Good people of PB, looking to take a straw poll. Have panto tickets booked for 29th Dec (England). How likely do you think restrictions *that would prevent that event taking place* being imposed? Asking as have the option to buy tickets for Boxing Day instead, though that risks ending up wiht two pairs of tickets if everything goes ahead
It seems anything post Christmas has to be guidance unless the HOC is recalled which is unlikely before Wednesday/Thursday 29th/30th
Keir Starmer suggests Labour will hold back in seats where the Liberal Democrats are best placed to defeat Tory MPs at the next election
This intvw with @ayeshahazarika is the furthest he's gone to suggest an informal pact with other opposition parties
This would clearly be a sensible move - but let's see if this actually goes ahead as we've heard this before
Capitulation
Common sense - if Farage had stood down in the last election Boris would have had a 120 seat majority rather than 80.
There are a whole set of seats where it makes sense for Labour to stand down and use their campaigners in a neighbouring seat. For instance let the Lib Dems have Chesham, Beaconsfield and St Albans while labour focus on Hemel Hempstead, High Wycombe, Watford and Uxbridge.
It is utterly pointless from a Labour POV, putting any money into Guildford and Winchester.
If you are a Corbynite only a Labour majority will do. After the LDs went into government with the Tories in 2010 for them a vote for the LDs rather than Labour is just a vote for Tory lite
Horseshit. By your own definition you are not a Tory anyway having voted for ANOTHER PARTY. So you can't even harrumph about your current party any more never mind your previous party or any others.
What point are you poorly attempting to make here?
My original one, for Corbynites only a Labour majority will do.
After the 2010 to 2015 Tory and LD coalition the LDs are not trusted by the leftwing of the Labour Party
After the 2010 to 2015 coalition, you'd hope Keir Starmer has an actual agreement with the LibDems and is not simply trusting his own political instincts. For one thing, if the LibDems do well at the next election, will the new MPs be able to outvote Ed Davey on whether to cuddle up with the red blanket or the blue?
An agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on. Arithmetic is what matters.
If following the next election the Tories have 310 seats and the LDs 20 it'll be plausible enough for the Tories to end up continuing as a minority government even if Lab+LD+SNP+PC+GREEN totals more seats than Tories alone.
Watching the Tory Party governing with 310 seats would be a laugh and a half that's for sure.
Keir Starmer suggests Labour will hold back in seats where the Liberal Democrats are best placed to defeat Tory MPs at the next election
This intvw with @ayeshahazarika is the furthest he's gone to suggest an informal pact with other opposition parties
This would clearly be a sensible move - but let's see if this actually goes ahead as we've heard this before
Capitulation
Common sense - if Farage had stood down in the last election Boris would have had a 120 seat majority rather than 80.
There are a whole set of seats where it makes sense for Labour to stand down and use their campaigners in a neighbouring seat. For instance let the Lib Dems have Chesham, Beaconsfield and St Albans while labour focus on Hemel Hempstead, High Wycombe, Watford and Uxbridge.
It is utterly pointless from a Labour POV, putting any money into Guildford and Winchester.
If you are a Corbynite only a Labour majority will do. After the LDs went into government with the Tories in 2010 for them a vote for the LDs rather than Labour is just a vote for Tory lite
Horseshit. By your own definition you are not a Tory anyway having voted for ANOTHER PARTY. So you can't even harrumph about your current party any more never mind your previous party or any others.
What point are you poorly attempting to make here?
My original one, for Corbynites only a Labour majority will do.
After the 2010 to 2015 Tory and LD coalition the LDs are not trusted by the leftwing of the Labour Party
After the 2010 to 2015 coalition, you'd hope Keir Starmer has an actual agreement with the LibDems and is not simply trusting his own political instincts. For one thing, if the LibDems do well at the next election, will the new MPs be able to outvote Ed Davey on whether to cuddle up with the red blanket or the blue?
No. In the Liberal Democrats any such decision would have to be approved by the membership, with whatever other party. Some of our PB posters think the Lib Dems work the same as the Tories and Labour - just a matter of follow-my-leader. They are wrong.
So Keir Starmer wants Labour not to compete with LibDems on the basis that LibDems *might* support Labour after an election, because Ed Davey will not be able to guarantee the members' vote. Genius is not the word. Has Starmer at least got a non-compete agreement?
Keir Starmer suggests Labour will hold back in seats where the Liberal Democrats are best placed to defeat Tory MPs at the next election
This intvw with @ayeshahazarika is the furthest he's gone to suggest an informal pact with other opposition parties
This would clearly be a sensible move - but let's see if this actually goes ahead as we've heard this before
Capitulation
Common sense - if Farage had stood down in the last election Boris would have had a 120 seat majority rather than 80.
There are a whole set of seats where it makes sense for Labour to stand down and use their campaigners in a neighbouring seat. For instance let the Lib Dems have Chesham, Beaconsfield and St Albans while labour focus on Hemel Hempstead, High Wycombe, Watford and Uxbridge.
It is utterly pointless from a Labour POV, putting any money into Guildford and Winchester.
If you are a Corbynite only a Labour majority will do. After the LDs went into government with the Tories in 2010 for them a vote for the LDs rather than Labour is just a vote for Tory lite
Horseshit. By your own definition you are not a Tory anyway having voted for ANOTHER PARTY. So you can't even harrumph about your current party any more never mind your previous party or any others.
What point are you poorly attempting to make here?
My original one, for Corbynites only a Labour majority will do.
After the 2010 to 2015 Tory and LD coalition the LDs are not trusted by the leftwing of the Labour Party
After the 2010 to 2015 coalition, you'd hope Keir Starmer has an actual agreement with the LibDems and is not simply trusting his own political instincts. For one thing, if the LibDems do well at the next election, will the new MPs be able to outvote Ed Davey on whether to cuddle up with the red blanket or the blue?
No. In the Liberal Democrats any such decision would have to be approved by the membership, with whatever other party. Some of our PB posters think the Lib Dems work the same as the Tories and Labour - just a matter of follow-my-leader. They are wrong.
So Keir Starmer wants Labour not to compete with LibDems on the basis that LibDems *might* support Labour after an election, because Ed Davey will not be able to guarantee the members' vote. Genius is not the word. Has Starmer at least got a non-compete agreement?
Starmer isn't "not competing", he's just not bothering to put resources into certain seats.
I would imagine behind doors they have an agreement but to publicise it would undermine both sides so they will deny it
I don't know why people persist with the myth that Christmas has anything to do with a baby two thousand years ago.
I know, it’s the same at Easter. You can be perfectly happy eating chocolate mini eggs and using a few days off to redecorate the spare room, yet these annoying killjoys keep trying to bring religion into it.
Personally I think we need to take Easter back to its pagan roots. I am sick of it being perverted by all these recent add ons about crucifixions and caves.
It would be nice if schools could educate people about the real histories of holidays. There is some historical evidence to show that 25 December was a holiday to celebrity a birthday, but it was celebrating the birth of the Zoroastrian sun god Mithra not a baby.
The interconnections of a Persian sun god [as perceived by the Romans], Roman traditions and the Norse traditions all form a fascinating history of the festival we now know as Christmas and the traditions of food, merriment, drink and gifts etc that go with that have been celebrated now for well over two and a half thousand years.
Except for when the Puritans tried and failed to cancel it. So that brings cancel culture into the conversation too.
I wonder who was there to record Mithra's birth on 25th December? All this stuff is made up anyway so it doesn't really matter in the end which religion has overwritten the previous one. I like to see it as a way to celebrate the passing of the shortest day of the year and that Spring will be on the way.
Oh absolutely that's what its about. That's what its always been about.
Its just amusing when people bemoan feasting and drinking and gift giving etc as not being "the true meaning" of the holiday.
They literally are "the true meaning" and have been for about two and a half thousand years at least, minus the puritan era.
When the Church adopted Saturnalia as the birth of Jesus, society kept all the Pagan festivities which have largely passed through to today, despite the best wishes of the Puritans to stamp them out.
It’s funny how non-believers feel the need to denigrate other people’s faith.
It suggests a certain lack of confidence
I'm an agnostic, but I have the greatest respect for the moral teachings of Jesus, and envy those blessed with the certainty of belief*.
* Belief meaning certainty of either the existence or non-existence of God.
My facebook-friend-vicar usually posts lengthily at this time of year on the subject of how we've got the Christmas Story all wrong and the circumstances actually weren't small and unpromising and humble but great and triumphant, and God had provided the best entrance into the world possible for his son/himself; I often think that while he knows more theology than anyone else I might know, and he might technically be right, he is missing at least some aspects of the story's cultural significance beyond Christianity. But that's a separate point entirely.
Well I'm afraid your facebook-friend-vicar doesn't know as much theology as you seem to think, if that's his view.
Jesus was almost certainly not born in Bethlehem but in a humble little, and utterly insignificant, village called Nazareth near the important Sepphoris. When after his death the early followers decided, or believed, him to be their (latest) Christ it became a significant Messianic problem. The heir of David was supposed to have been born in Bethlehem according to one prophecy. The earliest gospel, Mark's, made no mention of Jesus' birth at all. Later, Luke, writing around 50 years after Jesus' death made up a census story (which is tripe) and shunted the holy family on a journey south to Bethlehem. He parked some shepherds into the manger to make it all seem very humble. Meanwhile Matthew, writing even later, decided to go the full monty on the kingly status of Jesus and made up a story about a star (which doesn't appear in Mark, Luke or John) and the Magi from the east (same).
The fact is that Jesus was a Northern nobody. His followers also had thick northern accents.
His birth was utterly humdrum.
The historicity of Jesus is a fascinating topic.
Do you mean 'the study of the historical Jesus?'
The 'historicity of Jesus' is a conspiracy theory by fundie pseudoscholars like Carrier, Murdock, Doherty and the Prices.
It’s a noun meaning historical authenticity. Don’t read anything more into it than that.
In New Testament studies it carries a definite meaning, I.e. the attempts to question whether Jesus was actually historically authentic. All such attempts having been consistently debunked as pseudoscholarly and in many cases actually fraudulent, peddled by religious fundies. So I'd advise you to steer clear of it.
