There is something peculiarly depressing about the SCW.
Fernando?
That's the Mexican war. It's a curious thing - the Swedish text of the song is a love song, but the English text, presumably partly for the US market, is about the partner of a Mexican preparing to fight the US.
The Clash had a song on London Calling about the SCW "Spanish Bombs". One of their best.
My view of HYFUD's distinctive brand of Conservatism can be neatly summed up by (I think) Iain Macleod on Enoch Powell
"I'm happy to be on the same train as him but I make sure to get off a few stations before it crashes at speed into the buffers".
I'm not sure how seriously I take it (just based on his posts on here) without corroborating evidence offline.
I think he's just enthusiastically partisan and stubborn and lets himself fall into traps as a result.
The daft thing is they are traps he sets himself. No one sets out on here to prove someone is a fascist or an apologist for mass murderers. HYFUD happily volunteers that information all on his ownsome.
It is interesting that despite supposedly being Done, it is so widely seen as a poor decision. Keeping Brexit as a campaigning tool in the next GE may not be a great move for the Tories.
Quite how Starmer plays it is going to be interesting, but having a history against it may not be the killer blow that the Tories want.
I think it's about 54:46 wrong/right "in hindsight" on a forced choice - so not a slam dunk - and we have to read it in conjunction with Brexit now only being 5th in the most important issues index, with only 19% mentioning it as an issue.
So it could be that even most Remainers/floaters think "probably a mistake, but it's done now and let's move on".
I wonder if this is why we're not (yet) seeing cases surging in England:
Seroprevalence data indicates that approximately 97.9% of blood donors aged 17 and over have antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 from either infection or vaccination. Increases in seropositivity continue to be observed in those aged 17 to 29, following vaccination rollout.
@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.
But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.
Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.
And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.
As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.
Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.
You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship
You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.
There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.
Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations
Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.
And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.
Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.
Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.
Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.
The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.
I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.
And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.
Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.
Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.
As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.
The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together
You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.
I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.
I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example
Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.
Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.
Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain.
Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins
I find it interesting that you think you have the right to decide if someone is or is not a Traditional Tory - as in my personal opinion you are not a Conservative in any shape or form...
I just pop in to see @HYUFD talking utter garbage and traducing a large number of moderate conservative voters
You of course are a former New Labour voter rather than a loyal moderate Conservative voter
Your purity is so pathetic and you embarrass so many of us who have worked for the party over decades
You're polite BigG but, to be fair, I don't think you get to pull that argument given you voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001.
I was working for the party throughout every one of those years. Every single one.
So you’re one of the exclusionary tendency, too ?
Unless you voted for Hague and Boris and May and Cameron you cannot call yourself a genuine Tory no.
Just as unless you voted for Blair and Brown and Corbyn and still back Labour under Starmer you cannot call yourself genuine Labour either.
If you do not fall in any of those categories you are really either a swing voter or a LD or Nationalist
Weirdo.
Given the vote in, for instance, the European elections in 2019, I would suspect a lot of people HYUFD thinks are true tories among his colleagues are in fact traitors.
I saw someone check this earlier today and the quoted price is actually right - hotels are just about the only thing in Switzerland where the prices aren't oh boy.
That doesn't make sense though. If all their input costs (e.g. staffing, cost of food ingredients, local taxes, energy etc) are high as per rest of Swiss life then how can they only charge £87?
There is something peculiarly depressing about the SCW.
Fernando?
That's the Mexican war. It's a curious thing - the Swedish text of the song is a love song, but the English text, presumably partly for the US market, is about the partner of a Mexican preparing to fight the US.
@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.
But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.
Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.
And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.
As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.
Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.
You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship
You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.
There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.
Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations
Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.
And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.
Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.
Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.
Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.
The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.
I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.
And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.
Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.
Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.
As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.
The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together
You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.
I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.
I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example
Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.
Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.
Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain and Franco was never a Nazi, he shrewdly kept Spain neutral in WW2.
Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins
Whenever people ask how it is that someone like Hitler managed to get to power in a modern European country all I have to do is point them in your direction. Ideology trumping basic common decency.
Oh and before you try to Godwin me, I have made no mention of the Nazi's until you decided to bring them into the discussion as a rather obvious diversionary tactic. But if the cap fits...
So now you are calling me a Nazi, despite the fact many members of my family fought them.
Even Churchill said of Franco '“All the national and martial forces in Spain have been profoundly stirred by the rise of Italy under Mussolini to Imperial power in the Mediterranean. Italian methods are a guide. Italian achievements are a spur. Shall Spain, the greatest empire in the world when Italy was a mere bunch of disunited petty princedoms, now sink into the equalitarian squalor of a Communist State, or shall it resume its place among the great Powers of the world?”
However I of course could not care less what your libertarian extremism thinks of me as you are often just as much my ideological opponent as a socialist is and at least most socialists tend to be more polite than you are
What a depressing post, particularly your Churchill quote.
Churchill was often a nasty little shit.
Indeed. Apart from 1940-44 he advocated some pretty noxious things.
My view of HYFUD's distinctive brand of Conservatism can be neatly summed up by (I think) Iain Macleod on Enoch Powell
"I'm happy to be on the same train as him but I make sure to get off a few stations before it crashes at speed into the buffers".
I'm not sure how seriously I take it (just based on his posts on here) without corroborating evidence offline.
I think he's just enthusiastically partisan and stubborn and lets himself fall into traps as a result.
The daft thing is they are traps he sets himself. No one sets out on here to prove someone is a fascist or an apologist for mass murderers. HYFUD happily volunteers that information all on his ownsome.
Since when does the fact I said I preferred Franco to the communists but would have preferred the communists to Hitler make me a Fascist?
Indeed given Stalin killed far more than Franco ever did it does not make me an apologist for mass murder either given that was the choice in Spain in 1930
My view of HYFUD's distinctive brand of Conservatism can be neatly summed up by (I think) Iain Macleod on Enoch Powell
"I'm happy to be on the same train as him but I make sure to get off a few stations before it crashes at speed into the buffers".
I'm not sure how seriously I take it (just based on his posts on here) without corroborating evidence offline.
I think he's just enthusiastically partisan and stubborn and lets himself fall into traps as a result.
The daft thing is they are traps he sets himself. No one sets out on here to prove someone is a fascist or an apologist for mass murderers. HYFUD happily volunteers that information all on his ownsome.
The daft thing is that he has outed himself enough on here for us to know he is a local councillor and party chairman with a desire to become an MP.
And then he posts the stupidest conspiracy stories as if they are true without thinking.
