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.
I agree with you Malc but it does depend on wages, bonuses, and incentives
However, in the longer term we have to pay more, improve working conditions, stop exploitation of the drivers by the bosses who just want lots of cheap labour
The new training and incentives schemes being introduced will help but it is not an overnight solution
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
Any other time in history and so would the current bunch in power.
I think that says a lot about where we are as a society - and we are all to blame, you, me and the neighbour down the road - its all about soundbites and as soon as they are tasked with something as complex and intense such as what we are dealing with right now - or even what we have endured in the past year - they are reliant on external sources to save their backsides - hence why we seen Shapps today blaming the RHA for the current petrol shortages - because nothing, absolutely nothing can be a politicians fault.
We saw it after Suez, Vietnam, the Cod War - its always external sources, never the ones who make the decisions.
We as a society - not just here - but worldwide deserve so much better than the leaders we have currently.
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
Boris' 'complete and overt racism' of course has somehow led him to appoint the first British Asian Chancellor and the first British Asian Home Secretary and the fist Black British Business Secretary and the first British Asian Education Secretary
Indeed, this is by far the most multiracial cabinet we have ever had and no one actually gives a damn. Its real progress for this country and something to be proud of.
It must also be the worst bunch of donkeys of a cabinet ever assembled.
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.
To a materialist like myself I hear you making a distinction between biological sex and gender identity and what I'm thinking is that biological sex has material meaning - there are implications for healthcare differences (e.g. see the scandals about medications only tested on men that work differently in women) - and gender identity sort of sounds like what football team someone supports.
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
Any other time in history and so would the current bunch in power.
I think that says a lot about where we are as a society - and we are all to blame, you, me and the neighbour down the road - its all about soundbites and as soon as they are tasked with something as complex and intense such as what we are dealing with right now - or even what we have endured in the past year - they are reliant on external sources to save their backsides - hence why we seen Shapps today blaming the RHA for the current petrol shortages - because nothing, absolutely nothing can be a politicians fault.
We saw it after Suez, Vietnam, the Cod War - its always external sources, never the ones who make the decisions.
We as a society - not just here - but worldwide deserve so much better than the leaders we have currently.
In a democracy you get the leaders you deserve, you voted for them
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.
I don't really follow your point at all, I'm with HYUFD on this one.
There are fundamental differences in understanding between the three as to the nature of God, but that's just it, they appear to believe in broadly the same historical and theological basis of that God, but differ in interpretation and understanding of that God.
From the outside I'd say to be a 'different' God it would need to be an entirely different tradition and belief structure, it's not like the interpretations and different understandings are akin to believing in Ahura Mazda or Aten.
I don't really need to explain this to you, but I am in a generous mood.
We have a shortage of HGV drivers caused by Brexit.
This has led to food shortages caused by Brexit
And fuel shortages caused by Brexit.
A shortage of turkeys at Christmas caused by Brexit, and disruptions to deliveries of gifts caused by Brexit might herald a dip in BoZo's popularity.
When the public turns against the chief figurehead of Brexit because Brexit is a total clusterfuck, they are not going to turn to other cheerleaders of Brexit to resolve the Brexit issues caused by Brexit
Anyway, off to Tesco's 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.
Well, that was weird. Shop seemed fully stocked. There was a point when my support for Brexit wavered when I couldn't find the redcurrent jelly for my roast lamb but it turned out Tesco's had just moved it again. There were about 7 cars waiting to fuel up at the pumps. Far too many so I didn't bother.
Given Starmer cannot even tell what a woman is , I do not hold out very high hopes for him. I knew he was bad but he is a slimeball no user, I would vote Bozo before him.
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
It is quite a stark contrast
Labour don't need a Blair, they could scrape in in 2023/24 in a hung parliament with SNP and LD support, they not need a 1997 style 179 seat majority.
If Starmer gets in it will be more like the narrow Wilson win of 1964 or the narrow Cameron win of 2010 than Blair's landslide.
Plus we are only 11 years into the Tories in power, so this is closer to 1990 than 1993/1994 and Starmer is therefore closer to Kinnock on that basis than Blair
"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 don't really need to explain this to you, but I am in a generous mood.
We have a shortage of HGV drivers caused by Brexit.
This has led to food shortages caused by Brexit
And fuel shortages caused by Brexit.
A shortage of turkeys at Christmas caused by Brexit, and disruptions to deliveries of gifts caused by Brexit might herald a dip in BoZo's popularity.
When the public turns against the chief figurehead of Brexit because Brexit is a total clusterfuck, they are not going to turn to other cheerleaders of Brexit to resolve the Brexit issues caused by Brexit
Or, you are pathologically obsessed by Brexit, unlike 90% of the country, which has moved on
Rayner: "Let me contextualise it. It's a phrase that you would hear very often in northern working class town ... we'd even say it jovially to other people."
Given Starmer cannot even tell what a woman is , I do not hold out very high hopes for him. I knew he was bad but he is a slimeball no user, I would vote Bozo before him.
What about 100K drivers who self identify as women? I'll bet the trucking industry is very transphobic.
I don't really need to explain this to you, but I am in a generous mood.
We have a shortage of HGV drivers caused by Brexit.
This has led to food shortages caused by Brexit
And fuel shortages caused by Brexit.
A shortage of turkeys at Christmas caused by Brexit, and disruptions to deliveries of gifts caused by Brexit might herald a dip in BoZo's popularity.