Don't you mean atheist/anti-theist fundies? Be a bit strange if religious fundamentalists were peddling literature which questioned the existence of Jesus. But yeah, the majority of secular scholars - let alone actual Christian scholars - accept there was a historical Jesus, and those who don't are basically considered as reputable on the matter as Piers Corbyn is on Covid and Climatology.
Christmas is not on 25 December because it was the birthday of a Roman god, certainly not Mithras. See https://youtu.be/mWgzjwy51kU Christmas probably is on 25 December because that’s the traditional Roman date for the solstice.
Except for austerity which was a disaster, the Cameron-Clegg Government was competently run
No it wasn't. Leaving to one side what you or anyone else thinks of the policies, it can't be described as competently run government if neither the Cabinet nor Prime Minister knew what Lansley was doing to the NHS, or IDS doing to benefits.
Keir Starmer suggests Labour will hold back in seats where the Liberal Democrats are best placed to defeat Tory MPs at the next election
This intvw with @ayeshahazarika is the furthest he's gone to suggest an informal pact with other opposition parties
This would clearly be a sensible move - but let's see if this actually goes ahead as we've heard this before
Capitulation
Common sense - if Farage had stood down in the last election Boris would have had a 120 seat majority rather than 80.
There are a whole set of seats where it makes sense for Labour to stand down and use their campaigners in a neighbouring seat. For instance let the Lib Dems have Chesham, Beaconsfield and St Albans while labour focus on Hemel Hempstead, High Wycombe, Watford and Uxbridge.
It is utterly pointless from a Labour POV, putting any money into Guildford and Winchester.
If you are a Corbynite only a Labour majority will do. After the LDs went into government with the Tories in 2010 for them a vote for the LDs rather than Labour is just a vote for Tory lite
Horseshit. By your own definition you are not a Tory anyway having voted for ANOTHER PARTY. So you can't even harrumph about your current party any more never mind your previous party or any others.
So, by that logic the SNP should only talk about independence during Westminster elections.....
Here's a typical set of recent local election leaflets from them. Spot the difference with the Tory one which rabbits on independence first and foremose.
Except for austerity which was a disaster, the Cameron-Clegg Government was competently run
No it wasn't. Leaving to one side what you or anyone else thinks of the policies, it can't be described as competently run government if neither the Cabinet nor Prime Minister knew what Lansley was doing to the NHS, or IDS doing to benefits.
Keir Starmer suggests Labour will hold back in seats where the Liberal Democrats are best placed to defeat Tory MPs at the next election
This intvw with @ayeshahazarika is the furthest he's gone to suggest an informal pact with other opposition parties
This would clearly be a sensible move - but let's see if this actually goes ahead as we've heard this before
Capitulation
Common sense - if Farage had stood down in the last election Boris would have had a 120 seat majority rather than 80.
There are a whole set of seats where it makes sense for Labour to stand down and use their campaigners in a neighbouring seat. For instance let the Lib Dems have Chesham, Beaconsfield and St Albans while labour focus on Hemel Hempstead, High Wycombe, Watford and Uxbridge.
It is utterly pointless from a Labour POV, putting any money into Guildford and Winchester.
If you are a Corbynite only a Labour majority will do. After the LDs went into government with the Tories in 2010 for them a vote for the LDs rather than Labour is just a vote for Tory lite
Horseshit. By your own definition you are not a Tory anyway having voted for ANOTHER PARTY. So you can't even harrumph about your current party any more never mind your previous party or any others.
What point are you poorly attempting to make here?
My original one, for Corbynites only a Labour majority will do.
After the 2010 to 2015 Tory and LD coalition the LDs are not trusted by the leftwing of the Labour Party
After the 2010 to 2015 coalition, you'd hope Keir Starmer has an actual agreement with the LibDems and is not simply trusting his own political instincts. For one thing, if the LibDems do well at the next election, will the new MPs be able to outvote Ed Davey on whether to cuddle up with the red blanket or the blue?
An agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on. Arithmetic is what matters.
If following the next election the Tories have 310 seats and the LDs 20 it'll be plausible enough for the Tories to end up continuing as a minority government even if Lab+LD+SNP+PC+GREEN totals more seats than Tories alone.
A period of Lab+LD+SNP+PC+GREEN coalition would be fun to watch.
Not saying it would be an explosive mix. Just that it would make the Hindenburg look like a slow burn....
Would kill Coalition politics for decades and decades.
Not saying your wrong but do I detect fear in the keystrokes?
I don't know why people persist with the myth that Christmas has anything to do with a baby two thousand years ago.
I know, it’s the same at Easter. You can be perfectly happy eating chocolate mini eggs and using a few days off to redecorate the spare room, yet these annoying killjoys keep trying to bring religion into it.
Personally I think we need to take Easter back to its pagan roots. I am sick of it being perverted by all these recent add ons about crucifixions and caves.
It would be nice if schools could educate people about the real histories of holidays. There is some historical evidence to show that 25 December was a holiday to celebrity a birthday, but it was celebrating the birth of the Zoroastrian sun god Mithra not a baby.
The interconnections of a Persian sun god [as perceived by the Romans], Roman traditions and the Norse traditions all form a fascinating history of the festival we now know as Christmas and the traditions of food, merriment, drink and gifts etc that go with that have been celebrated now for well over two and a half thousand years.
Except for when the Puritans tried and failed to cancel it. So that brings cancel culture into the conversation too.
I wonder who was there to record Mithra's birth on 25th December? All this stuff is made up anyway so it doesn't really matter in the end which religion has overwritten the previous one. I like to see it as a way to celebrate the passing of the shortest day of the year and that Spring will be on the way.
Oh absolutely that's what its about. That's what its always been about.
Its just amusing when people bemoan feasting and drinking and gift giving etc as not being "the true meaning" of the holiday.
They literally are "the true meaning" and have been for about two and a half thousand years at least, minus the puritan era.
When the Church adopted Saturnalia as the birth of Jesus, society kept all the Pagan festivities which have largely passed through to today, despite the best wishes of the Puritans to stamp them out.
It’s funny how non-believers feel the need to denigrate other people’s faith.
It suggests a certain lack of confidence
I'm an agnostic, but I have the greatest respect for the moral teachings of Jesus, and envy those blessed with the certainty of belief*.
* Belief meaning certainty of either the existence or non-existence of God.
My facebook-friend-vicar usually posts lengthily at this time of year on the subject of how we've got the Christmas Story all wrong and the circumstances actually weren't small and unpromising and humble but great and triumphant, and God had provided the best entrance into the world possible for his son/himself; I often think that while he knows more theology than anyone else I might know, and he might technically be right, he is missing at least some aspects of the story's cultural significance beyond Christianity. But that's a separate point entirely.
Well I'm afraid your facebook-friend-vicar doesn't know as much theology as you seem to think, if that's his view.
Jesus was almost certainly not born in Bethlehem but in a humble little, and utterly insignificant, village called Nazareth near the important Sepphoris. When after his death the early followers decided, or believed, him to be their (latest) Christ it became a significant Messianic problem. The heir of David was supposed to have been born in Bethlehem according to one prophecy. The earliest gospel, Mark's, made no mention of Jesus' birth at all. Later, Luke, writing around 50 years after Jesus' death made up a census story (which is tripe) and shunted the holy family on a journey south to Bethlehem. He parked some shepherds into the manger to make it all seem very humble. Meanwhile Matthew, writing even later, decided to go the full monty on the kingly status of Jesus and made up a story about a star (which doesn't appear in Mark, Luke or John) and the Magi from the east (same).
The fact is that Jesus was a Northern nobody. His followers also had thick northern accents.
His birth was utterly humdrum.
The historicity of Jesus is a fascinating topic.
Do you mean 'the study of the historical Jesus?'
The 'historicity of Jesus' is a conspiracy theory by fundie pseudoscholars like Carrier, Murdock, Doherty and the Prices.
It’s a noun meaning historical authenticity. Don’t read anything more into it than that.
In New Testament studies it carries a definite meaning, I.e. the attempts to question whether Jesus was actually historically authentic. All such attempts having been consistently debunked as pseudoscholarly and in many cases actually fraudulent, peddled by religious fundies. So I'd advise you to steer clear of it.
Don't you mean atheist/anti-theist fundies? Be a bit strange if religious fundamentalists were peddling literature which questioned the existence of Jesus. But yeah, the majority of secular scholars - let alone actual Christian scholars - accept there was a historical Jesus, and those who don't are basically considered as reputable on the matter as Piers Corbyn is on Covid and Climatology.
Christmas is not on 25 December because it was the birthday of a Roman god, certainly not Mithras. See https://youtu.be/mWgzjwy51kU Christmas probably is on 25 December because that’s the traditional Roman date for the solstice.
Actually, it's a little more complex - the traditional date for the crucifixion in the early church was the spring solstice (the 25th March) and it was also held martyrs died on the date of their conception (hence the 25th March being the Feast of the Annunciation).
Keir Starmer suggests Labour will hold back in seats where the Liberal Democrats are best placed to defeat Tory MPs at the next election
This intvw with @ayeshahazarika is the furthest he's gone to suggest an informal pact with other opposition parties
This would clearly be a sensible move - but let's see if this actually goes ahead as we've heard this before
Capitulation
Common sense - if Farage had stood down in the last election Boris would have had a 120 seat majority rather than 80.
There are a whole set of seats where it makes sense for Labour to stand down and use their campaigners in a neighbouring seat. For instance let the Lib Dems have Chesham, Beaconsfield and St Albans while labour focus on Hemel Hempstead, High Wycombe, Watford and Uxbridge.
It is utterly pointless from a Labour POV, putting any money into Guildford and Winchester.
If you are a Corbynite only a Labour majority will do. After the LDs went into government with the Tories in 2010 for them a vote for the LDs rather than Labour is just a vote for Tory lite
Horseshit. By your own definition you are not a Tory anyway having voted for ANOTHER PARTY. So you can't even harrumph about your current party any more never mind your previous party or any others.