@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.
But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.
Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.
And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.
As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.
Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.
You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship
You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.
There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.
Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations
Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.
And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.
Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.
Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.
Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.
The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.
I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.
And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.
Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.
Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.
As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.
The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together
You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.
I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.
I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example
Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.
Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.
Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain and Franco was never a Nazi, he shrewdly kept Spain neutral in WW2.
Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins
Whenever people ask how it is that someone like Hitler managed to get to power in a modern European country all I have to do is point them in your direction. Ideology trumping basic common decency.
Oh and before you try to Godwin me, I have made no mention of the Nazi's until you decided to bring them into the discussion as a rather obvious diversionary tactic. But if the cap fits...
So now you are calling me a Nazi, despite the fact many members of my family fought them.
Even Churchill said of Franco '“All the national and martial forces in Spain have been profoundly stirred by the rise of Italy under Mussolini to Imperial power in the Mediterranean. Italian methods are a guide. Italian achievements are a spur. Shall Spain, the greatest empire in the world when Italy was a mere bunch of disunited petty princedoms, now sink into the equalitarian squalor of a Communist State, or shall it resume its place among the great Powers of the world?”
However I of course could not care less what your libertarian extremism thinks of me as you are often just as much my ideological opponent as a socialist is and at least most socialists tend to be more polite than you are
What a depressing post, particularly your Churchill quote.
Churchill was often a nasty little shit.
He'd also not pass the 'True Tory' test, so not sure why a true tory would rely on a quote of his for anything.
@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.
But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.
Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.
And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.
As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.
Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.
You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship
You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.
There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.
Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations
Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.
And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.
Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.
Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.
Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.
The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.
I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.
And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.
Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.
Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.
As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.
The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together
You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.
I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.
I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example
Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.
Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.
Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain.
Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins
I find it interesting that you think you have the right to decide if someone is or is not a Traditional Tory - as in my personal opinion you are not a Conservative in any shape or form...
I just pop in to see @HYUFD talking utter garbage and traducing a large number of moderate conservative voters
You of course are a former New Labour voter rather than a loyal moderate Conservative voter
Your purity is so pathetic and you embarrass so many of us who have worked for the party over decades
You're polite BigG but, to be fair, I don't think you get to pull that argument given you voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001.
I was working for the party throughout every one of those years. Every single one.
So you’re one of the exclusionary tendency, too ?
Unless you voted for Hague and Boris and May and Cameron you cannot call yourself a genuine Tory no.
Just as unless you voted for Blair and Brown and Corbyn and still back Labour under Starmer you cannot call yourself genuine Labour either.
If you do not fall in any of those categories you are really either a swing voter or a LD or Nationalist
Weirdo.
Given the vote in, for instance, the European elections in 2019, I would suspect a lot of people HYUFD thinks are true tories among his colleagues are in fact traitors.
Most of them still voted Tory at the 2019 general election, even if I voted Tory at both
@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.
But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.
Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.
And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.
As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.
Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.
You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship
You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.
There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.
Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations
Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.
And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.
Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.
Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.
Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.
The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.
I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.
And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.
Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.
Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.
As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.
The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together
You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.
I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.
I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example
Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.
Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.
Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain.
Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins
I find it interesting that you think you have the right to decide if someone is or is not a Traditional Tory - as in my personal opinion you are not a Conservative in any shape or form...
I just pop in to see @HYUFD talking utter garbage and traducing a large number of moderate conservative voters
You of course are a former New Labour voter rather than a loyal moderate Conservative voter
Your purity is so pathetic and you embarrass so many of us who have worked for the party over decades
You're polite BigG but, to be fair, I don't think you get to pull that argument given you voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001.
I was working for the party throughout every one of those years. Every single one.
So you’re one of the exclusionary tendency, too ?
Unless you voted for Hague and Boris and May and Cameron you cannot call yourself a genuine Tory no.
Just as unless you voted for Blair and Brown and Corbyn and still back Labour under Starmer you cannot call yourself genuine Labour either.
If you do not fall in any of those categories you are really either a swing voter or a LD or Nationalist
Weirdo.
Given the vote in, for instance, the European elections in 2019, I would suspect a lot of people HYUFD thinks are true tories among his colleagues are in fact traitors.
Most of them still voted Tory at the 2019 general election, even if I voted Tory at both
So why is it ok for them to not vote Tory but not for others to not vote Tory on some other occasion and still be Tories? I doubt the party makes a distinction in its rulebook as to when you are allowed to vote for someone else.
It is interesting that despite supposedly being Done, it is so widely seen as a poor decision. Keeping Brexit as a campaigning tool in the next GE may not be a great move for the Tories.
Quite how Starmer plays it is going to be interesting, but having a history against it may not be the killer blow that the Tories want.
I think it's about 54:46 wrong/right "in hindsight" on a forced choice - so not a slam dunk - and we have to read it in conjunction with Brexit now only being 5th in the most important issues index, with only 19% mentioning it as an issue.
So it could be that even most Remainers/floaters think "probably a mistake, but it's done now and let's move on".
I don't expect any major party apart from the SNP to campaign to Rejoin in 2024. There may be plenty though ready to take revenge on the architects of Brexit. Certainly I won't be voting Tory again in a GE.
It is interesting that despite supposedly being Done, it is so widely seen as a poor decision. Keeping Brexit as a campaigning tool in the next GE may not be a great move for the Tories.
Quite how Starmer plays it is going to be interesting, but having a history against it may not be the killer blow that the Tories want.
I think it's about 54:46 wrong/right "in hindsight" on a forced choice - so not a slam dunk - and we have to read it in conjunction with Brexit now only being 5th in the most important issues index, with only 19% mentioning it as an issue.
So it could be that even most Remainers/floaters think "probably a mistake, but it's done now and let's move on".
I don't expect any major party apart from the SNP to campaign to Rejoin in 2024. There may be plenty though ready to take revenge on the architects of Brexit. Certainly I won't be voting Tory again in a GE.
@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.
But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.
Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.
And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.
As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.
Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.
You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship
You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.
There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.
Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations
Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.
And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.
Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.
Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.
Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.
The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.
I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.
And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.
Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.
Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.
As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.
The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together
You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.
I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.
I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example
I have a strong suspicion that Pinochet may have been your favourite leader. A bit tougher than Franco.
Pinochet did of course at least help the UK in the Falklands War, as Baroness Thatcher acknowledged
You are crossing the line from loyal Conservative to fascist apologist with consumate ease this evening. Your views may not go down well with some people you hope will vote for you in future elections.
