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
Can't say fairer than half and half, then?
If its half and half based on that's what people choose, I have no qualms with that.
If half the options are just making up the numbers for the sake of it then getting binned while the other half are much more popular and there's better choices not going on the menu because they're crowded out by a stupid policy, then its a stupid policy.
I'm free to think its a stupid policy and take my custom elsewhere. Went to a restaurant yesterday where there was a token vegan/vegetarian meal in each section of the menu which is probably the least popular option there but is there as a token to give vegans/vegetarians an option. Sensible way to do it given who their customers are.
Unless you undertake a systematic study of National Trust bins, I suspect you'll never know exactly how well the 50-50 policy corresponds to demand.
I would have expected that some data on relative sales of vegan/non-vegan food would have been presented for the vote on changing the mix, otherwise it would have been hard to decide which way to vote.
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
Can't say fairer than half and half, then?
If its half and half based on that's what people choose, I have no qualms with that.
If half the options are just making up the numbers for the sake of it then getting binned while the other half are much more popular and there's better choices not going on the menu because they're crowded out by a stupid policy, then its a stupid policy.
I'm free to think its a stupid policy and take my custom elsewhere. Went to a restaurant yesterday where there was a token vegan/vegetarian meal in each section of the menu which is probably the least popular option there but is there as a token to give vegans/vegetarians an option. Sensible way to do it given who their customers are.
Unless you undertake a systematic study of National Trust bins, I suspect you'll never know exactly how well the 50-50 policy corresponds to demand.
I would have expected that some data on relative sales of vegan/non-vegan food would have been presented for the vote on changing the mix, otherwise it would have been hard to decide which way to vote.
Why would such an operational matter be put to the membership if it wasn’t for some kind of virtue seeking?
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
Can't say fairer than half and half, then?
If its half and half based on that's what people choose, I have no qualms with that.
If half the options are just making up the numbers for the sake of it then getting binned while the other half are much more popular and there's better choices not going on the menu because they're crowded out by a stupid policy, then its a stupid policy.
I'm free to think its a stupid policy and take my custom elsewhere. Went to a restaurant yesterday where there was a token vegan/vegetarian meal in each section of the menu which is probably the least popular option there but is there as a token to give vegans/vegetarians an option. Sensible way to do it given who their customers are.
Unless you undertake a systematic study of National Trust bins, I suspect you'll never know exactly how well the 50-50 policy corresponds to demand.
I would have expected that some data on relative sales of vegan/non-vegan food would have been presented for the vote on changing the mix, otherwise it would have been hard to decide which way to vote.
They don’t care, it’s ideological.
Memories of the student union in 1997 spending several hours debating whether or not the union retail shop should sell KitKats.
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
Can't say fairer than half and half, then?
If its half and half based on that's what people choose, I have no qualms with that.
If half the options are just making up the numbers for the sake of it then getting binned while the other half are much more popular and there's better choices not going on the menu because they're crowded out by a stupid policy, then its a stupid policy.
I'm free to think its a stupid policy and take my custom elsewhere. Went to a restaurant yesterday where there was a token vegan/vegetarian meal in each section of the menu which is probably the least popular option there but is there as a token to give vegans/vegetarians an option. Sensible way to do it given who their customers are.
Unless you undertake a systematic study of National Trust bins, I suspect you'll never know exactly how well the 50-50 policy corresponds to demand.
I would have expected that some data on relative sales of vegan/non-vegan food would have been presented for the vote on changing the mix, otherwise it would have been hard to decide which way to vote.
Joking aside if, as noted above, their scones are vegan then the only non-vegan thing I’ve eaten there for years is the milk in my tea. I would think it would be a bit restrictive for cakes, and definitely for sarnies, but I can image getting to 50% using tray bakes.
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.
Quite a bit. Eg the podcast with Rogan, lots of targeted SM activity, the idea being to get these 'bro' types out and voting for male supremacy. No doubt it will have paid a dividend but at the price of putting off others. Much of Trump's campaign has been of an "oh yuck" nature. In any case, just looking at the low propensity side of things, I think as an army the bros will be overwhelmed by Harris's female equivalent.
