Howdy, Stranger!

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

LAB to get a poll lead before Oct 12th – new betting market – politicalbetting.com

124

Comments

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Carnyx said:

    Charles said:

    Farooq said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/sep/25/european-lorry-drivers-will-not-want-to-come-to-uk-warn-haulage-chiefs

    European Road Hauliers Association says temporary visa scheme won't tempt many EU drivers to the UK because pay and conditions are better in the EU, in part thanks to new EU rules, while Brexit red tape at customs is a big disencentive to driving to the UK.
    Rather bursts the bubble of those claiming we had to leave the EU to create a workers' paradise. Brexit = more red tape at the border + deregulation internally = fewer right for workers. It's a massive con perpetrated against the British working class by the Jacob Rees-Moggs of this world.

    The truckers are all getting pay rises, I’m not sure they’re complaining too much.

    The ERHA are also confusing cross-border freight traffic into the UK, with UK-based hauliers looking to recruit drivers from abroad.
    If being in the EU undercut UK pay and conditions, how come pay and conditions are better in the EU than here? If the EU damages workers' rights, how come EU rules are more generous to workers than ours are?
    AIUI the UK driver shortage affects both cross border and purely internal routes (and there is a lot of overlap between the two, one of the great benefits of the Single Market being that it gets rid of these artificial distinctions created by borders).
    AIUI, France and Germany pay more for drivers than the UK does - because under the EU rules, more Eastern European workers found it prefereble to work in the UK so supply of labour was higher. Now there’s no longer FoM, and no new drivers coming over, the supply of labour is more restricted and the price is going up - heading towards the same price as we see in France and Germany.
    But wages are higher across the board in Germany ( and many other European countries besides ). it can't be be isolated to a short-term process in one sector.

    The UK chose to gut its trade union movement, so making it much harder for employees to work together to secure good wages. There are any number of people on this board and beyond proclaiming the need for better salaries across multiple sectors who have spent years routinely denouncing each and every strike ever called designed to secure higher pay and improved conditions.

    The strikes were political for the most part. Economic disputes get resolved fairly quickly

    Yes, strong trade unions deliver results for their members.

    And that’s exactly the problem. Like any interest group they care about their members to the exclusion of others
    All of politics is about interest groups. A trade union isn't any different.
    Sure - but the interests of the nation as a whole are different. Eg unions prefer higher wages to more jobs.
    But the upper classes also prefer higher profits to more jobs, do they not?
    Corporates probably do

    The “upper class” values stability more. They recognise if you have loadsamoney and everyone else is starving in the streets that’s not a stable equilibrium
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,783
    Anyway, off to Tescos in the vain hope that there may still be some less than mouldy old scraps which would do for a birthday tea tonight. Incurable optimist that I am.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,860
    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Fishing said:

    Mr. Sandpit, working on a Sunday? Alas.

    Don't they have Sundays on Fridays out there?
    Yes. Their God expects you to tell him or her how wonderful s/he is on Friday, while ours mostly listens on Sunday.

    You can see how somebody from Mars might be confused. Or maybe the Martian God is a Tuesday person.
    To be fair, he’s the same God so he’s just balancing his workload
    What makes you think it is the same God? Clearly one or other tradition has got major aspects wrong.
    Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God of Abraham.

    Muslims and Christians also share Christ as a prophet, though while Christ is the main prophet for Christians, Muhammed is the main prophet for Muslims. Jews and Christians share the Old Testament but not the new as Christ is not a prophet for Jews, that is where the main differences lie
    Christians don’t believe Jesus is a prophet
    He is described in the New Testament as a prophet as well as the Messiah
  • The Marr clip:

    Is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix.

    Starmer: It shouldn’t be said. It is not right.

    #Marr


    https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/1442049708323602434?s=20
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,021
    edited September 2021

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    Keir Starmer calls for 100,000 foreign drivers to be given visas to fill vacancies

    'We're going to have to do that. We have to issue enough visas to cover the number of drivers that we need. 100,000 is the size of a small city'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1442045828214886400

    “We exited the EU. One consequence was going to be a shortage of HGV drivers. That was predictable”, says Starmer, who partly blames Brexit for the skills shortages. #Marr
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1442045926806200320

    So Starmer backs lazy git CEOs who scrimped on training and paying their work forces for years while inflating their own pay and bonuses by using cheap labor.
    Going for the old Tory vote?
    There's still this charming 1970s view that rich people are Tories. In the current environment a millionaire is just as likely to be a lefty corporatists as a tory fatcat. Its simply a measure that the old labels of left and right are fraying wildly at the edges.
    Seeing as most millionaires are pensioners and pensioners break overwhelmingly Tory, that seems very unlikely. By income, yes the rich are split politically, but not so much the rich by assets.
    In 2019 42% of ABs voted Conservative, Left leaners (LAb, Lib, SNP ) got 52%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
    That does not judge wealth. The old are much wealthier than the young, even within the same social class.
    Private pension wealth - i.e. the amounts sitting in private pensions yet to be paid - alone accounts for over 40% of all wealth in the UK, and only 37% of this is held in active pensions. Property wealth accounts for about a third of UK wealth, which is heavily skewed by age.

    ONS data (from 2016-18) suggests average total household wealth for those with the household reference person aged over 65 was almost £700,000 (property comprising about £275k), compared to just over £300k for ages 35-44 (property about £140k). The richest of all are the 55-64 yo with average total wealth of £850,000 - the big difference being that this age group has more in private pensions than the very old (significantly because they have yet to spend it, of course).
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Fishing said:

    Mr. Sandpit, working on a Sunday? Alas.

    Don't they have Sundays on Fridays out there?
    Yes. Their God expects you to tell him or her how wonderful s/he is on Friday, while ours mostly listens on Sunday.

    You can see how somebody from Mars might be confused. Or maybe the Martian God is a Tuesday person.
    To be fair, he’s the same God so he’s just balancing his workload
    What makes you think it is the same God? Clearly one or other tradition has got major aspects wrong.
    Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God of Abraham.

    Muslims and Christians also share Christ as a prophet, though while Christ is the main prophet for Christians, Muhammed is the main prophet for Muslims. Jews and Christians share the Old Testament but not the new as Christ is not a prophet for Jews, that is where the main differences lie
    Christians don’t believe Jesus is a prophet
    He is described in the New Testament as a prophet as well as the Messiah
    He’s not “the main prophet”
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,011

    The Marr clip:

    Is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix.

    Starmer: It shouldn’t be said. It is not right.

    #Marr


    https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/1442049708323602434?s=20

    Do we think that Starmer genuinely believes this or that he knows that if he doesn’t say this he could be in serious trouble?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,645

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    Keir Starmer calls for 100,000 foreign drivers to be given visas to fill vacancies

    'We're going to have to do that. We have to issue enough visas to cover the number of drivers that we need. 100,000 is the size of a small city'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1442045828214886400

    “We exited the EU. One consequence was going to be a shortage of HGV drivers. That was predictable”, says Starmer, who partly blames Brexit for the skills shortages. #Marr
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1442045926806200320

    So Starmer backs lazy git CEOs who scrimped on training and paying their work forces for years while inflating their own pay and bonuses by using cheap labor.
    Going for the old Tory vote?
    There's still this charming 1970s view that rich people are Tories. In the current environment a millionaire is just as likely to be a lefty corporatists as a tory fatcat. Its simply a measure that the old labels of left and right are fraying wildly at the edges.
    Seeing as most millionaires are pensioners and pensioners break overwhelmingly Tory, that seems very unlikely. By income, yes the rich are split politically, but not so much the rich by assets.
    In 2019 42% of ABs voted Conservative, Left leaners (LAb, Lib, SNP ) got 52%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
    That does not judge wealth. The old are much wealthier than the young, even within the same social class.
    going back to the beginning of this exchange, the retired don't run businesses, the current CEOs do and they have recruited or trained enough people.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,030
    Has the Telegraph style guide changed? No Boris?

    Sunday TELEGRAPH: “Johnson demands pay rise for truckers” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1442055166052732928/photo/1
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,389

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    Keir Starmer calls for 100,000 foreign drivers to be given visas to fill vacancies

    'We're going to have to do that. We have to issue enough visas to cover the number of drivers that we need. 100,000 is the size of a small city'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1442045828214886400

    “We exited the EU. One consequence was going to be a shortage of HGV drivers. That was predictable”, says Starmer, who partly blames Brexit for the skills shortages. #Marr
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1442045926806200320

    So Starmer backs lazy git CEOs who scrimped on training and paying their work forces for years while inflating their own pay and bonuses by using cheap labor.
    Going for the old Tory vote?
    There's still this charming 1970s view that rich people are Tories. In the current environment a millionaire is just as likely to be a lefty corporatists as a tory fatcat. Its simply a measure that the old labels of left and right are fraying wildly at the edges.
    Seeing as most millionaires are pensioners and pensioners break overwhelmingly Tory, that seems very unlikely. By income, yes the rich are split politically, but not so much the rich by assets.
    In 2019 42% of ABs voted Conservative, Left leaners (LAb, Lib, SNP ) got 52%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
    That does not judge wealth. The old are much wealthier than the young, even within the same social class.
    going back to the beginning of this exchange, the retired don't run businesses, the current CEOs do and they have recruited or trained enough people.

    Something missing there?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,860
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    Keir Starmer calls for 100,000 foreign drivers to be given visas to fill vacancies

    'We're going to have to do that. We have to issue enough visas to cover the number of drivers that we need. 100,000 is the size of a small city'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1442045828214886400

    “We exited the EU. One consequence was going to be a shortage of HGV drivers. That was predictable”, says Starmer, who partly blames Brexit for the skills shortages. #Marr
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1442045926806200320

    So Starmer backs lazy git CEOs who scrimped on training and paying their work forces for years while inflating their own pay and bonuses by using cheap labor.
    Going for the old Tory vote?
    There's still this charming 1970s view that rich people are Tories. In the current environment a millionaire is just as likely to be a lefty corporatists as a tory fatcat. Its simply a measure that the old labels of left and right are fraying wildly at the edges.
    Seeing as most millionaires are pensioners and pensioners break overwhelmingly Tory, that seems very unlikely. By income, yes the rich are split politically, but not so much the rich by assets.
    In 2019 42% of ABs voted Conservative, Left leaners (LAb, Lib, SNP ) got 52%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
    That does not judge wealth. The old are much wealthier than the young, even within the same social class.
    Private pension wealth - i.e. the amounts sitting in private pensions yet to be paid - alone accounts for over 40% of all wealth in the UK, and only 37% of this is held in active pensions. Property wealth accounts for about a third of UK wealth, which is heavily skewed by age.

    ONS data (from 2016-18) suggests average total household wealth for those with the household reference person aged over 65 was almost £700,000 (property comprising about £275k), compared to just over £300k for ages 35-44 (property about £140k). The richest of all are the 55-64 yo with average total wealth of £850,000 - the big difference being that this age group has more in private pensions than the very old (significantly because they have yet to spend it, of course).
    On average but obviously an investment banker in their late 20s renting in Chelsea will be higher earning and wealthier than someone in their late 60s or 70s who relies on the state pension and rents from a housing association
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,645
    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    Keir Starmer calls for 100,000 foreign drivers to be given visas to fill vacancies

    'We're going to have to do that. We have to issue enough visas to cover the number of drivers that we need. 100,000 is the size of a small city'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1442045828214886400

    “We exited the EU. One consequence was going to be a shortage of HGV drivers. That was predictable”, says Starmer, who partly blames Brexit for the skills shortages. #Marr
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1442045926806200320

    So Starmer backs lazy git CEOs who scrimped on training and paying their work forces for years while inflating their own pay and bonuses by using cheap labor.
    Going for the old Tory vote?
    There's still this charming 1970s view that rich people are Tories. In the current environment a millionaire is just as likely to be a lefty corporatists as a tory fatcat. Its simply a measure that the old labels of left and right are fraying wildly at the edges.
    Seeing as most millionaires are pensioners and pensioners break overwhelmingly Tory, that seems very unlikely. By income, yes the rich are split politically, but not so much the rich by assets.
    In 2019 42% of ABs voted Conservative, Left leaners (LAb, Lib, SNP ) got 52%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
    That does not judge wealth. The old are much wealthier than the young, even within the same social class.
    going back to the beginning of this exchange, the retired don't run businesses, the current CEOs do and they have recruited or trained enough people.

    Something missing there?
    drivers with HGV licences
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,860
    edited September 2021
    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Fishing said:

    Mr. Sandpit, working on a Sunday? Alas.

    Don't they have Sundays on Fridays out there?
    Yes. Their God expects you to tell him or her how wonderful s/he is on Friday, while ours mostly listens on Sunday.

