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%
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
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?
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.
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%
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.
"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?
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
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%
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.
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.
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%
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.
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.
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%
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
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%
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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%
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.
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%
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.
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
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.
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?
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%
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?
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.
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...
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...
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%
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.
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.
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%
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.
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.
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%
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
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.
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.
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%
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.
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.
Yup.
A relative runs a building business. When he started, a while back, it was a rarity for the site workers to get paid on time, let alone much else.
Word spread of the strange story of The Man Who Paid On Time. Every week on Friday the money would appear in your bank, all correct. Complete with an email *and* a printed pay slip, with all the tax and other stuff property worked out.
In an equally startling move, he provided good quality, working safety equipment and instead on people using it.
When someone got a minor injury, he personally drove them to the A&E. And paid them for the hours....
This was all, at the time in the smaller scale building trade, the equivalent of meeting a chap with a long beard who pedestrianised oceans - weird, scary.... but maybe of interest.
Strangely, for him, the usual few-months-and-they're-off thing with site workers didn't happen. Some worked for him for a decade or more....
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
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.
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
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Long time lurker etc, but I do want to say this:
I knew at the time - exactly who she was directing her ire at - and as someone who is tepid towards the current Labour leadership - but have nothing but absolute hatred for this government - and know plenty of others who feel exactly this way both online and offline - such language is going to go down very well with such groups, but Max is ultimately right - there is an element of the population who do not describe themselves as Tories - who lended their vote to the party last time - to complete the c******l enterprise that was and remains Brexit - who will feel turned off by such language - yet at the same time remain cool - or at the very least not concerned with the racist, Islamophobic and homophobic language espoused as well as the questionable actions that their leader have committed since becoming the boss of GBplc.
Perhaps that is something that the media need to take a look in the mirror at itself as they themselves were asleep at the wheel at that time, nevertheless it's another example of society breaking off from itself.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
However bad this Starmer interview is - and it IS bad - think how bad it will be with Beaker next week.
He can't just keep saying "Kermit the Frog".
But he could answer every question with "Labour jabber, Conservatives jab" and we would be reminded of his greatness as we listen to the transistor radio by candlelight.
Not transistor. Accumulator radio in a walnut cabinet; the audience holding their hands up to the heat of the valves.
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.
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
A project of peace and hope, that the major religions can emphasise their similarities rather than their differences, worshipping on the same site.
I was in the crowd when the Pope visited Abu Dhabi, quite an astonishing visit at the time, and since added to with visits to the site from Jewish leaders and Israeli government officials.
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.
The queues outside the petrol station next to my flat have finally after 36 hours gone. I don’t know whether that’s because all the idiots have now filled up, or because they’ve run out of petrol. But at least some peace has been restored.
The fuel has run out around here. There are signs up in forecourts specifically stating it's because of panic buying. I just hope people get the message. What are the chances?
Surely the message is to fill up with petrol asap before the panic buyers take it all.
Will not stop till everybody has full tanks and jerry cans.
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.
As I pointed out on a number of times on this thread, that is simply not true. There are fundamental differences in understanding between the three as to the nature of God.
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.
The comic wailings from post-modernists about Trump using "the abolition of Truth"... "We didn't mean *that*"... comes to mind.
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.
Yes the PBers waving onions under their noses over the plight of the working classes in terms of pay bargaining do seem to have kept quiet over many decades of Toryism.
I suppose they will be backing the Nurses in their mooted industrial action, after all the number of vacancies are huge.
We do seem to be back to the Seventies (albeit with worse music) in terms of inflation, petrol queues and forthcoming power cuts.
Could I recommend getting ahead of the curve and buying candles before stocks run out?
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.
The queues outside the petrol station next to my flat have finally after 36 hours gone. I don’t know whether that’s because all the idiots have now filled up, or because they’ve run out of petrol. But at least some peace has been restored.
The fuel has run out around here. There are signs up in forecourts specifically stating it's because of panic buying. I just hope people get the message. What are the chances?
Surely the message is to fill up with petrol asap before the panic buyers take it all.
Will not stop till everybody has full tanks and jerry cans.
And plastic dustbins full of petrol in their houses (there was a case last time round where the bin dissolved - cue evacuation of the street ...).
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.
Corbyn in 2017 was a black swan. A total freak of an event. If Labour are learning from THAT they are even more screwed than I surmised
I know it’s a cliche but it has to be asked, again. Where is their Blair? At this point in the 1992-97 Tory government (about as hapless and tired as the present Tory government) Blair and Brown were eagerly colonizing the centre ground and tearing the Tories to pieces, daily
This morning the Labour leader is weakly suggesting on live TV that men can have a cervix and his close rival, his Brown, is implying that all Tory voters are scum
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.
