Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
Your problem is that you always take a snapshot in time - a poll, membership data - and project forward as if there is no momentum behind the numbers. "We will be ok because on that polling we win seats x" - no, because the election in question isn't today.
Your challenge is relevancy. Your party has done itself severe structural damage with a rapid turnover of shit PMs and embarrassing policies. It isn't all Badenoch's fault that nobody is listening - stick someone sensible into the job like Jeremy Hunt and they would similarly struggle.
Farage? Relevant. Has a genius ear for what people want to hear and a (city stockbroker) common man approach that so many politicians can't manage. That you are so utterly dismissive of him would be incredulous if it wasn't you doing it.
You need a strategy to see off Reform. Saying "no we don't" only makes the challenge worse...
My son's 17th birthday. As well as a few small presents we also let him unwrap the L-plates and set out when the driving lessons start. L-plates largely a prop at this stage - we're not taking him out until he has has a professional doing it.
I did enjoy the slight look of fear in his eyes as we described him getting picked up from school by the instructor with a plan for him to drive the car home by the end of the first lesson. School is 11 miles away on the same road as our house - but that is 11 miles of mostly NSL with a mix of fast flowing sections and some twisty fun...
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
Why are you going to church with your wife and children on a Sunday if it’s not for you anyway? Surely it’s better for them if you and your wife can point out that she believes in a firm organised region so takes them to church, you don’t so you don’t go and so when they are ready they can make their own minds up and you as parents will understand either way.
I would tell the vicar that it’s not your thing but thanks and if he needs a chat about issues he has that you might be able to help with then go for a pint together and stay well clear of his vicarage or whatever he lives in. Sounds like a pint or two and a chat would sort him out.
Interesting question. But Boulay's response seems perfectly reasonable - you're not a good use of the vicar's time, and you and your wife absolutely have a right to different views - indeed it's a good sign that you're comfortable with it.
Good question - it works for us as it means I can look after the kids in kids club and she can do the worshipping stuff at the front.
It's also visibly respectful of her faith in front of the kids. I am quite open with our kids and those at church about my own beliefs (our eldest knows only to ask his mum to read 'the Jesus books') but after much discussion we felt that they are very unlikely to even consider Christianity unless they are actively brought up with that tradition and so it's the right balance for now for the kids to go.
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
You've said he has no hope of changing your view, and I'd assume the reverse is also true, since his vocation and living depend upon it. So what's the objective of getting into a heavy discussion with no hope of resolution?
Says a poster on PB…
True. Although the discussion here is regularly educational and if not that, then often entertaining. I doubt that arguing with what sounds like a narrow-minded vicar about one of the gospels is going to deliver the same.
The OP could insist the vicar reads some Richard Dawkins in return, for a more balanced deal!
Why? Dawkins is an ignorant buffoon whose work has been generally ridiculed even if it's popular. It would be like advising somebody to read William Lane Craig for balance on the subject of biology.
You might not agree with his opinions, but your statement that Dawkins is "an ignorant buffoon whose work has been generally ridiculed" is patently untrue given his academic achievements and the honours that have been bestowed on him by various learned bodies.
OT but an amusing (to me at least) anecdote and curious if others have had similar experiences with children.
For the last few years every day on Boxing Day my daughter has in some way expressed that Christmas is 'over' so should we take down the tree, or something similar. When she was in Year 1 at school she asked for her school uniform on Boxing Day morning as she said she should go to school that day since Christmas is over.
This year (now aged 8) she seems to understand that her Christmas holiday was 2 weeks off school, so I joked with my wife on Christmas night that I was expecting that annual tradition of her expecting Boxing Day to be 'back to normal' not to be repeated tomorrow (now yesterday).
Got through Boxing Day until bedtime without any such remarks this year, at which point she brought her mini Christmas Tree down from her bedroom into the living room saying she doesn't want it in her room now as Christmas is over.
Don't you need to educate her on the 12 days of Christmas? So Christmas isn't over until Epiphany, which is about the right time to go back to school.
We don't celebrate 12 days or Epiphany.
We don't stick to full 12 days either as my wife's birthday is in early January and it was her parents tradition (and ours we've continued) that Christmas is over and the tree down etc in the window after New Years day and before her birthday, so that her birthday is about her and not Christmas.
Christmas began in November when the kids went to see Santa in his grotto, we could start to listen to Christmas music and our lights on the house and tree went up late November. 1st December it begins in earnest with the arrival of the Elves and Advent calendars. 24 December the Elves went back to the North Pole to help Santa who arrived that night.
Now its just the Christmas holiday until New Year and sometime on the 2nd or 3rd we'll pack the tree away and get ready for my wife's birthday before things then get back to normal.
No wonder she's ready for Christmas to be over by Boxing Day!
In times gone by, Advent - the four weeks leading up to Christmas - was a period of quiet and reflection. Christmas only started in Christmas Eve. Decorations stayed until 12th night, but the period of excess lasted until Candlemas (February 2nd). Nowadays, we have swapped that around: feast in December, fast in January. There are arguments for both approaches, and as you say, there are personal circumstances to take into account, but I'd say the old fashioned approach better fits the peruod of excess to the bleakest time of year.
We had a similar conversation a few weeks ago but I prefer the modern version.
I find bleak the transition from hot weather (which I enjoy) to cold (which I don't so much) and we have essentially the whole of autumn to winter as one long series of festivities.
October is Halloween. November has Bonfire Night, pause for Remembrance, then Christmas begins. December is full on Christmas.
Now is a time for quiet post-Christmas and we can play with our presents. Which includes myself this year since I got a PS5 for Christmas. Then New Year celebrations.
January then is a time for quiet, what you wanted Advent for, but I feel its better suited to January. January is cold and our credit cards are maxed out from Christmas so its a good time for quiet.
Then February we've got Valentines then we start to head into Spring and the weather transitions from March to start to get good again.
This is my photo for 27th Dec: fried Christmas pudding with leftover riast potaties for breakfast. (Yes, I am half Scottish - though it was actually someone from Norwich who introduced me to the benefits of frying Christmas pudding.)
Is riast an obscure type of potato, or just a boring typo? I’m hoping for the first…
This is my photo for 27th Dec: fried Christmas pudding with leftover riast potaties for breakfast. (Yes, I am half Scottish - though it was actually someone from Norwich who introduced me to the benefits of frying Christmas pudding.)
Is riast an obscure type of potato, or just a boring typo? I’m hoping for the first…
Yeah, along with riast chicken, riast parsnips, etc.
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
Your problem is that you always take a snapshot in time - a poll, membership data - and project forward as if there is no momentum behind the numbers. "We will be ok because on that polling we win seats x" - no, because the election in question isn't today.
Your challenge is relevancy. Your party has done itself severe structural damage with a rapid turnover of shit PMs and embarrassing policies. It isn't all Badenoch's fault that nobody is listening - stick someone sensible into the job like Jeremy Hunt and they would similarly struggle.
Farage? Relevant. Has a genius ear for what people want to hear and a (city stockbroker) common man approach that so many politicians can't manage. That you are so utterly dismissive of him would be incredulous if it wasn't you doing it.
You need a strategy to see off Reform. Saying "no we don't" only makes the challenge worse...
If Stonehaven are correct, Reform is probably favourite to win the Hull and East Yorks. and Lincolnshire Mayoralties in May.
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
This is my photo for 27th Dec: fried Christmas pudding with leftover riast potaties for breakfast. (Yes, I am half Scottish - though it was actually someone from Norwich who introduced me to the benefits of frying Christmas pudding.)
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
Your problem is that you always take a snapshot in time - a poll, membership data - and project forward as if there is no momentum behind the numbers. "We will be ok because on that polling we win seats x" - no, because the election in question isn't today.
Your challenge is relevancy. Your party has done itself severe structural damage with a rapid turnover of shit PMs and embarrassing policies. It isn't all Badenoch's fault that nobody is listening - stick someone sensible into the job like Jeremy Hunt and they would similarly struggle.
Farage? Relevant. Has a genius ear for what people want to hear and a (city stockbroker) common man approach that so many politicians can't manage. That you are so utterly dismissive of him would be incredulous if it wasn't you doing it.
You need a strategy to see off Reform. Saying "no we don't" only makes the challenge worse...
If Stonehaven are correct, Reform is probably favourite to win the Hull and East Yorks. and Lincolnshire Mayoralties in May.
I hope not - Reform are a Clear and Present Danger to the body politic. But to simply deny they are here, vastly funded and now well organised is to deny that the sky is blue.
I know there is a "don't worry, Reform are taking votes off Labour" theme from a few posters and commentators. But the Tories got crushed to their smallest representation ever this summer. The Tories need to take an awful lot of votes from anyone they can win over. An alternative right wing party doing this is clearly a direct threat not just to their recovery but to their further decline...
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
Why are you going to church with your wife and children on a Sunday if it’s not for you anyway? Surely it’s better for them if you and your wife can point out that she believes in a firm organised region so takes them to church, you don’t so you don’t go and so when they are ready they can make their own minds up and you as parents will understand either way.
I would tell the vicar that it’s not your thing but thanks and if he needs a chat about issues he has that you might be able to help with then go for a pint together and stay well clear of his vicarage or whatever he lives in. Sounds like a pint or two and a chat would sort him out.
Interesting question. But Boulay's response seems perfectly reasonable - you're not a good use of the vicar's time, and you and your wife absolutely have a right to different views - indeed it's a good sign that you're comfortable with it.
Good question - it works for us as it means I can look after the kids in kids club and she can do the worshipping stuff at the front.
It's also visibly respectful of her faith in front of the kids. I am quite open with our kids and those at church about my own beliefs (our eldest knows only to ask his mum to read 'the Jesus books') but after much discussion we felt that they are very unlikely to even consider Christianity unless they are actively brought up with that tradition and so it's the right balance for now for the kids to go.
I think to a knowledge of Christianity and the Bible, particularly the KJV with its neo-Shakesperean language, is very useful for understanding our country and it's history. Making sense of the English Civil War and Restoration, the Scottish Enlightenment, Welsh choral tradition or the Sectarianism of Ireland requires it.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
She's the first of the "I can't come to bed, someone on the internet is wrong" generation to make it to the top in UK politics. Upsides: feisty, determined, knows how to make a noise. Downside: trivially easy to wind up. It's one of the reasons boring old Starmer wins PMQs at a canter pretty much every week.
OT but an amusing (to me at least) anecdote and curious if others have had similar experiences with children.
For the last few years every day on Boxing Day my daughter has in some way expressed that Christmas is 'over' so should we take down the tree, or something similar. When she was in Year 1 at school she asked for her school uniform on Boxing Day morning as she said she should go to school that day since Christmas is over.
This year (now aged 8) she seems to understand that her Christmas holiday was 2 weeks off school, so I joked with my wife on Christmas night that I was expecting that annual tradition of her expecting Boxing Day to be 'back to normal' not to be repeated tomorrow (now yesterday).
Got through Boxing Day until bedtime without any such remarks this year, at which point she brought her mini Christmas Tree down from her bedroom into the living room saying she doesn't want it in her room now as Christmas is over.
Don't you need to educate her on the 12 days of Christmas? So Christmas isn't over until Epiphany, which is about the right time to go back to school.
We don't celebrate 12 days or Epiphany.
We don't stick to full 12 days either as my wife's birthday is in early January and it was her parents tradition (and ours we've continued) that Christmas is over and the tree down etc in the window after New Years day and before her birthday, so that her birthday is about her and not Christmas.
Christmas began in November when the kids went to see Santa in his grotto, we could start to listen to Christmas music and our lights on the house and tree went up late November. 1st December it begins in earnest with the arrival of the Elves and Advent calendars. 24 December the Elves went back to the North Pole to help Santa who arrived that night.
Now its just the Christmas holiday until New Year and sometime on the 2nd or 3rd we'll pack the tree away and get ready for my wife's birthday before things then get back to normal.
No wonder she's ready for Christmas to be over by Boxing Day!
In times gone by, Advent - the four weeks leading up to Christmas - was a period of quiet and reflection. Christmas only started in Christmas Eve. Decorations stayed until 12th night, but the period of excess lasted until Candlemas (February 2nd). Nowadays, we have swapped that around: feast in December, fast in January. There are arguments for both approaches, and as you say, there are personal circumstances to take into account, but I'd say the old fashioned approach better fits the peruod of excess to the bleakest time of year.
We had a similar conversation a few weeks ago but I prefer the modern version.
I find bleak the transition from hot weather (which I enjoy) to cold (which I don't so much) and we have essentially the whole of autumn to winter as one long series of festivities.
October is Halloween. November has Bonfire Night, pause for Remembrance, then Christmas begins. December is full on Christmas.
Now is a time for quiet post-Christmas and we can play with our presents. Which includes myself this year since I got a PS5 for Christmas. Then New Year celebrations.
January then is a time for quiet, what you wanted Advent for, but I feel its better suited to January. January is cold and our credit cards are maxed out from Christmas so its a good time for quiet.
Then February we've got Valentines then we start to head into Spring and the weather transitions from March to start to get good again.
I feel like the modern world has sold itself short in terms of festivals. The medieval calendar was loaded with them.
The seasonal cycle of the year naturally breaks it up into eight pieces. The solstices and equinoxes at the height of each season, and the cross-quarter days at the transition between them.
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
You've said he has no hope of changing your view, and I'd assume the reverse is also true, since his vocation and living depend upon it. So what's the objective of getting into a heavy discussion with no hope of resolution?