Some of these views are best kept to yourself, better still research fascist brutality in Spain, Chile and Argentina, and as a practicing Christian have a thought for those who were tortured and killed because of their political leanings. You would not be best pleased if British people disappeared without trace because they were Johnson supporting Conservatives would you?
I did not say I was a Francoist , I said he was not all bad, given the choice between Franco and the communists in the 1930s many conservatives of the time preferred Franco.
Of course the main centre right party in Spain, the Popular Party, the Tories sister party even has its origins in the People's Alliance founded by the reformist Francoist minister Manuel Fraga
Yeah, and I guess Hitler wasn't all bad, since given the choice between Hitler and the communists in the 1930s many conservatives of the time preferred Hitler.
@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.
But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.
Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.
And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.
As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.
Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.
You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship
You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.
There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.
Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations
Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.
And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.
Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.
Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.
Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.
The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.
I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.
And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.
Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.
Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.
As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.
The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together
You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.
I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.
I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example
Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.
Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.
Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain and Franco was never a Nazi, he shrewdly kept Spain neutral in WW2.
Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins
Whenever people ask how it is that someone like Hitler managed to get to power in a modern European country all I have to do is point them in your direction. Ideology trumping basic common decency.
Oh and before you try to Godwin me, I have made no mention of the Nazi's until you decided to bring them into the discussion as a rather obvious diversionary tactic. But if the cap fits...
So now you are calling me a Nazi, despite the fact many members of my family fought them.
Even Churchill said of Franco '“All the national and martial forces in Spain have been profoundly stirred by the rise of Italy under Mussolini to Imperial power in the Mediterranean. Italian methods are a guide. Italian achievements are a spur. Shall Spain, the greatest empire in the world when Italy was a mere bunch of disunited petty princedoms, now sink into the equalitarian squalor of a Communist State, or shall it resume its place among the great Powers of the world?”
However I of course could not care less what your libertarian extremism thinks of me as you are often just as much my ideological opponent as a socialist is and at least most socialists tend to be more polite than you are
What a depressing post, particularly your Churchill quote.
Churchill was often a nasty little shit.
He'd also not pass the 'True Tory' test, so not sure why a true tory would rely on a quote of his for anything.
Churchill never lectured other Tories who always backed the party about 'embarrassing' the party unlike BigG
My view of HYFUD's distinctive brand of Conservatism can be neatly summed up by (I think) Iain Macleod on Enoch Powell
"I'm happy to be on the same train as him but I make sure to get off a few stations before it crashes at speed into the buffers".
I'm not sure how seriously I take it (just based on his posts on here) without corroborating evidence offline.
I think he's just enthusiastically partisan and stubborn and lets himself fall into traps as a result.
The daft thing is they are traps he sets himself. No one sets out on here to prove someone is a fascist or an apologist for mass murderers. HYFUD happily volunteers that information all on his ownsome.
Since when does the fact I said I preferred Franco to the communists but would have preferred the communists to Hitler make me a Fascist?
It doesn't, but you don't have to choose between them either.
@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.
But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.
Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.
And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.
As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.
Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.
You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship
You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.
There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.
Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations
Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.
And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.
Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.
Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.
Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.
The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.
I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.
And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.
Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.
Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.
As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.
The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together
You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.
I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.
I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example
Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.
Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.
Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain.
Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins
I find it interesting that you think you have the right to decide if someone is or is not a Traditional Tory - as in my personal opinion you are not a Conservative in any shape or form...
I just pop in to see @HYUFD talking utter garbage and traducing a large number of moderate conservative voters
You of course are a former New Labour voter rather than a loyal moderate Conservative voter
Your purity is so pathetic and you embarrass so many of us who have worked for the party over decades
You're polite BigG but, to be fair, I don't think you get to pull that argument given you voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001.
I was working for the party throughout every one of those years. Every single one.
So you’re one of the exclusionary tendency, too ?
Unless you voted for Hague and Boris and May and Cameron you cannot call yourself a genuine Tory no.
Just as unless you voted for Blair and Brown and Corbyn and still back Labour under Starmer you cannot call yourself genuine Labour either.
If you do not fall in any of those categories you are really either a swing voter or a LD or Nationalist
Weirdo.
Given the vote in, for instance, the European elections in 2019, I would suspect a lot of people HYUFD thinks are true tories among his colleagues are in fact traitors.
Most of them still voted Tory at the 2019 general election, even if I voted Tory at both
So it is OK for them but not me in 97 and 01
You are so full of contradictions you confuse yourself
@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.
But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.
Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.
And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.
As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.
Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.
You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship
You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.
There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.
Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations
Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.
And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.
Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.
Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.
Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.
The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.
I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.
And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.
Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.
Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.
As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.
The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together
You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.
I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.
I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example
Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.
Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.
Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain and Franco was never a Nazi, he shrewdly kept Spain neutral in WW2.
Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins
Whenever people ask how it is that someone like Hitler managed to get to power in a modern European country all I have to do is point them in your direction. Ideology trumping basic common decency.
Oh and before you try to Godwin me, I have made no mention of the Nazi's until you decided to bring them into the discussion as a rather obvious diversionary tactic. But if the cap fits...
So now you are calling me a Nazi, despite the fact many members of my family fought them.
Even Churchill said of Franco '“All the national and martial forces in Spain have been profoundly stirred by the rise of Italy under Mussolini to Imperial power in the Mediterranean. Italian methods are a guide. Italian achievements are a spur. Shall Spain, the greatest empire in the world when Italy was a mere bunch of disunited petty princedoms, now sink into the equalitarian squalor of a Communist State, or shall it resume its place among the great Powers of the world?”
However I of course could not care less what your libertarian extremism thinks of me as you are often just as much my ideological opponent as a socialist is and at least most socialists tend to be more polite than you are
What a depressing post, particularly your Churchill quote.
Churchill was often a nasty little shit.
He'd also not pass the 'True Tory' test, so not sure why a true tory would rely on a quote of his for anything.
Churchill never lectured other Tories who always backed the party about 'embarrassing' the party unlike BigG
Well, I don't quite get it, but thank you for explaining it at least.
@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.
But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.
Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.
And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.
As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.
Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.
You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship
You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.
There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.
Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations
Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.
And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.
Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.
Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.
Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.
The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.
I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.
And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.
Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.
Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.
As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.
The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together
You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.
I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.
I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example
Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.
Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.
Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain and Franco was never a Nazi, he shrewdly kept Spain neutral in WW2.
Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins
Whenever people ask how it is that someone like Hitler managed to get to power in a modern European country all I have to do is point them in your direction. Ideology trumping basic common decency.