    You can see how somebody from Mars might be confused. Or maybe the Martian God is a Tuesday person.
    To be fair, he’s the same God so he’s just balancing his workload
    What makes you think it is the same God? Clearly one or other tradition has got major aspects wrong.
    Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God of Abraham.

    Muslims and Christians also share Christ as a prophet, though while Christ is the main prophet for Christians, Muhammed is the main prophet for Muslims. Jews and Christians share the Old Testament but not the new as Christ is not a prophet for Jews, that is where the main differences lie
    Christians don’t believe Jesus is a prophet
    He is described in the New Testament as a prophet as well as the Messiah
    He’s not “the main prophet”
    For Christianity effectively he is otherwise by definition it would not be Christianity but Judaism or Islam.

    For Christians Christ fulfils the messianic prophecies for the Old Testament in the New Testament
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Given that there are plentiful supplies of fuel, when do we expect the panic buying to end? I am hoping that once the idiots have all filled up, the rest of us will be able to.

    Would be nice if this was soon. Didn’t join the crazy, crazy so now having to ration trips, which means explaining to teenagers why I might not be able to take the to their sport clubs. Not a huge amount of fun.

    All the petrol stations with 10 miles are cleaned out.

    Yep, here too.

    Mrs RP sent a photo yesterday from her vantage point in "Annie's Cakery" of a full forecourt and queue down the road at the little Gleaner station in Macduff. OK so we're all reliant on cars up here, but the transition from no real flap on Friday to all the big filling stations emptied by Saturday lunchtime was bonkers.

    I wryly suggested she get down there and ask if they have a 3 pin you can plug your car into so you don't miss out.
    This feels a bit different to previous panics. Not seen such a complete clean out before. I hope it get sorted out in the next 48hrs, but would not be surprised if it wasn’t.
    Panics always die down. The point I made on a local PB group was that there was no shortage up here. No problem with deliveries. Until people saw the panic 600 miles away and said "oh no!!!!" and went to fill up.
    OGH has set up local groups for PBers?
    Well... yes. To be allowed to post here you have to have been elected as a delegate from your local group.
    Clearly you have not, so I'll have a word with the admins and get you removed, shouldn't take a moment.
    Can you ask why @Roy_G_Biv is banned while you are there pls?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,891
    DavidL said:

    Anyway, off to Tescos in the vain hope that there may still be some less than mouldy old scraps which would do for a birthday tea tonight. Incurable optimist that I am.

    Make sure to take some jerry cans with you. You never know when you might need to drive for 900 miles.
  • eekeek Posts: 19,222
    Going again on HGV drivers a short thread on twitter about being one

    https://twitter.com/Shaun56461410/status/1442034951269064704 - worth taking the minute to read why the people dont want the job.

    Btw the 3 hours waiting to unload is unpaid because hey it’s not the responsibility of the haulage firm to pay for delays at the supermarket depot
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,021
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    Keir Starmer calls for 100,000 foreign drivers to be given visas to fill vacancies

    'We're going to have to do that. We have to issue enough visas to cover the number of drivers that we need. 100,000 is the size of a small city'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1442045828214886400

    “We exited the EU. One consequence was going to be a shortage of HGV drivers. That was predictable”, says Starmer, who partly blames Brexit for the skills shortages. #Marr
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1442045926806200320

    So Starmer backs lazy git CEOs who scrimped on training and paying their work forces for years while inflating their own pay and bonuses by using cheap labor.
    Going for the old Tory vote?
    There's still this charming 1970s view that rich people are Tories. In the current environment a millionaire is just as likely to be a lefty corporatists as a tory fatcat. Its simply a measure that the old labels of left and right are fraying wildly at the edges.
    Seeing as most millionaires are pensioners and pensioners break overwhelmingly Tory, that seems very unlikely. By income, yes the rich are split politically, but not so much the rich by assets.
    In 2019 42% of ABs voted Conservative, Left leaners (LAb, Lib, SNP ) got 52%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
    That does not judge wealth. The old are much wealthier than the young, even within the same social class.
    Private pension wealth - i.e. the amounts sitting in private pensions yet to be paid - alone accounts for over 40% of all wealth in the UK, and only 37% of this is held in active pensions. Property wealth accounts for about a third of UK wealth, which is heavily skewed by age.

    ONS data (from 2016-18) suggests average total household wealth for those with the household reference person aged over 65 was almost £700,000 (property comprising about £275k), compared to just over £300k for ages 35-44 (property about £140k). The richest of all are the 55-64 yo with average total wealth of £850,000 - the big difference being that this age group has more in private pensions than the very old (significantly because they have yet to spend it, of course).
    On average but obviously an investment banker in their late 20s renting in Chelsea will be higher earning and wealthier than someone in their late 60s or 70s who relies on the state pension and rents from a housing association
    In your latter case, the person's wealth is likely close to zero, being possessions net of debt. The former case depends on the rate at which the money coming in is going out. I've met a few younger high earners who live fast lives and often a lot of debt.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,369
    edited September 2021
    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Crisis? What crisis?

    Transport Secretary Grant Shapps
    says at least the petrol crisis isnt as bad as the toilet roll crisis.

    "At some point everyone's cars will be filled up. It is not like the toilet roll crisis. It will come to an end."

    #ridge

    https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1442035769044967424

    Brilliant, Grant; do tanks stay full? Why not:

    "At some point, everyone's bottom will be clean. It is not like the petrol shortage crisis. It will come to an end".
    It is easier to clean one's bottom by an alternative means (bidet, for instance) than to make an ICE car run on leccy, or diesel, or whatever it doesn't normally drink.
    ...I remember our outside loo in our council house, with torn up copies of the Sun on a hook for a**e wiping duties, but that was in the 70s. Funnily enough when we had electricity shortages and petrol coupons had been printed....

    Mike...what are the odds on a 3 day week before the end of the year?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,815
    Farooq said:

    Scott_xP said:

    And if you’re one of the many Tory MPs, “disgusted” and “outraged” by Angela Rayner’s comments, but not overly bothered by Boris Johnson’s compete and overt racism, then you don’t have a leg to stand on.
    https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1442039794654121989

    It's a fair point.
    I don't think it's clever politics from Rayner, it's a bit rash. But I still prefer rash and right over calculated and wrong.
    But she’s destroying her career. So there’s that. This, along with her obsession over trans issues, convinces me she has no future as a leader

    Meanwhile, the actual Labour leader is also helplessly skewered by trans issues, has lost control of his Conference, and writes essays so boring they induce quadriplegic paralysis.

    The Tories could mistakenly propose the incineration of all the pets in the country, and Labour would still trail them by 3 points on YouGov
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,904
    eek said:

    Going again on HGV drivers a short thread on twitter about being one

    https://twitter.com/Shaun56461410/status/1442034951269064704 - worth taking the minute to read why the people dont want the job.

    Btw the 3 hours waiting to unload is unpaid because hey it’s not the responsibility of the haulage firm to pay for delays at the supermarket depot

    Hardly a surprise, that treating people poorly results in low job retention rates.

    Treat drivers as people, pay them well and look after them while they’re at work, and they’ll stay.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,389

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    Keir Starmer calls for 100,000 foreign drivers to be given visas to fill vacancies

    'We're going to have to do that. We have to issue enough visas to cover the number of drivers that we need. 100,000 is the size of a small city'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1442045828214886400

    “We exited the EU. One consequence was going to be a shortage of HGV drivers. That was predictable”, says Starmer, who partly blames Brexit for the skills shortages. #Marr
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1442045926806200320

    So Starmer backs lazy git CEOs who scrimped on training and paying their work forces for years while inflating their own pay and bonuses by using cheap labor.
    Going for the old Tory vote?
    There's still this charming 1970s view that rich people are Tories. In the current environment a millionaire is just as likely to be a lefty corporatists as a tory fatcat. Its simply a measure that the old labels of left and right are fraying wildly at the edges.
    Seeing as most millionaires are pensioners and pensioners break overwhelmingly Tory, that seems very unlikely. By income, yes the rich are split politically, but not so much the rich by assets.
    In 2019 42% of ABs voted Conservative, Left leaners (LAb, Lib, SNP ) got 52%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
    That does not judge wealth. The old are much wealthier than the young, even within the same social class.
    going back to the beginning of this exchange, the retired don't run businesses, the current CEOs do and they have recruited or trained enough people.

    Something missing there?
    drivers with HGV licences
    But you've just said the bosses have recruited/trained enough.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,891
    Rayner's outburst on Tories is why she's unfit to be leader. Labour's task is to win 2-3m voters over from the Tory party. Calling us scum isn't going to help. Starmer needs to reign her in because 6th firm politics will lead to another 80 seat Tory majority in 2024.
  • DavidL said:

    Anyway, off to Tescos in the vain hope that there may still be some less than mouldy old scraps which would do for a birthday tea tonight. Incurable optimist that I am.

    Flaked parmesan doused in unleaded petrol, with bottled water, would be just the ticket.
  • Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    Keir Starmer calls for 100,000 foreign drivers to be given visas to fill vacancies

    'We're going to have to do that. We have to issue enough visas to cover the number of drivers that we need. 100,000 is the size of a small city'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1442045828214886400

    “We exited the EU. One consequence was going to be a shortage of HGV drivers. That was predictable”, says Starmer, who partly blames Brexit for the skills shortages. #Marr
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1442045926806200320

    So Starmer backs lazy git CEOs who scrimped on training and paying their work forces for years while inflating their own pay and bonuses by using cheap labor.
    Going for the old Tory vote?
    There's still this charming 1970s view that rich people are Tories. In the current environment a millionaire is just as likely to be a lefty corporatists as a tory fatcat. Its simply a measure that the old labels of left and right are fraying wildly at the edges.
    Seeing as most millionaires are pensioners and pensioners break overwhelmingly Tory, that seems very unlikely. By income, yes the rich are split politically, but not so much the rich by assets.
    In 2019 42% of ABs voted Conservative, Left leaners (LAb, Lib, SNP ) got 52%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
    That does not judge wealth. The old are much wealthier than the young, even within the same social class.
    going back to the beginning of this exchange, the retired don't run businesses, the current CEOs do and they have recruited or trained enough people.

    I was commenting on the specifics of millionaires splitting equally between Tories and leftists, which I don't think is true.

    More broadly, the right place for Labour vs this particular government, is to support both workers and businesses against the retired client vote of the Tories. Workers need good businesses, and businesses need good workers. Both groups need a more pragmatic government, that reduces the tax share of workers vs the retired.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,762
    edited September 2021
    deleted as too far off-topic
  • Farooq said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/sep/25/european-lorry-drivers-will-not-want-to-come-to-uk-warn-haulage-chiefs

    European Road Hauliers Association says temporary visa scheme won't tempt many EU drivers to the UK because pay and conditions are better in the EU, in part thanks to new EU rules, while Brexit red tape at customs is a big disencentive to driving to the UK.
    Rather bursts the bubble of those claiming we had to leave the EU to create a workers' paradise. Brexit = more red tape at the border + deregulation internally = fewer right for workers. It's a massive con perpetrated against the British working class by the Jacob Rees-Moggs of this world.

    The truckers are all getting pay rises, I’m not sure they’re complaining too much.

    The ERHA are also confusing cross-border freight traffic into the UK, with UK-based hauliers looking to recruit drivers from abroad.
    If being in the EU undercut UK pay and conditions, how come pay and conditions are better in the EU than here? If the EU damages workers' rights, how come EU rules are more generous to workers than ours are?
    AIUI the UK driver shortage affects both cross border and purely internal routes (and there is a lot of overlap between the two, one of the great benefits of the Single Market being that it gets rid of these artificial distinctions created by borders).
    AIUI, France and Germany pay more for drivers than the UK does - because under the EU rules, more Eastern European workers found it prefereble to work in the UK so supply of labour was higher. Now there’s no longer FoM, and no new drivers coming over, the supply of labour is more restricted and the price is going up - heading towards the same price as we see in France and Germany.
    But wages are higher across the board in Germany ( and many other European countries besides ). it can't be be isolated to a short-term process in one sector.

    The UK chose to gut its trade union movement, so making it much harder for employees to work together to secure good wages. There are any number of people on this board and beyond proclaiming the need for better salaries across multiple sectors who have spent years routinely denouncing each and every strike ever called designed to secure higher pay and improved conditions.

    The strikes were political for the most part. Economic disputes get resolved fairly quickly

    Yes, strong trade unions deliver results for their members.