Says a poster on PB…
True. Although the discussion here is regularly educational and if not that, then often entertaining. I doubt that arguing with what sounds like a narrow-minded vicar about one of the gospels is going to deliver the same.
The OP could insist the vicar reads some Richard Dawkins in return, for a more balanced deal!
Why? Dawkins is an ignorant buffoon whose work has been generally ridiculed even if it's popular. It would be like advising somebody to read William Lane Craig for balance on the subject of biology.
You might not agree with his opinions, but your statement that Dawkins is "an ignorant buffoon whose work has been generally ridiculed" is patently untrue given his academic achievements and the honours that have been bestowed on him by various learned bodies.
Quite so. But TBF Ydoethur may be thinking of RD's writings on religion, which I am not familiar with and can't judge. Yet as I understand it, those were in self-defence, responding to the many attacks on him by creationists, biblical literalists, and so on.
OT but an amusing (to me at least) anecdote and curious if others have had similar experiences with children.
For the last few years every day on Boxing Day my daughter has in some way expressed that Christmas is 'over' so should we take down the tree, or something similar. When she was in Year 1 at school she asked for her school uniform on Boxing Day morning as she said she should go to school that day since Christmas is over.
This year (now aged 8) she seems to understand that her Christmas holiday was 2 weeks off school, so I joked with my wife on Christmas night that I was expecting that annual tradition of her expecting Boxing Day to be 'back to normal' not to be repeated tomorrow (now yesterday).
Got through Boxing Day until bedtime without any such remarks this year, at which point she brought her mini Christmas Tree down from her bedroom into the living room saying she doesn't want it in her room now as Christmas is over.
Don't you need to educate her on the 12 days of Christmas? So Christmas isn't over until Epiphany, which is about the right time to go back to school.
We don't celebrate 12 days or Epiphany.
We don't stick to full 12 days either as my wife's birthday is in early January and it was her parents tradition (and ours we've continued) that Christmas is over and the tree down etc in the window after New Years day and before her birthday, so that her birthday is about her and not Christmas.
Christmas began in November when the kids went to see Santa in his grotto, we could start to listen to Christmas music and our lights on the house and tree went up late November. 1st December it begins in earnest with the arrival of the Elves and Advent calendars. 24 December the Elves went back to the North Pole to help Santa who arrived that night.
Now its just the Christmas holiday until New Year and sometime on the 2nd or 3rd we'll pack the tree away and get ready for my wife's birthday before things then get back to normal.
No wonder she's ready for Christmas to be over by Boxing Day!
In times gone by, Advent - the four weeks leading up to Christmas - was a period of quiet and reflection. Christmas only started in Christmas Eve. Decorations stayed until 12th night, but the period of excess lasted until Candlemas (February 2nd). Nowadays, we have swapped that around: feast in December, fast in January. There are arguments for both approaches, and as you say, there are personal circumstances to take into account, but I'd say the old fashioned approach better fits the peruod of excess to the bleakest time of year.
We had a similar conversation a few weeks ago but I prefer the modern version.
I find bleak the transition from hot weather (which I enjoy) to cold (which I don't so much) and we have essentially the whole of autumn to winter as one long series of festivities.
October is Halloween. November has Bonfire Night, pause for Remembrance, then Christmas begins. December is full on Christmas.
Now is a time for quiet post-Christmas and we can play with our presents. Which includes myself this year since I got a PS5 for Christmas. Then New Year celebrations.
January then is a time for quiet, what you wanted Advent for, but I feel its better suited to January. January is cold and our credit cards are maxed out from Christmas so its a good time for quiet.
Then February we've got Valentines then we start to head into Spring and the weather transitions from March to start to get good again.
You don't have to fall for the advertising, you know. You're just paying the shareholders of the big corporations by buying into all the constant "celebrations". Step away from the credit cards.
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
I think you are being very fair and generous to your wife and indeed the vicar. I really think though the vicar should leave you alone. You attend church. You are supporting your wife and children. If faith is for you, that is something you will find for yourself without the vicar trying to browbeat it into you. You've already made clear to him that it is not for you and he should respect that.
As for (b) have that conversation if you want but I suspect he will want to continue with it and if you don't want to have more of the same then you need to make that clear. I would also ask him - having made clear to him, again, that you are not up for conversion - why he wants to discuss this with you. If it is simply because he enjoys the discussion then that may be fine if you have the time and enjoy the chat. But if it is because he is determined to make you a believer then I would be very firm about your boundaries.
What does your wife think?
So do it if you want but only if it makes you comfortable, you don't feel bullied or being used by him in some way and it doesn't upset the arrangement you have with your wife and family which works for you.
OT but an amusing (to me at least) anecdote and curious if others have had similar experiences with children.
For the last few years every day on Boxing Day my daughter has in some way expressed that Christmas is 'over' so should we take down the tree, or something similar. When she was in Year 1 at school she asked for her school uniform on Boxing Day morning as she said she should go to school that day since Christmas is over.
This year (now aged 8) she seems to understand that her Christmas holiday was 2 weeks off school, so I joked with my wife on Christmas night that I was expecting that annual tradition of her expecting Boxing Day to be 'back to normal' not to be repeated tomorrow (now yesterday).
Got through Boxing Day until bedtime without any such remarks this year, at which point she brought her mini Christmas Tree down from her bedroom into the living room saying she doesn't want it in her room now as Christmas is over.
Don't you need to educate her on the 12 days of Christmas? So Christmas isn't over until Epiphany, which is about the right time to go back to school.
We don't celebrate 12 days or Epiphany.
We don't stick to full 12 days either as my wife's birthday is in early January and it was her parents tradition (and ours we've continued) that Christmas is over and the tree down etc in the window after New Years day and before her birthday, so that her birthday is about her and not Christmas.
Christmas began in November when the kids went to see Santa in his grotto, we could start to listen to Christmas music and our lights on the house and tree went up late November. 1st December it begins in earnest with the arrival of the Elves and Advent calendars. 24 December the Elves went back to the North Pole to help Santa who arrived that night.
Now its just the Christmas holiday until New Year and sometime on the 2nd or 3rd we'll pack the tree away and get ready for my wife's birthday before things then get back to normal.
No wonder she's ready for Christmas to be over by Boxing Day!
In times gone by, Advent - the four weeks leading up to Christmas - was a period of quiet and reflection. Christmas only started in Christmas Eve. Decorations stayed until 12th night, but the period of excess lasted until Candlemas (February 2nd). Nowadays, we have swapped that around: feast in December, fast in January. There are arguments for both approaches, and as you say, there are personal circumstances to take into account, but I'd say the old fashioned approach better fits the peruod of excess to the bleakest time of year.
We had a similar conversation a few weeks ago but I prefer the modern version.
I find bleak the transition from hot weather (which I enjoy) to cold (which I don't so much) and we have essentially the whole of autumn to winter as one long series of festivities.
October is Halloween. November has Bonfire Night, pause for Remembrance, then Christmas begins. December is full on Christmas.
Now is a time for quiet post-Christmas and we can play with our presents. Which includes myself this year since I got a PS5 for Christmas. Then New Year celebrations.
January then is a time for quiet, what you wanted Advent for, but I feel its better suited to January. January is cold and our credit cards are maxed out from Christmas so its a good time for quiet.
Then February we've got Valentines then we start to head into Spring and the weather transitions from March to start to get good again.
Yes - and I don't want to say I'm right and you're wrong. Personally I find late Nov/early Dec quite agreeable on its own terms, without Christmas overlaid on top. But we all have our own tastes on this.
OT but an amusing (to me at least) anecdote and curious if others have had similar experiences with children.
For the last few years every day on Boxing Day my daughter has in some way expressed that Christmas is 'over' so should we take down the tree, or something similar. When she was in Year 1 at school she asked for her school uniform on Boxing Day morning as she said she should go to school that day since Christmas is over.
This year (now aged 8) she seems to understand that her Christmas holiday was 2 weeks off school, so I joked with my wife on Christmas night that I was expecting that annual tradition of her expecting Boxing Day to be 'back to normal' not to be repeated tomorrow (now yesterday).
Got through Boxing Day until bedtime without any such remarks this year, at which point she brought her mini Christmas Tree down from her bedroom into the living room saying she doesn't want it in her room now as Christmas is over.
Don't you need to educate her on the 12 days of Christmas? So Christmas isn't over until Epiphany, which is about the right time to go back to school.
We don't celebrate 12 days or Epiphany.
We don't stick to full 12 days either as my wife's birthday is in early January and it was her parents tradition (and ours we've continued) that Christmas is over and the tree down etc in the window after New Years day and before her birthday, so that her birthday is about her and not Christmas.
Christmas began in November when the kids went to see Santa in his grotto, we could start to listen to Christmas music and our lights on the house and tree went up late November. 1st December it begins in earnest with the arrival of the Elves and Advent calendars. 24 December the Elves went back to the North Pole to help Santa who arrived that night.
Now its just the Christmas holiday until New Year and sometime on the 2nd or 3rd we'll pack the tree away and get ready for my wife's birthday before things then get back to normal.
No wonder she's ready for Christmas to be over by Boxing Day!
In times gone by, Advent - the four weeks leading up to Christmas - was a period of quiet and reflection. Christmas only started in Christmas Eve. Decorations stayed until 12th night, but the period of excess lasted until Candlemas (February 2nd). Nowadays, we have swapped that around: feast in December, fast in January. There are arguments for both approaches, and as you say, there are personal circumstances to take into account, but I'd say the old fashioned approach better fits the peruod of excess to the bleakest time of year.
We had a similar conversation a few weeks ago but I prefer the modern version.
I find bleak the transition from hot weather (which I enjoy) to cold (which I don't so much) and we have essentially the whole of autumn to winter as one long series of festivities.
October is Halloween. November has Bonfire Night, pause for Remembrance, then Christmas begins. December is full on Christmas.
Now is a time for quiet post-Christmas and we can play with our presents. Which includes myself this year since I got a PS5 for Christmas. Then New Year celebrations.
January then is a time for quiet, what you wanted Advent for, but I feel its better suited to January. January is cold and our credit cards are maxed out from Christmas so its a good time for quiet.
Then February we've got Valentines then we start to head into Spring and the weather transitions from March to start to get good again.
I feel like the modern world has sold itself short in terms of festivals. The medieval calendar was loaded with them.
The seasonal cycle of the year naturally breaks it up into eight pieces. The solstices and equinoxes at the height of each season, and the cross-quarter days at the transition between them.
Agreed, unless you count "spring" and "summer" as a festival.
If you do then as discussed above the whole of autumn from October to start of winter is essentially one long continuous period of festivities.
Indeed the only two non-warm months without much going on in the modern calendar is our two New Year months: January "back to normal" and September "back to school"/new academic year.
February: Valentines March/April Mothers Day/Easter May-August Spring/Summer October: Halloween November: Bonfire, Remembrance, Christmas December: Christmas, New Years Eve
Two months that are not fun: January: Back to normal. September: Back to school.
OT but an amusing (to me at least) anecdote and curious if others have had similar experiences with children.
For the last few years every day on Boxing Day my daughter has in some way expressed that Christmas is 'over' so should we take down the tree, or something similar. When she was in Year 1 at school she asked for her school uniform on Boxing Day morning as she said she should go to school that day since Christmas is over.
This year (now aged 8) she seems to understand that her Christmas holiday was 2 weeks off school, so I joked with my wife on Christmas night that I was expecting that annual tradition of her expecting Boxing Day to be 'back to normal' not to be repeated tomorrow (now yesterday).
Got through Boxing Day until bedtime without any such remarks this year, at which point she brought her mini Christmas Tree down from her bedroom into the living room saying she doesn't want it in her room now as Christmas is over.
Don't you need to educate her on the 12 days of Christmas? So Christmas isn't over until Epiphany, which is about the right time to go back to school.
We don't celebrate 12 days or Epiphany.
We don't stick to full 12 days either as my wife's birthday is in early January and it was her parents tradition (and ours we've continued) that Christmas is over and the tree down etc in the window after New Years day and before her birthday, so that her birthday is about her and not Christmas.
Christmas began in November when the kids went to see Santa in his grotto, we could start to listen to Christmas music and our lights on the house and tree went up late November. 1st December it begins in earnest with the arrival of the Elves and Advent calendars. 24 December the Elves went back to the North Pole to help Santa who arrived that night.
Now its just the Christmas holiday until New Year and sometime on the 2nd or 3rd we'll pack the tree away and get ready for my wife's birthday before things then get back to normal.
No wonder she's ready for Christmas to be over by Boxing Day!
In times gone by, Advent - the four weeks leading up to Christmas - was a period of quiet and reflection. Christmas only started in Christmas Eve. Decorations stayed until 12th night, but the period of excess lasted until Candlemas (February 2nd). Nowadays, we have swapped that around: feast in December, fast in January. There are arguments for both approaches, and as you say, there are personal circumstances to take into account, but I'd say the old fashioned approach better fits the peruod of excess to the bleakest time of year.
We had a similar conversation a few weeks ago but I prefer the modern version.
I find bleak the transition from hot weather (which I enjoy) to cold (which I don't so much) and we have essentially the whole of autumn to winter as one long series of festivities.
October is Halloween. November has Bonfire Night, pause for Remembrance, then Christmas begins. December is full on Christmas.
Now is a time for quiet post-Christmas and we can play with our presents. Which includes myself this year since I got a PS5 for Christmas. Then New Year celebrations.
January then is a time for quiet, what you wanted Advent for, but I feel its better suited to January. January is cold and our credit cards are maxed out from Christmas so its a good time for quiet.