When the public turns against the chief figurehead of Brexit because Brexit is a total clusterfuck, they are not going to turn to other cheerleaders of Brexit to resolve the Brexit issues caused by Brexit
We know that is your political take on it, when it is far more complex and actually today's Opinium that you fail to tweet clearly affirms that
Rayner: "Let me contextualise it. It's a phrase that you would hear very often in northern working class town ... we'd even say it jovially to other people."
Oh that's just pathetic - just own it, Angela, you know very well what you were doing and no one is going to believe that explanation. If you're brand is to be blunt and honest, as you see it, just stick to that brand.
I don't really need to explain this to you, but I am in a generous mood.
We have a shortage of HGV drivers caused by Brexit.
This has led to food shortages caused by Brexit
And fuel shortages caused by Brexit.
A shortage of turkeys at Christmas caused by Brexit, and disruptions to deliveries of gifts caused by Brexit might herald a dip in BoZo's popularity.
When the public turns against the chief figurehead of Brexit because Brexit is a total clusterfuck, they are not going to turn to other cheerleaders of Brexit to resolve the Brexit issues caused by Brexit
Or, you are pathologically obsessed by Brexit, unlike 90% of the country, which has moved on
If we hadn’t left the European Union we wouldn’t be able to introduce desperate, probably doomed, ideas designed to address problems caused by leaving the European Union.
Grant Shapps on #Marr just said that HGV driver shortages are no worse than they have been for years and the reason for current shortages is the Road Haulage Association briefing the press. 👀 https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1442072802719379457
Rayner: "Let me contextualise it. It's a phrase that you would hear very often in northern working class town ... we'd even say it jovially to other people."
Rayner: "Let me contextualise it. It's a phrase that you would hear very often in northern working class town ... we'd even say it jovially to other people."
"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.
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.
It would be very odd if several billion people formed exactly the same mind in detail about an unknowable item. None the less as a regulative principle monotheism is a remarkably enduring and fertile idea - that there is ultimately a single source and goal of all reality. Its only serious competitor in the field of ideas is that there isn't.
As both claims are unknowable dim people simply draw attention to the weaknesses of the other side from the one they take. Of which there are of course an infinity.
I don't really need to explain this to you, but I am in a generous mood.
We have a shortage of HGV drivers caused by Brexit.
This has led to food shortages caused by Brexit
And fuel shortages caused by Brexit.
A shortage of turkeys at Christmas caused by Brexit, and disruptions to deliveries of gifts caused by Brexit might herald a dip in BoZo's popularity.
When the public turns against the chief figurehead of Brexit because Brexit is a total clusterfuck, they are not going to turn to other cheerleaders of Brexit to resolve the Brexit issues caused by Brexit
Or, you are pathologically obsessed by Brexit, unlike 90% of the country, which has moved on
The 90% actually go to supermarkets.
Scott's knowledge of them comes from twatter.
Scott's knowledge comes from an over-active bile duct. It goes into overdrive whenever anyone says "Boris"....
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
Any other time in history and so would the current bunch in power.
I think that says a lot about where we are as a society - and we are all to blame, you, me and the neighbour down the road - its all about soundbites and as soon as they are tasked with something as complex and intense such as what we are dealing with right now - or even what we have endured in the past year - they are reliant on external sources to save their backsides - hence why we seen Shapps today blaming the RHA for the current petrol shortages - because nothing, absolutely nothing can be a politicians fault.
We saw it after Suez, Vietnam, the Cod War - its always external sources, never the ones who make the decisions.
We as a society - not just here - but worldwide deserve so much better than the leaders we have currently.
In a democracy you get the leaders you deserve, you voted for them
In this Union of consent you get the leaders England votes for, whether you deserve it or not.
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
It is quite a stark contrast
Labour don't need a Blair, they could scrape in in 2023/24 in a hung parliament with SNP and LD support, they not need a 1997 style 179 seat majority.
If Starmer gets in it will be more like the narrow Wilson win of 1964 or the narrow Cameron win of 2010 than Blair's landslide.
Plus we are only 11 years into the Tories in power, so this is closer to 1990 than 1993/1994 and Starmer is therefore closer to Kinnock on that basis than Blair
But they need a Blair to win a majority. They need a brilliant, charismatic centrist leader who can still please the Left. While sounding a bit Tory. And also someone who can win back a chunk of Scotland
That their best hope is ‘scraping to a hung parliament’ after four lost general elections says it all
I don't really need to explain this to you, but I am in a generous mood.
We have a shortage of HGV drivers caused by Brexit.
This has led to food shortages caused by Brexit
And fuel shortages caused by Brexit.
A shortage of turkeys at Christmas caused by Brexit, and disruptions to deliveries of gifts caused by Brexit might herald a dip in BoZo's popularity.
When the public turns against the chief figurehead of Brexit because Brexit is a total clusterfuck, they are not going to turn to other cheerleaders of Brexit to resolve the Brexit issues caused by Brexit
We know that is your political take on it, when it is far more complex and actually today's Opinium that you fail to tweet clearly affirms that
"We urge the Government to ensure its Brexit negotiations afford special status to logistics and allow for this (EU Drivers) employment to continue so that the industry is not hit by another driver shortage crisis"
Rayner: "Let me contextualise it. It's a phrase that you would hear very often in northern working class town ... we'd even say it jovially to other people."
Oh that's just pathetic - just own it, Angela, you know very well what you were doing and no one is going to believe that explanation. If you're brand is to be blunt and honest, as you see it, just stick to that brand.