What point are you poorly attempting to make here?
My original one, for Corbynites only a Labour majority will do.
After the 2010 to 2015 Tory and LD coalition the LDs are not trusted by the leftwing of the Labour Party
After the 2010 to 2015 coalition, you'd hope Keir Starmer has an actual agreement with the LibDems and is not simply trusting his own political instincts. For one thing, if the LibDems do well at the next election, will the new MPs be able to outvote Ed Davey on whether to cuddle up with the red blanket or the blue?
An agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on. Arithmetic is what matters.
If following the next election the Tories have 310 seats and the LDs 20 it'll be plausible enough for the Tories to end up continuing as a minority government even if Lab+LD+SNP+PC+GREEN totals more seats than Tories alone.
A period of Lab+LD+SNP+PC+GREEN coalition would be fun to watch.
Not saying it would be an explosive mix. Just that it would make the Hindenburg look like a slow burn....
Would kill Coalition politics for decades and decades.
Not saying your wrong but do I detect fear in the keystrokes?
Keir Starmer suggests Labour will hold back in seats where the Liberal Democrats are best placed to defeat Tory MPs at the next election
This intvw with @ayeshahazarika is the furthest he's gone to suggest an informal pact with other opposition parties
This would clearly be a sensible move - but let's see if this actually goes ahead as we've heard this before
Capitulation
Common sense - if Farage had stood down in the last election Boris would have had a 120 seat majority rather than 80.
There are a whole set of seats where it makes sense for Labour to stand down and use their campaigners in a neighbouring seat. For instance let the Lib Dems have Chesham, Beaconsfield and St Albans while labour focus on Hemel Hempstead, High Wycombe, Watford and Uxbridge.
It is utterly pointless from a Labour POV, putting any money into Guildford and Winchester.
If you are a Corbynite only a Labour majority will do. After the LDs went into government with the Tories in 2010 for them a vote for the LDs rather than Labour is just a vote for Tory lite
Horseshit. By your own definition you are not a Tory anyway having voted for ANOTHER PARTY. So you can't even harrumph about your current party any more never mind your previous party or any others.
What point are you poorly attempting to make here?
My original one, for Corbynites only a Labour majority will do.
After the 2010 to 2015 Tory and LD coalition the LDs are not trusted by the leftwing of the Labour Party
After the 2010 to 2015 coalition, you'd hope Keir Starmer has an actual agreement with the LibDems and is not simply trusting his own political instincts. For one thing, if the LibDems do well at the next election, will the new MPs be able to outvote Ed Davey on whether to cuddle up with the red blanket or the blue?
No. In the Liberal Democrats any such decision would have to be approved by the membership, with whatever other party. Some of our PB posters think the Lib Dems work the same as the Tories and Labour - just a matter of follow-my-leader. They are wrong.
So Keir Starmer wants Labour not to compete with LibDems on the basis that LibDems *might* support Labour after an election, because Ed Davey will not be able to guarantee the members' vote. Genius is not the word. Has Starmer at least got a non-compete agreement?
Starmer isn't "not competing", he's just not bothering to put resources into certain seats.
I would imagine behind doors they have an agreement but to publicise it would undermine both sides so they will deny it
But that is what always happens. Parties don’t put resource into winnable seats. In my seat the Lib Dem candidate in 2005 and 2010 spent their time campaigning in the nearest winnable Lib Dem seat.
A paper candidate.
All parties target their resources at winnable seats
I don't know why people persist with the myth that Christmas has anything to do with a baby two thousand years ago.
I know, it’s the same at Easter. You can be perfectly happy eating chocolate mini eggs and using a few days off to redecorate the spare room, yet these annoying killjoys keep trying to bring religion into it.
Personally I think we need to take Easter back to its pagan roots. I am sick of it being perverted by all these recent add ons about crucifixions and caves.
It would be nice if schools could educate people about the real histories of holidays. There is some historical evidence to show that 25 December was a holiday to celebrity a birthday, but it was celebrating the birth of the Zoroastrian sun god Mithra not a baby.
The interconnections of a Persian sun god [as perceived by the Romans], Roman traditions and the Norse traditions all form a fascinating history of the festival we now know as Christmas and the traditions of food, merriment, drink and gifts etc that go with that have been celebrated now for well over two and a half thousand years.
Except for when the Puritans tried and failed to cancel it. So that brings cancel culture into the conversation too.
I wonder who was there to record Mithra's birth on 25th December? All this stuff is made up anyway so it doesn't really matter in the end which religion has overwritten the previous one. I like to see it as a way to celebrate the passing of the shortest day of the year and that Spring will be on the way.
Oh absolutely that's what its about. That's what its always been about.
Its just amusing when people bemoan feasting and drinking and gift giving etc as not being "the true meaning" of the holiday.
They literally are "the true meaning" and have been for about two and a half thousand years at least, minus the puritan era.
When the Church adopted Saturnalia as the birth of Jesus, society kept all the Pagan festivities which have largely passed through to today, despite the best wishes of the Puritans to stamp them out.
It’s funny how non-believers feel the need to denigrate other people’s faith.
It suggests a certain lack of confidence
I'm an agnostic, but I have the greatest respect for the moral teachings of Jesus, and envy those blessed with the certainty of belief*.
* Belief meaning certainty of either the existence or non-existence of God.
My facebook-friend-vicar usually posts lengthily at this time of year on the subject of how we've got the Christmas Story all wrong and the circumstances actually weren't small and unpromising and humble but great and triumphant, and God had provided the best entrance into the world possible for his son/himself; I often think that while he knows more theology than anyone else I might know, and he might technically be right, he is missing at least some aspects of the story's cultural significance beyond Christianity. But that's a separate point entirely.
Well I'm afraid your facebook-friend-vicar doesn't know as much theology as you seem to think, if that's his view.
Jesus was almost certainly not born in Bethlehem but in a humble little, and utterly insignificant, village called Nazareth near the important Sepphoris. When after his death the early followers decided, or believed, him to be their (latest) Christ it became a significant Messianic problem. The heir of David was supposed to have been born in Bethlehem according to one prophecy. The earliest gospel, Mark's, made no mention of Jesus' birth at all. Later, Luke, writing around 50 years after Jesus' death made up a census story (which is tripe) and shunted the holy family on a journey south to Bethlehem. He parked some shepherds into the manger to make it all seem very humble. Meanwhile Matthew, writing even later, decided to go the full monty on the kingly status of Jesus and made up a story about a star (which doesn't appear in Mark, Luke or John) and the Magi from the east (same).
The fact is that Jesus was a Northern nobody. His followers also had thick northern accents.
His birth was utterly humdrum.
The historicity of Jesus is a fascinating topic.
Do you mean 'the study of the historical Jesus?'
The 'historicity of Jesus' is a conspiracy theory by fundie pseudoscholars like Carrier, Murdock, Doherty and the Prices.
It’s a noun meaning historical authenticity. Don’t read anything more into it than that.
In New Testament studies it carries a definite meaning, I.e. the attempts to question whether Jesus was actually historically authentic. All such attempts having been consistently debunked as pseudoscholarly and in many cases actually fraudulent, peddled by religious fundies. So I'd advise you to steer clear of it.
Don't you mean atheist/anti-theist fundies? Be a bit strange if religious fundamentalists were peddling literature which questioned the existence of Jesus. But yeah, the majority of secular scholars - let alone actual Christian scholars - accept there was a historical Jesus, and those who don't are basically considered as reputable on the matter as Piers Corbyn is on Covid and Climatology.
Religious fundies can include atheist fundies. Carrier, for example,is a member of Atheism+ (or was until he was kicked out of it for his behaviour towards other members). Murdock was a New Age follower. The weirdest of the lot would be Thomas Brodie, who was a Catholic priest in a very odd splinter group.
Incidentally, it is not true to say 'the majority of secular scholars.' With the exception of Robert M. Price and Thomas Brodie, *all* secular actual scholars accept the existence of Jesus. Those who think otherwise are not scholars, they are amateur hobbyists. Even the likes of Philip R. Davis who believes the whole of the Bible is a fraud accepts Jesus existed (although he did once say the evidence was 'fragile').
Keir Starmer suggests Labour will hold back in seats where the Liberal Democrats are best placed to defeat Tory MPs at the next election
This intvw with @ayeshahazarika is the furthest he's gone to suggest an informal pact with other opposition parties
This would clearly be a sensible move - but let's see if this actually goes ahead as we've heard this before
Capitulation
Common sense - if Farage had stood down in the last election Boris would have had a 120 seat majority rather than 80.
There are a whole set of seats where it makes sense for Labour to stand down and use their campaigners in a neighbouring seat. For instance let the Lib Dems have Chesham, Beaconsfield and St Albans while labour focus on Hemel Hempstead, High Wycombe, Watford and Uxbridge.
It is utterly pointless from a Labour POV, putting any money into Guildford and Winchester.
If you are a Corbynite only a Labour majority will do. After the LDs went into government with the Tories in 2010 for them a vote for the LDs rather than Labour is just a vote for Tory lite
Horseshit. By your own definition you are not a Tory anyway having voted for ANOTHER PARTY. So you can't even harrumph about your current party any more never mind your previous party or any others.
What point are you poorly attempting to make here?
My original one, for Corbynites only a Labour majority will do.
After the 2010 to 2015 Tory and LD coalition the LDs are not trusted by the leftwing of the Labour Party
After the 2010 to 2015 coalition, you'd hope Keir Starmer has an actual agreement with the LibDems and is not simply trusting his own political instincts. For one thing, if the LibDems do well at the next election, will the new MPs be able to outvote Ed Davey on whether to cuddle up with the red blanket or the blue?
No. In the Liberal Democrats any such decision would have to be approved by the membership, with whatever other party. Some of our PB posters think the Lib Dems work the same as the Tories and Labour - just a matter of follow-my-leader. They are wrong.
So Keir Starmer wants Labour not to compete with LibDems on the basis that LibDems *might* support Labour after an election, because Ed Davey will not be able to guarantee the members' vote. Genius is not the word. Has Starmer at least got a non-compete agreement?