    And that’s exactly the problem. Like any interest group they care about their members to the exclusion of others
    All of politics is about interest groups. A trade union isn't any different.
    No, politics is either about interests, or it is about ideas.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,860
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    Keir Starmer calls for 100,000 foreign drivers to be given visas to fill vacancies

    'We're going to have to do that. We have to issue enough visas to cover the number of drivers that we need. 100,000 is the size of a small city'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1442045828214886400

    “We exited the EU. One consequence was going to be a shortage of HGV drivers. That was predictable”, says Starmer, who partly blames Brexit for the skills shortages. #Marr
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1442045926806200320

    So Starmer backs lazy git CEOs who scrimped on training and paying their work forces for years while inflating their own pay and bonuses by using cheap labor.
    Going for the old Tory vote?
    There's still this charming 1970s view that rich people are Tories. In the current environment a millionaire is just as likely to be a lefty corporatists as a tory fatcat. Its simply a measure that the old labels of left and right are fraying wildly at the edges.
    Seeing as most millionaires are pensioners and pensioners break overwhelmingly Tory, that seems very unlikely. By income, yes the rich are split politically, but not so much the rich by assets.
    In 2019 42% of ABs voted Conservative, Left leaners (LAb, Lib, SNP ) got 52%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
    That does not judge wealth. The old are much wealthier than the young, even within the same social class.
    Private pension wealth - i.e. the amounts sitting in private pensions yet to be paid - alone accounts for over 40% of all wealth in the UK, and only 37% of this is held in active pensions. Property wealth accounts for about a third of UK wealth, which is heavily skewed by age.

    ONS data (from 2016-18) suggests average total household wealth for those with the household reference person aged over 65 was almost £700,000 (property comprising about £275k), compared to just over £300k for ages 35-44 (property about £140k). The richest of all are the 55-64 yo with average total wealth of £850,000 - the big difference being that this age group has more in private pensions than the very old (significantly because they have yet to spend it, of course).
    On average but obviously an investment banker in their late 20s renting in Chelsea will be higher earning and wealthier than someone in their late 60s or 70s who relies on the state pension and rents from a housing association
    In your latter case, the person's wealth is likely close to zero, being possessions net of debt. The former case depends on the rate at which the money coming in is going out. I've met a few younger high earners who live fast lives and often a lot of debt.
    If you are earning a six figure sum you would have to be spending a vast sum to have a net worth less than a renting pensioner who is on state benefits, plus of course if you are are high earner you will likely already be on the housing ladder with an asset as well as shares too by your early 30s
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,645
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    Keir Starmer calls for 100,000 foreign drivers to be given visas to fill vacancies

    'We're going to have to do that. We have to issue enough visas to cover the number of drivers that we need. 100,000 is the size of a small city'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1442045828214886400

    “We exited the EU. One consequence was going to be a shortage of HGV drivers. That was predictable”, says Starmer, who partly blames Brexit for the skills shortages. #Marr
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1442045926806200320

    So Starmer backs lazy git CEOs who scrimped on training and paying their work forces for years while inflating their own pay and bonuses by using cheap labor.
    Going for the old Tory vote?
    There's still this charming 1970s view that rich people are Tories. In the current environment a millionaire is just as likely to be a lefty corporatists as a tory fatcat. Its simply a measure that the old labels of left and right are fraying wildly at the edges.
    Seeing as most millionaires are pensioners and pensioners break overwhelmingly Tory, that seems very unlikely. By income, yes the rich are split politically, but not so much the rich by assets.
    In 2019 42% of ABs voted Conservative, Left leaners (LAb, Lib, SNP ) got 52%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
    That does not judge wealth. The old are much wealthier than the young, even within the same social class.
    going back to the beginning of this exchange, the retired don't run businesses, the current CEOs do and they have recruited or trained enough people.

    Something missing there?
    drivers with HGV licences
    But you've just said the bosses have recruited/trained enough.
    Typo, old eyes
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,891

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, off to Tescos in the vain hope that there may still be some less than mouldy old scraps which would do for a birthday tea tonight. Incurable optimist that I am.

    Flaked parmesan doused in unleaded petrol, with bottled water, would be just the ticket.
    Sparkling water!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,860
    edited September 2021
    MaxPB said:

    Rayner's outburst on Tories is why she's unfit to be leader. Labour's task is to win 2-3m voters over from the Tory party. Calling us scum isn't going to help. Starmer needs to reign her in because 6th firm politics will lead to another 80 seat Tory majority in 2024.

    It does confirm how if Starmer does become PM it will not be with a majority, he will likely lead LD support too as Cameron did in 2010 (as well of course as SNP backing) as middle England will not trust Labour with a majority on its own.

    If Rayner replaced Starmer then yes a comfortable Tory majority is likely again
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,030
    Leon said:

    But she’s destroying her career. So there’s that.

    Understandable outrage over Angela Rayner’s comments- but remember, she’s not playing to any other audience at the moment than the one that she wants to vote for her instead of Andy Burnham in a future leadership race
    https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1442023840318590979
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,030
    The 2021 John Lewis ad will show a family burning their belongings for heat and to cook a rat they caught for dinner whilst sadly looking at a photo of grandad who sacrificed his life for a litre of petrol as a breathy slow version of ‘Things Can Only Get Better’ by D:Ream plays.
    https://twitter.com/Pandamoanimum/status/1441760484210905088
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Fishing said:

    Mr. Sandpit, working on a Sunday? Alas.

    Don't they have Sundays on Fridays out there?
    Yes. Their God expects you to tell him or her how wonderful s/he is on Friday, while ours mostly listens on Sunday.

    You can see how somebody from Mars might be confused. Or maybe the Martian God is a Tuesday person.
    To be fair, he’s the same God so he’s just balancing his workload
    What makes you think it is the same God? Clearly one or other tradition has got major aspects wrong.
    Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God of Abraham.

    Muslims and Christians also share Christ as a prophet, though while Christ is the main prophet for Christians, Muhammed is the main prophet for Muslims. Jews and Christians share the Old Testament but not the new as Christ is not a prophet for Jews, that is where the main differences lie
    Christians don’t believe Jesus is a prophet
    He is described in the New Testament as a prophet as well as the Messiah
    He’s not “the main prophet”
    For Christianity effectively he is otherwise by definition it would not be Christianity but Judaism or Islam.

    For Christians Christ fulfils the messianic prophecies for the Old Testament in the New Testament
    He fulfils the prophecies, yes, but that’s because he’s the Son of Man not a prophet. Or even “effectively” the main prophet (what does that actually mean?)

    I wouldn’t really rank prophets as it’s a binary state (you are or you aren’t one) but probably Isaiah and John the Baptist are the most significant IMV.
  • MaxPB said:

    Rayner's outburst on Tories is why she's unfit to be leader. Labour's task is to win 2-3m voters over from the Tory party. Calling us scum isn't going to help. Starmer needs to reign her in because 6th firm politics will lead to another 80 seat Tory majority in 2024.

    Speak for yourself. I am not part of your "us".
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,021
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    Keir Starmer calls for 100,000 foreign drivers to be given visas to fill vacancies

    'We're going to have to do that. We have to issue enough visas to cover the number of drivers that we need. 100,000 is the size of a small city'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1442045828214886400

    “We exited the EU. One consequence was going to be a shortage of HGV drivers. That was predictable”, says Starmer, who partly blames Brexit for the skills shortages. #Marr
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1442045926806200320

    So Starmer backs lazy git CEOs who scrimped on training and paying their work forces for years while inflating their own pay and bonuses by using cheap labor.
    Going for the old Tory vote?
    There's still this charming 1970s view that rich people are Tories. In the current environment a millionaire is just as likely to be a lefty corporatists as a tory fatcat. Its simply a measure that the old labels of left and right are fraying wildly at the edges.
    Seeing as most millionaires are pensioners and pensioners break overwhelmingly Tory, that seems very unlikely. By income, yes the rich are split politically, but not so much the rich by assets.
    In 2019 42% of ABs voted Conservative, Left leaners (LAb, Lib, SNP ) got 52%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
    That does not judge wealth. The old are much wealthier than the young, even within the same social class.
    Private pension wealth - i.e. the amounts sitting in private pensions yet to be paid - alone accounts for over 40% of all wealth in the UK, and only 37% of this is held in active pensions. Property wealth accounts for about a third of UK wealth, which is heavily skewed by age.

    ONS data (from 2016-18) suggests average total household wealth for those with the household reference person aged over 65 was almost £700,000 (property comprising about £275k), compared to just over £300k for ages 35-44 (property about £140k). The richest of all are the 55-64 yo with average total wealth of £850,000 - the big difference being that this age group has more in private pensions than the very old (significantly because they have yet to spend it, of course).
    On average but obviously an investment banker in their late 20s renting in Chelsea will be higher earning and wealthier than someone in their late 60s or 70s who relies on the state pension and rents from a housing association
    In your latter case, the person's wealth is likely close to zero, being possessions net of debt. The former case depends on the rate at which the money coming in is going out. I've met a few younger high earners who live fast lives and often a lot of debt.
    If you are earning a six figure sum you would have to be spending a vast sum to have a net worth less than a renting pensioner who is on state benefits, plus of course if you are are high earner you will likely already be on the housing ladder with an asset as well as shares too by your early 30s
    You're showing yourself up, again

    Your given example was someone renting in Chelsea - so they aren't on the housing ladder

    It is entirely possible to have a six figure salary and be living on debt, after the rent on said pad in Chelsea, PCP payments on some Dura Ace type car, lots of meals out and a few holidays.

    Where you may have a point is that said banker may have private pension arrangements that by the early 30s represent some wealth. But I bet there are some who don't.
  • Farooq said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Asked if there will be no turkeys this Christmas because of the driver shortage, Grant Shapps says

    "That is not true" #ridge

    https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1442034094725083136

    Grant Shapps is right. The turkey shortage will be due to a lack of staff (Brexit) and carbon dioxide, not drivers.
    I think it is baked (roasted?) In already, as British farmers have hatched 20% fewer turkey chicks already.
    What have you baste those figures on?
    Sounds like a very gravy situation indeed
    The government will just wing it, as usual.
    There’s a poultry number of competent ministers for sure
  • pingping Posts: 2,204
    edited September 2021
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    Keir Starmer calls for 100,000 foreign drivers to be given visas to fill vacancies

    'We're going to have to do that. We have to issue enough visas to cover the number of drivers that we need. 100,000 is the size of a small city'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1442045828214886400

    “We exited the EU. One consequence was going to be a shortage of HGV drivers. That was predictable”, says Starmer, who partly blames Brexit for the skills shortages. #Marr
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1442045926806200320

    So Starmer backs lazy git CEOs who scrimped on training and paying their work forces for years while inflating their own pay and bonuses by using cheap labor.
    Going for the old Tory vote?
    There's still this charming 1970s view that rich people are Tories. In the current environment a millionaire is just as likely to be a lefty corporatists as a tory fatcat. Its simply a measure that the old labels of left and right are fraying wildly at the edges.
    Seeing as most millionaires are pensioners and pensioners break overwhelmingly Tory, that seems very unlikely. By income, yes the rich are split politically, but not so much the rich by assets.
    In 2019 42% of ABs voted Conservative, Left leaners (LAb, Lib, SNP ) got 52%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
    That does not judge wealth. The old are much wealthier than the young, even within the same social class.
    Private pension wealth - i.e. the amounts sitting in private pensions yet to be paid - alone accounts for over 40% of all wealth in the UK, and only 37% of this is held in active pensions. Property wealth accounts for about a third of UK wealth, which is heavily skewed by age.

    ONS data (from 2016-18) suggests average total household wealth for those with the household reference person aged over 65 was almost £700,000 (property comprising about £275k), compared to just over £300k for ages 35-44 (property about £140k). The richest of all are the 55-64 yo with average total wealth of £850,000 - the big difference being that this age group has more in private pensions than the very old (significantly because they have yet to spend it, of course).
    On average but obviously an investment banker in their late 20s renting in Chelsea will be higher earning and wealthier than someone in their late 60s or 70s who relies on the state pension and rents from a housing association
    In your latter case, the person's wealth is likely close to zero, being possessions net of debt. The former case depends on the rate at which the money coming in is going out. I've met a few younger high earners who live fast lives and often a lot of debt.
    If you are earning a six figure sum you would have to be spending a vast sum to have a net worth less than a renting pensioner who is on state benefits, plus of course if you are are high earner you will likely already be on the housing ladder with an asset as well as shares too by your early 30s
    Seriously, you don’t move in the right circles. A large proportion of young high earners have few assets. They spend what they earn, and more.

    I think some sort of financial sense usually kicks in when they start families.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyway, off to Tescos in the vain hope that there may still be some less than mouldy old scraps which would do for a birthday tea tonight. Incurable optimist that I am.