Let me contextualise it Angela. Gobshite fishwife is a phrase that we will hear very often on the doorsteps...without the joviality.
However, she has overshadowed Skyr at the start of the conference. Job done.
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 is refreshing to have a politician speak the truth.
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
Any other time in history and so would the current bunch in power.
I think that says a lot about where we are as a society - and we are all to blame, you, me and the neighbour down the road - its all about soundbites and as soon as they are tasked with something as complex and intense such as what we are dealing with right now - or even what we have endured in the past year - they are reliant on external sources to save their backsides - hence why we seen Shapps today blaming the RHA for the current petrol shortages - because nothing, absolutely nothing can be a politicians fault.
We saw it after Suez, Vietnam, the Cod War - its always external sources, never the ones who make the decisions.
We as a society - not just here - but worldwide deserve so much better than the leaders we have currently.
In a democracy you get the leaders you deserve, you voted for them
In this Union of consent you get the leaders England votes for.
I'm guessing 'you're welcome' would not be the correct response here.
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.
I don't really follow your point at all, I'm with HYUFD on this one.
There are fundamental differences in understanding between the three as to the nature of God, but that's just it, they appear to believe in broadly the same historical and theological basis of that God, but differ in interpretation and understanding of that God.
From the outside I'd say to be a 'different' God it would need to be an entirely different tradition and belief structure, it's not like the interpretations and different understandings are akin to believing in Ahura Mazda or Aten.
I would say that if you have a fundamentally different understanding of God, and His purposes, then you are not praying to the same God. Prayer being an attempt to establish an alignment between your life and God's purposes.
Karen Armstrongs excellent book "A History of God*" looks in erudite depth at the commonalities and influences of the three religions on each other. Her perspective tends to be from a lapsed Catholicism, but nonetheless useful.
Rayner: "Let me contextualise it. It's a phrase that you would hear very often in northern working class town ... we'd even say it jovially to other people."
Oh that's just pathetic - just own it, Angela, you know very well what you were doing and no one is going to believe that explanation. If you're brand is to be blunt and honest, as you see it, just stick to that brand.
Let me contextualise it Angela. Gobshite fishwife is a phrase that we will hear very often on the doorsteps...without the joviality.
However, she has overshadowed Skyr at the start of the conference. Job done.
Well of course she cannot really be criticised by him or others in Labour for it, even if they do not personally like that sort of language, since who would want to be painted as sticking up for the Tories, who as we know are indeed scum (of a jovial sort perhaps).
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
Any other time in history and so would the current bunch in power.
I think that says a lot about where we are as a society - and we are all to blame, you, me and the neighbour down the road - its all about soundbites and as soon as they are tasked with something as complex and intense such as what we are dealing with right now - or even what we have endured in the past year - they are reliant on external sources to save their backsides - hence why we seen Shapps today blaming the RHA for the current petrol shortages - because nothing, absolutely nothing can be a politicians fault.
We saw it after Suez, Vietnam, the Cod War - its always external sources, never the ones who make the decisions.
We as a society - not just here - but worldwide deserve so much better than the leaders we have currently.
Part of the problem is the belief in the cult of The Infallible Leader. It's not just in politics.
A politician who publicly admitted that "well, my idea on that didn't work. Let's try a different idea." would be nailed to a tree.
Same in business. With some notable exceptions.
There was a recent interview/walk around with Elon Musk at his space ship build site in Texas. He is having an update with the site manager building the launch stand. For the largest rocket in human history. At one point the manager guy says that they (including himself) had got the design/implementation partly wrong, and they were changing it. Also that they'd run out of parts due to scheduling issues and he was flying in stuff to fix it.
Instead of burning the guys to the ground for fucking up and wasting money, Elon ok'd the fixes in a relaxed manner and mused on the issue of trying to design and build something like this, when you can't know what The Right Thing is.
There is the chance of an outlier, like that previous YouGov, but beyond that it is unlikely given that there seems to be very little the Tories can do that will stop 40% or so of the electorate supporting them.
Rayner: "Let me contextualise it. It's a phrase that you would hear very often in northern working class town ... we'd even say it jovially to other people."
Rayner: "Let me contextualise it. It's a phrase that you would hear very often in northern working class town ... we'd even say it jovially to other people."
Contextualising the word 'scum' is pretty simple. It may shore up support from those who already support you. Under Rayner, Bootle and Walton are safe. But it will be heard by WWC Tory voters as an invitation to carry on doing so as Labour certainly don't want your support. And may possibly be heard in Hampstead, Putney and Canterbury as an indication that Labour is in the hands of people who don't want the votes of virtue signallers who send their children to private schools and speak proper and can say 'We are better than vile Tory scum' without a glottal stop in sight.
Rayner: "Let me contextualise it. It's a phrase that you would hear very often in northern working class town ... we'd even say it jovially to other people."
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.
I don't really follow your point at all, I'm with HYUFD on this one.
There are fundamental differences in understanding between the three as to the nature of God, but that's just it, they appear to believe in broadly the same historical and theological basis of that God, but differ in interpretation and understanding of that God.
From the outside I'd say to be a 'different' God it would need to be an entirely different tradition and belief structure, it's not like the interpretations and different understandings are akin to believing in Ahura Mazda or Aten.
I would say that if you have a fundamentally different understanding of God, and His purposes, then you are not praying to the same God. Prayer being an attempt to establish an alignment between your life and God's purposes.