Starmer isn't "not competing", he's just not bothering to put resources into certain seats.
I would imagine behind doors they have an agreement but to publicise it would undermine both sides so they will deny it
Paper candidates have been run by every Party at every election. In fact, the vast majority of seats get virtually nothing spent on them centrally by any of them. Neither time nor money. Edit: See Taz made the point.
A period of Lab+LD+SNP+PC+GREEN coalition would be fun to watch.
Not saying it would be an explosive mix. Just that it would make the Hindenburg look like a slow burn....
Would kill Coalition politics for decades and decades.
On the other hand, a successful coalition might keep the Conservatives out of power for decades and decades which some may say would be no bad thing.
It wouldn't under FPTP as the Conservatives would have opposition all to themselves so would soon get midterm swingback.
Under PR all governments would be coalitions anyway
But, for the pRoGreSsIvE aLliaNcE brigade these would all be their glorious coalition of lab/lib dem and green.
Under PR they wouldn't.
Labour would split anyway with the Corbynites forming their own party which would win seats. Many on the right of the Tories would join RefUK who would also win seats.
Most governments would therefore be Starmer/Blairite Labour + Social Democrat LDs or Cameroon Conservatives + Orange Book LDs however. Plus occasionally the Greens and SNP and Corbynites supporting the former or RefUK supporting the latter.
Occasionally you may even get a Tory plus RefUK government eg 2015 saw the Tories plus UKIP on 50% voteshare
Good people of PB, looking to take a straw poll. Have panto tickets booked for 29th Dec (England). How likely do you think restrictions *that would prevent that event taking place* being imposed? Asking as have the option to buy tickets for Boxing Day instead, though that risks ending up wiht two pairs of tickets if everything goes ahead
It's a political calculation.
There's nothing in the science to argue against restrictions as soon as they become politically possible. But obviously the "up to 70%" figure will strengthen the political argument against restrictions, regardless of the fact that it's the upper limit of a confidence/credible interval based on a rather simplistic analysis, and that the more sophisticated analysis from Imperial College might indicate 40%, 25% or even 11% estimates as more relevant. Any of which - and even 70% itself realistically - would spell disaster without restrictions.
The trouble is that political betting these days often reduces to betting on just how bone-headedly stupid politicians can be, which sometimes seems beyond rational analysis.
In terms of the historicity of Jesus, the most ridiculous part of all of it is the claims about the move to Bethlehem and the census. The claim is that Joseph needed to take his family back not to his birth place (which would already be silly and screw up the actual purpose of a census), but the birth place of his ancestors. Can you imagine the logistical exercise of everyone in the Roman Empire having to relocate to where their great great grandfather was born? It would be a travel nightmare! No wonder there were no rooms in the inn...
A period of Lab+LD+SNP+PC+GREEN coalition would be fun to watch.
Not saying it would be an explosive mix. Just that it would make the Hindenburg look like a slow burn....
Would kill Coalition politics for decades and decades.
On the other hand, a successful coalition might keep the Conservatives out of power for decades and decades which some may say would be no bad thing.
It wouldn't under FPTP as the Conservatives would have opposition all to themselves so would soon get midterm swingback.
Under PR all governments would be coalitions anyway
But, for the pRoGreSsIvE aLliaNcE brigade these would all be their glorious coalition of lab/lib dem and green.
Under PR they wouldn't.
Labour would split anyway with the Corbynites forming their own party which would win seats. Many on the right of the Tories would join RefUK who would also win seats.
Most governments would therefore be Starmer/Blairite Labour + Social Democrat LDs or Cameroon Conservatives + Orange Book LDs however. Plus occasionally the Greens and SNP and Corbynites supporting the former or RefUK supporting the latter.
Occasionally you may even get a Tory plus RefUK government eg 2015 saw the Tories plus UKIP on 50% voteshare
I don’t disagree but that’s the wet dream of these crackpots on social media who think that is what PR will,give them.
In terms of the historicity of Jesus, the most ridiculous part of all of it is the claims about the move to Bethlehem and the census. The claim is that Joseph needed to take his family back not to his birth place (which would already be silly and screw up the actual purpose of a census), but the birth place of his ancestors. Can you imagine the logistical exercise of everyone in the Roman Empire having to relocate to where their great great grandfather was born? It would be a travel nightmare! No wonder there were no rooms in the inn...
It’s the kind of exercise we’re going to need to get the travel and hotel industries off their knees.
Though in my case, it’d just be a trip up to Dewsbury.
Except for austerity which was a disaster, the Cameron-Clegg Government was competently run
That wasn't their only failing. Education, both school and higher, was a shitshow. And have we so soon forgotten Andrew Lansley's reorganisation?
We have been increasing our PISA scores since those education reforms.
On the two occasions there have been an actual measurement since, one was flat and in one there was a rise in English and maths, but it's entirely possible that was random fluctuation.
In any case, PISA scores are like IQ tests - they are one form of measurement and there are others. Particularly, the longer term damage to education brought about by MATs and botched exam reform make it unlikely any improvements (if there are any which is quite doubtful) will be sustained.
A period of Lab+LD+SNP+PC+GREEN coalition would be fun to watch.
Not saying it would be an explosive mix. Just that it would make the Hindenburg look like a slow burn....
Would kill Coalition politics for decades and decades.
On the other hand, a successful coalition might keep the Conservatives out of power for decades and decades which some may say would be no bad thing.
It wouldn't under FPTP as the Conservatives would have opposition all to themselves so would soon get midterm swingback.
Under PR all governments would be coalitions anyway
But, for the pRoGreSsIvE aLliaNcE brigade these would all be their glorious coalition of lab/lib dem and green.
Under PR they wouldn't.
Labour would split anyway with the Corbynites forming their own party which would win seats. Many on the right of the Tories would join RefUK who would also win seats.
Most governments would therefore be Starmer/Blairite Labour + Social Democrat LDs or Cameroon Conservatives + Orange Book LDs however. Plus occasionally the Greens and SNP and Corbynites supporting the former or RefUK supporting the latter.
Occasionally you may even get a Tory plus RefUK government eg 2015 saw the Tories plus UKIP on 50% voteshare
I don’t disagree but that’s the wet dream of these crackpots on social media who think that is what PR will,give them.
Yes. Also, the idea not everybody would vote exactly the same way under PR as they do under FPTP seems to be a mysteriously elusive concept.
In terms of the historicity of Jesus, the most ridiculous part of all of it is the claims about the move to Bethlehem and the census. The claim is that Joseph needed to take his family back not to his birth place (which would already be silly and screw up the actual purpose of a census), but the birth place of his ancestors. Can you imagine the logistical exercise of everyone in the Roman Empire having to relocate to where their great great grandfather was born? It would be a travel nightmare! No wonder there were no rooms in the inn...
Again, 'the historical Jesus' not 'the historicity of Jesus.'
Of course, as Judaea was the Herodian client state at the time there would have been no need for the Romans to assess it for tax anyway...
In terms of the historicity of Jesus, the most ridiculous part of all of it is the claims about the move to Bethlehem and the census. The claim is that Joseph needed to take his family back not to his birth place (which would already be silly and screw up the actual purpose of a census), but the birth place of his ancestors. Can you imagine the logistical exercise of everyone in the Roman Empire having to relocate to where their great great grandfather was born? It would be a travel nightmare! No wonder there were no rooms in the inn...
Again, 'the historical Jesus' not 'the historicity of Jesus.'
Of course, as Judaea was the Herodian client state at the time there would have been no need for the Romans to assess it for tax anyway...
Those terms mean the same thing but with different grammar.
In terms of the historicity of Jesus, the most ridiculous part of all of it is the claims about the move to Bethlehem and the census. The claim is that Joseph needed to take his family back not to his birth place (which would already be silly and screw up the actual purpose of a census), but the birth place of his ancestors. Can you imagine the logistical exercise of everyone in the Roman Empire having to relocate to where their great great grandfather was born? It would be a travel nightmare! No wonder there were no rooms in the inn...
Again, 'the historical Jesus' not 'the historicity of Jesus.'
Of course, as Judaea was the Herodian client state at the time there would have been no need for the Romans to assess it for tax anyway...
Those terms mean the same thing but with different grammar.
But in New Testament Studies, to explain patiently yet again, they bear very specific meanings. Something one or two people on here don't seem to grasp.
In terms of the historicity of Jesus, the most ridiculous part of all of it is the claims about the move to Bethlehem and the census. The claim is that Joseph needed to take his family back not to his birth place (which would already be silly and screw up the actual purpose of a census), but the birth place of his ancestors. Can you imagine the logistical exercise of everyone in the Roman Empire having to relocate to where their great great grandfather was born? It would be a travel nightmare! No wonder there were no rooms in the inn...
Again, 'the historical Jesus' not 'the historicity of Jesus.'
Of course, as Judaea was the Herodian client state at the time there would have been no need for the Romans to assess it for tax anyway...
Those terms mean the same thing but with different grammar.
But in New Testament Studies, to explain patiently yet again, they bear very specific meanings. Something one or two people on here don't seem to grasp.
Incidentally, on that subject the next round of PISA scores has been postponed until 2023 (with data gathering next year). It will be interesting but I suspect also depressing to see what it shows.
Quick situation check 48.1% of United Kingdom population have had booster 61.1% of United Kingdom adult population 72.3% of United Kingdom eligible adult population (12.3m left)
85% of England population aged 50+ 90% of England eligible population aged 50+ 91% of England population aged 70+ 97% of England eligible population aged 70+
A period of Lab+LD+SNP+PC+GREEN coalition would be fun to watch.
Not saying it would be an explosive mix. Just that it would make the Hindenburg look like a slow burn....
Would kill Coalition politics for decades and decades.
On the other hand, a successful coalition might keep the Conservatives out of power for decades and decades which some may say would be no bad thing.
It wouldn't under FPTP as the Conservatives would have opposition all to themselves so would soon get midterm swingback.