SM activity, online trolls etc have been a big thing for the QAnon/Trump crazies for the past 8 years.
I'm not seeing many new votes there for Trump. He's doubling down on what he already had.
Aaron Rupar @atrupar.bsky.social · 13m Trump denounces the woke libs on the network that had to shell out $787 million because they tried to destroy democracy for him
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 1h If what Selzer is capturing in IA is revulsion on the part of senior women, including conservative ones, at an extreme abortion ban...it could lead one to wonder about TX, which has a similar ban, with much publicized severe consequences, and which was closer than IA in 2020.
Is it possible that attacking a large tv network, which is likely to be well watched by your target voters, is a suboptimal campaign strategy with a few days to go?
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.
Quite a bit. Eg the podcast with Rogan, lots of targeted SM activity, the idea being to get these 'bro' types out and voting for male supremacy. No doubt it will have paid a dividend but at the price of putting off others. Much of Trump's campaign has been of an "oh yuck" nature. In any case, just looking at the low propensity side of things, I think as an army the bros will be overwhelmed by Harris's female equivalent.
SM activity, online trolls etc have been a big thing for the QAnon/Trump crazies for the past 8 years.
I'm not seeing many new votes there for Trump. He's doubling down on what he already had.
The new voters there are aged 18-22, and were too young to vote last time.
Whether or not they actually turn out, is a different question.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 1h If what Selzer is capturing in IA is revulsion on the part of senior women, including conservative ones, at an extreme abortion ban...it could lead one to wonder about TX, which has a similar ban, with much publicized severe consequences, and which was closer than IA in 2020.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 1h If what Selzer is capturing in IA is revulsion on the part of senior women, including conservative ones, at an extreme abortion ban...it could lead one to wonder about TX, which has a similar ban, with much publicized severe consequences, and which was closer than IA in 2020.
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.
Quite a bit. Eg the podcast with Rogan, lots of targeted SM activity, the idea being to get these 'bro' types out and voting for male supremacy. No doubt it will have paid a dividend but at the price of putting off others. Much of Trump's campaign has been of an "oh yuck" nature. In any case, just looking at the low propensity side of things, I think as an army the bros will be overwhelmed by Harris's female equivalent.
SM activity, online trolls etc have been a big thing for the QAnon/Trump crazies for the past 8 years.
I'm not seeing many new votes there for Trump. He's doubling down on what he already had.
The new voters there are aged 18-22, and were too young to vote last time.
Whether or not they actually turn out, is a different question.
Yeah but last time the voters who were then 18-22 were being targeted in much the same way.
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.
I think Trump has put on an awful lot of “Danny” from Leave The World Behind in this election. Have you seen Leave The World Behind? Danny is played by Kevin Bacon.
When you consider the colossal amount of people who don’t vote in US general elections, I suspect a large amount of them are Danny’s, seeing no difference between Rep and Dem on sending US Troops abroad to make every US citizen an enemy and the target of all sorts of foreigners far away, and see US participating in NATO to protect the expanding EU as woefully old fashioned, 20th Century geo-politics whilst it’s nearly 2025 already.
Trump has been very consistent on this part of his platform, and could even be ahead of the game on it.
I suspect Danny hasn’t voted in US General Elections for decades, but is voting Trump this time.
Is it possible that attacking a large tv network, which is likely to be well watched by your target voters, is a suboptimal campaign strategy with a few days to go?
Everything he does pretty much is conventionally sub-optimal and yet here we are two days to go and its neck and neck unless Selzer is correct.
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.
Quite a bit. Eg the podcast with Rogan, lots of targeted SM activity, the idea being to get these 'bro' types out and voting for male supremacy. No doubt it will have paid a dividend but at the price of putting off others. Much of Trump's campaign has been of an "oh yuck" nature. In any case, just looking at the low propensity side of things, I think as an army the bros will be overwhelmed by Harris's female equivalent.