Karen Armstrongs excellent book "A History of God*" looks in erudite depth at the commonalities and influences of the three religions on each other. Her perspective tends to be from a lapsed Catholicism, but nonetheless useful.
* actually a history of Theology
There are divisions between religions, even divisions within Christianity eg between Catholics who accept the authority of the Pope as the direct descendant of St Peter and Protestants who don't and High Church or liberal Anglicans and evangelical Protestants who are largely purely bible based. Islam too is divided between Sunni and Shia Islam.
However it is also sensible in the modern age to emphasise what unites religions as well as just divides, including the unity of worshipping the same God of Abraham that unites Christians, Muslims and Jews
Rayner: "Let me contextualise it. It's a phrase that you would hear very often in northern working class town ... we'd even say it jovially to other people."
Oh that's just pathetic - just own it, Angela, you know very well what you were doing and no one is going to believe that explanation. If you're brand is to be blunt and honest, as you see it, just stick to that brand.
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.
I don't really follow your point at all, I'm with HYUFD on this one.
There are fundamental differences in understanding between the three as to the nature of God, but that's just it, they appear to believe in broadly the same historical and theological basis of that God, but differ in interpretation and understanding of that God.
From the outside I'd say to be a 'different' God it would need to be an entirely different tradition and belief structure, it's not like the interpretations and different understandings are akin to believing in Ahura Mazda or Aten.
I would say that if you have a fundamentally different understanding of God, and His purposes, then you are not praying to the same God. Prayer being an attempt to establish an alignment between your life and God's purposes.
I can understand that in theory, but when they share so much history and foundation, I'd be inclined in the other direction. It's a starker difference, to be sure, but your theory seems not a million miles away from disputing whether other demoninations of Christianity or Islam are still part of the same faith - people have certainly believed in Christ but with big enough differences to be considered not true Christians by the mainstream, whilst they would argue they were still fundamentally the same.
Rayner: "Let me contextualise it. It's a phrase that you would hear very often in northern working class town ... we'd even say it jovially to other people."
If we hadn’t left the European Union we wouldn’t be able to introduce desperate, probably doomed, ideas designed to address problems caused by leaving the European Union.
Grant Shapps on #Marr just said that HGV driver shortages are no worse than they have been for years and the reason for current shortages is the Road Haulage Association briefing the press. 👀 https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1442072802719379457
After the tax rises the squirrel was France. This week it will be the lefty woke remainer press.
The problem with Raynor is one of the most deep rooted and incurable ills that afflict Labour. They genuinely believe that their party is morally superior. The evidence against this would make the most devout Franciscan monk quail and ask for help with his disbelief but it does not trouble people like her.
She genuinely believes that their policies show that they care more. Not more efficient or necessarily producing the most utilitarian outcome but more caring and that makes them better than those who do not support these policies for technical reasons like they don't work, they achieve the opposite of what they are designed to accomplish or they condemn the poor souls being "cared" for to a life of endless misery.
Tactically, this is a very good position for those who have aspirations to lead the party. This belief is widespread amongst the membership. It is why Labour in Scotland still fight with and rant against the Tories when they are being wiped out by the SNP. It's why thick anti-Semites like Corbyn win the leadership, twice. It may work for her too.
Of course, it completely repels people like me who are socially liberal, concerned about inequality and have no doubt that the harshness of the market needs tempering and management. It reminds me all too vividly of church goers so brilliantly lampooned in Holy Willie's Prayer 200 years ago. I am not looking for moral self satisfaction, I am looking for policies that are both deliverable and will genuinely help. I am not seeing them.
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
Any other time in history and so would the current bunch in power.
I think that says a lot about where we are as a society - and we are all to blame, you, me and the neighbour down the road - its all about soundbites and as soon as they are tasked with something as complex and intense such as what we are dealing with right now - or even what we have endured in the past year - they are reliant on external sources to save their backsides - hence why we seen Shapps today blaming the RHA for the current petrol shortages - because nothing, absolutely nothing can be a politicians fault.
We saw it after Suez, Vietnam, the Cod War - its always external sources, never the ones who make the decisions.
We as a society - not just here - but worldwide deserve so much better than the leaders we have currently.
Part of the problem is the belief in the cult of The Infallible Leader. It's not just in politics.
A politician who publicly admitted that "well, my idea on that didn't work. Let's try a different idea." would be nailed to a tree.
Same in business. With some notable exceptions.
There was a recent interview/walk around with Elon Musk at his space ship build site in Texas. He is having an update with the site manager building the launch stand. For the largest rocket in human history. At one point the manager guy says that they (including himself) had got the design/implementation partly wrong, and they were changing it. Also that they'd run out of parts due to scheduling issues and he was flying in stuff to fix it.
Instead of burning the guys to the ground for fucking up and wasting money, Elon ok'd the fixes in a relaxed manner and mused on the issue of trying to design and build something like this, when you can't know what The Right Thing is.
Problem is we all know that you have to be able to acknowledge your mistakes, or problems, and to deny it out of stubborness is harmful, but as you say we don't follow it in practice. When a boss says they are open to all ideas or welcome the raising of problems, we all know that is usually bullshit. Genuine Musk's are rare indeed.
Rayner: "Let me contextualise it. It's a phrase that you would hear very often in northern working class town ... we'd even say it jovially to other people."