Under PR all governments would be coalitions anyway
But, for the pRoGreSsIvE aLliaNcE brigade these would all be their glorious coalition of lab/lib dem and green.
Under PR they wouldn't.
Labour would split anyway with the Corbynites forming their own party which would win seats. Many on the right of the Tories would join RefUK who would also win seats.
Most governments would therefore be Starmer/Blairite Labour + Social Democrat LDs or Cameroon Conservatives + Orange Book LDs however. Plus occasionally the Greens and SNP and Corbynites supporting the former or RefUK supporting the latter.
Occasionally you may even get a Tory plus RefUK government eg 2015 saw the Tories plus UKIP on 50% voteshare
I don’t disagree but that’s the wet dream of these crackpots on social media who think that is what PR will,give them.
Yes. Also, the idea not everybody would vote exactly the same way under PR as they do under FPTP seems to be a mysteriously elusive concept.
I have no idea how things would play out under PR. I'm guessing we'd end up like Spain but it's hard to say.
In terms of the historicity of Jesus, the most ridiculous part of all of it is the claims about the move to Bethlehem and the census. The claim is that Joseph needed to take his family back not to his birth place (which would already be silly and screw up the actual purpose of a census), but the birth place of his ancestors. Can you imagine the logistical exercise of everyone in the Roman Empire having to relocate to where their great great grandfather was born? It would be a travel nightmare! No wonder there were no rooms in the inn...
Again, 'the historical Jesus' not 'the historicity of Jesus.'
Of course, as Judaea was the Herodian client state at the time there would have been no need for the Romans to assess it for tax anyway...
Those terms mean the same thing but with different grammar.
But in New Testament Studies, to explain patiently yet again, they bear very specific meanings. Something one or two people on here don't seem to grasp.
Citation please.
You could try Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth. Or Michael Grant, Jesus, An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Or R. Joseph Hoffman, The Jesus Process (available here and while couched in academic language reasonably accessible for a lay person, including the debate over the last century or so: https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/the-jesus-process-a-consultation-on-the-historical-jesus/). Or from the other side, Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus. Or the book that started it all off, Schweizer's the Quest for the Historical Jesus.
itsallaboutcake @Itsallaboutcake We all know Quality Street chocolates. They are a core part of any British Christmas, especially moaning on about the price of them as compared to the amount of chocolate. But do you know why they are called Quality Street?
itsallaboutcake @Itsallaboutcake We all know Quality Street chocolates. They are a core part of any British Christmas, especially moaning on about the price of them as compared to the amount of chocolate. But do you know why they are called Quality Street?
Surprised somebody hasn't found out some connection to slavery or the actors said something verboten in 21st Century and now calls to cancel the name.....
Government plans UK-wide Covid booster alert to mobile phones Exclusive: major network operators asked to send Boxing Day message despite fears of anti-vaxxer backlash
Guardian
Seriously, who comes up with this stuff? Send it the day after boxing day when far more people are likely to be sober or unhungover enough or not busy with relatives enough, to actually do something about it.
itsallaboutcake @Itsallaboutcake We all know Quality Street chocolates. They are a core part of any British Christmas, especially moaning on about the price of them as compared to the amount of chocolate. But do you know why they are called Quality Street?
Surprised somebody hasn't found out some connection to slavery or the actors said something verboten in 21st Century and now calls to cancel the name.....
Well you know sugar is one of the main ingredients.
A quick delurk to say how PB never ceases to impress. The knowledge of Biblical scholarship displayed here today has been quite remarkable, from comparisons of Vermes and Sanders to rehearsals of Paulus's rationalist account of the feeding miracles. I wish theology students knew as much. Christmas blessings to all.
In terms of the historicity of Jesus, the most ridiculous part of all of it is the claims about the move to Bethlehem and the census. The claim is that Joseph needed to take his family back not to his birth place (which would already be silly and screw up the actual purpose of a census), but the birth place of his ancestors. Can you imagine the logistical exercise of everyone in the Roman Empire having to relocate to where their great great grandfather was born? It would be a travel nightmare! No wonder there were no rooms in the inn...
Again, 'the historical Jesus' not 'the historicity of Jesus.'
Of course, as Judaea was the Herodian client state at the time there would have been no need for the Romans to assess it for tax anyway...
Those terms mean the same thing but with different grammar.
But in New Testament Studies, to explain patiently yet again, they bear very specific meanings. Something one or two people on here don't seem to grasp.
Citation please.
You could try Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth. Or Michael Grant, Jesus, An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Or R. Joseph Hoffman, The Jesus Process (available here and while couched in academic language reasonably accessible for a lay person, including the debate over the last century or so: https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/the-jesus-process-a-consultation-on-the-historical-jesus/). Or from the other side, Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus. Or the book that started it all off, Schweizer's the Quest for the Historical Jesus.
Thank you. Obviously I can't immediately access the offline sources, but in terms of the online one linked, "historicity" seems to be used, at least in some cases, to refer to more than the existence of Jesus.
For example:
"Indeed, the standards of historicity were strict enough for Eusebius in the fourth century to call Papias’s judgment into question on account of his chiliasm."
"Just as we have to account for the existence of the Jesus-tradition in the gospels, we have to account for belief in the resurrection of Jesus. That has been the central task of academic New Testament criticism for more than a century while only a literalist fringe have been occupied with defending (and attacking) its “historicity.”
Seriously, who comes up with this stuff? Send it the day after boxing day when far more people are likely to be sober or unhungover enough or not busy with relatives enough, to actually do something about it.
Maybe they want to kick off family argu^Wdiscussions so everybody browbeats their antivax uncle into going to get jabbed...
Keir Starmer suggests Labour will hold back in seats where the Liberal Democrats are best placed to defeat Tory MPs at the next election
This intvw with @ayeshahazarika is the furthest he's gone to suggest an informal pact with other opposition parties
This would clearly be a sensible move - but let's see if this actually goes ahead as we've heard this before
Capitulation
Common sense - if Farage had stood down in the last election Boris would have had a 120 seat majority rather than 80.
There are a whole set of seats where it makes sense for Labour to stand down and use their campaigners in a neighbouring seat. For instance let the Lib Dems have Chesham, Beaconsfield and St Albans while labour focus on Hemel Hempstead, High Wycombe, Watford and Uxbridge.
It is utterly pointless from a Labour POV, putting any money into Guildford and Winchester.
If you are a Corbynite only a Labour majority will do. After the LDs went into government with the Tories in 2010 for them a vote for the LDs rather than Labour is just a vote for Tory lite
Horseshit. By your own definition you are not a Tory anyway having voted for ANOTHER PARTY. So you can't even harrumph about your current party any more never mind your previous party or any others.
What point are you poorly attempting to make here?
My original one, for Corbynites only a Labour majority will do.
After the 2010 to 2015 Tory and LD coalition the LDs are not trusted by the leftwing of the Labour Party
After the 2010 to 2015 coalition, you'd hope Keir Starmer has an actual agreement with the LibDems and is not simply trusting his own political instincts. For one thing, if the LibDems do well at the next election, will the new MPs be able to outvote Ed Davey on whether to cuddle up with the red blanket or the blue?
No. In the Liberal Democrats any such decision would have to be approved by the membership, with whatever other party. Some of our PB posters think the Lib Dems work the same as the Tories and Labour - just a matter of follow-my-leader. They are wrong.
So Keir Starmer wants Labour not to compete with LibDems on the basis that LibDems *might* support Labour after an election, because Ed Davey will not be able to guarantee the members' vote. Genius is not the word. Has Starmer at least got a non-compete agreement?
Starmer isn't "not competing", he's just not bothering to put resources into certain seats.
I would imagine behind doors they have an agreement but to publicise it would undermine both sides so they will deny it
Hmmm - so both Labour and the LDs have made a secret agreement that they don't want the voters to know about i. Interesting strategy for the non-sleazy/open/honest/incorruptibles on the left to be following. I think you may have blown the gaff!
Note also, "Parliamentarians", so it's at least out of the 1500+ MPs and Peers, and not such a large proportion as it might first appear if you think of only 650 MPs (some of whom refuse to hold a British passport of course). Might it also include the members of the devolved Parliament/Assemblies?
Anyone know if there has actually been any shortages of turkeys, wine, chocolates etc etc etc this Christmas?
Turkeys in plentiful supply - and heavily reduced - at Tesco. The fancy ones down from £49 to £11, regular down from £29 to £8. I assume the panic resulted in everyone buying too early, leaving excess stock by this afternoon. There seems to be a price war going on on veg, too. They can’t give it away. Aldi is 9p across the board.
Anyone know if there has actually been any shortages of turkeys, wine, chocolates etc etc etc this Christmas?
There were more than usual numbers of substitutions in my latest grocery order, but mostly this was the higher end goods in a category being out of stock and a regular item substituted. Nothing completely denuded.
They have more of a one track mind than SeanT around young Thai ladies.
Do you reckon we don't need more restrictions because (1) you believe the "70% milder" figure and/or you think SAGE is wrong that 90% milder is what's required, and/or (2) you believe Omicron has miraculously gone from an R number of 3-5 to ~1 overnight and is going to stay there?
This is turning into more of a psychological exercise than a scientific one, to my mind.
Anyone know if there has actually been any shortages of turkeys, wine, chocolates etc etc etc this Christmas?
Turkeys in plentiful supply - and heavily reduced - at Tesco. The fancy ones down from £49 to £11, regular down from £29 to £8. I assume the panic resulted in everyone buying too early, leaving excess stock by this afternoon. There seems to be a price war going on on veg, too. They can’t give it away. Aldi is 9p across the board.
I was in Markies this morning and it was the same. A lot of very fancy Turkeys with stuffing and bacon looking rather urgently for a good home. My wife has always left shopping for our turkey until later on Christmas eve. One year she even got a good sized bird for free from Tesco's (she had a fair sized trolley of other stuff to be fair). This year I told her that this was too much of a risk so we bought ours early and expensive. I am expecting a proper telling off at some point. Personally, I blame PB.
One way to visualise what a less virulent variant such as Omicron may mean is to imagine the distribution of symptom severity being shifted towards a 'milder symptom mean' relative to the Delta variant (green: asymptomatic; yellow: poorly; red: seriously ill).