Oh and before you try to Godwin me, I have made no mention of the Nazi's until you decided to bring them into the discussion as a rather obvious diversionary tactic. But if the cap fits...
So now you are calling me a Nazi, despite the fact many members of my family fought them.
Even Churchill said of Franco '“All the national and martial forces in Spain have been profoundly stirred by the rise of Italy under Mussolini to Imperial power in the Mediterranean. Italian methods are a guide. Italian achievements are a spur. Shall Spain, the greatest empire in the world when Italy was a mere bunch of disunited petty princedoms, now sink into the equalitarian squalor of a Communist State, or shall it resume its place among the great Powers of the world?”
However I of course could not care less what your libertarian extremism thinks of me as you are often just as much my ideological opponent as a socialist is and at least most socialists tend to be more polite than you are
What a depressing post, particularly your Churchill quote.
Churchill was often a nasty little shit.
He'd also not pass the 'True Tory' test, so not sure why a true tory would rely on a quote of his for anything.
Churchill never lectured other Tories who always backed the party about 'embarrassing' the party unlike BigG
It is interesting that despite supposedly being Done, it is so widely seen as a poor decision. Keeping Brexit as a campaigning tool in the next GE may not be a great move for the Tories.
Quite how Starmer plays it is going to be interesting, but having a history against it may not be the killer blow that the Tories want.
I think it's about 54:46 wrong/right "in hindsight" on a forced choice - so not a slam dunk - and we have to read it in conjunction with Brexit now only being 5th in the most important issues index, with only 19% mentioning it as an issue.
So it could be that even most Remainers/floaters think "probably a mistake, but it's done now and let's move on".
I don't expect any major party apart from the SNP to campaign to Rejoin in 2024. There may be plenty though ready to take revenge on the architects of Brexit. Certainly I won't be voting Tory again in a GE.
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
It is interesting that despite supposedly being Done, it is so widely seen as a poor decision. Keeping Brexit as a campaigning tool in the next GE may not be a great move for the Tories.
Quite how Starmer plays it is going to be interesting, but having a history against it may not be the killer blow that the Tories want.
The "Right" vote share is pretty much the same as the Tory vote share. But because of the split Left vote (which is basically the "Wrong" side), I think the wrong side needs go to lower before it can help Starmer.
My view of HYFUD's distinctive brand of Conservatism can be neatly summed up by (I think) Iain Macleod on Enoch Powell
"I'm happy to be on the same train as him but I make sure to get off a few stations before it crashes at speed into the buffers".
I'm not sure how seriously I take it (just based on his posts on here) without corroborating evidence offline.
I think he's just enthusiastically partisan and stubborn and lets himself fall into traps as a result.
The daft thing is they are traps he sets himself. No one sets out on here to prove someone is a fascist or an apologist for mass murderers. HYFUD happily volunteers that information all on his ownsome.
The daft thing is that he has outed himself enough on here for us to know he is a local councillor and party chairman with a desire to become an MP.
And then he posts the stupidest conspiracy stories as if they are true without thinking.
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
If it is based on NI then pensioners will be exempt surely
My view of HYFUD's distinctive brand of Conservatism can be neatly summed up by (I think) Iain Macleod on Enoch Powell
"I'm happy to be on the same train as him but I make sure to get off a few stations before it crashes at speed into the buffers".
I'm not sure how seriously I take it (just based on his posts on here) without corroborating evidence offline.
I think he's just enthusiastically partisan and stubborn and lets himself fall into traps as a result.
The daft thing is they are traps he sets himself. No one sets out on here to prove someone is a fascist or an apologist for mass murderers. HYFUD happily volunteers that information all on his ownsome.
The daft thing is that he has outed himself enough on here for us to know he is a local councillor and party chairman with a desire to become an MP.
And then he posts the stupidest conspiracy stories as if they are true without thinking.
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
There is something peculiarly depressing about the SCW.
Fernando?
That's the Mexican war. It's a curious thing - the Swedish text of the song is a love song, but the English text, presumably partly for the US market, is about the partner of a Mexican preparing to fight the US.
Are you sure? I thought it was Spain.
Definitely Mexico
I stand corrected!
Do you still recall the frightful night we crossed the Rio Grande…
@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.
But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.
Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.
And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.
As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.
Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.
You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship
You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.
There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.
Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations
Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.
And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.
Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.
Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.
Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.
The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.
I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.
And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.
Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.
Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.
As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.
The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together
You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.
I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.
I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example
Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.
Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.
Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain and Franco was never a Nazi, he shrewdly kept Spain neutral in WW2.
Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins
Whenever people ask how it is that someone like Hitler managed to get to power in a modern European country all I have to do is point them in your direction. Ideology trumping basic common decency.
Oh and before you try to Godwin me, I have made no mention of the Nazi's until you decided to bring them into the discussion as a rather obvious diversionary tactic. But if the cap fits...
So now you are calling me a Nazi, despite the fact many members of my family fought them.
Even Churchill said of Franco '“All the national and martial forces in Spain have been profoundly stirred by the rise of Italy under Mussolini to Imperial power in the Mediterranean. Italian methods are a guide. Italian achievements are a spur. Shall Spain, the greatest empire in the world when Italy was a mere bunch of disunited petty princedoms, now sink into the equalitarian squalor of a Communist State, or shall it resume its place among the great Powers of the world?”
However I of course could not care less what your libertarian extremism thinks of me as you are often just as much my ideological opponent as a socialist is and at least most socialists tend to be more polite than you are
What a depressing post, particularly your Churchill quote.
Churchill was often a nasty little shit.
He'd also not pass the 'True Tory' test, so not sure why a true tory would rely on a quote of his for anything.
Churchill never lectured other Tories who always backed the party about 'embarrassing' the party unlike BigG
Fuck me sideways with a loofah, have you no idea whatever about anything in Churchill's history which might have a bearing on that? No idea at all?
I wonder if this is why we're not (yet) seeing cases surging in England:
Seroprevalence data indicates that approximately 97.9% of blood donors aged 17 and over have antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 from either infection or vaccination. Increases in seropositivity continue to be observed in those aged 17 to 29, following vaccination rollout.
As of 13th August the ONS had antibody prevalence at England: 94.1% Wales: 92% Scotland: 93.6% Northern Ireland: 90.4%
Give it was only a 0.5% difference half a month ago between England and Scotland it doesn't seem like England is in a massively superior state to Scotland in that regard to explain away the lack of surge. And why not a mass surge in Wales if it's all about anti-body prevalence.