Then February we've got Valentines then we start to head into Spring and the weather transitions from March to start to get good again.
I feel like the modern world has sold itself short in terms of festivals. The medieval calendar was loaded with them.
The seasonal cycle of the year naturally breaks it up into eight pieces. The solstices and equinoxes at the height of each season, and the cross-quarter days at the transition between them.
Yes. For me, after 2nd Jan, there are no landmarks to look forward to until the start of the Six Nations in late Jan/early Feb.
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
I think you are being very fair and generous to your wife and indeed the vicar. I really think though the vicar should leave you alone. You attend church. You are supporting your wife and children. If faith is for you, that is something you will find for yourself without the vicar trying to browbeat it into you. You've already made clear to him that it is not for you and he should respect that.
As for (b) have that conversation if you want but I suspect he will want to continue with it and if you don't want to have more of the same then you need to make that clear. I would also ask him - having made clear to him, again, that you are not up for conversion - why he wants to discuss this with you. If it is simply because he enjoys the discussion then that may be fine if you have the time and enjoy the chat. But if it is because he is determined to make you a believer then I would be very firm about your boundaries.
What does your wife think?
So do it if you want but only if it makes you comfortable, you don't feel bullied or being used by him in some way and it doesn't upset the arrangement you have with your wife and family which works for you.
My Great Grandfather was an engineer (a copper smelter) who spent the early part of the Twentieth Century in South Africa and the Belgian Congo. He got on fine with locals, local grandees, colonial dignitaries, other entrepreneurs and engineers but he couldn't abide the missionaries.
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
I think you are being very fair and generous to your wife and indeed the vicar. I really think though the vicar should leave you alone. You attend church. You are supporting your wife and children. If faith is for you, that is something you will find for yourself without the vicar trying to browbeat it into you. You've already made clear to him that it is not for you and he should respect that.
As for (b) have that conversation if you want but I suspect he will want to continue with it and if you don't want to have more of the same then you need to make that clear. I would also ask him - having made clear to him, again, that you are not up for conversion - why he wants to discuss this with you. If it is simply because he enjoys the discussion then that may be fine if you have the time and enjoy the chat. But if it is because he is determined to make you a believer then I would be very firm about your boundaries.
What does your wife think?
So do it if you want but only if it makes you comfortable, you don't feel bullied or being used by him in some way and it doesn't upset the arrangement you have with your wife and family which works for you.
My Great Grandfather was an engineer (a copper smelter) who spent the early part of the Twentieth Century in South Africa and the Belgian Congo. He got on fine with locals, local grandees, colonial dignitaries, other entrepreneurs and engineers but he couldn't abide the missionaries.
It looks like Max has found himself a missionary.
Kingsolver's Poisonwood Bible is ironically amusing on the subject.
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
(b). If he can't cope with this he is in the wrong job.
Footnotes: Vicars who start off from John's gospel are often uncritical of how ancient texts work. It is a dense work rooted in a culture modern Christians can't comprehend. It's relationship to what we call history is very complicated.
The historical Jesus is substantially more than a decent itinerant. For a highly informed and critically acute view, EP Sanders 'The historical figure of Jesus' publ by Penguin is outstanding. Worth a read.
If your vicar hasn't read it then he probably hasn't read very much decent stuff. A lot just read American pop paperbacks by fundamentalists.
All Christians (including me) are agnostics, just like all the human race. Religion is not a knowable item.
Question - who do you reckon was the first “modern” historian? In the sense of sourced, academic grade writing. As opposed to “my opinion, which is right.”?
That we know of, Herodotus.
Whilst there are plenty of tall tales, it’s clear that he studied records and interviewed eye-witnesses to write his work.
Modern historiography has its roots in the Enlightenment, though - and the academic discipline (in the modern sense) the 19th century.
'Historian' as a profession is much older, of course. The Korean Joseon dynasty, for example, employed court historians to make a daily record of palace events for future generations - which the monarch was not allowed to access.
On topic: REF's biggest strength is the same as its biggest weakness - Nigel Farage. He's a top drawer politician at a time when we don't have many but they are sooo reliant on him. If he disappears or otherwise loses functionality they will struggle to retain their GE24 position let alone move forward from it. The CON's position is precarious. They need REF to fall back. So do LAB but it's not so existential for them. Their position is superficially weak but structurally strong. I'm starting to think 2.85 for most seats next GE is decent value. I'm not doing it, though, so you can ignore that. It's all hot air if you're not doing it.
OT but an amusing (to me at least) anecdote and curious if others have had similar experiences with children.
For the last few years every day on Boxing Day my daughter has in some way expressed that Christmas is 'over' so should we take down the tree, or something similar. When she was in Year 1 at school she asked for her school uniform on Boxing Day morning as she said she should go to school that day since Christmas is over.
This year (now aged 8) she seems to understand that her Christmas holiday was 2 weeks off school, so I joked with my wife on Christmas night that I was expecting that annual tradition of her expecting Boxing Day to be 'back to normal' not to be repeated tomorrow (now yesterday).
Got through Boxing Day until bedtime without any such remarks this year, at which point she brought her mini Christmas Tree down from her bedroom into the living room saying she doesn't want it in her room now as Christmas is over.
Don't you need to educate her on the 12 days of Christmas? So Christmas isn't over until Epiphany, which is about the right time to go back to school.
We don't celebrate 12 days or Epiphany.
We don't stick to full 12 days either as my wife's birthday is in early January and it was her parents tradition (and ours we've continued) that Christmas is over and the tree down etc in the window after New Years day and before her birthday, so that her birthday is about her and not Christmas.
Christmas began in November when the kids went to see Santa in his grotto, we could start to listen to Christmas music and our lights on the house and tree went up late November. 1st December it begins in earnest with the arrival of the Elves and Advent calendars. 24 December the Elves went back to the North Pole to help Santa who arrived that night.
Now its just the Christmas holiday until New Year and sometime on the 2nd or 3rd we'll pack the tree away and get ready for my wife's birthday before things then get back to normal.
OT but an amusing (to me at least) anecdote and curious if others have had similar experiences with children.
For the last few years every day on Boxing Day my daughter has in some way expressed that Christmas is 'over' so should we take down the tree, or something similar. When she was in Year 1 at school she asked for her school uniform on Boxing Day morning as she said she should go to school that day since Christmas is over.
This year (now aged 8) she seems to understand that her Christmas holiday was 2 weeks off school, so I joked with my wife on Christmas night that I was expecting that annual tradition of her expecting Boxing Day to be 'back to normal' not to be repeated tomorrow (now yesterday).
Got through Boxing Day until bedtime without any such remarks this year, at which point she brought her mini Christmas Tree down from her bedroom into the living room saying she doesn't want it in her room now as Christmas is over.
Don't you need to educate her on the 12 days of Christmas? So Christmas isn't over until Epiphany, which is about the right time to go back to school.
We don't celebrate 12 days or Epiphany.
We don't stick to full 12 days either as my wife's birthday is in early January and it was her parents tradition (and ours we've continued) that Christmas is over and the tree down etc in the window after New Years day and before her birthday, so that her birthday is about her and not Christmas.
Christmas began in November when the kids went to see Santa in his grotto, we could start to listen to Christmas music and our lights on the house and tree went up late November. 1st December it begins in earnest with the arrival of the Elves and Advent calendars. 24 December the Elves went back to the North Pole to help Santa who arrived that night.
Now its just the Christmas holiday until New Year and sometime on the 2nd or 3rd we'll pack the tree away and get ready for my wife's birthday before things then get back to normal.
No wonder she's ready for Christmas to be over by Boxing Day!
In times gone by, Advent - the four weeks leading up to Christmas - was a period of quiet and reflection. Christmas only started in Christmas Eve. Decorations stayed until 12th night, but the period of excess lasted until Candlemas (February 2nd). Nowadays, we have swapped that around: feast in December, fast in January. There are arguments for both approaches, and as you say, there are personal circumstances to take into account, but I'd say the old fashioned approach better fits the peruod of excess to the bleakest time of year.
We had a similar conversation a few weeks ago but I prefer the modern version.
I find bleak the transition from hot weather (which I enjoy) to cold (which I don't so much) and we have essentially the whole of autumn to winter as one long series of festivities.
October is Halloween. November has Bonfire Night, pause for Remembrance, then Christmas begins. December is full on Christmas.
Now is a time for quiet post-Christmas and we can play with our presents. Which includes myself this year since I got a PS5 for Christmas. Then New Year celebrations.
January then is a time for quiet, what you wanted Advent for, but I feel its better suited to January. January is cold and our credit cards are maxed out from Christmas so its a good time for quiet.
Then February we've got Valentines then we start to head into Spring and the weather transitions from March to start to get good again.
I feel like the modern world has sold itself short in terms of festivals. The medieval calendar was loaded with them.
The seasonal cycle of the year naturally breaks it up into eight pieces. The solstices and equinoxes at the height of each season, and the cross-quarter days at the transition between them.
Agreed, unless you count "spring" and "summer" as a festival.
If you do then as discussed above the whole of autumn from October to start of winter is essentially one long continuous period of festivities.
Indeed the only two non-warm months without much going on in the modern calendar is our two New Year months: January "back to normal" and September "back to school"/new academic year.
February: Valentines March/April Mothers Day/Easter May-August Spring/Summer October: Halloween November: Bonfire, Remembrance, Christmas December: Christmas, New Years Eve
Two months that are not fun: January: Back to normal. September: Back to school.
Valentines isn't really something to look forward to (nor is Halloween, for me, but that is a personal view). What about Pancake Day? (Which is basically the late winter quarter
If you have kids (or if you are kids) the school holidays add greatly to the rhythm of the year. It's important to haveannual landmarks in a way I can't quite put my finger on. It's definitely worth creating a few personal ones with friends and family if you don't have them, particularly in the fallow months. (One of our daughters has a September birthday which ticks that particularbox for us.)
Several places do have a January thing. Shetland has Up Helly Aa, for example,and there are villages and towns across England which have a January football match of the old fashioned sort. The thing should be about the outdoors and mud and weather and alcohol and friendship and possible fried food. Suggestions are welcome.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
OT but an amusing (to me at least) anecdote and curious if others have had similar experiences with children.
For the last few years every day on Boxing Day my daughter has in some way expressed that Christmas is 'over' so should we take down the tree, or something similar. When she was in Year 1 at school she asked for her school uniform on Boxing Day morning as she said she should go to school that day since Christmas is over.
This year (now aged 8) she seems to understand that her Christmas holiday was 2 weeks off school, so I joked with my wife on Christmas night that I was expecting that annual tradition of her expecting Boxing Day to be 'back to normal' not to be repeated tomorrow (now yesterday).
Got through Boxing Day until bedtime without any such remarks this year, at which point she brought her mini Christmas Tree down from her bedroom into the living room saying she doesn't want it in her room now as Christmas is over.
Don't you need to educate her on the 12 days of Christmas? So Christmas isn't over until Epiphany, which is about the right time to go back to school.
We don't celebrate 12 days or Epiphany.
We don't stick to full 12 days either as my wife's birthday is in early January and it was her parents tradition (and ours we've continued) that Christmas is over and the tree down etc in the window after New Years day and before her birthday, so that her birthday is about her and not Christmas.
Christmas began in November when the kids went to see Santa in his grotto, we could start to listen to Christmas music and our lights on the house and tree went up late November. 1st December it begins in earnest with the arrival of the Elves and Advent calendars. 24 December the Elves went back to the North Pole to help Santa who arrived that night.
Now its just the Christmas holiday until New Year and sometime on the 2nd or 3rd we'll pack the tree away and get ready for my wife's birthday before things then get back to normal.
No wonder she's ready for Christmas to be over by Boxing Day!
In times gone by, Advent - the four weeks leading up to Christmas - was a period of quiet and reflection. Christmas only started in Christmas Eve. Decorations stayed until 12th night, but the period of excess lasted until Candlemas (February 2nd). Nowadays, we have swapped that around: feast in December, fast in January. There are arguments for both approaches, and as you say, there are personal circumstances to take into account, but I'd say the old fashioned approach better fits the peruod of excess to the bleakest time of year.
We had a similar conversation a few weeks ago but I prefer the modern version.
I find bleak the transition from hot weather (which I enjoy) to cold (which I don't so much) and we have essentially the whole of autumn to winter as one long series of festivities.
October is Halloween. November has Bonfire Night, pause for Remembrance, then Christmas begins. December is full on Christmas.
Now is a time for quiet post-Christmas and we can play with our presents. Which includes myself this year since I got a PS5 for Christmas. Then New Year celebrations.
January then is a time for quiet, what you wanted Advent for, but I feel its better suited to January. January is cold and our credit cards are maxed out from Christmas so its a good time for quiet.
Then February we've got Valentines then we start to head into Spring and the weather transitions from March to start to get good again.
I feel like the modern world has sold itself short in terms of festivals. The medieval calendar was loaded with them.
The seasonal cycle of the year naturally breaks it up into eight pieces. The solstices and equinoxes at the height of each season, and the cross-quarter days at the transition between them.
Agreed, unless you count "spring" and "summer" as a festival.
If you do then as discussed above the whole of autumn from October to start of winter is essentially one long continuous period of festivities.
Indeed the only two non-warm months without much going on in the modern calendar is our two New Year months: January "back to normal" and September "back to school"/new academic year.