They have more of a one track mind than SeanT around young Thai ladies.
Do you reckon we don't need more restrictions because (1) you believe the "70% milder" figure and/or you think SAGE is wrong that 90% milder is what's required, and/or (2) you believe Omicron has miraculously gone from an R number of 3-5 to ~1 overnight and is going to stay there?
This is turning into more of a psychological exercise than a scientific one, to my mind.
Chris, I think our actual infections is huge, with very few (yet) turning up in hospital. SA data suggests much shorter times in hospital. Studies suggest omicron is primarily infecting the bronchial, not the lungs. We have boosted the elderly and most adults (defined as over 50%). You might be right, and a tidal wave of shit is already baked in. It doesn’t look like it though.
One way to visualise what a less virulent variant such as Omicron may mean is to imagine the distribution of symptom severity being shifted towards a 'milder symptom mean' relative to the Delta variant (green: asymptomatic; yellow: poorly; red: seriously ill).
One way to visualise what a less virulent variant such as Omicron may mean is to imagine the distribution of symptom severity being shifted towards a 'milder symptom mean' relative to the Delta variant (green: asymptomatic; yellow: poorly; red: seriously ill).
They have more of a one track mind than SeanT around young Thai ladies.
Do you reckon we don't need more restrictions because (1) you believe the "70% milder" figure and/or you think SAGE is wrong that 90% milder is what's required, and/or (2) you believe Omicron has miraculously gone from an R number of 3-5 to ~1 overnight and is going to stay there?
This is turning into more of a psychological exercise than a scientific one, to my mind.
Chris, I think our actual infections is huge, with very few (yet) turning up in hospital. SA data suggests much shorter times in hospital. Studies suggest omicron is primarily infecting the bronchial, not the lungs. We have boosted the elderly and most adults (defined as over 50%). You might be right, and a tidal wave of shit is already baked in. It doesn’t look like it though.
So - just to try to translate that into an answer to the question I asked - you don't doubt that there are going to be tens of millions of infections in a few weeks rather than one or two millions, but you think that Omicron is so much milder than Delta that it's going to be fine?
In terms of the historicity of Jesus, the most ridiculous part of all of it is the claims about the move to Bethlehem and the census. The claim is that Joseph needed to take his family back not to his birth place (which would already be silly and screw up the actual purpose of a census), but the birth place of his ancestors. Can you imagine the logistical exercise of everyone in the Roman Empire having to relocate to where their great great grandfather was born? It would be a travel nightmare! No wonder there were no rooms in the inn...
Again, 'the historical Jesus' not 'the historicity of Jesus.'
Of course, as Judaea was the Herodian client state at the time there would have been no need for the Romans to assess it for tax anyway...
Those terms mean the same thing but with different grammar.
But in New Testament Studies, to explain patiently yet again, they bear very specific meanings. Something one or two people on here don't seem to grasp.
Is it a bit like the word “weight” in physics: it does not mean (when used in the context of Physics) what most people use the word to mean in everyday speech?
They have more of a one track mind than SeanT around young Thai ladies.
Do you reckon we don't need more restrictions because (1) you believe the "70% milder" figure and/or you think SAGE is wrong that 90% milder is what's required, and/or (2) you believe Omicron has miraculously gone from an R number of 3-5 to ~1 overnight and is going to stay there?
This is turning into more of a psychological exercise than a scientific one, to my mind.
Chris, I think our actual infections is huge, with very few (yet) turning up in hospital. SA data suggests much shorter times in hospital. Studies suggest omicron is primarily infecting the bronchial, not the lungs. We have boosted the elderly and most adults (defined as over 50%). You might be right, and a tidal wave of shit is already baked in. It doesn’t look like it though.
So - just to try to translate that into an answer to the question I asked - you don't doubt that there are going to be tens of millions of infections in a few weeks rather than one or two millions, but you think that Omicron is so much milder than Delta that it's going to be fine?
What do you think will be the highest rate that the ONS measure? To get tens of millions in a few weeks it would surely need to be more than 1 in 10, given how long you stay infected for.
One way to visualise what a less virulent variant such as Omicron may mean is to imagine the distribution of symptom severity being shifted towards a 'milder symptom mean' relative to the Delta variant (green: asymptomatic; yellow: poorly; red: seriously ill).
Except for austerity which was a disaster, the Cameron-Clegg Government was competently run
No it wasn't. Leaving to one side what you or anyone else thinks of the policies, it can't be described as competently run government if neither the Cabinet nor Prime Minister knew what Lansley was doing to the NHS, or IDS doing to benefits.
The concept behind UC remains good. The problem was Osborne gutted the spending
IIRC Pol Roger was trying to release a Pint bottle (suitable metric amount, I think) for quite a while.
There was (apparently) a fair bit of research that people wanted something in between a half bottle and a full bottle for 2 people to share.
550ml or even 500ml is 2 large glasses, so the perfect size for a meal for 2.
Isn't the simple sensible view that people can sell anything (legal) they like in any quantities they think there will be demand for on the two condition that they state the quantity clearly, and (unlike most alcohol at the moment) state what is in it.
(BTW hats off to the Coop who do generally state the contents of their own branded alcohol.)
They have more of a one track mind than SeanT around young Thai ladies.
Do you reckon we don't need more restrictions because (1) you believe the "70% milder" figure and/or you think SAGE is wrong that 90% milder is what's required, and/or (2) you believe Omicron has miraculously gone from an R number of 3-5 to ~1 overnight and is going to stay there?
This is turning into more of a psychological exercise than a scientific one, to my mind.
Chris, I think our actual infections is huge, with very few (yet) turning up in hospital. SA data suggests much shorter times in hospital. Studies suggest omicron is primarily infecting the bronchial, not the lungs. We have boosted the elderly and most adults (defined as over 50%). You might be right, and a tidal wave of shit is already baked in. It doesn’t look like it though.
So - just to try to translate that into an answer to the question I asked - you don't doubt that there are going to be tens of millions of infections in a few weeks rather than one or two millions, but you think that Omicron is so much milder than Delta that it's going to be fine?
What do you think will be the highest rate that the ONS measure? To get tens of millions in a few weeks it would surely need to be more than 1 in 10, given how long you stay infected for.
That's a strange way of looking at it.
ONS will measure whatever number of people are infected - if their infrastructure holds up.
The questions to ask are how many people are susceptible to infection - which I'd say is roughly half of the population - and what the R number is. That was estimated at 3-5 initially, which would indicate 80-90% of the susceptible population are going to be infected. It may be lower now because people have changed their behaviour, but how low do you think a voluntary change of behaviour will take it? And what evidence do you have to support whatever number you come up with?
In terms of the historicity of Jesus, the most ridiculous part of all of it is the claims about the move to Bethlehem and the census. The claim is that Joseph needed to take his family back not to his birth place (which would already be silly and screw up the actual purpose of a census), but the birth place of his ancestors. Can you imagine the logistical exercise of everyone in the Roman Empire having to relocate to where their great great grandfather was born? It would be a travel nightmare! No wonder there were no rooms in the inn...
Again, 'the historical Jesus' not 'the historicity of Jesus.'
Of course, as Judaea was the Herodian client state at the time there would have been no need for the Romans to assess it for tax anyway...
Those terms mean the same thing but with different grammar.
But in New Testament Studies, to explain patiently yet again, they bear very specific meanings. Something one or two people on here don't seem to grasp.
Is it a bit like the word “weight” in physics: it does not mean (when used in the context of Physics) what most people use the word to mean in everyday speech?
That might be one comparison, certainly. I would say it's also like the word 'structure' in Holocaust studies, which is a derivative from an old debate of the 'structuralist' (the Holocaust happened because of the choices, mainly ad hoc, of the Nazi regime in certain time points) vs 'intentionalist' (the idea was to kill all Jews from the start).
Or, indeed, in medieval studies, where 'Ricardian' might in normal language mean studies of the period of time when a king called Richard was on the throne, but actually means the writing of apologias for Richard III.
Anyone know if there has actually been any shortages of turkeys, wine, chocolates etc etc etc this Christmas?
There were more than usual numbers of substitutions in my latest grocery order, but mostly this was the higher end goods in a category being out of stock and a regular item substituted. Nothing completely denuded.
Cranberries unavailable in our NW England patch. Had to send a message to a friendly patron of Edinburgh Waitrose (which I am told is a shop for people totally unlike us chavs) for supplies.
Not me. As a good Scottish Calvinist Presbyterian by inheritance I'm working happily on a short research paper and looking in occasionally.
But it's nice to see folk enjoying themselves.
I thought that the whole point of Scottish Calvinist Presbyterians was that they don't like folk enjoying themselves?
Nonsense. Ever been at a conference in the Highlands with a lot of assorted Kirks' reverends? They can really hit the single malts. My English colleagues weren't all so cautious - one couldn't face the porridge the next morning and I had to take him for a brisk walk along the misty beach to wake him up.
In terms of the historicity of Jesus, the most ridiculous part of all of it is the claims about the move to Bethlehem and the census. The claim is that Joseph needed to take his family back not to his birth place (which would already be silly and screw up the actual purpose of a census), but the birth place of his ancestors. Can you imagine the logistical exercise of everyone in the Roman Empire having to relocate to where their great great grandfather was born? It would be a travel nightmare! No wonder there were no rooms in the inn...
Again, 'the historical Jesus' not 'the historicity of Jesus.'
Of course, as Judaea was the Herodian client state at the time there would have been no need for the Romans to assess it for tax anyway...
Those terms mean the same thing but with different grammar.
But in New Testament Studies, to explain patiently yet again, they bear very specific meanings. Something one or two people on here don't seem to grasp.
Is it a bit like the word “weight” in physics: it does not mean (when used in the context of Physics) what most people use the word to mean in everyday speech?
That might be one comparison, certainly. I would say it's also like the word 'structure' in Holocaust studies, which is a derivative from an old debate of the 'structuralist' (the Holocaust happened because of the choices, mainly ad hoc, of the Nazi regime in certain time points) vs 'intentionalist' (the idea was to kill all Jews from the start).