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
If it is based on NI then pensioners will be exempt surely
"all three departments [involved in the decision] stress the package is yet to be signed off"
@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.
But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.
Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.
And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.
As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.
Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.
You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship
You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.
There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.
Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations
Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.
And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.
Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.
Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.
Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.
The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.
I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.
And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.
Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.
Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.
As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.
The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together
You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.
I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.
I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example
Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.
Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.
Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain and Franco was never a Nazi, he shrewdly kept Spain neutral in WW2.
Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins
Whenever people ask how it is that someone like Hitler managed to get to power in a modern European country all I have to do is point them in your direction. Ideology trumping basic common decency.
Oh and before you try to Godwin me, I have made no mention of the Nazi's until you decided to bring them into the discussion as a rather obvious diversionary tactic. But if the cap fits...
So now you are calling me a Nazi, despite the fact many members of my family fought them.
Even Churchill said of Franco '“All the national and martial forces in Spain have been profoundly stirred by the rise of Italy under Mussolini to Imperial power in the Mediterranean. Italian methods are a guide. Italian achievements are a spur. Shall Spain, the greatest empire in the world when Italy was a mere bunch of disunited petty princedoms, now sink into the equalitarian squalor of a Communist State, or shall it resume its place among the great Powers of the world?”
However I of course could not care less what your libertarian extremism thinks of me as you are often just as much my ideological opponent as a socialist is and at least most socialists tend to be more polite than you are
What a depressing post, particularly your Churchill quote.
Churchill was often a nasty little shit.
He'd also not pass the 'True Tory' test, so not sure why a true tory would rely on a quote of his for anything.
Churchill never lectured other Tories who always backed the party about 'embarrassing' the party unlike BigG
Wasn't Churchill a Liberal for 20 years - from 1904 to 1924 including as a Liberal MP from 1904 to 1922.
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
I expect NI will be extended to all pensioners in work
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
If it is based on NI then pensioners will be exempt surely
Yes it will be.
It needs to be on income tax rather than NI so all taxpayers including pensioners pay their fair share. 2% on income tax at all levels 👍
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
An oven ready plan. But they spent two more years tinkering with the marinade.
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
Excellent, free alternative healthcare provision to the young.
There is something peculiarly depressing about the SCW.
Fernando?
That's the Mexican war. It's a curious thing - the Swedish text of the song is a love song, but the English text, presumably partly for the US market, is about the partner of a Mexican preparing to fight the US.
Are you sure? I thought it was Spain.
Definitely Mexico
I stand corrected!
Do you still recall the frightful night we crossed the Rio Grande…
@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.
But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.
Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.
And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.
As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.
Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.
You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship
You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.
There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.
Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations
Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.
And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.
Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.
Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.
Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.
The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.
I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.
And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.
Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.
Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.
As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.
The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together
You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.
I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.
I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example
Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.
Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.
Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain and Franco was never a Nazi, he shrewdly kept Spain neutral in WW2.
Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins
Whenever people ask how it is that someone like Hitler managed to get to power in a modern European country all I have to do is point them in your direction. Ideology trumping basic common decency.
Oh and before you try to Godwin me, I have made no mention of the Nazi's until you decided to bring them into the discussion as a rather obvious diversionary tactic. But if the cap fits...
So now you are calling me a Nazi, despite the fact many members of my family fought them.
Even Churchill said of Franco '“All the national and martial forces in Spain have been profoundly stirred by the rise of Italy under Mussolini to Imperial power in the Mediterranean. Italian methods are a guide. Italian achievements are a spur. Shall Spain, the greatest empire in the world when Italy was a mere bunch of disunited petty princedoms, now sink into the equalitarian squalor of a Communist State, or shall it resume its place among the great Powers of the world?”
However I of course could not care less what your libertarian extremism thinks of me as you are often just as much my ideological opponent as a socialist is and at least most socialists tend to be more polite than you are
What a depressing post, particularly your Churchill quote.
Churchill was often a nasty little shit.
He'd also not pass the 'True Tory' test, so not sure why a true tory would rely on a quote of his for anything.
Churchill never lectured other Tories who always backed the party about 'embarrassing' the party unlike BigG
Wasn't Churchill a Liberal for 20 years - from 1904 to 1924 including as a Liberal MP from 1904 to 1922.
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
I expect NI will be extended to all pensioners in work
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
I expect NI will be extended to all pensioners in work
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
I expect NI will be extended to all pensioners in work
Happy to see NI charged on all earnings no age limit. And for NI on self employed to be same as for PAYE. But we need to meet social care bill out of NI for maximum fairness.
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
I expect NI will be extended to all pensioners in work
Happy to see NI charged on all earnings no age limit. And for NI on self employed to be same as for PAYE. But we need to meet social care bill out of NI for maximum fairness.
I take it you aren't self employed as that is a significant tax increase for the self employed.
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
I expect NI will be extended to all pensioners in work
I expect it won't.
Nope. The Tory answer to every financial issue now is "send the bill to my grandchildren"
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
If it is based on NI then pensioners will be exempt surely
Yes it will be.
It needs to be on income tax rather than NI so all taxpayers including pensioners pay their fair share. 2% on income tax at all levels 👍
The economics guy in Observer said at weekend that he had heard it would income and not NI tax. More progressive.
But, I suspect the polling gnomes of No 10 are drawn by the way Gordon Brown managed a 1p on NI for NHS and it turned out to be a popular decision.
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
I expect NI will be extended to all pensioners in work
Happy to see NI charged on all earnings no age limit. And for NI on self employed to be same as for PAYE. But we need to meet social care bill out of NI for maximum fairness.
I take it you aren't self employed as that is a significant tax increase for the self employed.
It is, though an interesting question is whether furlough payments undermined the reason for treating the self-employed differently.
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
I expect NI will be extended to all pensioners in work
Happy to see NI charged on all earnings no age limit. And for NI on self employed to be same as for PAYE. But we need to meet social care bill out of NI for maximum fairness.
I take it you aren't self employed as that is a significant tax increase for the self employed.
I saw someone check this earlier today and the quoted price is actually right - hotels are just about the only thing in Switzerland where the prices aren't oh boy.
That doesn't make sense though. If all their input costs (e.g. staffing, cost of food ingredients, local taxes, energy etc) are high as per rest of Swiss life then how can they only charge £87?
It's £104 for a night next week but I suspect demand has increased some what given the hotel is on the front page of the Mail's global website.
Expensive european countries often have decent hotel prices. I have stayed in basic three-star hotel in, for example, Oslo and Copenhagen at prices which seem low compared with the cost of meals out in those places.