February: Valentines March/April Mothers Day/Easter May-August Spring/Summer October: Halloween November: Bonfire, Remembrance, Christmas December: Christmas, New Years Eve
Two months that are not fun: January: Back to normal. September: Back to school.
A Card Factory has just opened up in my town. I think they will struggle after Easter.
OT but an amusing (to me at least) anecdote and curious if others have had similar experiences with children.
For the last few years every day on Boxing Day my daughter has in some way expressed that Christmas is 'over' so should we take down the tree, or something similar. When she was in Year 1 at school she asked for her school uniform on Boxing Day morning as she said she should go to school that day since Christmas is over.
This year (now aged 8) she seems to understand that her Christmas holiday was 2 weeks off school, so I joked with my wife on Christmas night that I was expecting that annual tradition of her expecting Boxing Day to be 'back to normal' not to be repeated tomorrow (now yesterday).
Got through Boxing Day until bedtime without any such remarks this year, at which point she brought her mini Christmas Tree down from her bedroom into the living room saying she doesn't want it in her room now as Christmas is over.
Don't you need to educate her on the 12 days of Christmas? So Christmas isn't over until Epiphany, which is about the right time to go back to school.
We don't celebrate 12 days or Epiphany.
We don't stick to full 12 days either as my wife's birthday is in early January and it was her parents tradition (and ours we've continued) that Christmas is over and the tree down etc in the window after New Years day and before her birthday, so that her birthday is about her and not Christmas.
Christmas began in November when the kids went to see Santa in his grotto, we could start to listen to Christmas music and our lights on the house and tree went up late November. 1st December it begins in earnest with the arrival of the Elves and Advent calendars. 24 December the Elves went back to the North Pole to help Santa who arrived that night.
Now its just the Christmas holiday until New Year and sometime on the 2nd or 3rd we'll pack the tree away and get ready for my wife's birthday before things then get back to normal.
No wonder she's ready for Christmas to be over by Boxing Day!
In times gone by, Advent - the four weeks leading up to Christmas - was a period of quiet and reflection. Christmas only started in Christmas Eve. Decorations stayed until 12th night, but the period of excess lasted until Candlemas (February 2nd). Nowadays, we have swapped that around: feast in December, fast in January. There are arguments for both approaches, and as you say, there are personal circumstances to take into account, but I'd say the old fashioned approach better fits the peruod of excess to the bleakest time of year.
We had a similar conversation a few weeks ago but I prefer the modern version.
I find bleak the transition from hot weather (which I enjoy) to cold (which I don't so much) and we have essentially the whole of autumn to winter as one long series of festivities.
October is Halloween. November has Bonfire Night, pause for Remembrance, then Christmas begins. December is full on Christmas.
Now is a time for quiet post-Christmas and we can play with our presents. Which includes myself this year since I got a PS5 for Christmas. Then New Year celebrations.
January then is a time for quiet, what you wanted Advent for, but I feel its better suited to January. January is cold and our credit cards are maxed out from Christmas so its a good time for quiet.
Then February we've got Valentines then we start to head into Spring and the weather transitions from March to start to get good again.
I feel like the modern world has sold itself short in terms of festivals. The medieval calendar was loaded with them.
The seasonal cycle of the year naturally breaks it up into eight pieces. The solstices and equinoxes at the height of each season, and the cross-quarter days at the transition between them.
Agreed, unless you count "spring" and "summer" as a festival.
If you do then as discussed above the whole of autumn from October to start of winter is essentially one long continuous period of festivities.
Indeed the only two non-warm months without much going on in the modern calendar is our two New Year months: January "back to normal" and September "back to school"/new academic year.
February: Valentines March/April Mothers Day/Easter May-August Spring/Summer October: Halloween November: Bonfire, Remembrance, Christmas December: Christmas, New Years Eve
Two months that are not fun: January: Back to normal. September: Back to school.
Valentines isn't really something to look forward to (nor is Halloween, for me, but that is a personal view). What about Pancake Day? (Which is basically the late winter quarter
If you have kids (or if you are kids) the school holidays add greatly to the rhythm of the year. It's important to haveannual landmarks in a way I can't quite put my finger on. It's definitely worth creating a few personal ones with friends and family if you don't have them, particularly in the fallow months. (One of our daughters has a September birthday which ticks that particularbox for us.)
Several places do have a January thing. Shetland has Up Helly Aa, for example,and there are villages and towns across England which have a January football match of the old fashioned sort. The thing should be about the outdoors and mud and weather and alcohol and friendship and possible fried food. Suggestions are welcome.
Teachers appreciate the school holidays just as much as the pupils do: possibly more…
Off-topic, did anyone listen to The News Agents doing "What if Scotland voted Yes?"
The one bit they all agreed on is that Brexit wouldn't have happened - not even a referendum as the UK would be too consumed by trying to separate itself .
There's a few givens - Cameron would have resigned in 2014, the Queen is declared sovereign north of the wall, Scotland's finances would have tanked with the collapse in the oil price.
Beyond that, much of the debate revolves around two variables: how hardcore would the UK government be in negotiation, and how hardcore would the EU be in negotiation?
Negotiations wouldn't have really started until after the 2015 election, and I can see a similar result to the real election - a small but stable Tory majority, with a massive block of SNP MPs. The biggie is what currency Scotland would use, and I struggle to see past a Scottish pound pegged to Sterling. The "ah we'll just use Sterling" line is fine until you realise that Scottish Sterling is already locally printed and legally distinct to Sterling issued by the BofE...
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
Well, she's not. But membership numbers are not something the general public gives a damn about. It's a Westminster Village story. That said, we shouldn't entirely dismiss it on that basis: the story is not of itself insignificant. Membership is a meaningful source of both money and activists and the relative size of the parties will influence MPs in both in their thinking and actions.
But Badenoch's bigger strategic question, which she's not come close to answering, is whether she wants to distance the Tories from Reform or imply she could implement their manifesto more effectively. Those are not entirely mutually contradictory positions but they're pretty difficult to reconcile and without serious political skills and energy (and the Tories lack both), then they just end up letting Reform drive the right.
Went into town earlier, including M & S and Asda, and it was surprisingly quiet especially as M & S was closed yesterday as well as Christmas day
I know it is anecdotal but it does give further evidence that footfall is down from 2023
Totally miserable atmosphere this xmas out and about. Hardly anyone looks happy. The UK as a country seems to combine the worst aspects of the american and european model mixed in with sh.t weather.
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
I would find an excuse not to meet up.
Explain that you are wanting to continue attending, and therefore open to his ministry, but not wanting a one to one.
There is also the risk that you could precipitate a crisis of faith in him, with continuing ramifications. He may well be headed that way already, but doesn't need a push.
Thanks everyone.
With respect to @Dura_Ace's no prisoners approach (which is probably closest to my own instincts) the consensus is with @Foxy and others. I think I'm in a bit too deep and can only disappoint by meeting again.
Speaking as someone who has a different faith and has also raised a child I personally would not have agreed to raising the child in any faith. We instead didn't force him to goto church and made sure to teach him a little about the basics of every faith and discussed as well agnosticism, atheism etc as well.
I think a child will find a pull when they are ready, or not as in my son's case, enforcing church attendance rarely works out as parents wish, Especially when the child gets old enough for "Awww do we have to go, I want to go out with my friends"
On topic: REF's biggest strength is the same as its biggest weakness - Nigel Farage. He's a top drawer politician at a time when we don't have many but they are sooo reliant on him. If he disappears or otherwise loses functionality they will struggle to retain their GE24 position let alone move forward from it. The CON's position is precarious. They need REF to fall back. So do LAB but it's not so existential for them. Their position is superficially weak but structurally strong. I'm starting to think 2.85 for most seats next GE is decent value. I'm not doing it, though, so you can ignore that. It's all hot air if you're not doing it.
I think it was the Wokesniffer Pursuivant, Casino, who said that the Tories have basically two modes of operation: complacency and panic.
This idea that everything is going to be tickety-fuckety-boo because the Fukkers are taking votes from Labour is an object demonstration of the former.
If only that little shit Rishi had had the vision to make Farage to make Farage High Commish to Aotearoa or something.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
My approach would have been to plot the half-hourly increment against a day or two's cycle, 24 hours. And compare with the null hypothesis that most new members were in the UK (or Spain etc.) and were unlikely to be active 0100-0700. It's about the only obvious test without actual hacking, or the sort of subtle test for randomness that forensic accountants use. If there was a discrepancy of the kind that showed constant activity all 24 hours long, and only if there was, would I have gone public ...
Edit: I have no personal opinion as to who is right or wrong in this instance. Just remarking on the approach taken.
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
HYUFD has a respect for established authority and its institutions which is unlikely to be satisfied by Reform. Though once they are in government .. ?
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
My approach would have been to plot the half-hourly increment against a day or two's cycle, 24 hours. And compare with the null hypothesis that most new members were in the UK (or Spain etc.) and were unlikely to be active 0100-0700. It's about the only obvious test without actual hacking, or the sort of subtle test for randomness that forensic accountants use. If there was a discrepancy of the kind that showed constant activity all 24 hours long, and only if there was, would I have gone public ...
Edit: I have no personal opinion as to who is right or wrong in this instance. Just remarking on the approach taken.
Aren't reform voters up all night watching YouTube videos?
On topic: REF's biggest strength is the same as its biggest weakness - Nigel Farage. He's a top drawer politician at a time when we don't have many but they are sooo reliant on him. If he disappears or otherwise loses functionality they will struggle to retain their GE24 position let alone move forward from it. The CON's position is precarious. They need REF to fall back. So do LAB but it's not so existential for them. Their position is superficially weak but structurally strong. I'm starting to think 2.85 for most seats next GE is decent value. I'm not doing it, though, so you can ignore that. It's all hot air if you're not doing it.
A wonderful what-if is what would have happened had the Nigel not decided to refurn to front-line politics and contest the GE. Under Tice they were still supported but by a few and unlikely to cut through. They needed Farage's political magic.
Here and now Reform is still a Farage vehicle. But he and they seem very serious about changing that. He is very clearly the driving force. But if they do get flooded with money and project way bigger than they are, and that brings in more voters and more members, they will suck in both existing Tories and new members who are competent enough to know they had no place in other political parties.
This is their triple threat to the Tories: They are surging their membership They are increasingly rich They are big on social media and will soon be utterly dominant on it
Once you start broadcasting "this is broken" at people in a simple enough message and then "here's how we fix it" as a crayon solution, the movement no longer requires the figurehead. We are already witnessing this with Trump - he hasn't even taken office yet and already we can see how the movement will sideline him and then replace him.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
My approach would have been to plot the half-hourly increment against a day or two's cycle, 24 hours. And compare with the null hypothesis that most new members were in the UK (or Spain etc.) and were unlikely to be active 0100-0700. It's about the only obvious test without actual hacking, or the sort of subtle test for randomness that forensic accountants use. If there was a discrepancy of the kind that showed constant activity all 24 hours long, and only if there was, would I have gone public ...
Edit: I have no personal opinion as to who is right or wrong in this instance. Just remarking on the approach taken.
Aren't reform voters up all night watching YouTube videos?
YouTube is sooooo last year. It's X and TikTok for yer "news" these days.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
She's the first of the "I can't come to bed, someone on the internet is wrong" generation to make it to the top in UK politics. Upsides: feisty, determined, knows how to make a noise. Downside: trivially easy to wind up. It's one of the reasons boring old Starmer wins PMQs at a canter pretty much every week.
That’s an interesting point and I suspect there’s something in that
Went into town earlier, including M & S and Asda, and it was surprisingly quiet especially as M & S was closed yesterday as well as Christmas day
I know it is anecdotal but it does give further evidence that footfall is down from 2023
Totally miserable atmosphere this xmas out and about. Hardly anyone looks happy. The UK as a country seems to combine the worst aspects of the american and european model mixed in with sh.t weather.
Plenty of happy looking people passing my house enjoying some low key fresh air and time off with family and/or friends.
I've just been to the tip. As I heaved the contents of my blue bin into the paper and card skip, a fellow tipper cheered me on with a "Go on my son!". I don't think cheerful encouragement of domestic tasks is an exclusively Greater Manchester thing but it made me feel a but of regional pride.
OT but an amusing (to me at least) anecdote and curious if others have had similar experiences with children.
For the last few years every day on Boxing Day my daughter has in some way expressed that Christmas is 'over' so should we take down the tree, or something similar. When she was in Year 1 at school she asked for her school uniform on Boxing Day morning as she said she should go to school that day since Christmas is over.
This year (now aged 8) she seems to understand that her Christmas holiday was 2 weeks off school, so I joked with my wife on Christmas night that I was expecting that annual tradition of her expecting Boxing Day to be 'back to normal' not to be repeated tomorrow (now yesterday).
Got through Boxing Day until bedtime without any such remarks this year, at which point she brought her mini Christmas Tree down from her bedroom into the living room saying she doesn't want it in her room now as Christmas is over.
Don't you need to educate her on the 12 days of Christmas? So Christmas isn't over until Epiphany, which is about the right time to go back to school.
We don't celebrate 12 days or Epiphany.
We don't stick to full 12 days either as my wife's birthday is in early January and it was her parents tradition (and ours we've continued) that Christmas is over and the tree down etc in the window after New Years day and before her birthday, so that her birthday is about her and not Christmas.
Christmas began in November when the kids went to see Santa in his grotto, we could start to listen to Christmas music and our lights on the house and tree went up late November. 1st December it begins in earnest with the arrival of the Elves and Advent calendars. 24 December the Elves went back to the North Pole to help Santa who arrived that night.