SM activity, online trolls etc have been a big thing for the QAnon/Trump crazies for the past 8 years.
I'm not seeing many new votes there for Trump. He's doubling down on what he already had.
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
Can't say fairer than half and half, then?
If its half and half based on that's what people choose, I have no qualms with that.
If half the options are just making up the numbers for the sake of it then getting binned while the other half are much more popular and there's better choices not going on the menu because they're crowded out by a stupid policy, then its a stupid policy.
I'm free to think its a stupid policy and take my custom elsewhere. Went to a restaurant yesterday where there was a token vegan/vegetarian meal in each section of the menu which is probably the least popular option there but is there as a token to give vegans/vegetarians an option. Sensible way to do it given who their customers are.
Unless you undertake a systematic study of National Trust bins, I suspect you'll never know exactly how well the 50-50 policy corresponds to demand.
I would have expected that some data on relative sales of vegan/non-vegan food would have been presented for the vote on changing the mix, otherwise it would have been hard to decide which way to vote.
Why would such an operational matter be put to the membership if it wasn’t for some kind of virtue seeking?
It wasn't "put to the membership".
AGM membership motions are one way the membership get to input into policy, and this came through that route. It is asking the Trustees to move further in that direction. NT is governed by the Trustees, who consult the membership.
For anyone interested, the NT AGM booklet had the motion, supporting information, and an NT response recommending support. They are here:
If God didn't want us to eat animals, he would not have made them delicious.
I think I would question the strength of that argument.
If you are pitting animal flesh verses plants, which I guess you are, I would disagree that animals are tastier. In fact I would strongly disagree.
I mean, what do I enjoy most and what has the most flavour of anything that we eat? Spices, herbs, chilis, cheese, strawberries, mushrooms, asparagus, garlic, onions, pineapples, pizza. No animal flesh there.
Don't we use plants to cook with meats to give the latter the flavour the dish would otherwise lack?
I mean, taste is subjective, but I would say absolutely not. Love many dishes that are enhanced with other ingredients, but bacon, steak, roast chicken, game, etc. need nothing added.
A prime rib cooked over a charcoal fire. No need for anything else.
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
Can't say fairer than half and half, then?
If its half and half based on that's what people choose, I have no qualms with that.
If half the options are just making up the numbers for the sake of it then getting binned while the other half are much more popular and there's better choices not going on the menu because they're crowded out by a stupid policy, then its a stupid policy.
I'm free to think its a stupid policy and take my custom elsewhere. Went to a restaurant yesterday where there was a token vegan/vegetarian meal in each section of the menu which is probably the least popular option there but is there as a token to give vegans/vegetarians an option. Sensible way to do it given who their customers are.
Unless you undertake a systematic study of National Trust bins, I suspect you'll never know exactly how well the 50-50 policy corresponds to demand.
I would have expected that some data on relative sales of vegan/non-vegan food would have been presented for the vote on changing the mix, otherwise it would have been hard to decide which way to vote.
Joking aside if, as noted above, their scones are vegan then the only non-vegan thing I’ve eaten there for years is the milk in my tea. I would think it would be a bit restrictive for cakes, and definitely for sarnies, but I can image getting to 50% using tray bakes.
It’s often compromising on the quality of ingredients, and somethings you can’t do, such as cheese. It’s just an abomination. Margins in this kind of thing are tiny, I can’t see why they are doing this, it makes no commercial sense. It narrows down the offer, increases costs and reduces the quality of the food. The ethical dimension is also somewhat limited vegan substitutes often have to go through some pretty serious processing to get to what they are.
On the topic of dietary restrictions I sometimes wonder if there'd be a good business case for 'Christian meat', guaranteed not ritually slaughtered. Tender-hearted atheists would be welcome to buy it, too.
If God didn't want us to eat animals, he would not have made them delicious.
I think I would question the strength of that argument.
If you are pitting animal flesh verses plants, which I guess you are, I would disagree that animals are tastier. In fact I would strongly disagree.