Or, indeed, in medieval studies, where 'Ricardian' might in normal language mean studies of the period of time when a king called Richard was on the throne, but actually means the writing of apologias for Richard III.
Interesting: I’d only ever heard of “Ricardian” as a school of economics.
In terms of the historicity of Jesus, the most ridiculous part of all of it is the claims about the move to Bethlehem and the census. The claim is that Joseph needed to take his family back not to his birth place (which would already be silly and screw up the actual purpose of a census), but the birth place of his ancestors. Can you imagine the logistical exercise of everyone in the Roman Empire having to relocate to where their great great grandfather was born? It would be a travel nightmare! No wonder there were no rooms in the inn...
Again, 'the historical Jesus' not 'the historicity of Jesus.'
Of course, as Judaea was the Herodian client state at the time there would have been no need for the Romans to assess it for tax anyway...
Those terms mean the same thing but with different grammar.
But in New Testament Studies, to explain patiently yet again, they bear very specific meanings. Something one or two people on here don't seem to grasp.
Is it a bit like the word “weight” in physics: it does not mean (when used in the context of Physics) what most people use the word to mean in everyday speech?
That might be one comparison, certainly. I would say it's also like the word 'structure' in Holocaust studies, which is a derivative from an old debate of the 'structuralist' (the Holocaust happened because of the choices, mainly ad hoc, of the Nazi regime in certain time points) vs 'intentionalist' (the idea was to kill all Jews from the start).
Or, indeed, in medieval studies, where 'Ricardian' might in normal language mean studies of the period of time when a king called Richard was on the throne, but actually means the writing of apologias for Richard III.
The link you posted seemed to use both definitions in different places though.
They have more of a one track mind than SeanT around young Thai ladies.
Do you reckon we don't need more restrictions because (1) you believe the "70% milder" figure and/or you think SAGE is wrong that 90% milder is what's required, and/or (2) you believe Omicron has miraculously gone from an R number of 3-5 to ~1 overnight and is going to stay there?
This is turning into more of a psychological exercise than a scientific one, to my mind.
Chris, I think our actual infections is huge, with very few (yet) turning up in hospital. SA data suggests much shorter times in hospital. Studies suggest omicron is primarily infecting the bronchial, not the lungs. We have boosted the elderly and most adults (defined as over 50%). You might be right, and a tidal wave of shit is already baked in. It doesn’t look like it though.
So - just to try to translate that into an answer to the question I asked - you don't doubt that there are going to be tens of millions of infections in a few weeks rather than one or two millions, but you think that Omicron is so much milder than Delta that it's going to be fine?
What do you think will be the highest rate that the ONS measure? To get tens of millions in a few weeks it would surely need to be more than 1 in 10, given how long you stay infected for.
That's a strange way of looking at it.
ONS will measure whatever number of people are infected - if their infrastructure holds up.
The questions to ask are how many people are susceptible to infection - which I'd say is roughly half of the population - and what the R number is. That was estimated at 3-5 initially, which would indicate 80-90% of the susceptible population are going to be infected. It may be lower now because people have changed their behaviour, but how low do you think a voluntary change of behaviour will take it? And what evidence do you have to support whatever number you come up with?
How is it strange? It’s the best method of working out how many people are infected at once. In order to meet your tens of millions in a few weeks, that rate is going to have to be very high. And their infrastructure? It’s randomised testing, so there should be no issue at all with a very high prevalence.
In terms of the historicity of Jesus, the most ridiculous part of all of it is the claims about the move to Bethlehem and the census. The claim is that Joseph needed to take his family back not to his birth place (which would already be silly and screw up the actual purpose of a census), but the birth place of his ancestors. Can you imagine the logistical exercise of everyone in the Roman Empire having to relocate to where their great great grandfather was born? It would be a travel nightmare! No wonder there were no rooms in the inn...
Again, 'the historical Jesus' not 'the historicity of Jesus.'
Of course, as Judaea was the Herodian client state at the time there would have been no need for the Romans to assess it for tax anyway...
Those terms mean the same thing but with different grammar.
But in New Testament Studies, to explain patiently yet again, they bear very specific meanings. Something one or two people on here don't seem to grasp.
Is it a bit like the word “weight” in physics: it does not mean (when used in the context of Physics) what most people use the word to mean in everyday speech?
That might be one comparison, certainly. I would say it's also like the word 'structure' in Holocaust studies, which is a derivative from an old debate of the 'structuralist' (the Holocaust happened because of the choices, mainly ad hoc, of the Nazi regime in certain time points) vs 'intentionalist' (the idea was to kill all Jews from the start).
Or, indeed, in medieval studies, where 'Ricardian' might in normal language mean studies of the period of time when a king called Richard was on the throne, but actually means the writing of apologias for Richard III.
Interesting: I’d only ever heard of “Ricardian” as a school of economics.
'Fetish' might ne an example - it's got three distinct meanings AIUI - old unwoke accounts of shamanism; dodgy sexual behaviour ('foot fetish') and the modern structuralist (?) meaning. I've had to persuade colleagues on cross-disciplinary papers that a significant part of their audience is liable to get very confused if they start writing about fetishes withotu clarification ...
In terms of the historicity of Jesus, the most ridiculous part of all of it is the claims about the move to Bethlehem and the census. The claim is that Joseph needed to take his family back not to his birth place (which would already be silly and screw up the actual purpose of a census), but the birth place of his ancestors. Can you imagine the logistical exercise of everyone in the Roman Empire having to relocate to where their great great grandfather was born? It would be a travel nightmare! No wonder there were no rooms in the inn...
Again, 'the historical Jesus' not 'the historicity of Jesus.'
Of course, as Judaea was the Herodian client state at the time there would have been no need for the Romans to assess it for tax anyway...
Those terms mean the same thing but with different grammar.
But in New Testament Studies, to explain patiently yet again, they bear very specific meanings. Something one or two people on here don't seem to grasp.
Citation please.
You could try Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth. Or Michael Grant, Jesus, An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Or R. Joseph Hoffman, The Jesus Process (available here and while couched in academic language reasonably accessible for a lay person, including the debate over the last century or so: https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/the-jesus-process-a-consultation-on-the-historical-jesus/). Or from the other side, Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus. Or the book that started it all off, Schweizer's the Quest for the Historical Jesus.
Thank you. Obviously I can't immediately access the offline sources, but in terms of the online one linked, "historicity" seems to be used, at least in some cases, to refer to more than the existence of Jesus.
For example:
"Indeed, the standards of historicity were strict enough for Eusebius in the fourth century to call Papias’s judgment into question on account of his chiliasm."
"Just as we have to account for the existence of the Jesus-tradition in the gospels, we have to account for belief in the resurrection of Jesus. That has been the central task of academic New Testament criticism for more than a century while only a literalist fringe have been occupied with defending (and attacking) its “historicity.”
I can cite more.
The second one certainly does turn on the existence of Jesus, because that's what the lunatic fringe in question is attacking and/or defending (because such debates resolve themselves into roughly 'Jesus was a real person who acted as described in the Gospels' vs 'Jesus never existed and it's all BS'). I'm not going to comment on the first one as it's a bit outside my field.
Anyway, do have a read of some of the others. Carrier's work is a nonsense (he uses mathematical formula on the subject and confuses frequency and probability) and Schweizer's is tedious, but I quite enjoy reading Casey and Grant's a good writer.
You might also enjoy Bart Ehrman, who writes a mixture of academic and popular works and is famous for his dry sense of humour. Responding to a negative review of one of his books, he said 'let me accept, to start with, that I am not perfect and like all of us, I do make mistakes. I've sometimes tried to persuade my wife otherwise, but frankly, I've made very little headway there.'
Keir Starmer suggests Labour will hold back in seats where the Liberal Democrats are best placed to defeat Tory MPs at the next election
This intvw with @ayeshahazarika is the furthest he's gone to suggest an informal pact with other opposition parties
This would clearly be a sensible move - but let's see if this actually goes ahead as we've heard this before
Capitulation
Common sense - if Farage had stood down in the last election Boris would have had a 120 seat majority rather than 80.
There are a whole set of seats where it makes sense for Labour to stand down and use their campaigners in a neighbouring seat. For instance let the Lib Dems have Chesham, Beaconsfield and St Albans while labour focus on Hemel Hempstead, High Wycombe, Watford and Uxbridge.
It is utterly pointless from a Labour POV, putting any money into Guildford and Winchester.
If you are a Corbynite only a Labour majority will do. After the LDs went into government with the Tories in 2010 for them a vote for the LDs rather than Labour is just a vote for Tory lite
Horseshit. By your own definition you are not a Tory anyway having voted for ANOTHER PARTY. So you can't even harrumph about your current party any more never mind your previous party or any others.
What point are you poorly attempting to make here?
My original one, for Corbynites only a Labour majority will do.
After the 2010 to 2015 Tory and LD coalition the LDs are not trusted by the leftwing of the Labour Party
After the 2010 to 2015 coalition, you'd hope Keir Starmer has an actual agreement with the LibDems and is not simply trusting his own political instincts. For one thing, if the LibDems do well at the next election, will the new MPs be able to outvote Ed Davey on whether to cuddle up with the red blanket or the blue?
No. In the Liberal Democrats any such decision would have to be approved by the membership, with whatever other party. Some of our PB posters think the Lib Dems work the same as the Tories and Labour - just a matter of follow-my-leader. They are wrong.
So Keir Starmer wants Labour not to compete with LibDems on the basis that LibDems *might* support Labour after an election, because Ed Davey will not be able to guarantee the members' vote. Genius is not the word. Has Starmer at least got a non-compete agreement?
The trouble with you Tories is that you want everything to be cut and dried before the hay has even started to grow. I think if a Starmer Government can come up with policies which are acceptable to Lib Dems, then the Lib Dem MPs would almost certainly vote for them. No pre-agreed guarantee needed.
The same would hold good if an imaginary Conservative government came up with Liberal policies. My imagination finds that rather difficult though, given the nature of the Conservative Party under the present set of ministers.