Now its just the Christmas holiday until New Year and sometime on the 2nd or 3rd we'll pack the tree away and get ready for my wife's birthday before things then get back to normal.
Grotto in November ?!!
No wonder she's bored of Christmas lol
She's not bored, she just has an attitude of "it's over". On the 24th she was almost crying that she had to say goodbye to the Elves as she didn't want them to go.
We stayed at Centerparcs for the first weekend of their "winter wonderland" which began in November and went to the grotto there. It was about £500 cheaper to go that weekend than in December which was reason enough for us to go then lol!
Went into town earlier, including M & S and Asda, and it was surprisingly quiet especially as M & S was closed yesterday as well as Christmas day
I know it is anecdotal but it does give further evidence that footfall is down from 2023
Maybe we have finally reached Peak Tat? The national realisation that you can't afford both a wardrobe of stuff you never wear AND a summer holibobs...
Went into town earlier, including M & S and Asda, and it was surprisingly quiet especially as M & S was closed yesterday as well as Christmas day
I know it is anecdotal but it does give further evidence that footfall is down from 2023
Totally miserable atmosphere this xmas out and about. Hardly anyone looks happy. The UK as a country seems to combine the worst aspects of the american and european model mixed in with sh.t weather.
Could be worse, Could be St Petersburg or Grozny...
Went into town earlier, including M & S and Asda, and it was surprisingly quiet especially as M & S was closed yesterday as well as Christmas day
I know it is anecdotal but it does give further evidence that footfall is down from 2023
Maybe we have finally reached Peak Tat? The national realisation that you can't afford both a wardrobe of stuff you never wear AND a summer holibobs...
It's not even that complicated. Most people short of retirement age are simply getting poorer.
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
Why are you going to church with your wife and children on a Sunday if it’s not for you anyway? Surely it’s better for them if you and your wife can point out that she believes in a firm organised region so takes them to church, you don’t so you don’t go and so when they are ready they can make their own minds up and you as parents will understand either way.
I would tell the vicar that it’s not your thing but thanks and if he needs a chat about issues he has that you might be able to help with then go for a pint together and stay well clear of his vicarage or whatever he lives in. Sounds like a pint or two and a chat would sort him out.
Interesting question. But Boulay's response seems perfectly reasonable - you're not a good use of the vicar's time, and you and your wife absolutely have a right to different views - indeed it's a good sign that you're comfortable with it.
Good question - it works for us as it means I can look after the kids in kids club and she can do the worshipping stuff at the front.
It's also visibly respectful of her faith in front of the kids. I am quite open with our kids and those at church about my own beliefs (our eldest knows only to ask his mum to read 'the Jesus books') but after much discussion we felt that they are very unlikely to even consider Christianity unless they are actively brought up with that tradition and so it's the right balance for now for the kids to go.
I think to a knowledge of Christianity and the Bible, particularly the KJV with its neo-Shakesperean language, is very useful for understanding our country and it's history. Making sense of the English Civil War and Restoration, the Scottish Enlightenment, Welsh choral tradition or the Sectarianism of Ireland requires it.
The KJ bible was written at the same time as Shakespeare was active so I don't think it's accurate to describe it as 'neo'. It sounds similar not just because it dates to exactly the same period but because both were written to be read aloud. The KJ bible is perhaps one of the few great works of art to be genuinely created by committee - though I guess that's easier as an adaptation rather than an original work. But part of the remit was to produce something that works both on a spiritual level but also as a matter of practical oratory.
Which isn't to say that Shakespeare is easy to recite - or wasn't even when the language was current (if often unfamiliar: his vocabulary was immense, including plenty of words he made up himself); but it was to the same end: to be heard, understood and contemplated.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
Yes, the likes of Luckyguy were absolutely right about her.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
My approach would have been to plot the half-hourly increment against a day or two's cycle, 24 hours. And compare with the null hypothesis that most new members were in the UK (or Spain etc.) and were unlikely to be active 0100-0700. It's about the only obvious test without actual hacking, or the sort of subtle test for randomness that forensic accountants use. If there was a discrepancy of the kind that showed constant activity all 24 hours long, and only if there was, would I have gone public ...
Edit: I have no personal opinion as to who is right or wrong in this instance. Just remarking on the approach taken.
Aren't reform voters up all night watching YouTube videos?
YouTube is sooooo last year. It's X and TikTok for yer "news" these days.
On topic: REF's biggest strength is the same as its biggest weakness - Nigel Farage. He's a top drawer politician at a time when we don't have many but they are sooo reliant on him. If he disappears or otherwise loses functionality they will struggle to retain their GE24 position let alone move forward from it. The CON's position is precarious. They need REF to fall back. So do LAB but it's not so existential for them. Their position is superficially weak but structurally strong. I'm starting to think 2.85 for most seats next GE is decent value. I'm not doing it, though, so you can ignore that. It's all hot air if you're not doing it.
Isn't Labour's only dependable vote really the public sector client vote? Which despite everyone's best efforts has limits in terms of its size. Everyone else is up for grabs in a situation where the old rules no longer apply.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
Yes, the likes of Luckyguy were absolutely right about her.
Went into town earlier, including M & S and Asda, and it was surprisingly quiet especially as M & S was closed yesterday as well as Christmas day
I know it is anecdotal but it does give further evidence that footfall is down from 2023
Maybe we have finally reached Peak Tat? The national realisation that you can't afford both a wardrobe of stuff you never wear AND a summer holibobs...
It's not even that complicated. Most people short of retirement age are simply getting poorer.
The boomers will just tell you you are lazy mate and should work harder whilst they go on another cruise.
On topic: REF's biggest strength is the same as its biggest weakness - Nigel Farage. He's a top drawer politician at a time when we don't have many but they are sooo reliant on him. If he disappears or otherwise loses functionality they will struggle to retain their GE24 position let alone move forward from it. The CON's position is precarious. They need REF to fall back. So do LAB but it's not so existential for them. Their position is superficially weak but structurally strong. I'm starting to think 2.85 for most seats next GE is decent value. I'm not doing it, though, so you can ignore that. It's all hot air if you're not doing it.
Isn't Labour's only dependable vote really the public sector client vote? Which despite everyone's best efforts has limits in terms of its size. Everyone else is up for grabs in a situation where the old rules no longer apply.
On topic: REF's biggest strength is the same as its biggest weakness - Nigel Farage. He's a top drawer politician at a time when we don't have many but they are sooo reliant on him. If he disappears or otherwise loses functionality they will struggle to retain their GE24 position let alone move forward from it. The CON's position is precarious. They need REF to fall back. So do LAB but it's not so existential for them. Their position is superficially weak but structurally strong. I'm starting to think 2.85 for most seats next GE is decent value. I'm not doing it, though, so you can ignore that. It's all hot air if you're not doing it.
Isn't Labour's only dependable vote really the public sector client vote? Which despite everyone's best efforts has limits in terms of its size. Everyone else is up for grabs in a situation where the old rules no longer apply.
Bit of a lazy trope.
Plenty of public sector vote right wing, in the armed forces, police, prisons, and even my colleagues.
While probably a plurality of the working age population in the private sector voted Labour. It's just the retired where the Tories dominated.
The real redpill about race that nobody ever says:
White people are doomed to fail because theyre the only race that cares what women think and say.
Result? Liberalism. LGBT. Birthrate declines.
The list goes on.
Wife says "no more babies one is enough" and a white man agrees.
His genetic bloodline ENDS because of a females convenience.
A black man simply fucks someone else.
White men will never, ever, ever, ever win because youre the only race women can control.
Women cant control brown or black men.
Its why they chase us to be honest. They like it.
Every white woman alive fantasises about a black man.
The white mans civilisation is collapsing because youre neutered by brutally ineffective females and pandering to their emotionality.
When you say this white people get mad and say "IM A REAL MAN MY WIFE IS THE BEST IM A REAL DAD"
but thats all hard cope.
Women control you thats why you let foreigners in.
And those foreigners dont listen to women so they out breed you.
The winning races simply ignore what women think completely and use them for children only.
"have endless kids and I will keep you alive, do not talk to me very much I am busy with the guys" is the winning formula for the races which reproduce.
Do not shoot the messenger. 11:24 AM · Dec 27, 2024 · 164.4K View
On topic: REF's biggest strength is the same as its biggest weakness - Nigel Farage. He's a top drawer politician at a time when we don't have many but they are sooo reliant on him. If he disappears or otherwise loses functionality they will struggle to retain their GE24 position let alone move forward from it. The CON's position is precarious. They need REF to fall back. So do LAB but it's not so existential for them. Their position is superficially weak but structurally strong. I'm starting to think 2.85 for most seats next GE is decent value. I'm not doing it, though, so you can ignore that. It's all hot air if you're not doing it.
Isn't Labour's only dependable vote really the public sector client vote? Which despite everyone's best efforts has limits in terms of its size. Everyone else is up for grabs in a situation where the old rules no longer apply.
Some of the immigrant vote too.
In the past, but we're seeing a splintering there. With the growth in those demographics, they are getting their own parties.
Went into town earlier, including M & S and Asda, and it was surprisingly quiet especially as M & S was closed yesterday as well as Christmas day
I know it is anecdotal but it does give further evidence that footfall is down from 2023
Maybe we have finally reached Peak Tat? The national realisation that you can't afford both a wardrobe of stuff you never wear AND a summer holibobs...
I hope Peak Tat, if that's where we are, is only partially about money.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
Yes, the likes of Luckyguy were absolutely right about her.
Thanks! To be fair, I criticised her for having no policies - which I do think is at the root of these silly spats she keeps picking. I also questioned her achievements in office and where her party affiliations lay. These are issues too. But I did not have basic lack of political nous/PR abilities on my Kemi bingo card.
Went into town earlier, including M & S and Asda, and it was surprisingly quiet especially as M & S was closed yesterday as well as Christmas day
I know it is anecdotal but it does give further evidence that footfall is down from 2023
Totally miserable atmosphere this xmas out and about. Hardly anyone looks happy. The UK as a country seems to combine the worst aspects of the american and european model mixed in with sh.t weather.
Plenty of happy looking people passing my house enjoying some low key fresh air and time off with family and/or friends.
I've just been to the tip. As I heaved the contents of my blue bin into the paper and card skip, a fellow tipper cheered me on with a "Go on my son!". I don't think cheerful encouragement of domestic tasks is an exclusively Greater Manchester thing but it made me feel a but of regional pride.
I love going to the tip. Sue me but there's something wonderful about discarding old tat and starting afresh.
On topic: REF's biggest strength is the same as its biggest weakness - Nigel Farage. He's a top drawer politician at a time when we don't have many but they are sooo reliant on him. If he disappears or otherwise loses functionality they will struggle to retain their GE24 position let alone move forward from it. The CON's position is precarious. They need REF to fall back. So do LAB but it's not so existential for them. Their position is superficially weak but structurally strong. I'm starting to think 2.85 for most seats next GE is decent value. I'm not doing it, though, so you can ignore that. It's all hot air if you're not doing it.
Isn't Labour's only dependable vote really the public sector client vote? Which despite everyone's best efforts has limits in terms of its size. Everyone else is up for grabs in a situation where the old rules no longer apply.
Some of the immigrant vote too.
In the past, but we're seeing a splintering there. With the growth in those demographics, they are getting their own parties.
Yes muslims may splinter off to their own party. And indians and muslims have little in common.
I followed rcs1000's tip and subscribed to Krugman's substack. So far the content is good, but. An English-speaker using Malvinas for the Falklands is a ridiculous and ignorant affectation.
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
A version of (b) could be to look for common ground. You may not find it but I think people enjoy conversations when both parties seek to do this. Also you can modify your views without a binary transformation from not believing to believing. See where you end up.
Reform UK has threatened legal action against Kemi Badenoch after she suggested the party had faked its membership numbers.
Zia Yusuf, the Reform chairman, was among party figures to suggest Nigel Farage could sue Mrs Badenoch over remarks she made on Thursday.
In response to Mr Farage saying his party had more members than the Conservatives for the first time, the Tory leader claimed he had fabricated the numbers.
The public spat between the two leaders comes as a significant escalation in the battle to dominate the Right wing of British politics.
Mrs Badenoch used a five-part post on X, formerly Twitter, to accuse him and Reform of “fakery” and bombarding the public with “endless lies, smoke and mirrors”.
In a post on the same platform, Mr Yusuf asked his followers: “Should Nigel Farage sue Kemi Badenoch for libel?”
The Reform chairman proceeded to give two poll options – “yes, hold her to account” and “no, she’s irrelevant”.
Asked by The Telegraph whether legal action was being considered, a Reform source said that it was.
“The more I read, the worse it gets for Kemi,” the source said. “Not only has she lied and embarrassed herself, but she’s shown a horrific lack of judgement.
“Our membership has surged even more thanks to her ludicrous conspiracy theories.”
In an interview with GB News, Mr Farage said he was “not going to let this rest”.
“The idea that the leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition is accusing me of fraud is absolutely disgusting,” he said.
“She may be used to being in a party that lies to the British public, we are not. We put that digital tracker up a few days ago showing every single person that goes online and gives us their postcode and pays us £25.”
Mr Farage added that it was “a bit rich” of Mrs Badenoch to claim he did not “understand the digital age” when he has significantly more social media followers than her.
He continued: “I’m sorry but the truth is there is a very big shift that is going on in British politics.
“I don’t mind all sorts of comments being made about me, but to be accused by her of being a fraudster… I’m sorry, I’m not going to let this rest.”