I mean, what do I enjoy most and what has the most flavour of anything that we eat? Spices, herbs, chilis, cheese, strawberries, mushrooms, asparagus, garlic, onions, pineapples, pizza. No animal flesh there.
Don't we use plants to cook with meats to give the latter the flavour the dish would otherwise lack?
I mean, taste is subjective, but I would say absolutely not. Love many dishes that are enhanced with other ingredients, but bacon, steak, roast chicken, game, etc. need nothing added.
A prime rib cooked over a charcoal fire. No need for anything else.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 1h If what Selzer is capturing in IA is revulsion on the part of senior women, including conservative ones, at an extreme abortion ban...it could lead one to wonder about TX, which has a similar ban, with much publicized severe consequences, and which was closer than IA in 2020.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 1h If what Selzer is capturing in IA is revulsion on the part of senior women, including conservative ones, at an extreme abortion ban...it could lead one to wonder about TX, which has a similar ban, with much publicized severe consequences, and which was closer than IA in 2020.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 1h If what Selzer is capturing in IA is revulsion on the part of senior women, including conservative ones, at an extreme abortion ban...it could lead one to wonder about TX, which has a similar ban, with much publicized severe consequences, and which was closer than IA in 2020.
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
Can't say fairer than half and half, then?
If its half and half based on that's what people choose, I have no qualms with that.
If half the options are just making up the numbers for the sake of it then getting binned while the other half are much more popular and there's better choices not going on the menu because they're crowded out by a stupid policy, then its a stupid policy.
I'm free to think its a stupid policy and take my custom elsewhere. Went to a restaurant yesterday where there was a token vegan/vegetarian meal in each section of the menu which is probably the least popular option there but is there as a token to give vegans/vegetarians an option. Sensible way to do it given who their customers are.
Unless you undertake a systematic study of National Trust bins, I suspect you'll never know exactly how well the 50-50 policy corresponds to demand.
I would have expected that some data on relative sales of vegan/non-vegan food would have been presented for the vote on changing the mix, otherwise it would have been hard to decide which way to vote.
Why would such an operational matter be put to the membership if it wasn’t for some kind of virtue seeking?
It wasn't "put to the membership".
AGM membership motions are one way the membership get to input into policy, and this came through that route. It is asking the Trustees to move further in that direction. NT is governed by the Trustees, who consult the membership.
For anyone interested, the NT AGM booklet had the motion, supporting information, and an NT response recommending support. They are here:
First page I clicked on. Yeah, no thanks. What they are after couldn’t be clearer with the background image. Having just read through the rest. This is captured stuff. Full on.
If God didn't want us to eat animals, he would not have made them delicious.
I think I would question the strength of that argument.
If you are pitting animal flesh verses plants, which I guess you are, I would disagree that animals are tastier. In fact I would strongly disagree.
I mean, what do I enjoy most and what has the most flavour of anything that we eat? Spices, herbs, chilis, cheese, strawberries, mushrooms, asparagus, garlic, onions, pineapples, pizza. No animal flesh there.
Don't we use plants to cook with meats to give the latter the flavour the dish would otherwise lack?
I prefer the Al Murray version:
"He's made of beef, and I'm hungry. It's noting personal."
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.
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?”
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
Good use of 'most' so any counter examples people provide can be disregarded.
But this has been gone over before - someone might describe themselves as an atheist and be one in every functional sense, even if they are technically an agnostic. As for not going to services, you might as well say most teetotallers don't go to bars - plenty won't, but others will as they are not party poopers; atheists can enjoy Christmas Carols.
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.
Quite a bit. Eg the podcast with Rogan, lots of targeted SM activity, the idea being to get these 'bro' types out and voting for male supremacy. No doubt it will have paid a dividend but at the price of putting off others. Much of Trump's campaign has been of an "oh yuck" nature. In any case, just looking at the low propensity side of things, I think as an army the bros will be overwhelmed by Harris's female equivalent.
SM activity, online trolls etc have been a big thing for the QAnon/Trump crazies for the past 8 years.
I'm not seeing many new votes there for Trump. He's doubling down on what he already had.