In terms of the historicity of Jesus, the most ridiculous part of all of it is the claims about the move to Bethlehem and the census. The claim is that Joseph needed to take his family back not to his birth place (which would already be silly and screw up the actual purpose of a census), but the birth place of his ancestors. Can you imagine the logistical exercise of everyone in the Roman Empire having to relocate to where their great great grandfather was born? It would be a travel nightmare! No wonder there were no rooms in the inn...
Again, 'the historical Jesus' not 'the historicity of Jesus.'
Of course, as Judaea was the Herodian client state at the time there would have been no need for the Romans to assess it for tax anyway...
Those terms mean the same thing but with different grammar.
But in New Testament Studies, to explain patiently yet again, they bear very specific meanings. Something one or two people on here don't seem to grasp.
Is it a bit like the word “weight” in physics: it does not mean (when used in the context of Physics) what most people use the word to mean in everyday speech?
That might be one comparison, certainly. I would say it's also like the word 'structure' in Holocaust studies, which is a derivative from an old debate of the 'structuralist' (the Holocaust happened because of the choices, mainly ad hoc, of the Nazi regime in certain time points) vs 'intentionalist' (the idea was to kill all Jews from the start).
Or, indeed, in medieval studies, where 'Ricardian' might in normal language mean studies of the period of time when a king called Richard was on the throne, but actually means the writing of apologias for Richard III.
Interesting: I’d only ever heard of “Ricardian” as a school of economics.
I thought it was someone who likes to drink Ricard.
Keir Starmer suggests Labour will hold back in seats where the Liberal Democrats are best placed to defeat Tory MPs at the next election
This intvw with @ayeshahazarika is the furthest he's gone to suggest an informal pact with other opposition parties
This would clearly be a sensible move - but let's see if this actually goes ahead as we've heard this before
Capitulation
Common sense - if Farage had stood down in the last election Boris would have had a 120 seat majority rather than 80.
There are a whole set of seats where it makes sense for Labour to stand down and use their campaigners in a neighbouring seat. For instance let the Lib Dems have Chesham, Beaconsfield and St Albans while labour focus on Hemel Hempstead, High Wycombe, Watford and Uxbridge.
It is utterly pointless from a Labour POV, putting any money into Guildford and Winchester.
If you are a Corbynite only a Labour majority will do. After the LDs went into government with the Tories in 2010 for them a vote for the LDs rather than Labour is just a vote for Tory lite
Horseshit. By your own definition you are not a Tory anyway having voted for ANOTHER PARTY. So you can't even harrumph about your current party any more never mind your previous party or any others.
What point are you poorly attempting to make here?
My original one, for Corbynites only a Labour majority will do.
After the 2010 to 2015 Tory and LD coalition the LDs are not trusted by the leftwing of the Labour Party
After the 2010 to 2015 coalition, you'd hope Keir Starmer has an actual agreement with the LibDems and is not simply trusting his own political instincts. For one thing, if the LibDems do well at the next election, will the new MPs be able to outvote Ed Davey on whether to cuddle up with the red blanket or the blue?
No. In the Liberal Democrats any such decision would have to be approved by the membership, with whatever other party. Some of our PB posters think the Lib Dems work the same as the Tories and Labour - just a matter of follow-my-leader. They are wrong.
So Keir Starmer wants Labour not to compete with LibDems on the basis that LibDems *might* support Labour after an election, because Ed Davey will not be able to guarantee the members' vote. Genius is not the word. Has Starmer at least got a non-compete agreement?
The trouble with you Tories is that you want everything to be cut and dried before the hay has even started to grow. I think if a Starmer Government can come up with policies which are acceptable to Lib Dems, then the Lib Dem MPs would almost certainly vote for them. No pre-agreed guarantee needed.
The same would hold good if an imaginary Conservative government came up with Liberal policies. My imagination finds that rather difficult though, given the nature of the Conservative Party under the present set of ministers.
A Conservative Party with policies the Lib Dems might vote for, might in time secure my vote, if Labour ends up having a bad time in Government
Comments
"Nowt to do with us, honest!!"
I would imagine behind doors they have an agreement but to publicise it would undermine both sides so they will deny it
http://www.gurnnurn.com/2017/04/another-day-another-election-leaflet.html
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gurnnurn/albums/72157678288222274
Obviously not a candle on the Blair Government
So 25th March + 9 months = 25th December.
Under PR all governments would be coalitions anyway
A paper candidate.
All parties target their resources at winnable seats
Incidentally, it is not true to say 'the majority of secular scholars.' With the exception of Robert M. Price and Thomas Brodie, *all* secular actual scholars accept the existence of Jesus. Those who think otherwise are not scholars, they are amateur hobbyists. Even the likes of Philip R. Davis who believes the whole of the Bible is a fraud accepts Jesus existed (although he did once say the evidence was 'fragile').
In fact, the vast majority of seats get virtually nothing spent on them centrally by any of them.
Neither time nor money.
Edit: See Taz made the point.
Labour would split anyway with the Corbynites forming their own party which would win seats. Many on the right of the Tories would join RefUK who would also win seats.
Most governments would therefore be Starmer/Blairite Labour + Social Democrat LDs or Cameroon Conservatives + Orange Book LDs however. Plus occasionally the Greens and SNP and Corbynites supporting the former or RefUK supporting the latter.
Occasionally you may even get a Tory plus RefUK government eg 2015 saw the Tories plus UKIP on 50% voteshare
I was a slightly annoyed about former as I only ordered it because the website suggested it and it was obviously some kind of promotion thing.
There's nothing in the science to argue against restrictions as soon as they become politically possible. But obviously the "up to 70%" figure will strengthen the political argument against restrictions, regardless of the fact that it's the upper limit of a confidence/credible interval based on a rather simplistic analysis, and that the more sophisticated analysis from Imperial College might indicate 40%, 25% or even 11% estimates as more relevant. Any of which - and even 70% itself realistically - would spell disaster without restrictions.
The trouble is that political betting these days often reduces to betting on just how bone-headedly stupid politicians can be, which sometimes seems beyond rational analysis.
Though in my case, it’d just be a trip up to Dewsbury.
In any case, PISA scores are like IQ tests - they are one form of measurement and there are others. Particularly, the longer term damage to education brought about by MATs and botched exam reform make it unlikely any improvements (if there are any which is quite doubtful) will be sustained.
Of course, as Judaea was the Herodian client state at the time there would have been no need for the Romans to assess it for tax anyway...
his·to·ric·i·ty
/ˌhistəˈrisədē/
noun
historical authenticity.
🏴 493,033
🏴 59,241
🏴 38,339
NI 14,948
48.1% of United Kingdom population have had booster
61.1% of United Kingdom adult population
72.3% of United Kingdom eligible adult population (12.3m left)
85% of England population aged 50+
90% of England eligible population aged 50+
91% of England population aged 70+
97% of England eligible population aged 70+
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1474383038788292609?s=20
@Itsallaboutcake
We all know Quality Street chocolates. They are a core part of any British Christmas, especially moaning on about the price of them as compared to the amount of chocolate. But do you know why they are called Quality Street?
https://twitter.com/Itsallaboutcake/status/1474152953674096643
Exclusive: major network operators asked to send Boxing Day message despite fears of anti-vaxxer backlash
Guardian
Seriously, who comes up with this stuff? Send it the day after boxing day when far more people are likely to be sober or unhungover enough or not busy with relatives enough, to actually do something about it.
And you know where sugar used to come from...
After that the sherry or the special xmas ale comes out and then the vol-au-vents and xmas cake.
I might pop back later to see what's afoot, but if not -
Wishing all you punters and PBers a happy and merry Christmas!!!
For example:
"Indeed, the standards of historicity were strict enough for Eusebius in the fourth century to call Papias’s judgment into question on account of his chiliasm."
"Just as we have to account for the existence of the Jesus-tradition in the gospels, we have to account for belief in the resurrection of Jesus. That has been the central task of academic New Testament criticism for more than a century while only a literalist fringe have been occupied with defending (and attacking) its “historicity.”
I can cite more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4md2QKntSY
They have more of a one track mind than SeanT around young Thai ladies.
Happy Christmas, all.
This is turning into more of a psychological exercise than a scientific one, to my mind.
Follow his advice and you'll have found yourself in quarantine every other week for the past year.
https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1474382759724466224?s=20
You might be right, and a tidal wave of shit is already baked in. It doesn’t look like it though.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1474394213341175820
I think you can understand that's not at all the same thing?
But it's nice to see folk enjoying themselves.
(BTW hats off to the Coop who do generally state the contents of their own branded alcohol.)
ONS will measure whatever number of people are infected - if their infrastructure holds up.
The questions to ask are how many people are susceptible to infection - which I'd say is roughly half of the population - and what the R number is. That was estimated at 3-5 initially, which would indicate 80-90% of the susceptible population are going to be infected. It may be lower now because people have changed their behaviour, but how low do you think a voluntary change of behaviour will take it? And what evidence do you have to support whatever number you come up with?
Or, indeed, in medieval studies, where 'Ricardian' might in normal language mean studies of the period of time when a king called Richard was on the throne, but actually means the writing of apologias for Richard III.
Five Bible plot holes that make the whole thing totally unbelievable
https://tinyurl.com/529j8zvk
And I noticed you avoided answering the question.
Anyway, do have a read of some of the others. Carrier's work is a nonsense (he uses mathematical formula on the subject and confuses frequency and probability) and Schweizer's is tedious, but I quite enjoy reading Casey and Grant's a good writer.
You might also enjoy Bart Ehrman, who writes a mixture of academic and popular works and is famous for his dry sense of humour. Responding to a negative review of one of his books, he said 'let me accept, to start with, that I am not perfect and like all of us, I do make mistakes. I've sometimes tried to persuade my wife otherwise, but frankly, I've made very little headway there.'
The same would hold good if an imaginary Conservative government came up with Liberal policies. My imagination finds that rather difficult though, given the nature of the Conservative Party under the present set of ministers.