    Make sure to take some jerry cans with you. You never know when you might need to drive for 900 miles.
    If you don’t take them and run out of petroleum you might have to walk 500 miles
  • Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    But she’s destroying her career. So there’s that.

    Understandable outrage over Angela Rayner’s comments- but remember, she’s not playing to any other audience at the moment than the one that she wants to vote for her instead of Andy Burnham in a future leadership race
    https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1442023840318590979
    Sure, but at some point the Labour leadership need to decide to take on the Tories rather than compete amongst themselves. Otherwise, and depressingly, we shall have to wait for the Tories to clean house, which is probably 10-20 years away.
  • MaxPB said:

    Rayner's outburst on Tories is why she's unfit to be leader. Labour's task is to win 2-3m voters over from the Tory party. Calling us scum isn't going to help. Starmer needs to reign her in because 6th firm politics will lead to another 80 seat Tory majority in 2024.

    Speak for yourself. I am not part of your "us".
    How do you think Labour is going to win without the votes of at least a million voters who voted Conservative in 2019?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,030

    Otherwise, and depressingly, we shall have to wait for the Tories to clean house, which is probably 10-20 years away.

    Or Christmas, depending just how bad this winter is
  • Farooq said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Asked if there will be no turkeys this Christmas because of the driver shortage, Grant Shapps says

    "That is not true" #ridge

    https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1442034094725083136

    Grant Shapps is right. The turkey shortage will be due to a lack of staff (Brexit) and carbon dioxide, not drivers.
    I think it is baked (roasted?) In already, as British farmers have hatched 20% fewer turkey chicks already.
    What have you baste those figures on?
    Sounds like a very gravy situation indeed
    The government will just wing it, as usual.
    There’s a poultry number of competent ministers for sure
    Fortunately we have a source for the goose.
  • ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    Keir Starmer calls for 100,000 foreign drivers to be given visas to fill vacancies

    'We're going to have to do that. We have to issue enough visas to cover the number of drivers that we need. 100,000 is the size of a small city'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1442045828214886400

    “We exited the EU. One consequence was going to be a shortage of HGV drivers. That was predictable”, says Starmer, who partly blames Brexit for the skills shortages. #Marr
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1442045926806200320

    So Starmer backs lazy git CEOs who scrimped on training and paying their work forces for years while inflating their own pay and bonuses by using cheap labor.
    Going for the old Tory vote?
    There's still this charming 1970s view that rich people are Tories. In the current environment a millionaire is just as likely to be a lefty corporatists as a tory fatcat. Its simply a measure that the old labels of left and right are fraying wildly at the edges.
    Seeing as most millionaires are pensioners and pensioners break overwhelmingly Tory, that seems very unlikely. By income, yes the rich are split politically, but not so much the rich by assets.
    In 2019 42% of ABs voted Conservative, Left leaners (LAb, Lib, SNP ) got 52%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
    That does not judge wealth. The old are much wealthier than the young, even within the same social class.
    Private pension wealth - i.e. the amounts sitting in private pensions yet to be paid - alone accounts for over 40% of all wealth in the UK, and only 37% of this is held in active pensions. Property wealth accounts for about a third of UK wealth, which is heavily skewed by age.

    ONS data (from 2016-18) suggests average total household wealth for those with the household reference person aged over 65 was almost £700,000 (property comprising about £275k), compared to just over £300k for ages 35-44 (property about £140k). The richest of all are the 55-64 yo with average total wealth of £850,000 - the big difference being that this age group has more in private pensions than the very old (significantly because they have yet to spend it, of course).
    On average but obviously an investment banker in their late 20s renting in Chelsea will be higher earning and wealthier than someone in their late 60s or 70s who relies on the state pension and rents from a housing association
    In your latter case, the person's wealth is likely close to zero, being possessions net of debt. The former case depends on the rate at which the money coming in is going out. I've met a few younger high earners who live fast lives and often a lot of debt.
    If you are earning a six figure sum you would have to be spending a vast sum to have a net worth less than a renting pensioner who is on state benefits, plus of course if you are are high earner you will likely already be on the housing ladder with an asset as well as shares too by your early 30s
    Seriously, you don’t move in the right circles. A large proportion of young high earners have few assets. They spend what they earn, and more.

    I think some sort of financial sense usually kicks in when they start families.
    Are you seriously suggesting most of them haven't even inherited a manor house by that stage of life?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,891

    MaxPB said:

    Rayner's outburst on Tories is why she's unfit to be leader. Labour's task is to win 2-3m voters over from the Tory party. Calling us scum isn't going to help. Starmer needs to reign her in because 6th firm politics will lead to another 80 seat Tory majority in 2024.

    Speak for yourself. I am not part of your "us".
    But Labour have got your vote already. Her calling Tories scum doesn't suddenly multiply your vote 10x.
  • If anyone watching the idiots emptying our petrol stations needs their faith in humanity restoring, try this: just amazing!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-essex-58676944
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 1,202

    MaxPB said:

    Rayner's outburst on Tories is why she's unfit to be leader. Labour's task is to win 2-3m voters over from the Tory party. Calling us scum isn't going to help. Starmer needs to reign her in because 6th firm politics will lead to aother 80 seat Tory majority in 2024.

    Speak for yourself. I am not part of your "us".
    I am right
    You are a snowflake
    We are all (deeply) in it together
    They are scum

    "They", by definition, is not "us"... but if the cap fits...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,276
    edited September 2021
    Deleted
  • Cicero said:

    MaxPB said:

    Rayner's outburst on Tories is why she's unfit to be leader. Labour's task is to win 2-3m voters over from the Tory party. Calling us scum isn't going to help. Starmer needs to reign her in because 6th firm politics will lead to aother 80 seat Tory majority in 2024.

    Speak for yourself. I am not part of your "us".
    I am right
    You are a snowflake
    We are all (deeply) in it together
    They are scum

    "They", by definition, is not "us"... but if the cap fits...
    You will need to explain this one a little more.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,815

    The Marr clip:

    Is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix.

    Starmer: It shouldn’t be said. It is not right.

    #Marr


    https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/1442049708323602434?s=20

    How has this become a question for a Labour leader? Let alone a question he struggles to answer?

    The Left is splendidly entombing itself. It has built a Taj Mahal in memory of its departed relevance
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 27,254
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    Keir Starmer calls for 100,000 foreign drivers to be given visas to fill vacancies

    'We're going to have to do that. We have to issue enough visas to cover the number of drivers that we need. 100,000 is the size of a small city'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1442045828214886400

    “We exited the EU. One consequence was going to be a shortage of HGV drivers. That was predictable”, says Starmer, who partly blames Brexit for the skills shortages. #Marr
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1442045926806200320

    So Starmer backs lazy git CEOs who scrimped on training and paying their work forces for years while inflating their own pay and bonuses by using cheap labor.
    Going for the old Tory vote?
    There's still this charming 1970s view that rich people are Tories. In the current environment a millionaire is just as likely to be a lefty corporatists as a tory fatcat. Its simply a measure that the old labels of left and right are fraying wildly at the edges.
    Seeing as most millionaires are pensioners and pensioners break overwhelmingly Tory, that seems very unlikely. By income, yes the rich are split politically, but not so much the rich by assets.
    In 2019 42% of ABs voted Conservative, Left leaners (LAb, Lib, SNP ) got 52%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
    That does not judge wealth. The old are much wealthier than the young, even within the same social class.
    Private pension wealth - i.e. the amounts sitting in private pensions yet to be paid - alone accounts for over 40% of all wealth in the UK, and only 37% of this is held in active pensions. Property wealth accounts for about a third of UK wealth, which is heavily skewed by age.

    ONS data (from 2016-18) suggests average total household wealth for those with the household reference person aged over 65 was almost £700,000 (property comprising about £275k), compared to just over £300k for ages 35-44 (property about £140k). The richest of all are the 55-64 yo with average total wealth of £850,000 - the big difference being that this age group has more in private pensions than the very old (significantly because they have yet to spend it, of course).
    On average but obviously an investment banker in their late 20s renting in Chelsea will be higher earning and wealthier than someone in their late 60s or 70s who relies on the state pension and rents from a housing association
    In your latter case, the person's wealth is likely close to zero, being possessions net of debt. The former case depends on the rate at which the money coming in is going out. I've met a few younger high earners who live fast lives and often a lot of debt.
    If you are earning a six figure sum you would have to be spending a vast sum to have a net worth less than a renting pensioner who is on state benefits, plus of course if you are are high earner you will likely already be on the housing ladder with an asset as well as shares too by your early 30s
    You're showing yourself up, again

    Your given example was someone renting in Chelsea - so they aren't on the housing ladder

    It is entirely possible to have a six figure salary and be living on debt, after the rent on said pad in Chelsea, PCP payments on some Dura Ace type car, lots of meals out and a few holidays.

    Where you may have a point is that said banker may have private pension arrangements that by the early 30s represent some wealth. But I bet there are some who don't.
    Living to 101% of your salary has long been a thing.

    A friend who worked in private banking got the following role - due to some ill advised "expansion" and a lack of clearing the dead wood, the bank had quite a few deadbeat customers. So his job was to winnow out the chaff, and bin the irredeemable.

    People who owned 5% of an impressive range of assets and no income.... Some of these people had a pile of credit cards, shuffling vast sums to get zero percent deals for the balance.

    The screams when told to sell the assets, and put the money into something that would actually earn money were, apparently, quite something.

    He was literally reducing people from the status of Rich to You Need A Job.

    His opinion was that then number of really rich people is about 5% of what you would think from walking down the street, in London.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Rayner's outburst on Tories is why she's unfit to be leader. Labour's task is to win 2-3m voters over from the Tory party. Calling us scum isn't going to help. Starmer needs to reign her in because 6th firm politics will lead to another 80 seat Tory majority in 2024.

    Speak for yourself. I am not part of your "us".
    But Labour have got your vote already. Her calling Tories scum doesn't suddenly multiply your vote 10x.
    Labour doesn't have my vote at all.
  • HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    Keir Starmer calls for 100,000 foreign drivers to be given visas to fill vacancies

    'We're going to have to do that. We have to issue enough visas to cover the number of drivers that we need. 100,000 is the size of a small city'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1442045828214886400

    “We exited the EU. One consequence was going to be a shortage of HGV drivers. That was predictable”, says Starmer, who partly blames Brexit for the skills shortages. #Marr
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1442045926806200320

    So Starmer backs lazy git CEOs who scrimped on training and paying their work forces for years while inflating their own pay and bonuses by using cheap labor.
    Going for the old Tory vote?
    There's still this charming 1970s view that rich people are Tories. In the current environment a millionaire is just as likely to be a lefty corporatists as a tory fatcat. Its simply a measure that the old labels of left and right are fraying wildly at the edges.
    Seeing as most millionaires are pensioners and pensioners break overwhelmingly Tory, that seems very unlikely. By income, yes the rich are split politically, but not so much the rich by assets.
    In 2019 42% of ABs voted Conservative, Left leaners (LAb, Lib, SNP ) got 52%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
    That does not judge wealth. The old are much wealthier than the young, even within the same social class.
    Private pension wealth - i.e. the amounts sitting in private pensions yet to be paid - alone accounts for over 40% of all wealth in the UK, and only 37% of this is held in active pensions. Property wealth accounts for about a third of UK wealth, which is heavily skewed by age.

    ONS data (from 2016-18) suggests average total household wealth for those with the household reference person aged over 65 was almost £700,000 (property comprising about £275k), compared to just over £300k for ages 35-44 (property about £140k). The richest of all are the 55-64 yo with average total wealth of £850,000 - the big difference being that this age group has more in private pensions than the very old (significantly because they have yet to spend it, of course).
    On average but obviously an investment banker in their late 20s renting in Chelsea will be higher earning and wealthier than someone in their late 60s or 70s who relies on the state pension and rents from a housing association
    In your latter case, the person's wealth is likely close to zero, being possessions net of debt. The former case depends on the rate at which the money coming in is going out. I've met a few younger high earners who live fast lives and often a lot of debt.
    If you are earning a six figure sum you would have to be spending a vast sum to have a net worth less than a renting pensioner who is on state benefits, plus of course if you are are high earner you will likely already be on the housing ladder with an asset as well as shares too by your early 30s
    It's a big mistake for the left to perpetuate the meme that the rich are all old and the old are all rich. It drives benefit-dependent renting state pensioners into the arms of the Conservatives when Labour should be harvesting their votes.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,320
    tlg86 said:

    The Marr clip:

    Is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix.

    Starmer: It shouldn’t be said. It is not right.

    #Marr


    https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/1442049708323602434?s=20

    Do we think that Starmer genuinely believes this or that he knows that if he doesn’t say this he could be in serious trouble?
    I think that a lot of people who go along with this stuff don't really believe it, but they aren't willing to step out of line and say so for fear of being rebuked, abused, cancelled etc.
  • Leon said:

    The Marr clip:

    Is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix.