I'm not too worried either.
Does anyone have links to actual data on the structure of the Trump vote, previously? I’ve heard it said that he got people to vote would normally didn’t, can’t find hard data.
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.
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?”
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.
I think David Baddiel tells a story about how after he became renewed famous over his Jews don't count book he would often be asked to attend various events, and there was one he was asked to attend by a rabbi and he didn't really feel like going so played what he thought was a trump card in saying he was an atheist, to which the rabbi cheerfully said he was the same.
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
Can't say fairer than half and half, then?
If its half and half based on that's what people choose, I have no qualms with that.
If half the options are just making up the numbers for the sake of it then getting binned while the other half are much more popular and there's better choices not going on the menu because they're crowded out by a stupid policy, then its a stupid policy.
I'm free to think its a stupid policy and take my custom elsewhere. Went to a restaurant yesterday where there was a token vegan/vegetarian meal in each section of the menu which is probably the least popular option there but is there as a token to give vegans/vegetarians an option. Sensible way to do it given who their customers are.
Unless you undertake a systematic study of National Trust bins, I suspect you'll never know exactly how well the 50-50 policy corresponds to demand.
I would have expected that some data on relative sales of vegan/non-vegan food would have been presented for the vote on changing the mix, otherwise it would have been hard to decide which way to vote.
Why would such an operational matter be put to the membership if it wasn’t for some kind of virtue seeking?
It wasn't "put to the membership".
AGM membership motions are one way the membership get to input into policy, and this came through that route. It is asking the Trustees to move further in that direction. NT is governed by the Trustees, who consult the membership.
For anyone interested, the NT AGM booklet had the motion, supporting information, and an NT response recommending support. They are here:
First page I clicked on. Yeah, no thanks. What they are after couldn’t be clearer with the background image. Having just read through the rest. This is captured stuff. Full on.
It was put to the membership - because I vote every year to ensure that the Reform Trust muppets don't accidentally end up being elected...
Believing it is fundamental to being an atheist to be stridently anti-religious to the point 'most' wouldn't attend a church service or even for heaven's sake carolling, would be like asserting it is fundamental to being a theist to be the most extreme example of a particular creed.
As though every Catholic is a member of the spanish inquisition or something.
Even where faith is present or absent there are ranges of behaviour people will engage in for cultural reasons or just simple manners.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 1h If what Selzer is capturing in IA is revulsion on the part of senior women, including conservative ones, at an extreme abortion ban...it could lead one to wonder about TX, which has a similar ban, with much publicized severe consequences, and which was closer than IA in 2020.
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I would regard making sure that there is enough vegan for for the vegans as just being polite. I've been to several group meals where the few vegetarians present found that all the vegetarian food had been eaten before they were able to get any.
"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
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
Can't say fairer than half and half, then?
If its half and half based on that's what people choose, I have no qualms with that.
If half the options are just making up the numbers for the sake of it then getting binned while the other half are much more popular and there's better choices not going on the menu because they're crowded out by a stupid policy, then its a stupid policy.
I'm free to think its a stupid policy and take my custom elsewhere. Went to a restaurant yesterday where there was a token vegan/vegetarian meal in each section of the menu which is probably the least popular option there but is there as a token to give vegans/vegetarians an option. Sensible way to do it given who their customers are.
Unless you undertake a systematic study of National Trust bins, I suspect you'll never know exactly how well the 50-50 policy corresponds to demand.
I would have expected that some data on relative sales of vegan/non-vegan food would have been presented for the vote on changing the mix, otherwise it would have been hard to decide which way to vote.
Joking aside if, as noted above, their scones are vegan then the only non-vegan thing I’ve eaten there for years is the milk in my tea. I would think it would be a bit restrictive for cakes, and definitely for sarnies, but I can image getting to 50% using tray bakes.
I may be misremembering, but I think 15 years ago National Trust cafes used to be ace. They've become dreary, tasteless and disappointing. I went to a National Trust Scotland site last week (Brodie Castle). Unlike National Trust England, NTS doesn't seem to be engaged in an orgy of self-hatred. It was quite a pleasant experience. But the cafe there was just as disappointing as National Trust cafes in England. So it's not solely down to woke.