Contextualising the word 'scum' is pretty simple. It may shore up support from those who already support you. Under Rayner, Bootle and Walton are safe. But it will be heard by WWC Tory voters as an invitation to carry on doing so as Labour certainly don't want your support. And may possibly be heard in Hampstead, Putney and Canterbury as an indication that Labour is in the hands of people who don't want the votes of virtue signallers who send their children to private schools and speak proper and can say 'We are better than vile Tory scum' without a glottal stop in sight.
Indeed, Rayner's remarks will win over no 2019 Tory voters, indeed it might even send some currently middle class Labour voters to the LDs or Greens.
They will certainly not appeal beyond the core Labour vote
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
Any other time in history and so would the current bunch in power.
I think that says a lot about where we are as a society - and we are all to blame, you, me and the neighbour down the road - its all about soundbites and as soon as they are tasked with something as complex and intense such as what we are dealing with right now - or even what we have endured in the past year - they are reliant on external sources to save their backsides - hence why we seen Shapps today blaming the RHA for the current petrol shortages - because nothing, absolutely nothing can be a politicians fault.
We saw it after Suez, Vietnam, the Cod War - its always external sources, never the ones who make the decisions.
We as a society - not just here - but worldwide deserve so much better than the leaders we have currently.
Part of the problem is the belief in the cult of The Infallible Leader. It's not just in politics.
A politician who publicly admitted that "well, my idea on that didn't work. Let's try a different idea." would be nailed to a tree.
Same in business. With some notable exceptions.
There was a recent interview/walk around with Elon Musk at his space ship build site in Texas. He is having an update with the site manager building the launch stand. For the largest rocket in human history. At one point the manager guy says that they (including himself) had got the design/implementation partly wrong, and they were changing it. Also that they'd run out of parts due to scheduling issues and he was flying in stuff to fix it.
Instead of burning the guys to the ground for fucking up and wasting money, Elon ok'd the fixes in a relaxed manner and mused on the issue of trying to design and build something like this, when you can't know what The Right Thing is.
That sort of attitude is common at cutting-edge innovative businesses. We don’t necessarily know what works best, but we’ll do this, and if it doesn’t work then we’ll do that.
See also Silicon Valley, and Formula 1.
There’s something quite likeable, about SpaceX being willing to do their development in such a public way. Oh well, there will be a few smoking holes in the ground along the way, but we’ll end up with something brilliant - and much faster than the old way of spending a decade designing it, before slowly and carefully building one piece.
The problem with Raynor is one of the most deep rooted and incurable ills that afflict Labour. They genuinely believe that their party is morally superior.
As a lifelong Conservative and Unionist voter I also thought Labours' moral superiority was unjustified.
Until BoZo.
Labour are unquestionably morally superior to him and his cohort.
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.
Have a good Sunday.
It must be a great comfort to know "plenty of others who feel exactly this way" but winning power in a democracy means persuading others who don't. Branding them as scum isn't clever.
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.
I don't really follow your point at all, I'm with HYUFD on this one.
There are fundamental differences in understanding between the three as to the nature of God, but that's just it, they appear to believe in broadly the same historical and theological basis of that God, but differ in interpretation and understanding of that God.
From the outside I'd say to be a 'different' God it would need to be an entirely different tradition and belief structure, it's not like the interpretations and different understandings are akin to believing in Ahura Mazda or Aten.
I would say that if you have a fundamentally different understanding of God, and His purposes, then you are not praying to the same God. Prayer being an attempt to establish an alignment between your life and God's purposes.
Karen Armstrongs excellent book "A History of God*" looks in erudite depth at the commonalities and influences of the three religions on each other. Her perspective tends to be from a lapsed Catholicism, but nonetheless useful.
* actually a history of Theology
When you pray no-one has a clue whether they are praying to God or not. But monotheism axiomatically (the clue is in the name) believes that there is a maximum of one God to pray to. You can't have a group of people (say the population of planet earth) praying in fact to a multiplicity of monotheistic Gods. There is either one or none of such Gods. No-one has any knowledge of which of these propositions is true.
These simple and obvious truths assist people to be liberal and tolerant.
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
It is quite a stark contrast
Labour don't need a Blair, they could scrape in in 2023/24 in a hung parliament with SNP and LD support, they not need a 1997 style 179 seat majority.
If Starmer gets in it will be more like the narrow Wilson win of 1964 or the narrow Cameron win of 2010 than Blair's landslide.
Plus we are only 11 years into the Tories in power, so this is closer to 1990 than 1993/1994 and Starmer is therefore closer to Kinnock on that basis than Blair
But they need a Blair to win a majority. They need a brilliant, charismatic centrist leader who can still please the Left. While sounding a bit Tory. And also someone who can win back a chunk of Scotland
That their best hope is ‘scraping to a hung parliament’ after four lost general elections says it all
Labour aren't going to win a majority anytime soon and certainly not unless they can win back most of Scotland from the SNP agreed.
Burnham is probably their best bet as the only potential Labour leader who could win back the redwall. Otherwise until he returns as an MP then their best bet is a hung parliament and Starmer PM with LD and SNP backing
Rayner: "Let me contextualise it. It's a phrase that you would hear very often in northern working class town ... we'd even say it jovially to other people."
Contextualising the word 'scum' is pretty simple. It may shore up support from those who already support you. Under Rayner, Bootle and Walton are safe. But it will be heard by WWC Tory voters as an invitation to carry on doing so as Labour certainly don't want your support. And may possibly be heard in Hampstead, Putney and Canterbury as an indication that Labour is in the hands of people who don't want the votes of virtue signallers who send their children to private schools and speak proper and can say 'We are better than vile Tory scum' without a glottal stop in sight.