    Starmer: It shouldn’t be said. It is not right.

    #Marr


    https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/1442049708323602434?s=20

    How has this become a question for a Labour leader? Let alone a question he struggles to answer?

    The Left is splendidly entombing itself. It has built a Taj Mahal in memory of its departed relevance
    Fair play to Marr at least he asked Starmer basically the same question he asked Ed Davey last week.

    Starmer of course has had all week to prepare an answer...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,860
    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    Keir Starmer calls for 100,000 foreign drivers to be given visas to fill vacancies

    'We're going to have to do that. We have to issue enough visas to cover the number of drivers that we need. 100,000 is the size of a small city'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1442045828214886400

    “We exited the EU. One consequence was going to be a shortage of HGV drivers. That was predictable”, says Starmer, who partly blames Brexit for the skills shortages. #Marr
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1442045926806200320

    So Starmer backs lazy git CEOs who scrimped on training and paying their work forces for years while inflating their own pay and bonuses by using cheap labor.
    Going for the old Tory vote?
    There's still this charming 1970s view that rich people are Tories. In the current environment a millionaire is just as likely to be a lefty corporatists as a tory fatcat. Its simply a measure that the old labels of left and right are fraying wildly at the edges.
    Seeing as most millionaires are pensioners and pensioners break overwhelmingly Tory, that seems very unlikely. By income, yes the rich are split politically, but not so much the rich by assets.
    In 2019 42% of ABs voted Conservative, Left leaners (LAb, Lib, SNP ) got 52%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
    That does not judge wealth. The old are much wealthier than the young, even within the same social class.
    Private pension wealth - i.e. the amounts sitting in private pensions yet to be paid - alone accounts for over 40% of all wealth in the UK, and only 37% of this is held in active pensions. Property wealth accounts for about a third of UK wealth, which is heavily skewed by age.

    ONS data (from 2016-18) suggests average total household wealth for those with the household reference person aged over 65 was almost £700,000 (property comprising about £275k), compared to just over £300k for ages 35-44 (property about £140k). The richest of all are the 55-64 yo with average total wealth of £850,000 - the big difference being that this age group has more in private pensions than the very old (significantly because they have yet to spend it, of course).
    On average but obviously an investment banker in their late 20s renting in Chelsea will be higher earning and wealthier than someone in their late 60s or 70s who relies on the state pension and rents from a housing association
    In your latter case, the person's wealth is likely close to zero, being possessions net of debt. The former case depends on the rate at which the money coming in is going out. I've met a few younger high earners who live fast lives and often a lot of debt.
    If you are earning a six figure sum you would have to be spending a vast sum to have a net worth less than a renting pensioner who is on state benefits, plus of course if you are are high earner you will likely already be on the housing ladder with an asset as well as shares too by your early 30s
    Seriously, you don’t move in the right circles. A large proportion of young high earners have few assets. They spend what they earn, and more.

    I think some sort of financial sense usually kicks in when they start families.
    Even if they have few assets it is still highly likely they have more in their bank account and more assets than a state pensioner whose only main income is the state pension and who rents and does not own a property
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,276
    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Fishing said:

    Mr. Sandpit, working on a Sunday? Alas.

    Don't they have Sundays on Fridays out there?
    Yes. Their God expects you to tell him or her how wonderful s/he is on Friday, while ours mostly listens on Sunday.

    You can see how somebody from Mars might be confused. Or maybe the Martian God is a Tuesday person.
    To be fair, he’s the same God so he’s just balancing his workload
    What makes you think it is the same God? Clearly one or other tradition has got major aspects wrong.
    Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God of Abraham.

    Muslims and Christians also share Christ as a prophet, though while Christ is the main prophet for Christians, Muhammed is the main prophet for Muslims. Jews and Christians share the Old Testament but not the new as Christ is not a prophet for Jews, that is where the main differences lie
    Christians don’t believe Jesus is a prophet
    He is described in the New Testament as a prophet as well as the Messiah
    He’s not “the main prophet”
    For Christianity effectively he is otherwise by definition it would not be Christianity but Judaism or Islam.

    For Christians Christ fulfils the messianic prophecies for the Old Testament in the New Testament
    He fulfils the prophecies, yes, but that’s because he’s the Son of Man not a prophet. Or even “effectively” the main prophet (what does that actually mean?)

    I wouldn’t really rank prophets as it’s a binary state (you are or you aren’t one) but probably Isaiah and John the Baptist are the most significant IMV.
    Muhammad is the seal of the Islamic prophets, and the final one. The Koran was literally dictated by Allah and overrides all other scripture, and Mohammad was the perfect man.

    Hence the Allah of the Koran endorses war against unbelievers, execution of prisoners, etc. That is clearly not compatible with the God described in the Gospels. Anyone who thinks that they are the same has no understanding.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,276

    MaxPB said:

    Rayner's outburst on Tories is why she's unfit to be leader. Labour's task is to win 2-3m voters over from the Tory party. Calling us scum isn't going to help. Starmer needs to reign her in because 6th firm politics will lead to another 80 seat Tory majority in 2024.

    Speak for yourself. I am not part of your "us".
    How do you think Labour is going to win without the votes of at least a million voters who voted Conservative in 2019?
    Rayner did not describe Conservative voters as scum, she described the PM and some in his cabinet of that. Big difference.
  • HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    Keir Starmer calls for 100,000 foreign drivers to be given visas to fill vacancies

    'We're going to have to do that. We have to issue enough visas to cover the number of drivers that we need. 100,000 is the size of a small city'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1442045828214886400

    “We exited the EU. One consequence was going to be a shortage of HGV drivers. That was predictable”, says Starmer, who partly blames Brexit for the skills shortages. #Marr
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1442045926806200320

    So Starmer backs lazy git CEOs who scrimped on training and paying their work forces for years while inflating their own pay and bonuses by using cheap labor.
    Going for the old Tory vote?
    There's still this charming 1970s view that rich people are Tories. In the current environment a millionaire is just as likely to be a lefty corporatists as a tory fatcat. Its simply a measure that the old labels of left and right are fraying wildly at the edges.
    Seeing as most millionaires are pensioners and pensioners break overwhelmingly Tory, that seems very unlikely. By income, yes the rich are split politically, but not so much the rich by assets.
    In 2019 42% of ABs voted Conservative, Left leaners (LAb, Lib, SNP ) got 52%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
    That does not judge wealth. The old are much wealthier than the young, even within the same social class.
    Private pension wealth - i.e. the amounts sitting in private pensions yet to be paid - alone accounts for over 40% of all wealth in the UK, and only 37% of this is held in active pensions. Property wealth accounts for about a third of UK wealth, which is heavily skewed by age.

    ONS data (from 2016-18) suggests average total household wealth for those with the household reference person aged over 65 was almost £700,000 (property comprising about £275k), compared to just over £300k for ages 35-44 (property about £140k). The richest of all are the 55-64 yo with average total wealth of £850,000 - the big difference being that this age group has more in private pensions than the very old (significantly because they have yet to spend it, of course).
    On average but obviously an investment banker in their late 20s renting in Chelsea will be higher earning and wealthier than someone in their late 60s or 70s who relies on the state pension and rents from a housing association
    In your latter case, the person's wealth is likely close to zero, being possessions net of debt. The former case depends on the rate at which the money coming in is going out. I've met a few younger high earners who live fast lives and often a lot of debt.
    If you are earning a six figure sum you would have to be spending a vast sum to have a net worth less than a renting pensioner who is on state benefits, plus of course if you are are high earner you will likely already be on the housing ladder with an asset as well as shares too by your early 30s
    Seriously, you don’t move in the right circles. A large proportion of young high earners have few assets. They spend what they earn, and more.

    I think some sort of financial sense usually kicks in when they start families.
    Even if they have few assets it is still highly likely they have more in their bank account and more assets than a state pensioner whose only main income is the state pension and who rents and does not own a property
    Also high earners will have very understanding bank managers, compared to hand to mouth pensioners.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,815

    Leon said:

    The Marr clip:

    Is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix.

    Starmer: It shouldn’t be said. It is not right.

    #Marr


    https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/1442049708323602434?s=20

    How has this become a question for a Labour leader? Let alone a question he struggles to answer?

    The Left is splendidly entombing itself. It has built a Taj Mahal in memory of its departed relevance
    Fair play to Marr at least he asked Starmer basically the same question he asked Ed Davey last week.

    Starmer of course has had all week to prepare an answer...
    So he’s going to ask Boris

    Best answer? “It’s a ridiculous question, and I think most viewers will be watching this with bewilderment or horror, when there are so many important issues to address. Next”

    Don’t even go near this toxic, stupid debate. That’s the only way. But the Left can’t avoid it, because they created it. That’s their problem, leave them to it
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,276

    Leon said:

    The Marr clip:

    Is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix.

    Starmer: It shouldn’t be said. It is not right.

    #Marr


    https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/1442049708323602434?s=20

    How has this become a question for a Labour leader? Let alone a question he struggles to answer?

    The Left is splendidly entombing itself. It has built a Taj Mahal in memory of its departed relevance
    Fair play to Marr at least he asked Starmer basically the same question he asked Ed Davey last week.

    Starmer of course has had all week to prepare an answer...
    It will be interesting to see how the Heffalump answers the same question.
  • eekeek Posts: 19,222
    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Rayner's outburst on Tories is why she's unfit to be leader. Labour's task is to win 2-3m voters over from the Tory party. Calling us scum isn't going to help. Starmer needs to reign her in because 6th firm politics will lead to another 80 seat Tory majority in 2024.

    Speak for yourself. I am not part of your "us".
    How do you think Labour is going to win without the votes of at least a million voters who voted Conservative in 2019?
    Rayner did not describe Conservative voters as scum, she described the PM and some in his cabinet of that. Big difference.
    The thing is, and a lot of people still don't understand it is that you need to structure sentences in such a way that a bit of it cannot be cut and used with the context removed.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,389
    What's that other flag? Can't be Rangers FC because that's the UJ.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,164
    edited September 2021
    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Rayner's outburst on Tories is why she's unfit to be leader. Labour's task is to win 2-3m voters over from the Tory party. Calling us scum isn't going to help. Starmer needs to reign her in because 6th firm politics will lead to another 80 seat Tory majority in 2024.

    Speak for yourself. I am not part of your "us".
    How do you think Labour is going to win without the votes of at least a million voters who voted Conservative in 2019?
    Rayner did not describe Conservative voters as scum, she described the PM and some in his cabinet of that. Big difference.
    Once you have to start explaining you know there is a problem

    The public will hear or read her comments and draw their own conclusions, and it will not be favourable

    Just listening to Rachel Reeves interview with Nick Robinson and she is coming across very well indeed

    The Labour Party could do worse than appoint her as leader, and very much worse if they appointed Rayner
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,860
    edited September 2021
    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Fishing said:

    Mr. Sandpit, working on a Sunday? Alas.

    Don't they have Sundays on Fridays out there?
    Yes. Their God expects you to tell him or her how wonderful s/he is on Friday, while ours mostly listens on Sunday.

    You can see how somebody from Mars might be confused. Or maybe the Martian God is a Tuesday person.
    To be fair, he’s the same God so he’s just balancing his workload
    What makes you think it is the same God? Clearly one or other tradition has got major aspects wrong.
    Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God of Abraham.
    Muslims and Christians also share Christ as a prophet, though while Christ is the main prophet for Christians, Muhammed is the main prophet for Muslims. Jews and Christians share the Old Testament but not the new as Christ is not a prophet for Jews, that is where the main differences lie
    Christians don’t believe Jesus is a prophet
    He is described in the New Testament as a prophet as well as the Messiah
    He’s not “the main prophet”
    For Christianity effectively he is otherwise by definition it would not be Christianity but Judaism or Islam.

    For Christians Christ fulfils the messianic prophecies for the Old Testament in the New Testament
    He fulfils the prophecies, yes, but that’s because he’s the Son of Man not a prophet. Or even “effectively” the main prophet (what does that actually mean?)

    I wouldn’t really rank prophets as it’s a binary state (you are or you aren’t one) but probably Isaiah and John the Baptist are the most significant IMV.
    Muhammad is the seal of the Islamic prophets, and the final one. The Koran was literally dictated by Allah and overrides all other scripture, and Mohammad was the perfect man.

    Hence the Allah of the Koran endorses war against unbelievers, execution of prisoners, etc. That is clearly not compatible with the God described in the Gospels. Anyone who thinks that they are the same has no understanding.
    Islam and Christianity and Judaism all believe in the God of Abraham and share Abraham as a common patriarch.