Comments
General election poll
🔵 Harris 49%
🔴 Trump 49%
Emerson #B - 1000 LV - 11/2
Although the last time I went there was marble cake, because it was my daughter's birthday and she baked cake for it.
As I said before if Trump is going to win the popular vote this will be the election he does it, Harris can still scrape home in the EC if she holds the bluewall though
https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/october-national-poll-biden-with-five-point-lead-one-week-out
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
The numbers are that the vote was won at a 3:1 ratio, and that half of the country are considering moving more towards a less meat-intensive diet, so they are following the membership and the market.
This is just some Captain Mainwarings trying to manufacture a faked up culture war, or pull the National Trust into a culture war they want to broaden.
Piece in the Telegraph, with the headline line "National Trust pushes through vegan overhaul of cafes despite membership backlash" rather than the more accurate "National Trust members vote for ...".
https://archive.ph/QfRH0
Contrasting piece in the Independent:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/national-trust-agm-vegan-cafe-b2608597.html
Whatever you do, don't tell them that the NT now has a Cyclists Welcome Manager (misnamed: he actually does cycling, wheeling, walking) with a Hungarian name, or they will all become timelords to be able to have 2 simultaneous heart attacks, and will start blaming Nurse Gladys Emmanuel.
Betting PostF1: blog to follow but tip is Verstappen to win at 13, hedged at 3.
Edited: not an official blog tip, but for my own amusement I've backed Hulkenberg each way at 1,001 on Ladbrokes. I reserve the right to cite this in the very slightly unlikely event it comes off.
Young Bart: Fancy a drink?
Young Sunil: Got any Quorn?
Young Bart: If you want.
[goes to fridge and takes a bottle of Quorn for Sunil, and a bottle of meat for himself]
Young Sunil: Meat? UGH!
Young Bart: It's what Ian Rush drinks!
Young Sunil: Ian Rush??
Young Bart: Yeah, and he said, when I grow up, if I didn't drink lots of meat, I wouldn't be good enough to play for the Liberal Democrats!
Young Sunil: Liberal Democrats? Who are they?
Young Bart: Exactly!
Bless him @HYUFD is so Evangical Old School and subservient to Royalty it is quite amusing
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2024/11/brazil-pre-race-2024.html
In a statement to Spanish broadcaster La Sexta, officials say Spain's prime minister was "heckled and attacked" while some people "threw mud balls and other objects at him".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvg4p0y3xlpt
If you are pitting animal flesh verses plants, which I guess you are, I would disagree that animals are tastier. In fact I would strongly disagree.
I mean, what do I enjoy most and what has the most flavour of anything that we eat? Spices, herbs, chilis, cheese, strawberries, mushrooms, asparagus, garlic, onions, pineapples, pizza. No animal flesh there.
Don't we use plants to cook with meats to give the latter the flavour the dish would otherwise lack?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSfcJnqB1Go
If half the options are just making up the numbers for the sake of it then getting binned while the other half are much more popular and there's better choices not going on the menu because they're crowded out by a stupid policy, then its a stupid policy.
I'm free to think its a stupid policy and take my custom elsewhere. Went to a restaurant yesterday where there was a token vegan/vegetarian meal in each section of the menu which is probably the least popular option there but is there as a token to give vegans/vegetarians an option. Sensible way to do it given who their customers are.
I knew someone would say bacon.
Why Europe is dismantling its dams
Legislation can also help the dam removal process, though it differs from country to country. Spain, where rivers are public, is at the vanguard of dismantling dams in Europe, with 133 removals carried out in 2022, followed by Sweden and France. River connectivity is also a central topic of the European Commission's Nature Restoration Law: in November 2023, European member states reached a provisional agreement that includes an obligation to remove man-made barriers to reach a goal of 25,000km (15,530 miles) of free-flowing rivers by 2030. The law was then approved on the 27 February by the European Parliament. Dam removal advocates hope it will help make the case for more action.