Why would it not make them pause and think , why do a large part of the population think we are scumbags. Perhaps they would reflect and realise the error of their ways and gain some morals and principles and start thinking about more than just themselves and how much they can milk from the plebs.
I do think there is a possibility that we have finally reached a tipping point here. Next few polls will be worth watching. Politically, the problem is that Labour are so useless at the moment that they are incapable of pressing home an advantage. But definitely, an opportunity for more Tory-LD movement.
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
All tory voters are scum but Rayner used the word to refer to tory ministers.
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
Any other time in history and so would the current bunch in power.
I think that says a lot about where we are as a society - and we are all to blame, you, me and the neighbour down the road - its all about soundbites and as soon as they are tasked with something as complex and intense such as what we are dealing with right now - or even what we have endured in the past year - they are reliant on external sources to save their backsides - hence why we seen Shapps today blaming the RHA for the current petrol shortages - because nothing, absolutely nothing can be a politicians fault.
We saw it after Suez, Vietnam, the Cod War - its always external sources, never the ones who make the decisions.
We as a society - not just here - but worldwide deserve so much better than the leaders we have currently.
In a democracy you get the leaders you deserve, you voted for them
In this Union of consent you get the leaders England votes for, whether you deserve it or not.
On current polling it is perfectly possible Starmer becomes PM thanks to SNP support in a hung parliament despite another Tory majority in England
Rayner: "Let me contextualise it. It's a phrase that you would hear very often in northern working class town ... we'd even say it jovially to other people."
4d per day in Summer, 5d in Winter. Actually since we are progressive, and they *do* have a skill, give 'em the full half shilling.
It's all there in Henry VIII's act of 1515.
The villeins are revolting....
A joke but there are indeed many who would be happy to reduce workers to the lowest level as long as they could be the Lord Fauntleroy.
I used to know some people in the Sealed Knot thing. They all said that the higher a rank in 17th cent. society that someone wanted to play was in direct proportion to what a *scum*bag they were.
The best bloke, I recall meeting, did brewing. So rocked up at the events with large quantities of home made beer and sold the same at cheap prices.
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.
Somewhat agree there.
The bit of Nandy I heard was impressive; whilst imo Rayner sounded like her twitter feed.
The problem with Raynor is one of the most deep rooted and incurable ills that afflict Labour. They genuinely believe that their party is morally superior. The evidence against this would make the most devout Franciscan monk quail and ask for help with his disbelief but it does not trouble people like her.
She genuinely believes that their policies show that they care more. Not more efficient or necessarily producing the most utilitarian outcome but more caring and that makes them better than those who do not support these policies for technical reasons like they don't work, they achieve the opposite of what they are designed to accomplish or they condemn the poor souls being "cared" for to a life of endless misery.
Tactically, this is a very good position for those who have aspirations to lead the party. This belief is widespread amongst the membership. It is why Labour in Scotland still fight with and rant against the Tories when they are being wiped out by the SNP. It's why thick anti-Semites like Corbyn win the leadership, twice. It may work for her too.
Of course, it completely repels people like me who are socially liberal, concerned about inequality and have no doubt that the harshness of the market needs tempering and management. It reminds me all too vividly of church goers so brilliantly lampooned in Holy Willie's Prayer 200 years ago. I am not looking for moral self satisfaction, I am looking for policies that are both deliverable and will genuinely help. I am not seeing them.
You will never see them from the Tories either David, two cheeks of the same morally superior arse. Unfortunate that the SNP have decided to model themselves on this flawed model nowadays as well. The scum truly has risen to the top.
Rayner: "Let me contextualise it. It's a phrase that you would hear very often in northern working class town ... we'd even say it jovially to other people."
Contextualising the word 'scum' is pretty simple. It may shore up support from those who already support you. Under Rayner, Bootle and Walton are safe. But it will be heard by WWC Tory voters as an invitation to carry on doing so as Labour certainly don't want your support. And may possibly be heard in Hampstead, Putney and Canterbury as an indication that Labour is in the hands of people who don't want the votes of virtue signallers who send their children to private schools and speak proper and can say 'We are better than vile Tory scum' without a glottal stop in sight.
Why would it not make them pause and think , why do a large part of the population think we are scumbags. Perhaps they would reflect and realise the error of their ways and gain some morals and principles and start thinking about more than just themselves and how much they can milk from the plebs.
In a country where all major parties including the Tories agree on: massive redistribution of wealth to those in need, an NHS free at the point of need, borrowing hundreds of billions to help the needy in a crisis, free education to age 18, universal state pensions........... it is hard to know where to start.
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”
Yep, it’s not going to work but it does (at a cost to the Government) move the problem back to haulage companies.
Speaking to a friend yesterday, her son wishes to be a lorry driver but it takes time to find the £3k + to pay for the course as most haulage firms won’t pay for the training of new drivers.
That needs to be highlighted way more prominently to ensure the industry changes it shortsightedness.
Why aren’t the firms paying for the course? Disgraceful
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.
I haven't seen a bank manager for years and years. Is that where they have all gone?
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.
I like to focus on relationships to, and understandings of, the same God. In a caricature...
For Christianity vs Islam, I'd say that the thing that key differences are incarnation (God entering his world, supremely himself as Christ) and redemption in Christianity, neither of which exist in Islam.