Went into town earlier, including M & S and Asda, and it was surprisingly quiet especially as M & S was closed yesterday as well as Christmas day
I know it is anecdotal but it does give further evidence that footfall is down from 2023
Maybe we have finally reached Peak Tat? The national realisation that you can't afford both a wardrobe of stuff you never wear AND a summer holibobs...
It's not even that complicated. Most people short of retirement age are simply getting poorer.
The boomers will just tell you you are lazy mate and should work harder whilst they go on another cruise.
My wife, whose approach to hunting for bargains makes the ancient Spartans look lackadaisical, is waiting for the desperation sales of early January.
The real redpill about race that nobody ever says:
White people are doomed to fail because theyre the only race that cares what women think and say.
Result? Liberalism. LGBT. Birthrate declines.
The list goes on.
Wife says "no more babies one is enough" and a white man agrees.
His genetic bloodline ENDS because of a females convenience.
A black man simply fucks someone else.
White men will never, ever, ever, ever win because youre the only race women can control.
Women cant control brown or black men.
Its why they chase us to be honest. They like it.
Every white woman alive fantasises about a black man.
The white mans civilisation is collapsing because youre neutered by brutally ineffective females and pandering to their emotionality.
When you say this white people get mad and say "IM A REAL MAN MY WIFE IS THE BEST IM A REAL DAD"
but thats all hard cope.
Women control you thats why you let foreigners in.
And those foreigners dont listen to women so they out breed you.
The winning races simply ignore what women think completely and use them for children only.
"have endless kids and I will keep you alive, do not talk to me very much I am busy with the guys" is the winning formula for the races which reproduce.
Do not shoot the messenger. 11:24 AM · Dec 27, 2024 · 164.4K View
Except Far Eastern races have an even lower birthrate than white races and are more patriarchal.
There needs to be a balance so more women get financial support to work part time or be full time mothers if they want children and men also should try and help with some childcare if they can
We could end up with one set of constituencies fought between Labour and Reform, and a second set fought between Conservative and Lib Dems. And barely a Lab-Con marginal in sight.
The real redpill about race that nobody ever says:
White people are doomed to fail because theyre the only race that cares what women think and say.
Result? Liberalism. LGBT. Birthrate declines.
The list goes on.
Wife says "no more babies one is enough" and a white man agrees.
His genetic bloodline ENDS because of a females convenience.
A black man simply fucks someone else.
White men will never, ever, ever, ever win because youre the only race women can control.
Women cant control brown or black men.
Its why they chase us to be honest. They like it.
Every white woman alive fantasises about a black man.
The white mans civilisation is collapsing because youre neutered by brutally ineffective females and pandering to their emotionality.
When you say this white people get mad and say "IM A REAL MAN MY WIFE IS THE BEST IM A REAL DAD"
but thats all hard cope.
Women control you thats why you let foreigners in.
And those foreigners dont listen to women so they out breed you.
The winning races simply ignore what women think completely and use them for children only.
"have endless kids and I will keep you alive, do not talk to me very much I am busy with the guys" is the winning formula for the races which reproduce.
Do not shoot the messenger. 11:24 AM · Dec 27, 2024 · 164.4K View
Except Far Eastern races have an even lower birthrate than white races and are more patriarchal.
There needs to be a balance so more women get financial support to work part time or be full time mothers if they want children and men also should try and help with some childcare if they can
I don think thays truw. Here in the uk our birthrate is artificially increased by the immigrants. Without them it would be hovering near 1 i think.
We could end up with one set of constituencies fought between Labour and Reform, and a second set fought between Conservative and Lib Dems. And barely a Lab-Con marginal in sight.
There will be quite a few seats where the Tories are eclipsed by Reform - may not end as Con/Ref marginals though as I sense the eclipsing will be long over by the time we get to an election...
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
HYUFD has a respect for established authority and its institutions which is unlikely to be satisfied by Reform. Though once they are in government .. ?
Reform could only get into government with the support of most Tory voters or Tory MPs anyway
We could end up with one set of constituencies fought between Labour and Reform, and a second set fought between Conservative and Lib Dems. And barely a Lab-Con marginal in sight.
The risk for the Tories is there's a tipping point where most Tory members/voters switch to Reform and you end up with a rump Tory party in between 10 and 50 seats as per the LibDems
The real redpill about race that nobody ever says:
White people are doomed to fail because theyre the only race that cares what women think and say.
Result? Liberalism. LGBT. Birthrate declines.
The list goes on.
Wife says "no more babies one is enough" and a white man agrees.
His genetic bloodline ENDS because of a females convenience.
A black man simply fucks someone else.
White men will never, ever, ever, ever win because youre the only race women can control.
Women cant control brown or black men.
Its why they chase us to be honest. They like it.
Every white woman alive fantasises about a black man.
The white mans civilisation is collapsing because youre neutered by brutally ineffective females and pandering to their emotionality.
When you say this white people get mad and say "IM A REAL MAN MY WIFE IS THE BEST IM A REAL DAD"
but thats all hard cope.
Women control you thats why you let foreigners in.
And those foreigners dont listen to women so they out breed you.
The winning races simply ignore what women think completely and use them for children only.
"have endless kids and I will keep you alive, do not talk to me very much I am busy with the guys" is the winning formula for the races which reproduce.
Do not shoot the messenger. 11:24 AM · Dec 27, 2024 · 164.4K View
Except Far Eastern races have an even lower birthrate than white races and are more patriarchal.
There needs to be a balance so more women get financial support to work part time or be full time mothers if they want children and men also should try and help with some childcare if they can
I don think thays truw. Here in the uk our birthrate is artificially increased by the immigrants. Without them it would be hovering near 1 i think.
No, in 2022 the UK fertility rate was 1.57 and the White British rate was 1.49.
(Though there are slighty different ways of estimating it and some estimates are different).
Overall the situation is bad but not yet catastrophic.
My son's 17th birthday. As well as a few small presents we also let him unwrap the L-plates and set out when the driving lessons start. L-plates largely a prop at this stage - we're not taking him out until he has has a professional doing it.
I did enjoy the slight look of fear in his eyes as we described him getting picked up from school by the instructor with a plan for him to drive the car home by the end of the first lesson. School is 11 miles away on the same road as our house - but that is 11 miles of mostly NSL with a mix of fast flowing sections and some twisty fun...
I hope you don't mind me saying, but I think that is unwise.
IMO a sensible instructor would not let a new learner driver anywhere near an extended drive on a high speed road until he has learnt the basics of car control and hazard perception, from use of gears through to perceiving the speed of other vehicles, and an appreciation of the risks he poses to other road users.
Home time from school is the busiest time on the roads, and on a NSL road he will have impatient-drivers-in-a-hurry climbing up his exhaust pipe to intimidate him, and potentially doing dodgy overtakes. And collisions or accidents on NSL roads have more serious consequences than learning the basics in a nursery area.
In a case of picking-up-from-school there could also be peer pressure, and ribbing. I think setting specific goals is a pressure to learn quickly, when we need young drivers to learn well rather than asap. Most drivers do little or no further training, so we need them to learn as much as possible at the start.
IMO if a youngster learns too quickly then he has a higher risk level when he gets his test and thinks he is OK. I learned this to my (dad's) cost, when I passed mine at 17 and 5 months, and pranged the family car at 17 and 8 months by doing an icy roundabout too quickly when I did not have the skills to perceive and understand the hazard, or recover from it.
What I have done - which I do not think I have seen him cover - is to suggest that Ashley Neal does a video about helping youngsters learn to drive. He's in his 50s, so I'll be interested to hear what he did with his own kids.
My son's 17th birthday. As well as a few small presents we also let him unwrap the L-plates and set out when the driving lessons start. L-plates largely a prop at this stage - we're not taking him out until he has has a professional doing it.
I did enjoy the slight look of fear in his eyes as we described him getting picked up from school by the instructor with a plan for him to drive the car home by the end of the first lesson. School is 11 miles away on the same road as our house - but that is 11 miles of mostly NSL with a mix of fast flowing sections and some twisty fun...
I hope you don't mind me saying, but I think that is unwise.
IMO a sensible instructor would not let a new learner driver anywhere near an extended drive on a high speed road until he has learnt the basics of car control and hazard perception, from use of gears through to perceiving the speed of other vehicles, and an appreciation of the risks he poses to other road users.
Home time from school is the busiest time on the roads, and on a NSL road he will have impatient-drivers-in-a-hurry climbing up his exhaust pipe to intimidate him, and potentially doing dodgy overtakes. And collisions or accidents on NSL roads have more serious consequences than learning the basics in a nursery area.
In a case of picking-up-from-school there could also be peer pressure, and ribbing. I think setting specific goals is a pressure to learn quickly, when we need young drivers to learn well rather than asap. Most drivers do little or no further training, so we need them to learn as much as possible at the start.
IMO is a youngster learns too quickly then he has a higher risk level when he gets his test and thinks he is OK. I learned this to my (dad's) cost, when I passed mine at 17 and 5 months, and pranged dad's car at 17 and 8 months by doing an icy roundabout too quickly when I did not have the skills to perceive and understand the hazard, or recover from it.
What I have done - which I do not think I have seen him cover - is to suggest that Ashley Neal does a video about helping youngsters learn to drive. He's in his 50s, so I'll be interested to hear what he did with his own kids.
I think the issue is being able to have the first lessons in daylight...
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
Off topic: Our dog is one year old today. She celebrated by not wanting to go for a walk.
My dogs got no nose….
If we are going to tell old jokes:
I went to the pub and drank too much so I decided it was best I leave the car so I took a bus home. Lucky because the police were stopping all the cars and breathalysing the drivers. I didn't know I could drive a bus and can't remember where I got it from.
Last night @kinabalu and I got into a discussion on the Premier League outright winner betting market which currently implies Liverpool "only" have about a 70% chance of winning.
I suggested that should be closer to 90% with the main plausible challenger now being Arsenal whom are 9 points adrift after the same number of games played.
Interesting to see that Opta now imply the same percentages as I estimated. Opta give Liverpool an 88.8% chance of winning, versus a 10.3% chance for Arsenal and a 1.5% chance for Chelsea.
That seems much more realistic than the betting markets to me.
It's certainly possible that Liverpool won't win the League but the odds of a 9 point gap being overturned, especially given who the challengers are, seems to me no more than a 10% chance not a 25 to 30% chance.
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
Your problem is that you always take a snapshot in time - a poll, membership data - and project forward as if there is no momentum behind the numbers. "We will be ok because on that polling we win seats x" - no, because the election in question isn't today.
Your challenge is relevancy. Your party has done itself severe structural damage with a rapid turnover of shit PMs and embarrassing policies. It isn't all Badenoch's fault that nobody is listening - stick someone sensible into the job like Jeremy Hunt and they would similarly struggle.
Farage? Relevant. Has a genius ear for what people want to hear and a (city stockbroker) common man approach that so many politicians can't manage. That you are so utterly dismissive of him would be incredulous if it wasn't you doing it.
You need a strategy to see off Reform. Saying "no we don't" only makes the challenge worse...
To get a Conservative majority yes, not if a Tory and Reform government suffices
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
I think you are being very fair and generous to your wife and indeed the vicar. I really think though the vicar should leave you alone. You attend church. You are supporting your wife and children. If faith is for you, that is something you will find for yourself without the vicar trying to browbeat it into you. You've already made clear to him that it is not for you and he should respect that.
As for (b) have that conversation if you want but I suspect he will want to continue with it and if you don't want to have more of the same then you need to make that clear. I would also ask him - having made clear to him, again, that you are not up for conversion - why he wants to discuss this with you. If it is simply because he enjoys the discussion then that may be fine if you have the time and enjoy the chat. But if it is because he is determined to make you a believer then I would be very firm about your boundaries.
What does your wife think?
So do it if you want but only if it makes you comfortable, you don't feel bullied or being used by him in some way and it doesn't upset the arrangement you have with your wife and family which works for you.
My wife is very appreciative of me coming to church and knows our boundaries - I will never try to convince her that her faith is illogical and she will never try to convert me. She is neutral on me speaking to the vicar (though I don't doubt there is a part of her that hopes he convinces me).
The complicating factor is that, all other things being equal, I can think of few more enjoyable evenings than robustly debating the merits of Christianity over a pint. I studied philosophy of religion at uni and was lucky enough to have one to one tutorials with our college chaplain where we'd discuss stuff late into the evening. I'm just not sure it's possible to replicate that with this vicar.
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
Well, she's not. But membership numbers are not something the general public gives a damn about. It's a Westminster Village story. That said, we shouldn't entirely dismiss it on that basis: the story is not of itself insignificant. Membership is a meaningful source of both money and activists and the relative size of the parties will influence MPs in both in their thinking and actions.
But Badenoch's bigger strategic question, which she's not come close to answering, is whether she wants to distance the Tories from Reform or imply she could implement their manifesto more effectively. Those are not entirely mutually contradictory positions but they're pretty difficult to reconcile and without serious political skills and energy (and the Tories lack both), then they just end up letting Reform drive the right.
In what way are Reform in relation to The Tories any different from the SDP in relation to Labour? The SDP were once media darlings, had a good number of MPs and councillors and got good opinion poll numbers.
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
I think you are being very fair and generous to your wife and indeed the vicar. I really think though the vicar should leave you alone. You attend church. You are supporting your wife and children. If faith is for you, that is something you will find for yourself without the vicar trying to browbeat it into you. You've already made clear to him that it is not for you and he should respect that.