Word of warning: sometimes a twin room in northern europe is a king bed with two sets of single bedding, as I learned one awkward night.
@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.
But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.
Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.
And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.
As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.
Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.
You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship
You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.
There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.
Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations
Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.
And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.
Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.
Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.
Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.
The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.
"Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world"
That's a lot of vaccines were one man to take. He must be really Polio resistant,
He gets 50 cents a shot of the first 100 million shots of AZ vaccine produced in India and significantly more after that
So, I've spent the last half hour trying to track this down, and I can't find any evidence to support this claim.
Please post a link, or remove the comment and issue an apology. This claim is potentially libellous, and could result in both the site and you having to pay out very substantial damages.
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
I expect NI will be extended to all pensioners in work
I expect it won't.
Nope. The Tory answer to every financial issue now is "send the bill to my grandchildren"
@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.
But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.
Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.
And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.
As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.
Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.
You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship
You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.
There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.
Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations
Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.
And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.
Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.
Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.
Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.
The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.
"Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world"
That's a lot of vaccines were one man to take. He must be really Polio resistant,
He gets 50 cents a shot of the first 100 million shots of AZ vaccine produced in India and significantly more after that
External Link please to back up the allegation as the only thing I can see is that their foundation has subsidised the first 100 million shots produced there so they are sold for $3 each.
@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.
But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.
Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.
And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.
As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.
Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.
You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship
You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.
There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.
Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations
Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.
And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.
Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.
Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.
Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.
The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.
"Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world"
That's a lot of vaccines were one man to take. He must be really Polio resistant,
He gets 50 cents a shot of the first 100 million shots of AZ vaccine produced in India and significantly more after that
External Link please to back up the allegation as the only thing I can see is that their foundation has subsidised the first 100 million shots produced there so they are sold for $3 each.
My view of HYFUD's distinctive brand of Conservatism can be neatly summed up by (I think) Iain Macleod on Enoch Powell
"I'm happy to be on the same train as him but I make sure to get off a few stations before it crashes at speed into the buffers".
I'm not sure how seriously I take it (just based on his posts on here) without corroborating evidence offline.
I think he's just enthusiastically partisan and stubborn and lets himself fall into traps as a result.
The daft thing is they are traps he sets himself. No one sets out on here to prove someone is a fascist or an apologist for mass murderers. HYFUD happily volunteers that information all on his ownsome.
The daft thing is that he has outed himself enough on here for us to know he is a local councillor and party chairman with a desire to become an MP.
And then he posts the stupidest conspiracy stories as if they are true without thinking.
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
I expect NI will be extended to all pensioners in work
Happy to see NI charged on all earnings no age limit. And for NI on self employed to be same as for PAYE. But we need to meet social care bill out of NI for maximum fairness.
I take it you aren't self employed as that is a significant tax increase for the self employed.
It is, though an interesting question is whether furlough payments undermined the reason for treating the self-employed differently.
What furlough payments - the self employed got grants that were administrated very differently from the PAYE furlough scheme.
Those people who used limited companies didn't even get that.
What exactly is their plan for the reasonable chunk of the population with no smart-phone? I think I might suddenly find I could live without mine on that sort of basis.
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
I expect NI will be extended to all pensioners in work
Happy to see NI charged on all earnings no age limit. And for NI on self employed to be same as for PAYE. But we need to meet social care bill out of NI for maximum fairness.
I take it you aren't self employed as that is a significant tax increase for the self employed.
Who have got away with low taxation for years!
Pay your way love 👍
I have no issues with paying the proper NI. I do have an issue with the current IR35 rules which allow a client to decide you should be under PAYE and insist that you pay both the Employers and Employees contributions (and holiday and sick pay etc which by nature of your status you can never actually claim) with them paying nothing.
@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.
But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.
Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.
And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.
As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.
Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.
You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship
You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.
There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.
Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations
Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.
And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.
Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.
Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.
Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.
The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.
"Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world"
That's a lot of vaccines were one man to take. He must be really Polio resistant,
He gets 50 cents a shot of the first 100 million shots of AZ vaccine produced in India and significantly more after that
External Link please to back up the allegation as the only thing I can see is that their foundation has subsidised the first 100 million shots produced there so they are sold for $3 each.
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
I expect NI will be extended to all pensioners in work
Happy to see NI charged on all earnings no age limit. And for NI on self employed to be same as for PAYE. But we need to meet social care bill out of NI for maximum fairness.
I take it you aren't self employed as that is a significant tax increase for the self employed.
Who have got away with low taxation for years!
Pay your way love 👍
I have no issues with paying the proper NI. I do have an issue with the current IR35 rules which allow a client to decide you should be under PAYE and insist that you pay both the Employers and Employees contributions (and holiday and sick pay etc which by nature of your status you can never actually claim) with them paying nothing.
Don't sign the contract with them then. It's your choice.
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
I expect NI will be extended to all pensioners in work
Happy to see NI charged on all earnings no age limit. And for NI on self employed to be same as for PAYE. But we need to meet social care bill out of NI for maximum fairness.
I take it you aren't self employed as that is a significant tax increase for the self employed.
Who have got away with low taxation for years!
Pay your way love 👍
I have no issues with paying the proper NI. I do have an issue with the current IR35 rules which allow a client to decide you should be under PAYE and insist that you pay both the Employers and Employees contributions (and holiday and sick pay etc which by nature of your status you can never actually claim) with them paying nothing.
That sadly isn't going to change. If anything I believe the small company exemption will be going in April 2023 rather than April 2024 as according to HMT the new rules are working well.
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
I expect NI will be extended to all pensioners in work
Happy to see NI charged on all earnings no age limit. And for NI on self employed to be same as for PAYE. But we need to meet social care bill out of NI for maximum fairness.
I take it you aren't self employed as that is a significant tax increase for the self employed.
Who have got away with low taxation for years!
Pay your way love 👍
I have no issues with paying the proper NI. I do have an issue with the current IR35 rules which allow a client to decide you should be under PAYE and insist that you pay both the Employers and Employees contributions (and holiday and sick pay etc which by nature of your status you can never actually claim) with them paying nothing.
Don't sign the contract with them then. It's your choice.
I suspect that in Richard's world / industry he may have little choice. In mine the only companies still insisting on inside contracts are finding that a 20-25% premium is required to get someone to consider an inside role and that is if its 100% remote.
I suspect Banks are going to be in for a shock when they start insisting on contractors going into an office.