Which imo is why Islam sees a very distant God, and has to keep invoking "Inshallah" ("if Allah wills it"), because they don't know due to the lack of an incarnation and a model, and because of the lack of incarnation they can't be sure.
I incline to a Christian view.
I think that, coming closer to home, that is perhaps a key underlying cultural difference between the West and the Middle East - one is activist about whatever, the other more laid back and tolerating about it.
And Judaism? Sitting at the table eating a delicious lunch, whilst the others have their furious arguments with each other in the corner.
I reckon the BBC want Starmer out. They know he’s a dud and want him replaced.
Representing the nation well then...
Bring on PM Rayner!
Though I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'.
Sometimes I think you remind people of such things like that because you want to face a furious reaction.
I don't think the point needs to be belaboured, so I'll just content myself by saying I don't see how having a baby, unmarried or not, confers morality on someone, and certainly does not confer disadvantages on their governing ability.
My mum gave birth at 18 but you'll be glad to know she did get married before then.
Yes. Their God expects you to tell him or her how wonderful 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.
Ummm…it’s *the same* God.
S/he needs to sort out the communication, then, since self-contradiction isn't a good look for the omnipotent.
There is, to be pedantic, no English pronoun that clearly describes God. In Hebrew and Arabic God is referred to as neither male nor female, but there is no non-clumsy way of describing a person as ‘it’ in English, so ‘he’ was used as a shortcut.
'They' would seem appropriate for the trinitarian deity ?
(Autocorrect prefers Trinidadian, but I caught it in time.)
Rayner: "Let me contextualise it. It's a phrase that you would hear very often in northern working class town ... we'd even say it jovially to other people."
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.
To a materialist like myself I hear you making a distinction between biological sex and gender identity and what I'm thinking is that biological sex has material meaning - there are implications for healthcare differences (e.g. see the scandals about medications only tested on men that work differently in women) - and gender identity sort of sounds like what football team someone supports.
Why should I care? What difference does it make?
I'd say you shouldn't care overly since who it makes the big difference to are that small minority whose legal gender differs from their birth sex.
The problem with Raynor is one of the most deep rooted and incurable ills that afflict Labour. They genuinely believe that their party is morally superior. The evidence against this would make the most devout Franciscan monk quail and ask for help with his disbelief but it does not trouble people like her.
She genuinely believes that their policies show that they care more. Not more efficient or necessarily producing the most utilitarian outcome but more caring and that makes them better than those who do not support these policies for technical reasons like they don't work, they achieve the opposite of what they are designed to accomplish or they condemn the poor souls being "cared" for to a life of endless misery.
Tactically, this is a very good position for those who have aspirations to lead the party. This belief is widespread amongst the membership. It is why Labour in Scotland still fight with and rant against the Tories when they are being wiped out by the SNP. It's why thick anti-Semites like Corbyn win the leadership, twice. It may work for her too.
Of course, it completely repels people like me who are socially liberal, concerned about inequality and have no doubt that the harshness of the market needs tempering and management. It reminds me all too vividly of church goers so brilliantly lampooned in Holy Willie's Prayer 200 years ago. I am not looking for moral self satisfaction, I am looking for policies that are both deliverable and will genuinely help. I am not seeing them.
Yep. There are some Tory policies that are simply morally wrong. But all parties do good and bad. Labour's BS on anti-semitism was also wrong.
Comments
However, in the longer term we have to pay more, improve working conditions, stop exploitation of the drivers by the bosses who just want lots of cheap labour
The new training and incentives schemes being introduced will help but it is not an overnight solution
I think that says a lot about where we are as a society - and we are all to blame, you, me and the neighbour down the road - its all about soundbites and as soon as they are tasked with something as complex and intense such as what we are dealing with right now - or even what we have endured in the past year - they are reliant on external sources to save their backsides - hence why we seen Shapps today blaming the RHA for the current petrol shortages - because nothing, absolutely nothing can be a politicians fault.
We saw it after Suez, Vietnam, the Cod War - its always external sources, never the ones who make the decisions.
We as a society - not just here - but worldwide deserve so much better than the leaders we have currently.
It's all there in Henry VIII's act of 1515.
The villeins are revolting....
Why should I care? What difference does it make?
There are fundamental differences in understanding between the three as to the nature of God, but that's just it, they appear to believe in broadly the same historical and theological basis of that God, but differ in interpretation and understanding of that God.
From the outside I'd say to be a 'different' God it would need to be an entirely different tradition and belief structure, it's not like the interpretations and different understandings are akin to believing in Ahura Mazda or Aten.
We have a shortage of HGV drivers caused by Brexit.
This has led to food shortages caused by Brexit
And fuel shortages caused by Brexit.
A shortage of turkeys at Christmas caused by Brexit, and disruptions to deliveries of gifts caused by Brexit might herald a dip in BoZo's popularity.
When the public turns against the chief figurehead of Brexit because Brexit is a total clusterfuck, they are not going to turn to other cheerleaders of Brexit to resolve the Brexit issues caused by Brexit
If Starmer gets in it will be more like the narrow Wilson win of 1964 or the narrow Cameron win of 2010 than Blair's landslide.
Plus we are only 11 years into the Tories in power, so this is closer to 1990 than 1993/1994 and Starmer is therefore closer to Kinnock on that basis than Blair
Rayner: "Let me contextualise it. It's a phrase that you would hear very often in northern working class town ... we'd even say it jovially to other people."
https://twitter.com/WJames_Reuters/status/1442030917564960771
Who is to blame most for the HGV driver shortage
Brexit 36%
Pandemic 27%
Both 23%
Neither 8%
So you are in the 36% camp
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1442051093060538368?s=19
Scott's knowledge of them comes from twatter.