    Indeed when I went to Abraham's tomb in Hebron there was a mosque (formerly a church) and synagogue all at the cave of the patriarchs.

    There is also plenty of war against non believers in the Old Testament even if the New Testament is rather more focused on peace
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,815
    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Rayner's outburst on Tories is why she's unfit to be leader. Labour's task is to win 2-3m voters over from the Tory party. Calling us scum isn't going to help. Starmer needs to reign her in because 6th firm politics will lead to another 80 seat Tory majority in 2024.

    Speak for yourself. I am not part of your "us".
    How do you think Labour is going to win without the votes of at least a million voters who voted Conservative in 2019?
    Rayner did not describe Conservative voters as scum, she described the PM and some in his cabinet of that. Big difference.
    But she then got into an argument as to whether she meant ‘all Tory voters’ and she was vague and unconvincing in her denials. She fucked it up, badly. That’s simply the case
  • glw said:

    tlg86 said:

    The Marr clip:

    Is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix.

    Starmer: It shouldn’t be said. It is not right.

    #Marr


    https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/1442049708323602434?s=20

    Do we think that Starmer genuinely believes this or that he knows that if he doesn’t say this he could be in serious trouble?
    I think that a lot of people who go along with this stuff don't really believe it, but they aren't willing to step out of line and say so for fear of being rebuked, abused, cancelled etc.
    I don't understand what a person means when they say someone without a cervix is a woman (excepting those women who have had their's removed, and a few other exceptions).

    What is the definition of a man/woman if it doesn't involve biology? What other definitional differences are there?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 27,254
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Fishing said:

    Mr. Sandpit, working on a Sunday? Alas.

    Don't they have Sundays on Fridays out there?
    Yes. Their God expects you to tell him or her how wonderful s/he is on Friday, while ours mostly listens on Sunday.

    You can see how somebody from Mars might be confused. Or maybe the Martian God is a Tuesday person.
    To be fair, he’s the same God so he’s just balancing his workload
    What makes you think it is the same God? Clearly one or other tradition has got major aspects wrong.
    Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God of Abraham.
    Muslims and Christians also share Christ as a prophet, though while Christ is the main prophet for Christians, Muhammed is the main prophet for Muslims. Jews and Christians share the Old Testament but not the new as Christ is not a prophet for Jews, that is where the main differences lie
    Christians don’t believe Jesus is a prophet
    He is described in the New Testament as a prophet as well as the Messiah
    He’s not “the main prophet”
    For Christianity effectively he is otherwise by definition it would not be Christianity but Judaism or Islam.

    For Christians Christ fulfils the messianic prophecies for the Old Testament in the New Testament
    He fulfils the prophecies, yes, but that’s because he’s the Son of Man not a prophet. Or even “effectively” the main prophet (what does that actually mean?)

    I wouldn’t really rank prophets as it’s a binary state (you are or you aren’t one) but probably Isaiah and John the Baptist are the most significant IMV.
    Muhammad is the seal of the Islamic prophets, and the final one. The Koran was literally dictated by Allah and overrides all other scripture, and Mohammad was the perfect man.

    Hence the Allah of the Koran endorses war against unbelievers, execution of prisoners, etc. That is clearly not compatible with the God described in the Gospels. Anyone who thinks that they are the same has no understanding.
    Islam and Christianity and Judaism all believe in the God of Abraham and share Abraham as a common patriarch.

    Indeed when I went to Abraham's tomb in Hebron there was a mosque (formerly a church) and synagogue all at the cave of the patriarchs.

    There is also plenty of war against non believers in the Old Testament even if the New Testament is rather more focused on peace
    Half the Old Testament involves the smiting of people who aren't God's People.

    I am trying to remember the comedian who pointed out that Christianity is about this guy who was all hellfire and damnation, but really mellowed out after he had a kid.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,904
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Fishing said:

    Mr. Sandpit, working on a Sunday? Alas.

    Don't they have Sundays on Fridays out there?
    Yes. Their God expects you to tell him or her how wonderful s/he is on Friday, while ours mostly listens on Sunday.

    You can see how somebody from Mars might be confused. Or maybe the Martian God is a Tuesday person.
    To be fair, he’s the same God so he’s just balancing his workload
    What makes you think it is the same God? Clearly one or other tradition has got major aspects wrong.
    Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God of Abraham.
    Muslims and Christians also share Christ as a prophet, though while Christ is the main prophet for Christians, Muhammed is the main prophet for Muslims. Jews and Christians share the Old Testament but not the new as Christ is not a prophet for Jews, that is where the main differences lie
    Christians don’t believe Jesus is a prophet
    He is described in the New Testament as a prophet as well as the Messiah
    He’s not “the main prophet”
    For Christianity effectively he is otherwise by definition it would not be Christianity but Judaism or Islam.

    For Christians Christ fulfils the messianic prophecies for the Old Testament in the New Testament
    He fulfils the prophecies, yes, but that’s because he’s the Son of Man not a prophet. Or even “effectively” the main prophet (what does that actually mean?)

    I wouldn’t really rank prophets as it’s a binary state (you are or you aren’t one) but probably Isaiah and John the Baptist are the most significant IMV.
    Muhammad is the seal of the Islamic prophets, and the final one. The Koran was literally dictated by Allah and overrides all other scripture, and Mohammad was the perfect man.

    Hence the Allah of the Koran endorses war against unbelievers, execution of prisoners, etc. That is clearly not compatible with the God described in the Gospels. Anyone who thinks that they are the same has no understanding.
    Islam and Christianity and Judaism all believe in the God of Abraham and share Abraham as a common patriarch.

    Indeed when I went to Abraham's tomb in Hebron there was a mosque (formerly a church) and synagogue all at the cave of the patriarchs.

    There is also plenty of war against non believers in the Old Testament even if the New Testament is rather more focused on peace
    There is currently a church, synagogue and mosque, all under construction at the same site in Abu Dhabi. Due to open next year, it will be known as the Abrahamic Family House.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_Family_House
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,276
    edited September 2021

    glw said:

    tlg86 said:

    The Marr clip:

    Is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix.

    Starmer: It shouldn’t be said. It is not right.

    #Marr


    https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/1442049708323602434?s=20

    Do we think that Starmer genuinely believes this or that he knows that if he doesn’t say this he could be in serious trouble?
    I think that a lot of people who go along with this stuff don't really believe it, but they aren't willing to step out of line and say so for fear of being rebuked, abused, cancelled etc.
    I don't understand what a person means when they say someone without a cervix is a woman (excepting those women who have had their's removed, and a few other exceptions).

    What is the definition of a man/woman if it doesn't involve biology? What other definitional differences are there?
    Currently under the Gender recognition Act it is possible to legally change gender, so yes biology is not the definition in British law.

    The debate is really over what hurdles have to be passed to have that recognition, or indeed whether there should be any hurdles at all.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,360
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Rayner's outburst on Tories is why she's unfit to be leader. Labour's task is to win 2-3m voters over from the Tory party. Calling us scum isn't going to help. Starmer needs to reign her in because 6th firm politics will lead to another 80 seat Tory majority in 2024.

    Speak for yourself. I am not part of your "us".
    How do you think Labour is going to win without the votes of at least a million voters who voted Conservative in 2019?
    Rayner did not describe Conservative voters as scum, she described the PM and some in his cabinet of that. Big difference.
    But she then got into an argument as to whether she meant ‘all Tory voters’ and she was vague and unconvincing in her denials. She fucked it up, badly. That’s simply the case
    She knows who she was playing to and that those people will be very happy with it. That she's done it before as a stunt in the Commons shows that was the calculation behind it.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,815

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Rayner's outburst on Tories is why she's unfit to be leader. Labour's task is to win 2-3m voters over from the Tory party. Calling us scum isn't going to help. Starmer needs to reign her in because 6th firm politics will lead to another 80 seat Tory majority in 2024.

    Speak for yourself. I am not part of your "us".
    How do you think Labour is going to win without the votes of at least a million voters who voted Conservative in 2019?
    Rayner did not describe Conservative voters as scum, she described the PM and some in his cabinet of that. Big difference.
    Once you have to start explaining you know there is a problem

    The public will hear or read her comments and draw their own conclusions, and it will not be favourable

    Just listening to Rachel Reeves interview with Nick Robinson and she is coming across very well indeed

    The Labour Party could do worse than appoint her as leader, and very much worse if they appointed Rayner
    The huge Rayner interview in The Times was quite striking, and paradoxical. 90% of it was like an advertorial, telling the reader: here’s a smart, striving woman with a remarkable backstory, here’s a potential prime minister from a council estate who could replace these endless Old Etonians, and make the country better

    And then we got the two insane paragraphs on trans issues. At the end. Like a hidden bomb. Quietly fizzing away. Quietly telling you, the reader: no, they’re still mad. This is all a joke. She’s useless
  • gealbhan said:

    Our Tory government are going for a high wage economy. Are there any negatives to a high wage economy?

    Maybe it widens the gap between the in work and out of work, including pensioners? Globalisation pops it’s head around the corner, excited by British workers pricing themselves out of a job? Can nice pay rises have an impact on inflation? Are they sure to be uniform across the country, that is it helps levelling up rather than throw light on it’s not level?

    It depends upon who gets the higher wages.

    Businesses which want a labour pool which can be exploited and Remoaners who don't want 'people like them' to get pay rises are two obvious groups.

    But there's also an 'insecure middle class' who really oppose manual workers getting paid more.

    This group might have the middle class upbringing, middle class education and middle class jobs but they're financially insecure.

    The poor but snobbish middle class versus the rich but vulgar working class is quite a staple of drama and sitcoms.

    In real life it manifests itself as hostility to tradesmen and train drivers.
  • Carnyx said:

    What's that other flag? Can't be Rangers FC because that's the UJ.
    Dunno, but Google tells me those are the colours of the flag of Botswana.

    Interesting that even a bouffant haired Tory nitwit knows that unadulterated UJ isn't quite the thing for the Jocks, whereas SKS..
  • glw said:

    tlg86 said:

    The Marr clip:

    Is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix.

    Starmer: It shouldn’t be said. It is not right.

    #Marr


    https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/1442049708323602434?s=20

    Do we think that Starmer genuinely believes this or that he knows that if he doesn’t say this he could be in serious trouble?
    I think that a lot of people who go along with this stuff don't really believe it, but they aren't willing to step out of line and say so for fear of being rebuked, abused, cancelled etc.
    I don't understand what a person means when they say someone without a cervix is a woman (excepting those women who have had their's removed, and a few other exceptions).

    What is the definition of a man/woman if it doesn't involve biology? What other definitional differences are there?
    I'm afraid you are still rooted in nineteenth-century empiricism. Post-modern flexi-truth holds everything and anything to be social artefacts.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,369
    edited September 2021
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Rayner's outburst on Tories is why she's unfit to be leader. Labour's task is to win 2-3m voters over from the Tory party. Calling us scum isn't going to help. Starmer needs to reign her in because 6th firm politics will lead to another 80 seat Tory majority in 2024.

    Speak for yourself. I am not part of your "us".
    How do you think Labour is going to win without the votes of at least a million voters who voted Conservative in 2019?
    Rayner did not describe Conservative voters as scum, she described the PM and some in his cabinet of that. Big difference.
    But she then got into an argument as to whether she meant ‘all Tory voters’ and she was vague and unconvincing in her denials. She fucked it up, badly. That’s simply the case
    At the time (October 2020) she used the word "scum" because Chris Clarkson (aka Alan Carr lookalike) had been himself making sneeringly scurrilous accusations about Burnham and other members of the opposition front bench. He is a thoroughly obnoxious MP and I am not surprised she used the word (in a throwaway btw). As I said before I am not a Labour supporter and my attitude wouldn't be any different against other MPs, such as Ian Paisley Snr, the Chingford Skinhead, the Beast of Bolsover, Cyril Smith, etc.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,815
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Rayner's outburst on Tories is why she's unfit to be leader. Labour's task is to win 2-3m voters over from the Tory party. Calling us scum isn't going to help. Starmer needs to reign her in because 6th firm politics will lead to another 80 seat Tory majority in 2024.

    Speak for yourself. I am not part of your "us".
    How do you think Labour is going to win without the votes of at least a million voters who voted Conservative in 2019?
    Rayner did not describe Conservative voters as scum, she described the PM and some in his cabinet of that. Big difference.
    But she then got into an argument as to whether she meant ‘all Tory voters’ and she was vague and unconvincing in her denials. She fucked it up, badly. That’s simply the case
    She knows who she was playing to and that those people will be very happy with it. That she's done it before as a stunt in the Commons shows that was the calculation behind it.
    But it’s the act of someone who hopes to be leader but never expects to be prime minister. That’s my point. Labour have been out of power so long, they see opposition as their natural place. It’s all about who gets to be butler, who has the best job in the basement. No one even thinks about going upstairs
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,360
    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Rayner's outburst on Tories is why she's unfit to be leader. Labour's task is to win 2-3m voters over from the Tory party. Calling us scum isn't going to help. Starmer needs to reign her in because 6th firm politics will lead to another 80 seat Tory majority in 2024.