Who knew?
The police do not mess around with this kind of stuff. If there was dodgy stuff going on they wouldn’t be able to stop falling over themselves to chase it down. Careers are made on taking down dodgy politicians.
I always think it’s worth remembering that a cabinet minister went to jail, yes, went to jail for getting his wife to take his three speeding points.
An act in itself if we are being honest is trivial and could have been swept under the carpet with a telling off and not be so stupid.
But no he was pursued and went to jail. It will be the same if anything comes out of Covid. Jail. Back to Covid, we had a pm and a chancellor. Two of the three highest offices of state of HMG who got fixed penalties for been present when someone else presented them some cake whilst they were at work. The chancellor even left the room a few minutes after it started, yet still got a fine.
If something stinks the police either are on it, will be on it, or it didn’t really stink after all.
But even then would be enhanced by some chilli jam.
And have a look at the dietary restrictions in Leviticus.
https://x.com/AccountableGOP/status/1853088928053522682/photo/1
All of those are eminently respectable, and I think quite competent.
Memories of the student union in 1997 spending several hours debating whether or not the union retail shop should sell KitKats.
I'm not seeing many new votes there for Trump. He's doubling down on what he already had.
Aaron Rupar @atrupar.bsky.social
·
13m
Trump denounces the woke libs on the network that had to shell out $787 million because they tried to destroy democracy for him
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.bsky.social/post/3la2hit35ff2n
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
·
1h
If what Selzer is capturing in IA is revulsion on the part of senior women, including conservative ones, at an extreme abortion ban...it could lead one to wonder about TX, which has a similar ban, with much publicized severe consequences, and which was closer than IA in 2020.
https://x.com/BillKristol
Whether or not they actually turn out, is a different question.
Not seeing a change.
When you consider the colossal amount of people who don’t vote in US general elections, I suspect a large amount of them are Danny’s, seeing no difference between Rep and Dem on sending US Troops abroad to make every US citizen an enemy and the target of all sorts of foreigners far away, and see US participating in NATO to protect the expanding EU as woefully old fashioned, 20th Century geo-politics whilst it’s nearly 2025 already.
Trump has been very consistent on this part of his platform, and could even be ahead of the game on it.
I suspect Danny hasn’t voted in US General Elections for decades, but is voting Trump this time.
AGM membership motions are one way the membership get to input into policy, and this came through that route. It is asking the Trustees to move further in that direction. NT is governed by the Trustees, who consult the membership.
For anyone interested, the NT AGM booklet had the motion, supporting information, and an NT response recommending support. They are here:
https://documents.nationaltrust.org.uk/story/agm-2024/page/5/1
Margins in this kind of thing are tiny, I can’t see why they are doing this, it makes no commercial sense. It narrows down the offer, increases costs and reduces the quality of the food. The ethical dimension is also somewhat limited vegan substitutes often have to go through some pretty serious processing to get to what they are.
Having just read through the rest. This is captured stuff. Full on.
"He's made of beef, and I'm hungry. It's noting personal."
A conman, a thief, and a rapist walk into a bar. The bartender asks
"What'll it be Mr. Trump?"
But this has been gone over before - someone might describe themselves as an atheist and be one in every functional sense, even if they are technically an agnostic. As for not going to services, you might as well say most teetotallers don't go to bars - plenty won't, but others will as they are not party poopers; atheists can enjoy Christmas Carols.
Sen Raphael Warnock (D)
As though every Catholic is a member of the spanish inquisition or something.
Even where faith is present or absent there are ranges of behaviour people will engage in for cultural reasons or just simple manners.
The Trumpified GOP has to be near obliterated.
Otherwise they will just try again with Vance in 2028 if they do lose.
I went to a National Trust Scotland site last week (Brodie Castle). Unlike National Trust England, NTS doesn't seem to be engaged in an orgy of self-hatred. It was quite a pleasant experience. But the cafe there was just as disappointing as National Trust cafes in England. So it's not solely down to woke.