As for (b) have that conversation if you want but I suspect he will want to continue with it and if you don't want to have more of the same then you need to make that clear. I would also ask him - having made clear to him, again, that you are not up for conversion - why he wants to discuss this with you. If it is simply because he enjoys the discussion then that may be fine if you have the time and enjoy the chat. But if it is because he is determined to make you a believer then I would be very firm about your boundaries.
What does your wife think?
So do it if you want but only if it makes you comfortable, you don't feel bullied or being used by him in some way and it doesn't upset the arrangement you have with your wife and family which works for you.
My wife is very appreciative of me coming to church and knows our boundaries - I will never try to convince her that her faith is illogical and she will never try to convert me. She is neutral on me speaking to the vicar (though I don't doubt there is a part of her that hopes he convinces me).
The complicating factor is that, all other things being equal, I can think of few more enjoyable evenings than robustly debating the merits of Christianity over a pint. I studied philosophy of religion at uni and was lucky enough to have one to one tutorials with our college chaplain where we'd discuss stuff late into the evening. I'm just not sure it's possible to replicate that with this vicar.
Do it then. You're probably worrying unnecessarily about the sensitivities of the Vicar - though I am sure you're also sensible enough not to refer directly to his troubles.
PB, apologies for a lengthy post of marginal interest to most. I'd appreciate advice, particularly from any thoughtful religious types, or agnostics who respect those who believe:
My wife is a Christian, I'm firmly agnostic. We have two kids, who after discussion together we have agreed to bring up as Christians until they can choose for themselves. As a result we are often in church as a family (whenever we are at home on a Sunday).
My wife's vicar has, understandably, taken an interest in converting me, which (short of incontrovertible divine revelation) he has no hope of doing. I've made this clear to him. We've been to the pub together once and had a good chat. He has asked me to read John's gospel and for us to meet again.
My reaction to all of this is twofold: 1. I want to continue meeting and discussing with him as a way of honouring my wife's faith and to be respectful of the church I regularly attend. 2. I have quite strong skeptical reactions to the gospels (in essence my view is that of Don Cupitt's that Jesus was an insightful itinerant whose disciples over-claimed for him after his death in a form of confirmation bias).
Here's my quandry: in my own inexpert way I sense that the vicar isn't really up for a really robust discussion about this stuff; he has quite a bit of trauma in his own life (lost his first wife to cancer, relatives are mentally unwell) and the fervour with which he proclaims his own faith signals to me someone with plenty of their own demons to fight (I may be wholly inaccurate in this assessment, though he did say he found our last meeting difficult and didn't feel as though he did his faith justice in the way he responded to some of the questions I had).
I'm due to meet him for another chat in Jan. Do I (a) Politely discuss John's gospel, skirting around some of my skepticism and keeping everything surface level, which feels like it is wasting both of our time; (b) Engage fully, raising all the questions I have and arguing for my skeptical view on the basis that this respects the time he is putting into our relationship and that this is the conversation I'd find most interesting; (c) Seek to extricate myself from the next meeting entirely in some way, whilst still respecting that this is an authority-figure for my wife; (d) Do something else?
Feel free to tell me I'm being an arsehole if I have missed something important.
b is best for eternal life and salvation with Christ
Off-topic, did anyone listen to The News Agents doing "What if Scotland voted Yes?"
The one bit they all agreed on is that Brexit wouldn't have happened - not even a referendum as the UK would be too consumed by trying to separate itself .
There's a few givens - Cameron would have resigned in 2014, the Queen is declared sovereign north of the wall, Scotland's finances would have tanked with the collapse in the oil price.
Beyond that, much of the debate revolves around two variables: how hardcore would the UK government be in negotiation, and how hardcore would the EU be in negotiation?
Negotiations wouldn't have really started until after the 2015 election, and I can see a similar result to the real election - a small but stable Tory majority, with a massive block of SNP MPs. The biggie is what currency Scotland would use, and I struggle to see past a Scottish pound pegged to Sterling. The "ah we'll just use Sterling" line is fine until you realise that Scottish Sterling is already locally printed and legally distinct to Sterling issued by the BofE...
Wouldn't it have been in the Conservative government's interest to negotiate separation ASAP? They would have increased their majority to a much larger working number, and a very small handful of MPs could no longer hold him hostage.
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
Your problem is that you always take a snapshot in time - a poll, membership data - and project forward as if there is no momentum behind the numbers. "We will be ok because on that polling we win seats x" - no, because the election in question isn't today.
Your challenge is relevancy. Your party has done itself severe structural damage with a rapid turnover of shit PMs and embarrassing policies. It isn't all Badenoch's fault that nobody is listening - stick someone sensible into the job like Jeremy Hunt and they would similarly struggle.
Farage? Relevant. Has a genius ear for what people want to hear and a (city stockbroker) common man approach that so many politicians can't manage. That you are so utterly dismissive of him would be incredulous if it wasn't you doing it.
You need a strategy to see off Reform. Saying "no we don't" only makes the challenge worse...
To get a Conservative majority yes, not if a Tory and Reform government suffices
Getting a Tory/Reform coalition is going to be much harder if the electorate perceives it is possible.
My son's 17th birthday. As well as a few small presents we also let him unwrap the L-plates and set out when the driving lessons start. L-plates largely a prop at this stage - we're not taking him out until he has has a professional doing it.
I did enjoy the slight look of fear in his eyes as we described him getting picked up from school by the instructor with a plan for him to drive the car home by the end of the first lesson. School is 11 miles away on the same road as our house - but that is 11 miles of mostly NSL with a mix of fast flowing sections and some twisty fun...
I hope you don't mind me saying, but I think that is unwise.
IMO a sensible instructor would not let a new learner driver anywhere near an extended drive on a high speed road until he has learnt the basics of car control and hazard perception, from use of gears through to perceiving the speed of other vehicles, and an appreciation of the risks he poses to other road users.
Home time from school is the busiest time on the roads, and on a NSL road he will have impatient-drivers-in-a-hurry climbing up his exhaust pipe to intimidate him, and potentially doing dodgy overtakes. And collisions or accidents on NSL roads have more serious consequences than learning the basics in a nursery area.
In a case of picking-up-from-school there could also be peer pressure, and ribbing. I think setting specific goals is a pressure to learn quickly, when we need young drivers to learn well rather than asap. Most drivers do little or no further training, so we need them to learn as much as possible at the start.
IMO if a youngster learns too quickly then he has a higher risk level when he gets his test and thinks he is OK. I learned this to my (dad's) cost, when I passed mine at 17 and 5 months, and pranged the family car at 17 and 8 months by doing an icy roundabout too quickly when I did not have the skills to perceive and understand the hazard, or recover from it.
What I have done - which I do not think I have seen him cover - is to suggest that Ashley Neal does a video about helping youngsters learn to drive. He's in his 50s, so I'll be interested to hear what he did with his own kids.
On a further reflection, I'd recommend that learner drivers follow Ashley's or a similar channel. I follow several, and his is the best for educating through careful study of many situations plus has a very civilised community.
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
I just don't understand how your brain works. You know politics. You are involved in politics. So you know as well as I do that the snapshot today *is not how people will vote in 4 years time*
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
But Reform also need to be careful that they don't swoon and give away their policy programme at the first whiff of millionaire (and billionaire) money. Especially Musk's money. That way lies ruin. They need to be a bit like Elizabeth I, courting everyone but not getting into a marriage with anyone.
My son's 17th birthday. As well as a few small presents we also let him unwrap the L-plates and set out when the driving lessons start. L-plates largely a prop at this stage - we're not taking him out until he has has a professional doing it.
I did enjoy the slight look of fear in his eyes as we described him getting picked up from school by the instructor with a plan for him to drive the car home by the end of the first lesson. School is 11 miles away on the same road as our house - but that is 11 miles of mostly NSL with a mix of fast flowing sections and some twisty fun...
I hope you don't mind me saying, but I think that is unwise.
IMO a sensible instructor would not let a new learner driver anywhere near an extended drive on a high speed road until he has learnt the basics of car control and hazard perception, from use of gears through to perceiving the speed of other vehicles, and an appreciation of the risks he poses to other road users.
Home time from school is the busiest time on the roads, and on a NSL road he will have impatient-drivers-in-a-hurry climbing up his exhaust pipe to intimidate him, and potentially doing dodgy overtakes. And collisions or accidents on NSL roads have more serious consequences than learning the basics in a nursery area.
In a case of picking-up-from-school there could also be peer pressure, and ribbing. I think setting specific goals is a pressure to learn quickly, when we need young drivers to learn well rather than asap. Most drivers do little or no further training, so we need them to learn as much as possible at the start.
IMO if a youngster learns too quickly then he has a higher risk level when he gets his test and thinks he is OK. I learned this to my (dad's) cost, when I passed mine at 17 and 5 months, and pranged the family car at 17 and 8 months by doing an icy roundabout too quickly when I did not have the skills to perceive and understand the hazard, or recover from it.
What I have done - which I do not think I have seen him cover - is to suggest that Ashley Neal does a video about helping youngsters learn to drive. He's in his 50s, so I'll be interested to hear what he did with his own kids.
Yes, I very much agree. I've taught my own son how to drive, finalising with some lessons with an instructor in the run-up to his test to make sure everything was covered properly, and to get used to the instructor's car. I've done the same with my step-daughter and a friend's son, and now seem to have become the unoffical go-to person for inital driving lessons, despite my assertions that I'm not a driving instructor!
In each case, I kick off with basic car control in an empty car park, followed by slow driving and manoeuvring on quiet residential streets, before gradually moving up to busier roads and progressively more complicated junctions. I always make sure my learner is fully confident at each stage before moving to the next, not least out of a sense of self-preservation! I'd never dare to take a fresh learner on a busy road.
Edit: Oh, and Ashley Neal's videos are indeed a great resource!
Yes, Labour under Corbyn had 150,000 more members than it does now under Starmer but it was the latter who won a general election.
It is not surprising more hardcore rightwingers have switched to Farage's Reform over the Tories, though in most polls the Tories are still ahead of Reform even if Reform have more members. Remember the main swing since July has been Labour to Reform, the Tories little changed. Some Tories would vote LD over Reform even if they would not join any party
As the Tories are on the back of historically their worst performance in the post Victorian era, I would have thought Reform syphoning off more from Labour than the Conservatives is scant relief for the remaining faithful. I believe you understand the damage working class hero and snake oil salesman Farage could do to the Labour Party but have missed that he has already done his work on your party.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats on current polls purely as a result of Labour voters going Reform and FPTP even if the Tory vote is largely unchanged from July.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
On topic... the Kemster has really fucked this up. By arguing the toss about the Fukkers' membership numbers she legitimises and promotes them. Which was presumably the intent when the Fukkers put the counter on their website.
How can she and her advisers not see this !!
It's very simple. She - and they - are not up to it.
Well, she's not. But membership numbers are not something the general public gives a damn about. It's a Westminster Village story. That said, we shouldn't entirely dismiss it on that basis: the story is not of itself insignificant. Membership is a meaningful source of both money and activists and the relative size of the parties will influence MPs in both in their thinking and actions.
But Badenoch's bigger strategic question, which she's not come close to answering, is whether she wants to distance the Tories from Reform or imply she could implement their manifesto more effectively. Those are not entirely mutually contradictory positions but they're pretty difficult to reconcile and without serious political skills and energy (and the Tories lack both), then they just end up letting Reform drive the right.
In what way are Reform in relation to The Tories any different from the SDP in relation to Labour? The SDP were once media darlings, had a good number of MPs and councillors and got good opinion poll numbers.
Luck.
The times favour insurgent right wing parties, in a way they did not favour the SDP.
Comments
Your challenge is relevancy. Your party has done itself severe structural damage with a rapid turnover of shit PMs and embarrassing policies. It isn't all Badenoch's fault that nobody is listening - stick someone sensible into the job like Jeremy Hunt and they would similarly struggle.
Farage? Relevant. Has a genius ear for what people want to hear and a (city stockbroker) common man approach that so many politicians can't manage. That you are so utterly dismissive of him would be incredulous if it wasn't you doing it.
You need a strategy to see off Reform. Saying "no we don't" only makes the challenge worse...
I did enjoy the slight look of fear in his eyes as we described him getting picked up from school by the instructor with a plan for him to drive the car home by the end of the first lesson. School is 11 miles away on the same road as our house - but that is 11 miles of mostly NSL with a mix of fast flowing sections and some twisty fun...
It's also visibly respectful of her faith in front of the kids. I am quite open with our kids and those at church about my own beliefs (our eldest knows only to ask his mum to read 'the Jesus books') but after much discussion we felt that they are very unlikely to even consider Christianity unless they are actively brought up with that tradition
and so it's the right balance for now for the kids to go.
I find bleak the transition from hot weather (which I enjoy) to cold (which I don't so much) and we have essentially the whole of autumn to winter as one long series of festivities.
October is Halloween.
November has Bonfire Night, pause for Remembrance, then Christmas begins.
December is full on Christmas.
Now is a time for quiet post-Christmas and we can play with our presents. Which includes myself this year since I got a PS5 for Christmas. Then New Year celebrations.
January then is a time for quiet, what you wanted Advent for, but I feel its better suited to January. January is cold and our credit cards are maxed out from Christmas so its a good time for quiet.
Then February we've got Valentines then we start to head into Spring and the weather transitions from March to start to get good again.