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
I expect NI will be extended to all pensioners in work
Happy to see NI charged on all earnings no age limit. And for NI on self employed to be same as for PAYE. But we need to meet social care bill out of NI for maximum fairness.
I take it you aren't self employed as that is a significant tax increase for the self employed.
Who have got away with low taxation for years!
Pay your way love 👍
I have no issues with paying the proper NI. I do have an issue with the current IR35 rules which allow a client to decide you should be under PAYE and insist that you pay both the Employers and Employees contributions (and holiday and sick pay etc which by nature of your status you can never actually claim) with them paying nothing.
Don't sign the contract with them then. It's your choice.
The trouble is they are all doing it. If I want to continue working then I have to accept it.
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
I expect NI will be extended to all pensioners in work
Happy to see NI charged on all earnings no age limit. And for NI on self employed to be same as for PAYE. But we need to meet social care bill out of NI for maximum fairness.
I take it you aren't self employed as that is a significant tax increase for the self employed.
It is, though an interesting question is whether furlough payments undermined the reason for treating the self-employed differently.
What furlough payments - the self employed got grants that were administrated very differently from the PAYE furlough scheme.
Those people who used limited companies to avoid paying tax didn't even get that.
Democrat turnout is often a problem in mid-terms . Without Trump to help energize Dems there were real concerns about 2022 however the latest attack on women’s rights by the GOP and the fear of other states enacting similar legislation means the GOP have gifted the Dems a wedge issue .
The disgraceful Texas law effectively bans abortion and the GOP Taliban continue to sink further into the sewer .
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
I expect NI will be extended to all pensioners in work
Happy to see NI charged on all earnings no age limit. And for NI on self employed to be same as for PAYE. But we need to meet social care bill out of NI for maximum fairness.
I take it you aren't self employed as that is a significant tax increase for the self employed.
It is, though an interesting question is whether furlough payments undermined the reason for treating the self-employed differently.
What furlough payments - the self employed got grants that were administrated very differently from the PAYE furlough scheme.
Those people who used limited companies to avoid paying tax didn't even get that.
Added the bit you missed out.
You have a very limited and warped view of contracting. Whilst there were clearly those who used limited companies for tax avoidance there were also very large numbers who formed limited companies because the clients refused to accept anyone who was not. No contractor working in the oil industry would be able to work without being a limited company or working for a larger limited company because (I assume) the clients were so frightened of being hit for tax if it turned out the self employed contractor hadn't paid it. I haven't seen a contract in 20 years that allowed someone to work who was not a limited company.
What exactly is their plan for the reasonable chunk of the population with no smart-phone? I think I might suddenly find I could live without mine on that sort of basis.
Oh that's no problem - they won't be allowed out the house. People on the street without smartphones are liable to be arrested and imprisoned.
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
I expect NI will be extended to all pensioners in work
Happy to see NI charged on all earnings no age limit. And for NI on self employed to be same as for PAYE. But we need to meet social care bill out of NI for maximum fairness.
I take it you aren't self employed as that is a significant tax increase for the self employed.
It is, though an interesting question is whether furlough payments undermined the reason for treating the self-employed differently.
What furlough payments - the self employed got grants that were administrated very differently from the PAYE furlough scheme.
Those people who used limited companies to avoid paying tax didn't even get that.
Added the bit you missed out.
Not really - I take a very low salary (so that the company can afford to pay everyone else were we to have a bad period) and pull dividends from the profits when times are better.
NI needs to be extended to all income, irrespective of the individual's age or the source of the income, or rolled into income tax.
I say that as someone who would pay a lot more through such a change.
I don't mind paying NI on my pension (occupational or state when it arrives), but there needs to be something removed in lieu of the State pension contribution as after 35 years contributions you can't get anymore.
So how does Boris plan differ from May’s Dementia Tax? The 60K cap rather than 100K? What does that mean in practice when 60K needs to be found for care from your means tested assets before the tax rise, 2p says Javid, steps in and helps?
Good. But as the headline is about a tax rise for 25m, and that it involves breaking a manifesto pledge with 'No 10 and Treasury divided', I'll believe it when I see it.
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
NI, so paid by the workers and not by the retired. The Tory Gerontocracy leeches off the young again.
I expect NI will be extended to all pensioners in work
Happy to see NI charged on all earnings no age limit. And for NI on self employed to be same as for PAYE. But we need to meet social care bill out of NI for maximum fairness.
I take it you aren't self employed as that is a significant tax increase for the self employed.
It is, though an interesting question is whether furlough payments undermined the reason for treating the self-employed differently.
What furlough payments - the self employed got grants that were administrated very differently from the PAYE furlough scheme.
Those people who used limited companies to avoid paying tax didn't even get that.
Added the bit you missed out.
You have a very limited and warped view of contracting. Whilst there were clearly those who used limited companies for tax avoidance there were also very large numbers who formed limited companies because the clients refused to accept anyone who was not. No contractor working in the oil industry would be able to work without being a limited company or working for a larger limited company because (I assume) the clients were so frightened of being hit for tax if it turned out the self employed contractor hadn't paid it. I haven't seen a contract in 20 years that allowed someone to work who was not a limited company.
Also Agencies cannot use self employed people. That was the original reason why limited companies started to be used back in the 1970s and at the time it wasn't for tax saving purposes (from comments I've seen in the past tax rates were worse.)
NI needs to be extended to all income, irrespective of the individual's age or the source of the income, or rolled into income tax.
I say that as someone who would pay a lot more through such a change.
Agree 100% with this.
My caveat - which is not actually in any way opposed to what you are saying - is that we need to make sure the employers are paying their due as well. As I mentioned before the current mish mash of rules allows them pass all the costs to the worker for no cost to themselves. The same goes for low pay. Why should the taxpayer be carrying the cost of employers not being willing to pay a decent basic wage? Our current system encourages low pay by using the taxpayer to supplement people's income.
@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.
But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.
Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.
And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.
As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.
Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.
You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship
You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.
There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.
Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations
Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.
And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.
Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.
Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.
Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.
The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.
"Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world"
That's a lot of vaccines were one man to take. He must be really Polio resistant,
He gets 50 cents a shot of the first 100 million shots of AZ vaccine produced in India and significantly more after that
External Link please to back up the allegation as the only thing I can see is that their foundation has subsidised the first 100 million shots produced there so they are sold for $3 each.
Yeah, that fails the credibly source hurdle by about 200 million miles. No link. Just a line on a webpage that no-one's heard of.