    Speak for yourself. I am not part of your "us".
    How do you think Labour is going to win without the votes of at least a million voters who voted Conservative in 2019?
    Rayner did not describe Conservative voters as scum, she described the PM and some in his cabinet of that. Big difference.
    The thing is, and a lot of people still don't understand it is that you need to structure sentences in such a way that a bit of it cannot be cut and used with the context removed.

    The importance of sentence structure (kind of) I remember from the Ed M moment when he was asked if Labour had spent too much and he said 'No', which got gaps from the audience. Now, any would now agree with him, but after the GE I remember reading that the scripted answer to a potential question was a slightly rambly explanation to mean no, whereas he said no upfront and then tried to go into an explanation, but the damage was done.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,030
    Leon said:

    But it’s the act of someone who hopes to be leader but never expects to be prime minister. That’s my point. Labour have been out of power so long, they see opposition as their natural place. It’s all about who gets to be butler, who has the best job in the basement. No one even thinks about going upstairs

    Except when BoZo crashes and burns, the butler gets to be PM
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,835
    Foxy said:

    glw said:

    tlg86 said:

    The Marr clip:

    Is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix.

    Starmer: It shouldn’t be said. It is not right.

    #Marr


    https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/1442049708323602434?s=20

    Do we think that Starmer genuinely believes this or that he knows that if he doesn’t say this he could be in serious trouble?
    I think that a lot of people who go along with this stuff don't really believe it, but they aren't willing to step out of line and say so for fear of being rebuked, abused, cancelled etc.
    I don't understand what a person means when they say someone without a cervix is a woman (excepting those women who have had their's removed, and a few other exceptions).

    What is the definition of a man/woman if it doesn't involve biology? What other definitional differences are there?
    Currently under the Gender recognition Act it is possible to legally change gender, so yes biology is not the definition in British law.

    The debate is really over what hurdles have to be passed to have that recognition, or indeed whether there should be any hurdles at all.
    I think that's a rather one sided framing.

    'Hurdles are also about making sure that an irrevocable decision is not made that may be regretted later, which happens too much judging by the many people who regret that decision.

    For minors it is also about protection from a decision made because of a projected parental aspiration, rather than the child's decision.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,389
    edited September 2021

    Carnyx said:

    What's that other flag? Can't be Rangers FC because that's the UJ.
    Dunno, but Google tells me those are the colours of the flag of Botswana.

    Interesting that even a bouffant haired Tory nitwit knows that unadulterated UJ isn't quite the thing for the Jocks, whereas SKS..
    Don't think it's aimed at the Jocks? Turns out to be the Civil Aviation Ensign. Sort of thing you'd fly on a HP.42 biplane of Imperial Airways while refuelling (!) somewhere between Palestine and the Jewel in the Crown.

    https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2020/09/21/grant-shapps-flag/
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6119934736
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,860
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Fishing said:

    Mr. Sandpit, working on a Sunday? Alas.

    Don't they have Sundays on Fridays out there?
    Yes. Their God expects you to tell him or her how wonderful s/he is on Friday, while ours mostly listens on Sunday.

    You can see how somebody from Mars might be confused. Or maybe the Martian God is a Tuesday person.
    To be fair, he’s the same God so he’s just balancing his workload
    What makes you think it is the same God? Clearly one or other tradition has got major aspects wrong.
    Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God of Abraham.
    Muslims and Christians also share Christ as a prophet, though while Christ is the main prophet for Christians, Muhammed is the main prophet for Muslims. Jews and Christians share the Old Testament but not the new as Christ is not a prophet for Jews, that is where the main differences lie
    Christians don’t believe Jesus is a prophet
    He is described in the New Testament as a prophet as well as the Messiah
    He’s not “the main prophet”
    For Christianity effectively he is otherwise by definition it would not be Christianity but Judaism or Islam.

    For Christians Christ fulfils the messianic prophecies for the Old Testament in the New Testament
    He fulfils the prophecies, yes, but that’s because he’s the Son of Man not a prophet. Or even “effectively” the main prophet (what does that actually mean?)

    I wouldn’t really rank prophets as it’s a binary state (you are or you aren’t one) but probably Isaiah and John the Baptist are the most significant IMV.
    Muhammad is the seal of the Islamic prophets, and the final one. The Koran was literally dictated by Allah and overrides all other scripture, and Mohammad was the perfect man.

    Hence the Allah of the Koran endorses war against unbelievers, execution of prisoners, etc. That is clearly not compatible with the God described in the Gospels. Anyone who thinks that they are the same has no understanding.
    Islam and Christianity and Judaism all believe in the God of Abraham and share Abraham as a common patriarch.

    Indeed when I went to Abraham's tomb in Hebron there was a mosque (formerly a church) and synagogue all at the cave of the patriarchs.

    There is also plenty of war against non believers in the Old Testament even if the New Testament is rather more focused on peace
    There is currently a church, synagogue and mosque, all under construction at the same site in Abu Dhabi. Due to open next year, it will be known as the Abrahamic Family House.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_Family_House
    Indeed, the project is a physical implementation of the Document of Human Fraility signed by Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al Azhar in Abu Dhabi in 2019
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,276
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Fishing said:

    Mr. Sandpit, working on a Sunday? Alas.

    Don't they have Sundays on Fridays out there?
    Yes. Their God expects you to tell him or her how wonderful s/he is on Friday, while ours mostly listens on Sunday.

    You can see how somebody from Mars might be confused. Or maybe the Martian God is a Tuesday person.
    To be fair, he’s the same God so he’s just balancing his workload
    What makes you think it is the same God? Clearly one or other tradition has got major aspects wrong.
    Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God of Abraham.
    Muslims and Christians also share Christ as a prophet, though while Christ is the main prophet for Christians, Muhammed is the main prophet for Muslims. Jews and Christians share the Old Testament but not the new as Christ is not a prophet for Jews, that is where the main differences lie
    Christians don’t believe Jesus is a prophet
    He is described in the New Testament as a prophet as well as the Messiah
    He’s not “the main prophet”
    For Christianity effectively he is otherwise by definition it would not be Christianity but Judaism or Islam.

    For Christians Christ fulfils the messianic prophecies for the Old Testament in the New Testament
    He fulfils the prophecies, yes, but that’s because he’s the Son of Man not a prophet. Or even “effectively” the main prophet (what does that actually mean?)

    I wouldn’t really rank prophets as it’s a binary state (you are or you aren’t one) but probably Isaiah and John the Baptist are the most significant IMV.
    Muhammad is the seal of the Islamic prophets, and the final one. The Koran was literally dictated by Allah and overrides all other scripture, and Mohammad was the perfect man.

    Hence the Allah of the Koran endorses war against unbelievers, execution of prisoners, etc. That is clearly not compatible with the God described in the Gospels. Anyone who thinks that they are the same has no understanding.
    Islam and Christianity and Judaism all believe in the God of Abraham and share Abraham as a common patriarch.

    Indeed when I went to Abraham's tomb in Hebron there was a mosque (formerly a church) and synagogue all at the cave of the patriarchs.

    There is also plenty of war against non believers in the Old Testament even if the New Testament is rather more focused on peace
    Yes but religion is not by descent and clearly the New Testament overrides the Old Testament in many ways. I am not denying that Mohammad sourced Abrahamic scriptures on which he claimed further revelations.

    I am simply saying that to pretend that Christians and Muslims pray to the same God is wrong, and believed so by the vast majority of believers on both sides throughout history.

    Now, I am very happy to work with other religions, or indeed other Christian sects, on common objectives, that doesn't mean that we believe in the same God. Incidentally, Jesus Himself did not require belief in the same God, for example the Centurion, who would be required to be a Roman Pagan.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,360
    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Rayner's outburst on Tories is why she's unfit to be leader. Labour's task is to win 2-3m voters over from the Tory party. Calling us scum isn't going to help. Starmer needs to reign her in because 6th firm politics will lead to another 80 seat Tory majority in 2024.

    Speak for yourself. I am not part of your "us".
    How do you think Labour is going to win without the votes of at least a million voters who voted Conservative in 2019?
    Rayner did not describe Conservative voters as scum, she described the PM and some in his cabinet of that. Big difference.
    But she then got into an argument as to whether she meant ‘all Tory voters’ and she was vague and unconvincing in her denials. She fucked it up, badly. That’s simply the case
    She knows who she was playing to and that those people will be very happy with it. That she's done it before as a stunt in the Commons shows that was the calculation behind it.
    But it’s the act of someone who hopes to be leader but never expects to be prime minister. That’s my point. Labour have been out of power so long, they see opposition as their natural place. It’s all about who gets to be butler, who has the best job in the basement. No one even thinks about going upstairs
    Alternatively she needs to play to the gallery now to secure her position for a future run at Leader, but is banking on people liking her (or by that point) disliking the Tories enough that her past comments won't resonate much. MIght not work, but people have said plenty of crazy stuff and it's not held against them later - Corbyn 2017 nearly got away with it.
  • eekeek Posts: 19,222
    Foxy said:

    glw said:

    tlg86 said:

    The Marr clip:

    Is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix.

    Starmer: It shouldn’t be said. It is not right.

    #Marr


    https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/1442049708323602434?s=20

    Do we think that Starmer genuinely believes this or that he knows that if he doesn’t say this he could be in serious trouble?
    I think that a lot of people who go along with this stuff don't really believe it, but they aren't willing to step out of line and say so for fear of being rebuked, abused, cancelled etc.
    I don't understand what a person means when they say someone without a cervix is a woman (excepting those women who have had their's removed, and a few other exceptions).

    What is the definition of a man/woman if it doesn't involve biology? What other definitional differences are there?
    Currently under the Gender recognition Act it is possible to legally change gender, so yes biology is not the definition in British law.

    The debate is really over what hurdles have to be passed to have that recognition, or indeed whether there should be any hurdles at all.
    The issue is that unlike gay marriage there is a perfectly valid argument on the other side of the debate. Some women are (often rightly) scared of men intruding on areas that they previous felt were safe. So the self-identifying as female discussion does equally need to focus on how do you ensure women continue to feel save if self-identification is allowed.

    And that is a circle that is impossible to square - and why any person stupid enough to get involved in this debate should grasp which voters they want to permanently lose.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,360
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Fishing said:

    Mr. Sandpit, working on a Sunday? Alas.

    Don't they have Sundays on Fridays out there?
    Yes. Their God expects you to tell him or her how wonderful s/he is on Friday, while ours mostly listens on Sunday.

    You can see how somebody from Mars might be confused. Or maybe the Martian God is a Tuesday person.
    To be fair, he’s the same God so he’s just balancing his workload
    What makes you think it is the same God? Clearly one or other tradition has got major aspects wrong.
    Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God of Abraham.
    Muslims and Christians also share Christ as a prophet, though while Christ is the main prophet for Christians, Muhammed is the main prophet for Muslims. Jews and Christians share the Old Testament but not the new as Christ is not a prophet for Jews, that is where the main differences lie
    Christians don’t believe Jesus is a prophet
    He is described in the New Testament as a prophet as well as the Messiah
    He’s not “the main prophet”
    For Christianity effectively he is otherwise by definition it would not be Christianity but Judaism or Islam.

    For Christians Christ fulfils the messianic prophecies for the Old Testament in the New Testament
    He fulfils the prophecies, yes, but that’s because he’s the Son of Man not a prophet. Or even “effectively” the main prophet (what does that actually mean?)

    I wouldn’t really rank prophets as it’s a binary state (you are or you aren’t one) but probably Isaiah and John the Baptist are the most significant IMV.
    Muhammad is the seal of the Islamic prophets, and the final one. The Koran was literally dictated by Allah and overrides all other scripture, and Mohammad was the perfect man.

    Hence the Allah of the Koran endorses war against unbelievers, execution of prisoners, etc. That is clearly not compatible with the God described in the Gospels. Anyone who thinks that they are the same has no understanding.
    Islam and Christianity and Judaism all believe in the God of Abraham and share Abraham as a common patriarch.

    Indeed when I went to Abraham's tomb in Hebron there was a mosque (formerly a church) and synagogue all at the cave of the patriarchs.