Although to be fair I would have thought you would dovetail neatly into Reform. Afterall they do all the fun things you like. Elitism, Grammar schools, no inheritance tax, reducing the size of the state, privatisation of public services, fox hunting, repatriation of foreigners and the list continues. No hanging and flogging yet, although when Suella has her feet under the table who knows?
I know there is a "don't worry, Reform are taking votes off Labour" theme from a few posters and commentators. But the Tories got crushed to their smallest representation ever this summer. The Tories need to take an awful lot of votes from anyone they can win over. An alternative right wing party doing this is clearly a direct threat not just to their recovery but to their further decline...
The seasonal cycle of the year naturally breaks it up into eight pieces. The solstices and equinoxes at the height of each season, and the cross-quarter days at the transition between them.
As for (b) have that conversation if you want but I suspect he will want to continue with it and if you don't want to have more of the same then you need to make that clear. I would also ask him - having made clear to him, again, that you are not up for conversion - why he wants to discuss this with you. If it is simply because he enjoys the discussion then that may be fine if you have the time and enjoy the chat. But if it is because he is determined to make you a believer then I would be very firm about your boundaries.
What does your wife think?
So do it if you want but only if it makes you comfortable, you don't feel bullied or being used by him in some way and it doesn't upset the arrangement you have with your wife and family which works for you.
If you do then as discussed above the whole of autumn from October to start of winter is essentially one long continuous period of festivities.
Indeed the only two non-warm months without much going on in the modern calendar is our two New Year months: January "back to normal" and September "back to school"/new academic year.
February: Valentines
March/April Mothers Day/Easter
May-August Spring/Summer
October: Halloween
November: Bonfire, Remembrance, Christmas
December: Christmas, New Years Eve
Two months that are not fun:
January: Back to normal.
September: Back to school.
For me, after 2nd Jan, there are no landmarks to look forward to until the start of the Six Nations in late Jan/early Feb.
It looks like Max has found himself a missionary.
'Historian' as a profession is much older, of course. The Korean Joseon dynasty, for example, employed court historians to make a daily record of palace events for future generations - which the monarch was not allowed to access.
China, of course, started much earlier.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiji
Dura can probably tell us more about this guy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urwa_ibn_al-Zubayr
No wonder she's bored of Christmas lol
If you have kids (or if you are kids) the school holidays add greatly to the rhythm of the year. It's important to haveannual landmarks in a way I can't quite put my finger on. It's definitely worth creating a few personal ones with friends and family if you don't have them, particularly in the fallow months. (One of our daughters has a September birthday which ticks that particularbox for us.)
Several places do have a January thing. Shetland has Up Helly Aa, for example,and there are villages and towns across England which have a January football match of the old fashioned sort. The thing should be about the outdoors and mud and weather and alcohol and friendship and possible fried food. Suggestions are welcome.
I think they will struggle after Easter.
Teachers appreciate the school holidays just as much as the pupils do: possibly more…
I know it is anecdotal but it does give further evidence that footfall is down from 2023
The one bit they all agreed on is that Brexit wouldn't have happened - not even a referendum as the UK would be too consumed by trying to separate itself .
There's a few givens - Cameron would have resigned in 2014, the Queen is declared sovereign north of the wall, Scotland's finances would have tanked with the collapse in the oil price.
Beyond that, much of the debate revolves around two variables: how hardcore would the UK government be in negotiation, and how hardcore would the EU be in negotiation?
Negotiations wouldn't have really started until after the 2015 election, and I can see a similar result to the real election - a small but stable Tory majority, with a massive block of SNP MPs. The biggie is what currency Scotland would use, and I struggle to see past a Scottish pound pegged to Sterling. The "ah we'll just use Sterling" line is fine until you realise that Scottish Sterling is already locally printed and legally distinct to Sterling issued by the BofE...
But Badenoch's bigger strategic question, which she's not come close to answering, is whether she wants to distance the Tories from Reform or imply she could implement their manifesto more effectively. Those are not entirely mutually contradictory positions but they're pretty difficult to reconcile and without serious political skills and energy (and the Tories lack both), then they just end up letting Reform drive the right.
I think a child will find a pull when they are ready, or not as in my son's case, enforcing church attendance rarely works out as parents wish, Especially when the child gets old enough for "Awww do we have to go, I want to go out with my friends"
This idea that everything is going to be tickety-fuckety-boo because the Fukkers are taking votes from Labour is an object demonstration of the former.
If only that little shit Rishi had had the vision to make Farage to make Farage High Commish to Aotearoa or something.
Edit: I have no personal opinion as to who is right or wrong in this instance. Just remarking on the approach taken.
Though once they are in government .. ?
Here and now Reform is still a Farage vehicle. But he and they seem very serious about changing that. He is very clearly the driving force. But if they do get flooded with money and project way bigger than they are, and that brings in more voters and more members, they will suck in both existing Tories and new members who are competent enough to know they had no place in other political parties.
This is their triple threat to the Tories:
They are surging their membership
They are increasingly rich
They are big on social media and will soon be utterly dominant on it
Once you start broadcasting "this is broken" at people in a simple enough message and then "here's how we fix it" as a crayon solution, the movement no longer requires the figurehead. We are already witnessing this with Trump - he hasn't even taken office yet and already we can see how the movement will sideline him and then replace him.
TikTok. News. Don't get me started...
Plenty of happy looking people passing my house enjoying some low key fresh air and time off with family and/or friends.
I've just been to the tip. As I heaved the contents of my blue bin into the paper and card skip, a fellow tipper cheered me on with a "Go on my son!". I don't think cheerful encouragement of domestic tasks is an exclusively Greater Manchester thing but it made me feel a but of regional pride.
We stayed at Centerparcs for the first weekend of their "winter wonderland" which began in November and went to the grotto there. It was about £500 cheaper to go that weekend than in December which was reason enough for us to go then lol!
Cue ‘oh no he isn’t’ gag 😉
Which isn't to say that Shakespeare is easy to recite - or wasn't even when the language was current (if often unfamiliar: his vocabulary was immense, including plenty of words he made up himself); but it was to the same end: to be heard, understood and contemplated.
Though the KJV has less slapstick.
Not my cup of tea, but Leicester was fairly busy too in December.
Plenty of public sector vote right wing, in the armed forces, police, prisons, and even my colleagues.
While probably a plurality of the working age population in the private sector voted Labour. It's just the retired where the Tories dominated.
The real redpill about race that nobody ever says:
White people are doomed to fail because theyre the only race that cares what women think and say.
Result? Liberalism. LGBT. Birthrate declines.
The list goes on.
Wife says "no more babies one is enough" and a white man agrees.
His genetic bloodline ENDS because of a females convenience.
A black man simply fucks someone else.
White men will never, ever, ever, ever win because youre the only race women can control.
Women cant control brown or black men.
Its why they chase us to be honest. They like it.
Every white woman alive fantasises about a black man.
The white mans civilisation is collapsing because youre neutered by brutally ineffective females and pandering to their emotionality.
When you say this white people get mad and say "IM A REAL MAN MY WIFE IS THE BEST IM A REAL DAD"
but thats all hard cope.
Women control you thats why you let foreigners in.
And those foreigners dont listen to women so they out breed you.
The winning races simply ignore what women think completely and use them for children only.
"have endless kids and I will keep you alive, do not talk to me very much I am busy with the guys" is the winning formula for the races which reproduce.
Do not shoot the messenger.
11:24 AM · Dec 27, 2024
·
164.4K
View
https://x.com/Cobratate/status/1872604534574358975
Its a view i suppose.
Don't be owned by your stuff.
Zia Yusuf, the Reform chairman, was among party figures to suggest Nigel Farage could sue Mrs Badenoch over remarks she made on Thursday.
In response to Mr Farage saying his party had more members than the Conservatives for the first time, the Tory leader claimed he had fabricated the numbers.
The public spat between the two leaders comes as a significant escalation in the battle to dominate the Right wing of British politics.
Mrs Badenoch used a five-part post on X, formerly Twitter, to accuse him and Reform of “fakery” and bombarding the public with “endless lies, smoke and mirrors”.
In a post on the same platform, Mr Yusuf asked his followers: “Should Nigel Farage sue Kemi Badenoch for libel?”
The Reform chairman proceeded to give two poll options – “yes, hold her to account” and “no, she’s irrelevant”.
Asked by The Telegraph whether legal action was being considered, a Reform source said that it was.
“The more I read, the worse it gets for Kemi,” the source said. “Not only has she lied and embarrassed herself, but she’s shown a horrific lack of judgement.
“Our membership has surged even more thanks to her ludicrous conspiracy theories.”
In an interview with GB News, Mr Farage said he was “not going to let this rest”.
“The idea that the leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition is accusing me of fraud is absolutely disgusting,” he said.
“She may be used to being in a party that lies to the British public, we are not. We put that digital tracker up a few days ago showing every single person that goes online and gives us their postcode and pays us £25.”
Mr Farage added that it was “a bit rich” of Mrs Badenoch to claim he did not “understand the digital age” when he has significantly more social media followers than her.
He continued: “I’m sorry but the truth is there is a very big shift that is going on in British politics.
“I don’t mind all sorts of comments being made about me, but to be accused by her of being a fraudster… I’m sorry, I’m not going to let this rest.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/12/27/reform-uk-threatens-legal-action-kemi-badenoch-members/
There needs to be a balance so more women get financial support to work part time or be full time mothers if they want children and men also should try and help with some childcare if they can
Must be hard being only the second biggest prat in the world called Andrew.
(Though there are slighty different ways of estimating it and some estimates are different).
Overall the situation is bad but not yet catastrophic.
IMO a sensible instructor would not let a new learner driver anywhere near an extended drive on a high speed road until he has learnt the basics of car control and hazard perception, from use of gears through to perceiving the speed of other vehicles, and an appreciation of the risks he poses to other road users.
Home time from school is the busiest time on the roads, and on a NSL road he will have impatient-drivers-in-a-hurry climbing up his exhaust pipe to intimidate him, and potentially doing dodgy overtakes. And collisions or accidents on NSL roads have more serious consequences than learning the basics in a nursery area.
In a case of picking-up-from-school there could also be peer pressure, and ribbing. I think setting specific goals is a pressure to learn quickly, when we need young drivers to learn well rather than asap. Most drivers do little or no further training, so we need them to learn as much as possible at the start.
IMO if a youngster learns too quickly then he has a higher risk level when he gets his test and thinks he is OK. I learned this to my (dad's) cost, when I passed mine at 17 and 5 months, and pranged the family car at 17 and 8 months by doing an icy roundabout too quickly when I did not have the skills to perceive and understand the hazard, or recover from it.
What I have done - which I do not think I have seen him cover - is to suggest that Ashley Neal does a video about helping youngsters learn to drive. He's in his 50s, so I'll be interested to hear what he did with his own kids.
There is no doubt Reform are gaining, now on -32% higher in net favourability than either Labour on -35% or the Tories on -43%.
Kemi still has a higher net favourable on -31% compared to -34% for Farage and -36% for Starmer
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/nigel-farage-reform-uk-now-has-more-members-than-the-conservative-party-qwd2wmcwc
I went to the pub and drank too much so I decided it was best I leave the car so I took a bus home. Lucky because the police were stopping all the cars and breathalysing the drivers. I didn't know I could drive a bus and can't remember where I got it from.
Last night @kinabalu and I got into a discussion on the Premier League outright winner betting market which currently implies Liverpool "only" have about a 70% chance of winning.
I suggested that should be closer to 90% with the main plausible challenger now being Arsenal whom are 9 points adrift after the same number of games played.
Interesting to see that Opta now imply the same percentages as I estimated. Opta give Liverpool an 88.8% chance of winning, versus a 10.3% chance for Arsenal and a 1.5% chance for Chelsea.
That seems much more realistic than the betting markets to me.
It's certainly possible that Liverpool won't win the League but the odds of a 9 point gap being overturned, especially given who the challengers are, seems to me no more than a 10% chance not a 25 to 30% chance.
Edit forgot to link to Opta: https://theanalyst.com/2024/08/opta-football-predictions
My wife is very appreciative of me coming to church and knows our boundaries - I will never try to convince her that her faith is illogical and she will never try to convert me. She is neutral on me speaking to the vicar (though I don't doubt there is a part of her that hopes he convinces me).
The complicating factor is that, all other things being equal, I can think of few more enjoyable evenings than robustly debating the merits of Christianity over a pint. I studied philosophy of religion at uni and was lucky enough to have one to one tutorials with our college chaplain where we'd discuss stuff late into the evening. I'm just not sure it's possible to replicate that with this vicar.
The SDP were once media darlings, had a good number of MPs and councillors and got good opinion poll numbers.
The question is how the trends will play out. And the trends are moving away from you and towards Reform, on what feels like an exponential curve once you factor in that Reform now have all the money and the media attention.
"Badenoch will gain 50-100 Labour seats". No, she won't. Which seats do you have in mind?
In each case, I kick off with basic car control in an empty car park, followed by slow driving and manoeuvring on quiet residential streets, before gradually moving up to busier roads and progressively more complicated junctions. I always make sure my learner is fully confident at each stage before moving to the next, not least out of a sense of self-preservation! I'd never dare to take a fresh learner on a busy road.
Edit: Oh, and Ashley Neal's videos are indeed a great resource!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/27/keir-starmer-pays-tribute-to-brother-who-died-on-boxing-day
It’s better to have 30% approval and 60% disapproval than to have 20% approval and 40% disapproval.
All British politicians are unpopular, most of the time, so what matters is turning out the minority who like you.
The times favour insurgent right wing parties, in a way they did not favour the SDP.