I agree. What it needs is a Dogma style comedy.
"Michael, I've had a revelation. Put the sword down, dude. And I've invited Lucifer to a family counselling session to try see if we can sort things out....."
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.
The queues outside the petrol station next to my flat have finally after 36 hours gone. I don’t know whether that’s because all the idiots have now filled up, or because they’ve run out of petrol. But at least some peace has been restored.
The fuel has run out around here. There are signs up in forecourts specifically stating it's because of panic buying. I just hope people get the message. What are the chances?
Surely the message is to fill up with petrol asap before the panic buyers take it all.
They should have put a limit on the amount of fuel people could buy as soon as it was realised there was a problem. Epic fail. No point in doing it once many of the petrol stations have already fun out of fuel. This was an opportunity for the infamous "Nudge Unit" to do something useful for a change, and they've failed to do so.
Comments
For Christians Christ fulfils the messianic prophecies for the Old Testament in the New Testament
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
Mike...what are the odds on a 3 day week before the end of the year?
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
Treat drivers as people, pay them well and look after them while they’re at work, and they’ll stay.
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.
If Rayner replaced Starmer then yes a comfortable Tory majority is likely again
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1442023840318590979
https://twitter.com/Pandamoanimum/status/1441760484210905088
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.
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.
I think some sort of financial sense usually kicks in when they start families.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-essex-58676944
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...
https://twitter.com/RobDunsmore/status/1442057236558360576?s=20
The Left is splendidly entombing itself. It has built a Taj Mahal in memory of its departed relevance
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.
Starmer of course has had all week to prepare an answer...
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.
A relative runs a building business. When he started, a while back, it was a rarity for the site workers to get paid on time, let alone much else.
Word spread of the strange story of The Man Who Paid On Time. Every week on Friday the money would appear in your bank, all correct. Complete with an email *and* a printed pay slip, with all the tax and other stuff property worked out.
In an equally startling move, he provided good quality, working safety equipment and instead on people using it.
When someone got a minor injury, he personally drove them to the A&E. And paid them for the hours....
This was all, at the time in the smaller scale building trade, the equivalent of meeting a chap with a long beard who pedestrianised oceans - weird, scary.... but maybe of interest.
Strangely, for him, the usual few-months-and-they're-off thing with site workers didn't happen. Some worked for him for a decade or more....
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
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
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
What is the definition of a man/woman if it doesn't involve biology? What other definitional differences are there?
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.
https://twitter.com/MrKennethClarke/status/1441723931350679552
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_Family_House
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.
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
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.
Interesting that even a bouffant haired Tory nitwit knows that unadulterated UJ isn't quite the thing for the Jocks, whereas SKS..
'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.
https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2020/09/21/grant-shapps-flag/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/39411748@N06/6119934736
I knew at the time - exactly who she was directing her ire at - and as someone who is tepid towards the current Labour leadership - but have nothing but absolute hatred for this government - and know plenty of others who feel exactly this way both online and offline - such language is going to go down very well with such groups, but Max is ultimately right - there is an element of the population who do not describe themselves as Tories - who lended their vote to the party last time - to complete the c******l enterprise that was and remains Brexit - who will feel turned off by such language - yet at the same time remain cool - or at the very least not concerned with the racist, Islamophobic and homophobic language espoused as well as the questionable actions that their leader have committed since becoming the boss of GBplc.
Perhaps that is something that the media need to take a look in the mirror at itself as they themselves were asleep at the wheel at that time, nevertheless it's another example of society breaking off from itself.
Have a good Sunday.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The failure of BoZo is inextricably linked to the Brexit clusterfuck.
"More Brexit" is not going to be the solution...
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.
I was in the crowd when the Pope visited Abu Dhabi, quite an astonishing visit at the time, and since added to with visits to the site from Jewish leaders and Israeli government officials.
comes to mind.
Corbyn in 2017 was a black swan. A total freak of an event. If Labour are learning from THAT they are even more screwed than I surmised
I know it’s a cliche but it has to be asked, again. Where is their Blair? At this point in the 1992-97 Tory government (about as hapless and tired as the present Tory government) Blair and Brown were eagerly colonizing the centre ground and tearing the Tories to pieces, daily
This morning the Labour leader is weakly suggesting on live TV that men can have a cervix and his close rival, his Brown, is implying that all Tory voters are scum
It is quite a stark contrast
"Michael, I've had a revelation. Put the sword down, dude. And I've invited Lucifer to a family counselling session to try see if we can sort things out....."