    There is also plenty of war against non believers in the Old Testament even if the New Testament is rather more focused on peace
    There is currently a church, synagogue and mosque, all under construction at the same site in Abu Dhabi. Due to open next year, it will be known as the Abrahamic Family House.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_Family_House
    Sounds marvellous.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    Keir Starmer calls for 100,000 foreign drivers to be given visas to fill vacancies

    'We're going to have to do that. We have to issue enough visas to cover the number of drivers that we need. 100,000 is the size of a small city'

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1442045828214886400

    “We exited the EU. One consequence was going to be a shortage of HGV drivers. That was predictable”, says Starmer, who partly blames Brexit for the skills shortages. #Marr
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1442045926806200320

    At what pay rate ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,860
    edited September 2021
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Fishing said:

    Mr. Sandpit, working on a Sunday? Alas.

    Don't they have Sundays on Fridays out there?
    Yes. Their God expects you to tell him or her how wonderful s/he is on Friday, while ours mostly listens on Sunday.

    You can see how somebody from Mars might be confused. Or maybe the Martian God is a Tuesday person.
    To be fair, he’s the same God so he’s just balancing his workload
    What makes you think it is the same God? Clearly one or other tradition has got major aspects wrong.
    Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God of Abraham.
    Muslims and Christians also share Christ as a prophet, though while Christ is the main prophet for Christians, Muhammed is the main prophet for Muslims. Jews and Christians share the Old Testament but not the new as Christ is not a prophet for Jews, that is where the main differences lie
    Christians don’t believe Jesus is a prophet
    He is described in the New Testament as a prophet as well as the Messiah
    He’s not “the main prophet”
    For Christianity effectively he is otherwise by definition it would not be Christianity but Judaism or Islam.

    For Christians Christ fulfils the messianic prophecies for the Old Testament in the New Testament
    He fulfils the prophecies, yes, but that’s because he’s the Son of Man not a prophet. Or even “effectively” the main prophet (what does that actually mean?)

    I wouldn’t really rank prophets as it’s a binary state (you are or you aren’t one) but probably Isaiah and John the Baptist are the most significant IMV.
    Muhammad is the seal of the Islamic prophets, and the final one. The Koran was literally dictated by Allah and overrides all other scripture, and Mohammad was the perfect man.

    Hence the Allah of the Koran endorses war against unbelievers, execution of prisoners, etc. That is clearly not compatible with the God described in the Gospels. Anyone who thinks that they are the same has no understanding.
    Islam and Christianity and Judaism all believe in the God of Abraham and share Abraham as a common patriarch.

    Indeed when I went to Abraham's tomb in Hebron there was a mosque (formerly a church) and synagogue all at the cave of the patriarchs.

    There is also plenty of war against non believers in the Old Testament even if the New Testament is rather more focused on peace
    Yes but religion is not by descent and clearly the New Testament overrides the Old Testament in many ways. I am not denying that Mohammad sourced Abrahamic scriptures on which he claimed further revelations.

    I am simply saying that to pretend that Christians and Muslims pray to the same God is wrong, and believed so by the vast majority of believers on both sides throughout history.

    Now, I am very happy to work with other religions, or indeed other Christian sects, on common objectives, that doesn't mean that we believe in the same God. Incidentally, Jesus Himself did not require belief in the same God, for example the Centurion, who would be required to be a Roman Pagan.
    Christianity, Judaism and Islam all believe in the same God, the God of Abraham. That is why they are the Abrahamic religions. Islam may have Muhammed as its principal prophet, Christianity has Christ as its Messiah and Judaism only believes in the Old Testament not the New. That is what makes them distinctive but they all believe in 1 God, the God of Abraham and that makes them collectively distinctive from say Hinduism too.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,815
    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    But it’s the act of someone who hopes to be leader but never expects to be prime minister. That’s my point. Labour have been out of power so long, they see opposition as their natural place. It’s all about who gets to be butler, who has the best job in the basement. No one even thinks about going upstairs

    Except when BoZo crashes and burns, the butler gets to be PM
    Not when Labour is and remains unelectable. Is my point. Boris will just be replaced by Sunak or Truss and on they go
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,852
    edited September 2021
    Foxy said:

    glw said:

    tlg86 said:

    The Marr clip:

    Is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix.

    Starmer: It shouldn’t be said. It is not right.

    #Marr


    https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/1442049708323602434?s=20

    Do we think that Starmer genuinely believes this or that he knows that if he doesn’t say this he could be in serious trouble?
    I think that a lot of people who go along with this stuff don't really believe it, but they aren't willing to step out of line and say so for fear of being rebuked, abused, cancelled etc.
    I don't understand what a person means when they say someone without a cervix is a woman (excepting those women who have had their's removed, and a few other exceptions).

    What is the definition of a man/woman if it doesn't involve biology? What other definitional differences are there?
    Currently under the Gender recognition Act it is possible to legally change gender, so yes biology is not the definition in British law.

    The debate is really over what hurdles have to be passed to have that recognition, or indeed whether there should be any hurdles at all.
    Sure, fine. I'm generally in favour of more freedom, so people are free to do things, like change their gender, that I don't understand.

    But that doesn't make it any more comprehensible to me. The very definitions of male/female exist because the two sexes are required for sexual reproduction.

    I don't understand what people mean when they think they are the wrong gender. What feelings, behaviours, or whatever can they have as a woman that they can't have as a man, or vice versa?

    With the exception of specific biological differences it shouldn't make any difference whether you are male or female (so it doesn't bother me if individuals want to swap) but on an abstract level I'm completely flummoxed.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,360

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Fishing said:

    Mr. Sandpit, working on a Sunday? Alas.

    Don't they have Sundays on Fridays out there?
    Yes. Their God expects you to tell him or her how wonderful s/he is on Friday, while ours mostly listens on Sunday.

    You can see how somebody from Mars might be confused. Or maybe the Martian God is a Tuesday person.
    To be fair, he’s the same God so he’s just balancing his workload
    What makes you think it is the same God? Clearly one or other tradition has got major aspects wrong.
    Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God of Abraham.
    Muslims and Christians also share Christ as a prophet, though while Christ is the main prophet for Christians, Muhammed is the main prophet for Muslims. Jews and Christians share the Old Testament but not the new as Christ is not a prophet for Jews, that is where the main differences lie
    Christians don’t believe Jesus is a prophet
    He is described in the New Testament as a prophet as well as the Messiah
    He’s not “the main prophet”
    For Christianity effectively he is otherwise by definition it would not be Christianity but Judaism or Islam.

    For Christians Christ fulfils the messianic prophecies for the Old Testament in the New Testament
    He fulfils the prophecies, yes, but that’s because he’s the Son of Man not a prophet. Or even “effectively” the main prophet (what does that actually mean?)

    I wouldn’t really rank prophets as it’s a binary state (you are or you aren’t one) but probably Isaiah and John the Baptist are the most significant IMV.
    Muhammad is the seal of the Islamic prophets, and the final one. The Koran was literally dictated by Allah and overrides all other scripture, and Mohammad was the perfect man.

    Hence the Allah of the Koran endorses war against unbelievers, execution of prisoners, etc. That is clearly not compatible with the God described in the Gospels. Anyone who thinks that they are the same has no understanding.
    Islam and Christianity and Judaism all believe in the God of Abraham and share Abraham as a common patriarch.

    Indeed when I went to Abraham's tomb in Hebron there was a mosque (formerly a church) and synagogue all at the cave of the patriarchs.

    There is also plenty of war against non believers in the Old Testament even if the New Testament is rather more focused on peace
    Half the Old Testament involves the smiting of people who aren't God's People.

    I am trying to remember the comedian who pointed out that Christianity is about this guy who was all hellfire and damnation, but really mellowed out after he had a kid.
    Given I'm not aware what the official explanation is for why God started chilling out so much, that actually makes total sense.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,822

    Sandpit said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/sep/25/european-lorry-drivers-will-not-want-to-come-to-uk-warn-haulage-chiefs

    European Road Hauliers Association says temporary visa scheme won't tempt many EU drivers to the UK because pay and conditions are better in the EU, in part thanks to new EU rules, while Brexit red tape at customs is a big disencentive to driving to the UK.
    Rather bursts the bubble of those claiming we had to leave the EU to create a workers' paradise. Brexit = more red tape at the border + deregulation internally = fewer right for workers. It's a massive con perpetrated against the British working class by the Jacob Rees-Moggs of this world.

    The truckers are all getting pay rises, I’m not sure they’re complaining too much.

    The ERHA are also confusing cross-border freight traffic into the UK, with UK-based hauliers looking to recruit drivers from abroad.
    If being in the EU undercut UK pay and conditions, how come pay and conditions are better in the EU than here? If the EU damages workers' rights, how come EU rules are more generous to workers than ours are?
    AIUI the UK driver shortage affects both cross border and purely internal routes (and there is a lot of overlap between the two, one of the great benefits of the Single Market being that it gets rid of these artificial distinctions created by borders).
    You are talking to Tory cult members, they are stupid and just spout the thick Tory line, especially funny are the ones who do it as emigrants..
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,276
    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    glw said:

    tlg86 said:

    The Marr clip:

    Is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix.

    Starmer: It shouldn’t be said. It is not right.

    #Marr


    https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/1442049708323602434?s=20

    Do we think that Starmer genuinely believes this or that he knows that if he doesn’t say this he could be in serious trouble?
    I think that a lot of people who go along with this stuff don't really believe it, but they aren't willing to step out of line and say so for fear of being rebuked, abused, cancelled etc.
    I don't understand what a person means when they say someone without a cervix is a woman (excepting those women who have had their's removed, and a few other exceptions).

    What is the definition of a man/woman if it doesn't involve biology? What other definitional differences are there?
    Currently under the Gender recognition Act it is possible to legally change gender, so yes biology is not the definition in British law.

    The debate is really over what hurdles have to be passed to have that recognition, or indeed whether there should be any hurdles at all.
    I think that's a rather one sided framing.

    'Hurdles are also about making sure that an irrevocable decision is not made that may be regretted later, which happens too much judging by the many people who regret that decision.

    For minors it is also about protection from a decision made because of a projected parental aspiration, rather than the child's decision.
    Which is why I think there needs to be a formal legal process rather than spontaneous self definition.

    The question then is what should the process be, in order to prevent the sorts of regrets that you list.

    That said, we do not prevent teenagers from making many other decisions that they may well permanently regret.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,030
    Leon said:

    Boris will just be replaced by Sunak or Truss and on they go

    Nope

    The failure of BoZo is inextricably linked to the Brexit clusterfuck.

    "More Brexit" is not going to be the solution...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,768

    glw said:

    tlg86 said:

    The Marr clip:

    Is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix.

    Starmer: It shouldn’t be said. It is not right.

    #Marr


    https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/1442049708323602434?s=20

    Do we think that Starmer genuinely believes this or that he knows that if he doesn’t say this he could be in serious trouble?
    I think that a lot of people who go along with this stuff don't really believe it, but they aren't willing to step out of line and say so for fear of being rebuked, abused, cancelled etc.
    I don't understand what a person means when they say someone without a cervix is a woman (excepting those women who have had their's removed, and a few other exceptions).

    What is the definition of a man/woman if it doesn't involve biology? What other definitional differences are there?
    None, biologically, but there is also gender identity and this has legal force. Birth sex and gender are almost always in line but not literally always. The vast vast majority of women were born female. There are a small number who were born male but have transitioned. These are transwomen. They are women in the eyes of the law regardless of their body at birth or their body now.
  • Morning all :)

    https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1442048881165017091

    Opinium have posted an interesting poll. 33% blame the last Labour Government for the HGV shortages!

    With regards to Rayner, sadly Starmer cannot sack her because she is an elected position - but she is a total liability and whilst I value her story and the hard work she has put in to get where she is, I think she is unsuited for such a senior position in a party.

    Lisa Nandy, Rachel Reeves, Ed M should be fronting Labour's message to the public. Labour really must get away from the idea that calling people idiots, or scum, is how you get 1m+ Tory voters to swap their votes.

    Labour needs to ignore these silly issues about the culture wars, come up with five or so policies, explain how they will be paid for and they will do a lot better.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,822
    tlg86 said:

    Three month visas, what a joke. “ Hi Johnny Foreigner, please come and deliver our stuff for three months so Christmas will go smoothly. Then bugger off so we can enjoy it without you”

    Do you think it's a joke because it won't work or because it's unfair? Isn't this what happens/happened with fruit pickers?
    It is pathetic, there ar eplenty of better HGV jobs in Europe, it si totally unlike seasonal fruit picking. What kind of idiot would you have to be to think , let's go to UK and work for 3 months and then get chucked out or do I take a better job in Europe with better salary and conditions and not get dumped after 3 months. Hard decision NOT.
This discussion has been closed.