Grant Shapps there, reaching peak Grant Shapps.
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1442045916874256386
Grant Shapps on #Marr just said that HGV driver shortages are no worse than they have been for years and the reason for current shortages is the Road Haulage Association briefing the press. 👀
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1442072802719379457
As both claims are unknowable dim people simply draw attention to the weaknesses of the other side from the one they take. Of which there are of course an infinity.
That their best hope is ‘scraping to a hung parliament’ after four lost general elections says it all
New Observer / Opinium poll
Voters, including Leave voters, blame Brexit for the current HGV crisis.
68% think Brexit is completely / partly to blame.
24% think it is not really / not to blame
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/sep/25/european-lorry-drivers-will-not-want-to-come-to-uk-warn-haulage-chiefs https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1442048881165017091/photo/1
"We urge the Government to ensure its Brexit negotiations afford special status to logistics and allow for this (EU Drivers) employment to continue so that the industry is not hit by another driver shortage crisis"
https://logistics.org.uk/press-releases/20161027-fta-driver-shortage-report-analysis-highlights-reliance-on-eu-nationals
https://twitter.com/JibbaJabb/status/1442067281060810752
However, she has overshadowed Skyr at the start of the conference. Job done.
Karen Armstrongs excellent book "A History of God*" looks in erudite depth at the commonalities and influences of the three religions on each other. Her perspective tends to be from a lapsed Catholicism, but nonetheless useful.
* actually a history of Theology
A politician who publicly admitted that "well, my idea on that didn't work. Let's try a different idea." would be nailed to a tree.
Same in business. With some notable exceptions.
There was a recent interview/walk around with Elon Musk at his space ship build site in Texas. He is having an update with the site manager building the launch stand. For the largest rocket in human history. At one point the manager guy says that they (including himself) had got the design/implementation partly wrong, and they were changing it. Also that they'd run out of parts due to scheduling issues and he was flying in stuff to fix it.
Instead of burning the guys to the ground for fucking up and wasting money, Elon ok'd the fixes in a relaxed manner and mused on the issue of trying to design and build something like this, when you can't know what The Right Thing is.
Opinium actually qualified it with
But ......
And then posted this
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1442051093060538368?s=19
Like strike breakers etc.....
However it is also sensible in the modern age to emphasise what unites religions as well as just divides, including the unity of worshipping the same God of Abraham that unites Christians, Muslims and Jews
She genuinely believes that their policies show that they care more. Not more efficient or necessarily producing the most utilitarian outcome but more caring and that makes them better than those who do not support these policies for technical reasons like they don't work, they achieve the opposite of what they are designed to accomplish or they condemn the poor souls being "cared" for to a life of endless misery.
Tactically, this is a very good position for those who have aspirations to lead the party. This belief is widespread amongst the membership. It is why Labour in Scotland still fight with and rant against the Tories when they are being wiped out by the SNP. It's why thick anti-Semites like Corbyn win the leadership, twice. It may work for her too.
Of course, it completely repels people like me who are socially liberal, concerned about inequality and have no doubt that the harshness of the market needs tempering and management. It reminds me all too vividly of church goers so brilliantly lampooned in Holy Willie's Prayer 200 years ago. I am not looking for moral self satisfaction, I am looking for policies that are both deliverable and will genuinely help. I am not seeing them.
They will certainly not appeal beyond the core Labour vote
See also Silicon Valley, and Formula 1.
There’s something quite likeable, about SpaceX being willing to do their development in such a public way. Oh well, there will be a few smoking holes in the ground along the way, but we’ll end up with something brilliant - and much faster than the old way of spending a decade designing it, before slowly and carefully building one piece.
Until BoZo.
Labour are unquestionably morally superior to him and his cohort.
These simple and obvious truths assist people to be liberal and tolerant.
Like all PBers).
Burnham is probably their best bet as the only potential Labour leader who could win back the redwall. Otherwise until he returns as an MP then their best bet is a hung parliament and Starmer PM with LD and SNP backing
The best bloke, I recall meeting, did brewing. So rocked up at the events with large quantities of home made beer and sold the same at cheap prices.
The bit of Nandy I heard was impressive; whilst imo Rayner sounded like her twitter feed.
For Christianity vs Islam, I'd say that the thing that key differences are incarnation (God entering his world, supremely himself as Christ) and redemption in Christianity, neither of which exist in Islam.
Which imo is why Islam sees a very distant God, and has to keep invoking "Inshallah" ("if Allah wills it"), because they don't know due to the lack of an incarnation and a model, and because of the lack of incarnation they can't be sure.
I incline to a Christian view.
I think that, coming closer to home, that is perhaps a key underlying cultural difference between the West and the Middle East - one is activist about whatever, the other more laid back and tolerating about it.
And Judaism? Sitting at the table eating a delicious lunch, whilst the others have their furious arguments with each other in the corner.
I don't think the point needs to be belaboured, so I'll just content myself by saying I don't see how having a baby, unmarried or not, confers morality on someone, and certainly does not confer disadvantages on their governing ability.
My mum gave birth at 18 but you'll be glad to know she did get married before then.
(Autocorrect prefers Trinidadian, but I caught it in time.)
Constitutional inability to back down when necessary.