I know you feel that in some libertarian sort of way that anyone should be able to post anything here, but I really feel that posting stuff at this level of implausibility should be grounds for a suspension , at the least It seeds crazy lies into what is seen as a much more credible source (someone somewhere will quote hyufd/pb as a 'reliable source' on this) and derails sensible discussion to an unreasonable extent. /rant
NI needs to be extended to all income, irrespective of the individual's age or the source of the income, or rolled into income tax.
I say that as someone who would pay a lot more through such a change.
Agree 100% with this.
My caveat - which is not actually in any way opposed to what you are saying - is that we need to make sure the employers are paying their due as well. As I mentioned before the current mish mash of rules allows them pass all the costs to the worker for no cost to themselves. The same goes for low pay. Why should the taxpayer be carrying the cost of employers not being willing to pay a decent basic wage? Our current system encourages low pay by using the taxpayer to supplement people's income.
Agreed.
And I take your point about limited companies being insisted on by clients.
NI needs to be extended to all income, irrespective of the individual's age or the source of the income, or rolled into income tax.
I say that as someone who would pay a lot more through such a change.
Agree 100% with this.
My caveat - which is not actually in any way opposed to what you are saying - is that we need to make sure the employers are paying their due as well. As I mentioned before the current mish mash of rules allows them pass all the costs to the worker for no cost to themselves. The same goes for low pay. Why should the taxpayer be carrying the cost of employers not being willing to pay a decent basic wage? Our current system encourages low pay by using the taxpayer to supplement people's income.
Not quite true. if we are talking about inside IR35 contracts the assignment fee paid to the umbrella / agency includes all costs (employer NI, holiday pay) but the assignment fee isn't your money it's only yours after the employment costs have been deducted.
Alongside that agency regulations mean that after 12 weeks you cannot be paid less than a permanent employee / worker performing the same task.
So the mistake you are making is that the figure you see being advertised is all your money and for an inside IR35 contract that simply isn't the case.
I was having a conversation about exactly this earlier today and the point I made then (and will make again now) is that the biggest issue with this entire issue is that agencies and companies are allowed to advertise contracts with inside IR35 assignment / umbrella rates without being required to produce Key Information documents explicitly showing how they calculated the advertised rate and what needs to be deducted from it.
I've now got a meeting request from the TUC where that suggestion is likely to become their policy as it's an easier fix than they current fix (which is banning umbrella firms outright).
Comments
https://youtu.be/ofgO_sqkPFQ
So it could be that even most Remainers/floaters think "probably a mistake, but it's done now and let's move on".
Seroprevalence data indicates that approximately 97.9% of blood donors aged 17 and over have antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 from either infection or vaccination. Increases in seropositivity continue to be observed in those aged 17 to 29, following vaccination
rollout.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1014748/Weekly_Flu_and_COVID-19_report_w35.pdf
Quite simply, the virus has run out of road....
It's £104 for a night next week but I suspect demand has increased some what given the hotel is on the front page of the Mail's global website.
Indeed given Stalin killed far more than Franco ever did it does not make me an apologist for mass murder either given that was the choice in Spain in 1930
And then he posts the stupidest conspiracy stories as if they are true without thinking.
Even Williamson and Patel aren't that stupid...
You are so full of contradictions you confuse yourself
Any chance some LDs could start up a bunfight between Daveyites and Moranites? Labour, Tories and even the SNP occasionally oblige.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1433532744542285827
If he does have a workable plan, then it is the exact type of thing tax rises, even manifesto breaking ones, are for.
I hope it is approved, as that name is great.
"Local Tory councillor says 'I'm not a Nazi sympathiser, I only support Fascism'"
As of 13th August the ONS had antibody prevalence at
England: 94.1%
Wales: 92%
Scotland: 93.6%
Northern Ireland: 90.4%
Give it was only a 0.5% difference half a month ago between England and Scotland it doesn't seem like England is in a massively superior state to Scotland in that regard to explain away the lack of surge. And why not a mass surge in Wales if it's all about anti-body prevalence.
Nothing to see here folks...
It needs to be on income tax rather than NI so all taxpayers including pensioners pay their fair share. 2% on income tax at all levels 👍
Does he make her wear a uniform?
People in South Australia will be forced to download an app that combines facial recognition and geolocation. The state will text them at random times, and thereafter they will have 15 minutes to take a picture of their face in the location where they are supposed to be. Should they fail, the local police department will be sent to follow up in person.
But, I suspect the polling gnomes of No 10 are drawn by the way Gordon Brown managed a 1p on NI for NHS and it turned out to be a popular decision.
Pay your way love 👍
Word of warning: sometimes a twin room in northern europe is a king bed with two sets of single bedding, as I learned one awkward night.
Please post a link, or remove the comment and issue an apology. This claim is potentially libellous, and could result in both the site and you having to pay out very substantial damages.
ETA not a response to the Gates question!
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=314923
Those people who used limited companies didn't even get that.
I suspect Banks are going to be in for a shock when they start insisting on contractors going into an office.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1433544545195626496/photo/1
The disgraceful Texas law effectively bans abortion and the GOP Taliban continue to sink further into the sewer .
I say that as someone who would pay a lot more through such a change.
My caveat - which is not actually in any way opposed to what you are saying - is that we need to make sure the employers are paying their due as well. As I mentioned before the current mish mash of rules allows them pass all the costs to the worker for no cost to themselves. The same goes for low pay. Why should the taxpayer be carrying the cost of employers not being willing to pay a decent basic wage? Our current system encourages low pay by using the taxpayer to supplement people's income.
I thought it was supposed to be 'advisers advise, ministers decide'?
It seeds crazy lies into what is seen as a much more credible source (someone somewhere will quote hyufd/pb as a 'reliable source' on this) and derails sensible discussion to an unreasonable extent. /rant
https://www.deliciousmagazine.co.uk/recipes/baked-fragrant-rice/
Pretty scrumptious.
And I take your point about limited companies being insisted on by clients.
Alongside that agency regulations mean that after 12 weeks you cannot be paid less than a permanent employee / worker performing the same task.
So the mistake you are making is that the figure you see being advertised is all your money and for an inside IR35 contract that simply isn't the case.
I was having a conversation about exactly this earlier today and the point I made then (and will make again now) is that the biggest issue with this entire issue is that agencies and companies are allowed to advertise contracts with inside IR35 assignment / umbrella rates without being required to produce Key Information documents explicitly showing how they calculated the advertised rate and what needs to be deducted from it.
I've now got a meeting request from the TUC where that suggestion is likely to become their policy as it's an easier fix than they current fix (which is banning umbrella firms outright).